Eric Coppolino's Jan 9, 2023 Open Letter to Prof. Denis Rancourt
"The Canadian former physics professor says he is assembling a team to investigate the existence of viruses. I offer historical documents that might facilitate his efforts."
I would like to present a scientific viewpoint that has been carelessly glossed over by those that control the narrative in the 'No-Virus Gang', which makes up a large group of individuals who drown out any legitimate viewpoint other than their own. That is, they have conveniently left out a third option to the necessary modes of disease—that viruses do indeed exist but are not contagious—that they are non-living enzymatic cellular solvents produced by living cells to dissolve specific toxicity to help maintain bodily homeostasis in the face of organism degeneration. I have been working diligently for the past 3+ years on documenting the science of this theory.
I have recently been published in Néosanté, Belgian Journal of Global Health. They have released an English version of the article for free, which you may read below. The topic of the article is to address the various 'no-virus' theories in relation to my own, countering the false idea that viruses do not exist, and using documented scientific facts to do so.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
You are offering a modified definition of “virus” which is simply ridiculous. When the original hypothesis fails, it is refuted. A “virus” by the definition(s) provided by “virologists” is what is refuted. You are playing deceptive games and trying to present it as valid “science”. No, you don’t get to change the definition of the independent variable in order to validate a refuted hypothesis.
Hyperbolic nonsense. Words and their meanings have been changed in science numerous times throughout history. In fact, the word 'virus' has been altered more than once throughout its history.
Then you are willing to change definitions to accommodate your hypothesis? So “virus” can mean whatever you want? Seriously, you must understand that this is not rational.
The two essential components of viruses are nucleic acid, which makes up their genome, and protein, including proteases (enzymes). Viruses are largely made up of proteins and are classed as proteins that contain enzymes in the literature.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Nucleic acid and proteins are far from proof of a "virus", so cite you evidence of a "virus" as per the normal meaning (not your newfangled definition) or go away because you've been wasting lots of my time. I'm quite fed up with the people who do this. You've already left at least 14 comments on this article.
The viral genome is designed by cells in order to communicate with other like cells and their surface receptor proteins. If an epithelial cell produces a coronavirus, that virus will normally only enter and dissolve susceptible epithelial cells. Suspectable cells are those that have altered their surface receptor proteins and presented danger signals. This allows the virus to 'infect' and dissolve portions of the cell. Or, in the case of complete cell degeneration, the entire cell. If this lock-and-key system did not exist, a virus would dissolve everything it comes into contact with. So, viruses are very specific.
The genome is very important for this mRNA communication to take place. Each spike protein on a virus is connected through the viral capsid down into the genome network. The virus communicates as I noted above via its glycoproteins (spikes). Those spikes contain the enzymes necessary to penetrate cells and dissolve cell walls. A virus is merely a carrier of many enzymes (spikes) on their surface.
Viruses are 'parasitical' in the sense that they must have a cell to be produced. Except, it is the cell that produces them from beginning to end and doesn't involve hijacking of the cell, as is falsely claimed. Science knows that viruses are not alive, and thus cannot be parasitical. They seemingly use the word 'parasite' symbolically to show that viruses rely on cells to be produced.
Upon which scientific study is your faith in “virus” built upon? I only have time to read your most favorite, and I assure you that despite all the trash that’s been offered to me before, I’ll remain open minded to seeing something new. And let me help you avoid further ridicule: proved the original study because I’m not interested in following citations…. Been there, done that. So where is this “viral genome” you speak of? Which study really convinced you that “viruses” are real?
It's a nice theory, but fraudulent. You are changing the definition of virus and crossing your fingers so that no one notices.
Or you are talking about something else, and reusing the word virus for this.
But the virus is supposedly a deadly thing that allows politicians to destroy the lives of people with the approval of the disinformed population, who is scared shitless from a non-existent threat.
There is no saving the hoax.
If viruses are what you say they are, and not a the mythical pathogenic virus, then it would be better to use a different word. With this tactic you appear as if you are trying saving the lives of the perpetrators of the biggest genocide in recorded history. It's not going to fly.
He isn't discussing "viruses", he's discussing something totally different and calling them "viruses", which only adds confusion where there is already far too much confusion. If he would at least clarify that he is referring to the particles that are falsely/fraudulently called "viruses" and has evidence to back up his theory (if it's even a theory and not just a hypothesis), fine. But he insists in cultivating confusion by using the word "virus" which means poison in Latin, and he can't even show that any supposed "virus" particle (i.e. SARS-COV-2 with it's alleged genome and proteins) exists.
He isn't even accurate where he claims he was published!
I believe the foundation for the "no virus" concept is not that they don't exist but that they don't exist as infectious agents. If we can accept this then we are relieved of the idiocy that dictates "immunity" to viruses & the cultish obsession with "vaccines" which so many of us know to be fallacious & harmful. The concept of viruses was formed when disease occurred where no foreign body could be found. We know bacteria (& bacteriophages) exist to clean up damaged or decaying tissue but so many still believe that bacteria cause disease.
"I believe the foundation for the "no virus" concept is not that they don't exist but that they don't exist as infectious agents."
That might be what YOU believe... but for myself and probably MOST of the people on the "no-virus" position, we are saying quite literally that NO VIRUS has been shown to exist, period.
If youre going to speak on behalf of the group, at least make sure you understand the position first before making such claims.
Wow. Just where do you get off? Wasn't speaking on behalf of anyone so piss off. You can call extra cellular particles anything you want Incl. viruses but that doesn't make them infectious agents.
Exactly. Jeff Green refuses to acknowledge this, but thanks for clarifying anyhow. The "no virus" group are contesting the lack of repeatable science claimed as evidence for pathogenic organisms (both existence as unique particles not generated from human biological functions, and as cause of disease).
No, you are offering to change the definition. “Virus” by definition has got to be “infectious” and to say otherwise is just loosening the definition that must be adhered to.
Viruses have not been shown to exist, period. For example, the "SARS-COV-2 genome" is entirely made-up, never shown to exist physically in nature, never found intact in anyone.
It's a computer creation.. And the attributed "spike protein" has never been found in anyone.
Hi Rick, I am very familiar with the 'No-Virus' beliefs. They have stated numerous times that viruses, whether they are infectious or not, do not exist. That even the particles themselves do not exist.
Caroline: "Andy is not saying viruses do not exist."
Kaufman "No Caroline, that IS what I'm saying."
He then goes on to claim those viruses called 'infectious' do not exist. Yet, when you say something doesn't exist, that means you believe they do not exist whatsoever—whether pathogenic or not. Instead of saying that they do exist, but are not pathogenic, he states they simply do not exist at all.
It would be akin to someone saying bacteria do not exist because many of them are also falsely claimed to be pathogenic.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
A “virus” is defined as much more than “a protein”. So no, it is totally incorrect to suggest that the “no virus people” ( ie those who actually read the science ) are claiming that proteins don’t exist. You are simply misrepresenting the issue. Is that your intent? If not, please help us understand what you believe to be the issue that’s problematic, as you understand it, that represents the “no virus” people’s concern.
It is pertinent to mention that Dr. Judy Mikovits says that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. She argues that the covid disease is caused by XMRV virus, which I think is a synthetic virus created in rats. She worked in that field.
People say bacteria exist because they have been shown to exist.
People say viruses do not exist because they have not been shown to exist.
If there is proof of the existence of viruses, I would like to know more about that, just like everyone else.
There are people who argue that science cannot prove the existence of anything, and theories are simply taken to be provisionally accepted as "true" until more information comes in and there is a better theory. The theories of virology have not shown to be better than the previous theories of disease. Can you give a reason why the failed field of virology is to be preferred to the previous theories?
Science deals with natural phenomena. And it can prove what variables cause them. But it does not mean that there are more variables which can lead to the same effects.
Scientific theories are based on scientific experiments.
If it is only a theory then it is just an untested hypothesis or assumption.
You are half-wrong. The hypotheses of Virology are not untested hypotheses. They have been tested and they have failed. It should be rejected.
So, it is not only a theory, it is a theory that has been shown to be false. Which is good news.
Sadly, falsification is not enough. They find "things" then they torture people, animals or cells in a flask. The tradition says that those things are viruses, and the traditional belief is that they were already there before torturing the animal or poisoning the cells in the culture. Therefore, the viruses caused the disease in the animal and the cytopathic effects in the cells of the cell culture. It is absurd, but this seems to be the state of scientific practice these days. Scientists don't seem to like to do science very much, because it tends to ruin their jobs. Maybe they need a better occupation.
People just see what they want to see. For example, in the new moon of July, Pluto will be in opposition to the Sun and the Moon. That is a bad omen. Bad things may happen. But it's not because of Pluto being in opposition. Rather, it's because bad things may happen every day, that phrase is always "true", and the position of the planets is also factual, but the logical connection does not exist. It's a wrong reasoning, and that is the origin of comedy.
The difference between astrology and bad science like virology is that everyone understands that astrology is an entertainment, it's meant to see what one wants to see, and then do something about one's own thoughts. But in bad science, people insist in believing disproved hypotheses, never examining their conscience, and never changing opinion. Bad science is tragic. It freezes people's thoughts.
Because they are NOT contagious as Big Medicine/Big Pharma/Big Gov't would have us continue to believe, the illusion, as this keeps us $ick and di$ea$ed as guinea pigs/lab rats in their vicious sickness cycle and making buttloads of money from it/us. ugh!
I think the real issue here, Dennis, is that, as per virology, viruses are claimed to be RNA or DNA based which hijack the cellular defense system & then retool the cell's DNA to allow for mass replication. Never has this been proven. Never have any extra cellular particles been isolated, purified & reintroduced into healthy tissue to confirm they are the cause of the current malaise. Therefore, the concept of a virus has never been proven; to wit: without strict isolation no specific genome can be found & no validity to either RNA or DNA base can be shown let alone it's "infectious" nature. I believe that's what Andy is referring to. What, I believe, Christine's mission has been throughout this non pandemic issue is to show that no one anywhere can provide proof of adhering to Koch's Postulates &, therefore, prove infectious agents exist; that virology as it exists is pure fraud. Anyone who has researched the C19 "virus" knows it was computer generated, making it a work of fiction to begin with & the FDA has confirmed they never had any genuine C19 "viral material" but relied on Influenza A & B (with no virus proof here either) to concoct a "highly transmissible, highly lethal virus" which never was.
Please don't put words in our mouths. No one is saying that bacteria don't exist.
Viruses have not been shown to exist, period. For example, the "SARS-COV-2 genome" is entirely made-up, never shown to exist physically in nature. And the attributed "spike protein" has never been found in anyone.
I didn't, and I don't have to put words in your mouth because you say plenty all by yourself. Your logic is not consistent, and that was my point. You claim viruses do not exist because many of them have been classed as pathogenic, yet you claim bacteriophages and other non-infectious viruses exist (just as Kaufman stated). At the same time, you inconsistently claim that bacteria exist, even those that have been falsely classed as pathogenic. That's not consistent.
So which is it? Do no viruses exist, or do only some viruses exist? And apparently you get to claim which ones exist and which ones don't based on if they are deemed 'pathogenic' or not? You claim bacteriophages and larger viruses exist, but others do not, according to you and your group. And to be clear, bacteriophages are also classed as infectious viruses too.
If some viruses exist, as those like Kaufman have been on record admitting, then you all have invalidated your entire stance by claiming no viruses exist. Because if some viruses exist, then that means the likelihood of others existing in life is quite high. Essentially, you're caught in your own trap. And that has led to you and your group trying to wiggle out of your previous statements, because now you have to redefine what a bacteriophage is. Because of this, those like Cowan now falsely claim that bacteriophages are not actually viruses after all, in order to redeem some semblance of consistency in their 'theory' (or lack thereof).
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
We can, of course, see bacteria & bacteriophages under a microscope & watch them work at removing damaged or dead tissue with the bacteriophages cleaning up the bacteria. I believe this was demonstrated at least 130 years ago by Bechamp in vacuum conditions. We could not exist without bacteria but they are not infectious & cause no harm to any healthy tissue.
You can tell that viruses like SARS2 are contagious from the way that new mutations first emerge in one geographic region and then gradually spread to other regions. For example if SARS2 would be an exosome produced by the body, then why did the bodies of people switch from producing the 614D variant in January 2020 to 614G a few months later, so that at first the 614G variant was more common in East Asia but soon it replaced the 614D variant all over the world?
Human endogenous retroviruses have extremely stable genomes because their genome is embedded within the human genome which has a low mutation rate. For example you can do a BLAST search for HERV K113 by pressing the "Blast" link here and then pressing the "BLAST" button: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_022518.1. The genome is about 97.9% identical even with a gorilla endogenous retrovirus.
However current strains of omicron are only around 99.5% identical with Wuhan-Hu-1 so SARS2 has been evolving orders of magnitude faster than HERVs. The human genome has a mutation rate of around 1e-11 substitutions per site per year, but over the last three years, SARS2 has had a mutation rate of around 1e-4 substitutions per site per year.
You can also try to search GenBank for "exosome homo sapiens": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=exosome+homo+sapiens. The first result was titled "Homo sapiens exosome component 1 (EXOSC1), transcript variant 5, mRNA". When I did a BLAST search for the full exosomal mRNA sequence, it was 100% identical to a result titled "Human DNA sequence from clone RP11-452K12 on chromosome 10, complete sequence" (because the exosomal RNA sequence is incorporated into the human genome), and it was also about 98% identical with 75% query coverage to a result titled "PREDICTED: Pongo abelii exosome component 1 (EXOSC1), transcript variant X5, mRNA" (because mammalian DNA evolves so slowly that other primates have similar exosomes to humans). If SARS2 would be a human exosome, its genetic sequence would be part of the human genome, and it would also be similar to previously sequenced human and mammal exosomal mRNA sequences at GenBank.
All viral proteins from any living cell can be mutated by cells. For example, researchers have found over 500+ different variants and sub-variants of coronavirus—and those are merely in bats. In actuality, if they were to examine every person on earth, they would find that every person has their own variant(s) of a particular virus if they are producing a viral load. Thus, there are infinite numbers of variations and sub-variations of a particular type of virus because of cellular RNA and DNA specificities. Each time a cell produces a viral set, that set has been mutated slightly by the genome of the cell during protein construction to aid the cell and its kin. This is the nature of cellular protein creation, including DNA, which is itself dynamic.
With this in mind, all of the data from the WHO and other agencies with regard to viral mutations is a misnomer. The way that those agencies handle mutations is to claim that a major viral strain is in circulation, even though they know full well that there is no dominant strain of any one virus, for it is biological impossibility.
In actuality, two people may have the same coronavirus type, just as you would claim to have 'hepatitis A', but both viruses from both people will differ in their RNA when closely observed. And the same is true of all viruses. Each virus, of which there are many thousands inherent to the human body, all contain their own body-specific genome due to the cells that produced them. If this were not true, there would not be 500+ known coronavirus variants.
You could not have a dominating strain and 500+ mutations alongside it. Major variants would take precedence and the others would not exist if viruses were contagious entities.
If a cell produces a protein in one body, it will be similar in structure up to 95%+. However, those last percentile points are what makes a protein, in this case a virus, unique to a particular body. The entire virus would not differ, just as other agents in the body do not differ entirely from human to human. Only specific RNA instruction sets embedded into the virus would differ. Thus, this refutes for the claims that there is or has ever been a major viral strain.
As for the seasonality of viruses. Viral spread is a complex illusion. I cover that here:
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Show us evidence that nucleotides or biological viruses have been proven to exist by their identification in nature and experimentation on them in a form of independent variable or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them.
If you do not have such evidence, it means that they are not proven. Simple as that.
How can there be infinite variations of a finite sequence of nucleotides? By infinite do you mean practically infinite?
If each human has their own variants of a virus, then wouldn't the regions of the human genome which codes for each virus be a hypervariable region which could easily be used to differentiate humans from each other? Then it would be really easy to design human sequencing panels which could capture a lot of variable SNPs by just targeting for the regions which code for a couple of viruses.
But if all human viruses are endogenous like HERVs, then why are there not regions of the human genome which code for viruses like SARS2 or hepatitis A? And then where does the human body get the information it needs to accurately produce the sequence of SARS2 so that it differs by less than 1% from other commonly circulating strains of SARS2 worldwide?
The phenomenon of seasonal human H1N1 epidemics started in 1977 with the Russian flu epidemic, where a strain of H1N1 that was similar to an old strain from the late 40s and early 50s suddenly reemerged first in the PCR and then the Soviet Union. The hemagglutin (HA) protein is the equivalent of the spike protein in the influenza virus, so it encodes for spike-like protrusions of the virus that interact with the immune system and which evolve rapidly to avoid immune detection. In this image I plotted human H1N1 samples based on their collection year and the number of nucleotide changes in the coding sequence of the hemagglutin (HA) protein from a Russian flu sample from 1977: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1093243194231246934/1111650844207755336/russianfludist.png. I used data from the NCBI's influenza virus database: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/Database/nph-select.cgi. (In my plot I only included samples that had at most 200 nucleotide changes in the HA CDS from the Russian flu strain, so my plot doesn't include samples from the 2009 H1N1 swine flu epidemic which have around 400 nucleotide changes.) But anyway, from my plot you can see that most samples from 1997 until 2008 form a straight cline which gradually evolves further from the original Russian flu strain. There's about 25 nucleotide changes in samples all over the world from 1980, about 65 nucleotide changes in the samples from 1990, about 115 nucleotide changes in the samples from 2000, and so on. So why were the bodies of people all over the world producing a strain of H1N1 that had only a few nucleotide changes in the HA CDS from the Russian flu strain in 1980, but in later decades the bodies of people all over the world started producing strains of H1N1 with a larger number of nucleotide changes? And why has the strain of H1N1 that developed from the Russian flu been mutating on a timescale of years even though it usually takes more than a decade to produce a new generation of humans?
When you say that it's impossible to have a dominant strain of a virus, by strain do you mean a unique genomic sequence which doesn't have even one SNP different from another sequence? That's not the common meaning of a strain, because commonly at least in COVID lingo, a strain encompasses multiple possible sets of SNPs, so that the strain has a set of defining SNPs but it is allowed to have additional SNPs apart from the set of defining SNPs. For example in NextStrain's subset of about 16,000 SARS2 sequences, there's 59 samples dated February 2020 even though a couple of them are misdated. 33 out of 59 samples have the NextStrain clade 19A which therefore represents the majority of sequences. But if you look at Pango lineages which are more finegrained than Nextstrain clades, then the most common lineage is B (with no further specified subtype) which is found in 17 out of 59 samples, so it doesn't represent the majority of all samples, even though you could just as well aggregate all subtypes of the B lineage together and then the majority of samples would represent the B lineage. If you look at the individual sets of SNPs and indels, then there's a tie between two sets of SNPs which both appear 3 times, even though both of them are classified under the NextStrain "clade" 19A (G1397A,G11083T,G25618A,T28688C,G29742T and T7876A,G11083T,C18395T,C21614T,G22225T,G26144T):
u=https://data.nextstrain.org/files/ncov/open;for x in africa asia europe north-america oceania south-america;do curl $u/$x/aligned.fasta.xz|gzip -dc>continent.$x.fa;curl $u/$x/metadata.tsv.xz|gzip -dc>continent.$x.tsv;done
‘ So why were the bodies of people all over the world producing a strain of H1N1 that had only a few nucleotide changes in the HA CDS from the Russian flu strain in 1980, but in later decades the bodies of people all over the world started producing strains of H1N1 with a larger number of nucleotide changes? And why has the strain of H1N1 that developed from the Russian flu been mutating on a timescale of years even though it usually takes more than a decade to produce a new generation of humans?’
—i’m thinking it is due to the ever-increasing level of toxicity in our environment, more inorganic products for which our (cell-created) viruses have a hard time completely dissolving and so have to keep making more variants in attempts to do so.
So in 1977, why were the bodies of people all over the world producing a nearly identical strain of H1N1, even though the strains of H1N1 that circulated in humans in the 1940s were more divergent because the strains of H1N1 that evolved out of the Spanish flu had not yet died out? And then why by the 1990s had human strains of H1N1 again become more divergent after the 1977 Russian flu strain had branched off into several substrains? What caused the bottleneck in the year 1977 when there was low diversity in the human H1N1 sequences that are available from the NCBI's influenza virus database? Was there temporarily a low level of toxicity in the environment in 1977?
What is your financial gain in all of this? You clearly have something to gain, because on all of my articles you turn up with these ridiculous comments about "sequences" never shown to have anything to do with a "virus".
Are you Kevin McKairn? Do you work for him? For Kirsch, Kennedy or someone else determined to keep the bogus virus story alive?
I used to be on McCairn's Discord but I left it because it was too full of low-quality posts. And I have done a lot of research together with We've Read the Documents and S90 exposing RFK as controlled opposition.
And I wouldn't work for a Jew like Kirsch, and I have also been calling out his nonsense. Last year he made a post where he misrepresented English mortality statistics for one out of seven vaccinated groups as representing all vaccinated people, but there were over 200 comments before my comment and no-one before me pointed out his error. Then someone replied to my comment: "Good comment, steve should evaluate and answer this one. We must be tight and right on our side". I don't think I have ever received a similar response after I have pointed out an error made by the no-virus numbskulls. They never admit that they were wrong, and they just say that I'm working for someone or they say that nucleotides don't exist or something.
The publication is not a scientific study, or even a study! It's just an article about you and your ideas. And the image shown on page 1 is literally artwork and is even labelled as such!
"Virion being produced by a nucleus cell then lysis of the cell
wall to allow the viral particles to enter into the rest of the
body, artwork by Jeff Green"
A non-living enzymatic cellular solvent produced by living cells to dissolve specific toxicity is not a "virus". You are creating confusion by using that word. I wonder why you would want to do that.
And, you and everyone else have been challenged and failed to show that the alleged "SARS-COV-2" particle even exists. The alleged "genome" has never even been found intact anywhere. The "spike protein" has never been found in anyone.
"HIV" has never been shown to exist. Stating that "Duesberg does not dispute the existence of HIV" is not the way to show "it" does exist, and only serves to add to the confusion.
"One can both “believe in viruses” and radically reject their guilt. To be tenable, this halfway position, however, requires that the true function of the false culprit be clarified." No one I know is interested in "beliefs". We're looking for claims to be backed up with valid scientific evidence.
"For him, the formal absence of isolation in no way proves that viruses are a fiction." Someone is seriously confused because there is no need for anyone to prove that viruses don't exist. The onus is on those who say they do exist to back up their claims.
"a virus cannot be [totally] isolated from the bodily fluids of its host but is nevertheless a specific entity" - This is reification fallacy - assigning properties to something never shown to exist.
"Whether they exist or not, viruses are not the cause of illnesses attributed to them! The question of their existence is secondary since they are in any case devoid of pathogenicity. Like other micro-organisms, they are not there to harm humans and are, more, the reflections of its ground. Despite their differences, natural medicine players can agree on the fact that viral particles have no causal role in the onset of so-called infectious diseases."
If something doesn't exist, obviously it doesn't cause disease and doesn't do anything.
The imagery to show internal machinery in science is usually all artwork. That is how one visualizes complex things. What is your point, exactly?
Truthfully, it shouldn't matter if it is a peer-reviewed study or not, since it is the content and reasoning that matters. I consider that a total cop-out. And you should know full well the nature of funding of many studies. Which begs the question: Why do you rely on such studies yourself? It is quite interesting that you rely on studies, most of which refute your own stance, in order to prove your own stance—it is hypocritical.
The onus is actually on you to prove that what is seen by researchers the world over are not intelligently created particles by cells but are merely aberrations from inept researchers—not the other way around, I'm afraid. I present a conclusion that is rational. That is, that researchers have not properly envisioned the entirety of the inner workings of a living body and how that changes the circumstances of what they call 'pathogenic'. You have instead seemingly claimed nothing they have stated is true, which is the opposite of rational.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Viruses are classed as both infectious and non-infectious in scientific literature. I state, proven through my research, that there are no indiscriminately infectious viruses and that all viruses arise from a state of disease, and I show the biological reasoning for why that is.
'Virus' is merely a word, and engaging in semantics is a pointless endeavor. It has been stated many times by those in the 'No-Virus' group that viruses do not exist, whether they are called something else, or not—they have stated the particles themselves do not exist.
Science itself states that viruses are enzymatic cellular solvents because they admit that viruses dissolve cell walls using amino acids and their related enzyme reactions. The point where they diverge from a more logical reasoning is where they claim that these solvents are contagious. The 'No-Virus' group is simply missing a great piece of the puzzle by claiming virions do not exist, and it is doing a great disservice to their audience because viruses are an incredibly important part of all living things and their environment.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Jeff and I have a long history, the chance for a good humored friendly debate is long past.
When people have false beliefs about the cause of ill health they can't make the best decisions for themselves and their families. This is why it's so important.
No, it's not a pointless endeavor. Language needs to be used carefully in order for it to be useful. If you goal is to sow confusion, congratulations.
You've provided zero science. Just an article about yourself and your beliefs.
I've been through this with you over and over again and am not wasting more time on it. We all know there are tiny particles shown in EMs of cell cultures - passed off as "viruses" but never purified, sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments.
You are simply regurgitating dogma by citing what "science says", when there is no science. You have a different idea of what those particles are, which does not fit the definition of "virus" but you insist on using that word anyways.
The article states "Isolation in itself does not prove the existence or
non-existence of entities commonly called viruses". No kidding. Isolation/purification would only be an initial necessary step needed to prove a "virus". Next steps would be sequencing, characterization and controlled experiments. Never been done. And the fact that it's not been done proves that there is zero science. There is zero onus on us to prove that "viruses" don't exist.
Wrong. All science starts with hypothesis. That is an essential part of the scientific method that you all obsessively extol, which you now conveniently ignore.
And it is indeed scientific evidence because I refer back to studies that prove my stance. You haven't been able to do that yet because you have only engaged in dismantling. Nothing I am claiming can legitimately be scientifically refuted because it is basic biology, try as you might.
Your entire argument is based on rather convoluted methodological reasoning and a somewhat twisted logic. It would therefore behoove you to apply the same logical rigor to what you allow yourself to spew.
"Just because.... blah blah... doesn't mean they don't exist!" Sure Denis, and Santa might actually exist too.
If you demand scientific rigor and resort to invoking Santa, you might as well go fuck yourself. It's beneath the dignity of all non-idiots to even respond to horseshit like that. As to the subject matter, yes, it's precisely as Rancourt says, "Just because you make convoluted methodological claims, it doesn't mean that viruses 'don't exist' (meaning that viruses do exist in the sense of being pathogenic particles)."
Your idiotic ramblings DO NOT DISPROVE THAT POSSIBILITY.
As much as I was more than willing to lend a receptive ear to the no-virus claims, your militant, abusive, obdurately uninformed, and plain stupid behavior is too much to take.
You're a shill par excellence, endlessly negative asshole, a stupid twat who attacks everybody who doesn't subscribe to your dogmatic orthodoxy.
If you do not wish invoke Santa, then it would behoove you to refrain from doing so.
There is nothing ad hominem in my designation of yourself as an idiot. It's a plain fact, corroborated, for instance, by your idiotic statement that I defend virology. In none what I've said I've defended virology per se.
I defend REASON, something that's tragically missing in your drivel.
Now, the question is - are you paid to propagate this shite? How do you finance your activities?
I think that aside from the obvious cognitive dissonance and significant indoctrination for the academics, scholars, doctors, etc.... a BIG reason these people refuse to see or acknowledge what seems quite obvious is they are afraid of losing half their audience, afraid of the ridicule & criticism of their character, afraid of ruining their reputation, possibly their career, the financial hit it might take... the judgement of their peers, family and friends....
THIS is why they either straddle the fence indefinitely, they gently teeter-totter and play with the idea - making generalized statements but not taking a position.
Ultimately, it is the ego. They are afraid of taking such a big risk in the name of truth - which is disheartening & sad. For me, its a no-brainer. Truth & integrity above all else! 🙌 this is the hail Mary for those who claim they want to end government tyranny, suffering, unnecessary death. If enough people get behind this truth, the impact is SIGNIFICANT! Put your money where your mouth is.... lets EXPOSE THEM ALL!
I don't know why this is so hard for people. The nanoscale particles scientists call "virus" truly exist. It is pure stupidity to argue they are phantasms of electron microscopy.
Their BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION as virology describes, infectious agents of contagious disease, is most rightly questioned. As usual, all sides are sloppy on definitions and precision. DEFINE YOUR TERMS please! The better question is, "Is it a 'virus' at all?" The 'it' exists:
It's not hard at all, and I've not said that the apparent particles shown in EM don't exist.
What I and others haves said is that "viruses" have not been shown to exist, and this is correct.
"Virus" means poison in Latin and "virus" these days means a replicating infectious particle that causes a contagious disease - never shown to exist (and disease contagion has never been demonstrated either).
And it's not just the function that is unproven. The specific "virus" particles that we're told exist, i.e. "SARS-COV-2", consisting of a specific "genome" and proteinaceous shell, have not been shown to exist. The "SARS-COV-2 genome" has ever been shown to exist. The "genomes" are in silico constructions, with no corresponding physical reality. No "SARS-COV-2 genome" has ever been found intact, in anyone on the planet. So "SARS-COV-2" has not been shown to exist, period. Same with other alleged "viruses".
What happens instead is the virologists use Ender's propagation technique to spawn a billion nanoparticles from poisoned mutant cancer cells, run an electron micrograph which they dilligently search for a hint of the boogeyman, nail the first one they think fits the description of said pre-existent boogeyman with the tag "novel virus" and wallah! A new contagious boogeyman is born in a day. But is it the boogeyman we are looking for?
Anyway, most of the naysayers hear "no virus", show an EM picture of "SARS-CoV-2" and then laugh at us. I want to be clear and concise on terms and definitions, so anyone can see this is how they're pulling off their global scam. It's not the boogeyman we are looking for! In fact, is it even a boogeyman?!
I'm well aware of their methods and I'm careful in how I communicate. I don't imply that an EM image of a purported "virus" would prove anything - I've consistently pointed out the absurdity of suggesting that it does.
We even have names for that ridiculous approach: "the point and declare method", and "the McCullough Method", lol.
Anyone who laughs at me has their logical fallacies pointed out.
The requirement is for purification (evidenced by EM), followed by sequencing, characterization and valid controlled experiments. But they don't even have a record of anyone on earth ever doing the purification step, let alone the required follow-up steps - as evidenced by the FOI responses/confessions from hundreds of institutions.
Contagion has never been demonstrated, so there is no boogeyman to even look for.
For the love god.. of christine you and dpl are some of the most aggressive chauvinistic AI bots on the free thinking pages… hopefully your word is spread but not by me … its toxic just like the 💉crowd….
Actually, you're the one being "aggressive", coming to my substack for no purpose other than to insult and accuse me, lol.
And obviously I'm not responsible for anything that "dpl" does. And for the record, that man/woman only came to my attention recently, ironically accusing me as well. I'm not friends with "dpl".
Yes, “virus” is upstream of all confusion and debate occurring downstream of the fraud called “virology.” When the definition of “virus” is changed, it is because there is a desperate attempt to continue the 130+ yrs of deception and fraud.
Other than the fact that no viruses can be found to exist, I remit the fact that the esteemed and well experienced and well certified (cough, cough, spit, gag) dr willy gates has again predicted that another virus will hit the beaches.
If viruses existed, they would be natural and therefore totally unpredictable like a tornado in the Midwest US during the spring and summer. Yes, they have a high probability of occurring, but when and where and at what strength is totally unpredictable. They may happen or not.
Thus, if a (faked) virus comes down the pike, it will have to be one of those biolab creations. If it is a biolab secretion, then it will be uncontrollable providing it has some means of transmission, as of yet unproven for any virus.
It would be massively deadly because it would not have any experience with our immune systems. SARS CoV-1 (if it exists) has been around for about 20 years. Even after all those billions of "fauci bucks" spent on gain of function research, if covid 19 (CoV-2) exists, it has not been deadly to any noticeable degree.
Back in 2007, there was mention of SARS CoV-3 by Chinese virologists in the Clinical Journal of Microbiology. Now, how would they know that? Cov-2 was also mentioned and yet didn't hit the shores until about 12-13 years later. So, who knew what? If viruses existed, all this would be pure guesswork.
Yet, here we have gates telling us the next virus or pandemic will be much more deadly and affect mostly children and young adults. How the heck would he know? This tells me that viruses do not exist except those that can be invented with a computer algorithm and then by the use of extreme propaganda. Again, like with covid 19, it will be said to be very deadly, which will scare the dickens out of most of the braindead public.
And then it's another race to get the safe and effective mRNA injections. Fear will overtake past history and reason...you can bet on it.
They constructed a 2,248-base chimeric RNA sequence which included three different segments from SARS1, and they used the label "SARS-CoV3" to refer to one 583-base segment of a SARS1 sample: "An exogenous chimeric sequence 2,248 bp in length comprising the following sequences was inserted into a pACYCDuet-1 plasmid (p15A-type replication origin; Novagen): M-300 (nt 17∼373, 357 bp from avian influenza virus matrix gene; GenBank accession no. DQ864720), SARS-CoV1 (nt 15224 to 15618, 395 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), SARS-CoV2 (nt 18038 to 18340, 303 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), SARS-CoV3 (nt 328110 [sic; should probably be "nt 28110"] to 28692, 583 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), a pac site (19 bp), HCV (nt 18 to 310, 293 bp from HCV 5′UTR; GenBank accession no. AF139594), and HA300 (nt 295 to 611, 317 bp from H5N1 avian influenza virus; GenBank accession no. DQ864720)." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2395109/) The SARS1 sample they used for the SARS-CoV3 segment had the isolate ID BJ202 and it was submitted to GenBank in 2004 by a Chinese university: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AY864806.
Much like you, I entered the imaginary pandemic largely ignorant of the lie of virology & "infectious" agents. As I am a prolific researcher I waded through the hypocrisy of immunology, virology & "vaccinology" & then had a lateral, serendipitous realization: all this yammering about the ACE2 receptor caused me to revisit "receptors" to find that, ta da, none have been shown to exist. When reviewing Malone's mRNA patents & braggadocios Baric's "inserts" into said RNA of said virus what did I again discover? Ta da: no one has actually seen RNA/DNA, period. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but, in order to modify or edit genomes don't you actually have to have a strand of said DNA/RNA to work with? While my unproven hypothesis is that harmonics are what cause interaction/efficaciousness of chemicals introduced to the cell, the cell itself is the receptor & based on its's harmonic level (indicator of health) it's interaction with adjacent cells becomes systemic & our health & functionality is determined by that alone. Stress, injury, poisoning & malnutrition impair said harmonics leading to a dis-eased state. Just sayin...
I believe, now, that most of what we believe about cellular biology is simply unproven speculation or outright codswallop, just as "viruses" are.
Thanks for sharing that, Rick. It's amazing what we find when we investigate with a genuinely-open mind.
There may be a harmonics aspect to cellular interaction, yet I see so much more that I don't think we can pretend to understand it. I call it 'divine intelligence', and in my view we're allowing human personality to fog our vision when we try to reduce life to simple phenomena that we think we have a grasp of.
This is a theory with merit. After that ego contest (Jeff Green) my brain about exploded. Thank you for bringing the discussion back to earth. I just can't wrap my brain around a non-living, subatomic particle that, once entering a cell, suddenly becomes alive and replicating to the point it destroys the host. I can handle that bacteria are level 1 cleaning system sitting in a neutral symbiotic state when not being called to duty, with additional levels of fungus and then yeast (or is it the other way around...?) according to the level of cleaning up needed, and then once the job is done, returning back to the innocuous neutral bacterium level. I can believe in microwave radiation causing cellular damage and destruction because of energy frequencies, as well as energy frequencies that can heal (re: Rife), crystals for healing and abstracting energy from the ether to convert it to be used practically. But the theory of a virus being something that in turn causes disease and spike proteins that rampage without any restraint... Nope, just can't do it.
You are spot on in this. Life, left to it's own devices/design flourishes & expands. The concept of cooties that can "lay inert" for years without sustenance & then spring into action by some recognition that they have, by some nefarious methodology, entered the correct host in the correct tissue & now spring into action is simply ludicrous. This same idiocy applies to the theory that genes cause cancer, or specific hormones (required for life) or even sunlight. Cancer was proven to be a metabolic disorder long ago, apart from radiation poisoning. Glad to see someone else understands frequencies & their harmonic interaction with our cells/self.
Has the 1913 Nobel Prize winning research for Anaphylaxis by Charles Richet crossed your path yet? It's illuminating in that it explains that non-self proteins cause anaphylaxis when injected into the body. So, basically, this information has been available since 1913, which just happens to fall on the timeline for the Rockefeller takeover with the Flexnor Report.
I had not seen this but will give it a read. It sounds very much along the lines of the "vaccine" farce when one reads how a chemical soup is injected into animal brains & then, what a surprise, a severe reaction or death occurs verifying a "virus" which is then "attenuated" & mixed with more soup & toxic aluminum or mercury & injected numerous times into children to proffer "immunity" while actually destroying the immune system.
The populace (incl. Dr's) is largely unaware of the Flexner Report & the legal fracas that ensued which shut down real doctors & teaching & substituted the toxic drug paradigm we see today.
Interesting, and yes no doubt that harmonics play a huge role.
I've not looked carefully into the RNA/DNA stuff myself, but keep hearing that the related claims, and lots of the cellular biology, are also based on nonsense. Perhaps I'll do some FOIs one day on that topic.
A FOI on "ACE2 receptor" (to CDC) yielded just 1 paper and it seemed pretty ridiculous. I didn't word the request very well so might try that one again one day.
Dennis is correct. Christine is unhinged. All you have to do is look at the time-lapse viral plaque assay to show that a virus and not "toxins" cause the cytopathic effects observed by bacteriophages. Sam Bailey recently did a "no hepatitis A exists" by cherry picking studies and ignoring every single one I provided her because the studies I provided her proved the existence of Hepatitis A.
He complains, correctly, about the people in the audience who behave like hooligans on this issue. A vigorous discussion is a very good thing, but the fanaticism shown by some people in the audience is bad.
The no-virus exist is not a cult or a psy-op. Show the good evidence for the case that pathogenic viruses exist as traditionally understood.
Explain how the purified particles fulfill the Koch's postulates. Or, if you have a better logical standard to prove the existence of pathogenic viruses, explain why it is better and then explain why pathogenic viruses can be shown to exist using that new standard and not the old standard.
Sure, there's a few fanatics confronting the virus con. But pretending that it's even remotely similar to the bullying, censorship, and outright violence and oppression that the Rockefeller medicine fanatics employ to maintain the lies renders a person exposed as an establishment drone. If Dennis can't see how ridiculous his whining is under these circumstances, then his stock plummets to zero.
When one pays back emotional violence and oppression with more emotional violence and oppression, then there is more emotional violence and oppression and the Rockefellers win again.
Fanaticism usually comes from the idolatry of ignorance.
It's a great business for a psychopath to foment fanaticism and exploit economically the new acolytes he has made. This can be done with any topic, because psychopaths don't care about truth and most people are idiots.
Denis (one 'n') is a fighter against ignorance and exploitation.
Try to go above the bullying and censorship that is so common among humans, in many contexts. Ascend one level and you will see economic exploitation.
In my humble opinion, the real problem is that Denis, like so many others, do not want to be in any way associated with the fanaticism of some crowds in the no virus side of the debate. Hooligans never achieved anything and won't achieve anything., but strategists and warriors always achieve something.
Who on the virus truth side is paying back with more emotional violence and oppression? Who on the virus truth side is outright banning all opposition and enforcing it via government, killing millions annually, and globally censoring, attacking, even jailing dissenters? Pretending there's any parity is ridiculous.
I agree generally with your sentiment, and I think the bullying is being grossly exaggerated and misrepresented by people looking for an excuse to remain irrational because it serves them. Considering the stakes, anyone who would be motivated to avoid looking at the truth of virology because someone was mean to them is beyond pathetic. It's just leftist strategy 101: turn everything upside-down, label good as evil, evil as good, oppressors as victims, etc. And if there is really people acting as hooligans and out to terrorize in the name of virus truth, then isn't it obvious that they're agitators for the Rockefeller establishment? I've been a virus-truther for more than 20 years and haven't met or seen one person who gets it and has any ill will toward others.
I don't argue there is a parity. It's more subtle. I know we are on the minority, and there can be no parity in absolute numbers or in relative numbers. My argument is that we need to be better and don't fall for tricks, and also that some people, who do not do personal attacks, are found guilty by association with other people who did, and then they also get attacked, and then they complain, with reason, that they do not deserve that.
I think part of the problem is that people think the other person started the bullying but it was retaliatory bullying and not initiatory, but the person complaining does not realize that they started the bullying (lack of self-awareness, which is common in traumatized people, which is fair to say is a set that includes 100% of adult people these days) or there is a misunderstanding in that the person retaliating perceived something as bullying that was not actually bullying (over-sensitivity.)
I've had stupid fights because I didn't realize there was an initial confusion. People expect abuse, and they perceive abuse even when there is no ill will. Also other people just love to fight and provoke fights all the time everywhere, it doesn't matter the topic, but one doesn't know that until later.
In any case, staying on topic is the most important thing. Stubbornly refuse to engage in distractions and other underhanded tactics. Eventually the opponent will start insulting or saying worse things.
Over time I've seen a few people who dislike Andy Kaufman precisely because he stubbornly refuses to engage in tricks. That unyielding attitude causes despair in exactly the right kind of people, which gives them away completely, and then they become deactivated. There were two or three Platonic dialogues about this.
Agree. Stefan Lanka, who I learned about virology from, also refuses to play the games, and it's why he's still going strong after almost 30 years of being in this fight for truth.
That is not at all what Denis has indicated. He told people, publicly and in private emails (including to me), that he and his team were doing a deep, careful, methodical dive into virology, and in the end he totally copped out.
There is no need to be associated with fanaticism to explain the pseudoscience of virology.
And hello, there are far more yes-virus fanatics. There is absolutely no comparison to the insanity of yes-virus people. Yet Denis (and others who offer lame excuses for going along with yes-virus baloney) is A-OK with being associated with the yes-virus crowd.
He even referred to us at one point as "virus deniers".
I didn't know that. He backpedalled in the interview.
I understand he copped out, because telling the truth about virology implies getting censorship in the larger political debate, which is important to Rancourt.
He said "virus deniers" and then he said he shouldn't call us that. Personally, I don't care about being called a virus denier, because the sars virus does not exist, so I'm telling the truth, unlike the murderous communists scumbags who claim sars virus is real and still to this day say the vaccine works and has not killed anyone.
I don't compare the insanity between two sets of hooligans who don't care about rational debate. But I claim that the unscientific discourse of those who attack the person instead of the argument, from any side of this debate, are impeding the process of communicating and understanding the truth. In the case of the yes-virus fanatics, they have good reason to sabotage rational discourse: they have a fixed worldview and nothing can change that. But in the case of the no-virus fanatics, they are damaging their own people, and there is no good reason to be obnoxious with people on the other side who have not attacked anyone.
For example, you, Christine, have always focused on the issue and you have avoided personal attacks. You are a noble debater. You have responded in kind only after the other people start with insinuations or personal attacks. That's the way to do it. This is different from haunting people online and provoke them into an absurd exchange of insults that have nothing to do with the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or virology in general, which is what some bottom-feeders are known to do. That is exactly what yes-virus people need to never look into the arguments. They are now offended by a zealot, and then they wrongly deduce that the no-virus argument is probably a psyop or a cult. It's a bad deduction, based on the direct experience of receiving nonsensical hate mail by goons.
I don't believe any leader in this side has any responsibility in the fanatical behavior of people in the lower ranks. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior. And it's good for the foot-soldiers (figure of speech) to try their best to imitate the rational behavior from the leaders.
Also, there is a famous phrase "don't distract your enemy when they are making an error." The yes-virus thugs don't deserve any correction from me, for I'm not on their side. My people here must become better at logic and at rhetoric.
I've actually had a lot of 2nd thoughts about writing "have you lost your mind?" and even considered deleting that part of the title. But I do think it's fair in this situation. Not trying to attack Denis, so much as trying to "shake some sense into him" and others who think his backpedaling and snickering is cool.
"Denier" in this context implies (in my mind) that something is real and we deny its existence, that is why i have a problem with the term. It's like calling someone a science denier.
I think a lot of no-virus people are quite justifiably way past the stage of wanting debate/communication with yes-virus people. At this point, we demand science that backs up the virus claims and no one has any. And there's a big difference between calling out people who spew b.s. and calling out people who are actually correct. I don't see anything wrong with calling out people, although I do agree that some communications (on both sides) are a bit much.
"I understand he copped out, because telling the truth about virology implies getting censorship in the larger political debate, which is important to Rancourt" - if that's the case, he should have not told people for a year that he was doing a deep dive and would report back on this topic.
The plandemic is in essence a monetisation of human relationship.
- You took the jab in order to see them;
- You took the jab in order to feed them;
- You took the jab in order to emotionally be with them.i.e. If a key person in your life faces career(based on fake science) ruin, you stop recognising that scientific method shall apply on said fake science.
" Like, they had a valid study that showed that the "virus" made the S protein (and other proteins) to show up," - no I don't think so - this is what Tom Cowans latest video explains - as they have not isolated the variable ("virus") - there is no way to show a relationship between that and the proteins. Regardless - glad to have another on board.. Yes indeed - everything is a lie - from them.
Eric Coppolino's Jan 9, 2023 Open Letter to Prof. Denis Rancourt
"The Canadian former physics professor says he is assembling a team to investigate the existence of viruses. I offer historical documents that might facilitate his efforts."
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-prof-denis-rancourt
Addendum, July 11, 2023:
I’ve decided to post the emails that I had with Denis in the hours before writing this article; see below.
He musta got a GRANT...
To others reading Massey's posts,
I would like to present a scientific viewpoint that has been carelessly glossed over by those that control the narrative in the 'No-Virus Gang', which makes up a large group of individuals who drown out any legitimate viewpoint other than their own. That is, they have conveniently left out a third option to the necessary modes of disease—that viruses do indeed exist but are not contagious—that they are non-living enzymatic cellular solvents produced by living cells to dissolve specific toxicity to help maintain bodily homeostasis in the face of organism degeneration. I have been working diligently for the past 3+ years on documenting the science of this theory.
I have recently been published in Néosanté, Belgian Journal of Global Health. They have released an English version of the article for free, which you may read below. The topic of the article is to address the various 'no-virus' theories in relation to my own, countering the false idea that viruses do not exist, and using documented scientific facts to do so.
https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/publication-in-neosante-health-magazine
My website: www.virusesarenotcontagious.com
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Tell him, when he comes back next time, that the Dog said for him to Fuck Right Arf.
You are offering a modified definition of “virus” which is simply ridiculous. When the original hypothesis fails, it is refuted. A “virus” by the definition(s) provided by “virologists” is what is refuted. You are playing deceptive games and trying to present it as valid “science”. No, you don’t get to change the definition of the independent variable in order to validate a refuted hypothesis.
Hyperbolic nonsense. Words and their meanings have been changed in science numerous times throughout history. In fact, the word 'virus' has been altered more than once throughout its history.
Then you are willing to change definitions to accommodate your hypothesis? So “virus” can mean whatever you want? Seriously, you must understand that this is not rational.
I am still waiting for your undeniable evidence of bio viruses and nucleotides.
Enzymatic cellular solvents?
Interesting.
Enzymes are proteins, right?
According to the standard model, all proteins are translated from mRNA.
Viruses are said to be genetic material, not protein. They are also said to have proteins in their envelope, and inside, with the genetic material.
How do you account for the presence of genetic material in this theory you have documented?
The two essential components of viruses are nucleic acid, which makes up their genome, and protein, including proteases (enzymes). Viruses are largely made up of proteins and are classed as proteins that contain enzymes in the literature.
Your last question is not clear to me...
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Nucleic acid and proteins are far from proof of a "virus", so cite you evidence of a "virus" as per the normal meaning (not your newfangled definition) or go away because you've been wasting lots of my time. I'm quite fed up with the people who do this. You've already left at least 14 comments on this article.
This is very confusing. It seems you are not talking about pathogenic viruses at all.
The most salient characteristic of the mythical pathogenic viruses is the always replicating viral genome.
Your theory seems to downplay the genome. What is the role of the genome in the third theory you propose?
Bingo! He is discussing his hypothesis/theory about something completely different.
The viral genome is designed by cells in order to communicate with other like cells and their surface receptor proteins. If an epithelial cell produces a coronavirus, that virus will normally only enter and dissolve susceptible epithelial cells. Suspectable cells are those that have altered their surface receptor proteins and presented danger signals. This allows the virus to 'infect' and dissolve portions of the cell. Or, in the case of complete cell degeneration, the entire cell. If this lock-and-key system did not exist, a virus would dissolve everything it comes into contact with. So, viruses are very specific.
The genome is very important for this mRNA communication to take place. Each spike protein on a virus is connected through the viral capsid down into the genome network. The virus communicates as I noted above via its glycoproteins (spikes). Those spikes contain the enzymes necessary to penetrate cells and dissolve cell walls. A virus is merely a carrier of many enzymes (spikes) on their surface.
Viruses are 'parasitical' in the sense that they must have a cell to be produced. Except, it is the cell that produces them from beginning to end and doesn't involve hijacking of the cell, as is falsely claimed. Science knows that viruses are not alive, and thus cannot be parasitical. They seemingly use the word 'parasite' symbolically to show that viruses rely on cells to be produced.
Upon which scientific study is your faith in “virus” built upon? I only have time to read your most favorite, and I assure you that despite all the trash that’s been offered to me before, I’ll remain open minded to seeing something new. And let me help you avoid further ridicule: proved the original study because I’m not interested in following citations…. Been there, done that. So where is this “viral genome” you speak of? Which study really convinced you that “viruses” are real?
It's a nice theory, but fraudulent. You are changing the definition of virus and crossing your fingers so that no one notices.
Or you are talking about something else, and reusing the word virus for this.
But the virus is supposedly a deadly thing that allows politicians to destroy the lives of people with the approval of the disinformed population, who is scared shitless from a non-existent threat.
There is no saving the hoax.
If viruses are what you say they are, and not a the mythical pathogenic virus, then it would be better to use a different word. With this tactic you appear as if you are trying saving the lives of the perpetrators of the biggest genocide in recorded history. It's not going to fly.
He isn't discussing "viruses", he's discussing something totally different and calling them "viruses", which only adds confusion where there is already far too much confusion. If he would at least clarify that he is referring to the particles that are falsely/fraudulently called "viruses" and has evidence to back up his theory (if it's even a theory and not just a hypothesis), fine. But he insists in cultivating confusion by using the word "virus" which means poison in Latin, and he can't even show that any supposed "virus" particle (i.e. SARS-COV-2 with it's alleged genome and proteins) exists.
He isn't even accurate where he claims he was published!
Hi Jeff:
I believe the foundation for the "no virus" concept is not that they don't exist but that they don't exist as infectious agents. If we can accept this then we are relieved of the idiocy that dictates "immunity" to viruses & the cultish obsession with "vaccines" which so many of us know to be fallacious & harmful. The concept of viruses was formed when disease occurred where no foreign body could be found. We know bacteria (& bacteriophages) exist to clean up damaged or decaying tissue but so many still believe that bacteria cause disease.
Rick
"I believe the foundation for the "no virus" concept is not that they don't exist but that they don't exist as infectious agents."
That might be what YOU believe... but for myself and probably MOST of the people on the "no-virus" position, we are saying quite literally that NO VIRUS has been shown to exist, period.
If youre going to speak on behalf of the group, at least make sure you understand the position first before making such claims.
Wow. Just where do you get off? Wasn't speaking on behalf of anyone so piss off. You can call extra cellular particles anything you want Incl. viruses but that doesn't make them infectious agents.
Exactly. Jeff Green refuses to acknowledge this, but thanks for clarifying anyhow. The "no virus" group are contesting the lack of repeatable science claimed as evidence for pathogenic organisms (both existence as unique particles not generated from human biological functions, and as cause of disease).
No, you are offering to change the definition. “Virus” by definition has got to be “infectious” and to say otherwise is just loosening the definition that must be adhered to.
To clarify:
Viruses have not been shown to exist, period. For example, the "SARS-COV-2 genome" is entirely made-up, never shown to exist physically in nature, never found intact in anyone.
It's a computer creation.. And the attributed "spike protein" has never been found in anyone.
Hi Rick, I am very familiar with the 'No-Virus' beliefs. They have stated numerous times that viruses, whether they are infectious or not, do not exist. That even the particles themselves do not exist.
Here is Andrew Kaufman admitting that: https://www.bitchute.com/video/9aqjXUFxfEud/
See minute 52:16.
Caroline: "Andy is not saying viruses do not exist."
Kaufman "No Caroline, that IS what I'm saying."
He then goes on to claim those viruses called 'infectious' do not exist. Yet, when you say something doesn't exist, that means you believe they do not exist whatsoever—whether pathogenic or not. Instead of saying that they do exist, but are not pathogenic, he states they simply do not exist at all.
It would be akin to someone saying bacteria do not exist because many of them are also falsely claimed to be pathogenic.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
A “virus” is defined as much more than “a protein”. So no, it is totally incorrect to suggest that the “no virus people” ( ie those who actually read the science ) are claiming that proteins don’t exist. You are simply misrepresenting the issue. Is that your intent? If not, please help us understand what you believe to be the issue that’s problematic, as you understand it, that represents the “no virus” people’s concern.
I remember this conversation. It was funny.
It is pertinent to mention that Dr. Judy Mikovits says that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. She argues that the covid disease is caused by XMRV virus, which I think is a synthetic virus created in rats. She worked in that field.
And she can't show that any "XMRV" exists either.
CDC has no record of “XMRV” being found in anyone and purified so that "it" could be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/XMRV-request-response.pdf
Thanks for the pdf.
People say bacteria exist because they have been shown to exist.
People say viruses do not exist because they have not been shown to exist.
If there is proof of the existence of viruses, I would like to know more about that, just like everyone else.
There are people who argue that science cannot prove the existence of anything, and theories are simply taken to be provisionally accepted as "true" until more information comes in and there is a better theory. The theories of virology have not shown to be better than the previous theories of disease. Can you give a reason why the failed field of virology is to be preferred to the previous theories?
Science deals with natural phenomena. And it can prove what variables cause them. But it does not mean that there are more variables which can lead to the same effects.
Scientific theories are based on scientific experiments.
If it is only a theory then it is just an untested hypothesis or assumption.
You are half-wrong. The hypotheses of Virology are not untested hypotheses. They have been tested and they have failed. It should be rejected.
So, it is not only a theory, it is a theory that has been shown to be false. Which is good news.
Sadly, falsification is not enough. They find "things" then they torture people, animals or cells in a flask. The tradition says that those things are viruses, and the traditional belief is that they were already there before torturing the animal or poisoning the cells in the culture. Therefore, the viruses caused the disease in the animal and the cytopathic effects in the cells of the cell culture. It is absurd, but this seems to be the state of scientific practice these days. Scientists don't seem to like to do science very much, because it tends to ruin their jobs. Maybe they need a better occupation.
People just see what they want to see. For example, in the new moon of July, Pluto will be in opposition to the Sun and the Moon. That is a bad omen. Bad things may happen. But it's not because of Pluto being in opposition. Rather, it's because bad things may happen every day, that phrase is always "true", and the position of the planets is also factual, but the logical connection does not exist. It's a wrong reasoning, and that is the origin of comedy.
The difference between astrology and bad science like virology is that everyone understands that astrology is an entertainment, it's meant to see what one wants to see, and then do something about one's own thoughts. But in bad science, people insist in believing disproved hypotheses, never examining their conscience, and never changing opinion. Bad science is tragic. It freezes people's thoughts.
No one can even scientifically demonstrate contagion!!
Because they are NOT contagious as Big Medicine/Big Pharma/Big Gov't would have us continue to believe, the illusion, as this keeps us $ick and di$ea$ed as guinea pigs/lab rats in their vicious sickness cycle and making buttloads of money from it/us. ugh!
I think the real issue here, Dennis, is that, as per virology, viruses are claimed to be RNA or DNA based which hijack the cellular defense system & then retool the cell's DNA to allow for mass replication. Never has this been proven. Never have any extra cellular particles been isolated, purified & reintroduced into healthy tissue to confirm they are the cause of the current malaise. Therefore, the concept of a virus has never been proven; to wit: without strict isolation no specific genome can be found & no validity to either RNA or DNA base can be shown let alone it's "infectious" nature. I believe that's what Andy is referring to. What, I believe, Christine's mission has been throughout this non pandemic issue is to show that no one anywhere can provide proof of adhering to Koch's Postulates &, therefore, prove infectious agents exist; that virology as it exists is pure fraud. Anyone who has researched the C19 "virus" knows it was computer generated, making it a work of fiction to begin with & the FDA has confirmed they never had any genuine C19 "viral material" but relied on Influenza A & B (with no virus proof here either) to concoct a "highly transmissible, highly lethal virus" which never was.
Funny how you're familiar with our position but then imply that we've said bacteria don't exist when that is not the case at all.
Please don't put words in our mouths. No one is saying that bacteria don't exist.
Viruses have not been shown to exist, period. For example, the "SARS-COV-2 genome" is entirely made-up, never shown to exist physically in nature. And the attributed "spike protein" has never been found in anyone.
I didn't, and I don't have to put words in your mouth because you say plenty all by yourself. Your logic is not consistent, and that was my point. You claim viruses do not exist because many of them have been classed as pathogenic, yet you claim bacteriophages and other non-infectious viruses exist (just as Kaufman stated). At the same time, you inconsistently claim that bacteria exist, even those that have been falsely classed as pathogenic. That's not consistent.
So which is it? Do no viruses exist, or do only some viruses exist? And apparently you get to claim which ones exist and which ones don't based on if they are deemed 'pathogenic' or not? You claim bacteriophages and larger viruses exist, but others do not, according to you and your group. And to be clear, bacteriophages are also classed as infectious viruses too.
If some viruses exist, as those like Kaufman have been on record admitting, then you all have invalidated your entire stance by claiming no viruses exist. Because if some viruses exist, then that means the likelihood of others existing in life is quite high. Essentially, you're caught in your own trap. And that has led to you and your group trying to wiggle out of your previous statements, because now you have to redefine what a bacteriophage is. Because of this, those like Cowan now falsely claim that bacteriophages are not actually viruses after all, in order to redeem some semblance of consistency in their 'theory' (or lack thereof).
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Again putting words in my mouth in your very first sentence:
"You claim viruses do not exist because many of them have been classed as pathogenic."
1) the specific particles (the attributed "genomes" and protein shells) haven't even been shown to exist;
2) nothing shown to fit the definition of a "virus", which is not "a solvent' or however you feel like defining .
Virus = replication-competent intracellular obligate parasite that transmits between hosts and causes disease via natural exposure routes.
Not wasting more time with you (we're been through this many times in the past) or reading the rest of your comment. Have a nice day/life.
Why do you ban everyone who successfully challenges your arguments on your substack?
And where is your undeniable evidence of bio viruses and nucleotides?
We can, of course, see bacteria & bacteriophages under a microscope & watch them work at removing damaged or dead tissue with the bacteriophages cleaning up the bacteria. I believe this was demonstrated at least 130 years ago by Bechamp in vacuum conditions. We could not exist without bacteria but they are not infectious & cause no harm to any healthy tissue.
You can tell that viruses like SARS2 are contagious from the way that new mutations first emerge in one geographic region and then gradually spread to other regions. For example if SARS2 would be an exosome produced by the body, then why did the bodies of people switch from producing the 614D variant in January 2020 to 614G a few months later, so that at first the 614G variant was more common in East Asia but soon it replaced the 614D variant all over the world?
Human endogenous retroviruses have extremely stable genomes because their genome is embedded within the human genome which has a low mutation rate. For example you can do a BLAST search for HERV K113 by pressing the "Blast" link here and then pressing the "BLAST" button: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_022518.1. The genome is about 97.9% identical even with a gorilla endogenous retrovirus.
However current strains of omicron are only around 99.5% identical with Wuhan-Hu-1 so SARS2 has been evolving orders of magnitude faster than HERVs. The human genome has a mutation rate of around 1e-11 substitutions per site per year, but over the last three years, SARS2 has had a mutation rate of around 1e-4 substitutions per site per year.
You can also try to search GenBank for "exosome homo sapiens": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=exosome+homo+sapiens. The first result was titled "Homo sapiens exosome component 1 (EXOSC1), transcript variant 5, mRNA". When I did a BLAST search for the full exosomal mRNA sequence, it was 100% identical to a result titled "Human DNA sequence from clone RP11-452K12 on chromosome 10, complete sequence" (because the exosomal RNA sequence is incorporated into the human genome), and it was also about 98% identical with 75% query coverage to a result titled "PREDICTED: Pongo abelii exosome component 1 (EXOSC1), transcript variant X5, mRNA" (because mammalian DNA evolves so slowly that other primates have similar exosomes to humans). If SARS2 would be a human exosome, its genetic sequence would be part of the human genome, and it would also be similar to previously sequenced human and mammal exosomal mRNA sequences at GenBank.
All viral proteins from any living cell can be mutated by cells. For example, researchers have found over 500+ different variants and sub-variants of coronavirus—and those are merely in bats. In actuality, if they were to examine every person on earth, they would find that every person has their own variant(s) of a particular virus if they are producing a viral load. Thus, there are infinite numbers of variations and sub-variations of a particular type of virus because of cellular RNA and DNA specificities. Each time a cell produces a viral set, that set has been mutated slightly by the genome of the cell during protein construction to aid the cell and its kin. This is the nature of cellular protein creation, including DNA, which is itself dynamic.
With this in mind, all of the data from the WHO and other agencies with regard to viral mutations is a misnomer. The way that those agencies handle mutations is to claim that a major viral strain is in circulation, even though they know full well that there is no dominant strain of any one virus, for it is biological impossibility.
In actuality, two people may have the same coronavirus type, just as you would claim to have 'hepatitis A', but both viruses from both people will differ in their RNA when closely observed. And the same is true of all viruses. Each virus, of which there are many thousands inherent to the human body, all contain their own body-specific genome due to the cells that produced them. If this were not true, there would not be 500+ known coronavirus variants.
You could not have a dominating strain and 500+ mutations alongside it. Major variants would take precedence and the others would not exist if viruses were contagious entities.
If a cell produces a protein in one body, it will be similar in structure up to 95%+. However, those last percentile points are what makes a protein, in this case a virus, unique to a particular body. The entire virus would not differ, just as other agents in the body do not differ entirely from human to human. Only specific RNA instruction sets embedded into the virus would differ. Thus, this refutes for the claims that there is or has ever been a major viral strain.
As for the seasonality of viruses. Viral spread is a complex illusion. I cover that here:
https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/seasonality-of-viral-infections
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Yet you can't even show us that "SARS-COV-2" exist LOL.
And your definition of "virus" has nothing to do with what we've been told all our lives that "viruses" are.
Storyteller!
Show us evidence that nucleotides or biological viruses have been proven to exist by their identification in nature and experimentation on them in a form of independent variable or by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them.
If you do not have such evidence, it means that they are not proven. Simple as that.
How can there be infinite variations of a finite sequence of nucleotides? By infinite do you mean practically infinite?
If each human has their own variants of a virus, then wouldn't the regions of the human genome which codes for each virus be a hypervariable region which could easily be used to differentiate humans from each other? Then it would be really easy to design human sequencing panels which could capture a lot of variable SNPs by just targeting for the regions which code for a couple of viruses.
But if all human viruses are endogenous like HERVs, then why are there not regions of the human genome which code for viruses like SARS2 or hepatitis A? And then where does the human body get the information it needs to accurately produce the sequence of SARS2 so that it differs by less than 1% from other commonly circulating strains of SARS2 worldwide?
The phenomenon of seasonal human H1N1 epidemics started in 1977 with the Russian flu epidemic, where a strain of H1N1 that was similar to an old strain from the late 40s and early 50s suddenly reemerged first in the PCR and then the Soviet Union. The hemagglutin (HA) protein is the equivalent of the spike protein in the influenza virus, so it encodes for spike-like protrusions of the virus that interact with the immune system and which evolve rapidly to avoid immune detection. In this image I plotted human H1N1 samples based on their collection year and the number of nucleotide changes in the coding sequence of the hemagglutin (HA) protein from a Russian flu sample from 1977: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1093243194231246934/1111650844207755336/russianfludist.png. I used data from the NCBI's influenza virus database: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/FLU/Database/nph-select.cgi. (In my plot I only included samples that had at most 200 nucleotide changes in the HA CDS from the Russian flu strain, so my plot doesn't include samples from the 2009 H1N1 swine flu epidemic which have around 400 nucleotide changes.) But anyway, from my plot you can see that most samples from 1997 until 2008 form a straight cline which gradually evolves further from the original Russian flu strain. There's about 25 nucleotide changes in samples all over the world from 1980, about 65 nucleotide changes in the samples from 1990, about 115 nucleotide changes in the samples from 2000, and so on. So why were the bodies of people all over the world producing a strain of H1N1 that had only a few nucleotide changes in the HA CDS from the Russian flu strain in 1980, but in later decades the bodies of people all over the world started producing strains of H1N1 with a larger number of nucleotide changes? And why has the strain of H1N1 that developed from the Russian flu been mutating on a timescale of years even though it usually takes more than a decade to produce a new generation of humans?
When you say that it's impossible to have a dominant strain of a virus, by strain do you mean a unique genomic sequence which doesn't have even one SNP different from another sequence? That's not the common meaning of a strain, because commonly at least in COVID lingo, a strain encompasses multiple possible sets of SNPs, so that the strain has a set of defining SNPs but it is allowed to have additional SNPs apart from the set of defining SNPs. For example in NextStrain's subset of about 16,000 SARS2 sequences, there's 59 samples dated February 2020 even though a couple of them are misdated. 33 out of 59 samples have the NextStrain clade 19A which therefore represents the majority of sequences. But if you look at Pango lineages which are more finegrained than Nextstrain clades, then the most common lineage is B (with no further specified subtype) which is found in 17 out of 59 samples, so it doesn't represent the majority of all samples, even though you could just as well aggregate all subtypes of the B lineage together and then the majority of samples would represent the B lineage. If you look at the individual sets of SNPs and indels, then there's a tie between two sets of SNPs which both appear 3 times, even though both of them are classified under the NextStrain "clade" 19A (G1397A,G11083T,G25618A,T28688C,G29742T and T7876A,G11083T,C18395T,C21614T,G22225T,G26144T):
u=https://data.nextstrain.org/files/ncov/open;for x in africa asia europe north-america oceania south-america;do curl $u/$x/aligned.fasta.xz|gzip -dc>continent.$x.fa;curl $u/$x/metadata.tsv.xz|gzip -dc>continent.$x.tsv;done
cat continent.*.tsv|awk 'NR==1||FNR>1'>continent.tsv
awk -F\\t '$7~/2020-02/{print$20}' continent.tsv|sort|uniq -c|sort # most common NextStrain clades
awk -F\\t '$7~/2020-02/{print$21}' continent.tsv|sort|uniq -c|sort # most common Pango lineages
awk -F\\t '$7~/2020-02/{print$54"/"$55"/"$56}' continent.tsv|sort|uniq -c|sort # most common individual sets of SNPs and indels
‘ So why were the bodies of people all over the world producing a strain of H1N1 that had only a few nucleotide changes in the HA CDS from the Russian flu strain in 1980, but in later decades the bodies of people all over the world started producing strains of H1N1 with a larger number of nucleotide changes? And why has the strain of H1N1 that developed from the Russian flu been mutating on a timescale of years even though it usually takes more than a decade to produce a new generation of humans?’
—i’m thinking it is due to the ever-increasing level of toxicity in our environment, more inorganic products for which our (cell-created) viruses have a hard time completely dissolving and so have to keep making more variants in attempts to do so.
What H1N1???
So in 1977, why were the bodies of people all over the world producing a nearly identical strain of H1N1, even though the strains of H1N1 that circulated in humans in the 1940s were more divergent because the strains of H1N1 that evolved out of the Spanish flu had not yet died out? And then why by the 1990s had human strains of H1N1 again become more divergent after the 1977 Russian flu strain had branched off into several substrains? What caused the bottleneck in the year 1977 when there was low diversity in the human H1N1 sequences that are available from the NCBI's influenza virus database? Was there temporarily a low level of toxicity in the environment in 1977?
What is your financial gain in all of this? You clearly have something to gain, because on all of my articles you turn up with these ridiculous comments about "sequences" never shown to have anything to do with a "virus".
Are you Kevin McKairn? Do you work for him? For Kirsch, Kennedy or someone else determined to keep the bogus virus story alive?
I used to be on McCairn's Discord but I left it because it was too full of low-quality posts. And I have done a lot of research together with We've Read the Documents and S90 exposing RFK as controlled opposition.
And I wouldn't work for a Jew like Kirsch, and I have also been calling out his nonsense. Last year he made a post where he misrepresented English mortality statistics for one out of seven vaccinated groups as representing all vaccinated people, but there were over 200 comments before my comment and no-one before me pointed out his error. Then someone replied to my comment: "Good comment, steve should evaluate and answer this one. We must be tight and right on our side". I don't think I have ever received a similar response after I have pointed out an error made by the no-virus numbskulls. They never admit that they were wrong, and they just say that I'm working for someone or they say that nucleotides don't exist or something.
Ha ha, mutations of something never shown to exist :)
Oh wow, some in silico codes - like we haven't seen those before - thanks!
The publication is not a scientific study, or even a study! It's just an article about you and your ideas. And the image shown on page 1 is literally artwork and is even labelled as such!
"Virion being produced by a nucleus cell then lysis of the cell
wall to allow the viral particles to enter into the rest of the
body, artwork by Jeff Green"
A non-living enzymatic cellular solvent produced by living cells to dissolve specific toxicity is not a "virus". You are creating confusion by using that word. I wonder why you would want to do that.
And, you and everyone else have been challenged and failed to show that the alleged "SARS-COV-2" particle even exists. The alleged "genome" has never even been found intact anywhere. The "spike protein" has never been found in anyone.
"HIV" has never been shown to exist. Stating that "Duesberg does not dispute the existence of HIV" is not the way to show "it" does exist, and only serves to add to the confusion.
"One can both “believe in viruses” and radically reject their guilt. To be tenable, this halfway position, however, requires that the true function of the false culprit be clarified." No one I know is interested in "beliefs". We're looking for claims to be backed up with valid scientific evidence.
"For him, the formal absence of isolation in no way proves that viruses are a fiction." Someone is seriously confused because there is no need for anyone to prove that viruses don't exist. The onus is on those who say they do exist to back up their claims.
"a virus cannot be [totally] isolated from the bodily fluids of its host but is nevertheless a specific entity" - This is reification fallacy - assigning properties to something never shown to exist.
"Whether they exist or not, viruses are not the cause of illnesses attributed to them! The question of their existence is secondary since they are in any case devoid of pathogenicity. Like other micro-organisms, they are not there to harm humans and are, more, the reflections of its ground. Despite their differences, natural medicine players can agree on the fact that viral particles have no causal role in the onset of so-called infectious diseases."
If something doesn't exist, obviously it doesn't cause disease and doesn't do anything.
The imagery to show internal machinery in science is usually all artwork. That is how one visualizes complex things. What is your point, exactly?
Truthfully, it shouldn't matter if it is a peer-reviewed study or not, since it is the content and reasoning that matters. I consider that a total cop-out. And you should know full well the nature of funding of many studies. Which begs the question: Why do you rely on such studies yourself? It is quite interesting that you rely on studies, most of which refute your own stance, in order to prove your own stance—it is hypocritical.
The onus is actually on you to prove that what is seen by researchers the world over are not intelligently created particles by cells but are merely aberrations from inept researchers—not the other way around, I'm afraid. I present a conclusion that is rational. That is, that researchers have not properly envisioned the entirety of the inner workings of a living body and how that changes the circumstances of what they call 'pathogenic'. You have instead seemingly claimed nothing they have stated is true, which is the opposite of rational.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Lol, you're trying to pass this off as "science".
I said nothing about peer review, so why put those words in my mouth?
It's not a study (studies contain data, evidence), just an article about you and your thoughts. Congratulations :)
Oh my lord, there is no onus on me. You're making the positive claim, not me.
Viruses are classed as both infectious and non-infectious in scientific literature. I state, proven through my research, that there are no indiscriminately infectious viruses and that all viruses arise from a state of disease, and I show the biological reasoning for why that is.
'Virus' is merely a word, and engaging in semantics is a pointless endeavor. It has been stated many times by those in the 'No-Virus' group that viruses do not exist, whether they are called something else, or not—they have stated the particles themselves do not exist.
Science itself states that viruses are enzymatic cellular solvents because they admit that viruses dissolve cell walls using amino acids and their related enzyme reactions. The point where they diverge from a more logical reasoning is where they claim that these solvents are contagious. The 'No-Virus' group is simply missing a great piece of the puzzle by claiming virions do not exist, and it is doing a great disservice to their audience because viruses are an incredibly important part of all living things and their environment.
Jeff Green is banned for 1 month. I've left his comments up, none of which cited any "virus" science.
I warned him yesterday, after he had already left many, many comments under this article (and falsely claimed to have been published!), that I'd ban him if he doesn't back up his "virus" claims with science, because I don't have time and energy for dozens and dozens of comments from him, especially after we already had many exchanges on this exact same subject last year. He kept going, citing zero science, just more insults and wasting my time, so he's gone.
Jeff and I have a long history, the chance for a good humored friendly debate is long past.
When people have false beliefs about the cause of ill health they can't make the best decisions for themselves and their families. This is why it's so important.
No, it's not a pointless endeavor. Language needs to be used carefully in order for it to be useful. If you goal is to sow confusion, congratulations.
You've provided zero science. Just an article about yourself and your beliefs.
I've been through this with you over and over again and am not wasting more time on it. We all know there are tiny particles shown in EMs of cell cultures - passed off as "viruses" but never purified, sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments.
You are simply regurgitating dogma by citing what "science says", when there is no science. You have a different idea of what those particles are, which does not fit the definition of "virus" but you insist on using that word anyways.
The article states "Isolation in itself does not prove the existence or
non-existence of entities commonly called viruses". No kidding. Isolation/purification would only be an initial necessary step needed to prove a "virus". Next steps would be sequencing, characterization and controlled experiments. Never been done. And the fact that it's not been done proves that there is zero science. There is zero onus on us to prove that "viruses" don't exist.
"Jeff Green's perspective is based on observation of
the reality of human experience, supported by
countless studies over the decades. Whether or not it
is consecrated by the authorities of the moment, it is
no less plausible and a coherent working hypothesis
that can be explored"
A hypothesis. Not scientific evidence.
Wrong. All science starts with hypothesis. That is an essential part of the scientific method that you all obsessively extol, which you now conveniently ignore.
And it is indeed scientific evidence because I refer back to studies that prove my stance. You haven't been able to do that yet because you have only engaged in dismantling. Nothing I am claiming can legitimately be scientifically refuted because it is basic biology, try as you might.
Dear idiot Massey,
Your entire argument is based on rather convoluted methodological reasoning and a somewhat twisted logic. It would therefore behoove you to apply the same logical rigor to what you allow yourself to spew.
"Just because.... blah blah... doesn't mean they don't exist!" Sure Denis, and Santa might actually exist too.
If you demand scientific rigor and resort to invoking Santa, you might as well go fuck yourself. It's beneath the dignity of all non-idiots to even respond to horseshit like that. As to the subject matter, yes, it's precisely as Rancourt says, "Just because you make convoluted methodological claims, it doesn't mean that viruses 'don't exist' (meaning that viruses do exist in the sense of being pathogenic particles)."
Your idiotic ramblings DO NOT DISPROVE THAT POSSIBILITY.
As much as I was more than willing to lend a receptive ear to the no-virus claims, your militant, abusive, obdurately uninformed, and plain stupid behavior is too much to take.
You're a shill par excellence, endlessly negative asshole, a stupid twat who attacks everybody who doesn't subscribe to your dogmatic orthodoxy.
Here you have a taste of your medicine!
Oh my... did you really not grasp that I was pointing out that "viruses" have just as much evidence backing them as Santa?
No one needs to disprove a POSSIBILITY lol. You are very confused as to where the burden of proof lies.
And your ad hominen approach to defending virology (or defending virology defenders/apologists and "well-maybe"-virus-"scientists") is pretty bizarre.
Have a nice day!
If you do not wish invoke Santa, then it would behoove you to refrain from doing so.
There is nothing ad hominem in my designation of yourself as an idiot. It's a plain fact, corroborated, for instance, by your idiotic statement that I defend virology. In none what I've said I've defended virology per se.
I defend REASON, something that's tragically missing in your drivel.
Now, the question is - are you paid to propagate this shite? How do you finance your activities?
I didn't invoke Santa. How disingenuous of you to suggest I did.
Burden of proof is on you to show scientific evidence of a virus. I don't have time or patience for your ad hominen rants.
And not that I owe you any explanations but I get donations from random people that cover my rent and everything else goes on credit card.
I think that aside from the obvious cognitive dissonance and significant indoctrination for the academics, scholars, doctors, etc.... a BIG reason these people refuse to see or acknowledge what seems quite obvious is they are afraid of losing half their audience, afraid of the ridicule & criticism of their character, afraid of ruining their reputation, possibly their career, the financial hit it might take... the judgement of their peers, family and friends....
THIS is why they either straddle the fence indefinitely, they gently teeter-totter and play with the idea - making generalized statements but not taking a position.
Ultimately, it is the ego. They are afraid of taking such a big risk in the name of truth - which is disheartening & sad. For me, its a no-brainer. Truth & integrity above all else! 🙌 this is the hail Mary for those who claim they want to end government tyranny, suffering, unnecessary death. If enough people get behind this truth, the impact is SIGNIFICANT! Put your money where your mouth is.... lets EXPOSE THEM ALL!
Yes :)
I don't know why this is so hard for people. The nanoscale particles scientists call "virus" truly exist. It is pure stupidity to argue they are phantasms of electron microscopy.
Their BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION as virology describes, infectious agents of contagious disease, is most rightly questioned. As usual, all sides are sloppy on definitions and precision. DEFINE YOUR TERMS please! The better question is, "Is it a 'virus' at all?" The 'it' exists:
https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/virologys-fatal-flaw
It's not hard at all, and I've not said that the apparent particles shown in EM don't exist.
What I and others haves said is that "viruses" have not been shown to exist, and this is correct.
"Virus" means poison in Latin and "virus" these days means a replicating infectious particle that causes a contagious disease - never shown to exist (and disease contagion has never been demonstrated either).
And it's not just the function that is unproven. The specific "virus" particles that we're told exist, i.e. "SARS-COV-2", consisting of a specific "genome" and proteinaceous shell, have not been shown to exist. The "SARS-COV-2 genome" has ever been shown to exist. The "genomes" are in silico constructions, with no corresponding physical reality. No "SARS-COV-2 genome" has ever been found intact, in anyone on the planet. So "SARS-COV-2" has not been shown to exist, period. Same with other alleged "viruses".
What happens instead is the virologists use Ender's propagation technique to spawn a billion nanoparticles from poisoned mutant cancer cells, run an electron micrograph which they dilligently search for a hint of the boogeyman, nail the first one they think fits the description of said pre-existent boogeyman with the tag "novel virus" and wallah! A new contagious boogeyman is born in a day. But is it the boogeyman we are looking for?
Anyway, most of the naysayers hear "no virus", show an EM picture of "SARS-CoV-2" and then laugh at us. I want to be clear and concise on terms and definitions, so anyone can see this is how they're pulling off their global scam. It's not the boogeyman we are looking for! In fact, is it even a boogeyman?!
Cheers!
I'm well aware of their methods and I'm careful in how I communicate. I don't imply that an EM image of a purported "virus" would prove anything - I've consistently pointed out the absurdity of suggesting that it does.
We even have names for that ridiculous approach: "the point and declare method", and "the McCullough Method", lol.
Anyone who laughs at me has their logical fallacies pointed out.
The requirement is for purification (evidenced by EM), followed by sequencing, characterization and valid controlled experiments. But they don't even have a record of anyone on earth ever doing the purification step, let alone the required follow-up steps - as evidenced by the FOI responses/confessions from hundreds of institutions.
Contagion has never been demonstrated, so there is no boogeyman to even look for.
Germ theory will not go quietly into that good night.
For the love god.. of christine you and dpl are some of the most aggressive chauvinistic AI bots on the free thinking pages… hopefully your word is spread but not by me … its toxic just like the 💉crowd….
Actually, you're the one being "aggressive", coming to my substack for no purpose other than to insult and accuse me, lol.
And obviously I'm not responsible for anything that "dpl" does. And for the record, that man/woman only came to my attention recently, ironically accusing me as well. I'm not friends with "dpl".
And I'm clearly not an AI bot.
Talk about toxic.
Christine- I just saw a clip of you speaking with Mary Holland of CHD:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qTg1FRy6VbMW/
there is nothing so beautiful as truth... (and seeing prevaricators with their backs up against the proverbial wall)
Thank You.
Fantastic answer Christine.
Thanks for all your work over these years, which I have quoted to so many.
Thank you so much :Carl-david :)
Cheers.
Fuckin' A.
Yes, “virus” is upstream of all confusion and debate occurring downstream of the fraud called “virology.” When the definition of “virus” is changed, it is because there is a desperate attempt to continue the 130+ yrs of deception and fraud.
Other than the fact that no viruses can be found to exist, I remit the fact that the esteemed and well experienced and well certified (cough, cough, spit, gag) dr willy gates has again predicted that another virus will hit the beaches.
If viruses existed, they would be natural and therefore totally unpredictable like a tornado in the Midwest US during the spring and summer. Yes, they have a high probability of occurring, but when and where and at what strength is totally unpredictable. They may happen or not.
Thus, if a (faked) virus comes down the pike, it will have to be one of those biolab creations. If it is a biolab secretion, then it will be uncontrollable providing it has some means of transmission, as of yet unproven for any virus.
It would be massively deadly because it would not have any experience with our immune systems. SARS CoV-1 (if it exists) has been around for about 20 years. Even after all those billions of "fauci bucks" spent on gain of function research, if covid 19 (CoV-2) exists, it has not been deadly to any noticeable degree.
Back in 2007, there was mention of SARS CoV-3 by Chinese virologists in the Clinical Journal of Microbiology. Now, how would they know that? Cov-2 was also mentioned and yet didn't hit the shores until about 12-13 years later. So, who knew what? If viruses existed, all this would be pure guesswork.
Yet, here we have gates telling us the next virus or pandemic will be much more deadly and affect mostly children and young adults. How the heck would he know? This tells me that viruses do not exist except those that can be invented with a computer algorithm and then by the use of extreme propaganda. Again, like with covid 19, it will be said to be very deadly, which will scare the dickens out of most of the braindead public.
And then it's another race to get the safe and effective mRNA injections. Fear will overtake past history and reason...you can bet on it.
They constructed a 2,248-base chimeric RNA sequence which included three different segments from SARS1, and they used the label "SARS-CoV3" to refer to one 583-base segment of a SARS1 sample: "An exogenous chimeric sequence 2,248 bp in length comprising the following sequences was inserted into a pACYCDuet-1 plasmid (p15A-type replication origin; Novagen): M-300 (nt 17∼373, 357 bp from avian influenza virus matrix gene; GenBank accession no. DQ864720), SARS-CoV1 (nt 15224 to 15618, 395 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), SARS-CoV2 (nt 18038 to 18340, 303 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), SARS-CoV3 (nt 328110 [sic; should probably be "nt 28110"] to 28692, 583 bp from SARS-CoV; GenBank accession no. AY864806), a pac site (19 bp), HCV (nt 18 to 310, 293 bp from HCV 5′UTR; GenBank accession no. AF139594), and HA300 (nt 295 to 611, 317 bp from H5N1 avian influenza virus; GenBank accession no. DQ864720)." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2395109/) The SARS1 sample they used for the SARS-CoV3 segment had the isolate ID BJ202 and it was submitted to GenBank in 2004 by a Chinese university: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AY864806.
"Virus-Like Particles ..."
That study doesn't even involve clinical samples and there is nothing to show that a particle fits the defection of a "virus".
SARS1 has never been shown to exist either.
Another in silico sequence, oh wow... how thrilling.
Hi Christine,
Much like you, I entered the imaginary pandemic largely ignorant of the lie of virology & "infectious" agents. As I am a prolific researcher I waded through the hypocrisy of immunology, virology & "vaccinology" & then had a lateral, serendipitous realization: all this yammering about the ACE2 receptor caused me to revisit "receptors" to find that, ta da, none have been shown to exist. When reviewing Malone's mRNA patents & braggadocios Baric's "inserts" into said RNA of said virus what did I again discover? Ta da: no one has actually seen RNA/DNA, period. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but, in order to modify or edit genomes don't you actually have to have a strand of said DNA/RNA to work with? While my unproven hypothesis is that harmonics are what cause interaction/efficaciousness of chemicals introduced to the cell, the cell itself is the receptor & based on its's harmonic level (indicator of health) it's interaction with adjacent cells becomes systemic & our health & functionality is determined by that alone. Stress, injury, poisoning & malnutrition impair said harmonics leading to a dis-eased state. Just sayin...
I believe, now, that most of what we believe about cellular biology is simply unproven speculation or outright codswallop, just as "viruses" are.
Bless you for what you're doing.
Rick
Thanks for sharing that, Rick. It's amazing what we find when we investigate with a genuinely-open mind.
There may be a harmonics aspect to cellular interaction, yet I see so much more that I don't think we can pretend to understand it. I call it 'divine intelligence', and in my view we're allowing human personality to fog our vision when we try to reduce life to simple phenomena that we think we have a grasp of.
This is a theory with merit. After that ego contest (Jeff Green) my brain about exploded. Thank you for bringing the discussion back to earth. I just can't wrap my brain around a non-living, subatomic particle that, once entering a cell, suddenly becomes alive and replicating to the point it destroys the host. I can handle that bacteria are level 1 cleaning system sitting in a neutral symbiotic state when not being called to duty, with additional levels of fungus and then yeast (or is it the other way around...?) according to the level of cleaning up needed, and then once the job is done, returning back to the innocuous neutral bacterium level. I can believe in microwave radiation causing cellular damage and destruction because of energy frequencies, as well as energy frequencies that can heal (re: Rife), crystals for healing and abstracting energy from the ether to convert it to be used practically. But the theory of a virus being something that in turn causes disease and spike proteins that rampage without any restraint... Nope, just can't do it.
Hi Laura,
You are spot on in this. Life, left to it's own devices/design flourishes & expands. The concept of cooties that can "lay inert" for years without sustenance & then spring into action by some recognition that they have, by some nefarious methodology, entered the correct host in the correct tissue & now spring into action is simply ludicrous. This same idiocy applies to the theory that genes cause cancer, or specific hormones (required for life) or even sunlight. Cancer was proven to be a metabolic disorder long ago, apart from radiation poisoning. Glad to see someone else understands frequencies & their harmonic interaction with our cells/self.
Has the 1913 Nobel Prize winning research for Anaphylaxis by Charles Richet crossed your path yet? It's illuminating in that it explains that non-self proteins cause anaphylaxis when injected into the body. So, basically, this information has been available since 1913, which just happens to fall on the timeline for the Rockefeller takeover with the Flexnor Report.
I had not seen this but will give it a read. It sounds very much along the lines of the "vaccine" farce when one reads how a chemical soup is injected into animal brains & then, what a surprise, a severe reaction or death occurs verifying a "virus" which is then "attenuated" & mixed with more soup & toxic aluminum or mercury & injected numerous times into children to proffer "immunity" while actually destroying the immune system.
The populace (incl. Dr's) is largely unaware of the Flexner Report & the legal fracas that ensued which shut down real doctors & teaching & substituted the toxic drug paradigm we see today.
I believe we may be walking along the same path. It is a pleasure to meet you.
Et tu aussi. Be blessed.
Interesting, and yes no doubt that harmonics play a huge role.
I've not looked carefully into the RNA/DNA stuff myself, but keep hearing that the related claims, and lots of the cellular biology, are also based on nonsense. Perhaps I'll do some FOIs one day on that topic.
A FOI on "ACE2 receptor" (to CDC) yielded just 1 paper and it seemed pretty ridiculous. I didn't word the request very well so might try that one again one day.
Thanks for your kind words. Cheers :)
Dennis is correct. Christine is unhinged. All you have to do is look at the time-lapse viral plaque assay to show that a virus and not "toxins" cause the cytopathic effects observed by bacteriophages. Sam Bailey recently did a "no hepatitis A exists" by cherry picking studies and ignoring every single one I provided her because the studies I provided her proved the existence of Hepatitis A.
Denis does not say Christine is unhinged.
He complains, correctly, about the people in the audience who behave like hooligans on this issue. A vigorous discussion is a very good thing, but the fanaticism shown by some people in the audience is bad.
The no-virus exist is not a cult or a psy-op. Show the good evidence for the case that pathogenic viruses exist as traditionally understood.
Explain how the purified particles fulfill the Koch's postulates. Or, if you have a better logical standard to prove the existence of pathogenic viruses, explain why it is better and then explain why pathogenic viruses can be shown to exist using that new standard and not the old standard.
Sure, there's a few fanatics confronting the virus con. But pretending that it's even remotely similar to the bullying, censorship, and outright violence and oppression that the Rockefeller medicine fanatics employ to maintain the lies renders a person exposed as an establishment drone. If Dennis can't see how ridiculous his whining is under these circumstances, then his stock plummets to zero.
When one pays back emotional violence and oppression with more emotional violence and oppression, then there is more emotional violence and oppression and the Rockefellers win again.
Fanaticism usually comes from the idolatry of ignorance.
It's a great business for a psychopath to foment fanaticism and exploit economically the new acolytes he has made. This can be done with any topic, because psychopaths don't care about truth and most people are idiots.
Denis (one 'n') is a fighter against ignorance and exploitation.
Try to go above the bullying and censorship that is so common among humans, in many contexts. Ascend one level and you will see economic exploitation.
In my humble opinion, the real problem is that Denis, like so many others, do not want to be in any way associated with the fanaticism of some crowds in the no virus side of the debate. Hooligans never achieved anything and won't achieve anything., but strategists and warriors always achieve something.
Who on the virus truth side is paying back with more emotional violence and oppression? Who on the virus truth side is outright banning all opposition and enforcing it via government, killing millions annually, and globally censoring, attacking, even jailing dissenters? Pretending there's any parity is ridiculous.
I agree generally with your sentiment, and I think the bullying is being grossly exaggerated and misrepresented by people looking for an excuse to remain irrational because it serves them. Considering the stakes, anyone who would be motivated to avoid looking at the truth of virology because someone was mean to them is beyond pathetic. It's just leftist strategy 101: turn everything upside-down, label good as evil, evil as good, oppressors as victims, etc. And if there is really people acting as hooligans and out to terrorize in the name of virus truth, then isn't it obvious that they're agitators for the Rockefeller establishment? I've been a virus-truther for more than 20 years and haven't met or seen one person who gets it and has any ill will toward others.
It's nice to know a veteran.
I don't argue there is a parity. It's more subtle. I know we are on the minority, and there can be no parity in absolute numbers or in relative numbers. My argument is that we need to be better and don't fall for tricks, and also that some people, who do not do personal attacks, are found guilty by association with other people who did, and then they also get attacked, and then they complain, with reason, that they do not deserve that.
I think part of the problem is that people think the other person started the bullying but it was retaliatory bullying and not initiatory, but the person complaining does not realize that they started the bullying (lack of self-awareness, which is common in traumatized people, which is fair to say is a set that includes 100% of adult people these days) or there is a misunderstanding in that the person retaliating perceived something as bullying that was not actually bullying (over-sensitivity.)
I've had stupid fights because I didn't realize there was an initial confusion. People expect abuse, and they perceive abuse even when there is no ill will. Also other people just love to fight and provoke fights all the time everywhere, it doesn't matter the topic, but one doesn't know that until later.
In any case, staying on topic is the most important thing. Stubbornly refuse to engage in distractions and other underhanded tactics. Eventually the opponent will start insulting or saying worse things.
Over time I've seen a few people who dislike Andy Kaufman precisely because he stubbornly refuses to engage in tricks. That unyielding attitude causes despair in exactly the right kind of people, which gives them away completely, and then they become deactivated. There were two or three Platonic dialogues about this.
Agree. Stefan Lanka, who I learned about virology from, also refuses to play the games, and it's why he's still going strong after almost 30 years of being in this fight for truth.
"bullying is being grossly exaggerated and misrepresented by people looking for an excuse to remain irrational" BINGO!!
That is not at all what Denis has indicated. He told people, publicly and in private emails (including to me), that he and his team were doing a deep, careful, methodical dive into virology, and in the end he totally copped out.
There is no need to be associated with fanaticism to explain the pseudoscience of virology.
And hello, there are far more yes-virus fanatics. There is absolutely no comparison to the insanity of yes-virus people. Yet Denis (and others who offer lame excuses for going along with yes-virus baloney) is A-OK with being associated with the yes-virus crowd.
He even referred to us at one point as "virus deniers".
I didn't know that. He backpedalled in the interview.
I understand he copped out, because telling the truth about virology implies getting censorship in the larger political debate, which is important to Rancourt.
He said "virus deniers" and then he said he shouldn't call us that. Personally, I don't care about being called a virus denier, because the sars virus does not exist, so I'm telling the truth, unlike the murderous communists scumbags who claim sars virus is real and still to this day say the vaccine works and has not killed anyone.
I don't compare the insanity between two sets of hooligans who don't care about rational debate. But I claim that the unscientific discourse of those who attack the person instead of the argument, from any side of this debate, are impeding the process of communicating and understanding the truth. In the case of the yes-virus fanatics, they have good reason to sabotage rational discourse: they have a fixed worldview and nothing can change that. But in the case of the no-virus fanatics, they are damaging their own people, and there is no good reason to be obnoxious with people on the other side who have not attacked anyone.
For example, you, Christine, have always focused on the issue and you have avoided personal attacks. You are a noble debater. You have responded in kind only after the other people start with insinuations or personal attacks. That's the way to do it. This is different from haunting people online and provoke them into an absurd exchange of insults that have nothing to do with the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or virology in general, which is what some bottom-feeders are known to do. That is exactly what yes-virus people need to never look into the arguments. They are now offended by a zealot, and then they wrongly deduce that the no-virus argument is probably a psyop or a cult. It's a bad deduction, based on the direct experience of receiving nonsensical hate mail by goons.
I don't believe any leader in this side has any responsibility in the fanatical behavior of people in the lower ranks. Everyone is responsible for their own behavior. And it's good for the foot-soldiers (figure of speech) to try their best to imitate the rational behavior from the leaders.
Also, there is a famous phrase "don't distract your enemy when they are making an error." The yes-virus thugs don't deserve any correction from me, for I'm not on their side. My people here must become better at logic and at rhetoric.
I've actually had a lot of 2nd thoughts about writing "have you lost your mind?" and even considered deleting that part of the title. But I do think it's fair in this situation. Not trying to attack Denis, so much as trying to "shake some sense into him" and others who think his backpedaling and snickering is cool.
"Denier" in this context implies (in my mind) that something is real and we deny its existence, that is why i have a problem with the term. It's like calling someone a science denier.
I think a lot of no-virus people are quite justifiably way past the stage of wanting debate/communication with yes-virus people. At this point, we demand science that backs up the virus claims and no one has any. And there's a big difference between calling out people who spew b.s. and calling out people who are actually correct. I don't see anything wrong with calling out people, although I do agree that some communications (on both sides) are a bit much.
"I understand he copped out, because telling the truth about virology implies getting censorship in the larger political debate, which is important to Rancourt" - if that's the case, he should have not told people for a year that he was doing a deep dive and would report back on this topic.
Prove existence of bio viruses and bacteriophages.
Making unsubstantiated statements is not enough.
Where did Denis say I'm unhinged?
Every study you have cited with me, I have looked at and none showed a "virus".
The plandemic is in essence a monetisation of human relationship.
- You took the jab in order to see them;
- You took the jab in order to feed them;
- You took the jab in order to emotionally be with them.i.e. If a key person in your life faces career(based on fake science) ruin, you stop recognising that scientific method shall apply on said fake science.
Fake money, fake reality.
" Like, they had a valid study that showed that the "virus" made the S protein (and other proteins) to show up," - no I don't think so - this is what Tom Cowans latest video explains - as they have not isolated the variable ("virus") - there is no way to show a relationship between that and the proteins. Regardless - glad to have another on board.. Yes indeed - everything is a lie - from them.
.
They're In Trouble Now.
There Is Nothing In The Air.
- Not With Gain Of Function.
That's The Hoax.
- And You Figured It Out.
.