Some of my colleagues and I had some back and forth with Jeff Green recently, in the comments under one of his blogs (a hit piece on Mike Stone of the incredible ViroLIEgy website). Jeff has now challenged my colleagues and I to answer some “basic questions”.
late 14c., "poisonous substance" from Latin virus "poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice," from Proto-Italic *weis-o-(s-) "poison," which is probably from a PIE root *ueis-, perhaps originally meaning "to melt away, to flow," used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to "poisonous fluid" (source also of Sanskrit visam "venom, poison," visah "poisonous;" Avestan vish- "poison;" Latin viscum "sticky substance, birdlime;" Greek ios "poison," ixos "mistletoe, birdlime;" Old Church Slavonic višnja "cherry;" Old Irish fi "poison;" Welsh gwy "poison").
VIRUS (among Physicians) a kind of watery stinking Matter, which issues out of Ulcers, being endued with eating and malignant Qualities. [Bailey's dictionary, 1770]
Please explain why the study of true viruses is called TOXINOLOGY: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Toxinology/en-en/ instead of VIROLOGY?! Toxinology is the specialized area of science that deals specifically with animal, plant, and microbial toxins.
Why won't virus debunkers tell the truth about what viruses really ARE? Why won't they inform their readers/listeners that germs exist and are HARMLESS because they are not microbes:
germ (n.)
mid-15c., "bud, sprout;" 1640s, "rudiment of a new organism in an existing one," from French germe "germ (of egg); bud, seed, fruit; offering," from Latin germen (genitive germinis) "spring, offshoot; sprout, bud," which is of uncertain origin, perhaps from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
The older sense is preserved in wheat germ and germ of an idea.
Why do they keep harping on terrain theory as the be-all end-all of vibrant health? You can have have the cleanest "terrain" of any human being but if you absorb/ingest/inhale or get bit, stung by or from a venomous/poisonous creature or plant & get sick &/or die, what good did your clean terrain do for you? Viruses are real in the form of any natural or man-made poisonous/venomous substances. No virus debunker has given any valid reason as to why the etymology of the word virus doesn't matter. True, they aren't pathogenic/contagious microbes. They can't be. They're liquids. Vaccines are viruses. A pox is caused by bacteria or viruses (toxins). Sebastien Powell on substack has excellent articles about other possibilities of why we're getting sick w/Cooties-19 or whatever: arsenic poisoning. Seems very likely to me. He knows viruses are poisonous substances. So does Starfire Codes on this website & Telegram..
What gives virus debunkers the right to declare viruses don't exist in any way, shape, or form & you better believe them? WHO gave them that authority? I learned what a true virus was from Tom Barnett in 2020 after this SARS hoax began. Would they tell him viruses don't exist at all?
I’ve just stumbled on to your work after with Mich interest been following Andy Kaufman and Sam Bailey for a while.
I would like to share your work but struggle a bit to find a summary page, if such exist, where the outline of your work with the FOI requests and responses are presented .
Can you our any of your followers point me in the right direction to a good link to share?
Clearly, there is only 1 reason for their arguments; i.e., they cannot prove the existence of anything that could be called a virus. If they could, they certainly would have done so by now. Imagine that your whole life's work is now shown to have been based on a fraud. It's little wonder they drag their heels and kick and scream as their worlds are shown to be little more than a scam.
I stumbled upon Jeff's work a while ago and was intrigued at first, and then immediately confused by his contradictory use of language. The fact that he INSISTS viruses exist, and that he seems to have a very different, convoluted explanation for them.... and then the fact that he is arrogant & egotistical - just like Steve Kirsch ("im right and everyone else is wrong")... was a BIG red flag for me.
Ultimately, i tend to lean in the pleomorphism camp - our bodies create necessary particles for the removal of toxins & dead cell debris (whether from apoptosis or necrosis).
And I also tend to lean toward Harold Hilmans work, so anyone relying on EM images, are not doing anything to replicate or view something that occurs naturally. That seems to be the most important point here - MOST of what is done in so-called scientific experiments are NOT representative of reality or the natural state. And the more we entertain this crap, the further we get from the truth.
"The study appears to be shielded from public scrutiny behind a paywall. Thus I have no way of assessing the claims made, by either Jeff or the review authors, about this (alleged “adenovirus”) structure..."
Surely this issue is important enough to spend $40 to examine alleged evidence of viruses?
When talking to everyday people, I simply ask them, "How can you prove that someone has 'covid'?" The "tests" are fraudulent, even the CDC admitted in August, 2021 (then retracted, but who cares; the same thing happend to the muzzle and by now even most of the last morons know that the muzzle is a dangerous torture/humiliation/obedience-training device). Moreover, every "doctor" knows that the same symptoms can be caused by a number of sources and the smarter "doctors" are even aware that the one cause = one illness is plain BS. Consequently, diagnoses cannot be built on symptoms alone.
I'm not going to stick the boot in on Jeff just yet, though I do think he could change his manner in the way in that he holds himself in debating this. There are 2 reasons for this: 1, he does not sink the the degrading levels of Kirsch et al. 2, His argument is that viruses are not contagious. So, essentially, as far as I see from my corner with a dunces hat on, you are both on my team, you just disagree, albeit on some quite critical fundamentals. Its hard to see what Jeff has to gain from his argument other than selling a few books and saving a bit of pride so I don't think he's driven by greed or power, so I'm willing to be more charitable towards him.
Good work though, Christine, very well crafted responses.
This seems like they're backing away from the current concept of viruses, that indeed they are moving while not wanting to give away their magic weapon of climate change "adaption";
"Jeff then declared that “the so-called pathogenic attributes of viruses are irrelevant to if such entities actually exist or not“
Hi Christine. I, a lowly engineer, have followed your FOIA requests from the beginning. I could write a chapter on the lunacy that a "protein" which can lay dormant for years will hijack cellular defense & subsume the cell DNA for replication. It serves no purpose vis a vie survival of the species & also serves no purpose in maintaining life or replication if the host is destroyed. There are those who believe "viruses" cull the weak but an integration of genomes would prove far more beneficial & efficient. Outside of human activity life flourishes. The whole purpose of isolation is, of course, to verify a UNIQUE pathogen not contaminated by a potpourri of multitudinous DNA samples, as you well know. No matter how finite the observation technique is, nothing is proved as an infectious agent without strict adherence to Koch's postulates, again, as you well know. Listening to the mind numbing tripe & mumbo jumbo of McCairn & others who have "proof" is a fool's errand as they CANNOT demonstrate a single, unique protein is causative for anything save, perhaps, for one's body reacting to foreign DNA. I appreciate your work immensely.
virus (n.)
late 14c., "poisonous substance" from Latin virus "poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice," from Proto-Italic *weis-o-(s-) "poison," which is probably from a PIE root *ueis-, perhaps originally meaning "to melt away, to flow," used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to "poisonous fluid" (source also of Sanskrit visam "venom, poison," visah "poisonous;" Avestan vish- "poison;" Latin viscum "sticky substance, birdlime;" Greek ios "poison," ixos "mistletoe, birdlime;" Old Church Slavonic višnja "cherry;" Old Irish fi "poison;" Welsh gwy "poison").
VIRUS (among Physicians) a kind of watery stinking Matter, which issues out of Ulcers, being endued with eating and malignant Qualities. [Bailey's dictionary, 1770]
Please explain why the study of true viruses is called TOXINOLOGY: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Toxinology/en-en/ instead of VIROLOGY?! Toxinology is the specialized area of science that deals specifically with animal, plant, and microbial toxins.
Why won't virus debunkers tell the truth about what viruses really ARE? Why won't they inform their readers/listeners that germs exist and are HARMLESS because they are not microbes:
germ (n.)
mid-15c., "bud, sprout;" 1640s, "rudiment of a new organism in an existing one," from French germe "germ (of egg); bud, seed, fruit; offering," from Latin germen (genitive germinis) "spring, offshoot; sprout, bud," which is of uncertain origin, perhaps from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.
The older sense is preserved in wheat germ and germ of an idea.
Why do they keep harping on terrain theory as the be-all end-all of vibrant health? You can have have the cleanest "terrain" of any human being but if you absorb/ingest/inhale or get bit, stung by or from a venomous/poisonous creature or plant & get sick &/or die, what good did your clean terrain do for you? Viruses are real in the form of any natural or man-made poisonous/venomous substances. No virus debunker has given any valid reason as to why the etymology of the word virus doesn't matter. True, they aren't pathogenic/contagious microbes. They can't be. They're liquids. Vaccines are viruses. A pox is caused by bacteria or viruses (toxins). Sebastien Powell on substack has excellent articles about other possibilities of why we're getting sick w/Cooties-19 or whatever: arsenic poisoning. Seems very likely to me. He knows viruses are poisonous substances. So does Starfire Codes on this website & Telegram..
What gives virus debunkers the right to declare viruses don't exist in any way, shape, or form & you better believe them? WHO gave them that authority? I learned what a true virus was from Tom Barnett in 2020 after this SARS hoax began. Would they tell him viruses don't exist at all?
Hi Christine,
I’ve just stumbled on to your work after with Mich interest been following Andy Kaufman and Sam Bailey for a while.
I would like to share your work but struggle a bit to find a summary page, if such exist, where the outline of your work with the FOI requests and responses are presented .
Can you our any of your followers point me in the right direction to a good link to share?
Excellent work as usual, Christine. Would love to interview for my podcast sometime ... https://www.bitchute.com/channel/0E4xE82ZTGHW/
Clearly, there is only 1 reason for their arguments; i.e., they cannot prove the existence of anything that could be called a virus. If they could, they certainly would have done so by now. Imagine that your whole life's work is now shown to have been based on a fraud. It's little wonder they drag their heels and kick and scream as their worlds are shown to be little more than a scam.
sci-hub is an unapproved source for papers if you don't have institutional access.
I stumbled upon Jeff's work a while ago and was intrigued at first, and then immediately confused by his contradictory use of language. The fact that he INSISTS viruses exist, and that he seems to have a very different, convoluted explanation for them.... and then the fact that he is arrogant & egotistical - just like Steve Kirsch ("im right and everyone else is wrong")... was a BIG red flag for me.
Ultimately, i tend to lean in the pleomorphism camp - our bodies create necessary particles for the removal of toxins & dead cell debris (whether from apoptosis or necrosis).
And I also tend to lean toward Harold Hilmans work, so anyone relying on EM images, are not doing anything to replicate or view something that occurs naturally. That seems to be the most important point here - MOST of what is done in so-called scientific experiments are NOT representative of reality or the natural state. And the more we entertain this crap, the further we get from the truth.
https://big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/index.html
Massey writes:
"The study appears to be shielded from public scrutiny behind a paywall. Thus I have no way of assessing the claims made, by either Jeff or the review authors, about this (alleged “adenovirus”) structure..."
Surely this issue is important enough to spend $40 to examine alleged evidence of viruses?
Important stuff.
When talking to everyday people, I simply ask them, "How can you prove that someone has 'covid'?" The "tests" are fraudulent, even the CDC admitted in August, 2021 (then retracted, but who cares; the same thing happend to the muzzle and by now even most of the last morons know that the muzzle is a dangerous torture/humiliation/obedience-training device). Moreover, every "doctor" knows that the same symptoms can be caused by a number of sources and the smarter "doctors" are even aware that the one cause = one illness is plain BS. Consequently, diagnoses cannot be built on symptoms alone.
I'm not going to stick the boot in on Jeff just yet, though I do think he could change his manner in the way in that he holds himself in debating this. There are 2 reasons for this: 1, he does not sink the the degrading levels of Kirsch et al. 2, His argument is that viruses are not contagious. So, essentially, as far as I see from my corner with a dunces hat on, you are both on my team, you just disagree, albeit on some quite critical fundamentals. Its hard to see what Jeff has to gain from his argument other than selling a few books and saving a bit of pride so I don't think he's driven by greed or power, so I'm willing to be more charitable towards him.
Good work though, Christine, very well crafted responses.
This seems like they're backing away from the current concept of viruses, that indeed they are moving while not wanting to give away their magic weapon of climate change "adaption";
"Jeff then declared that “the so-called pathogenic attributes of viruses are irrelevant to if such entities actually exist or not“
Jeff is a smart chap, but unfortunately not quite as smart as he believes himself to be. Proof that ego can indeed poison any well.
Hi Christine. I, a lowly engineer, have followed your FOIA requests from the beginning. I could write a chapter on the lunacy that a "protein" which can lay dormant for years will hijack cellular defense & subsume the cell DNA for replication. It serves no purpose vis a vie survival of the species & also serves no purpose in maintaining life or replication if the host is destroyed. There are those who believe "viruses" cull the weak but an integration of genomes would prove far more beneficial & efficient. Outside of human activity life flourishes. The whole purpose of isolation is, of course, to verify a UNIQUE pathogen not contaminated by a potpourri of multitudinous DNA samples, as you well know. No matter how finite the observation technique is, nothing is proved as an infectious agent without strict adherence to Koch's postulates, again, as you well know. Listening to the mind numbing tripe & mumbo jumbo of McCairn & others who have "proof" is a fool's errand as they CANNOT demonstrate a single, unique protein is causative for anything save, perhaps, for one's body reacting to foreign DNA. I appreciate your work immensely.
Rick.