It makes it pretty clear, I think, that I don't think 'viruses' are literally exactly the same as 'exosomes'. The article shows how virologists are unable to differentiate the two, whilst claiming one is pathogenic, and the other isn't, that one is able to 'replicate', whilst the other is 'created'. I make it clear that this idea of 'replication' is entirely theoretical, and therefore I do not think that 'viruses' as they are described exist.
That doesn't mean the particles themselves don't exist, the question is; what are they, and what are their properties. I actually used the unicorn analogy in that article. The pictures of particles do not prove in any way shape or form that said particles have the properties that virologists attribute to them.
So I don't really understand why you are persisting on making out that I think they are exactly the same. Where have I said that? How have I implied it? Do you really think that if I genuinely thought it, we would even be having this conversation? Of course not, I would just call them 'viruses' and be done with it.
I will add that this was a common theme in Cowan's video, which I took issue with. For instance, he states that I attribute various 'disease' to various 'viruses', when of course, I do no such thing – I am merely stating what THEY say. The purpose of this segment was to demonstrate that all of these allegedly disparate 'diseases' caused by allegedly disparate 'viruses' and other microorganisms are really no such thing. That may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to others who are new to the subject.
You further state that you are unclear on the main thesis. I rewatched the video, and at the end, I make it quite clear, when I state: "Malaria actually provides one of the best examples for how differences in testing protocols distract people with endless lists of diseases and alleged pathogens, and ignore the common denominator, which appears to be mass poisoning."
Of course, you wouldn't have seen this bit, or indeed the entire segment on exosomes, because you didn't watch it in full.
At your request, I also made this clear in the introduction to the video:
"The core hypothesis that is presented could be summed up as follows; the plethora of seemingly disparate ‘diseases’ are in fact varying symptoms of poisoning. There is one poison in particular, arsenic, that we have been able to link back to just about every ‘disease’ known to us. Virology can essentially be thought of as a subset of toxicology."
When I say "a subset of toxicology", what I mean is that the observations they are making – regardless of whether they realise it or not – are of what happens when you inject contaminated (poisoned) tissue into cell culture, 'animal models' etc. This is entirely consistent with what 'terrain theorists' keep saying; if you poison cells, they start to break down. Whether you like it or not, that is what they are effectively doing in their labs; they are observing what happens to cells when they are poisoned, and mistakenly (or fraudulently) attributing the break down to the particles they call 'viruses'. That doesn't mean the particles are 'contagious', or 'self-replicating' – it simply means what I said above. I don't understand why this is contentious, and if you read through my Substack, you will see that at no point, ever, do I suggest that these particles are the *cause* of any given 'disease'.
Hopefully that's cleared things up for you. If you have a clearer way of enunciating the core hypothesis, I am happy to take suggestions.
Thank you, greatly appreciated 🙏 Yes, I believe you are correct – the 'breakdown products' thing never made much sense to me, as the particles seen under TEM, in some cases, appear to be fairly homogenous in their shape (I suppose I would expect them to be a little more irregular if they were nothing more than debris).
In the literature, they do seem to differentiate so-called 'apoptotic bodies' (which I think are what Cowan et al. are referring to when they are talking about 'exosomes') from these so-called 'exosomes'. As you point out, it would appear these are a 'protocol' of sorts for intracellular communication. I will be bringing this point up in the response I am writing to Cowan's review.
The interviewer has some interesting stuff on his channel. He is a Corbett community member and has advocated for the no virus position, but is admittedly not well versed in all the arguments, with the guy from the Skeptiko podcast.
The interviewee doesn't out and out say no virus but has a free ebook he plugs in the interview and talks about the terrain based paradigm.
Bill, did you read the article I sent you? If not please do so before you respond to this.
https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg
It makes it pretty clear, I think, that I don't think 'viruses' are literally exactly the same as 'exosomes'. The article shows how virologists are unable to differentiate the two, whilst claiming one is pathogenic, and the other isn't, that one is able to 'replicate', whilst the other is 'created'. I make it clear that this idea of 'replication' is entirely theoretical, and therefore I do not think that 'viruses' as they are described exist.
That doesn't mean the particles themselves don't exist, the question is; what are they, and what are their properties. I actually used the unicorn analogy in that article. The pictures of particles do not prove in any way shape or form that said particles have the properties that virologists attribute to them.
So I don't really understand why you are persisting on making out that I think they are exactly the same. Where have I said that? How have I implied it? Do you really think that if I genuinely thought it, we would even be having this conversation? Of course not, I would just call them 'viruses' and be done with it.
I will add that this was a common theme in Cowan's video, which I took issue with. For instance, he states that I attribute various 'disease' to various 'viruses', when of course, I do no such thing – I am merely stating what THEY say. The purpose of this segment was to demonstrate that all of these allegedly disparate 'diseases' caused by allegedly disparate 'viruses' and other microorganisms are really no such thing. That may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to others who are new to the subject.
You further state that you are unclear on the main thesis. I rewatched the video, and at the end, I make it quite clear, when I state: "Malaria actually provides one of the best examples for how differences in testing protocols distract people with endless lists of diseases and alleged pathogens, and ignore the common denominator, which appears to be mass poisoning."
Of course, you wouldn't have seen this bit, or indeed the entire segment on exosomes, because you didn't watch it in full.
At your request, I also made this clear in the introduction to the video:
"The core hypothesis that is presented could be summed up as follows; the plethora of seemingly disparate ‘diseases’ are in fact varying symptoms of poisoning. There is one poison in particular, arsenic, that we have been able to link back to just about every ‘disease’ known to us. Virology can essentially be thought of as a subset of toxicology."
When I say "a subset of toxicology", what I mean is that the observations they are making – regardless of whether they realise it or not – are of what happens when you inject contaminated (poisoned) tissue into cell culture, 'animal models' etc. This is entirely consistent with what 'terrain theorists' keep saying; if you poison cells, they start to break down. Whether you like it or not, that is what they are effectively doing in their labs; they are observing what happens to cells when they are poisoned, and mistakenly (or fraudulently) attributing the break down to the particles they call 'viruses'. That doesn't mean the particles are 'contagious', or 'self-replicating' – it simply means what I said above. I don't understand why this is contentious, and if you read through my Substack, you will see that at no point, ever, do I suggest that these particles are the *cause* of any given 'disease'.
Hopefully that's cleared things up for you. If you have a clearer way of enunciating the core hypothesis, I am happy to take suggestions.
Thank you, greatly appreciated 🙏 Yes, I believe you are correct – the 'breakdown products' thing never made much sense to me, as the particles seen under TEM, in some cases, appear to be fairly homogenous in their shape (I suppose I would expect them to be a little more irregular if they were nothing more than debris).
In the literature, they do seem to differentiate so-called 'apoptotic bodies' (which I think are what Cowan et al. are referring to when they are talking about 'exosomes') from these so-called 'exosomes'. As you point out, it would appear these are a 'protocol' of sorts for intracellular communication. I will be bringing this point up in the response I am writing to Cowan's review.
Thanks again for your comment.
thank you I really enjoyed both presentations and learnt some things.
Thanks Bill, I missed this one somehow till i saw your post.
Have you ever heard of the guy being interviewed here?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jouDsudW7t62/
The interviewer has some interesting stuff on his channel. He is a Corbett community member and has advocated for the no virus position, but is admittedly not well versed in all the arguments, with the guy from the Skeptiko podcast.
The interviewee doesn't out and out say no virus but has a free ebook he plugs in the interview and talks about the terrain based paradigm.
Its an interesting listen if nothing else.