I want to believe there are no viruses. I think I’m sort of stuck in the middle. I see the logic and the arguments make sense. But I don’t know how to get out of what I “know” and live consistently with the idea. Like my vaccine, it has taken years and lots of research to change my position. Slowly I see what’s real and make changes. So I’ll keep reading and considering and being open minded.
Aug 18, 2022·edited Aug 18, 2022Liked by Bill Huston
The belief belongs to those, who believe in "viruses," although there is literally no proof of their existence. There are microscopic particles, but they are likely to be exosomes, containing fragmented DNA, but showing no signs of life. They exhibit some uniformity, depending on the toxins the body is getting rid of, but there is a virtually unlimited number of varieties of them, giving room for inventing plenty more "infectious viruses" and serving as excuses for more oppressing edicts and mass poisonings by lethal injections.
You just take for granted that it’s true. I’ve heard the arguments saying isolation has never been done. I’ve listened to Sam Bailey walk through the steps of checking the footnotes in all the books. I want to see it for myself and it’s hard to do that. BUT, I’m intrigued and open. I guess I’m not convinced of either yet. I see where it could all be a big lie and I’m still researching the no-virus position. I keep coming back to Galileo. If his contemporaries were so wrong, isn’t it possible the germ theory is all wrong?
Aug 18, 2022·edited Aug 18, 2022Liked by Bill Huston
It's a logical fallacy to prove something doesn't exist. In Wittgenstein's words, it is impossible to prove that there is no rhinoceros in the room (proof requires logic, but the presence of a rhino is an empirical truth judgment). :)
Sitting on the fence might prevent you from preparing for what's coming in the near future, but at least you take responsibility for your decision and nobody can hope for more!
And please, remember, I don't want to be right here, either:
My comment wasn’t meant to say that I want to see viruses proven to not exist... my point was just to express that it’s hard to break from what you’ve always been taught. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. This subject is so big for me and I’m learning daily. My current status if you are curious: question everything and look for ways to keep my body running smoothly in the most natural ways I can. Treat the root cause and not the symptom. Stay away from big pharma. Find alternatives to traditional doctors for myself and my kids.
I’ll consider your comment about sitting on the fence and read the link. Thanks.
"No viruses" cannot be proven. What can be shown is that there are no scientific proofs for the existence of viruses. I know they sound similar, but these are very different.
But several people in #TeamNoVirus are making this bold statement after examining 100 years of published papers on the subject that there is no basis in fact or the scientific literature (using legitimate methods) for the existence of viruses.
So yeah, I could say, "There is no proof Unicorns exist". But I'm going to be bold and say, "Unicorns do not exist" after examining all of the evidence.
But it's more accurate to say the evidence provided does not prove the existence of the particle as defined.
Doesn't mean a theoretical virus can't exist, IMO. Maybe a unicorn can also theoretically exist as well. Some people believe in god, yet there's no prof. But I will say that rather than saying god does not exist. I think it's more precise.
At this point I am can say that I think the evidence is lacking for an entity Sars-Cov-2 as a viral pathogen, the stuff I have read and understood at any rate. I think that there is a difference between the phenomenon of contagion or the appearance of this phenomenon and if a particle exists or can be generated in the lab. Whatever structures virologists are making or cultivating in the lab might be real entities, but the properties of being infectious have not been established based on the papers I have read.
I am not sure contagion cannot exist, or that it does not exist, but the lab experiments haven't demonstrated it. I have been trained in the germ theory paradigm so maybe I'm biased still, but am trying to keep an open mind and not be closed from seeing other perspectives. Science should be about discovery and collaboration.
Wonderful article and references. I do concur with Ray Horvath that Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, not an insecticide. Editing that statement would remove a point that people could point to and call your other data "wrong" as well. Sharing!
> Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, not an insecticide.
Are you quite sure about that?
Why don't you use your favorite internet search engine, plug in "Ivermectin Insectide" and tell me how many results you get.
Insecticide, boticide, anti-parasitic, sheep dip... Whatever you want to call it, it IS a POISON. It is ACUTELY TOXIC, and causes "specific organ failure" (liver).
Like i said, I will have an article coming on Ivermectin coming soon, because it is a subject which MANY people are confused about. But we first need cover the basics first.
Ok. If you prefer to knit pick... From the NIH website: "Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well-tolerated.1,2 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection."
No one said you can't also use it in making an Insecticide. But that would be not the same exact product. So, if you have to be Right.. leave it. If you want to be more Correct, change it. Cheers!
It's not a nit-pick. It's a FACT. Ivermectin is an ACUTELY TOXIC POISON. It is a broad spectrum BIOCIDE used to KILL LIFE, including parasitic worms, single-celled parasites, insects, larvae, sucking lice, mange mites, horn flies, etc.
The official narrative is false and its terminology must not be used, because it confirms it even by the "opposition."
Still, aligning the history of the Rockefellerian "Medicine" with the last two years of new developments that are clearly advancing the world towards the publically-announced NWO, can lead to certain conclusions.
The symptoms do exist, except there is no evidence of any "virus," "viral transmission," or a "pandemic." Germ Theory is indeed a fraud:
The symptoms started when the massive 5G installations took place in China and in Northern Italy. I still don't believe that the cause is only 5G, because there have been too many concurrent modes of poisonings (radiation, toxins, parasites, and pathogens) that may have contributed to the symptoms.
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug (not an "insecticide") and malaria, for one, was certainly cound in some of the "covid" vials. Consequently, it occasionally works.
So, if all elements of the public discourse were dumped, what would remain to discuss and explain the causes of the symptoms?
My memory for names is terrible, but I double checked the names. Apparently, there is nothing new for me by these people, but I must have used all of them during formulating my own opinion.
> My memory for names is terrible, but I double checked the names.
Yeah, those are all the experts who've done the original research. The only authority you seem to cite in your work is yourself, which IMHO weakens your work.
Apparently, you and I haven't agreed on the subject, unless it is the "covid" symptoms. I pointed out a misunderstanding in our conversation about them in another message a couple of minutes ago.
Other than that, I simply express my views and make no attempt at persuading anyone, which includes you. :)
No, not only flu-like symptoms, although those have usually emerged during times of major air pollution and/or electric installations.
Some independent research found malaria (it was a video about a year ago on Brighteon or something like that), but I'm sure that's not the only parasite dispersed. Proof: the use of Ivermectin "discouraged," because it occasionally works. :)
You haven't failed. Please, notice that I "Liked" your article. My work simply contributes to it. My question was that the "covid" symptoms must be attributed to something in order to sound halfway convincing for those, who believe in the "virus."
So let me get this right--- you are claiming that there are symptoms "of COVID" which are not flu-like, but you cannot proved a SINGLE reference to support your assertion?
I didn't say they were not flu-like, but I claimed (and still do) that there have been other novel symptoms at the same time, when "covid" appeared. I also said that 5G was most likely to cause "covid" symptoms, but there must have been other causes, too.
Never thought I was not clear enough and what I said you and I agreed on. I thought you considered your own best judgment a good enough reference. :)
Good work! The only thing i would have done differently here is the "2. There is no virus." I would have instead said "There is no proof of a virus." A negative cannot be proven. I know, semantics, but words can hurt you if used imprecisely. I am surprised to hear that you're encountering a bunch of people who don't think there is a proven virus and yet believe in a bioweapon. I know of just a couple like what.
Jeff, you seem to have left a similar comment elsewhere. So let me reiterate my reply:
> I would have instead said "There is no proof of a virus." A negative cannot be proven
Yes, Jeff. I am aware of the distinction.
But several people in #TeamNoVirus are making this bold statement after examining 100 years of published papers on the subject that there is no basis in fact or the scientific literature (using legitimate methods) for the existence of viruses.
So yeah, I could say, "There is no proof Unicorns exist". But I'm going to be bold and say, "Unicorns do not exist" after examining all of the evidence.
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]
virulent (adj.)
c. 1400, in reference to wounds, ulcers, etc., "full of corrupt or poisonous matter," from Latin virulentus "poisonous," from virus "poison" (see virus). Figurative sense of "violent, spiteful" is attested from c. 1600. Related: Virulently.
virulence (n.)
1660s, from Late Latin virulentia, from Latin virulentus "full of poison" (see virulent). Related: Virulency (1610s).
The study of viruses, instead of being called "virology," is called TOXINOLOGY:
1.(MeSH)The science concerned with the detection, chemical composition, and biological action of toxic substances or poisons and the treatment and prevention of toxic manifestations.;The science concerned with the toxins produced by BACTERIA, PLANTS, AND ANIMALS.
Toxinology is the specialized area of science that deals specifically with animal, plant, and microbial toxins. Prof. Dietrich Mebs has defined toxinology as "the scientific discipline dealing with microbial, plant and animal venoms, poisons and toxins".
Toxins and toxinology is not solely focussed on adverse effects. An increasing number of toxins are important as RESEARCH tools, unlocking secrets of disease, or as diagnostic agents in hospital laboratories, or as therapeutic agents to treat human disease, including anti-cancer agents, anti-epileptic agents, anti-clotting agents, analgesics, anti-hypertensive drugs, TO NAME BUT A FEW. This is a very rich field for RESEARCH.
A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins.
A poisonous or harmful nonbiological substance, such as a pollutant.
Any of various similar poisons, related to proteins, formed in certain plants, as ricin, or secreted by certain animals, as snake venom: toxins, when injected into animals or humans, typically initiate the formation of antitoxins.
Any of various poisonous compounds produced by some microorganisms and causing certain diseases.
toxin (n.)
"organic poison," especially one produced by bacteria in an animal body, 1886, from toxic + -in (2).
poison (n.)
c. 1200, poisoun, "a deadly potion or substance," also figuratively, "spiritually corrupting ideas; evil intentions," from Old French poison, puison (12c., Modern French poison) "a drink," especially a medical drink, later "a (magic) potion, poisonous drink" (14c.), from Latin potionem (nominative potio) "a drinking, a drink," also "poisonous drink" (Cicero), from potare "to drink" (from PIE root *po(i)- "to drink").
vaccine (n.)
"matter [INGREDIENTS] used in vaccination," 1846, from French vaccin, noun use of adjective, from Latin vaccina, fem. of vaccinus "pertaining to a cow" (see vaccination). Related: Vaccinal; vaccinic.
As you can see, viruses do exist as harmful POISONOUS/VENOMOUS substances, NOT as pathogenic contagious microbes (that have never been isolated).
Viruses are DEFINED to be "pathogenic contagious microbes". You can't just come along and say Viruses are not those things. We have to agree on the meanings of words if we are going to have a conversation.
I know you won't click on these links bc you don't have the mind capacity to understand truth, logic.
All you have is your intellectual vanity. You can't see it because your brain is wired (thanks to your Commie masters) to automatically reject truth & logic. They can't penetrate that thick head of yours.
> All you have is your intellectual vanity. You can't see it because your brain is wired (thanks to your Commie masters) to automatically reject truth & logic. They can't penetrate that thick head of yours.
Commie masters? Thick head?
Why don't you find someone else to abuse?
Obviously what I have to offer is not your cup-of-tea.
You obviously don't have comprehension skills related to reading. I didn't make up definitions. I gave the links to the etymology of these words. If you didn't click on them that's YOUR problem. You've been so brainsoiled by the Commies that you can't recognize simple truth. I don't care what others say viruses are/n't. They ARE NOT the sole arbiters of truth. MODERN DICTIONARIES (medical or other wise) are not the sole arbiter of truth. SCIENCE is not the sole arbiter of truth (Climate change, men can have periods/babies/be female, modern definitions of virus, vaccine, germ, etc., & more, are complete scientific hoaxes.)
etymology (n.)
late 14c., ethimolegia "facts of the origin and development of a word," from Old French etimologie, ethimologie (14c., Modern French étymologie), from Latin etymologia, from Greek etymologia "analysis of a word to find its true origin," properly "study of the true sense (of a word)," with -logia "study of, a speaking of" (see -logy) + etymon "true sense, original meaning," neuter of etymos "true, real, actual," related to eteos "true," which perhaps is cognate with Sanskrit satyah, Gothic sunjis, Old English soð "true," from a PIE *set- "be stable." Latinized by Cicero as veriloquium.
folk-etymology (n.)
1882; see folk (n.) + etymology. Perhaps translating German Volksetymologie (by 1852). The German word was used in English by 1876.
By Folk-etymology is meant the influence exercised upon words, both as to their form and meaning, by the popular use and misuse of them. In a special sense, it is intended to denote the corruption which words undergo, owing either to false ideas about their derivation, or to a mistaken analogy with other words to which they are supposed to be related.
I DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH ANYONE WHO BELIEVES A LIE FROM THE ORIGINAL (& MODERN) GRIFTERS WHO HIJACKED THE MEANINGS OF CERTAIN WORDS & I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN'T EVEN BE BOTHERED TO CAREFULLY READ WHAT I WROTE & CLICK ON THE LINKS.
No government institution/agency/industry/individual has the CONSTITUTIONAL authority, power, etc. to change the etymology of any words. It's ALLOWED to happen because people are too lazy & distracted to pay attention to the Commies (your masters) changing the definitions of words to control the narrative & take away our rights. You go ahead & keep on in your wonder, dream, & wish fantasy world. Keep worshiping at the alter of your fake god "science" You're as stupid as a flerftard, (flattard, whatever) you wishy-washy (feeble or insipid in quality or character; lacking strength or boldness:
I won't read it or anything else you post. You can't prove anything you say bc all your sources are from Commie scientists/politicians (including RINOs)/& news media.
I understand what you're saying, and you're right.
But the problem with David Martin is that he's all over the place. He'll say something like that in one instant, then the next he's talking about patented virus genomes, and lab leaks of engineered bioweapons. I've heard him contradict himself *during the same lecture*! More than once!
> He is not talking about viruses, he's talking about synthetic sequences.
Synthetic sequences.... of what?
> And he has stated just as clearly that he doesn't believe the lab leak theory
Yeah, you probably did hear that. Now go back and listen again. Listen for him talking about HIV spliced onto the coronavirus genome, patented coronavirus genomes, and manufactured "chimeras".
I can give you a dozen examples of this, from different lectures. He quite often contradicts himself in the same lecture. Sometimes, IN THE SAME SENTENCE!
Pure gobbledegook nonsensical pseudoscientific hogwash.
He's pure confusion. It hurts my brain listening to him. To each his own.
Nice work, as always! You can’t catch an imaginary virus
I want to believe there are no viruses. I think I’m sort of stuck in the middle. I see the logic and the arguments make sense. But I don’t know how to get out of what I “know” and live consistently with the idea. Like my vaccine, it has taken years and lots of research to change my position. Slowly I see what’s real and make changes. So I’ll keep reading and considering and being open minded.
The belief belongs to those, who believe in "viruses," although there is literally no proof of their existence. There are microscopic particles, but they are likely to be exosomes, containing fragmented DNA, but showing no signs of life. They exhibit some uniformity, depending on the toxins the body is getting rid of, but there is a virtually unlimited number of varieties of them, giving room for inventing plenty more "infectious viruses" and serving as excuses for more oppressing edicts and mass poisonings by lethal injections.
You just take for granted that it’s true. I’ve heard the arguments saying isolation has never been done. I’ve listened to Sam Bailey walk through the steps of checking the footnotes in all the books. I want to see it for myself and it’s hard to do that. BUT, I’m intrigued and open. I guess I’m not convinced of either yet. I see where it could all be a big lie and I’m still researching the no-virus position. I keep coming back to Galileo. If his contemporaries were so wrong, isn’t it possible the germ theory is all wrong?
Sorry for the ramblings. I’m distracted. 🤪
It's a logical fallacy to prove something doesn't exist. In Wittgenstein's words, it is impossible to prove that there is no rhinoceros in the room (proof requires logic, but the presence of a rhino is an empirical truth judgment). :)
Sitting on the fence might prevent you from preparing for what's coming in the near future, but at least you take responsibility for your decision and nobody can hope for more!
And please, remember, I don't want to be right here, either:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong
Nobody knows the whole truth, but we can still live in peace with each other!
My comment wasn’t meant to say that I want to see viruses proven to not exist... my point was just to express that it’s hard to break from what you’ve always been taught. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. This subject is so big for me and I’m learning daily. My current status if you are curious: question everything and look for ways to keep my body running smoothly in the most natural ways I can. Treat the root cause and not the symptom. Stay away from big pharma. Find alternatives to traditional doctors for myself and my kids.
I’ll consider your comment about sitting on the fence and read the link. Thanks.
"No viruses" cannot be proven. What can be shown is that there are no scientific proofs for the existence of viruses. I know they sound similar, but these are very different.
Yes, Jeff. I am aware of the distinction.
But several people in #TeamNoVirus are making this bold statement after examining 100 years of published papers on the subject that there is no basis in fact or the scientific literature (using legitimate methods) for the existence of viruses.
So yeah, I could say, "There is no proof Unicorns exist". But I'm going to be bold and say, "Unicorns do not exist" after examining all of the evidence.
I was actually responding to "The Cogg Mom," :-) but i hear you.
But it's more accurate to say the evidence provided does not prove the existence of the particle as defined.
Doesn't mean a theoretical virus can't exist, IMO. Maybe a unicorn can also theoretically exist as well. Some people believe in god, yet there's no prof. But I will say that rather than saying god does not exist. I think it's more precise.
At this point I am can say that I think the evidence is lacking for an entity Sars-Cov-2 as a viral pathogen, the stuff I have read and understood at any rate. I think that there is a difference between the phenomenon of contagion or the appearance of this phenomenon and if a particle exists or can be generated in the lab. Whatever structures virologists are making or cultivating in the lab might be real entities, but the properties of being infectious have not been established based on the papers I have read.
I am not sure contagion cannot exist, or that it does not exist, but the lab experiments haven't demonstrated it. I have been trained in the germ theory paradigm so maybe I'm biased still, but am trying to keep an open mind and not be closed from seeing other perspectives. Science should be about discovery and collaboration.
Excellent summary, thank you Bill :)
Wonderful article and references. I do concur with Ray Horvath that Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, not an insecticide. Editing that statement would remove a point that people could point to and call your other data "wrong" as well. Sharing!
> Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic, not an insecticide.
Are you quite sure about that?
Why don't you use your favorite internet search engine, plug in "Ivermectin Insectide" and tell me how many results you get.
Insecticide, boticide, anti-parasitic, sheep dip... Whatever you want to call it, it IS a POISON. It is ACUTELY TOXIC, and causes "specific organ failure" (liver).
Like i said, I will have an article coming on Ivermectin coming soon, because it is a subject which MANY people are confused about. But we first need cover the basics first.
Ok. If you prefer to knit pick... From the NIH website: "Ivermectin is a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiparasitic drug used to treat several neglected tropical diseases, including onchocerciasis, helminthiases, and scabies.1 For these indications, ivermectin has been widely used and is generally well-tolerated.1,2 Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection."
No one said you can't also use it in making an Insecticide. But that would be not the same exact product. So, if you have to be Right.. leave it. If you want to be more Correct, change it. Cheers!
Well if you'd bothered to do this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ivermectin+insecticide
You'd see there are HUNDREDS of results like this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33189582/
It's not a nit-pick. It's a FACT. Ivermectin is an ACUTELY TOXIC POISON. It is a broad spectrum BIOCIDE used to KILL LIFE, including parasitic worms, single-celled parasites, insects, larvae, sucking lice, mange mites, horn flies, etc.
Ok, I re-read the way you expressed it. You point is made. Double Cheers!
The official narrative is false and its terminology must not be used, because it confirms it even by the "opposition."
Still, aligning the history of the Rockefellerian "Medicine" with the last two years of new developments that are clearly advancing the world towards the publically-announced NWO, can lead to certain conclusions.
The symptoms do exist, except there is no evidence of any "virus," "viral transmission," or a "pandemic." Germ Theory is indeed a fraud:
https://viroliegy.com/
The symptoms started when the massive 5G installations took place in China and in Northern Italy. I still don't believe that the cause is only 5G, because there have been too many concurrent modes of poisonings (radiation, toxins, parasites, and pathogens) that may have contributed to the symptoms.
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/evidence-that-covid-symptoms-came
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-few-more-sources-of-poisoning
In a more sarcastic tone:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-leading-causes-of-death-dangerous
But it doesn't matter:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/who-is-right-and-who-is-wrong
Modern "Medicine" has been a fraud for 120 years:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-disaster-of-modern-medicine
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug (not an "insecticide") and malaria, for one, was certainly cound in some of the "covid" vials. Consequently, it occasionally works.
So, if all elements of the public discourse were dumped, what would remain to discuss and explain the causes of the symptoms?
> The symptoms do exist
You mean flu-like symptoms, right?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html
> malaria, for one, was certainly cound in some of the "covid" vials.
Evidence or proof?
> what would remain to discuss and explain the causes of the symptoms?
I linked to multiple videos by Dr Tom Cowan, Dr Sam Bailey, Dr Amandha Vollmer, & Dr Tom Cowan.
Please review these links.
AGAIN, the PRIMARY POINT of this article is that we MUST STOP DOING THIS. Stop conflating "COVID Symptoms" with THE STORY of COVID.
This is exactly what you are continuing to do. So clearly I've failed in this article. 😢
My memory for names is terrible, but I double checked the names. Apparently, there is nothing new for me by these people, but I must have used all of them during formulating my own opinion.
> My memory for names is terrible, but I double checked the names.
Yeah, those are all the experts who've done the original research. The only authority you seem to cite in your work is yourself, which IMHO weakens your work.
This is journalism.
That's why I am "The Source" :)
However, my findings appear to be the same as those of your sources, which makes me quite a reliable source.
Moreover, my goals are to entertain, inform, and inspire. Convincing anyone is not among them.
Well you are clearly trying to persuade or convince me of something, or you wouldn't be writing here.
Apparently, you and I haven't agreed on the subject, unless it is the "covid" symptoms. I pointed out a misunderstanding in our conversation about them in another message a couple of minutes ago.
Other than that, I simply express my views and make no attempt at persuading anyone, which includes you. :)
No, not only flu-like symptoms, although those have usually emerged during times of major air pollution and/or electric installations.
Some independent research found malaria (it was a video about a year ago on Brighteon or something like that), but I'm sure that's not the only parasite dispersed. Proof: the use of Ivermectin "discouraged," because it occasionally works. :)
You haven't failed. Please, notice that I "Liked" your article. My work simply contributes to it. My question was that the "covid" symptoms must be attributed to something in order to sound halfway convincing for those, who believe in the "virus."
> No, not only flu-like symptoms
Yes, Flu-like symptoms.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html
What is your source for other symptoms of so-called "COVID'" apart from flu-like symptoms? I cited CDC.
Thx.
What is to be proven here, anyway?
So let me get this right--- you are claiming that there are symptoms "of COVID" which are not flu-like, but you cannot proved a SINGLE reference to support your assertion?
I didn't say they were not flu-like, but I claimed (and still do) that there have been other novel symptoms at the same time, when "covid" appeared. I also said that 5G was most likely to cause "covid" symptoms, but there must have been other causes, too.
Never thought I was not clear enough and what I said you and I agreed on. I thought you considered your own best judgment a good enough reference. :)
I don't acknowledge the CDC as any form of authority.
It doesn't matter what my sources are as long as what I am saying works. It does.
CDC is one of the main authorities of the official narrative, which is why I used it.
I do not consider CDC to be a competent authority on anything other than as a source of the official narrative.
Yes, but it cannot keep its story straight. :)
Good work! The only thing i would have done differently here is the "2. There is no virus." I would have instead said "There is no proof of a virus." A negative cannot be proven. I know, semantics, but words can hurt you if used imprecisely. I am surprised to hear that you're encountering a bunch of people who don't think there is a proven virus and yet believe in a bioweapon. I know of just a couple like what.
Jeff, you seem to have left a similar comment elsewhere. So let me reiterate my reply:
> I would have instead said "There is no proof of a virus." A negative cannot be proven
Yes, Jeff. I am aware of the distinction.
But several people in #TeamNoVirus are making this bold statement after examining 100 years of published papers on the subject that there is no basis in fact or the scientific literature (using legitimate methods) for the existence of viruses.
So yeah, I could say, "There is no proof Unicorns exist". But I'm going to be bold and say, "Unicorns do not exist" after examining all of the evidence.
Thanks again, Bill, though the first comment was a response to "The Cogg Mom," sorry the layout made that unclear.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/virus
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]
virulent (adj.)
c. 1400, in reference to wounds, ulcers, etc., "full of corrupt or poisonous matter," from Latin virulentus "poisonous," from virus "poison" (see virus). Figurative sense of "violent, spiteful" is attested from c. 1600. Related: Virulently.
virulence (n.)
1660s, from Late Latin virulentia, from Latin virulentus "full of poison" (see virulent). Related: Virulency (1610s).
The study of viruses, instead of being called "virology," is called TOXINOLOGY:
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Toxinology/en-en/
Toxinology (n.)
1.(MeSH)The science concerned with the detection, chemical composition, and biological action of toxic substances or poisons and the treatment and prevention of toxic manifestations.;The science concerned with the toxins produced by BACTERIA, PLANTS, AND ANIMALS.
Toxinology is the specialized area of science that deals specifically with animal, plant, and microbial toxins. Prof. Dietrich Mebs has defined toxinology as "the scientific discipline dealing with microbial, plant and animal venoms, poisons and toxins".
Toxins and toxinology is not solely focussed on adverse effects. An increasing number of toxins are important as RESEARCH tools, unlocking secrets of disease, or as diagnostic agents in hospital laboratories, or as therapeutic agents to treat human disease, including anti-cancer agents, anti-epileptic agents, anti-clotting agents, analgesics, anti-hypertensive drugs, TO NAME BUT A FEW. This is a very rich field for RESEARCH.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/toxin:
A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease when introduced into the body tissues but is often also capable of inducing neutralizing antibodies or antitoxins.
A poisonous or harmful nonbiological substance, such as a pollutant.
Any of various similar poisons, related to proteins, formed in certain plants, as ricin, or secreted by certain animals, as snake venom: toxins, when injected into animals or humans, typically initiate the formation of antitoxins.
Any of various poisonous compounds produced by some microorganisms and causing certain diseases.
toxin (n.)
"organic poison," especially one produced by bacteria in an animal body, 1886, from toxic + -in (2).
poison (n.)
c. 1200, poisoun, "a deadly potion or substance," also figuratively, "spiritually corrupting ideas; evil intentions," from Old French poison, puison (12c., Modern French poison) "a drink," especially a medical drink, later "a (magic) potion, poisonous drink" (14c.), from Latin potionem (nominative potio) "a drinking, a drink," also "poisonous drink" (Cicero), from potare "to drink" (from PIE root *po(i)- "to drink").
vaccine (n.)
"matter [INGREDIENTS] used in vaccination," 1846, from French vaccin, noun use of adjective, from Latin vaccina, fem. of vaccinus "pertaining to a cow" (see vaccination). Related: Vaccinal; vaccinic.
As you can see, viruses do exist as harmful POISONOUS/VENOMOUS substances, NOT as pathogenic contagious microbes (that have never been isolated).
> As you can see, viruses do exist as harmful POISONOUS/VENOMOUS substances, NOT as pathogenic contagious microbes
Cora, you are inventing your own definition of viruses, similar to Peter Duesberg, Larry Palevsky, and Jeff Green.
But a virus is DEFINED as a "Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites
that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease,
which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
(NOTE: I have combined the definition from these sources:
1: Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000: 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6
2: Medical Microbiology, 4th edition, 1996
3: Dr Mark Bailey )
Viruses are DEFINED to be "pathogenic contagious microbes". You can't just come along and say Viruses are not those things. We have to agree on the meanings of words if we are going to have a conversation.
Btw Covid-19 doesn't exist & you can't prove it does:
https://truthseeker.se/research-summary-and-debunk-regarding-the-existence-of-sars-cov-2-and-covid-19/;
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/germ-fois-new-zealand-institutions
I know you won't click on these links bc you don't have the mind capacity to understand truth, logic.
All you have is your intellectual vanity. You can't see it because your brain is wired (thanks to your Commie masters) to automatically reject truth & logic. They can't penetrate that thick head of yours.
> All you have is your intellectual vanity. You can't see it because your brain is wired (thanks to your Commie masters) to automatically reject truth & logic. They can't penetrate that thick head of yours.
Commie masters? Thick head?
Why don't you find someone else to abuse?
Obviously what I have to offer is not your cup-of-tea.
Where did I ever say that COVID-19 exists?
I clearly stated in the 1st paragraph that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist.
You obviously don't have comprehension skills related to reading. I didn't make up definitions. I gave the links to the etymology of these words. If you didn't click on them that's YOUR problem. You've been so brainsoiled by the Commies that you can't recognize simple truth. I don't care what others say viruses are/n't. They ARE NOT the sole arbiters of truth. MODERN DICTIONARIES (medical or other wise) are not the sole arbiter of truth. SCIENCE is not the sole arbiter of truth (Climate change, men can have periods/babies/be female, modern definitions of virus, vaccine, germ, etc., & more, are complete scientific hoaxes.)
etymology (n.)
late 14c., ethimolegia "facts of the origin and development of a word," from Old French etimologie, ethimologie (14c., Modern French étymologie), from Latin etymologia, from Greek etymologia "analysis of a word to find its true origin," properly "study of the true sense (of a word)," with -logia "study of, a speaking of" (see -logy) + etymon "true sense, original meaning," neuter of etymos "true, real, actual," related to eteos "true," which perhaps is cognate with Sanskrit satyah, Gothic sunjis, Old English soð "true," from a PIE *set- "be stable." Latinized by Cicero as veriloquium.
folk-etymology (n.)
1882; see folk (n.) + etymology. Perhaps translating German Volksetymologie (by 1852). The German word was used in English by 1876.
By Folk-etymology is meant the influence exercised upon words, both as to their form and meaning, by the popular use and misuse of them. In a special sense, it is intended to denote the corruption which words undergo, owing either to false ideas about their derivation, or to a mistaken analogy with other words to which they are supposed to be related.
I DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH ANYONE WHO BELIEVES A LIE FROM THE ORIGINAL (& MODERN) GRIFTERS WHO HIJACKED THE MEANINGS OF CERTAIN WORDS & I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN'T EVEN BE BOTHERED TO CAREFULLY READ WHAT I WROTE & CLICK ON THE LINKS.
No government institution/agency/industry/individual has the CONSTITUTIONAL authority, power, etc. to change the etymology of any words. It's ALLOWED to happen because people are too lazy & distracted to pay attention to the Commies (your masters) changing the definitions of words to control the narrative & take away our rights. You go ahead & keep on in your wonder, dream, & wish fantasy world. Keep worshiping at the alter of your fake god "science" You're as stupid as a flerftard, (flattard, whatever) you wishy-washy (feeble or insipid in quality or character; lacking strength or boldness:
"a wishy-washy approach won't work"
synonyms:
feeble · ineffectual · weak · vapid · milk-and-water · effete · spineless · limp · limp-wristed · namby-pamby · halfhearted · spiritless · irresolute · indecisive · insipid) clown.
You cannot prove anything to me. You are thoroughly divorced from reality & shall remain so.
You'll like the post I'm about to publish. :)
I won't read it or anything else you post. You can't prove anything you say bc all your sources are from Commie scientists/politicians (including RINOs)/& news media.
You are really angry, nasty, and rude. You have issued me dozens of insults, and you really seem to have mis characterized me.
If you can't have a grown up conversation without such vitriol, maybe you should go play someplace else?
Thanks.
Thanks for your feedback.
I understand what you're saying, and you're right.
But the problem with David Martin is that he's all over the place. He'll say something like that in one instant, then the next he's talking about patented virus genomes, and lab leaks of engineered bioweapons. I've heard him contradict himself *during the same lecture*! More than once!
The man is pure confusion.
> He is not talking about viruses, he's talking about synthetic sequences.
Synthetic sequences.... of what?
> And he has stated just as clearly that he doesn't believe the lab leak theory
Yeah, you probably did hear that. Now go back and listen again. Listen for him talking about HIV spliced onto the coronavirus genome, patented coronavirus genomes, and manufactured "chimeras".
I can give you a dozen examples of this, from different lectures. He quite often contradicts himself in the same lecture. Sometimes, IN THE SAME SENTENCE!
Pure gobbledegook nonsensical pseudoscientific hogwash.
He's pure confusion. It hurts my brain listening to him. To each his own.