can the two sides agree on some basics?
part two: a team captain and a working definition
You have no enemies, you say? Alas, my friend, the boast is poor.
He who has mingled in the fray of duty that the brave endure,
must have made foes. If you have none,
small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip.
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip.
You’ve never turned the wrong to right.
You’ve been a coward in the fight.
― Charles Mackay
everyone seems so fired up about this topic. i guess that’s part of what makes it so interesting.
first up, because team virus includes nearly everyone on the planet, i think they need a captain. and because team virus has so many diligent and passionate supporters, i think a universally loved, highly trustworthy, genuine hero suits them. what do you think?
now let’s see if we can find some common ground between team virus and the bobs.
do they agree on the answer to the first question: what exactly is a virus?
here’s a lengthy description to get us started, cobbled together from first-page internet search results:
a virus is a really tiny particle containing some genetic code (RNA or DNA) wrapped in a protein coating that attaches to a healthy cell, injects its genetic material, which hijacks the machinery inside the cell in order to make a bunch of copies of itself, which then explode out of and kill the cell, thereby releasing that bunch of copies to go on and repeat the process with other healthy cells. in some sources they are referred to as parasites. the killing of cells by the virus sometimes results in illness in, and/or death of, the host. the tiny particles are able to transmit from one host to another, but cannot reproduce without using a host’s cells. outside of a cell, it’s called a virion.
after watching some videos by a few of the bobs, it looks like they agree with this definition.
and team virus? well, given i used only the top search results for “what is a virus” i’m going to say they agree as well. with one small caveat.
there’s a steve kirsch post where he says something interesting in the first paragraph:
… their claims that the COVID virus doesn’t exist according to their definition of a virus, with the emphasis on the word their.
reading through the rest of this post and several more of steve’s posts, i can’t find a different definition or any details regarding his disagreement with their definition. i want to make sure i get this correct, because if the teams can’t even agree on what they’re arguing about, they’re not going to get very far.
here’s the definition in the settling the virus debate statement:
… viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens
i just can’t tell what captain steve is objecting to so maybe you can help. any ideas? and do you agree or disagree with the working definition?
You assume that those who question the virus model agree with your definition of a virus. Many do not.
As the commenter, Frances Leader, notes there is a terrain theory of disease that surfaced at about the same time that Pasteur advanced his germ theory which he "proved" in some rather questionable ways.
With the terrain theory, the understanding is that viruses do not cause disease, but rather are caused by disease and, in fact, may not be viruses at all but rather productions by the body itself to help fight toxins in the body.
However, assuming that one accepts your definition of a virus as a packet of genetic material wrapped in a protein coating that hijacks the cell and essentially destroys it.
It is also accepted that your alleged virus does not have motility (a means of mobilizing itself), nor any way of taking in and digesting food.
With no motility then, how does a virus transport itself outside the cell overcoming all of the immune system protective responses and barriers, launch itself into the air, float through the air (regardless of temperature and location since masks were required both inside and outside based on the germ theory assumptions) land on another person, insert itself into that person and overcome all of its immune system barriers, remaining intact enough to penetrate the cell and replicate itself in the new person's body therewith destroying that person's cells? (BTW a virus is not really considered a living entity, according to science anyway.)
That is quite a feat for a very tiny, non-living entity which can only exist inside a cell that has no means of mobilizing itself, nor feeding itself.
Where is the proof that this is possible and how have the mechanics been proven? In other words, how specifically is this achieved?
It is a question of identification. Do we identify these tiny entities as viruses or exosomes?
But the problem is far deeper than that.
Read up on Bechamp's Terrain Theory to understand that the particles under discussion morph and change depending on their environment.
Dr Robert Young tackles the issue well here:
https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/the-terrain-theory-vs-the-germ-theory
I think you need help fleshing out the team you refer to as 'Bobs' - which is not a good descriptor for those of us who are disproving viruses:
Stefan Lanka, Dr Robert Young, Andy Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Amandha Vollmer, Dr Purmina Wagh, myself, Christine Massey and the two Drs Bailey in NZ.
On Bitchute: Spacebusters - https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ch8v4TVL9yq0/
On Substack: Boostershots, Georgie & Donny, Ramola D, myself and only one or two commenters who do not seem to write articles. There may be more (I sincerely hope so!)....