Feb 25, 2023·edited Feb 25, 2023Liked by dawnfrench
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?
additionally, the viral theory should stand (or fall) on its own merits without reference to any other competing theories. any investigation into these other theories is a separate topic.
i do appreciate your critique of the viral theory as defined, very illuminating. enjoy the video!
I don't think that this author "assumed" anything... she is thinking out loud, trying to figure it out, and makes it clear she's open to additional thoughts/definitions etc.
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!)....
Christine Massey and Jeff Green spent a lot of time talking about existence of virus like particles (they agreed on ) but they didn't meet 'our' ,generally accepted by everyone, definition of a 'virus'- which I think should only be used for transmissible, pathogenic etc entities or everyone gets very confused. Those talking about other entities need a different word.
Steve is only about 1/4 pilled. He was sliced and diced by Sasha Latypova. Her blade was so sharp he didn't feel a thing. Didn't know his remains were fixated on toilets and bill's golden throne.
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’s not my definition. it’s a definition that is common between the sides of this debate that i’m attempting to summarize. see here:
https://youtu.be/jWddcGQqOr4
additionally, the viral theory should stand (or fall) on its own merits without reference to any other competing theories. any investigation into these other theories is a separate topic.
i do appreciate your critique of the viral theory as defined, very illuminating. enjoy the video!
I don't think that this author "assumed" anything... she is thinking out loud, trying to figure it out, and makes it clear she's open to additional thoughts/definitions etc.
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!)....
I think you would make a good referee
Christine Massey and Jeff Green spent a lot of time talking about existence of virus like particles (they agreed on ) but they didn't meet 'our' ,generally accepted by everyone, definition of a 'virus'- which I think should only be used for transmissible, pathogenic etc entities or everyone gets very confused. Those talking about other entities need a different word.
Jo
I need to dig into that conversation to see what it’s really about. Thanks.
Christine Massey wrote this article which may help you:
https://peopleforjusticecanada.com/2021/01/05/canadian-public-health-officials-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-performed-anywhere-ever/
Have fun!
Steve is only about 1/4 pilled. He was sliced and diced by Sasha Latypova. Her blade was so sharp he didn't feel a thing. Didn't know his remains were fixated on toilets and bill's golden throne.