Bacteria And Viruses Don't Cause Disease

[Perry Staltic]

Well, one single case of Shingles would still itself be "rare," considering there are tens of millions of Americans that young. And while clots and pericarditis are side effects of the so called vaccines, they also happen for a number of other reasons, with social isolation being a big one. Occam's Razor properly applied wouldn't lead you to the conclusion that a vaccine caused a "side effect" in someone who didn't take that vaccine. Instead, you might look towards something like a year plus of strict lockdown (which the report itself mentions). Things like stress and pushing your body to it's physical limits (remember, they are at a military academy) could also be factors.

Complicating things with speculative guesses like you're indulging in is not Occam's razor. The timing of events while they were in close contact under lockdown breathing the same air 24/7, though not proof of causation, is very suspicious and worrisome. Much moreso than your grab bag of guesses.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Well, one single case of Shingles would still itself be "rare," considering there are tens of millions of Americans that young. And while clots and pericarditis are side effects of the so called vaccines, they also happen for a number of other reasons, with social isolation being a big one. Occam's Razor properly applied wouldn't lead you to the conclusion that a vaccine caused a "side effect" in someone who didn't take that vaccine. Instead, you might look towards something like a year plus of strict lockdown (which the report itself mentions). Things like stress and pushing your body to it's physical limits (remember, they are at a military academy) could also be factors.

Plus btw I wasn't responding initially to your grab bag of theories, but specifically to the factors mentioned by@RealNeat in his comments

 

[tankasnowgod]

Complicating things with speculative guesses like you're indulging in is not Occam's razor.

Speculative guesses? I am taking potential causes directly from the article.

The timing of events while they were in close contact under lockdown breathing the same air 24/7, though not proof of causation, is very suspicious and worrisome. Much moreso than your grab bag of guesses.

First off, you are guessing too. Neither one of us did an in person examination of these girls.

Second.... how do you know when the blood clots and pericarditis formed? You only know when they were diagnosed. Pericarditis itself can be either an acute or chronic condition, so your dismissal of the events of the previous year or so are completely unfounded.

 

[Parsifal]

Maybe you (and others) are misunderstanding the premise statement. Look closely and carefully at the two sentences below:

1. Microbes don't cause disease.
2. Is there sufficient and clear evidence that viruses are the cause, and not the result, of disease?

Is there a distinct difference between these two statements?

Maybe ponder for a while what I've written before knee-jerk hitting that "post reply" button, perhaps?

That's a weird thing to say, as I was not replying to you. How are you joaquin, had a bad day?

The problem of induction shows that you can never fully prove something by empirism or scientific method alone (so no wonder that no disease attributed to bacteria or viruses has met all of Koch’s postulates or all of Rivers’ criteria). You can use p-values, but this is the best you can do (probably better than nothing). So you can never totally prove that viruses are the cause, or otherwise result. Funny though that some "skeptics" want to use this "lack of proof of cause" to "prove that this is a result" instead, not being aware of the epistemological implications of what they're doing.

Otherwise, I agree that there seem to be much bs around covid and that the policies are completely stupid and even criminal. And there might be a lot of fraud around virology. Doesn't mean one has to become illogical about all of that.

 

[joaquin]

That's a weird thing to say, as I was not replying to you. How are you joaquin, had a bad day?

The problem of induction shows that you can never fully prove something by empirism or scientific method alone (so no wonder that no disease attributed to bacteria or viruses has met all of Koch’s postulates or all of Rivers’ criteria). You can use p-values, but this is the best you can do (probably better than nothing). So you can never totally prove that viruses are the cause, or otherwise result. Funny though that some "skeptics" want to use this "lack of proof of cause" to "prove that this is a result" instead, not being aware of the epistemological implications of what they're doing.

Otherwise, I agree that there seem to be much bs around covid and that the policies are completely stupid and even criminal. And there might be a lot of fraud around virology. Doesn't mean one has to become illogical about all of that.

Do you pay very close attention to the statements that you are replying to? Because it just feels you're typing without properly digesting.

When a press conference is held and the experts stand in front of the camera with their costumes on and declare that "we have determined that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" and then the next day those same experts just drop the word "probable" - and that constitutes their proof, then millions of young men start taking Azidothymidine which then DID indeed give them AIDS, it behooves us as decent people to investigate the claims of those on both said.

Millions may have lost their lives because of political-medicine and you want to play games? Sure, toss out big words if that makes you feel better. I had to look up "epistemological" But it does nothing in regards to the central question:
Is there sufficient and clear evidence that viruses are the cause, and not the result, of disease?

 

[RealNeat]

Shingles is rare in people that young, and it and clots/pericarditis are not uncommon vexxine side effects, so Occam's razor

I really dont think the entire viral fraud is the simplest way of explaining what may be happening. Especially since there are massive amounts of missing pieces along the way that people seem comfortable just filling in with, well, nothing.

To say that "the simplest explanation is that SARSCOV2 a novel virus, which causes symptoms x, y, z is replicated in people who have been exposed to those vaccinated against SARSCOV2 with special emphasis on the toxic S protein" requires that all those things are already proven true.


View: https://odysee.com/@Hmanpro:e/Vaccines-Graphene-And-Machines:0

 

[Parsifal]

Do you pay very close attention to the statements that you are replying to? Because it just feels you're typing without properly digesting.

When a press conference is held and the experts stand in front of the camera with their costumes on and declare that "we have determined that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" and then the next day those same experts just drop the word "probable" - and that constitutes their proof, then millions of young men start taking Azidothymidine which then DID indeed give them AIDS, it behooves us as decent people to investigate the claims of those on both said.

Millions may have lost their lives because of political-medicine and you want to play games? Sure, toss out big words if that makes you feel better. I had to look up "epistemological" But it does nothing in regards to the central question:
Is there sufficient and clear evidence that viruses are the cause, and not the result, of disease?

You can use all the strawman you want, I just don't care.

Also if you expect someone to reply to you, then take time to reply to what they actually said and not to your strawman (and if you don't know about epistemology, then learn about the problem of induction). That's a shame if you see opposition where there is only nuance, anyways I'm loosing interest here.

 

[RealNeat]

That's a weird thing to say, as I was not replying to you. How are you joaquin, had a bad day?

The problem of induction shows that you can never fully prove something by empirism or scientific method alone (so no wonder that no disease attributed to bacteria or viruses has met all of Koch’s postulates or all of Rivers’ criteria). You can use p-values, but this is the best you can do (probably better than nothing). So you can never totally prove that viruses are the cause, or otherwise result. Funny though that some "skeptics" want to use this "lack of proof of cause" to "prove that this is a result" instead, not being aware of the epistemological implications of what they're doing.

Otherwise, I agree that there seem to be much bs around covid and that the policies are completely stupid and even criminal. And there might be a lot of fraud around virology. Doesn't mean one has to become illogical about all of that.

this would be fine and dandy if there wasn't a method to the way in which these "causal" pathogens are shown to exist or cause disease. Those methods are intentionally misleading mechanisms of isolation, replication, inoculation and contagion.

I agree, saying viruses don't exist is wrong. Reason one Virus means poison and poisons exist. Reason two the new adaptation of the word virus to only mean an infectious protein coated nucleic acid has not been proven, but some day might be, but surely not yet.

 

[Parsifal]

this would be fine and dandy if there wasn't a method to the way in which these "causal" pathogens are shown to exist or cause disease. Those methods are intentional, misleading mechanism of isolation, replication, inoculation and contagion.

I agree, saying viruses don't exist is wrong. Reason one Virus means poison and poisons exist. Reason two the new adaptation of the word virus to only mean an infectious protein coated nucleic acid has not been proven, but some day might be, but surely not yet.

What are your sources when you say "Those methods are intentional, misleading mechanism of isolation, replication, inoculation and contagion."?

Otherwise I did not mean that saying viruses don't exist is wrong. I don't know, and I simply don't have the competence in virology to prove or disprove existence of viruses (as I doubt anyone here has). There seem to be strong evidence that viruses exist, but this is just from second-hand evidence and I might also be wrong in my interpretation.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Speculative guesses? I am taking potential causes directly from the article.

You made an assumption of rigorous military training induced stress, whereas the article said no such thing. It said their social contact was limited to their tiny cohort of 4 persons, not the usual routine as would be expected in a lockdown.

 

[RealNeat]

What are your sources when you say "Those methods are intentional, misleading mechanism of isolation, replication, inoculation and contagion."?

Otherwise I did not mean that saying viruses don't exist is wrong. I don't know, and I simply don't have the competence in virology to prove or disprove existence of viruses (as I doubt anyone here has). There seem to be strong evidence that viruses exist, but this is just from second-hand evidence and I might also be wrong in my interpretation.

I feel the topic has been somewhat exhausted by me and others here, the evidence/ sources is in the multitude of resources I've posted since 2020. If you search "RealNeat" and "Virus" I'm sure they'll turn up. Virology isnt a field of competence, I wouldn't look for that characteristic in that field lol

 

[Perry Staltic]

First off, you are guessing too. Neither one of us did an in person examination of these girls.

Second.... how do you know when the blood clots and pericarditis formed? You only know when they were diagnosed. Pericarditis itself can be either an acute or chronic condition, so your dismissal of the events of the previous year or so are completely unfounded.

You're just being disingenuous with the first comment. And your overall method is to sow doubt. That's not how problems are solved. It requires pursuing available lines of evidence. The evidence we have available points to the possibility of shedding, ergo that line of inquiry should be pursued until proven false. Whataboutism doesn't cut it.

 

[Perry Staltic]

I really dont think the entire viral fraud is the simplest way of explaining what may be happening. Especially since there are massive amounts of missing pieces along the way that people seem comfortable just filling in with, well, nothing.

To say that "the simplest explanation is that SARSCOV2 a novel virus, which causes symptoms x, y, z is replicated in people who have been exposed to those vaccinated against SARSCOV2 with special emphasis on the toxic S protein" requires that all those things are already proven true.


View: https://odysee.com/@Hmanpro:e/Vaccines-Graphene-And-Machines:0

Shed spike proteins are not viruses; they are toxins that hypothetically cause immune deficiency, an accepted cause of shingles.

 

[Perry Staltic]

I feel the topic has been somewhat exhausted by me and others here, the evidence/ sources is in the multitude of resources I've posted since 2020. If you search "RealNeat" and "Virus" I'm sure they'll turn up. Virology isnt a field of competence, I wouldn't look for that characteristic in that field lol

It's actually a repository of highly educated incompetence.

 

[RealNeat]

Shed spike proteins are not viruses; they are toxins that hypothetically cause immune deficiency, an accepted cause of shingles.

I meant the symptoms being replicated not the so called virus, my wording is a bit weird.

 

[RealNeat]

It's actually a repository of highly educated incompetence.

thats a good way of putting it

 

[RealNeat]

Here is Ray questioning another sacred cow (real punny), I find it weird that people cant fathom similar thoughts for viruses.

BSE - mad cow - scrapie, etc.: Stimulated amyloid degeneration and the toxic fats

BSE mad cow, scrapie, etc.: Stimulated amyloid degeneration and the toxic fats

raypeat.com

 

[joaquin]

You can use all the strawman you want, I just don't care.

Also if you expect someone to reply to you, then take time to reply to what they actually said and not to your strawman (and if you don't know about epistemology, then learn about the problem of induction). That's a shame if you see opposition where there is only nuance, anyways I'm loosing interest here.

@Parsifal
Zika.
AIDS
Polio
Mad Cow Disease


These are just a handful of OTHER diseases that have been blamed on floating-thru-the-air or bloodborne pathogens.


And they have one thing in common: Credible researchers, professors, doctors, scientists have tried to come forward and show that these diseases were more likely caused by toxins and not pathogens. They have lost their careers or have been intimidated into silence and or, worse.

We're not talking about mommy bloggers here trying to uncover conspiracy. Those that tried to shed light had solid credentials.

The notion that all disease can be attributed to either genes or germs-- protects corporations polluting the environment and protects the financial interests of those developing drugs and shots.

 

[joaquin]

Renz, Malone and Kirsch are all controlled opposition. The enemy knew that there would be outrage, so the enemy was wise enough to know it is better to have his own guys leading the people in their opposition than to have folks not under the control of the enemy leading the people.

Lately there has been a push from the controlled opposition to distract folks away from the fact that the so-called virus has never been isolated.
Look around. You'll see it. Just a day or two ago I see that Kirsch is making statements very caustic about virus denialists. And he huffs and puffs and hopes to cause the less experienced student to believe that the claims of Kaufman and others is baseless. Nothing could be further from the truth, nothing.
Rense.com the other day show his true colours in repeating the same lie, that the virus denialists have been debunked. There is the key word right there: debunked. Anytime that word is used, more than likely it is coming from controlled opposition.