Are Viruses Real?

[Gog & Magog]

viruses ar3 not real
little tiny goblins are
they get inside and make u sick
why autism?
brain goblins
why lung cancer?
lung goblins
why aids?
butt goblins
its all so simple yet few choose to acknowledge thr truth

 

[draggs]

By not accepting the retard juice in the first place, of course.

Also, it's really telling how the one person who actually had anything interesting to say was instantly bombarded by anime pfps who zero'd in on strawmanning and ad homina.

I'll humor you

What was causing the illness in the first place before there were any vooxseens

Environmental? Toxins, poisoning? I didn't get it until the end of September 2021. Haven't had it since. How was the mysterious substance that caused coof symptoms distributed throughout the population such that a large proportion of people were poisoned multiple times, some only once, and some never? Poisons, generally speaking, cause symptoms at every exposure. In the open environment of the world, shouldn't larger proportions of the population have been ill at the same time? The spread of coof illness and length of illness does not match what you would expect to see if a poison were introduced to the general population, say through the water supply, or if the radiation from muh 5G towers was introduced into the environment

What caused coof symptoms?

Anyway I SAW Dirty Dog throw a coronavirus at Cool Cat. Double checkmate sweaties

 

[Cheeseknife]

What caused coof symptoms?

Strange how, throughout history for hundreds of years every called it the flu or the common cold.

Then, all a a sudden, everyone forgot about the flu and colds. And, apparently, so did reality?

Now it's all covid now. The flu has seemingly disappeared for all time, just in time for the scamdemic. What an amazing coincidence!

 

[draggs]

Strange how, throughout history for hundreds of years every called it the flu or the common cold.

Then, all a a sudden, everyone forgot about the flu and colds. And, apparently, so did reality?

Now it's all covid now. The flu has seemingly disappeared for all time, just in time for the scamdemic. What an amazing coincidence!

The flu and the common cold are (allegedly) caused by viruses...?

So let me ask the same question, if viruses do not exist, what causes the symptoms generally attributed to the flu and common cold?

The CDC estimated 31 million flu cases in 2022, so I guess it didn't disappear for all time?

Triple checkmate sweaties

 

[Colloid]

I took a quick skim through this "A Farewell to Virology" and was honestly surprised to see zero mention viral transduction anywhere, arguably one of the most useful technologies we've exploited from viruses in general, and a technology that I've used myself successfully many times for transgene (meaning: genome from another organism) expression. I was legitimately curious how they would interpret something like that.

 

[Cheeseknife]

(allegedly)

Why allegedly? Why not definitely?

I thought viruses existed and we just need to accept it and move on?

I took a quick skim through this "A Farewell to Virology" and was honestly surprised to see zero mention viral transduction anywhere, arguably one of the most useful technologies we've exploited from viruses in general, and a technology that I've used myself successfully many times for transgene (meaning: genome from another organism) expression. I was legitimately curious how they would interpret something like that.

Unfortunately, the anime pfp community on KF have determined @Aether Witch is to be strawmanned and ad homina'd for daring to question mainstream dogma. So he has decided he will no longer cast pearls before swine.

 

[Colloid]

Why allegedly? Why not definitely?

I thought viruses existed and we just need to accept it and move on?



Unfortunately, the anime pfp community on KF have determined @Aether Witch is to be strawmanned and ad homina'd for daring to question mainstream dogma. So he has decided he will no longer cast pearls before swine.

By 'they' I meant more the Bailey's who actually have an established medical background and thus people I would at least be willing to hear out; not some random newbie on the Farms citing them but that's just semantics at this point I guess. My point is that despite the mysteriousness of viruses (and credit where it's due they are indeed very mysterious compared to other known microbes to the point where I'm not against redefining/reinterpreting certain phenomena surrounding them outright) there's a lot of established data and techniques out there that are going to make arguing their complete nonexistence a tough sell.

Like in my case for example, I'm performing a technique where I forcibly add viral vector genes and a transgene for green fluorescence protein to a flask of mammalian cells with a chemical called polybrene and then immediately check them under a microscope. No green glow in sight. A few days later I check the same cells and now they're bright green indicating a successful transfection (i.e. the DNA got through the cell membrane and is now being expressed). I harvest the media those cells were suspended in and run it through a 0.45um filter to clean out any stray cells or other debris larger than 450nm that might've detached from the first flask. I discard the first flask. Then I take a second and third flask of cells and add the media from the first flask to my second flask of cells. Meanwhile for my third flask of cells, I take some unused, sterile media and mix the genes I added to flask 1 to it but with no polybrene (so it can't transfect into the cells chemically) as a control for spontaneous transfection. I once again check both cells under a microscope and see no green. A few days later and flask 2 has green and flask 3 still has no green. If that's not viral transduction then what the hell is it? It can't be stray cells from flask 1 because I filtered them out and it can't be the cells suddenly accepting sole vector DNA because flask 3 isn't glowing. There must be something in flask 1's media acting as a vehicle to deliver those genes through the cell membrane according to the results, no?

 

[draggs]

Why allegedly? Why not definitely?

I thought viruses existed and we just need to accept it and move on?

I was mocking you

Good job picking up on it

Now are you going to try to answer my modest question. What causes the symptoms attributed by mainstream dogma to viruses?

Unfortunately, the anime pfp community on KF have determined @Aether Witch is to be strawmanned and ad homina'd for daring to question mainstream dogma. So he has decided he will no longer cast pearls before swine.

Nobody likes the man who runs away, no wonder Big Virus has won

 

[Cheeseknife]

not some random newbie on the Farms citing them

I see. So how long does someone need to frequent the farms before we're allowed to take them seriously?

established data and techniques out there that are going to make arguing their complete nonexistence a tough sell.

That's the point, though. Throughout history there's always been things that people took at face value despite what we, in modern times, know to be false.

It's not even about disproving the modern establishment. When even questioning it becomes blasphemy, that's when all eyebrows should be raised.

Like in my case for example

I've worked in a lab in the past and I'm somewhat familiar. The major aspect that I was always concerned with and why I eventually left the field was because everything I was taught seemed to be creating the circumstances I needed in order to achieve the results we were asked for.

To put it in different terms, you've been given a number of hammers and been told the room you're working in is full of different nails. You've been assigned a hammer for each nail, but ultimately you're left with a worldview that is still just hammers and nails.

If you've built that world into the minds of everyone, then anything that isn't a nail isn't important and must be ignored.

I was mocking you

Good job picking up on it

I figured, but I've seen other posts you've made and took it in stride since you seem to have a good head about you.

What causes the symptoms attributed by mainstream dogma to viruses?

I don't know. While I don't buy into the virus explanation, I must also acknowledge my own ignorance.

As Descartes once said, he who understands must also understand that he doesn't know anything.

Nobody likes the man who runs away, no wonder Big Virus has won

Unfortunate, to be sure. But the unvaxxed will win the future regardless.

 

[Colloid]

I see. So how long does someone need to frequent the farms before we're allowed to take them seriously?

For me it helps when they use the vocabulary properly among other things. For something big like this I'm going to need a hell of a lot more than talks of a couple scientists since I can't take the dismissal of an entire class of pathogens very seriously to begin with, but I only speak for myself here. It's up to you and everyone else where to draw that line for themselves.

I've worked in a lab in the past and I'm somewhat familiar. The major aspect that I was always concerned with and why I eventually left the field was because everything I was taught seemed to be creating the circumstances I needed in order to achieve the results we were asked for.

To put it in different terms, you've been given a number of hammers and been told the room you're working in is full of different nails. You've been assigned a hammer for each nail, but ultimately you're left with a worldview that is still just hammers and nails.

I'm not really following this to be honest. The results are whatever they are for what you're studying. You might have an idea of what they'll be based on your past experience or the literature but the reality isn't always going to line up with that. As long as it's a well-designed study and other people get the same results when they repeat your methods then they're trustworthy and can be used as a foundation to design your next study. If you ignore or omit inconvenient results then eventually your peers will find out when they repeat your study which is one of the reasons why integrity is so valuable in this field.

 

[Cheeseknife]

The results are whatever they are for what you're studying.

That's basically my point. The question is, what about the results for what you're not studying?

My entire point is that much of the mainstream idea of what modern medicine is assumes we've arrived at the pinnacle of knowledge and understanding about what does or doesn't cause illnesses. That simple isn't true and will never be true within your or my lifetime.

I think we get some things right, but right now I see a huge lack of hindsight into what we get wrong--particularly because of all the fear involved in getting it wrong.

 

[Male Idiot]

I figured, but I've seen other posts you've made and took it in stride since you seem to have a good head about you.



I don't know. While I don't buy into the virus explanation, I must also acknowledge my own ignorance.

As Descartes once said, he who understands must also understand that he doesn't know anything.



Unfortunate, to be sure. But the unvaxxed will win the future regardless.

They are just as cringe as the redditors.

Replace viruses with demons and vaccines with Yahowee.

Luckily such fundies are often consigned to the USA and cultures of similar cultural heights, like poor Africa. Well they invoke different deities, but still. Unfortunately SJWs escaped their containment continents.

 

[Whatevermancer]

Now that you mention it... do molecules even exist? I've never seen a molecule.
I could just look at pictures of them other people made? Can you assure me that they're not fake?
Oh, I can see them myself, I just need to invest in an electron microscope? Do you think I can afford it?
Even if I could afford it, where's the guarantee that the microscope doesn't just return fake images so that the molecule myth is held up?

Is it just a conspiracy perpetuated by the Big Chem?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Bacteria are, in fact, very real. We know this because you can actually observe them through a microscope:

View attachment 5598576

You mean bits of shit you're calling bacteria.




What's this, is this a bacteria? Oh wait, no, it's a pithovirus, the largest virus in existence which at 1-2 micrometers long is about 1/4 the size of any of those bacteria there. That's shit you can see on any science-grade light microscope. Like related giant viruses which are about that size, it infects amoebas. Pretty sure there's a picture/gif out there of a relative of one of these viruses (they're all 500 nanometers or bigger) infecting an amoeba.

Accepting virology isn't treating science as a dogma, it's just common sense because it's the best available hypothesis for observable reality like smallpox and polio vanishing alongside mass vaccination campaigns. If you've got a better argument that doesn't rely on "muh nevah been isolated" using silly word games involving the definition of "isolated", maybe you can devise a better explanation than viruses for why certain diseases exist.

It's also really weird why nobody ever questions shit like the water cycle. It always has to be something related to religion (creationism), culture (flat earthers, hollow earthers), or politics (this nonsense which you can tell from that essay's citations came out of the "AIDS doesn't exist" scene). Come on, why don't you guys ever contest the dogma of meteorologists who claim rain is caused by condensation and not invisible elephants taking a piss on everyone?

 

[The Tall Man]

I need help with something.

Covid is a virus created in a Lab.
The spike protein found in the virus and vaccine is an ethnically discriminating bioweapon that might give you a prion disease.
It was da Joos

Just listen to Drain Todger

Do you believe in spontaneous abiogenesis

Yes.
Just like the big bang, the primordial soup lightning theory is by midwits for midwits.

Constant abiogenesis is far more rational.

 

[Cheeseknife]

You mean bits of shit you're calling bacteria.

Based on all previous interactions, your mind is obviously made up and there's no point in talking to you further. It's pretty clear you're not here to actually debate since everything posted to you is ignored. You're a bad faith actor.

Mark this post as dumb or something like a good little autist and then kill yourself.

I just need to invest in an electron microscope

Unfortunately, molecules are far too small to be seen even under an electron microscope.

These too exist under faith based assumptions.

 

[Colloid]

These too exist under faith based assumptions.

Okay now you're just not thinking here. Atomic force microscopes and the math used to define Avogadro's constant and the mole aren't faith based. The existence of molecules are pretty readily demonstrated through basic chemistry.

 

[Cheeseknife]

Okay now you're just not thinking here. Atomic force microscopes and the math used to define Avogadro's constant and the mole aren't faith based. The existence of molecules are pretty readily demonstrated through basic chemistry.

Yes, and we take it on faith that basic chemistry works the way we say it works for reasons. Because we aren't actually observing the molecules with the naked eye and just the results themselves, much of what we assume is true is based on belief.

 

[Colloid]

Yes, and we take it on faith that basic chemistry works the way we say it works for reasons. Because we aren't actually observing the molecules with the naked eye and just the results themselves, much of what we assume is true is based on belief.

It's through logic and not faith that we understand that molecules exist. If they didn't then chemical reactions would just make random products with the same reagents every time your reacted them. We can see with our eyes that things in nature take on consistent, defined forms and so it can be deduced that's also how things are on a molecular scale. There's no room for faith here when these properties are readily observed at a macro scale.

 

[Cheeseknife]

It's through logic and not faith that we understand that molecules exist. If they didn't then chemical reactions would just make random products with the same reagents every time your reacted them. We can see with our eyes that things in nature take on consistent, defined forms and so it can be deduced that's also how things are on a molecular scale. There's no room for faith here when these properties are readily observed at a macro scale.

Correct, we see the results of chemical interactions and have developed explanations for why they work the way they do.

The properties themselves, however, while observable on a macro scale are not as discernable on the molecular. Therefore we must take it on faith that our explanations concerning the molecular are accurate.