Are Viruses Real?

[not william stenchever]

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

It's goblins all the way down.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

Mold breaks down food much like how dead skin cells break down. Where does this lead to?

 

[Male Idiot]

The water cycle isn't real. Water akshually comes to Earth when Aliens visit it and piss on it. They are aliens so they piss water because they are demons and di-hydrogen-peroxide causes drowning. Than it falls down onto the flat Earth and leaks off the edges of it down into the giant 10th Planet of Nigiru, which acts like a black hole because it is populated by niggers and their 50IQ bends space time like orks do.

What a stupid thing to think water just flows up into the clouds again. Think, normies, think! Water evaporates when you boil it, so that got to be hot. Put your hand in boiling water. Than put it in air. It is not the same temperature, so water can't magically just boil itself and than go up.

Mold also doesn't exist because Fungus is Fake. What "scientists" call Fungee are just the tree's penis sticking up from the ground. It shoots its tree splooge up into the flowers, that's how apples are made! What they call mold is actually Satan's pubes after he rubs himself against your food to make it rot!

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

I've heard people on social media say that viruses are patented and consider viruses and vaccines to be the same leading to the conclusion on calling them poison. Only time could tell if OP may be proven right on this to the masses. I'm not even judgmental on people who come up with 'crazy' theories anymore because this entire world is so confusing to me.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

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 don't know if viruses are real, but all the evidence sure points to them being real. I'm just trying to challenge your beliefs/OP's beliefs, but I guess you're only allowed to challenge beliefs when you're fighting da big bad virology science man. That's why neither of you (assuming you aren't the same person) can answer simple questions that blow your idea out of the water.

You should really take a good look at yourself and ask who really is beholden to dogma and open to new ideas.

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.

That's not taking it on faith. I can perform experiments that confirm molecules are the best explanation for what we see in nature, and I can look at the math proving it. A scientific theory is just the best explanation for observable reality, and in actual science (which is rare these days) can be overturned by a better theory. Maybe viruses really don't exist, but the actual cause is going to be very, very similar just like how models of the atom changed over the past 150 years.

I've heard people on social media say that viruses are patented and consider viruses and vaccines to be the same leading to the conclusion on calling them poison. Only time could tell if OP may be proven right on this to the masses. I'm not even judgmental on people who come up with 'crazy' theories anymore because this entire world is so confusing to me.

Theoretically the people who invented COVID-19 like Ralph Baric and Shi Shengli could get a patent on it since any GMO can be patented. The spike protein is patented by Moderna though, meaning if you've been vaxxed you have proprietary genes floating around inside you. Oops!

 

[Cheeseknife]

but all the evidence

All you look for is evidence that you agree with and filter out anything that you don't. So, yes all the evidence will point to your opinion being the correct one.

Why are you even still talking to me? You're obviously not interested in what I have to say because you don't even acknowledge it. You're basically talking at me and everyone else.

Kill yourself, faggot.

 

[draggs]

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.

Unvaxxed me is gonna be there waiting

As I understand it, the main argument against the existence of viruses is that we have never seen a virus save by examining a sample that has had foreign molecules introduced into it to increase the visibility of the virus. These samples are then viewed by transmission electron microscopy. This addition of un-virus elements means fuckery can go on, which means fuckery has gone on

I looked into the matter of directly viewing viruses, and found that in the last 5 years there has been development of several new methods of photonic microscopy that reportedly do not require labeling, dyeing, or otherwise altering the sample in any way. One claimed that samples taken from patients could be examined in real-time (as in, take the sample, immediately put it in the machine, get the image without any other preparation) with their method and equipment

One was called Photonic Resonator Interferometric Scattering Microscopy, the others two-photon microscopy and second- and third-wave (photonic) generation methods

So I guess that you need to get cracking on discrediting them

 

[Cheeseknife]

So I guess that you need to get cracking on discrediting them

Nah, too many people arguing in bad faith and @Aether Witch isn't interested anymore either. Thread is gay now, so I'm a skeedaddle.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

All you look for is evidence that you agree with and filter out anything that you don't. So, yes all the evidence will point to your opinion being the correct one.

Why are you even still talking to me? You're obviously not interested in what I have to say because you don't even acknowledge it. You're basically talking at me and everyone else.

Kill yourself, faggot.

I've acknowledged everything you said and replied to it. You think that's "bad faith" and cannot answer simple questions in return.

I'll give you another simple question--what evidence would it take to convince you?

 

[Male Idiot]

If viruses aren't real, how can the CIA make aids to give to gayniggers?

 

[Aether Witch]

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

There's always been a lot of fear propaganda, I realized most things being called "COVID" were just a variety of different illnesses, even before I was acquainted with the no-virus theory. People dying from car accidents were being labelled "coof deaths", and so were many others who died of completely unrelated causes. James Corbett did a pretty good analysis of this, explaining how ridiculous the numbers were.

https://www.corbettreport.com/lies-damned-lies-and-coronavirus-infection-numbers-propagandawatch/

I experienced some of this first hand, in the country I live in. Some local TV station was saying that the number of coof positives in that region was X, the only problem was that X was a far higher number than the number of people living in that specific region.

Also, it's extremely hard to say what was causing an umbrella illness like the coof, the same as with AIDS, having hundreds of shared symptoms with every illness under the Sun, and nothing specific, makes it extremely easy to amp up the number of "positives", diarrhoea would be a "symptom" of the supposed illness, and I guess falling from the 7th storey of a building would be another. Like I said in a previous comment, though, we have no obligation to provide any alternative explanation as to what is causing anything. If you say that you got sick because of InvisibleBoogeyman1, the onus is on you to prove that InvisibleBoogeyman1 exists. And so far, it seems like no institution can provide evidence of InvisibleBoogeyman1.

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/

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

First of all, people get sick due to all kinds of different factors, all the time. You're assuming that we're claiming that some kind of poison suddenly caused a great uptick in symptoms (which in a sense, generalizing, most illnesses are the result of the body cleansing from toxic stuff, whether it's stress or physical substances), but as I mentioned above, there wasn't a great pandemic of any kind, there was a pandemic of PCR testing, though, as explained by Claus Köhnlein.

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/pcr-pandemic-interview-with-virus-mania:9

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

Again, just because there's a lack of evidence of viruses existing doesn't mean that we have to prove anything. Those defending the virus theory are the ones who should provide proof that these imaginary particles are responsible for illness. That being said, terrain theory does a much better job of explaining illness (in my opinion) than germ theory. To me it makes a lot of sense that the body gets "ill" in the sense that it's cleansing itself. In the case of what we refer to as the common cold an the flu, this is pretty obvious. The way most people eat, think and live right now isn't exactly healthy. The body at certain points needs to flush out all the toxic crap people put into it, and the flu and the cold are just mechanisms that facilitate the flushing. The fact that most people just use drugs to cancel out the process is counterintuitive, you're initerrupting the body's natural healing crisis, so you can start going to your 9 to 5 and feed it crap again ASAP.


I might post a little more here. I never thought I was one, but I might be a masochist after all.

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.

I might give it a go, for a bit, since I've seen some familiar faces pop up on the thread, and I'd like to respond, if they're reading. I thought it was a useless endeavor for me to keep butting heads with people who have no interest in an actual debate, especially on a smaller thread that fewer people would read. It's very hard to tell how useful this kind of interaction is for other people who are just watching, and I'm interested in providing information so that everyone can make more informed and rational decisions, so when you see the same people over and over, the ones who aren't interested in having a human conversation, it's easy to think it's all useless.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

possibly. maybe not. im not sure i care one way or another, ive gotten sick regardless.

could they be, sure. but on the other hand, the people saying there are viruses are the same people that are saying the earth is a gorillion years old and monkeys magically turned into humans and that liking the color pink makes you a girl

me and a buddy were having a similar discussion about flat earth and i feel the same way, pretty much. i dont know, the claimants are dubious and neither answer really affects me

viruses could be real but...consider the source..

 

[Aether Witch]

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.

What is it useful for? Also, you can create "viral" genomes out of thin air, you just have to claim they come from a virus. But if you're not capable of isolating and purifying any viruses, how on Earth are you going to get this viral DNA? You can't skip steps.

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

At this point, given the amount of information there is on the practices that virologists claim as "scientific", I think virology itself is what's going to be tougher and tougher to sell. Although, who knows, we've been bombarded with the idea of viruses since early childhood, maybe you're right. It's hard (but not impossible) to undo programming of this kind.

forcibly add viral vector genes

And here is the problem. Assuming you're saying the truth and the experiment and its methodology is perfectly sound, which I'm probably not able to assess (since I'm not familiar with this practice, and I haven't read anything on it), how can you prove the provenance of those presumed vector genes? If the virus itself hasn't been purified and isolated, you can't obtain its genes. Unless a virus can be proved to exist, any talk of its genes is meaningless.

I've heard people on social media say that viruses are patented and consider viruses and vaccines to be the same leading to the conclusion on calling them poison.

This might be unrelated, but I think it's worth talking about. Some people argue that viruses exist, because patents are filed for many of them. This doesn't constitute evidence of them existing, but it is a fact that those with the patents are poised to profit generously from the idea of them. You don't need a virus to exist in order to mass manufacture vaccines and drugs.

I watched a video I linked to the other day, which I wasn't sure about, as I had just stumbled upon it, and it happens to be a great resource. It puts this very well into context, with the example of "HIV":

https://odysee.com/@UrbeOscura:8/Truth.About.AIDS:6

This other one by Sam Bailey further explains how profittable this whole model of "medicine" is:

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Toxicology-vs-Virology-Rockefeller-Institute-and-the-Criminal-Polio-Fraud:1

 

[Colloid]

What is it useful for?

To deliver gene therapies to specific cell types, mainly. Usually in terms of targeting cancer cells but you can hit other diseases too.

But if you're not capable of isolating and purifying any viruses, how on Earth are you going to get this viral DNA?

Infected cells will express them which can then be amplified via pcr. We didn't just divine these gene sequences out of thin air and realize there was a new pathogen out there after all.

Assuming you're saying the truth and the experiment and its methodology is perfectly sound, which I'm probably not able to assess (since I'm not familiar with this practice, and I haven't read anything on it), how can you prove the provenance of those presumed vector genes?

Because the transgene was successfully delivered into flask 2's cells and was being expressed. If I give a cell all of the instructions needed to make viruses, to make viruses that I specifically picked because they're known to efficiently deliver their genes to the cell type I'm working with, and it works then I don't see why I should doubt my understanding of the process. Clearly I understood the system I designed well enough to make it work, right? I mean if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

 

[Male Idiot]

Jews would patent hangover if they could and make you pay a tax every time you drink.

But if viruses aren't real, the covid vaccine can't change your genome either.

 

[Aether Witch]

Mold breaks down food much like how dead skin cells break down. Where does this lead to?
View attachment 5601190

What do you mean by this?

To deliver gene therapies to specific cell types, mainly. Usually in terms of targeting cancer cells but you can hit other diseases too.

I don't think I'd classify that as useful, transgenomics is one of those things that should be left to rot. CRISPR is a very clear example of what happens when you mess with genes. It's time we learned to stop meddling with things that are way beyond our understanding.

Infected cells will express them which can then be amplified via pcr. We didn't just divine these gene sequences out of thin air and realize there was a new pathogen out there after all.

How can you tell that a cell is "infected"? PCR amplification is extremely problematic in this case. For anyone wondering why, I suggest you watch these:

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/pcr-pandemic-interview-with-virus-mania:9

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/covid-19-behind-the-pcr-curtain:b

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/the-truth-about-pcr-tests:6

There's also a section of A Farewell to Virology dedicated to PCR and metagenomic sequencing.

will express them

How do they express them? Because they happen to have DNA that has been deemed "viral" beforehand? This is a self-fulfilling prophecy:
You take someone with a particular illness, claim isolation of a virus by creating a "viral genome" in an in silico model, and when you find a segment of matching DNA in whatever sample you took from the subject, you amplify it into oblivion through PCR, making it match your pre-made "viral genome". It does look like they are devined out of thin air, indeed.

Because the transgene was successfully delivered into flask 2's cells and was being expressed.

Yes, but unless a virus is isolated and purified, you can claim that the transgene is viral, it's just a claim, though, with no bearing on reality.

Jews would patent hangover if they could and make you pay a tax every time you drink.

But if viruses aren't real, the covid vaccine can't change your genome either.

As far as I know, you don't need viruses to modify genes. Since we have proof of transgenic crops and other things, but we don't have proof of viruses.

 

[Cheeseknife]

At this point, given the amount of information there is on the practices that virologists claim as "scientific", I think virology itself is what's going to be tougher and tougher to sell. Although, who knows, we've been bombarded with the idea of viruses since early childhood, maybe you're right. It's hard (but not impossible) to undo programming of this kind.

Part of the difficulty is modern colloquialisms separate Science from religion despite the fact that much of modern Science is indoctrinated from an early age with many things that are still theoretical or require future testing.

This is why we get inane claims like "Science is settled" despite the fact that science never actuallt settles anything. People might settle, but science cannot feasibly settle anything given an infinite amount of factors we do and do not know about.

As long as humans remain flawed and limited, so will any science.

This might be unrelated, but I think it's worth talking about. Some people argue that viruses exist, because patents are filed for many of them. This doesn't constitute evidence of them existing, but it is a fact that those with the patents are poised to profit generously from the idea of them. You don't need a virus to exist in order to mass manufacture vaccines and drugs.

In medieval times, they were called "humors" and had to be excised via bloodletting or bleeding.

 

[Lichen Bark]

In a nutshell the argument in the "paper" appears to be arguing:

Point:
-Look at these strange basic things growing inside cells, lets call them viruses

Counterpoint:
-ACTUALLY I don't think we should call them that. I refuse to call them that.
-Reading their (Sam and Mark Bailey) website (https://drsambailey.com/) they still believe you get sick, but it's not a virus that makes you sick it's a problem with how your body reacts to the virus. In other words if I shoot you with this bullet, it isn't the bullet that kills you, it's the fact your body reacts badly, and you leak out all of your blood. Therefore bullets (viruses) aren't the cause of disease. It was a problem with the "terrain" (your body) that caused death. "Why did your stupid body leak out all the blood like that dummy?" What a stupid argument.

The paper is highly focused on Sars-Cov-2 specifically, with discussion "debunking" the lab leak theory. It sort of becomes more apparent this is just to muddy the water, and attempt to misdirect people from the risky shit the gov't and virologists are doing. I'm just glad to see this "discussion" has been relegated to the eternal Kiwi Farms tire fire. A great thread derailment topic.

 

[Tablet County]

I knew the second I saw this nigger type "Mother Gaia" that he was gonna be retarded.

 

[Colloid]

I don't think I'd classify that as useful, transgenomics is one of those things that should be left to rot. CRISPR is a very clear example of what happens when you mess with genes. It's time we learned to stop meddling with things that are way beyond our understanding.

You're late coming out with this opinion since we've already saved lives with these technologies. CRISPR in particular is a fantastic research and diagnostic tool that we've only just scratched the surface of and still has ample room for improvement. Don't be so quick to dismiss something just because you don't understand it and because it hasn't personally improved your own life as that's incredibly disrespectful to the work of the people who dedicate their careers to saving others.

How can you tell that a cell is "infected"? PCR amplification is extremely problematic in this case. For anyone wondering why, I suggest you watch these:
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey/pcr-pandemic-interview-with-virus-mania:9 https://odysee.com/@drsambailey/covid-19-behind-the-pcr-curtain:b https://odysee.com/@drsambailey/the-truth-about-pcr-tests:6

I don't have time to watch all of these. If you don't even understand the videos well yourself to summarize the relevant key points to what I'm saying then you're not helping anyone.

There's also a section of A Farewell to Virology dedicated to PCR and metagenomic sequencing.

Yet they have nothing to say about one of the most useful genomic tools to come from it. Funny that.

How do they express them? Because they happen to have DNA that has been deemed "viral" beforehand? This is a self-fulfilling prophecy:
You take someone with a particular illness, claim isolation of a virus by creating a "viral genome" in an in silico model, and when you find a segment of matching DNA in whatever sample you took from the subject, you amplify it into oblivion through PCR, making it match your pre-made "viral genome". It does look like they are devined out of thin air, indeed.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding on how PCR works then. Because the sequence that gets amplified starts with a primer that are flanking but not directly overlapping whatever target you're trying to amplify. In other words, your reaction input has to have a DNA sequence already there that can act as a template to be replicated in the first place. It physically cannot make genes randomly out of thin air because that's how not DNA polymerase works. If the polymerase has no available single stranded DNA template then the reaction fails. Then when you take your product and try to align the sequence, you'll find that it won't align with any of the host's genome in the case of viral genes, and with your wild-type uninfected control you won't find that same gene being present at all, meaning that gene is coming from whatever infected them.

Yes, but unless a virus is isolated and purified, you can claim that the transgene is viral, it's just a claim, though, with no bearing on reality.

In my case you can't claim that actually. The whole point of working with flask 3 like that is specifically to monitor that exact issue. Because if that were the case then flask 3 would also glow since it had also been expose to the same DNA without anything to transfect or transduce it.