The Rabies virus travels up nerves from the bite site to the salivary glands and the brain. Bigger things like bacteria can't do that.
And the farther away from the brain is the location of the bite, the longer it takes for central nervous system symptoms to develop. For instance, if you get bitten on the head or neck, you will become symptomatic much sooner than if you get bitten on the foot.
Exactly. But sadly, nothing we say or demonstrate can convince the cult of virus-deniers that these things are real. They've made up their minds and they're sticking to their guns. It's truly a cult-like thinking.
I believe this may be the kind of accusatory rhetoric that is unhelpful here. And I'm not on the "no virus" side. But folks are trying to make their point respectfully, why accuse them of being in a cult? I haven't seen cult-like arguments from them on this thread, anyway.
It's a cult because no matter what evidence you show them, including actual pictures of viruses, they will come up with an excuse as to why that evidence doesn't actually prove the existence of viruses. Nice people can be a part of a cult, BTW.
WHAT TYPE of proof, then, would or could possibly suffice for the virus deniers? What type of proof would suffice to convince the flat-earthers that our planet is essentially a globe? This type of thinking eventually leads to an infinite regression.
Oh my God, I just typed an incredibly long and thoughtful reply on my smartphone that got erased just like that. Too tired to start over!
Tl;dr - challenging germ theory and the claim that viruses are infectious agents of disease is a legitimate position. I don't think "virus deniers", as you call them, are necessarily flat earthers. I am certainly not a flat earther and not a fan of that belief system, nor of Holocaust denial. But I am open to the possibility that viruses are just some sort of exosome and that they do not cause disease.
The issue could be settled through careful experimentation, if there was good will and honesty on both sides.
Yes, this is much shorter than the other thing I wrote.
Which material that claims viruses have not been proven to exist have you consulted? You do need to immerse yourself in the argument and really come to terms with it before knee-jerking with "cult-like" thinking. Of course, the virus deniers can equally apply the term "cult-like" thinking to those who believe in viruses. Stay away from those sorts of epithets and stick to the argument.
This must be the same person driving in their car with a mask on, yelling at people on the street to get vaccinated :) How about we just stay open minded and start from a position that just because other people don't agree with you, doesn't mean they are a "cult" or "deniers" of any kind. This is a tactic of the left and it usually doesn't end up well.
Interesting, but her very strong bias introduces the possibility that she is cherry-picking her "evidence". She is certainly "slanting" her conclusions. This does not constitute a scientific presentation on the subject. Very reminiscent of so much of the COVID propaganda. Is her assumption correct? How much evidence FOR the existence of a Rabies virus did she NOT present? She sounds like she is from Australia (or New Zealand), countries that she admits have almost no Rabies, which means there is a very high probability that she has never even encountered the disease. So why the interest? Because of its rairity it maks a good subject for promoting a "virus denier" position? Disease with the symptoms of Rabies has been observed in many different mammals. If it were something else, say a prion disease, would it be more specific in its hosts?
Are Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in humans, Mad Cow disease in cattle, Scrappies in sheep and goats, Chronic Wasting Disease in the deer family, and the "prion"-configuration in the COVID shots' spikes all caused by the same mis-folded prion material or is it usually species-specific?
Lots of questions, few answers, especially since everyone seems to have an agenda to promote.
Faith, can you tell us more about the prion configuration in Covid vax spike protein? I read long ago that prions can be possibly very contagious and deadly, as they can cause proteins to fold improperly as in CJD etc. I hadn't heard that the Covid vax spike protein (mRNA) is a prion or contains prions. That's scary. But hopefully few if any vaxes actually contain/ed mRNA.
I've read so much, and seen so many videos by now of doctors and researchers talking about the spike protein, I'm not sure offhand who was discussing a segment of the spike that appears to be similar to the Mad Cow disease prions. I've saved hundreds of links to them, so given enough time I might be able to locate that specific reference.
Also, there was an article fairly recently about an unusual increase in cases of Cruetzfeldt-Jacob disease after COVID shots, with people succumbing rather quickly from it, like within about four months. Weird.
Your description of the journey of rabies “virus” sounds like the same pathology as snake or spider bite - it’s a toxin - not necessarily a “virus”. Actually the word VIRUS means “toxin” so maybe we’re all saying the same thing here! 😄
Also, in the 1990s, rabies among wild foxes in Germany (and probably they did that elsewhere in Europe, too) was severely reduced by regularly dumping oral vaccine bait thingies (no idea what it's called in English) the foxes pick up.
Good question, but they do! The Chicken Pox virus that causes Shingles does it and migrates through an entire nerve "tree" to the skin, typically over a section of the chest or abdomen; plus other herpes viruses, and measels-type viruses like the one that causes Canine Distemper all hide out in nerves where the immune system can't get to them with macrophages to eat them. Bell's Palsey is from viruses getting inside the Facial nerve, one of the "cranial nerves" that come directly from the brain, and they cause swelling and pressure that cuts off nerve transmission to that side of the face, usually temporarily.
Wouldn’t the fact that it can travel through an electrical pathway indicate that the “virus” can take the form of an electrical/energetic signal rather than a particulate dna/rna package?
Nerves are not electric wires. Fluid in the nerves, an aqueous electrolyte solution, conducts electricity just as any non-pure water can, only optimally (distilled water with zero minerals is actually a poor conductor). So it is the cytoplasm contents of the nerve cells that provides a hospitable environment for viruses, just as any cellular contents would. But nerve cells can be really long, counting the long extensions that the electrical signals move along— the axon and dendrites, like in the sciatic nerve that stretches from the lower spinal cord all the way to the foot.
Which came first, the virus or the sickness? Is a virus the cause of the sickness or is the presence of viral particles merely a symptom of feeling unwell? Are many, if not all, viruses simply the products of cellular detoxification (aka exosomes) which accumulate in extracellular fluids and make us feel bad? If so, what caused the systemic detox reaction to occur in the first place? The human genome seems filled with "viral" sequences, but what are they really? "Junk DNA"? Absurd! What are their actual functions, and why did Nature's evolutionary mechanisms and pressures ensure that they were accumulated and assiduously retained for succeeding generations?
These are questions virologists have done a miserable job of answering... recently, to the point of ignoring the questions entirely. The field of virology appears to me to be more cultish scientism at this point than pure scientific empiricism. As scientific disciplines go, virology is still in its infancy and will fail to mature into a respectable field of inquiry until it can be rescued from the vested monetary interests which have held it hostage for the past few decades.
I look forward to that day, as I'm an old, retired, marine microbiologist/medical researcher who still believes that one should gather facts and allow them to take you where they will. Only by allowing the light of truth to guide our path forward, can we ever hope to mutually build a brighter future for all of the lifeforms which share this magnificent little planet...
Doesn't matter. All that matters is people are getting sick and governments are forcing therapies that not only don't work and are destructive. Therapies that do work, like ivermectin (an anviviral) are forbidden. Government is our worst pathogen, whether you call them administrators or rulers or tyrants, the result is the same -- bad outcomes for those who comply. Better to focus on issues that matter. Be ungovernable.
I couldn't agree more. The older I get, the more of an anarchist I become. Government has always been the bane of human civilization. That's why we were warned that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". How vigilant were we here in America while FEDGOV was slowly captured by forces hostile to human freedom? Ultimately, it's our fault.
I remain hopeful though that things are about to take a dramatic turn for the better. The entire planet is undergoing an unprecedented healing crisis. It's painful but necessary.
Why do you obsess over trivia? People get sick. People devise therapies. People study the illnesses and the cures to better understand. Current state of the art says of course viruses exist and cause physiological reactions we perceive as sickness. Sars2, for example, being a fairly simple organism is easier to understand than the more complex human reactions. Doesn't really matter what you call the agents causing the body to initiate those reactions, or why the body reacts badly, only that we can expedite the recovery. If you want to deny viruses, go for it. It won't affect your outcome. Health is not a function of what you believe, but what you do.
“Vested monetary interests”. In a nutshell. I prefer to stay open minded about this. I found Cowans book and thoughts intriguing and it tickled a few thoughts concerning my faith and whom my faith rests on--The mystery of the human body we will never completely unravel. Likewise all life. We are electric beings.
Though I generally don't recommend Wikipedia, its treatment of endo- and exosomes is a good staring point. You can then use an alternative search engine such as Freespoke and type in "exosomes vs viruses". If your interest is sufficient, you could be reading for weeks. The jury is still deliberating about this subject and much remains to be discovered. Initial premises regarding viral etiology of disease are in need of reexamination but that's difficult to do when the scientific reputations of so many are on the line.
Thanks for mentioning another search engine. I hadn't heard of it, Freespoke that is. I just tried doing a search there now on "vaccine deaths". There are 500 pages of results, which is much better than other search engines. But at least the first few pages are biased toward the mainstream BS. I can tell by the website names and by some of the titles. I also searched on "scamdemic" and that gets less biased results, I think. "Plandemic" gets very mainstream results though. We need a search engine for alternative views for a change. Damn it.
You do understand that until CDC changed the definition of a vaccine and how they are made it always meant a "killed" or attenuated virus. Until you can collect virus particles you can't "kill" or attenuate them.
What is being called "viruses" are universally acknowledged to be non-living things, so they cannot be "killed". Attenuation refers to the process of inactivating or weakening these things, whatever they are. This is claimed to prevent replication inside host cells. So the question remains: What is it that's actually being collected and purified (from eggs or from cell culture lysates and supernates), which needs to then be treated so as not to create the very disease it's designed to protect against - exosomes or real, infective, viral particles?
Let's look at the flu. Why do many people who receive flu shots still develop flu-like symptoms each year? I've never had a flu jab and I haven't had so much as a mild head or chest cold for over 50 years now. Either the shots are woefully ineffective or the "viruses", whatever they really are, have acquired a reputation that they don't deserve. The seasonal flu comes along each year when Vitamin D levels drop because everyone is wearing cold weather clothing and remaining largely indoors. The immune system has a critical need for D and it wanes in competence as a result of chronic D deficiency. For some as yet unexplained reason, our bodies respond by initiating a natural detoxification cycle. Our cells dump wastes (packaged in exosomes) into the extra-cellular fluids and that creates all of the symptoms associated with what we've come to call the "flu".
Pennies a day of Vitamin D3/K2 alone will prevent a multitude of human ills...
Phil, it's not just lack of sunlight in the winter that leads to the tendency to get colds and flu. It's also the low humidity that allows viruses to remain in the air longer, whereas humidity causes them to fall to the ground in water droplets.
Vitamin D is a metabolite essential for immune function to protect against invading pathogens, like virises. Which is good evidence for the existence of viruses. Maintain your immune health and the nature of the pathogen doesn't matter. It's handled automatically.
I agree viruses exist however your statement does not account for complexities of the immune system. A virus can be present and not cause illness because the immune system neutralizes it. An example would be a family living together where the parents are symptomatic with covid but the kids are not. Clearly the kids have daily constant exposure to the virus yet not sick.
You are correct that rabies is a unique virus unlike most others. Maybe we could agree that all virus are not the same and the treatment of them should vary.
do you not see the blatant contradiction in your statement? why havent any of the millions of household pets in America got Covid? easy... they dont watch TV....https://www.bitchute.com/video/rHmg8EY3cXPD/
My husband and I haven’t been ill in nearly two decades. However, we visited many shops and ate dinner at a restaurant in the Redmond/ Totem Lake area of Washington state in early March of 2020. We both came down with what we think was covid, but there was no testing for our age group back then. Shortly afterwards our cat also became ill for a week with coughing, sneezing, watery eyes, lethargy etc. While he didn’t go shopping with us, nor dine at the restaurant, he does sit face-to-face on my husband’s chest every single morning after breakfast. Also, we don’t own a television. 🤷🏻♀️
WOW...your cat was coughing sneezing had watery eyes and was lethargic?...well I apologize you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt your cat got covid...thankfully it didnt die from that deadly virus...you should write a scientific paper to document your experience that obviously proves there's a deadly virus blowing around...keep me updated on your progress...oh and warn the neighbors animals to stay clear of kitty so they dont catch the covid too...they might not be as lucky
that's crazy - a huge amount of 'scientific' work went into it - ie observing something with large surface area descending slowly- testing the hypothesis that humans might be able to jump out of planes and not die with mock ups of different sizes of parachute and weight. extensive testing of materials. and finally with volunteers.
not really a great analogy- a randomised placebo controlled study comparing outcomes of those jumping out of aeroplanes using parachutes with those without a parachute would be the 'proper' study
the study of ivermectin showed a 0.0176% improvement in 'covid' symptoms over those not taking it. It was not placebo controlled which accounts for up to 60% improvement in symptoms and was observational of self-selected users so not a proper study either.
The 100% effectiveness in mortality represents an observation in a study of those self selected to take invermectin with those who selected not to (NB not randomised). There was one death in the non ivermectin group (not a placebo controlled group) chosen and none in the ivermectin group chosen. I maintain that suppressing detox symptoms with fluxoamine and ivermectin may 'save' a life for a short time in those already stressed by obesity, but the obesity will remain as will the toxins which must be expelled by a more severe episode at a later time.
Those tests were done incorrectly, probably fraudulently so. Thousands of clinical successes indicates it works well, nearly 100% effective when correctly administered. Another parachute example might be testing the parachute and opening at 500 feet.
You are confusing relative and absolute efficacy .
Saying a drug is 100% effective does not mean it works 100% of the time! that would be crazy.
The studies you mention on ivermectin show an absolute efficacy of 0.0176%
For example say the vaccine is alleged to be 50% effective. when you read the actual paper like I did for ivermectin it shows that the placebo was 98% effective at preventing symtoms and the vaccine was 99% effective (allegedly) so an absolute efficacy of 1% and a relative efficacy of 1% as a percentage of 2%= 50%
A placebo could be a parachute that looked and felt like one but was't. or a car with brakes that looked like brakes but didn't work. The placebo effect does not apply.
You apparently don't want ivermectin to work, or are just unusually gullible. The ivermectin trials have been consistently badly done, likely fraudulent. Other trials and a growing body of clinical success shows ivermectin is highly effective against sars2 variants, and the vax is not.
I hoped that it would be obvious from my comments in answer to the question posed in this post, there is no Sars2 of any variant, shape, size,, colour or creed for ivermectin to be effective against.
The 100% effectiveness in mortality represents an observation in a study of those self selected to take invermectin with those who selected not to (NB not randomised). There was one death in the non ivermectin group (not a placebo controlled group) chosen and none in the ivermectin group chosen. I maintain that suppressing detox symptoms with fluxoamine and ivermectin may 'save' a life for a short time in those already stressed by obesity, but the obesity will remain as will the toxins which must be expelled by a more severe episode at a later time.
If you have trouble understanding, you could ask more coherent questions. Likewise, every time someone is saved by ivermectin, it passes the test. Millions have done so, and it's the way real science has always been done. The modern fetish of formal trials is just job security for medical bureaucrats and political frauds.
The real question is what work is "required." The recent obsession with formal trials indicates a fetish or fraud. If this virus is truly dangerous, randomized control groups would be unethical. The history of science has relied mostly on observation and deduction, not formal proofs which take so much longer. To suddenly assert that's no longer valid is contrary to common sense, as well as dangerous in a crisis.
The control experiments lacking in relation to sars-cov-2 are in vitro controls which wouldn't be unethical. What you need to do is take a little look, dip your big toe in the arguments from the scientists saying that viruses haven't been proven to exist rather than just arguing here in a comment thread. For goodness sake!
There's considerable evidence those same "scientists" are corrupt. Accept their statements at your risk. Superficial understanding of science leads many astray. Learning the truth requires more than "a little look."
the burden of proof lies with those claiming something exists...not vice versa...do you believe in ghosts because no one has ever proven they don't exist?
No. The burden of proof lies with any statement of fact in the negative or positive. Science (or our current understanding of it) is very limited in what it can and can't determine as empirical truth. A true statement of fact in this debate would be there is not enough empirical evidence to proove absolutely that the phenomena ascribed to "viruses" causes x, y, z disease. You cannot "prove" that viruses do not cause Chicken Pox, unless you have an alternative hypothesis that withstands the same level of scrutiny for proof that you expect from the conventionally accepted hypothesis. This is how Science works. Sometimes the truth is that we just don't know with our current level of technology. But again, you cannot unseat a conventionally accepted hypotheses without proof of a replacement. This is what is driving Steve Kirsch crazy. This is why virus naysayers do not want to debate him, they have no alternative explanations grounded in empirical data.
blah blah...blah ba blah ba blah...the burden of proof lies with those claiming something actually exists and is causing the disease...period...refute these facts presented or admit you were wrong...https://www.bitchute.com/video/rHmg8EY3cXPD/
This is not about right or wrong, if only it were that simple... their are layers upon layers of observations, data, minor theories, and grand theories. In other words, there are hundredes of thousands (if not millions) of components described as axioms of truth that make up "Germ Theory." Most of the critizisms in the video you shared were corrrect, what was wrong was the conclusions.
Forget humans for a moment and think of a coyote. It survives in nature drinking water that other animals have defecated in, and by often eating roting flesh. In fact, it sticks its nose into crap and decaying carcasses on a daily basis... the point is its immune system is tuned and responsive to the microbial environment. So were the subjects in the influenza experement. There is no argument there! Correctly observing that healty people do not get sick when exposed does not debunk germ theory. Its called a "multifactorial" event, were there are many factors that determine when a human or other animal gets sick.
Nobody is arguing that the PCR actually identifies a virus, or that an intact virus has been isolated. But again while your observations is correct, your conclusion is not. The correct conclusion is that the PCR cannot accuratly detect a virus, not that "viruses don't exist." As far as the isolation question, there is no way to view a virus in-situ. That is also true, but to conclude that because of our limited technology cannot accuratly isolate a virus... viruses don't exist is asinine. For hundreds of years sailors and scientists hypothesized the existnce of the Kraken (giant squid) from the tentical marks on whales even though one was not "isolated" from the ocean until recently.
The cellular debris theory suffers from the same flaw you throw at Germ theory, you cannot conclusivley determine what the debris are. This alternative theory cannot be proven by your requirements either.
And yes, Big Pharma is bad, and most medicines dont work. Yes, they lie all the time for profit. Ulterior motives and even outright fraud in science does not disprove the existence of viruses.
The video was coherent and well argued. However its conclusions were pure conjecture. What we all have to admit is that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT MICROBIOLOGY, IMMUNOLOGY, AND MEDICINE. Can we agree on that?
Those who rely on repeating things they read from anonymous internet posters, repeating them verbatim like religious liturgy, are at a survival disadvantage. Normal people realize the semantics don't matter, and focus on solutions that work. We have a choice of waiting for pathogens to be "isolated" or can figure out what works and leave the superstitions out of it. Antivirals work. Healthy immune systems work. Superstitions don't work.
those relying on the government or big pharma to tell them what to believe are the dumbest of the dumb... if "viruses" actually existed and caused disease the human race would already be extinct.,.grow a damn brain
Do anti virals work? The HIV sufferers I know that have survived live very very clean lives. And they take a massive amount of drugs. Including vitamins and antibiotics.
HIV is distinctive in that it mutates very quickly, faster than SARS. Developing antivirals is pretty easy. Developing antivirals for the next strain is harder. In general, RNA viruses mutate quicker due to the lack of error checking in RNA replication. More stable viruses like smallpox and polio are easier.
We're still vaccinating for 2 year old strains of covid, almost eliminated, thus the ineffectiveness of the vax.
Pasteur is a known FRAUD...and using any "goverment" information to verify anything is ridiculous...just like Pasteur they are known liars....https://www.bitchute.com/video/rHmg8EY3cXPD/
Pasteur admitted late in life (some claim it was a deathbed confession) that his germ theory of disease wasn't incorrect, but it WAS incomplete. We now know that the TERRAIN is far more important than the microbe. Pathogens are opportunistic and will proliferate if conditions are suitable for doing so.
Focus on immune system health and it will keep you healthy. Address chronic nutritional deficiencies, maintain your internal chemistry in an alkaline state by eating more alkaline-forming foods and beverages, and employ natural, gentle, detoxing regimens on a routine basis. We live in an increasingly toxic world, so it's critically important that you perform intestinal cleanses/fasts and liver/gall bladder/kidney/lymphatic flushes. They're easy and inexpensive but require two things which seem to be in short supply in today's world... commitment and discipline.
bite a "rabid" animal? is that your proof of a virus? very scientific...now heres a question for the virus cult...with all these deadly viruses floating about forever...why hasn't humanity already become extinct thousands of years ago? take your time
Yep, I would just love to see you with your healthy immune system smear a little Ebola virus on a cut in your arm and we'll see how long you last. You see the CIA and their deadly bioweapons, don't need to fear them, just be healthy and they won't affect you.
The rabies virus structure allows it to be genetically modified with a fluorescent protein. It can then be tracked and observed doing its virusy stuff. I did see something explaining this in plain English a while ago but can only find this at the moment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525074/
It is not caused by the Fed's increased interest rates or chocolate pudding, so there are two you can eliminate from your check list of possible pathogens.
Dr. Hillman said electron microscopes destroy living cells. They apparently distort and damage the contents. So he said there are many misconceptions in microbiology. I'm writing about this at https://ilki.substack.com/p/is-microbiology-real
Electron microscopy destroys the thing it's looking at AFTER the image is taken. You see the thing as it was just before you destroyed it by looking at it.
Think of pool: you start with balls arranged in a triangle and you shoot one ball at it. The one ball returns to you, evidencing that it hit something. But the thing it hit no longer exists; the triangle is scattered.
It would appear that rabies is a real condition. What is the evidence that it is what is termed a virus?
Good question. Great place to make a difference by making an insightful comment
The Rabies virus travels up nerves from the bite site to the salivary glands and the brain. Bigger things like bacteria can't do that.
And the farther away from the brain is the location of the bite, the longer it takes for central nervous system symptoms to develop. For instance, if you get bitten on the head or neck, you will become symptomatic much sooner than if you get bitten on the foot.
Exactly. But sadly, nothing we say or demonstrate can convince the cult of virus-deniers that these things are real. They've made up their minds and they're sticking to their guns. It's truly a cult-like thinking.
I believe this may be the kind of accusatory rhetoric that is unhelpful here. And I'm not on the "no virus" side. But folks are trying to make their point respectfully, why accuse them of being in a cult? I haven't seen cult-like arguments from them on this thread, anyway.
It's a cult because no matter what evidence you show them, including actual pictures of viruses, they will come up with an excuse as to why that evidence doesn't actually prove the existence of viruses. Nice people can be a part of a cult, BTW.
WHAT TYPE of proof, then, would or could possibly suffice for the virus deniers? What type of proof would suffice to convince the flat-earthers that our planet is essentially a globe? This type of thinking eventually leads to an infinite regression.
Also, what kind of proof would convince you that viruses do not cause disease?
Oh my God, I just typed an incredibly long and thoughtful reply on my smartphone that got erased just like that. Too tired to start over!
Tl;dr - challenging germ theory and the claim that viruses are infectious agents of disease is a legitimate position. I don't think "virus deniers", as you call them, are necessarily flat earthers. I am certainly not a flat earther and not a fan of that belief system, nor of Holocaust denial. But I am open to the possibility that viruses are just some sort of exosome and that they do not cause disease.
The issue could be settled through careful experimentation, if there was good will and honesty on both sides.
Yes, this is much shorter than the other thing I wrote.
There aren't just virus deniers. There are also virus skeptics and anti-virus skeptics and maybe others. They're not all of the same mind.
I agree. I am not either. It’s an interesting question.
Which material that claims viruses have not been proven to exist have you consulted? You do need to immerse yourself in the argument and really come to terms with it before knee-jerking with "cult-like" thinking. Of course, the virus deniers can equally apply the term "cult-like" thinking to those who believe in viruses. Stay away from those sorts of epithets and stick to the argument.
This must be the same person driving in their car with a mask on, yelling at people on the street to get vaccinated :) How about we just stay open minded and start from a position that just because other people don't agree with you, doesn't mean they are a "cult" or "deniers" of any kind. This is a tactic of the left and it usually doesn't end up well.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-About-Rabies:a
Interesting, but her very strong bias introduces the possibility that she is cherry-picking her "evidence". She is certainly "slanting" her conclusions. This does not constitute a scientific presentation on the subject. Very reminiscent of so much of the COVID propaganda. Is her assumption correct? How much evidence FOR the existence of a Rabies virus did she NOT present? She sounds like she is from Australia (or New Zealand), countries that she admits have almost no Rabies, which means there is a very high probability that she has never even encountered the disease. So why the interest? Because of its rairity it maks a good subject for promoting a "virus denier" position? Disease with the symptoms of Rabies has been observed in many different mammals. If it were something else, say a prion disease, would it be more specific in its hosts?
Are Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in humans, Mad Cow disease in cattle, Scrappies in sheep and goats, Chronic Wasting Disease in the deer family, and the "prion"-configuration in the COVID shots' spikes all caused by the same mis-folded prion material or is it usually species-specific?
Lots of questions, few answers, especially since everyone seems to have an agenda to promote.
Faith, can you tell us more about the prion configuration in Covid vax spike protein? I read long ago that prions can be possibly very contagious and deadly, as they can cause proteins to fold improperly as in CJD etc. I hadn't heard that the Covid vax spike protein (mRNA) is a prion or contains prions. That's scary. But hopefully few if any vaxes actually contain/ed mRNA.
I've read so much, and seen so many videos by now of doctors and researchers talking about the spike protein, I'm not sure offhand who was discussing a segment of the spike that appears to be similar to the Mad Cow disease prions. I've saved hundreds of links to them, so given enough time I might be able to locate that specific reference.
Also, there was an article fairly recently about an unusual increase in cases of Cruetzfeldt-Jacob disease after COVID shots, with people succumbing rather quickly from it, like within about four months. Weird.
Your description of the journey of rabies “virus” sounds like the same pathology as snake or spider bite - it’s a toxin - not necessarily a “virus”. Actually the word VIRUS means “toxin” so maybe we’re all saying the same thing here! 😄
Snake and spider toxins start acting almost immediately. I've experienced both.
Rabies has to replicate, as pathogens do, before anything happens.
Also, in the 1990s, rabies among wild foxes in Germany (and probably they did that elsewhere in Europe, too) was severely reduced by regularly dumping oral vaccine bait thingies (no idea what it's called in English) the foxes pick up.
That's pretty wild!
Faith, how does the virus travel through nerves?
Good question, but they do! The Chicken Pox virus that causes Shingles does it and migrates through an entire nerve "tree" to the skin, typically over a section of the chest or abdomen; plus other herpes viruses, and measels-type viruses like the one that causes Canine Distemper all hide out in nerves where the immune system can't get to them with macrophages to eat them. Bell's Palsey is from viruses getting inside the Facial nerve, one of the "cranial nerves" that come directly from the brain, and they cause swelling and pressure that cuts off nerve transmission to that side of the face, usually temporarily.
Wouldn’t the fact that it can travel through an electrical pathway indicate that the “virus” can take the form of an electrical/energetic signal rather than a particulate dna/rna package?
Nerves are not electric wires. Fluid in the nerves, an aqueous electrolyte solution, conducts electricity just as any non-pure water can, only optimally (distilled water with zero minerals is actually a poor conductor). So it is the cytoplasm contents of the nerve cells that provides a hospitable environment for viruses, just as any cellular contents would. But nerve cells can be really long, counting the long extensions that the electrical signals move along— the axon and dendrites, like in the sciatic nerve that stretches from the lower spinal cord all the way to the foot.
We can measure the presence of organisms we call viruses. When it is present, the host gets sick. When it's absent, they don't.
Which came first, the virus or the sickness? Is a virus the cause of the sickness or is the presence of viral particles merely a symptom of feeling unwell? Are many, if not all, viruses simply the products of cellular detoxification (aka exosomes) which accumulate in extracellular fluids and make us feel bad? If so, what caused the systemic detox reaction to occur in the first place? The human genome seems filled with "viral" sequences, but what are they really? "Junk DNA"? Absurd! What are their actual functions, and why did Nature's evolutionary mechanisms and pressures ensure that they were accumulated and assiduously retained for succeeding generations?
These are questions virologists have done a miserable job of answering... recently, to the point of ignoring the questions entirely. The field of virology appears to me to be more cultish scientism at this point than pure scientific empiricism. As scientific disciplines go, virology is still in its infancy and will fail to mature into a respectable field of inquiry until it can be rescued from the vested monetary interests which have held it hostage for the past few decades.
I look forward to that day, as I'm an old, retired, marine microbiologist/medical researcher who still believes that one should gather facts and allow them to take you where they will. Only by allowing the light of truth to guide our path forward, can we ever hope to mutually build a brighter future for all of the lifeforms which share this magnificent little planet...
Doesn't matter. All that matters is people are getting sick and governments are forcing therapies that not only don't work and are destructive. Therapies that do work, like ivermectin (an anviviral) are forbidden. Government is our worst pathogen, whether you call them administrators or rulers or tyrants, the result is the same -- bad outcomes for those who comply. Better to focus on issues that matter. Be ungovernable.
I couldn't agree more. The older I get, the more of an anarchist I become. Government has always been the bane of human civilization. That's why we were warned that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". How vigilant were we here in America while FEDGOV was slowly captured by forces hostile to human freedom? Ultimately, it's our fault.
I remain hopeful though that things are about to take a dramatic turn for the better. The entire planet is undergoing an unprecedented healing crisis. It's painful but necessary.
Why do you mix up the issues - do viruses exist, and what is their connection to diseases?
Why do you obsess over trivia? People get sick. People devise therapies. People study the illnesses and the cures to better understand. Current state of the art says of course viruses exist and cause physiological reactions we perceive as sickness. Sars2, for example, being a fairly simple organism is easier to understand than the more complex human reactions. Doesn't really matter what you call the agents causing the body to initiate those reactions, or why the body reacts badly, only that we can expedite the recovery. If you want to deny viruses, go for it. It won't affect your outcome. Health is not a function of what you believe, but what you do.
🍃🌺🍃 Beautifully stated, Phil Welsh!
“Vested monetary interests”. In a nutshell. I prefer to stay open minded about this. I found Cowans book and thoughts intriguing and it tickled a few thoughts concerning my faith and whom my faith rests on--The mystery of the human body we will never completely unravel. Likewise all life. We are electric beings.
Do you have anything to support your theory? I would be interested to see it
Though I generally don't recommend Wikipedia, its treatment of endo- and exosomes is a good staring point. You can then use an alternative search engine such as Freespoke and type in "exosomes vs viruses". If your interest is sufficient, you could be reading for weeks. The jury is still deliberating about this subject and much remains to be discovered. Initial premises regarding viral etiology of disease are in need of reexamination but that's difficult to do when the scientific reputations of so many are on the line.
I just want to be sure that I'm looking at the same evidence that you are.
Thanks for mentioning another search engine. I hadn't heard of it, Freespoke that is. I just tried doing a search there now on "vaccine deaths". There are 500 pages of results, which is much better than other search engines. But at least the first few pages are biased toward the mainstream BS. I can tell by the website names and by some of the titles. I also searched on "scamdemic" and that gets less biased results, I think. "Plandemic" gets very mainstream results though. We need a search engine for alternative views for a change. Damn it.
You do understand that until CDC changed the definition of a vaccine and how they are made it always meant a "killed" or attenuated virus. Until you can collect virus particles you can't "kill" or attenuate them.
What is being called "viruses" are universally acknowledged to be non-living things, so they cannot be "killed". Attenuation refers to the process of inactivating or weakening these things, whatever they are. This is claimed to prevent replication inside host cells. So the question remains: What is it that's actually being collected and purified (from eggs or from cell culture lysates and supernates), which needs to then be treated so as not to create the very disease it's designed to protect against - exosomes or real, infective, viral particles?
Let's look at the flu. Why do many people who receive flu shots still develop flu-like symptoms each year? I've never had a flu jab and I haven't had so much as a mild head or chest cold for over 50 years now. Either the shots are woefully ineffective or the "viruses", whatever they really are, have acquired a reputation that they don't deserve. The seasonal flu comes along each year when Vitamin D levels drop because everyone is wearing cold weather clothing and remaining largely indoors. The immune system has a critical need for D and it wanes in competence as a result of chronic D deficiency. For some as yet unexplained reason, our bodies respond by initiating a natural detoxification cycle. Our cells dump wastes (packaged in exosomes) into the extra-cellular fluids and that creates all of the symptoms associated with what we've come to call the "flu".
Pennies a day of Vitamin D3/K2 alone will prevent a multitude of human ills...
Phil, it's not just lack of sunlight in the winter that leads to the tendency to get colds and flu. It's also the low humidity that allows viruses to remain in the air longer, whereas humidity causes them to fall to the ground in water droplets.
Vitamin D is a metabolite essential for immune function to protect against invading pathogens, like virises. Which is good evidence for the existence of viruses. Maintain your immune health and the nature of the pathogen doesn't matter. It's handled automatically.
That’s why I put “killed” in quotes. He idea being conveyed is that a “killed” virus is no longer capable of infecting someone.
I agree viruses exist however your statement does not account for complexities of the immune system. A virus can be present and not cause illness because the immune system neutralizes it. An example would be a family living together where the parents are symptomatic with covid but the kids are not. Clearly the kids have daily constant exposure to the virus yet not sick.
The rabies virus is one of the most lethal. Only a handful of people have ever survived a rabies infection without immediate treatment.
You are correct that rabies is a unique virus unlike most others. Maybe we could agree that all virus are not the same and the treatment of them should vary.
It’s ugly to see if no treatment.
do you not see the blatant contradiction in your statement? why havent any of the millions of household pets in America got Covid? easy... they dont watch TV....https://www.bitchute.com/video/rHmg8EY3cXPD/
My husband and I haven’t been ill in nearly two decades. However, we visited many shops and ate dinner at a restaurant in the Redmond/ Totem Lake area of Washington state in early March of 2020. We both came down with what we think was covid, but there was no testing for our age group back then. Shortly afterwards our cat also became ill for a week with coughing, sneezing, watery eyes, lethargy etc. While he didn’t go shopping with us, nor dine at the restaurant, he does sit face-to-face on my husband’s chest every single morning after breakfast. Also, we don’t own a television. 🤷🏻♀️
WOW...your cat was coughing sneezing had watery eyes and was lethargic?...well I apologize you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt your cat got covid...thankfully it didnt die from that deadly virus...you should write a scientific paper to document your experience that obviously proves there's a deadly virus blowing around...keep me updated on your progress...oh and warn the neighbors animals to stay clear of kitty so they dont catch the covid too...they might not be as lucky
So they tell us ... but has the scientific work been done to prove presence and absence and causing illness?
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-About-Rabies:a
And no "scientific work" has been done to prove parachutes work. But there's enough evidence to convince normal folks.
that's crazy - a huge amount of 'scientific' work went into it - ie observing something with large surface area descending slowly- testing the hypothesis that humans might be able to jump out of planes and not die with mock ups of different sizes of parachute and weight. extensive testing of materials. and finally with volunteers.
what an odd thing to say
Of course, but no "proper" studies. Likewise, lots of evidence of ivermectin, but the argument was that no studies was excuse for prohibition.
not really a great analogy- a randomised placebo controlled study comparing outcomes of those jumping out of aeroplanes using parachutes with those without a parachute would be the 'proper' study
the study of ivermectin showed a 0.0176% improvement in 'covid' symptoms over those not taking it. It was not placebo controlled which accounts for up to 60% improvement in symptoms and was observational of self-selected users so not a proper study either.
The 100% effectiveness in mortality represents an observation in a study of those self selected to take invermectin with those who selected not to (NB not randomised). There was one death in the non ivermectin group (not a placebo controlled group) chosen and none in the ivermectin group chosen. I maintain that suppressing detox symptoms with fluxoamine and ivermectin may 'save' a life for a short time in those already stressed by obesity, but the obesity will remain as will the toxins which must be expelled by a more severe episode at a later time.
Those tests were done incorrectly, probably fraudulently so. Thousands of clinical successes indicates it works well, nearly 100% effective when correctly administered. Another parachute example might be testing the parachute and opening at 500 feet.
You are confusing relative and absolute efficacy .
Saying a drug is 100% effective does not mean it works 100% of the time! that would be crazy.
The studies you mention on ivermectin show an absolute efficacy of 0.0176%
For example say the vaccine is alleged to be 50% effective. when you read the actual paper like I did for ivermectin it shows that the placebo was 98% effective at preventing symtoms and the vaccine was 99% effective (allegedly) so an absolute efficacy of 1% and a relative efficacy of 1% as a percentage of 2%= 50%
A placebo could be a parachute that looked and felt like one but was't. or a car with brakes that looked like brakes but didn't work. The placebo effect does not apply.
You apparently don't want ivermectin to work, or are just unusually gullible. The ivermectin trials have been consistently badly done, likely fraudulent. Other trials and a growing body of clinical success shows ivermectin is highly effective against sars2 variants, and the vax is not.
I hoped that it would be obvious from my comments in answer to the question posed in this post, there is no Sars2 of any variant, shape, size,, colour or creed for ivermectin to be effective against.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
The 100% effectiveness in mortality represents an observation in a study of those self selected to take invermectin with those who selected not to (NB not randomised). There was one death in the non ivermectin group (not a placebo controlled group) chosen and none in the ivermectin group chosen. I maintain that suppressing detox symptoms with fluxoamine and ivermectin may 'save' a life for a short time in those already stressed by obesity, but the obesity will remain as will the toxins which must be expelled by a more severe episode at a later time.
Jo
Do you have proof?
That’s nonsense.
If you have trouble understanding, you could ask more coherent questions. Likewise, every time someone is saved by ivermectin, it passes the test. Millions have done so, and it's the way real science has always been done. The modern fetish of formal trials is just job security for medical bureaucrats and political frauds.
This is in reference to the parachute remark. Every time someone used a parachute they test it, and it passes the test.
I didn't mean to imply no scientific work has been done, the question I'm asking is has the required scientific work been done.
The real question is what work is "required." The recent obsession with formal trials indicates a fetish or fraud. If this virus is truly dangerous, randomized control groups would be unethical. The history of science has relied mostly on observation and deduction, not formal proofs which take so much longer. To suddenly assert that's no longer valid is contrary to common sense, as well as dangerous in a crisis.
The control experiments lacking in relation to sars-cov-2 are in vitro controls which wouldn't be unethical. What you need to do is take a little look, dip your big toe in the arguments from the scientists saying that viruses haven't been proven to exist rather than just arguing here in a comment thread. For goodness sake!
There's considerable evidence those same "scientists" are corrupt. Accept their statements at your risk. Superficial understanding of science leads many astray. Learning the truth requires more than "a little look."
snap x
bullshit...NO virus has ever been isolated...fake pictures of dead cells they call viruses dont count...https://www.bitchute.com/video/rHmg8EY3cXPD/
this only proves a technology for observing viruses is lacking... not that viruses to not exist.
not having proof of something is not proof something doesn't exist
the burden of proof lies with those claiming something exists...not vice versa...do you believe in ghosts because no one has ever proven they don't exist?
No. The burden of proof lies with any statement of fact in the negative or positive. Science (or our current understanding of it) is very limited in what it can and can't determine as empirical truth. A true statement of fact in this debate would be there is not enough empirical evidence to proove absolutely that the phenomena ascribed to "viruses" causes x, y, z disease. You cannot "prove" that viruses do not cause Chicken Pox, unless you have an alternative hypothesis that withstands the same level of scrutiny for proof that you expect from the conventionally accepted hypothesis. This is how Science works. Sometimes the truth is that we just don't know with our current level of technology. But again, you cannot unseat a conventionally accepted hypotheses without proof of a replacement. This is what is driving Steve Kirsch crazy. This is why virus naysayers do not want to debate him, they have no alternative explanations grounded in empirical data.
blah blah...blah ba blah ba blah...the burden of proof lies with those claiming something actually exists and is causing the disease...period...refute these facts presented or admit you were wrong...https://www.bitchute.com/video/rHmg8EY3cXPD/
This is not about right or wrong, if only it were that simple... their are layers upon layers of observations, data, minor theories, and grand theories. In other words, there are hundredes of thousands (if not millions) of components described as axioms of truth that make up "Germ Theory." Most of the critizisms in the video you shared were corrrect, what was wrong was the conclusions.
Forget humans for a moment and think of a coyote. It survives in nature drinking water that other animals have defecated in, and by often eating roting flesh. In fact, it sticks its nose into crap and decaying carcasses on a daily basis... the point is its immune system is tuned and responsive to the microbial environment. So were the subjects in the influenza experement. There is no argument there! Correctly observing that healty people do not get sick when exposed does not debunk germ theory. Its called a "multifactorial" event, were there are many factors that determine when a human or other animal gets sick.
Nobody is arguing that the PCR actually identifies a virus, or that an intact virus has been isolated. But again while your observations is correct, your conclusion is not. The correct conclusion is that the PCR cannot accuratly detect a virus, not that "viruses don't exist." As far as the isolation question, there is no way to view a virus in-situ. That is also true, but to conclude that because of our limited technology cannot accuratly isolate a virus... viruses don't exist is asinine. For hundreds of years sailors and scientists hypothesized the existnce of the Kraken (giant squid) from the tentical marks on whales even though one was not "isolated" from the ocean until recently.
The cellular debris theory suffers from the same flaw you throw at Germ theory, you cannot conclusivley determine what the debris are. This alternative theory cannot be proven by your requirements either.
And yes, Big Pharma is bad, and most medicines dont work. Yes, they lie all the time for profit. Ulterior motives and even outright fraud in science does not disprove the existence of viruses.
The video was coherent and well argued. However its conclusions were pure conjecture. What we all have to admit is that WE REALLY DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT MICROBIOLOGY, IMMUNOLOGY, AND MEDICINE. Can we agree on that?
Those who rely on repeating things they read from anonymous internet posters, repeating them verbatim like religious liturgy, are at a survival disadvantage. Normal people realize the semantics don't matter, and focus on solutions that work. We have a choice of waiting for pathogens to be "isolated" or can figure out what works and leave the superstitions out of it. Antivirals work. Healthy immune systems work. Superstitions don't work.
those relying on the government or big pharma to tell them what to believe are the dumbest of the dumb... if "viruses" actually existed and caused disease the human race would already be extinct.,.grow a damn brain
Do anti virals work? The HIV sufferers I know that have survived live very very clean lives. And they take a massive amount of drugs. Including vitamins and antibiotics.
HIV is distinctive in that it mutates very quickly, faster than SARS. Developing antivirals is pretty easy. Developing antivirals for the next strain is harder. In general, RNA viruses mutate quicker due to the lack of error checking in RNA replication. More stable viruses like smallpox and polio are easier.
We're still vaccinating for 2 year old strains of covid, almost eliminated, thus the ineffectiveness of the vax.
all your questions about the 'joker card' rabies answered here please watch https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-About-Rabies:a
Jo
There is the vaccine developed by Louis Pasteur in the late 19th century.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3560403?origin=crossref
There is phylogenetic analysis and reconstruction of rabies and other lyssaviruses providing a chronology for the evolution of the rabies virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5620125/
There are the electron microscopy studies of the rabies virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2106341/
Pasteur is a known FRAUD...and using any "goverment" information to verify anything is ridiculous...just like Pasteur they are known liars....https://www.bitchute.com/video/rHmg8EY3cXPD/
Pasteur admitted late in life (some claim it was a deathbed confession) that his germ theory of disease wasn't incorrect, but it WAS incomplete. We now know that the TERRAIN is far more important than the microbe. Pathogens are opportunistic and will proliferate if conditions are suitable for doing so.
Focus on immune system health and it will keep you healthy. Address chronic nutritional deficiencies, maintain your internal chemistry in an alkaline state by eating more alkaline-forming foods and beverages, and employ natural, gentle, detoxing regimens on a routine basis. We live in an increasingly toxic world, so it's critically important that you perform intestinal cleanses/fasts and liver/gall bladder/kidney/lymphatic flushes. They're easy and inexpensive but require two things which seem to be in short supply in today's world... commitment and discipline.
Again, be my guest and put it to the test with a bite from a rabid animal.
bite a "rabid" animal? is that your proof of a virus? very scientific...now heres a question for the virus cult...with all these deadly viruses floating about forever...why hasn't humanity already become extinct thousands of years ago? take your time
Yep, I would just love to see you with your healthy immune system smear a little Ebola virus on a cut in your arm and we'll see how long you last. You see the CIA and their deadly bioweapons, don't need to fear them, just be healthy and they won't affect you.
Do you have anything so support your statement about Pasteur?
If you change your alkalinity you will be very dead very quickly.
Yep. 'Béchamp or Pasteur' by Ethel Hume.
Peter, I think viruses exist, but I think there's much less known about them and about living cells than the establishment claims. Dr. Hillman said most means of observing cell & tissue contents etc damage them and therefore distort them. I'm trying to gather knowledge on this at https://ilki.substack.com/p/is-microbiology-real and https://ilki.substack.com/p/vax-questions-for-experts/comments and I hope to get expert input.
The "experts" are infamous for overstating the extent of their knowledge. That much is certain.
At least the mainstream experts are.
All "experts". Mainstream and otherwise.
The rabies virus structure allows it to be genetically modified with a fluorescent protein. It can then be tracked and observed doing its virusy stuff. I did see something explaining this in plain English a while ago but can only find this at the moment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC525074/
It is not caused by the Fed's increased interest rates or chocolate pudding, so there are two you can eliminate from your check list of possible pathogens.
Well stated, Heidi.
Boom 💥 Heidi
U have more energy than me, my mitochondria get tired 😴
Ps I like your new picture !
Dr. Hillman said electron microscopes destroy living cells. They apparently distort and damage the contents. So he said there are many misconceptions in microbiology. I'm writing about this at https://ilki.substack.com/p/is-microbiology-real
Electron microscopy destroys the thing it's looking at AFTER the image is taken. You see the thing as it was just before you destroyed it by looking at it.
Think of pool: you start with balls arranged in a triangle and you shoot one ball at it. The one ball returns to you, evidencing that it hit something. But the thing it hit no longer exists; the triangle is scattered.
@Mr.
What's your evidence or proof? Are you a better authority than Dr. Hillman was?
Proof would be university-level late 19th / early 20th century physics.
Antibiotics do work, but against bacteria, not viruses.