New FOIA docs related to C19 origins. Forget speaker drama and start digging in !
(twitter.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (42)
sorted by:
It’s only confusing because you keep misreading what I’m saying in an attempt to get your gotcha moment.
Like when you misinterpreted my disbelief that a handful of micro Davids could enter a giga Goliath like a healthy human body and, within a few hours to days, bring that giga Goliath to his knees. A human doesn’t go from healthy to suffering from the flu that quickly. It takes months for a microbe to go from first entry to being able to threaten the body and that’s only possible if the human being invaded is weakened.
Also viruses don’t exist.
Cooking is associated with larger brain size in the evolutionary record. I consider it to be rudimentary sanitation, that is to say, a means of reducing microbes in one’s environment. It obviously damages the nutritional value of themeat too, but the alternative of always eating raw meat isn’t viable with factory food, you WILL make yourself sick, even with beef.
And for my own food operation, I can’t bring myself to kill. So I eat eggs, often raw, also often cooked (over easy on mashed potatoes mmmm).
I can’t see how you can subscribe to the idea that someone sneezing on you can make you sick, but eating salmonella-ridden raw chicken meat on the regular is okay. And you say my beliefs are confusing!
My goal is not one of malice, but of getting to the truth. Please stop ascribing false intent to my actions. It is my belief that you are basing your conclusions on false premises. I say that because I keep seeing things in your stated beliefs that go directly against experimental evidence and you are not providing evidence to support your beliefs. Therefore I am trying to understand your position more fully. I am not intentionally "misunderstanding" you (if indeed that is what is happening). If I am doing so, either I am not hearing you, or you are not being clear. You assume it is the first.
Viruses replicate at different rates and in different conditions. Some viruses can completely their cycle in around an hour, or a few hours. We'll call it two hours for simplicity. This means they can go from a single invader to hundreds or thousands in an hour. We'll call it "1,000" for simplicity.
A single virion from a virus like a coronavirus then will, after finding a target cell, create 1,000 more. It doesn't have to be SARS if you believe that one doesn't exist, any old coronavirus will do. It will only attach to cell types that are actively expressing a specific receptor (or similar one, depends on the virus). Once so infected the virion gets endocytosed and is thus wholly out of the reach of what we think of as our "immune system," at least until the virus finishes it's cycle.
So in this contrived case, two hour after a single virion finds its target, there will then be 1,000 new virions introduced into a region of the body where the cells are already expressing the receptors that particular virus uses to invade. That means that all of those cells will be targets. What happens when you "gum up," or in many cases kill a bunch of different cells in a single location of the body, a single organ? You do damage to the tissue.
All of these things cause an immune response, but there are multiple immune responses. For example, there's the "find invader" response, but there's also damage, so there's an inflammation response. The virus won't stay localized as it sounds like I'm suggesting, but I don't think you fully appreciate how quickly things can get out of hand. If a single cell creates 1,000 virions in 2 hours, in 4 hours there can be 1,000,000. In 6 hours there can be 1,000,000,000. Every one born in an environment where they barely have to look for their favorite receptor site.
But not all will stay there. On the contrary, they will spread, causing damage all over. The body knows this and has a "sickness response." This puts the body on high alert, creating an inflammation response everywhere to be ready to fix what's broken, and do everything it can to halt 1,000,000,000 (one billion) virions from becoming 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion), or 1,000,000,000,000,000 (one quadrillion), etc.
This is (loosely, or perhaps overly simplistically) what experiment shows. In order for this to be incorrect you would have to show me the actual flaws (not just your supposition) in the millions of experiments that have led to the statements above of how it works.
Not only have you shown no "evidence against" the "evidence for" in any case, you have shown no evidence or even reasonable explanation against any of it, except your "disbelief," and, in my opinion, a lack of understanding (or more likely knowledge) of the evidence.
It is ONLY necessary for food that has been sitting and/or processed in a unsanitary environment. You attribute it to "Larger brain size." Getting into our real history is too far outside of this discussion, but I suggest you ask yourself this question:
Why are we the only animals (omnivore or carnivore) on the planet that get sick eating raw meat?
I’m aware of the climate change-tier explanation. These are results from petri dishes. In a healthy human body, microbes are prevented from growing to large enough population sizes to make the host sick. The immune system, absent in these experiments, intervenes long before microbes can reach this population level.
The fantastic part of the story is that there exists a microbe that can go from a handful to a population large enough to make one sick, in a matter of hours, inside a healthy human body.
But the evidence fits my explanation as well as yours, all while not requiring one to suspend one’s disbelief when it comes to viruses. You are assuming causality where there is only correlation.
We have already both identified factory food as the reason. I’m not supposing that we should eat raw factory meat, I’m simply using it as an example of how a healthy immune system works, and the effect sanitation has on one’s health. Someone in poor health might have one taste of raw chicken and that’s enough to set their already overgrown internal population of microbes into attack mode. Someone in my condition, by contrast, can easily eat the same taste of raw chicken with no ill effect. Yet if I persisted, I’d get sick too.
Analogize this to cold and flu infection. A coughing man enters an elevator containing myself and someone who eats carbs. Within hours of having been exposed, carb man is showing symptoms and I’m not. Carb man hasn’t suddenly been overrun with microbes that weren’t present. Rather, hormones and pheromones from the coughing man’s microbes (which are already in attack mode) have activated the latent population of microbes in carb man’s body. Me, I have no latent population to activate and am invulnerable to such attacks.
No it does not. You assume that all such experiments are in vitro. You, for whatever reason, seem to completely ignore the millions of in vivo experiments on viral load and their correlation with sickness level. Now, even if you think it's all bullshit and all the conclusions are wrong, the measurements of viral load are not easily dismissed. This suggests that a virus can replicate quickly in vivo, even if it doesn't always do so.
I agree that a virus won't always replicate quickly. I am not arguing that. You seem to be saying it is ludicrous to assume that it ever can. I am asking you to show me any evidence to support such an assertion. There is a ton of evidence to the contrary. The link above shows such an experiment on viral load and sickness level. It is the first one I found that wasn't on Covid, since you firmly believe that one doesn't exist. There are literally millions more such experiments that have nothing to do with a "Petri dish." Unfortunately showing exactly how many there are is problematic because of all the noise with the covid stuff, and it seems you will reject that out of hand (without actually seeing what is being said). Nevertheless, here is a search that may provide some indication. Not all of those experiments are actually in vivo (one of the search parameters) but it is a start.
I spoke about this before. It's called a war of attrition. The immune system will absolutely intervene, but it will have various levels of effectiveness. Someone with a healthy immune system will respond quicker, possibly even killing off the virus before it can take hold and do actual tissue damage. Someone who has a long term immune response to that particular virus will also likely kill off the virus before it can get out of hand. If they have a partial long term immune response (anti-bodies to a variant that is "close enough") they may have a better chance of fighting it off, but reduced, so they might get "sick," but "not that sick." Someone without any of those things probably won't be able to fight it off and will get more sick. These are all possibilities, not "what will happen." What will happen is whatever will happen. Biology is complex, but that's not the point. You seem to admit that the war of attrition happens and that some people are better equipped to fight that war than others. However, you seem to be supposing that it can't happen as fast as literally every experiment ever performed suggests and that thinking that it can requires "suspending disbelief."
Where does the disbelief come from? It doesn't seem to come from any actual experience (experiment in this case), evidence, or even good argument that isn't based on "I don't believe it." It seems to come purely from desire. Your argument appears to be, at least in general, that because there is fuckery in science, that it is all fuckery. It is not all fuckery. Your argument seems to be that because scientists are all brainwashed with dogmatic beliefs that that makes them stupid. Those are not the same thing. They adhere to dogma without realizing, but they are not stupid. They have false beliefs. That doesn't make them incapable of doing good science (taking measurements and understanding what the measurements suggest), it just makes them more likely to come to false conclusions, but only if it runs into specific dogma. It's not all dogma.
While I agree that the arguments put forth by scientists should not be trusted, and even the measurements put forth by scientists should not be trusted, believing a priori that they are all wrong is not a path to the truth in honest investigation. On the contrary, it is necessary to, point by point, find actual flaws in the arguments and evidence presented. If you are not willing to look at all of the evidence in earnest, your arguments are based purely on belief. You seem to be forcing what evidence you do know about to fit your beliefs. If you are incapable of adjusting your beliefs based on the evidence, you can't be an honest investigator and instead will only adhere to your own dogma ad naseum.