First, as to the bacteria, I COMPLETELY AGREE with you that bacterial waste product can be toxic, putrid and cause sickness. But this is the result of the bacteria breaking down putrid, decaying substances. It is incidental to the more important job being performed by the bacteria, not purposeful.

There is a metric FUCKTON of evidence in experiments that supports "an immune system." I don't even know where to begin to start explaining how many experiments support it. Billions.

Well then one such study will suffice to support your claim. And to be clear, the word "immunity" is deliberately used to imply that you can become "immune" to some agent/organism. Let's not conflate "immunity", with say mercury poisoning, or getting some foreign substance inside your bloodstream or sterile environment which our bodies defend against and eradicate. You can never be "immune" to toxins or foreign substances inside your body. This is not "immunity" as the word is used and is the meaning being discussed in this thread. Everybody understands this word "immunity" to be dealing with "germs/microbes" and that's the context that I'm also using, to be clear. Agreed?

So I'd be happy to review one such study that supports this idea of an "immune system". And it must be absent the INJECTION OF substances of any kind. These are nonsense "studies" that prove nothing other than you should NOT inject foreign "stuff" into your body. This should be obvious. Further, if you inject foreign "stuff" into an organism, it should be no surprise that you can find this "stuff" inside it later on.

And for the record, I've read the John's Hopkins tuberculosis guinea pig experiment that took place over the course of 4 years. There are so many things wrong with it, I don't even know where to start. It proved nothing. If it were accurate, you should be able to "transmit TB" through the air in a few minutes with an aerosolizer or putting TB in their water and seeing results of illness within hours or days at most. And the key would be, generating an actual ILLNESS, not just "finding TB in their organs" after autopsy.

Ideally, you could produce just ONE of the "metric FU*#TON" of billions that was an actual HUMAN-TO-HUMAN (H2H) transmission experiment. I don't think you can but I'd love to see you try. It would be the first we would have been able to find after scouring the annals for the past 18 months.

You should ask yourself why you can't find an example of H2H transmission studies. It's a good thought experiment. And "ethical reasons" is not a good answer. The military regularly subjects enlistees to all sorts of experiments without limits for decades, including the "Spanish Flu" back in 1918/1919, without success - during the so-called "deadliest pandemic" in recent memory. Those in prison regularly volunteer for such experiments with the promise of a shorter sentence. And many volunteers have stepped up to the plate over the past century in need of money to take part in all manner of medical experiments.

And for the record, I don't think you're an "idiot', nor anybody else. I once believed in germ theory up until about 2 years ago, as did, I suspect, all of us. And I would have laughed off any suggestion to the contrary back then. I readily admit this.

However, we were all duped, plain and simple. But very few are willing to examine the evidence for themselves. The barrier to this is seemingly insurmountable for some reason. I suspect because everybody has at least one story where several people in the home or office got sick around the same time and the memory of this trumps all other possible evidence to the contary.

And also for the record, what Lanka et al have definitively demonstrated is that virologists and germ-theory supporters have proven NOTHING. Literally NOTHING. And this is easy to see. It's not complicated. The medical establishment has made the CLAIM - that viruses exist - that bacteria cause dis-ease. But they have failed to scientifically demonstrate both of these claims. It's this simple -> He who makes the CLAIM bears the burden of proof.

So frankly, there's nothing to argue about if we don't yet have any proof. It would be like me CLAIMING the moon is made out of blue cheese and then demanding you prove me wrong. This is the situation we're in with "viruses".

The 1954 Enders measles experiment, which literally saved "virology" from certain death was the first, and LAST such scientific experiment to actually perform a control experiment with his new "viral culturing" method. And what did Enders find in this control experiment, where he didn't add the bodily fluids of the boy with measles? He found the results were INDISTINGUISHABLE from the main culturing experiment. Just like Dr. Lanka showed last year. And how many "scientific" studies in virology have run a control experiment since Enders did in 1954? As far as we can find, the answer is ZERO - ZILCH - NADA.

This is not science. This is pseudo-science, the cult of SCIENTISM at work. This fact alone of no control experiments should end any rational debate with a mic drop moment. What could possibly be their explanation for this "oversight" of adhering to the standard scientific method?

If the medical establishment's CLAIMS were true, we would should have thousands of studies on the record demonstrating them. But we don't. There is literally no SCIENCE involved. I'm not castigating science or setting up some sort of science versus religion argument. Science is great when it's actually used.

Antoine Bechamp demonstrated germ theory was pure nonsense in 1870 and yet here we are. Bechamp was the SCIENTIST, Pasteur was the fame-seeking charlatan.

So I challenge you to produce a viable scientific study that's been repeated countless times which demonstrates:

1. The transmission of a "microbe", without injections or the use of other substances, but strictly using the microbe alone

2. That demonstrates the transference of the defined and specific illness that said microbe is said to cause, not "similar" or "related" symptoms.

3. And ideally, in support of Koch's postulates, said microbe could then be taken from the newly dis-eased human/animal, purified and isolated, and then transferred to another human/animal which then gets the same dis-ease to complete the proof of claim.

Is this too much to ask? If so, please explain why. Explain why injections into the sterile environment and bloodstream are a necessity in these "scientific experiments" when we've all been indoctrinated into the idea of "the germs of the air" and that the majority are spread in this way?

None of what I request should be difficult to find and prove if germ theory is true - viruses or bacteria. And frankly, I don't get the anger and disdain. We've been duped - BIGLY. I'm just the messenger, of quite honestly, some VERY GOOD NEWS. Wouldn't you agree that it's good news that there are no germs floating around in the air that make us sick and kill us? Just as the scripture shown by the OP suggests? Why would this make you angry?

There is a metric FUCKTON of evidence in experiments that supports "an immune system." I don't even know where to begin to start explaining how many experiments support it. Billions.

Well then one such study will suffice to support your claim. And to be clear, the word "immunity" is deliberately used to imply that you can become "immune" to some agent/organism. Let's not conflate "immunity", with say mercury poisoning, or getting some foreign substance inside your bloodstream or sterile environment which our bodies defend against and eradicate. You can never be "immune" to toxins or foreign substances inside your body. This is not "immunity" as the word is used and is the meaning being discussed in this thread. Everybody understands this word "immunity" to be dealing with "germs/microbes" and that's the context that I'm also using, to be clear. Agreed?

So I'd be happy to review one such study that supports this idea of an "immune system". And it must be absent the INJECTION OF substances of any kind. These are nonsense "studies" that prove nothing other than you should NOT inject foreign "stuff" into your body. This should be obvious. Further, if you inject foreign "stuff" into an organism, it should be no surprise that you can find this "stuff" inside it later on.

And for the record, I've read the John's Hopkins tuberculosis guinea pig experiment that took place over the course of 4 years. There are so many things wrong with it, I don't even know where to start. It proved nothing. If it were accurate, you should be able to "transmit TB" through the air in a few minutes with an aerosolizer or putting TB in their water and seeing results of illness within hours or days at most. And the key would be, generating an actual ILLNESS, not just "finding TB in their organs" after autopsy.

Ideally, you could produce just ONE of the "metric FU*#TON" of billions that was an actual HUMAN-TO-HUMAN (H2H) transmission experiment. I don't think you can but I'd love to see you try. It would be the first we would have been able to find after scouring the annals for the past 18 months.

You should ask yourself why you can't find an example of H2H transmission studies. It's a good thought experiment. And "ethical reasons" is not a good answer. The military regularly subjects enlistees to all sorts of experiments without limits for decades, including the "Spanish Flu" back in 1918/1919, without success - during the so-called "deadliest pandemic" in recent memory. Those in prison regularly volunteer for such experiments with the promise of a shorter sentence. And many volunteers have stepped up to the plate over the past century in need of money to take part in all manner of medical experiments.

And for the record, I don't think you're an "idiot', nor anybody else. I once believed in germ theory up until about 2 years ago, as did, I suspect, all of us. And I would have laughed off any suggestion to the contrary back then. I readily admit this.

However, we were all duped, plain and simple. But very few are willing to examine the evidence for themselves. The barrier to this is seemingly insurmountable for some reason. I suspect because everybody has at least one story where several people in the home or office got sick around the same time and the memory of this trumps all other possible evidence to the contary.

And also for the record, what Lanka et al have definitively demonstrated is that virologists and germ-theory supporters have proven NOTHING. Literally NOTHING. And this is easy to see. It's not complicated. The medical establishment has made the CLAIM - that viruses exist - that bacteria cause dis-ease. But they have failed to scientifically demonstrate both of these claims. It's this simple -> He who makes the CLAIM bears the burden of proof.

So frankly, there's nothing to argue about if we don't yet have any proof. It would be like me CLAIMING the moon is made out of blue cheese and then demanding you prove me wrong. This is the situation we're in with "viruses".

The 1954 Enders measles experiment, which literally saved "virology" from certain death was the first, and LAST such scientific experiment to actually perform a control experiment with his new "viral culturing" method. And what did Enders find in this control experiment, where he didn't add the bodily fluids of the boy with measles? He found the results were INDISTINGUISHABLE from the main culturing experiment. Just like Dr. Lanka showed last year. And how many "scientific" studies in virology have run a control experiment since Enders did in 1954? As far as we can find, the answer is ZERO - ZILCH - NADA.

This is not science. This is pseudo-science, the cult of SCIENTISM at work. This fact alone of no control experiments should end any rational debate with a mic drop moment. What could possibly be their explanation for this "oversight" of adhering to the standard scientific method?

If the medical establishment's CLAIMS were true, we would should have thousands of studies on the record demonstrating them. But we don't. There is literally no SCIENCE involved. I'm not castigating science or setting up some sort of science versus religion argument. Science is great when it's actually used.

Antoine Bechamp demonstrated germ theory was pure nonsense in 1870 and yet here we are. Bechamp was the SCIENTIST, Pasteur was the fame-seeking charlatan.

So I challenge you to produce a viable scientific study that's been repeated countless times which demonstrates:

1. The transmission of a "microbe", without injections or the use of other substances, but strictly using the microbe alone

2. That demonstrates the transference of the defined and specific illness that said microbe is said to cause, not "similar" or "related" symptoms.

3. And ideally, in support of Koch's postulates, said microbe could then be taken from the newly dis-eased human/animal, purified and isolated, and then transferred to another human/animal which then gets the same dis-ease to complete the proof of claim.

Is this too much to ask? If so, please explain why. Explain why injections into the sterile environment and bloodstream are a necessity in these "scientific experiments" when we've all been indoctrinated into the idea of "the germs of the air" and that the majority are spread in this way?

None of what I request should be difficult to find and prove if germ theory is true - viruses or bacteria. And frankly, I don't get the anger and disdain. We've been duped - BIGLY. I'm just the messenger, of quite honestly, some VERY GOOD NEWS. Wouldn't you agree that it's good news that there are no germs floating around in the air that make us sick and kill us? Just as the scripture shown by the OP suggests? Why would this make you angry?