I'd agree that the water supply as a disease vector is a very stretchy claim because of the evidence and logic used to arrive at that conclusion. In fact I care very little for that idea, especially as it turns out that Stew Peters did no one any favours by hyping the water. How Peters presented the information was just like missing the point.
On the other hand, I think the snake venom hypothesis has some significant merit worth investigating. The papers, symptoms, evidence, and reasoning presented by Dr Ardin shows a much better correlation between venom and virus, and anti-venom and treatment, than with poisoning and testing.
One incorrect hypothesis should not automatically disqualify the other hypothesis unless they are dependent on each other, and I fail to see how venom as a disease component must depend on whether or not if the water is poisoned, or vice versa.
EDIT: I should clarify that my very best idea about what Covid is what Dr Richard Fleming has to say about the disease. Whether Dr Ardin is right or not about the snake venom being involved, I am firm about Dr Fleming having the best explanation about how covid behaves and how it is a bioweapon.
What Dr Ardin's hypothesis does is it presents a new idea that could deepen and augment my understanding about the disease. If it's wrong, then I can still fall back on Dr Fleming's idea as being the best way to explain the disease.
I'd agree that the water supply as a disease vector is a very stretchy claim because of the evidence and logic used to arrive at that conclusion. In fact I care very little for that idea, especially as it turns out that Stew Peters did no one any favours by hyping the water. How Peters presented the information was just like missing the point.
On the other hand, I think the snake venom hypothesis has some significant merit worth investigating. The papers, symptoms, evidence, and reasoning presented by Dr Ardin shows a much better correlation between venom and virus, and anti-venom and treatment, than with poisoning and testing.
One incorrect hypothesis should not automatically disqualify the other hypothesis unless they are dependent on each other, and I fail to see how venom as a disease component must depend on whether or not if the water is poisoned, or vice versa.
*EDIT: I should clarify that my very best idea about what Covid is what Dr Richard Fleming has to say about the disease. Whether Dr Ardin is right or not about the snake venom being involved, I am firm about Dr Fleming having the best explanation about how covid behaves and how it is a bioweapon.
What Dr Ardin's hypothesis does is it presents a new idea that could deepen and augment my understanding about the disease. If it's wrong, then I can still fall back on Dr Fleming's idea as being the best way to explain the disease.
I'd agree that the water supply as a disease vector is a very stretchy claim because of the evidence and logic used to arrive at that conclusion. In fact I care very little for that idea, especially as it turns out that Stew Peters did no one any favours by hyping the water. How Peters presented the information was just like missing the point.
On the other hand, I think the snake venom hypothesis has some significant merit worth investigating. The papers, symptoms, evidence, and reasoning presented by Dr Ardin shows a much better correlation between venom and virus, and anti-venom and treatment, than with poisoning and testing.
One incorrect hypothesis should not automatically disqualify the other hypothesis unless they are dependent on each other, and I fail to see how venom as a disease component must depend on whether or not if the water is poisoned, or vice versa.