Arguably does nothing, or is harmful like a slow acting poison.

So now you are denying that the vaccine is killing people? I know 5 people who have died shortly after taking it with the exact symptoms that make sense with all of the investigations into this particular vaccine (it's not really a "vaccine" at all, but a genetic immuno-therapy, but that's splitting hairs if you don't even understand the danger of this shit). But even if it is a poison, my point was against your protest of "small amounts of small things doing so much damage to large things is ridiculous" (paraphrased). It can be a "poison," which is a small thing (often a simple molecule) that can kill, paralyze, or otherwise debilitate in very small quantities (depending on the poison). My protest was against your argument. No matter how you slice it, it falls apart trivially against any evidence whatsoever.

I don't deny that the immune system learns. However, the evolutionary pressure this places on the putative virus particle is fantastic and can't be believed. It's evolving this rapidly, yet presents as the exact same illness millennium after millennium?

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Let me try to pick out one thing. Let's assume that a virus exists but doesn't mutate. Then a certain amount of people will get sick, and then they will all be immune. Of course immunity doesn't always last forever (though sometimes for an individual it does if you remain healthy), but it certainly won't last forever in a population, especially because not everyone is going to encounter the virus (most likely). There is no reason to suppose a virus can't lay dormant, they are often quite hardy if they are in the right environment, so then, when it comes around again? Other members, with compromised immunity or just people who didn't get sick the first time, get sick.

OK, eventually all those people die off, and then the virus comes around again. Now there is a whole new fresh group of people that have never encountered the virus, and so the cycle continues ad infinitum.

That doesn't require a single "evolution" of the virus. Jesus, again, there are so many assumptions and false (or goes directly against basic biology) in your statement I could go on with this one all day, so I will stop here.

Look, I'm not going to tell you your conclusions are wrong. I will say that they go against the most basic experimental evidence however. From my perspective it also appears that your conclusions show a lack of having studied that evidence, which makes having any meaningful discussion about it problematic. I'm not asking you to "trust the science." I'm not asking you to trust me. But we can't even converse about this because:

a) you seem to believe you must be correct, and there is literally zero evidence that could be presented that you would even consider.

b) you believe that science must be incorrect in all cases.

c) you don't really want to listen to anything that doesn't confirm your beliefs.

Arguably does nothing, or is harmful like a slow acting poison.

So now you are denying that the vaccine is killing people? I know 5 people who have died shortly after taking it with the exact symptoms that make sense with all of the investigations into this particular vaccine (it's not really a "vaccine" at all, but a genetic immuno-therapy, but that's splitting hairs if you don't even understand the danger of this shit). But even if it is a poison, my point was against your protest of "small amounts of small things doing so much damage to large things is ridiculous" (paraphrased). It can be a "poison," which is a small thing (often a simple molecule) that can kill, paralyze, or otherwise debilitate in very small quantities (depending on the poison). My protest was against your argument. No matter how you slice it, it falls apart trivially against any evidence whatsoever.

I don't deny that the immune system learns. However, the evolutionary pressure this places on the putative virus particle is fantastic and can't be believed. It's evolving this rapidly, yet presents as the exact same illness millennium after millennium?

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Let me try to pick out one thing. Let's assume that a virus exists but doesn't mutate. Then a certain amount of people will get sick, and then they will all be immune. Of course immunity doesn't always last forever (though sometimes for an individual it does if you remain healthy), but it certainly won't last forever in a population, especially because not everyone is going to encounter the virus (most likely). There is no reason to suppose a virus can't lay dormant, they are often quite hardy if they are in the right environment, so then, when it comes around again? Other members, with compromised immunity or just people who didn't get sick the first time, get sick.

OK, eventually all those people die off, and then the virus comes around again. Now there is a whole new fresh group of people that have never encountered the virus, and so the cycle continues ad infinitum.

That doesn't require a single "evolution" of the virus. Jesus, again, there are so many assumptions and false (or goes directly against basic biology) in your statement I could go on with this one all day, so I will stop here.

Look, I'm not going to tell you your conclusions are wrong. I will say that they go against the most basic experimental evidence however. From my perspective it also appears that your conclusions show a lack of having studied that evidence, which makes having any meaningful discussion about it problematic. I'm not asking you to "trust the science." I'm not asking you to trust me. But we can't even converse about this because:

a) you seem to believe you must be correct, and there is literally zero evidence that could be presented that you would even consider.

b) you believe that science must be incorrect in all cases.

c) you don't really want to listen to anything that doesn't confirm your beliefs.