In 'theory', viruses mutate to become less deadly. The reason for this hypothesis is that when a virus kills off its hosts, then it cannot survive, merrily spreading. By becoming less deadly, the hosts 'carry it' with a wee sniffle, spreading it far and wide. Hence the theoretical Omicron variant.

The reason I say 'in theory', is because the whole 'virus' hypothesis is dubious. People only started 'finding' viruses when 'scientists' started adding monkey kidney cells, bovine cells, human cancer cells, antibiotics to kill those extraneous cells, etc. to a sputum sample from a sick person. This murky sauce, after being sufficiently 'killed' proved that viruses exist. Before this piece of dark science manipulation, no-one was able to 'isolate' a virus, according to protocols. And, no-one has an in vitro sample of the Covid19 in silico idea, so there is that.

So, in my opinion, we must go back to simpler, i.e. more traditional, but also more complex, in terms of writing up, explanations. For example, If a person is sick, then treatments, of course, are required - preferably over-the-counter ones, like aspirin and ivermectin - so third world, right? Right?

Re explanation: It is possible that other people around the sick person can get sick too, but - and here comes the crux - that depends. Causes of disease are multifactorial (oh yucky, in terms of academic work) Are others in the household or workplace, exposed to similar stresses? For example, is a wife subjected to midnight rising due to work stress experienced by a husband? Are they both getting radiation from WIFI devices? Are they both suffering from malnutrition, due to bills needing to be paid? Are they both grieving for a family member who passed away? Are they having arguments? Did the employer demand that they HAVE to be vaccinated? Is the government becoming totalitarian and locking up dissidents, and frightening the population, and by inference one or both of the couple? In which case, both partners might come down with some immunity compromise.

But is the husband 'passing' a virus on, because he got sick first? i.e. is it the sole cause of disease? the latter is what the medical types are trying to pin the current 'disease' onto.

My point is that there are a plethora of causes for immunity degradation, to the point of illness, and 'science' or 'causal theory' according to some Victorian philosopher, is bankrupt IMO). When we see so many possible reasons and combinations thereof, to point all sorts of fingers at. And yet - this is where academics have to venture into qualitative reasoning.

As an aside - The latter (i.e. qualitative reasoning) is still very much frowned upon, and not really encouraged in academia. I can point to recent examples of 'templates' or a 'study guide', for a Master's thesis, that only marginally allowed for qualitative 'sections' in the thesis. The faculty basically expected a cause and effect type analysis - i.e. conduct an experiment and write it up, in the centuries old format - everything had a box. The many causes and effects that were identified during the early stages, were dismissed as 'confusing'. LOLOL.

IMO qualitative theses do exist, for example in law, or religion, but most faculties just want to be like 'science'. And in the case of disease, people automatically expect to see 'science'. There is ONE university in the world, in Finland, that even has a 'philosphy of humanities', as opposed to 'philosophy of science' paper. And of course, there is the whole woke ideology that jumps into this, feet first, so one can understand 'normy' academics shying away from qualitative analysis.

However, the 'virus theory' purports that there is a single reason for disease thereby eliminating even the possibility that their cure (i.e. the vax) is killing people.

IMO it's all wrong.

In 'theory', viruses mutate to become less deadly. The reason for this hypothesis is that when a virus kills off its hosts, then it cannot survive, merrily spreading. By becoming less deadly, the hosts 'carry it' with a wee sniffle, spreading it far and wide. Hence the theoretical Omicron variant.

The reason I say 'in theory', is because the whole 'virus' hypothesis is dubious. People only started 'finding' viruses when 'scientists' started adding monkey kidney cells, bovine cells, human cancer cells, antibiotics to kill those extraneous cells, etc. to a sputum sample from a sick person. This murky sauce, after being sufficiently 'killed' proved that viruses exist. Before this piece of dark science manipulation, no-one was able to 'isolate' a virus, according to protocols. And, no-one has an in vitro sample of the Covid19 in silico idea, so there is that.

So, in my opinion, we must go back to simpler, i.e. more traditional, but also more complex, in terms of writing up, explanations. For example, If a person is sick, then treatments, of course, are required - preferably over-the-counter ones, like aspirin and ivermectin - so third world, right? Right?

Re explanation: It is possible that other people around the sick person can get sick too, but - and here comes the crux - that depends. Causes of disease are multifactorial (oh yucky, in terms of academic work) Are others in the household or workplace, exposed to similar stresses? For example, is a wife subjected to midnight rising due to work stress experienced by a husband? Are they both getting radiation from WIFI devices? Are they both suffering from malnutrition, due to bills needing to be paid? Are they both grieving for a family member who passed away? Are they having arguments? Did the employer demand that they HAVE to be vaccinated? Is the government becoming totalitarian and locking up dissidents, and frightening the population, and by inference one or both of the couple? In which case, both partners might come down with some immunity compromise.

But is the husband 'passing' a virus on, because he got sick first? i.e. is it the sole cause of disease? the latter is what the medical types are trying to pin the current 'disease' onto.

My point is that there are a plethora of causes for immunity degradation, to the point of illness, and 'science' or 'causal theory' according to some Victorian philosopher, is bankrupt IMO). When we see so many possible reasons and combinations thereof, to point all sorts of fingers at. And yet - this is where academics have to venture into qualitative reasoning.

As an aside - The latter (i.e. qualitative reasoning) is still very much frowned upon, and not really encouraged in academia. I can point to recent examples of 'templates' or a 'study guide', for a Master's thesis, that only marginally allowed for qualitative 'sections' in the thesis. The faculty basically expected a cause and effect type analysis - i.e. conduct an experiment and write it up, in the centuries old format - everything had a box. The many causes and effects that were identified during the early stages, were dismissed as 'confusing'. LOLOL.

IMO qualitative theses do exist, for example in law, or religion, but most faculties just want to be like 'science'. And in the case of disease, people automatically expect to see 'science'. There is ONE university in the world, in Finland, that even has a 'philosphy of humanities', as opposed to 'philosophy of science' paper. And of course, there is the whole woke ideology that jumps into this, feet first, so one can understand 'normy' academics shying away from qualitative analysis.

However, the 'virus theory' purports that there is a single reason for disease (thereby eliminating even the possibility that their cure (i.e. the vax) is killing people.)

IMO it's all wrong.