@ u/tewdryg , u/Mar-0 , u/slyver
Continuing...
Sorry, thought I could squeeze all this into one comment.
So finally, we get to the virologists dreaded "Koch's Postulates" problem. They have all been programmed to DISMISS this question by saying "They are archaic and outdated" - smh! Oh how I wish I could respond to these guys who say this and grill them on the absolute absurdity of this stance. The virologists are counting on the fact that the person questioning them doesn't understand the simplicity of Koch's Postulates and the absurdity of their deflection.
Koch's Postulates are grade-school level logic and they make perfect sense. My 11-year old niece understood them in 5 minutes. Take the thing you say is causing the dis-ease in the sick person, ISOLATE it (by our normal definition, not the virologists deceptive definition), and then introduce this "Isolated thing", and only this isolated thing, via normal alleged "infection vectors" (no jabs!!!!) and then demonstrate the healthy person comes down with the symptoms and dis-ease of the original sick person. Rinse and repeat for certainty.
This has been tried, no doubt, thousands of times in the first half of the 20th century. But good luck finding much information as most of it was never published, and/or those papers that were published have been removed, suppressed or white-washed from the records. A large group of us were only able to find 11 examples of these failures. But the simple fact remains, there are no examples of "successes" to be found. And this is why the scientific community stopped even trying around 1950. Instead, they had to come up with their dismissive arguments and even invent "newer, more updated" things like "River's Postulates" which also can't be satisfied for boogeymen-virus.
Thus, as we can see, there is nothing but a trail of deliberate deceptions, sleight-of-hands and deflections everywhere we look that are used in this pseudoscientific field. Not one aspect of virology holds up to even a modicum of scrutiny. It's as simple as this.
Now, the hardest part of all of this isn't the science, or lack thereof. The problem with people accepting all these facts is this; they can't imagine another possible way that they either caught or passed a dis-ease from or too another person. This seems to be the obstacle most people aren't willing to contemplate. And I understand, because the answer to the question of "what else could it have been" shatters our deeply ingrained "victim consciousness" and is the cause for tremendously unsettling cognitive dissonance when first encountered.
Anyway, I've explained the cause of I think 10 or so common "viral dis-eases" several months back here on GA and can link to those threads if anybody is interested. Unfortunately, doctors Cowan, Kaufman, Mark & Sam Bailey have rejected what Dr. Lanka showed us all in favor of their "terrain theory" which, like germ theory lacks even a shred of scientific proof. Their credibility took a severe hit because they can't readily explain any alternatives other than the blanket "diet/toxins/water/food/5G hypothesis. Only. Dr. Lanka understands the full picture. And he's clearly divorced himself from the others over the past year or so.
So if it ain't toxins and it ain't germs, then what is it? Matter follows mind is my very short answer.
I welcome any feedback or pushback from my two-comment missive. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible without belaboring any single point too deeply. I think I got my point across though -> Virology is CLEARLY a pseudoscience no matter what angle you approach it from. And that's because, boogeyman-viruses don't exist. Thus, it has to be!
@ u/tewdryg , u/Mar-0 , u/slyver
Continuing...
Sorry, thought I could squeeze all this into one comment.
So finally, we get to the virologists dreaded "Koch's Postulates" problem. They have all been programmed to DISMISS this question by saying "They are archaic and outdated" - smh! Oh how I wish I could respond to these guys who say this and grill them on the absolute absurdity of this stance. The virologists are counting on the fact that the person questioning them doesn't understand the simplicity of Koch's Postulates and the absurdity of their deflection.
Koch's Postulates are grade-school level logic and they make perfect sense. My 11-year old niece understood them in 5 minutes. Take the thing you say is causing the dis-ease in the sick person, ISOLATE it (by our normal definition, not the virologists deceptive definition), and then introduce this "Isolated thing", and only this isolated thing, via normal alleged "infection vectors" (no jabs!!!!) and then demonstrate the healthy person comes down with the symptoms and dis-ease of the original sick person. Rinse and repeat for certainty.
This has been tried, no doubt, thousands of times in the first half of the 20th century. But good luck finding much information as most of it was never published, and/or those papers that were published have been removed, suppressed or white-washed from the records. A large group of us were only able to find 11 examples of these failures. But the simple fact remains, there are no examples of "successes" to be found. And this is why the scientific community stopped even trying around 1950. Instead, they had to come up with their dismissive arguments and even invent "newer, more updated" things like "River's Postulates" which also can't be satisfied for boogeymen-virus.
Thus, as we can see, there is nothing but a trail of deliberate deceptions, sleight-of-hands and deflections everywhere we look that are used in this pseudoscientific field. Not one aspect of virology holds up to even a modicum of scrutiny. It's as simple as this.
Now, the hardest part of all of this isn't the science, or lack thereof. The problem with people accepting all these facts is this; they can't imagine another possible way that they either caught or passed a dis-ease from or too another person. This seems to be the obstacle most people aren't willing to contemplate. And I understand, because the answer to the question of "what else could it have been" shatters our deeply ingrained "victim consciousness" and is the cause for tremendously unsettling cognitive dissonance when first encountered.
Anyway, I've explained the cause of I think 10 or so common "viral dis-eases" several months back here on GA and can link to those threads if anybody is interested. Unfortunately, doctors Cowan, Kaufman, Mark & Sam Bailey have rejected what Dr. Lanka showed us all in favor of their "terrain theory" which, like germ theory lacks even a shred of scientific proof. Their credibility took a severe hit because they can't readily explain any alternatives other than the blanket "diet/toxins/water/food/5G hypothesis. Only. Dr. Lanka understands the full picture. And he's clearly divorced himself from the others over the past year or so.
So if it ain't toxins and it ain't germs, then what is it? Matter follows mind is my very short answer.
I welcome any feedback or pushback from my two-comment missive. I tried to be as comprehensive as possible without belaboring any single point to deeply. I think I got my point across though -> Virology is CLEARLY a pseudoscience no matter what angle you approach it from. And that's because, boogeyman-viruses don't exist. Thus, it has to be!