Interpersonal variation in immunoresponse is a reasonable explanation for the most common and least lethal illnesses. In the ones that are traditionally more dangerous, I don't know if there is such a thing as an asymptomatic case, just one with fewer symptoms.
Either their body is fighting the invader more effectively, or, similar to an allergic response, (not) over-reacting.
This is all just conjecture based on the premise. I don't have nearly enough data to make a claim.
Interpersonal variation in immunoresponse is a reasonable explanation for the most common and least lethal illnesses.
Yes, but why? It could be nutrition, poor habits like drinking or smoking, being angry or stressed (which even depletes Vitamin A levels), not sleeping enough, or the presence of environmental toxins.
There are so many factors that might contribute to illness which have nothing to do with microbes.
We used to use arsenic as makeup, and in wallpaper too. Some people would get sick and die, while others would be fine. It’s not that they were fine, actually, it’s just that the toxicity was not enough to overcome their body’s defenses.
What things are we putting in our environment today that we don’t even know about?
The biggest problem is that science is fraudulent now, captured by pharmaceutical interests who have strong financial incentive to prop up the germ theory of disease, which forms the basis for their products.
If it is real, then they should be able to isolate these viruses and perform simple experiments to prove how infectious they are. Instead, they inject toxins into a monkey’s brain and then claim after the monkey dies that it must have been the virus, even though no human being is ever infected by having a syringe jammed into their brain…
Interpersonal variation in immunoresponse is a reasonable explanation for the most common and least lethal illnesses. In the ones that are traditionally more dangerous, I don't know if there is such a thing as an asymptomatic case, just one with fewer symptoms.
Either their body is fighting the invader more effectively, or, similar to an allergic response, (not) over-reacting.
This is all just conjecture based on the premise. I don't have nearly enough data to make a claim.
Yes, but why? It could be nutrition, poor habits like drinking or smoking, being angry or stressed (which even depletes Vitamin A levels), not sleeping enough, or the presence of environmental toxins.
There are so many factors that might contribute to illness which have nothing to do with microbes.
We used to use arsenic as makeup, and in wallpaper too. Some people would get sick and die, while others would be fine. It’s not that they were fine, actually, it’s just that the toxicity was not enough to overcome their body’s defenses.
What things are we putting in our environment today that we don’t even know about?
The biggest problem is that science is fraudulent now, captured by pharmaceutical interests who have strong financial incentive to prop up the germ theory of disease, which forms the basis for their products.
If it is real, then they should be able to isolate these viruses and perform simple experiments to prove how infectious they are. Instead, they inject toxins into a monkey’s brain and then claim after the monkey dies that it must have been the virus, even though no human being is ever infected by having a syringe jammed into their brain…