You can even go back to discussions on Polio and see that Polio itself just sprang up out of nowhere and could likely have been a chemical/environmental cause by all of the wonderful chemicals everywhere.
Whether it came from feces or DDT, the solution is clear: stop ingesting toxins. The vaccine itself is toxic, which is why they stopped administering it.
Covid overlaps with symptoms of cold and flu. It's not as crazy as you may think. I put myself in the "undecided" column.
I'm in the "viruses don't cause disease" column. I used to believe that they did, until I learned that no one has ever demonstrated Koch's postulates (even Koch himself, who tried desperately). Basically it is the simple idea that to prove a virus is causing a disease, you need to isolate the virus from infected tissue of someone you suspect has the disease, sequence it, expose a healthy person to the virus (the virus itself, not the virus + contaminants), and see the new person develop the same disease, then isolate the virus from their now infected tissue and sequence it to determine it to be the same.
I've read that the army tried this many times for the Spanish flu and was unable to cause people or animals to become sick. I don't know the truth of this because I wasn't there, but it should be simple enough to prove. Here is another question. How can someone be asymptomatic? If a virus causes disease, then anyone catching the virus should be affected the same way and display the same symptoms. If obtaining proper nutrition and having a strong immune system prevents you from experiencing ill effects "from the virus", then why are we blaming the virus for the disease? Shouldn't the blame be put on poor nutrition?
An example I often use is this: A rabbit dies in the woods. The rabbit's carcass is slowly devoured by bacteria until there is nothing left but a few bone fragments. To an outside observer, it might appear like the bacteria killed the rabbit. I mean they devoured its flesh! But we all know that if the rabbit was healthy and alive, this wouldn't be happening. We are just mistaking an effect for a cause, exactly as we did when it was assumed that scurvy was a bacterial infection because sailors in close proximity were affected.
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…
Whether it came from feces or DDT, the solution is clear: stop ingesting toxins. The vaccine itself is toxic, which is why they stopped administering it.
I'm in the "viruses don't cause disease" column. I used to believe that they did, until I learned that no one has ever demonstrated Koch's postulates (even Koch himself, who tried desperately). Basically it is the simple idea that to prove a virus is causing a disease, you need to isolate the virus from infected tissue of someone you suspect has the disease, sequence it, expose a healthy person to the virus (the virus itself, not the virus + contaminants), and see the new person develop the same disease, then isolate the virus from their now infected tissue and sequence it to determine it to be the same.
I've read that the army tried this many times for the Spanish flu and was unable to cause people or animals to become sick. I don't know the truth of this because I wasn't there, but it should be simple enough to prove. Here is another question. How can someone be asymptomatic? If a virus causes disease, then anyone catching the virus should be affected the same way and display the same symptoms. If obtaining proper nutrition and having a strong immune system prevents you from experiencing ill effects "from the virus", then why are we blaming the virus for the disease? Shouldn't the blame be put on poor nutrition?
An example I often use is this: A rabbit dies in the woods. The rabbit's carcass is slowly devoured by bacteria until there is nothing left but a few bone fragments. To an outside observer, it might appear like the bacteria killed the rabbit. I mean they devoured its flesh! But we all know that if the rabbit was healthy and alive, this wouldn't be happening. We are just mistaking an effect for a cause, exactly as we did when it was assumed that scurvy was a bacterial infection because sailors in close proximity were affected.
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…