«Virology is at a loss from the very start as they can not observe a “virus” in nature. They can not see a “virus” float into a host and witness this act causing disease. They can not watch “viruses” being transferred from person to person through tiny droplets or aerosols in the air. As virologists can not observe “viruses” at all, they…
«Virology is at a loss from the very start as they can not observe a “virus” in nature. They can not see a “virus” float into a host and witness this act causing disease. They can not watch “viruses” being transferred from person to person through tiny droplets or aerosols in the air. As virologists can not observe “viruses” at all, they had to assume something “virus-like” existed in the first place causing disease. In other words, “viruses” were nothing but an idea from the beginning. We are still waiting for the proof that these fictional entities actually exist.»
The same applies to proteins and prions and molecules and and atoms and ions and nuclei and protons and neutrons and electrons and subatomic particles in general and magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields, doesn't it? Is water H2O? Is the earth's atmosphere about 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and 1% other things, mostly argon? Or not?
You can't ask for “proof” of the existence of something that you have already declared “fictional”, because that betrays that your mind is already made up and is immune to change on this point, doesn't it?
Even if they're wrong about the mechanisms of how atoms and molecules interact, the mechanism is repeatable.
With viruses, they state that they transmit disease and cause cell death. But unlike chemistry and physics, they have not done control experiments to see if their process of isolation gives the same results, whether there is a virus or not.
And here's a study done on transmission way back during the deadly Spanish flu. They couldn't transmit this via injecting infected blood or by spraying sputum. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/67902
Remember that they thought that scurvy was a contagious disease, until they discovered that it was from a severe deficiency of vitamin C.
Is it scientific to assume that the best cause of a flu season is a virus, or should we look at other factors, such as the already low level of vitamin D in the mostly indoor working first world, which dips even lower due to winter having weaker sun?
«Virology is at a loss from the very start as they can not observe a “virus” in nature. They can not see a “virus” float into a host and witness this act causing disease. They can not watch “viruses” being transferred from person to person through tiny droplets or aerosols in the air. As virologists can not observe “viruses” at all, they had to assume something “virus-like” existed in the first place causing disease. In other words, “viruses” were nothing but an idea from the beginning. We are still waiting for the proof that these fictional entities actually exist.»
The same applies to proteins and prions and molecules and and atoms and ions and nuclei and protons and neutrons and electrons and subatomic particles in general and magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields, doesn't it? Is water H2O? Is the earth's atmosphere about 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, and 1% other things, mostly argon? Or not?
You can't ask for “proof” of the existence of something that you have already declared “fictional”, because that betrays that your mind is already made up and is immune to change on this point, doesn't it?
With chemistry, there are control experiments.
Even if they're wrong about the mechanisms of how atoms and molecules interact, the mechanism is repeatable.
With viruses, they state that they transmit disease and cause cell death. But unlike chemistry and physics, they have not done control experiments to see if their process of isolation gives the same results, whether there is a virus or not.
https://www.newbraveworld.org/stefan-lanka-new-study-disprove-virology/
And here's a study done on transmission way back during the deadly Spanish flu. They couldn't transmit this via injecting infected blood or by spraying sputum. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/67902
Remember that they thought that scurvy was a contagious disease, until they discovered that it was from a severe deficiency of vitamin C.
Is it scientific to assume that the best cause of a flu season is a virus, or should we look at other factors, such as the already low level of vitamin D in the mostly indoor working first world, which dips even lower due to winter having weaker sun?
A good video on "science says" by the late Liam Scheff who helped expose the "HIV causes AIDS" fraud https://www.bitchute.com/video/DttrurRZr5CW/
Even physics makes shit up like virology does...
Quantum theory is their "virology" https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkdAkAC4ItcHNLDIK9ORydQl_Ik6GJ0bD