Jeremy Hammond contra Cowen, Massey et al (does not mention German scientists)
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Steven Avery
Administrator
Jeremy dances and dances
=======================================
Jeremy R. Hammond Cg>jeremyrhammond • Jun 2
In this interview, I discuss the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been
isolated, germ versus terrain theory, natural versus vaccine-conferred
immunity, and much more.
#SARSCoV2 #COVID19 #Vaccines #Naturallmmunity
Steven Avery
Hi Jeremy,
Do you believe that inactive/dead RNA/DNA snippets ar<
able to hijack cell replication causing gazillions of new
viruses and cell bursting (lysis)?
This is part of the theorized life-cycle of the virus!
If you do, can you give any tangible evidence that this occurs?
Jeremy R. Hammond (3)jeremyrhammond • Jun 3
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
Don’t understand you’re question, but if you’re asking whether non-viable
RNA fragments are infectious, by definition, no.
Jeremy R. Hammond s>jeremyrhammond • Jun 5
I could not possibly generalize whether "other writers" call non-viable RNA
fragments a "virus". You’ll have to ask a more specific question.
Yes, I am sure I disagree with those denying the existence of SARS-CoV-2
(and all viruses). Mullis did not deny the existence of viruses.
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 7
Non-viable RNA fragments of a virus are obviously not a whole virus. That is a tautology.
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 10
Hi Jeremy,
My question allows you to define "virus" however you feel comfy.
Do you believe the viruses hijack cell replication, so the cells create new
viruses, either 100s or gazillions?
Under modern virus theory, "viable" is a tricky word
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...-science/how-long-can-virus-live-outside-body
I cannot answer the question if you do not help me
understand it by answering my question of clarification.
10:18 PM • Jun 10, 2021 • Twitter for Android
Hi Jeremy,
Your clarification question is irrelevant, you believe viruses cause disease,
you can define them as you please.
The question remains, do you believe "viruses" actually hijack cell
replication?
Please, no more dodging, the question is straight-forward.
Thanks!
=======================================
Jeremy R. Hammond Cg>jeremyrhammond • Jun 2
In this interview, I discuss the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been
isolated, germ versus terrain theory, natural versus vaccine-conferred
immunity, and much more.
#SARSCoV2 #COVID19 #Vaccines #Naturallmmunity
Steven Avery
Hi Jeremy,
Do you believe that inactive/dead RNA/DNA snippets ar<
able to hijack cell replication causing gazillions of new
viruses and cell bursting (lysis)?
This is part of the theorized life-cycle of the virus!
If you do, can you give any tangible evidence that this occurs?
Jeremy R. Hammond (3)jeremyrhammond • Jun 3
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
Don’t understand you’re question, but if you’re asking whether non-viable
RNA fragments are infectious, by definition, no.
Jeremy R. Hammond s>jeremyrhammond • Jun 5
I could not possibly generalize whether "other writers" call non-viable RNA
fragments a "virus". You’ll have to ask a more specific question.
Yes, I am sure I disagree with those denying the existence of SARS-CoV-2
(and all viruses). Mullis did not deny the existence of viruses.
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 7
Non-viable RNA fragments of a virus are obviously not a whole virus. That is a tautology.
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 10
Hi Jeremy,
My question allows you to define "virus" however you feel comfy.
Do you believe the viruses hijack cell replication, so the cells create new
viruses, either 100s or gazillions?
Under modern virus theory, "viable" is a tricky word
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...-science/how-long-can-virus-live-outside-body
I cannot answer the question if you do not help me
understand it by answering my question of clarification.
10:18 PM • Jun 10, 2021 • Twitter for Android
Hi Jeremy,
Your clarification question is irrelevant, you believe viruses cause disease,
you can define them as you please.
The question remains, do you believe "viruses" actually hijack cell
replication?
Please, no more dodging, the question is straight-forward.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
https://twitter.com/skehoemusic===========================
Christine Carson @Chris_F_Carson • Jun 10
Replying to @skehoemusic @HannahanRichard and 3 others
Dr K confuses viruses with exosomes
That's a HUGE mistake to make
Exosomes & viruses are easy to tell apart
(see checklist)
Multiplication (replication) in cells
is one of the biggest differences
Viruses do
Exosomes don’t
Perhaps he’s a good psychiatrist
Christine url
https://twitter.com/Chris_F_Carson/status/1402971681497382912?s=20
===========================
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • 7h
Hi Christine,
Please present the strongest, best evidence for the hijacking of cell
replication (create duplicate viruses, hundreds or gazillions). We agree that
this is a sine qua non of the modern virus life-cycle theory. Where do we see
lysis, the residue of many burst cells?
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1403218615952973824?s=20
===========================
Christine Carson @Chris_F_Carson • Jun 12
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @jeremyrhammond and 4 others
A reasonable explanation for how viruses hijack the cell to replicate is here
https://medicine.yale.edu/coved/modules/virus/hijacking/
or here
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-microbiology/chapter/viral-replication/
The specific details may vary for #SARSCoV2
but the principles are the same
#C0VID19
Christine url
https://twitter.com/Chris_F_Carson/status/1403565134883155970?s=20
===========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY • 12h
Thank you, Christine. A couple of simple explanations and cutesy pics, for
an unlikely phenomenon. And you are a true faithful believer.
Now, can you help with the solid, hard evidence, best is proof, that this
actually occurs? And please eschew circularity.
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1404136749169848330?s=20
===========================
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
Replying to @Chris_F_Carson @jeremyrhammond and 4 others
Christine, I understand your belief that virus entities hijack cell replication. An amazing theory, so what is hard evidence that it occurs? e.g. Are there cultures with 1,000 broken cells &1,000,000 viruses released from the cells? (Change the numbers as you see fit.) Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405228300012752899?s=20
===========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 16
And I am simply asking the virus true believers, like Christine Carson, to show non-circular evidence, demonstration and/or proof of the hijack cell replication component. If that cannot be done, then modern c. post-1950 virus theory should be discarded as fantasy, not science.
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405266785843089410?s=20
===========================
Sean Daniel Kehoe @skehoemusic
June 16
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @Chris_F_Carson and 4 others
This is not a first principles argument. Viral theory has been refuted. You will
either have to prove that they exist or enter a new paradigm and lexicon of
the way that the body operates and cleans up waste via Exosomes
Sean urls
https://twitter.com/skehoemusic/status/1405238952739577857?s=20
=================
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
Jun 16
And I am simply asking the virus true believers, like Christine Carson, to show
non-circular evidence, demonstration and/or proof of the hijack cell
replication component. If that cannot be done, then modern c. post-1950
virus theory should be discarded as fantasy, not science.
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405266785843089410?s=20
=================
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 5 others
Christine, do you have any hard evidence at all to offer to support the
amazing theory that "viruses" hijack cell replication, forcing the cell to create
large numbers of new viruses?
Extraordinary theories require at least ordinary evidence. Give us your best!
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1406093994300477440?s=20
=================
EARLIER
Christine Carson @Chris_F_Carson • Jun 6
Why do you have to have just 1 virus particle?
(they're very small you know)
And why not replicating?
Yes, there are better photos of #SARSCoV2
like these,
taken after purification
Christine Carson url
https://twitter.com/Chris_F_Carson/status/1401515944669630473?s=20
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY - June 14
Replying to @Chris_F_Carson
Hi Christine, without going circular, please explain exactly how the particles in these electron microscope pictures were identified as viruses. And under your theory, if these were viruses, wouldn't there be burst cells in the neighborhood? Any pics of those cells? Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1404397965326831619?s=20
===========================
NO ANSWER TO ANY OF THE THREE RESPONSES
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Asking Jeremy R. Hammond 13 times (as of June 18) if viruses hijack cell replication
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 2
In this interview, I discuss the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been
isolated, germ versus terrain theory, natural versus vaccine-conferred
immunity, and much more.
#SARSCoV2 #COVID19 #Vaccines #Naturallmmunity
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1400185567686627329?s=20
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY • Jun 2
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
Do you believe that inactive/dead RNA/DNA snippets are able to hijack cell
replication causing gazillions of new viruses and cell bursting (lysis)?
This is part of the theorized life-cycle of the virus!
If you do, can you give any tangible evidence that this occurs?
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1400282761903149056?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 2
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
btw, when you accuse folks of hypocrisy for saying .. the virus does not do
what it is supposed to do .. often they are taking a classical ad hominem
approach, ie. They are allowing your argument, and showing it goes to
absurdity. (Today they have changed the meaning of ad horn.)
Steven A
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1400283968931602434?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 3
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
Don’t understand you're question, but if you're asking whether non-viable
RNA fragments are infectious, by definition, no.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1400609333579325442?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 4
Hi Jeremy, we have this discussion going on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/JeremyRHammond.page/posts/4766887803326968
Posts can be longer. My question is about one fundamental element of
modern virus theory (which you seem to support.)
And thus relates to your position contra Cowen and others.
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1400891016429903877?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 5
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
Are what you call "non-viable RNA fragments" what other writers call a
"virus"?
If the answer to that is yes, are you sure you disagree with Cowan, Massey,
Rapoport, Kaufman, Lanka and Kary Mullis (1944-2019)?
Thanks!
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1401055851889184769?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 5
I could not possibly generalize whether "other writers" call non-viable RNA
fragments a "virus". You'll have to ask a more specific question.
Yes, I am sure I disagree with those denying the existence of SARS-CoV-2
(and all viruses). Mullis did not deny the existence of viruses.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1401173118455062539?s=20
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY • Jun 6
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Jeremy, would you agree that if whatever RNA/DNA fragments are called
SARS-CoV-2 do not hijack cell replication ... then there is no virus - by the
definition of virus.
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1401658049996132355?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 7
Non-viable RNA fragments of a virus are obviously not a whole virus. That is
a tautology.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1402033467983081475?s=20
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY • Jun 8
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
So, to understand, whatever the make-up of a "virus", you believe it has the
capability to hijack the replication of one, or many, types of cells?
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1402284755928944651?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 8
Are you asking about viable virus or non-viable RNA fragments?
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1402440750617538562?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 10
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
My question allows you to define "virus" however you feel comfy.
Do you believe the viruses hijack cell replication, so the cells create new
viruses, either 100s or gazillions?
Under modern virus theory, "viable" is a tricky word
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...-science/how-long-can-virus-live-outside-body
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1402953703288717321?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond
@jeremyrhammond
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
I cannot answer the question if you do not help me
understand it by answering my question of clarification.
10:18 PM • Jun 10, 2021 • Twitter for Android
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1403174777766952962?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 11
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
Your clarification question is irrelevant, you believe viruses cause disease,
you can define them as you please.
The question remains, do you believe "viruses" actually hijack cell replication?
Please, no more dodging, the question is straight-forward.
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1403223083276713989?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 11
My question is directly relevant. If you don't explain what you mean, I cannot
answer. Again, are you asking whether "viable virus" or "non-viable RNA
fragments" infect and replicate in host cells? Because it seems to me that
you mean either, but the answer depends on which.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1403460848866271237?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery@StevenAveryNY
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Your distinction is not one I accept. To move the discussion ahead, let us consider "viable virus".
(A classical ad hominem approach, allowing your argument or definition.)
Question one:
Do you believe that these viruses have the ability to hijack cell replication?
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1404396038170058757?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 16
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy, are you really that reluctant to state the faith belief that viruses hijack cell replication? Supposedly, this would "follow the science". Or maybe you have a sense of difficulty in the normal theory and want to hold back from stating something that lacks evidence?
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405229243286659081?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 16
Viable virus or non-viable RNA fragments? Why do you refuse to clarify whether you are asking a serious or a loaded question?
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405344883896946688?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 17
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Once again, viable is a tricky word for "viruses". And once again, for the
purposes of our conversation (classical ad hominem) you are welcome to
define virus as you see fit, which can be what you define as:
"viable virus"
Do you believe these entities hijack cell replication?
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405467045370728453?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond
@jeremyrhammond
June 17
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
No, "viable" is not "a tricky word" for viruses. It simply means a whole virus
capable of infecting cells (as opposed to non-viable RNA fragments that are
non-infectious). Please acknowledge that you understand this.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405705793241026564?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery
@StevenAveryNY
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Jeremy, we are allowing your “whole virus” position to
keep the conversation on point. This was classically
called ad hominem. Allowing your position, searching
whether the result is reductio ad absurdum.
Now, once again, do these whole viruses hijack cell
replication?
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405822971067912193?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
Replying to
@StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
There is nothing to "allow"; only to acknowledge. So, again, please
acknowledge that "viable" as an adjective modifying "virus" means a whole
virus capable of infecting cells, as opposed to non-viable RNA fragments
that are non-infectious.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405945729458266124?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18, 2021
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
You really do not want to answer the simple question. We are trying to
determine whether the theory of "whole virus", the life-cycle of the virus, is
true. Again:
Does the "whole, viable virus",under your definitions and constructs, have the
ability to hijack cell replication?
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405954088492318723?s=20
========================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 18
You are not acknowledging my legitimate point.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405981811868639236?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Your "legitimate point" requires me to "acknowledge" the accuracy of one
sub-set of modern virus theory. Your request is a perfect example of circular
argumentation.
And I am happy if you answer per your own definitions:
Do your viable, whole viruses hijack cell replication?
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405992204779364359?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 18
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
Are you telling me that you reject the premise of your own question (that viable viruses exist)?
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1406019793996627969?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Not my premise. e.g. I asked you: ....
whatever the make-up of a "virus", you believe it has the capability to
hijack the replication of one, or many, types of cells? ... My question allows
you to define "virus" however you feel comfy.
My question was about your virus beliefs
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1406032240111493123?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 18
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
If that is not your premise, then you should have no problem acknowledging
the distinction between a viable virus that can infect cells and non-viable
RNA fragments that are non-infectious. If you refuse to acknowledge that,
then clearly, you are not being honest.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1406038523128451076?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18
Hi Jeremy,
What does it mean to "infect cells"? Does that mean, in your view, that the
"viable virus" hijacks cell replication, and the cell produces new viruses?
A simple yes or no would be appropriate, and appreciated.
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1406088658000699392?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 19
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
Well, I first mean that viruses gain entry into cells. Please acknowledge.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1406109966369538048?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 19
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Hi Jeremy, By the modern definition of viruses, and current dogma, that would require
the hijacking of cell replication to create/birth new viruses. Else they would
not be viruses, they would be scabba-dabba-doos.
Do you agree?
We are looking at what you second mean.
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1406131686191009795?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 2
In this interview, I discuss the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has not been
isolated, germ versus terrain theory, natural versus vaccine-conferred
immunity, and much more.
#SARSCoV2 #COVID19 #Vaccines #Naturallmmunity
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1400185567686627329?s=20
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY • Jun 2
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
Do you believe that inactive/dead RNA/DNA snippets are able to hijack cell
replication causing gazillions of new viruses and cell bursting (lysis)?
This is part of the theorized life-cycle of the virus!
If you do, can you give any tangible evidence that this occurs?
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1400282761903149056?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 2
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
btw, when you accuse folks of hypocrisy for saying .. the virus does not do
what it is supposed to do .. often they are taking a classical ad hominem
approach, ie. They are allowing your argument, and showing it goes to
absurdity. (Today they have changed the meaning of ad horn.)
Steven A
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1400283968931602434?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 3
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
Don’t understand you're question, but if you're asking whether non-viable
RNA fragments are infectious, by definition, no.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1400609333579325442?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 4
Hi Jeremy, we have this discussion going on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/JeremyRHammond.page/posts/4766887803326968
Posts can be longer. My question is about one fundamental element of
modern virus theory (which you seem to support.)
And thus relates to your position contra Cowen and others.
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1400891016429903877?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 5
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
Are what you call "non-viable RNA fragments" what other writers call a
"virus"?
If the answer to that is yes, are you sure you disagree with Cowan, Massey,
Rapoport, Kaufman, Lanka and Kary Mullis (1944-2019)?
Thanks!
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1401055851889184769?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 5
I could not possibly generalize whether "other writers" call non-viable RNA
fragments a "virus". You'll have to ask a more specific question.
Yes, I am sure I disagree with those denying the existence of SARS-CoV-2
(and all viruses). Mullis did not deny the existence of viruses.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1401173118455062539?s=20
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY • Jun 6
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Jeremy, would you agree that if whatever RNA/DNA fragments are called
SARS-CoV-2 do not hijack cell replication ... then there is no virus - by the
definition of virus.
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1401658049996132355?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 7
Non-viable RNA fragments of a virus are obviously not a whole virus. That is
a tautology.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1402033467983081475?s=20
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY • Jun 8
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
So, to understand, whatever the make-up of a "virus", you believe it has the
capability to hijack the replication of one, or many, types of cells?
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1402284755928944651?s=20
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 8
Are you asking about viable virus or non-viable RNA fragments?
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1402440750617538562?s=20
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 10
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
My question allows you to define "virus" however you feel comfy.
Do you believe the viruses hijack cell replication, so the cells create new
viruses, either 100s or gazillions?
Under modern virus theory, "viable" is a tricky word
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c...-science/how-long-can-virus-live-outside-body
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1402953703288717321?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond
@jeremyrhammond
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
I cannot answer the question if you do not help me
understand it by answering my question of clarification.
10:18 PM • Jun 10, 2021 • Twitter for Android
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1403174777766952962?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery @ Steven Avery NY • Jun 11
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy,
Your clarification question is irrelevant, you believe viruses cause disease,
you can define them as you please.
The question remains, do you believe "viruses" actually hijack cell replication?
Please, no more dodging, the question is straight-forward.
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1403223083276713989?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond • Jun 11
My question is directly relevant. If you don't explain what you mean, I cannot
answer. Again, are you asking whether "viable virus" or "non-viable RNA
fragments" infect and replicate in host cells? Because it seems to me that
you mean either, but the answer depends on which.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1403460848866271237?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery@StevenAveryNY
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Your distinction is not one I accept. To move the discussion ahead, let us consider "viable virus".
(A classical ad hominem approach, allowing your argument or definition.)
Question one:
Do you believe that these viruses have the ability to hijack cell replication?
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1404396038170058757?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 16
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Hi Jeremy, are you really that reluctant to state the faith belief that viruses hijack cell replication? Supposedly, this would "follow the science". Or maybe you have a sense of difficulty in the normal theory and want to hold back from stating something that lacks evidence?
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405229243286659081?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 16
Viable virus or non-viable RNA fragments? Why do you refuse to clarify whether you are asking a serious or a loaded question?
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405344883896946688?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 17
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Once again, viable is a tricky word for "viruses". And once again, for the
purposes of our conversation (classical ad hominem) you are welcome to
define virus as you see fit, which can be what you define as:
"viable virus"
Do you believe these entities hijack cell replication?
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405467045370728453?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond
@jeremyrhammond
June 17
Replying to @StevenAveryNY
No, "viable" is not "a tricky word" for viruses. It simply means a whole virus
capable of infecting cells (as opposed to non-viable RNA fragments that are
non-infectious). Please acknowledge that you understand this.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405705793241026564?s=20
=====================
Steven Avery
@StevenAveryNY
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Jeremy, we are allowing your “whole virus” position to
keep the conversation on point. This was classically
called ad hominem. Allowing your position, searching
whether the result is reductio ad absurdum.
Now, once again, do these whole viruses hijack cell
replication?
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405822971067912193?s=20
=====================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
Replying to
@StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
There is nothing to "allow"; only to acknowledge. So, again, please
acknowledge that "viable" as an adjective modifying "virus" means a whole
virus capable of infecting cells, as opposed to non-viable RNA fragments
that are non-infectious.
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405945729458266124?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18, 2021
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
You really do not want to answer the simple question. We are trying to
determine whether the theory of "whole virus", the life-cycle of the virus, is
true. Again:
Does the "whole, viable virus",under your definitions and constructs, have the
ability to hijack cell replication?
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405954088492318723?s=20
========================
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 18
You are not acknowledging my legitimate point.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1405981811868639236?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Your "legitimate point" requires me to "acknowledge" the accuracy of one
sub-set of modern virus theory. Your request is a perfect example of circular
argumentation.
And I am happy if you answer per your own definitions:
Do your viable, whole viruses hijack cell replication?
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1405992204779364359?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 18
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
Are you telling me that you reject the premise of your own question (that viable viruses exist)?
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1406019793996627969?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Not my premise. e.g. I asked you: ....
whatever the make-up of a "virus", you believe it has the capability to
hijack the replication of one, or many, types of cells? ... My question allows
you to define "virus" however you feel comfy.
My question was about your virus beliefs
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1406032240111493123?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 18
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
If that is not your premise, then you should have no problem acknowledging
the distinction between a viable virus that can infect cells and non-viable
RNA fragments that are non-infectious. If you refuse to acknowledge that,
then clearly, you are not being honest.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1406038523128451076?s=20
========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 18
Hi Jeremy,
What does it mean to "infect cells"? Does that mean, in your view, that the
"viable virus" hijacks cell replication, and the cell produces new viruses?
A simple yes or no would be appropriate, and appreciated.
Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1406088658000699392?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond
Jeremy R. Hammond @jeremyrhammond
June 19
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @skehoemusic and 4 others
Well, I first mean that viruses gain entry into cells. Please acknowledge.
Jeremy url
https://twitter.com/jeremyrhammond/status/1406109966369538048?s=20
========================
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 19
Replying to @jeremyrhammond @skehoemusic and 4 others
Hi Jeremy, By the modern definition of viruses, and current dogma, that would require
the hijacking of cell replication to create/birth new viruses. Else they would
not be viruses, they would be scabba-dabba-doos.
Do you agree?
We are looking at what you second mean
.Steven url
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1406131686191009795?s=20
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
==========================
https://twitter.com/Chris_F_Carson
Christine Carson @Chris_F_Carson
June 19
Please send a link to the data
so logic may be applied
We can evaluate the data together
& make some conclusions about what they mean
Lanka's ideas are just OPINION if there are no DATA
DATA are critical
#COVID19 #SARSCoV2
Christine url
https://twitter.com/chris_f_carson/status/1406098217213644804?s=21
==========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 19
Christine, I have been patiently waiting for your data. Evidence,
demonstration, proof that “viruses” hijack cell replication, per virus life-cycle.
A possible evidence, picture of burst cells (lysis) in a sea of theorized viral
particles. Something, anything .. data. Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/stevenaveryny/status/1406112457404387329?s=21
==========================
Christine url
https://twitter.com/Chris_F_Carson/status/1406153268653297667?s=20
Christine Carson @Chris_F_Carson
June 19
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @ChrisMasseyFOIs and 3 others
Infectious #SARSCoV2 numbers
start low & during culture
increase up to >1 000 000 000
Fig 1 h
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33164048/
which answers your question
"what is hard evidence that it occurs?
eg Are there cultures with 1,000 broken cells & 1,000,000 viruses released from the cells?"
==========================
https://twitter.com/Chris_F_Carson
Christine Carson @Chris_F_Carson
June 19
Please send a link to the data
so logic may be applied
We can evaluate the data together
& make some conclusions about what they mean
Lanka's ideas are just OPINION if there are no DATA
DATA are critical
#COVID19 #SARSCoV2
Christine url
https://twitter.com/chris_f_carson/status/1406098217213644804?s=21
==========================
Steven Avery @StevenAveryNY
June 19
Christine, I have been patiently waiting for your data. Evidence,
demonstration, proof that “viruses” hijack cell replication, per virus life-cycle.
A possible evidence, picture of burst cells (lysis) in a sea of theorized viral
particles. Something, anything .. data. Thanks!
Steven url
https://twitter.com/stevenaveryny/status/1406112457404387329?s=21
==========================
Christine url
https://twitter.com/Chris_F_Carson/status/1406153268653297667?s=20
Christine Carson @Chris_F_Carson
June 19
Replying to @StevenAveryNY @ChrisMasseyFOIs and 3 others
Infectious #SARSCoV2 numbers
start low & during culture
increase up to >1 000 000 000
Fig 1 h
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33164048/
which answers your question
"what is hard evidence that it occurs?
eg Are there cultures with 1,000 broken cells & 1,000,000 viruses released from the cells?"
==========================
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
WIP
Last edited: