science virus history challenge - first on Reddit, then Facebook A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H

Steven Avery

Administrator
One of my favorite discussions is challenging virus proponents to explain the science that led to the current dogma.

And I just expressed this a little differently on a reddit discussion (reddit varies greatly depending on which sub-reddit), and your feedback and improvements are welcome.

reddit -
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVacc...what_evidence_is_there_that_masks_reduce_the/
purebible

When you think about the phantasmagorical nature of virus theory, inactive/dead RNA/DNA snippets hijacking cell functions for replication, and somehow mutating along the line, and the lack of any real history showing who, when, where this dogma of human viruses was promulgated and peer reviewed (nowhere) and how they are supposedly the cause of .. somehow .. disease.

And I would say that it is much easier to deny the existence of viruses, as they are defined in today's wild and wacky "life cycle of the virus".

false virus theory -->

false covid theory -->

false transmission theory -->

false aerosol transmission theory -->

false mask theory -->

false social distance theory -->

false jab theory


Better off starting at the root of the problem. Stefan Lanka is helpful, including a good Facebook group that has a variety pack of info. http://business.facebook.com/ExposingTheVirusTheory/


===========================================================



=======================

A real scientific history would show us the starting points, and lots of specifics, like this:

====================

This virus A replicates hijacking B cell functions, causing this human disease C by this D method (e.g. broken B cells). This was discovered in the paper E, by F, in year G, with pictures H and gave reproducible experiments and all this was peer reviewed. Thus, you will find virus A as the causal agent in all those sick with disease C. Thus, it is now dogma.

Filling in A, B, C. D. E. F, G, H - and giving the experiments and peer review would be an actual scientific virus research history that could justify the current dogma.


====================

So far, nobody has come close to filling in the blanks. Instead, the theory became dogma by a type of scholastic osmosis. And hundreds of papers assume the dogma as fact, and thus determine their conclusions in a circular manner.

In fact, it is not shown that the viral agent actually causes disease, nor is it shown to be in situ in abundance in those ill with the disease, or deceased from the disease. Theoretically all cultures from a variety of people ill with this disease would have the same
abundant "viral" components.

====================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Follow up discussion with Mike Rock
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=183491417247579&id=100067601666920

Facebook - Mike Rock is with Mike Stone.
J.S.M. Peiris “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)

“SARS-COV-1” was claimed the casual agent of “SARS” based on cell-cultured evidence from only two patients. Of 30 cloned RT-PCR samples from one of the patients, only one 646 bp fragment of unknown origin showing weak homology to “Coronaviruses” was found and this was subsequently used to create RT-PCR assays for diagnosis. Only 22 out of 50 "SARS" patients tested positive for this 646 bp fragment. Five patients had no virological evidence of “SARS” whatsoever yet were still considered “SARS” cases. Other pathogens were found in some of the patients but these were relegated to possible secondary invaders.
In other words, the evidence for the existence of "SARS-COV-1" does not exist.

J.S.M. Peiris “SARS-COV-1” Paper (2003)
https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/14/j-s-m-peiris-sars-cov-1-paper-2003/

===============================

Steven Avery
Very interesting, and like how your site is moving along.
Any emphasis on the wacky theory of these dead/inactive viruses supposedly hijacking cell replication functions?

btw, I loved the page where the website discusses exosomes and mentions as virus confusions "coated vesicles, multivesicular bodies, exosomes, golgi and costomer-coated vesicles, etc."


Mike Rock
Steven Avery thanks for the kind words!
🙂

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking my thoughts on that theory or what the claimed evidence is? Or do you mean something else entirely?

Steven Avery
Mike Rock - there is mostly vague evidences, look at this pic, these papers says so.
Yet this would have been a major “breakthrough” - these scientists discovered this in 1965, it was proven by this, and peer-reviewed by that.
Never happened. There is no scientific paper trail.
When I ask for their evidence and proof they go bonkers.

Steven Avery
back to hijacking cell replication, the virus propaganda people start with the Tobacco mosaic "virus", but there was no claim of hijacking cell replication functions there, afaik, so it is not even in the league.

then they fast forward to bacteriophages, and that is exactly where Stefan Lanka first smelled out the fakery
Then they go to people "viruses", and it is all dogma by osmosis and circularity

Mike Rock
Steven Avery yep, they can't even pinpoint a clear moment in time where it was ever determined that "viruses" need a host cell to survive. This evidence does not exist. It is just plain absurd to even believe this because if that were truly the case, how would "viruses" survive in order to infect other humans? Virologists have fairy tales and nothing more.


Steven Avery
Mike Rock - I agree. I just find a lot of emphasis on the secondary issues, like the inability to prove virus isolation and purification, or the tertiary issues like masks, jabs, etc. And except for the small crew including yourself, not so much on the primary issues, the fairy tale science with huge holes and gaps. Even most of the people in tune with Stefan Lanka, Jon Rappoport, David Crowe, Andrew Kaufman, etc. have a hard time understanding that we are really just trying to unravel a Grim Fairy Tale.
Of course, many who emphasize the secondary and tertiary issues are either virus simpatico (Denis Rancourt perhaps and Jeremy Hammond as examples), or try to take an agnostic apporach (e.g. Christine Massey on virus purification.)


===============================

 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown was still back in 2015,
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...ty-new-york-world-clas-t5868-s150.html#p82766
The trial ended two years later, in 2017

On Stefan Lanka, here is the summary of the court proceedings.

Measles Virus put to the test. Dr. Stefan Lanka wins in court
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/virus-trial.html

John Blaid
Well David Barden lost in the supreme court regarding the measles "virus".
"A short interview with Dr Stefan Lanka after he won in the Higher Regional Court in Stuttgart on February 16, 2016 regarding the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus."
Dr Stefan Lanka Measles Virus On Trial
https://www.bitchute.com/video/T7clboYMkS7I/

Anti-Vaxxer Biologist Stefan Lanka Bets Over $100K Measles Isn’t A Virus; He Wins In German Federal Supreme Court
by Dr. Stefan Lanka January 21, 2017
http://whale.to/c/antivaxxer_biologist_stefan.html

===========================================

Pure Bible Forum
Stefan Lanka dismantles modern virus theory
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/stefan-lanka-dismantles-modern-virus-theory.1520/

This post
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...then-facebook-a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h.2219/#post-8372

===========================================
 
Last edited:
Top