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:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jeremy Hammond

2022
Hi Jeremy,

"watch for viral replication" ... "observe the replication"

When human (and/or primate) hijacking of cell replication by inactive/dead viruses that enter into a cell was first theorized, around 1950-1955, the replicable scientific experiment with this breakthrough discovery would surely have been an incredible milestone in the science of virology.

Presumably this would include a section on the lysis, the bursting the cell by these viruses. Or, alternatively, the more orderly budding of these newly replicated viruses, as they leave the cell, with the cell itself intact. And if bursting, the experiments could easily show the many burst cells and the huge number of newly replicated viruses. Virus damage.

Would you be so kind as to give the name and date and authors of this study, so we can see if the base of the cell replication theory is solid?

And if there is no study, do we allow that the theory became virology fact by scholastic osmosis, but no actual experimental discovery? In which case ... "none dare call this science."

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jeremy R. Hammond

August 26, 2022






Please demonstrate good faith by acknowledging the errors made by Kaufman and Cowan in their arguments about whole genome sequencing, most specifically their false claim that whole genome sequencing cannot be done without first isolating the microorganism.



Hi Jeremy,

You are asking me to demonstrate "good faith" by taking a definitive position where I do not claim expertise, on a debate that has layers of nuance and seems to involve semantics. It would be easy to perceive an analytical "error" without it affecting the fundamental question of whether an identifiable "virus" is causing an ailment or disease. There can be varying definitions and usage of words like "purification" and "whole genome sequencing." Thus, I pass.

And I give the nod to Jeremy R. Hammond and Kaufman & Cowan to try to continue their debate, pinning down issues, which seems to now be well into its second year! :)

And I do have sympathy for the study of Christine Massey asking institutions whether they have the specific Sars-Cov-2 virus in hand. Even there, I have not gotten into the debate details.

My question, I believe, is far more fundamental. It goes to the core of whether there really is a definable virus theory that has ever been determined by the scientific method.

And, closely connected, whether the theory is phantasmagorical, ascribing amazing (impossible) qualities to RNA/DNA snippets that are not alive. How they not only enter cells, but take over the complex cell replication functions! You also have additional layers of special effects when the "virus" supposedly hijacks a wide variety of cells.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but the virus theory, with my pointing out the cell replication aspect (fundamental to life) has never gone over an elementary, low-bar level of evidence. There is no historical study behind this theory, and today they tend to just show very vague pictures and wave their hands. Scholastic osmosis, faith in pseudo-"science".

Time to wake up and smell the herb tea!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jeremy R. Hammond
August 29, 2022
There is a fundamental contradiction between your refusal to acknowledge the above-identified errors of Kaufman and Cowan on the grounds that you lack the “expertise” to judge while at the same time expressing your apparent belief literally all of the relevant scientific literature is essentially fraudulent.
Please do review the terms of use of the comments section of this website. If you continue to demonstrate a lack of good faith, your privileges will be revoked.
+=========
That’s fine, Jeremy, it is your blog. My responsibility is simply to post clearly and honestly, without concern for consequences. And this question is relevant to the questions of the article. It is fun-damental.

If you think my inquiry about the scientific support for hijacking cell replication by human and/or primate viruses is not sound, you could simply ask a virologist to supply the names of the original studies. (If you cannot find it in blogs or books.)

Yes, I looked :), and discussed, so I can claim solid expertise on this topic. Unlike “isolation” and “purification” and “whole genome sequencing” we do not have semantic battles, so we should be on solid fundamental ground.

Alternatively, the virologist or whomever responds could try to explain why they think there is no need for a scientific experimental base for the hijacking of cell replication theory (Plan B). E.g. “consensus” or “1000s of experiments”.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Jeremy, there is no need to be insulting. I simply asked a fun-damental question And passed on your 2-year debate with Kaufman & Cowan, semantics at the core.

You do not want to address the question because, in your words, you may discover that:

“all of the relevant scientific literature is essentially fraudulent.”

And I would not say fraudulent, more like delusions built on non-scientific illusions.

Why not just acknowledge that the cell hijack and replication theory seems to lack historical, scientific backing?

You could then put it aside till another day.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Actually, Jeremy, you have a funny habit of trying to make things personal when a question is out of your comfort zone. Thus the silly "troll" and "good faith" red herrings. Those types of cheap debating tricks are quite transparent.

You could simply say:

"I have no idea where, when and how the science of viruses hijacking cell replication developed, and I don't care."

And maybe add:

"It must be true because today it is the consensus view and hundreds of papers work with that paradigm."

That would be an honest answer. Or you could try to enlist some scientists to answer for you.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
If virology was a real science, it would have replicable experiments demonstrating the fundamental extraordinary tenet - that these tiny dead/inactive RNA/DNA snippets can actually enter cells and hijack cell replication functions, to make new viruses.

These groundbreaking experiments would have taken place around 1950-55.

No such experiments can be seen.
Simple conclusion: virology is not a real science.

It is just consensus by osmosis.

Steven Avery
 
Top