575 replies and 497 files omitted.
Do you unironically think that contagious viral pathogens don't exist?
Correct, contagious viruses are an oxymoron.
But it is not about what an anon thinks, but the flawed research on them and therefore the humongous hoax is virology.
I know the virology community has plenty of self-serving shitheads, but viruses are a real thing. We've known about them for a while now. We've reproduced them in labs and tested rats for their symptoms. We've sequenced the genomes of some of them to see how strains mutate year by year in populations.
They are absolutely contagious. Other contagious pathogens exist (bacteria, parasites and certain prions), but viruses are unique.
Dude, read the thread, virology doesn't hold water. But you still go on with the establishment narrative. Either you never dug into the issue and insist on something you have no clue whatsoever, which make you into a moron; or, you did but are not bringing any data to debunk the Terrain Theory and therefore your claims validating the Germ Theory are empty.
>>349078>Other contagious pathogens exist (bacteria, parasites and certain prions), but viruses are unique.
Sure, many alive organisms are pathogenic and contagious, the so called viruses are dead cellular garbage and harmless.
Viruses aren't organisms, or at least not by the standards of what we consider to be alive. Things don't need to be alive to be pathogenic though. Viruses aren't considered alive because they have no ability to reproduce on their own, only highjack a living cell's capabilities; despite lack of capacity for self propagation, they can still spread from host to host using the host's own cell signalling systems.
And then there's prions, which are basically just proteins folded wrong, but still end up being contagious between hosts, and keep replicating even within dead tissue material.>harmless
Many of them are no threat to most humans, but many more are also still harmful and absolutely contagious. They can only spread through contagion, either between cells of a host or between the hosts themselves.
Perhaps you are knowledgeable enough, because 9 of 10 doctors got blank when asked where viruses come from, meaning that them are the equivalent of shop mechanics reading the manual when confronted with the subject.
All animals have inside TRILLIONS of viruses, because those particles are the a natural process of the cells getting rid of toxicity and debris. The claim that those debris reproduce is non-sense as well that they cause sickness.
I have read the thread. I just haven't posted to it very often.>Germ theory
You literally just said in the other post that pathogenic organisms exist: that's germ theory. It began with microorganisms like bacteria.
The thread is about vaccines, which are based in the supposedly pathogenic nature of the so called viruses.
Alive pathogenic organisms is a totally different category not covered by vaccines.
>>349084>Alive pathogenic organisms is a totally different category
See antibiotics for treatment.
>>349082>those debris reproduce
They don't reproduce. They attach to the cell walls of living cells and hijack their signalling systems to force the cells to make copies of them.> 9 of 10 doctors got blank when asked where viruses come from
For the same reason that they can't say for certain what the origin of life is: they weren't there when the first viruses came about, and they have no means to know if they can just spontaneously appear (prions can though. Interesting little fuckers).
For all science can tell, the only known viruses have been derivative of other viruses, >All animals have inside TRILLIONS of viruses
You only call it a virus if it spreads virally. Normal cell signaling protein packages wouldn't be considered such if they only deteriorate after fulfilling their purpose.>as well that they cause sickness.
The sickness is caused by the death or impairment of host cells that have been made to print garbage RNA to perpetuate a virus instead of fulfilling their actual purposes, and the body's immune response to that.
And if you think that something produced in the body can't possibly cause illness, know that cancer cells are produced in the body too.>>349084
I am absolutely skeptical of modern vaccine industries, and any attempts to mandate their untested products or enrich their shareholders, and I want more medical transparency in the industry, and less secrecy to protect their financial interests. I have not however seen sufficient counters to the evidence that viruses exist.>Alive pathogenic organisms
They are indeed. They're also treated differently in the field of medicine. Antibiotics and antivirals don't work the same way.
As for prions... Nobody knows wtf to do with them. They're basically indestructible, and appear whenever they want.
>>349086>As for prions... Nobody knows wtf to do with them. They're basically indestructible, and appear whenever they want.
According to who? Follow the money anon.
What do you mean "according to who"? I just said nobody knows what to do with them; except maybe the few people who pretend they know how to treat them. Prion diseases are basically hopeless, painful deaths at this point. Medical science hasn't come that far.
Just don't eat human brains, and don't feed cows to cows.>Follow the money
Are you implying that the elites secretly have a cure to prison diseases, and are paying people off to suppress it?
I wouldn't be surprised, I bet they have cures for cancer too, but prion diseases aren't really common enough for that to have a major profit motive.
>>349088>Are you implying that the elites secretly have a cure to prison diseases, and are paying people off to suppress it?
Nope, I'm saying watch out for "scientific" hoaxes that cannot be corroborated by people who are not funded by those claiming the illness exist indeed. Remember the AIDS hoax.
>>349089>Remember the AIDS hoax.
There were multiple hoaxes and psyops concerning AIDS. Which one are you referring to?
As for prions, there's quite a bit of research concerning them, although few treatments for them once they manifest (some things are just hard to treat). They're basically just rogue proteins that fuck stuff up wherever they go; even simpler than viruses, and many times as deadly.
In any case, there haven't been very many sweeping government policies concerning them (although I guess we're not allowed to feed baby cows the ground-up remains of their parent's brains and spinal cords anymore, boo hoo), so I'll put my skepticism of their existence on hold.
>>349090>They're basically just rogue proteins that fuck stuff up wherever they go
You are told.
Allow me to be skeptical of the scientists' claims.
You don't think transmissible spongiform encephalopathies cause diseases in humans?
What do you think caused mad cow disease then? It was verified by scientists on three continents to be the result of deformed proteins caused by forcing cows to eat each other.
Of course, that could be a lie, but they did find those proteins in the brains of both infected cattle and humans who'd consumed the meat.
Now, you could say that they didn't have direct evidence that the mutated proteins caused the illness in people due to not performing experiments on human subjects (which would involve killing people), but they were able to reproduce the results in rats who are the tainted beef.
I can't really think of why people would about that one in particular, except maybe to shut down a couple factory farms and maybe make excuses for beef tariffs. Of course, the medical industry is full of frauds and hacks, so critical skepticism is always important.
But I believe them enough to not feed cows to cows and not practice cannibalism, because apparently humans/cow biology isn't meant for that crap.
Does anyone here have anecdotes or statistics relating to the recently approved Novavax Covid vaccine? From my own research it appears to be a legitimate vaccine using "tried-and-true" protein subunit tech. The kind that's been in use for decades. But I want to know how people's bodies have actually been reacting to it. It's available in several countries now including the USA so there should be news one way or the other.
So far there's been little documented evidence of adverse reactions.
Of course, it still remains to be seen how it works.
If you ever get bitten by a mad dog, I seriously hope you go get treatment for it immediately. Rabies is a horrible and painful way to die. I've seen animals die from that shit before they could be put down, and it is gruesome.
Polio 101 - The Missing Medical School Lectures
The fascinating parts about Polio you might have missed in Medical School, presented in 2 minutes. Packed with interesting information guaranteed to help clarify the foggy bits of the amazing Polio story.
The polio reemergence is the result of importing shitskins from third world countries. We could've been free of it forever, but no, they just had to have diversity.
The polio thing is a man-made poisoning dating before any shitskin even showed up in the radar.
Despite how long those two snippets are they are too brief for what they cover. The pointless inflammatory language makes me wonder if it's designed to associate the subject with disinformation too.
The simple version is that the polio virus does exist but it doesn't cause paralysis on it's own. The vaccine never worked, it's an endemic virus that's living in your guts right now. The paralysis was caused by ingesting poisoned food that fucked the blood-brain barrier allowing the polio and who knows what else past causing meningitis/encephalitis.
Saulk knowingly did evil things. The formaldehyde they used to attenuate the virus made it cyst up instead of killing it even if they didn't remove all the formaldehyde. They knowingly injected kids with poison and live virus in the deep muscle where it was more likely to infect the nervous system. They were causing polio, cases increased when the vaccine was introduced after decreasing at the same rate as the reduction in toxic pesticide usage. That was with the government changing the definition to limit what was counted as polio.<insert JFK.jpg here>
Let's see if something with less "inflammatory" language will make it through.https://vernoncoleman.org/articles/startling-history-polio-vaccination
That's much better. It doesen't leave any room to blame the author of not believing in pathogens. Normalfags love their witch hunts, for science.
I forgot about the monkey kidney cancer.
>Secrets of Virology - "Control" Experiments - (15:26 long)>Recently, there was a claim that virologists carry out properly controlled experiments, which show that the "no virus" position is false. Have we missed something?https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Secrets-of-Virology-Control-Experiments:e
In a nutshell, virology is a fraud.
>I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person
>Eustace Mullins quotes a book a doctor wrote in the year 1936: "I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person.”
Correlation doesn't imply causation, tbh. There are tons of different ways to get cancer.
A glaring detail about cancer is that there are not historical records of it before vaccines.
>there is not historical records of it before vaccines
Again, correlation =/= causation. A variable you're not considering is that people didn't call it cancer until relatively recenrly. Records of cancer by other names go back to 3000 BC.
I'm not dismissing the plausibility that ingredients in vaccines could cause or exacerbate cancer, but to say that vaccines cause all cancer is just completely unfounded.
>>352677>>352678>Some of the earliest evidence of cancer is found among fossilized bone tumors, human mummies in ancient Egypt, and ancient manuscripts. Growths suggestive of the bone cancer called osteosarcoma have been seen in mummies. Bony skull destruction as seen in cancer of the head and neck has been found, too.>Our oldest description of cancer (although the word cancer was not used) was discovered in Egypt and dates back to about 3000 BC. It’s called the Edwin Smith Papyrus and is a copy of part of an ancient Egyptian textbook on trauma surgery. It describes 8 cases of tumors or ulcers of the breast that were removed by cauterization with a tool called the fire drill. The writing says about the disease, “There is no treatment.”>The origin of the word cancer is credited to the Greek physician Hippocrates (460-370 BC), who is considered the “Father of Medicine.” Hippocrates used the terms carcinos and carcinoma to describe non-ulcer forming and ulcer-forming tumors. In Greek, these words refer to a crab, most likely applied to the disease because the finger-like spreading projections from a cancer called to mind the shape of a crab. The Roman physician, Celsus (25 BC - 50 AD), later translated the Greek term into cancer, the Latin word for crab. Galen (130-200 AD), another Greek physician, used the word oncos (Greek for swelling) to describe tumors. Although the crab analogy of Hippocrates and Celsus is still used to describe malignant tumors, Galen’s term is now used as a part of the name for cancer specialists – oncologists.
Where did you hear about cancer only occurring after vaccines? Inbred nobles have been growing painful tumors on their bodies since the beginning of written history.
That's not to say that vaccines or vaccine ingredients couldn't hypothetically be a cause, but they can't be the only
cause. There are lots of things in the world that can cause cancer.
Wait, is not those quotes from (((Wikipedia)))?
>The outstanding London surgeon Percivall Pott made numerous original observations. In 1775 he pointed out that many males who had been chimney sweepers while boys later suffered from scrotal cancer and linked this with irritation caused by soot, and thus identified the first cancer-causing occupation.
Cancer was understood and documented to be a disease before vaccines were even thought of. The earliest vaccine was in 1796, when Edward Jenner injected a teenager with cowpox to give him immunity to smallpox; and that was before vaccines were made from dead protein shells or mixed with other dubious additives and preservatives.
Again, not discounting the plausibility for vaccines to cause cancer, but cancer can clearly form independently from vaccines.