An enjoyable read, thanks. Some questions and challenges arise, however.
On viruses: Surely something is contagious? I applaud the Hygiene theory, that terrain is far more important than pathogen for the majority of disease, the exposing of fraudsters like Louis Pasteur, the HIV criminals and the Covid criminals, the sharing of the message that virologists are not scientific, and the clear warning that 'viruses' are being used to usher in an era of control. None of that explains why I have decades of not showing specific symptoms, then show them after kissing my wife who has them. Nor why the narrative of virus carrying vectors is so predictive for disease. Eg. see these 127 non HIV 'viruses' which would need addressing for a robust look at viral flaws.(https://viralzone.expasy.org/678)
On operating systems: I must challenge the assertion that our active and autonomous operating systems could ever function independent of each other. Robert Sapolsky in "Behave" argues that free will, environmental influence and genetic responses are not separate at all, and never can be. That we can in fact, and regularly do, stimulate 'seizures' for love, creativity or mathematics. He refers to the examples you can find in almost any work on the subject. Things like Phineas Gage completely changing his decisions/behaviour based on a rod destroying a particular part of the brain. But we must not think of the brain as just our head. The gut, endocrine system, and a host of other mechanisms are all at play. Try giving anyone a whole load of sugar and and tell me that you cannot influence their decision making via external stimulations or factors. Casinos, PlaySchool, advertising agencies, Yuval Harari and shopping malls owners would claim they have all adequately demonstrated the same. Then when you get into Giulia Enders delightful explanations of rat microbiomes, you see that our free will is influenced by organisms which are not answerable in any way to our thoughts or soul. Further, there are clearly receptors in the brain which we can stimulate to influence love, critical thinking or free will. Dopamine receptors, are the clearest example of many, some of which are collated in works like Johan Hari's 'stolen focus'.
Um, what? Infectious exosomes? (Do mycoplasmas count?) How would those differ from a virus? Who says a virus must only spread from person to person with no intermediary (vector)?
Many thanks for plugging away on this. I went from vaguely believing in viruses in March 2020 to realising on the 1st June 2020 that it was all lies. The whole house of cards came tumbling down.
I understood then that any supposed viral disease was flawed and vaccines could never work. I was very angry and started my blog that month.
I found this article very well written. It is hard to take “no virus” theorists seriously because they often make ridiculous statements denying anything is happening in the body, when clearly there are both particles as well as specific illnesses that show up and can be observed with unique signatures.
In support of their position, it is pretty obvious viral theory and isolation is flawed, but then what explains the presence of these particles and the accompanying illness better?
The difference here is that you acknowledge the nanoparticles present. My best guess is that the “monsters” like Baric/Fauci/Wuhan scientists/NIH not only know how these exosome/viral/nano particles work, but they have exploited that knowledge to unleash hell on everyone, simultaneously propping up big pharma by making most ppl believe the vaccines could offset the effects. (I do think several doctors and researchers look at this from a microview and think “vaccination” was smart, despite the myriad flaws in the logic).
We know many things cause cell death: cell age, electrical signals, toxins, malnutrition. We know that upon cell death, exosomes (seemingly identical to viral particles, are released). From there, these particles “seem” to travel to other cells and more cell death and particles are released. In the midst of that process, antibodies show up to eventually block and neutralize the particles, and clean out the trash.
Many in the “no virus” camp think that toxins from the environment cause cell death, the particles that are released from a dying cell are not causative, they are simply after effects. Logical; but that doesn’t rule out nanoparticles themselves being engineered as toxins to start the cycle of cell death in the first place.
The sars-cov-2 particle with its spikes is toxic, it causes all kinds of damage via its binding domains, shape, etc. Adding in mass vaccination during exposure disrupted herd immunity being achieved, and this particle then is pushed to mutate again and again.
To me, the most likely theory is that it is via a spike protein capable of replication, meaning, even if viral theory is flawed, the idea that there are self replicating nanoscale toxins is still possible and likely.
A separate question is whether this is contagious or not. I think likely it is, but it’s also possible we are being exposed on a mass scale through the environment. To me, that is important to get an answer to as well, but maybe not as important as to understanding that we are being poisoned and these bioweapons labs need to be burned to the ground.
In summary, I think saying viruses don’t exist is shortsighted. Viruses may be nanoscale toxins. They may be the byproduct of cell death induced most of the time, but they could also possibly come from nature and they certainly could be engineered. In other words, we know a nanoparticle is showing up along with illness; what or how this has transpired is still being uncovered. Too many are getting lost in the semantics - we need to stop arguing about whether viruses exists and claiming that because the isolation is flawed, nothing is happening - and start focusing on the origin and mechanisms of a toxic and sometimes deadly nanoparticle. If terrain theory is correct, let’s hunt down the proof and find out where these nanoparticles are being made, how they enter the environment, whether they replicate, etc.
Wow, you sure covered a lot here. I have to say, from what I’ve read of him, I like Stefan Lanka.
I worked on so-called HIV patients not long after graduation in the late 80s and it didn’t take me long to realise that 1. These people were not sick; 2. They were however living in fear, which could very well make them sick; 3. I was not at risk of contracting anything from them; 4. Antivirals and the HepB vax were responsible for making some people sick and 5. The sprays and disinfecting agents we were made to use were more toxic than anything previously used.
An enjoyable read, thanks. Some questions and challenges arise, however.
On viruses: Surely something is contagious? I applaud the Hygiene theory, that terrain is far more important than pathogen for the majority of disease, the exposing of fraudsters like Louis Pasteur, the HIV criminals and the Covid criminals, the sharing of the message that virologists are not scientific, and the clear warning that 'viruses' are being used to usher in an era of control. None of that explains why I have decades of not showing specific symptoms, then show them after kissing my wife who has them. Nor why the narrative of virus carrying vectors is so predictive for disease. Eg. see these 127 non HIV 'viruses' which would need addressing for a robust look at viral flaws.(https://viralzone.expasy.org/678)
On operating systems: I must challenge the assertion that our active and autonomous operating systems could ever function independent of each other. Robert Sapolsky in "Behave" argues that free will, environmental influence and genetic responses are not separate at all, and never can be. That we can in fact, and regularly do, stimulate 'seizures' for love, creativity or mathematics. He refers to the examples you can find in almost any work on the subject. Things like Phineas Gage completely changing his decisions/behaviour based on a rod destroying a particular part of the brain. But we must not think of the brain as just our head. The gut, endocrine system, and a host of other mechanisms are all at play. Try giving anyone a whole load of sugar and and tell me that you cannot influence their decision making via external stimulations or factors. Casinos, PlaySchool, advertising agencies, Yuval Harari and shopping malls owners would claim they have all adequately demonstrated the same. Then when you get into Giulia Enders delightful explanations of rat microbiomes, you see that our free will is influenced by organisms which are not answerable in any way to our thoughts or soul. Further, there are clearly receptors in the brain which we can stimulate to influence love, critical thinking or free will. Dopamine receptors, are the clearest example of many, some of which are collated in works like Johan Hari's 'stolen focus'.
Um, what? Infectious exosomes? (Do mycoplasmas count?) How would those differ from a virus? Who says a virus must only spread from person to person with no intermediary (vector)?
Many thanks for plugging away on this. I went from vaguely believing in viruses in March 2020 to realising on the 1st June 2020 that it was all lies. The whole house of cards came tumbling down.
I understood then that any supposed viral disease was flawed and vaccines could never work. I was very angry and started my blog that month.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/covid-19-summary/
I found this article very well written. It is hard to take “no virus” theorists seriously because they often make ridiculous statements denying anything is happening in the body, when clearly there are both particles as well as specific illnesses that show up and can be observed with unique signatures.
In support of their position, it is pretty obvious viral theory and isolation is flawed, but then what explains the presence of these particles and the accompanying illness better?
The difference here is that you acknowledge the nanoparticles present. My best guess is that the “monsters” like Baric/Fauci/Wuhan scientists/NIH not only know how these exosome/viral/nano particles work, but they have exploited that knowledge to unleash hell on everyone, simultaneously propping up big pharma by making most ppl believe the vaccines could offset the effects. (I do think several doctors and researchers look at this from a microview and think “vaccination” was smart, despite the myriad flaws in the logic).
We know many things cause cell death: cell age, electrical signals, toxins, malnutrition. We know that upon cell death, exosomes (seemingly identical to viral particles, are released). From there, these particles “seem” to travel to other cells and more cell death and particles are released. In the midst of that process, antibodies show up to eventually block and neutralize the particles, and clean out the trash.
Many in the “no virus” camp think that toxins from the environment cause cell death, the particles that are released from a dying cell are not causative, they are simply after effects. Logical; but that doesn’t rule out nanoparticles themselves being engineered as toxins to start the cycle of cell death in the first place.
The sars-cov-2 particle with its spikes is toxic, it causes all kinds of damage via its binding domains, shape, etc. Adding in mass vaccination during exposure disrupted herd immunity being achieved, and this particle then is pushed to mutate again and again.
To me, the most likely theory is that it is via a spike protein capable of replication, meaning, even if viral theory is flawed, the idea that there are self replicating nanoscale toxins is still possible and likely.
A separate question is whether this is contagious or not. I think likely it is, but it’s also possible we are being exposed on a mass scale through the environment. To me, that is important to get an answer to as well, but maybe not as important as to understanding that we are being poisoned and these bioweapons labs need to be burned to the ground.
In summary, I think saying viruses don’t exist is shortsighted. Viruses may be nanoscale toxins. They may be the byproduct of cell death induced most of the time, but they could also possibly come from nature and they certainly could be engineered. In other words, we know a nanoparticle is showing up along with illness; what or how this has transpired is still being uncovered. Too many are getting lost in the semantics - we need to stop arguing about whether viruses exists and claiming that because the isolation is flawed, nothing is happening - and start focusing on the origin and mechanisms of a toxic and sometimes deadly nanoparticle. If terrain theory is correct, let’s hunt down the proof and find out where these nanoparticles are being made, how they enter the environment, whether they replicate, etc.
Wow, you sure covered a lot here. I have to say, from what I’ve read of him, I like Stefan Lanka.
I worked on so-called HIV patients not long after graduation in the late 80s and it didn’t take me long to realise that 1. These people were not sick; 2. They were however living in fear, which could very well make them sick; 3. I was not at risk of contracting anything from them; 4. Antivirals and the HepB vax were responsible for making some people sick and 5. The sprays and disinfecting agents we were made to use were more toxic than anything previously used.