5 ms·

I'm not saying viruses do not exist. I'm saying that they are merely a theory that is not proven with the same scientific rigor that bacteria infections have be

by cies 4y ago

I'm not saying viruses do not exist. I'm saying that they are merely a theory that is not proven with the same scientific rigor that bacteria infections have been proven. In fact I find the science on the existence of viruses rather thin. https://rumble.com/v13jt4t-science-pseudoscience-and-the-germ-theory-of-disease-dr.-jordan-grant-2022-.html https://rumble.com/v13jt4t-science-pseudoscience-and-the-ger... > especially now that we have shown mRNA vaccines work Right, they dropped from 100% effective to 30% effective in the first weeks, then requiring boosters. They totally lied/oversold them. And everyone got "it" anyway. How does that mean "they work"?

aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
You realize that viruses are visible via electron microscopy?
- cies 4y ago
  Are they? EM changes the sample, it can destroy cells. Also they do not look at truly isolated samples of viruses: they look at concoctions of monkey kidney cells, bovine fetal serum and more with the supposed virus in there. When looking at a concoction like that, what certainty you have you see the virus and not another small biological particle (like exosomes, or dead cell debris)? Last thing, it seems that with many of these EM photos of viruses, is that the control group was omitted. You also need to bring a concoction that does not have supposed virus in there and somehow show that does not contain the visual element that ARE seen in the sample with supposed virus. Virologists disagree and are okay with going ahead without control groups in these cases.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    > When looking at a concoction like that, what certainty you have you see the virus and not another small biological particle (like exosomes, or dead cell debris)? Because a virus looks nothing like cells that would make up any of those organs. When you examine enough samples and suddenly see some cells that don’t look like they belong that’s a pretty good indicator of a foreign body.

by cies 4y ago

aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago

You realize that viruses are visible via electron microscopy?

cies 4y ago
Are they? EM changes the sample, it can destroy cells. Also they do not look at truly isolated samples of viruses: they look at concoctions of monkey kidney cells, bovine fetal serum and more with the supposed virus in there. When looking at a concoction like that, what certainty you have you see the virus and not another small biological particle (like exosomes, or dead cell debris)? Last thing, it seems that with many of these EM photos of viruses, is that the control group was omitted. You also need to bring a concoction that does not have supposed virus in there and somehow show that does not contain the visual element that ARE seen in the sample with supposed virus. Virologists disagree and are okay with going ahead without control groups in these cases.
- tekknik 4y ago
  > When looking at a concoction like that, what certainty you have you see the virus and not another small biological particle (like exosomes, or dead cell debris)? Because a virus looks nothing like cells that would make up any of those organs. When you examine enough samples and suddenly see some cells that don’t look like they belong that’s a pretty good indicator of a foreign body.