Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 3,012 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 689,948
Pageviews Today: 1,848,012Threads Today: 987Posts Today: 16,832
10:00 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 441472
Netherlands
04/30/2009 01:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
..........6
gus
User ID: 665470
Brazil
04/30/2009 02:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Lets say everything you said about "BigPharma" is right, and they are even WORSE.

That still does not take away from the fact that viruses clearly are "lifeforms" and they are unique and different from bacteria, plant cells and animal cells.

You would have to set aside virtually ALL evidence about viruses, or 99%, to be able to even suggest this claim, let alone prove it.
 Quoting: NeoFistOfTheGolgoNinja


GL nor anyone can prove it, but they can show you hints so that you can convince yourself. however there is a lot to disprove about the corpuscular paradigm on the transmission of diseases. everybody will eventually understand that none of these abstract concepts that people believe have an existence of their own. it's human perception (very easy to condition) itself that gives the impression that these things exist and are 'alive'. YES, it's akin to worship/fear invisible gods . humans are BRAINWASHED -- this is a fact. I have been brainwashed most of my life about many things.

the universe pallows people to have two distinct views of any phenomenon: monocular or multiocular.

monocular view is unnatural and requires people to build an entire literature of 'evidence', details of causes and effects to corroborate their non-existent/illusory view of reality. it takes a lot of energy to remain ignorant.

since energy density (i.e., information density) is infinite in the Universe, one can 'discover' all kinds of linear (cause and effect) interactions and models on and about everything. humans do this but they eventually stop and conclude that they 'understand' what a phenomena is by basing themselves on a finite number of correlations. if they went further they would find out that the number of correlations is infinite and their finite models (closed systems) are just DENIAL of the big picture (open system).

monocular view is linear and materialistic, hence the fixation with little "bodies" like viruses, bacteria, etc and the linear, easy-to-explain interactions (virus pops out from someone and enters another).

the actual interaction (transmission of diseases) is instantaneous and happens on the paranormal channel. people become sick only because they want to become sick. since most people still share group consciousness like animals, they can channel the fear of other people like antennas -> DNA. add the Media as a potent amplifier and you will get several people responding to the signal and LITERALLY making themselves sick. they have always been 'sick' (unhealthy) anyway: their bodies are like toxic garbage: it's already putrid and smelly, and all that it takes for it to explode in flames is a spark.

if anything, you can say that FEAR is transmitted by small corpuscles called viruses. just as scientists say that LIFE is transmitted by photons (particles of light). with no sunlight there is no life. in the end it's all ABSTRACT CONCEPTS.

just as they have written thousands of books dealing with invisible deities, humans have the capacity to write thousands of books dealing with abstract concepts 'floating' on air. it does not make it any less "valid". i have studied a lot of abstract concepts in my life -- most of what they call 'science' and 'biology'. ultimately the value of the information is only for communication. how you go about explaining things to people on their level? you use the abstract explanations of man. real knowledge and understanding lies on another level beyond 'science', 'religion' , 'philosophy' and even 'logic'. real knowledge is spiritual, but not restricted to it.

it's a matter of perspective, but one perspective is unnatural, childish and eventually is proven wrong. the other cannot be proven right, but it is the last one that remains: instantaneous and direct communication between conscious units through the paranormal channel, exactly how scientists were able to transmit information from one electron to another instantaneously. behind all of this is consciousness, of course. but what is consciousness? that is another story.
GREY LENSMAN
User ID: 668152
Malaysia
04/30/2009 02:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
VIRUSES ARE THOUGHT FORMS NOTHING ELSE.

LIKE THE MAGIC POINTING THE BONE OR THE VOODOO FOLL, IF YOU BELIEVE IN THEM THEY WILL GET YOU.

NIGHT NIGHT

GL
Cogburn

User ID: 621781
United States
04/30/2009 02:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Oooo.. You have single handed reversed the clock on 500 years of medical research within this thread.

Truly an astounding feat.

Congrats!
"While you were hanging yourself
On someone else's words,
Dying to believe in what you'd heard,
I was staring straight into the shining sun."
- David Gilmour
GREY LENSMAN
User ID: 668152
Malaysia
05/01/2009 12:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
ALWAYS TRY MY BEST

SEEMS MEDICINE, SO CALLED, HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AT TURNING THE CLOCK BACK ITSELF

GL
LiveBold
User ID: 668881
United States
05/01/2009 12:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Great thread. Jeanine Roberts has done alot of research on this subject and her new book, "Fear of the Invisible" goes into great detail on the virus SCAM.

Here is a synopsis of her research on polio:

Outline of the Science History of Polio

by Martin Barnes

This summary was created from information extracted from Janine Roberts' book 'Fear of the Invisible' (Impact Investigative Media Productions, 2008).

1909: Landsteiner and Popper
They ground up the spinal cord of a 9-year-old polio victim and injected a cup of the suspension directly into the brains of two monkeys. One died immediately and the other slowly became paralyzed.

1910: Flexer and Lewis
Ground up human spinal cord with polio and injected the suspension directly into a monkey's brain, the monkey became paralyzed, then they extracted some fluid from its brain, and injected it into another monkey's brain, and so on through a series of monkeys paralyzing all of them in the process. But making the monkeys drink the liquid or injecting into their arms did not paralyze them.

(These experiments are celebrated in modern textbooks as being the first time a 'virus' was proved to cause a major epidemic.' They could not find a bacteria in film preparations or cultures. They concluded: 'The infecting agent of epidemic polio virus belongs to the class of minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under a microscope.' Toxic causes were not considered, or the shock of injecting this foreign stew directly into the brain, bypassing the immune system.)

However, the scientists were under a lot of pressure then to find a cure for the waves of polio hitting middle class kids in the summertime.

1948: Dalldorf and Sickles
Took excrement from a polio victim and prepared a 20% suspension with ether and centrifugation, then injected it directly into the living brains of suckling mice 3-7 days old. They became paralyzed.

1949: Enders of Harvard claims he can make this 'virus' from human embryonic cells, making it far easier to make a vaccine.

(Their conclusion was that this was the successful isolation of a virus that must be causing polio paralysis in humans! But all they proved was that a faeces-derived suspension of human cellular material caused illness in lab animals. They called this suspension 'polio virus' and it was to become a 'vaccine seed' for modern polio vaccines. Enders receives the 1954 Nobel Prize for this!)

1950: A small ball like particle, 24-30 nm in size, was isolated from human excrement, and made visible with an electron microscope. It was named the 'polio virus.'

(Gut enteroviruses like this are very common in humans. We all have many of them.
Where was the proof this was a causative agent? Why and how would a virus found in the gut go over to attack the nervous system as polio does?)

1951: Scientists report they cannot find the designated polio virus in many polio victims.

(This information was ignored. It was inconvenient. The public was demanding a solution to the polio epidemic attacking middle class kids.)

1952: Prof Konstantine Vinodouroff of the Institute of Neurology, Russian Academy of Medical Science, tells the Americans that Russia has never had an outbreak of polio. The Americans are amazed.

1954: Dr. Jonas Salk developed the first commercial polio vaccine with a virus found in 'the pooled faeces of three heathly children in Cleveland.'

(Dr. Salk did not even use the faeces from polio victims!)

The 'poliovaccine' is administered as a safety test to 400,000 US children. The official safety report stated that it protected '30-90 percent' of recipients.

(This was a vague statistic. However, manufacturers could make a 300% markup on the vaccine.)

1955: Salk distributed his vaccine 'seed' —derived from the excrement of healthy children— to manufacturers. The next step was to sprinkle it into vast quantities of minced monkey kidneys and allow the virus to multiply, then add formaldehyde to kill it. They made 27,000,000 vaccination doses.

1955: President Dwight Eisenhower awarded Salk the Congressional Medal declaring the polio vaccine a great victory for American science.

1956: Health Authorities change the rules for defining polio. Doctors are instructed to diagnose polio only if the patient has paralytic symptoms for 60 days or more. Milder cases of polio are no longer reported.

1958: CDC changes the rules for defining polio again. Cases of inflammation of the membrane that protects the brain and spinal neuron cells, causing muscular weakness and pain, but not paralysis, are no longer to be classified as polio. These cases must now be called viral or aseptic meningitis. Non-paralytic cases were now to be re-named meningitis even if the polio virus is present. The reported figures for polio were officially to exclude 'cases of aseptic meningitis due to polio virus or other entero viruses.' Reported cases of aseptic meningitis went from near zero to thousands, and polio cases dropped the same amount.

1958: Officials reduce the definition of polio again. Now all cases with classic polio paralytic symptoms are to be diagnosed initially as Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP). Two turds are taken from the patient and sent to the CDC to see if they can find polio in them. If not, they are declared as not polio, even if the children have all the classic symptoms.

(Making fewer cases of polio by changing the definition was a fraudulent way to make it seem like the polio vaccinations were working.)

1958: Officials triumphantly declared large parts of the world polio free, even while the newly defined Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) suddenly became common. Credit for this great victory over disease was given to Salk, Sabin and the vaccine manufactures.

Report in JAMA Feb 25, 1961: "It is now generally recognized that much of the Salk vaccine used in the U.S. has been worthless." Live strains produced by Sabin and put in sugar cubes were adopted instead.

2008: Ordinary doctors still do not have the power to diagnose polio by observing symptoms. The World Health Organization still demands that two turds from each victim of infantile paralysis be sent to their laboratories. If no polio virus is found in these, the cases are declared not to be polio, even if these children are suffering from the same severe paralysis symptoms and pain as found in the worst cases of polio during the American epidemics.

Question: Could something else be causing polio besides the virus? Finding the polio virus in human excrement is natural, and finding it there does not prove it causes polio, symptoms of paralysis in the motor neuron cells of the backbone.

2008: On the CDC website Dr. John Lienhard explains that too much hygiene was the cause of the polio epidemics. Most kids pick up the virus in garden soil and become naturally immune to it, but not the kids subjected to the overly hygienic parents of the 50's.

Conclusion: The effectiveness of the Salk vaccine (and Sabin live vaccine in sugar cubes) is something that we have all come to accept, but it is nothing more than a scientific myth, fraudulently promoted by the political and medical authorities of the time, and still believed today. Millions of polio vaccine injections are still given worldwide every year for essentially no purpose. Causation by a virus has not been shown.


The Case for Toxins Causing Polio

1824: Metal workers had suffered for centuries from a paralysis similar to polio caused by the lead and arsenic in the metals they were working with. English scientist John Cooke observed: 'The fumes from these metals, or the receptance of them in solution into the stomach, often causes paralysis.'

1890: Lead arsenate pesticide started to be sprayed in the US up to 12 times every summer to kill codling moth on apple crops.

1892: Polio outbreaks began to occur in Vermont, an apple growing region. In his report the Government Inspector Dr. Charles Caverly noted that parents reported that some children fell ill after eating fruit. He stated that 'infantile paralysis usually occurred in families with more than one child, and as no efforts were made at isolation it was very certain it was non-contagious' (with only one child in the family having been struck).

1907: Calcium arsenate comes into use primarily on cotton crops.

1908: In a Massachusetts town with three cotton mills and apple orchards, 69 children suddenly fell ill with infantile paralysis.

1909: The UK bans apple imports from the States because of heavy lead arsenate residues.

1921: Franklin D. Roosevelt develops polio after swimming in Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Toxicity of water may have been due to pollution run-off.

1943: DDT is introduced, a neurotoxic pesticide. Over the next several years it comes into widespread use in American households. For example, wall paper impregnated with DDT was placed in children's bedrooms.

1943: A polio epidemic in the UK town of Broadstairs, Kent is linked to a local dairy where cows were washed down with DDT.

1944: Albert Sabin reports that a major cause of sickness and death of American troops based in the Philippines was poliomyelitis. US military camps there were sprayed daily with DDT to kill mosquitos. Neighboring Philippine settlements were not affected.

1944: NIH reports that DDT damages the same anterior horn cells that are damaged in infantile paralysis.

1946: Gebhaedt shows polio seasonality correlates with fruit harvest.

1949: Endocrinologist Dr Morton Biskind, a practitioner and medical researcher, found that DDT causes 'lesions in the spinal cord similar to human polio.'

1950: US Public Health Industrial Hygiene Medical Director, J.G. Townsend, notes the similarity between parathion poisoning and polio and believes that some polio might be caused by eating fruits or vegetables with parathion residues.

1951: Dr. Biskind treats his polio patients as poisoning victims, removing toxins from food and environment, especially DDT contaminated milk and butter. Dr. Biskind writes: 'Although young animals are more susceptible to the effects of DDT than adults, so far as the available literature is concerned, it does not appear that the effects of such concentrations on infants and children have even been considered.'

1949-1951: Other doctors report they are having success treating polio with anti toxins used to treat poisoning, dimercaprol and ascorbic acid. Example: Dr. F. R. Klenner reported: 'In the poliomyelitis epidemic in North Carolina in 1948 60 cases of this disease came under our care... The treatment was massive doses of vitamin C every two to four hours. Children up to four years received vitamin C injection intramuscularly... All patients were clinically well after 72 hours.'

1950: Dr. Biskind presents evidence to the US Congress that pesticides were the major cause of polio epidemics. He is joined by Dr. Ralph Scobey who reported he found clear evidence of poisoning when analyzing chemical traces in the blood of polio victims.

Comment: This was a no no. The viral causation theory was not something to be questioned. The careers of prominent virologists and health authorities were threatened. Biskind and Scobey's ideas were subjected to ridicule.

1953: Clothes are moth-proofed by washing them in EQ-53, a formula containing DDT.

1953: Dr. Biskind writes: 'It was known by 1945 that DDT was stored in the body fat of mammals and appears in their milk... yet far from admitting a causal relationship between DDT and polio that is so obvious, which in any other field of biology would be instantly accepted, virtually the entire apparatus of communication, lay and scientific alike, has been devoted to denying, concealing, suppressing, distorting and attempts to convert into its opposite this overwhelming evidence. Libel, slander, and economic boycott have not been overlooked in this campaign.'

1954: Legislation recognizing the dangers of persistent pesticides is enacted, and a phase out of DDT in the US accelerates along with a shift of sales of DDT to third world countries.

(Note that DDT is phased out at the same time as widespread polio vaccinations begin.)

1962: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is published.

1968: DDT registration cancelled for the US.

2008: Acute Flaccid Paralysis (AFP) is still a raging, but little mentioned, epidemic in many parts of the world where pesticide use is high, and DDT is still used.

2008: WHO states on its website: 'There is no cure for polio. Its effects are irreversible.'

Conclusion: Modern belief that polio is caused by a virus is an ongoing tragedy for the children - poisoning victims - involved. Public funds are wasted on useless and dangerous vaccines when the children could be treated with antitoxins.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 615200
Brazil
05/01/2009 01:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
bump
TONY
User ID: 1221834
United Kingdom
01/08/2011 03:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Here's more on what is tantamount to fraudulaent scientific research:

Flying Pigs or Spanish Flu?

According to various past reports Dr Jeffrey Taubenberger, a molecular pathologist at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Rockville, Md., and his team toiled for 10 years to piece together the alleged deadly Spanish Flu virus in a high-security laboratory at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

They obtained samples from small pieces of lung tissue, preserved in wax after the autopsies of two soldiers among the Spanish flu's 675,000 American victims, and from the frozen body of an Inuit woman who died from the virus in November 1918 and was buried in the Alaska permafrost.

The claim is then made that although the alleged virus' eight gene segments, or strands of RNA, were in fragments (selected from numerous ‘other’ fragments), Taubenberger’s team was able to piece them back together using gene sequencing and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) -- a biochemical multiplication method of creating copies of specific fragments of DNA.

The glaring problem here is that the ‘Spanish Flu virus’ has NEVER been physically isolated, photographed and biochemically characterized in the first place scientifically by ANYONE to date. Taubenberger et al had to rely on a purely speculative conceptual ‘model’ and the magical PCR technique that produces something out of nothing – short bits of gene substance that were NEVER demonstrated to exist in the corpses in question!

How is it possible to know what to look for and be able to identify and determine the Spanish Flu virus precisely from ‘virus-like particles’ such as cell debris and other organic contaminants if the model Taubenberger et al used was NEVER based on a real physically isolated and biochemically characterized virus?

Thus with the magical PCR method it’s not only possible to multiply arbitrarily so that one detects only small fragments of new nucleic acid sequences that did not previously exist in the tissue samples from the corpses. It also means that a positive PCR is not proof for the existence of a whole genome (‘viral’ or otherwise).

Dr Stefan Lanka has also commented on Taubenberger’s fiasco thus:
If viruses had been present, then these could have been isolated, and out of them their gene substance could have been isolated too; there would have been no necessity for anyone to produce laboriously, by means of PCR technique- with clearly a swindle intention - a patchwork quilt of a model of the genetic substance of the idea of an influenza virus.

Finally, and notwithstanding all this. PCR reproducibility and specificity have never been effectively determined using any isolated human pathogenic virus as a ‘gold standard’. Moreover, Kary Mullis, who received a Nobel Prize for inventing PCR, says that it is being misused in HIV research. It is a method for studying genetic code fragments and matching them to similar fragments, not for identifying viruses as the cause of AIDS or ANY OTHER ILLNESS [emphasis mine]. He says that humans are full of retroviruses, which have never been shown to kill anybody, and that the mystery of ‘HIV’ has been generated by the $2 billion a year being spent on it (FOTI, Roberts p. 191).

In the case of influenza the problem thus remains: what is it that is producing the flu-like symptoms that are invariably credited to the so-called human ‘pathogenic viruses’ if none of them have ever been proven to physically exist let alone to have been effectively isolated and biochemically characterized to this day? What we have been led to believe about human pathogenic viruses is Alice in Wonderland phantasy along with the standard textbook pictures and speculative computer models of their alleged genome sequences.
Noitamrofni

User ID: 1220893
United States
01/08/2011 04:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
This is really good. Shows People are thinking!
Nice one OP.

Open your fucking boxes people. Why cant this be true and stop using what you have been "taught" more like brainwashing as an excuse on why this cant be.

If you had never hurd of a virus, was never told what one was, it wouldnt exsist to you.

Simple minded people make my head hurt.

Last Edited by Noitamrofni on 01/08/2011 04:22 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1221851
Mexico
01/08/2011 04:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
yeap.. virus does not exist..

The Spanish Conquerors killed almost 2/3 of the natives with their minds.. not with Smallpox they designed on their way to advance labs builded on 1510
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 769657
United States
01/08/2011 04:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Yes. You can get over them quite easily.
Noitamrofni

User ID: 1220893
United States
01/08/2011 04:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Funny how small pox is now eradicated..Like we are so powerful we removed all of the so called virus from the planet and all of its people...either that or it was never there, or it wasnt what everyone thought.

Most are saying simply is that they do exsist but they are bundels of garbage. Not living organism hell bent of killing people, that sounds like crazy talk to me.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1221851
Mexico
01/08/2011 04:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Funny how small pox is now eradicated..Like we are so powerful we removed all of the so called virus from the planet and all of its people...either that or it was never there, or it wasnt what everyone thought.

Most are saying simply is that they do exsist but they are bundels of garbage. Not living organism hell bent of killing people, that sounds like crazy talk to me.
 Quoting: Noitamrofni



yeap.. it sounds crazy..virus are like a trojan horse..

a thin line between the living and dead

A chain of aminoacids.. just that.. a hacker to your cells DNA
Noitamrofni

User ID: 1220893
United States
01/08/2011 04:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
The complexity of existence is something we will never know, not even in death.
nexuseditor

User ID: 1214026
Australia
01/08/2011 04:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
great post - and I love those E.E. "Doc" Smith "Lensman" books by the way.


I subscribe to the idea of pleomorphism, where existing 'organisms' such as E. Coli are observed to change form in the blood when the blood becomes 'toxic'.

E. Coli has been observed to morph into the TB bacterium, which has been observed to morph into the Candida fungus - all as the pH and toxicity of the blood is altered. Clearly these new-stage lifeforms need the changed environment in order to exist - so any 'cure' is either arrived at by altering the medium via diet, and or removing the lifeforms via various external means (antibiotics, herbs etc).

There was a lot of debate in early decades about whether viruses actually exist - and the arguments were, and are, very compelling. I feel it was the coup d'etat conducted by the pharmaceutical giants, when they placed their lackeys into the relevant govt departments, that caused any further debate on the subject to be taboo.

peace
TONY
User ID: 1223257
United Kingdom
01/09/2011 04:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
For anyone who is really interested in whether the so-called pathological viruses exist or not follow the debate between me (Tony) and Dr Henry Niman of the Recombinomics website here's the URL [link to www.virology.ws]

I should add that my comments are no longer posted on the Virology Blog site - they do not appear to like genuine scientific debate if one does not comply with the orthodox view on the alleged 'pathogenic viruses'. It reminds me of the Stan Milgram and Solomon Asch mind control experiments on obedience and compliance to an authority - in this case the the authority of the virology community. If you don't comply and they don't like the search for truth you don't get the electric shocks you just get kicked off the site.

Dr Niman is always posting comments on alleged Swine Flu genetic sequences and alleged pathogenic virus strains or sub-types. However, when asked for the actual scientific proof that the actual complete viruses physically exist he never answers the question.

Quoting alleged gene sequences of a 'pathogenic virus' or viruses that have never been physically isolated, photographed and biochemically characterized is a complete and absolute waste of time.Until we have the concrete scientific proof of the actual physical existence of such viruses they will continue to reamin Alice in Wonderland phantasy objects - virtual realities on Dr Henry Niman's computer.

So Henry, if you ever get to read this blog please SHOW US YOUR PROOF - no computer models, no secondary references or secondary textbook sources, only the hard scientific evidence - the primary sources please fully quoted, with the names of the scientists who claim to have isolated any complete pathogenic virus. I bet you cannot provide this proof can you??????????
tiv
User ID: 587237
United Kingdom
01/09/2011 04:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
AIDS fraud?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 626208

yeah, AIDS fraud

seems that 90% of ppl diagnosed with aids live in squalor - no sanitation, fresh water, food etc etc
.
TONY
User ID: 1237376
United Kingdom
01/20/2011 03:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
I was recently watching a Dettol advert on a TV commercial and nearly fell off my chair at the ridiculous and laughable claim about viruses. The advert starts off with the word ''FACT'' and then goes on to assert that ''germs such as the Flu virus can be easily be picked up and brought into your home where they can live on surfaces for up to two days. Trust Dettol surface cleanser to kill 99.9% of bacteria including the Flu virus to leave your surfaces clean and safe , no wonder its trusted by doctors. Dettol protects FACT''.

Let us deconstruct this ludicrous advert.

First of all 'pathogenic viruses' such as the alleged Flu viruses remain FICTIONAL not fact because they are not alive. Even if we grant them a hypothetical physical existence for arguments sake,there is not a cat in hells chance of any one of them living on surfaces for up to two days as the Dettol advert tries to make out.

Why? Because they are not living biological ORGANISMS - they are merely bits and pieces of inert chemical substances consisting of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) mainly wrapped in a protein coat. They are no more alive than a house brick! They have no metabolism and no independent action they are DEAD in the water so to speak. Precisely because none of them have EVER been isolated as complete viruses and proven to cause any disease it is impossible for Dettol(or anything else) to kill something that is already stone dead even if we grant them a hypothetical existence! Some virologists assert that they 'hijack' the machinery of susceptible cells in order to reproduce themselves within. This is another phantasy - it is like saying I can reproduce myself if you do it all for me! If you believe this crap then there is no hope for any of us.

I will leave you with this disconcerting hypothetical thought. If Dettol only kills 99.9% of germs presumably the other 0.1% kills us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And pigs might fly!!!!!
jd
User ID: 1260672
United States
02/09/2011 06:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
The idiocy of the people that have started and perpetuate this farce have made it clear to me that there is an extremely low level of intelligence. I would like to know why you have chosen the virus as the one topic of biology not to believe in. You are all perfectly fine with the concepts of the cell, internal cell machinery(including DNA transcription/translation), but you've randomly decided that viruses aren't real? I don't understand. Viruses implement cellular machinery via DNA/RNA to create more viruses and then destroy the host. Is that really that controversial of a concept. You people are reaching on this one.

Exhibit A:

The hershey-chase experiment

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

While this experiment was not explicitly designed to show that viruses exist, it shows how a virus infects a host cell.

"Big Pharm", as you all put it, had nothing to do with the discovery of the virus. The tobacco mosaic virus was the first virus to be extensively studied. Look it up and see for yourself.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1246536
France
02/09/2011 06:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Holy shit. Welcome back GL. How is your garden doing ? I hope you are well !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:clap hands:
Tony
User ID: 1262156
United Kingdom
02/11/2011 04:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
JD you don't seem to have grasped what us 'idiots' are getting at, I suggest that you do some further research on the subject of alleged 'pathogenic viruses'and re-read the arguments presented.

Most virologists are clever they have doctorates in virology - they are what the famaous (or infamous) French psychoanalyst termed 'the-subjects-who-are-supposed-to-know' but don't really, because their focus is only in one direction namely, that of mainstream virology. Any deviation from that framework is anathema because careers are at stake. This does not imply that everything within that framework is wrong or incorrect but certain things like the physical existence of alleged 'pathogenic viruses' have not been conclusively proven to date by anybody despite all objections to the contrary.

Much of what passes as 'proof' turns out to be no proof at all because nobody has ever claimed to have isolated, photographed, and biochemically charcterized and alleged 'pathogenic virus' obtained from the fresh plasma of a diseased human being, and proved that the said virus causes the same disease in another otherwise healthy human being. Granted, many have made 'claims' but when the evidence is analysed it does not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1403385
United Kingdom
05/27/2011 04:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Well dear friends here's a summary of a good book well worth reading and well researched on the existence of so-called 'pathogenic viruses'it's called Virus Mania. Hope it does the trick in casting some doubt on the official dogma on the allegedly (and still unproven) 'deadly viruses' that are supposed to make us all sick.

Torsten Engelbrecht works as a freelance journalist in Hamburg. He has written articles for publications such as Medical Hypotheses, British Medical Journal, Suddeutsche Zeitung, Neue Zurcher Zeitung, and The Ecologist. From 2000 to 2004, he worked as business editor of the Financial Times Deutschland.

Claus Kohnlein is a medical specialist of internal diseases. He completed this residency in the Oncology Department at the University of Kiel. Since 1993, he has worked in his own medical practice, treating Hepatitis C and AIDS patients who are skeptical of antiviral medications.

Virus Mania
"How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at our Expense"

Foreword by Etienne de Harven

The Content of this Book Has To Be Read, Quickly and Worldwide

The book Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein presents a tragic message that will, hopefully, contribute to the re-insertion of ethical values in the conduct of virus research, public health policies, media communications, and activities of the
pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, elementary ethical rules have been, to a very dangerous extent, neglected in many of these fields for an alarming number of years.
When American journalist Celia Farber courageously published, in Harper’s Magazine (March 2006) the article “Out of control—AIDS and the corruption of medical science,” some readers probably attempted to reassure themselves that this “corruption” was an isolated
case. This is very far from the truth as documented so well in this book by Engelbrecht and Köhnlein. It is only the tip of the iceberg. Corruption of research is a widespread phenomenon currently found in many major, supposedly contagious health problems,
ranging from AIDS to Hepatitis C, Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or “mad cow disease”), SARS, Avian flu and current vaccination practices (human papillomavirus or HPV vaccination).

In research on all of these six distinct public health concerns scientific research on viruses (or prions in the case of BSE) slipped onto the wrong track following basically the same systematic pathway. This pathway always includes several key steps: inventing the risk of a
disastrous epidemic, incriminating an elusive pathogen, ignoring alternative toxic causes, manipulating epidemiology with non-verifiable numbers to maximize the false perception of an imminent catastrophe, and promising salvation with vaccines. This guarantees large
financial returns. But how is it possible to achieve all of this? Simply by relying on the most powerful activator of human decision making process, i.e. FEAR!

We are not witnessing viral epidemics; we are witnessing epidemics of fear. And both the media and the pharmaceutical industry carry most of the responsibility for amplifying fears, fears that happen, incidentally, to always ignite fantastically profitable business. Research
hypotheses covering these areas of virus research are practically never scientifically verified with appropriate controls. Instead, they are established by “consensus.” This is then rapidly reshaped into a dogma, efficiently perpetuated in a quasi-religious manner by the media, including ensuring that research funding is restricted to projects supporting the dogma, excluding research into alternative hypotheses. An important tool to keep dissenting voices out of the debate is censorship at various levels ranging from the popular media to scientific publications.

We haven’t learnt well from past experiences. There are still many unanswered questions on the causes of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, and on the role of viruses in post-WWII polio (DDT neurotoxicity?). These modern epidemics should have opened our minds to more
critical analyses. Pasteur and Koch had solidly constructed an understanding of infection applicable to many bacterial, contagious diseases. But this was before the first viruses were actually discovered. Transposing the principles of bacterial infections to viruses was, of course, very tempting but should not have been done without giving parallel attention to the innumerable risk factors in our toxic environment; to the toxicity of many drugs, and to some nutritional deficiencies.

Cancer research had similar problems. The hypothesis that cancer might be caused by viruses was formulated in 1903, more than one century ago. Even today it has never been convincingly demonstrated. Most of the experimental laboratory studies by virus-hunters
have been based on the use of inbred mice inbred implying a totally unnatural genetic background. Were these mice appropriate models for the study of human cancer? (we are far from being inbred!) True, these mice made possible the isolation and purification of “RNA
tumor viruses,” later renamed “retroviruses” and well characterized by electron microscopy.
But are these viral particles simply associated with the murine tumors, or are they truly the culprit of malignant transformation? Are these particles real exogenous infective particles, or endogenous defective viruses hidden in our chromosomes? The question is still debatable.
What is certain is that viral particles similar to those readily recognized in cancerous and leukemic mice have never been seen nor isolated in human cancers. Of mice and men…
However, by the time this became clear, in the late 1960s, viral oncology had achieved a dogmatic, quasi-religious status. If viral particles cannot be seen by electron microscopy in human cancers, the problem was with electron microscopy, not with the dogma of viral
oncology! This was the time molecular biology was taking a totally dominant posture in viral research. “Molecular markers” for retroviruses were therefore invented (reverse transcriptase
for example) and substituted most conveniently for the absent viral particles, hopefully salvaging the central dogma of viral oncology. This permitted the viral hypothesis to survive for another ten years, until the late 1970s, with the help of increasingly generous support
from funding agencies and from pharmaceutical companies. However by 1980 the failure of this line of research was becoming embarrassingly evident, and the closing of some viral oncology laboratories would have been inevitable, except that…

Except what? Virus cancer research would have crashed to a halt except that, in 1981, five cases of severe immune deficiencies were described by a Los Angeles physician, all among homosexual men who were also all sniffing amyl nitrite, were all abusing other drugs,
abusing antibiotics, and probably suffering from malnutrition and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). It would have been logical to hypothesize that these severe cases of immune deficiency had multiple toxic origins. This would have amounted to incrimination of these
patients’ life-style…

Unfortunately, such discrimination was, politically, totally unacceptable. Therefore, another hypothesis had to be found—these patients were suffering from a contagious disease caused by a new…retrovirus! Scientific data in support of this hypothesis was and, amazingly enough, still is totally missing. That did not matter, and instantaneous and passionate interest of cancer virus researchers and institutions erupted immediately. This was salvation for the
viral laboratories where AIDS now became, almost overnight, the main focus of research. It generated huge financial support from Big Pharma, more budget for the CDC and NIH, and nobody had to worry about the life style of the patients who became at once the innocent
victims of this horrible virus, soon labeled as HIV.

Twenty-five years later, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has totally failed to achieve three major goals in spite of the huge research funding exclusively directed to projects based on it. No AIDS cure has ever been found; no verifiable epidemiological predictions have ever been
made; and no HIV vaccine has ever been successfully prepared. Instead, highly toxic (but not curative) drugs have been most irresponsibly used, with frequent, lethal side effects. Yet
not a single HIV particle has ever been observed by electron microscopy in the blood of patients supposedly having a high viral load! So what? All the most important newspapers and magazine have displayed attractive computerized, colorful images of HIV that all
originate from laboratory cell cultures, but never from even a single AIDS patient. Despite this stunning omission the HIV/AIDS dogma is still solidly entrenched. Tens of thousands of researchers, and hundreds of major pharmaceutical companies continue to make huge
profits based on the HIV hypothesis. And not one single AIDS patient has ever been cured…
Yes, HIV/AIDS is emblematic of the corruption of virus research that is remarkably and tragically documented in this book.

Research programs on Hepatitis C, BSE, SARS, Avian flu and current vaccination policies all developed along the same logic, that of maximizing financial profits. Whenever we try to understand how some highly questionable therapeutic policies have been recommended at
the highest levels of public health authorities (WHO, CDC, RKI etc.), we frequently discover either embarrassing conflicts of interests, or the lack of essential control experiments, and always the strict rejection of any open debate with authoritative scientists presenting
dissident views of the pathological processes. Manipulations of statistics, falsifications of clinical trials, dodging of drug toxicity tests have all been repeatedly documented. All have been swiftly covered up, and none have been able to, so far, disturb the cynical logic of
today’s virus research business. The cover-up of the neurotoxicity of the mercury containing preservative thimerosal as a highly probable cause of autism among vaccinated children apparently reached the highest levels of the US government… (see article “Deadly
Immunity” from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in chapter 8)

Virus Mania is a social disease of our highly developed society. To cure it will require conquering fear, fear being the most deadly contagious virus, most efficiently transmitted by the media.

Errare humanum est sed diabolicum preservare… (to err is human, but to preserve an error is diabolic).

Etienne de Harven, MD
Professor Emeritus of Pathology at the University of Toronto and
Member of the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, New York (1956 - 1981)
Member of Thabo Mbeki’s IDS Advisory Panel of South Africa
President of Rethinking AIDS ( [link to www.rethinkaids.net)]
jamesd1628

User ID: 2231652
United States
08/11/2014 04:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
Might as well bump this . . . .
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 58027317
Canada
09/30/2014 08:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
"No Virginia, viruses do not exist. They lied to you about that too."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17668200
United States
04/06/2020 10:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
correect
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 77894746
04/06/2020 10:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
JD you don't seem to have grasped what us 'idiots' are getting at, I suggest that you do some further research on the subject of alleged 'pathogenic viruses'and re-read the arguments presented.

Most virologists are clever they have doctorates in virology - they are what the famaous (or infamous) French psychoanalyst termed 'the-subjects-who-are-supposed-to-know' but don't really, because their focus is only in one direction namely, that of mainstream virology. Any deviation from that framework is anathema because careers are at stake. This does not imply that everything within that framework is wrong or incorrect but certain things like the physical existence of alleged 'pathogenic viruses' have not been conclusively proven to date by anybody despite all objections to the contrary.

Much of what passes as 'proof' turns out to be no proof at all because nobody has ever claimed to have isolated, photographed, and biochemically charcterized and alleged 'pathogenic virus' obtained from the fresh plasma of a diseased human being, and proved that the said virus causes the same disease in another otherwise healthy human being. Granted, many have made 'claims' but when the evidence is analysed it does not stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
 Quoting: Tony 1262156


clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 46817976
United States
04/06/2020 11:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: DO VIRUSES REALLY EXIST?
boom33





GLP