Thank you for sharing this Bill. I watched it this morning. I appreciated the approach he took, but I think he missed a number of points / misunderstood what I was saying.
For example, if I thought 'viruses' were actually identical to 'exosomes' (including the whole replication piece) then I would just call them 'viruses' and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. What I'm showing here is how, *using their own literature*, they are unable to differentiate them which puts everything they say about 'viruses' into question.
I will be writing up something later this week to answer in more detail the points he raised, and hopefully clear that up for everyone.
I would agree that the mainstream virologists and doctors cannot actually differentiate between so called viral diseases, merely lumping symptoms together to try and foll people into believing they are incredibly clever and the only ones to be trusted.
And then offer harmful vaccines and big pharma drugs which add to the diseases by poisoning the recipients.
The whole thing is virology is fundamentally flawed. The definition of viruses is fundamentally flawed. Viruses don't exist as we are told and the variants are just plain made up nonsense to scare the children and gullible as I once was.
They are either poisons which are chemical not biological and must be dealt with by the immune system.
Or they are the exosome, part of the body's defense system. This is in fact what people are seeing under the electron microscope.
In essence disease is toxic poisoning where the chemical balance is upset and needs restoring, perhaps to be considered as + and - to from a neutral solution, a harmony.
It can even be considered as a dance, a couple in perfect unison moving fluidly in time to the music.
The waters have been muddied on virology by taking the truth - there is a particle in our bodies - and saying it is harmful, whereas the exosome is there to clear up the rubbish and take it to the lymph system etc for disposal.
Your point does not sound clear. Think on it more. Check out my comments. I am trying to help you because I like your PR hack. "Mistaken identity" may be a better approach than just telling them, viruses don't exist. That has only been partly successful.
I don't think it's helpful to say they 'don't exist', because you then get the likes of Kirsch saying that they do because we have photographs of them. And they're not wrong, because what do you mean by 'don't exist'? Do you mean the particles don't exist? Or do you mean they don't do what they claim they do? So I think it's better to approach it this way. Again, this is made clear here: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg
Hi Seb, I used to follow you on Twitter before I get permanently banned (4x accounts!).
I've listened to probably 30 minutes of this now, skipping around to various points. But I'm having trouble discerning exactly what your thesis is.
Can you summarize in a couple of paragraphs here how you and Caroline propose "revising" Germ Theory?
First of all, as Alec Zeck pointed out when he spoke to Doctors for COVID Ethics last month, "Germ Theory" is really just a (failed) hypothesis. It cannot rise to the status of a "Theory" until the basic hypothesis has been shown, vie experimental data, to be a predictive model and is thus likely correct. This is impossible, as the independent variable, the alleged "virus" has never been shown to exist.
Thanks for the feedback. As I mentioned at the start, it would appear that much of what is said about 'germ theory' is technically correct, in the sense that poisons (the word 'virus' was once understood to mean poison) can spread from one person to another in much the same way 'viruses' are said to.
These 'viruses' however, appear to be markers for toxicity ('exosomes'), which also fits the pattern we've seen for bacteria and so-called 'parasites' (bacteria can be pathogenic in the sense that they can 'manufacture' toxic metabolites, and thus they can, on occasion, prove to be a problem. They are not the primary problem, but can on occasion be a problem nonetheless). So it's not as simple as saying that 'germ theory' is entirely incorrect, because it clearly isn't, which in turn would suggest that antibiotics (to take just one example) aren't completely useless in the way that many within what we could refer to as the 'alternative health movement' seem to think they are.
Does that make sense? We delve more into the toxic hypothesis and 'mistaken identity' of 'viruses' in the second half, so maybe skip to that.
I appreciate the introduction may be a little drawn out for someone who is familiar with the subject as you are. I did it this way because of the audience I was presenting to, and the idea that a first principles approach should be taken so as to ensure that we were all coming at the subject from a position of shared understanding. My goal was not to get into a shouting match with 'the other side', but have a calm discussion, which we did end up having in the Q/A. I don't think this would have been possible if I hadn't taken the approach I did.
I was thinking about this some more, and to answer your question in simple terms; the central hypothesis is that all these seemingly disparate 'diseases' are in fact varying symptoms of poisoning, and one poison in particular that we have been able to link back to virtually every one of these 'diseases'. Genetics, microorganisms, 'auto-immunity' etc are all what we might call secondary problems. Arsenic for example has been clearly shown to have a genotoxic effect. I used the example of cystic fibrosis. Technically, it isn't incorrect to say that this 'disease' is 'genetic' – but it isn't the primary problem. The primary problem is whatever it is that damages DNA resulting in such 'diseases'. Virology is essentially a subset of toxicology.
>the central hypothesis is that all these seemingly disparate 'diseases' are in fact varying symptoms of poisoning,
Agree. Poisoning or trauma or unhealthy mind-states.
> Virology is essentially a subset of toxicology
No. Again, viruses are, "Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Toxins cause damage to living tissue directly. Toxins do not reproduce, they do not meet the definition of parasites. and Toxins do not transmits host-to-host.
I think you are missing my point. I discussed the alleged differences between 'viruses' and 'exosomes' here: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg. There clearly are none, because they are in fact one and the same. Therefore, that definition you cited is one of the fundamental axioms I mentioned right at the start that needs to be binned.
If 'viruses' are in fact 'exosomes', and 'exosomes' are, in some cases, markers for toxicity, then I would argue that 'virology' is indeed a subset of toxicology, in that it is studying what happens to the body when it is intoxicated.
For example, 'viral genomes' can essentially be thought of as a 'snapshot' of a given part of the body that is out of homeostatic balance, because these 'genomes' (which are really nothing more than genomic sequences), are likely to include markers for toxicity, such as gamma-H2AX (discussed in the aforementioned article).
No, that is incorrect. Again, let's refer to the best definition of a "virus" that I have found:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Viruses are DEFINED to be pathogenic. I know of no one who suggests that exsosomes are pathogenic. Clearly they are not the same at all.
But a more fundamental point which must be established before we start comparing the properties of viruses to other particles, and that is DO VIRUSES EXIST?
It's a bit like comparing Unicorns to Exosomes.
No wait a minute. We need to discuss whether Unicorns exist first, please.
> 'viral genomes' can essentially be thought of as a 'snapshot' of a given part of the body that is out of homeostatic balance
No sorry, that is a giant leap of faith about like Evel Knievel jumping the Snake River Canyon.
I don't want to discuss "viral genomes" before you prove to me that viruses exist.
It almost seems like that you agree with me, but you seem driven to bolt-on an alternative definition for a virus which is sensible and rooted in reality.
I question the usefulness of that mission. I think it is prudent to DISCARD bad ideas, rather than trying drape it in a costume of sensibility.
My advice: Let's all recognize that virology / contagion / germ "theory" (hypothesis) is an incorrect model of disease. It does not serve us propagating it any longer. Let's send it to the scrap yard, and start over, and begin grounded in reality rather than 150 years of fraud.
If you read the article I shared above, you will see what I mean when I say they are the same. I don't think 'viruses' exist in the conventional sense, so we agree. As I have previously stated, the definition you keep citing is where I draw the line. And just to be very clear what I mean by this; the particles appear to exist, they are 'exosomes'. They appear to be markers for 'disease', but they are not contagious, or the cause of 'disease'. At no point have I suggested that 'exosomes' are pathogenic, although it would appear they are able to spread poisons throughout the body (this is explained in the aforementioned article).
On the question of 'viral genomes' you have completely missed the point. 'Viruses' – that is to say the particles they take photos of – are never isolated. All they do is take fluids from a sick organism, and then inject that into animals or cell culture. Those fluids are likely to be contaminated with one or more poisons (see the example of Percy I gave in the presentation), which is why the organisms they are extracted from are sick in the first place (unless you are suggesting that these organisms just get sick for no reason?). These fluids, in turn, will contain certain markers, such as those I mentioned previously. Those markers will in turn be contained within the sequence they are creating of the 'virus'. This is what I am referring to. I am not talking about the particles, and I am not talking about 'viruses' in the conventional sense. So saying "prove to me that viruses exist" is completely irrelevant because it is not what I am talking about.
"Let's all recognize that virology / contagion / germ "theory" (hypothesis) is an incorrect model of disease" you are lumping together a bunch of different concepts, some of which are correct, others not. 'Contagion' is real enough as per what I said right at the beginning; poisons can spread from one person to another. Or are you saying that can't and doesn't ever happen?
I don't think it's useful to make out that someone is saying something that they're not, as you have now done on two occasions. If you are unsure what it is I'm saying, why not just ask questions? Why do you keep asserting that I'm wrong, when you quite clearly haven't understood what it is I'm saying?
Well again, you would have to establish an actual toxin is involved, it poison for it to be toxicology. However, that said, cells can break down from emotional reactions that go somatic, lack of sleep (can't repair cells), etc. as I said.
So, if you redefine toxicology as any toxin defined as a stressor, or actual poison, we have to enlarge our definition of toxin, and I actually already do that. Ayurveda similarly describes food as anything you take in. Stress is a primary toxin. Being around toxic people (abusive people).
So I would not say it's a subset of toxicology as it currently exists, but if you have a natural medicine view, then I can buy that. But basically they're not viruses. They're exosomes. I agree with Bill that no viruses exist as such.
But I like your expansive thinking and your angle on that.
I will be writing a more detailed piece on this shortly.
"But basically they're not viruses. They're exosomes. I agree with Bill that no viruses exist as such." – at no point have I said that they're not. If I thought 'viruses' were actually identical to 'exosomes' then I would just call them 'viruses' and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. What you, Bill, and Tom seem to have missed is that I'm showing how, *using their own literature*, they are unable to differentiate them which puts everything they say about 'viruses' into question.
1) You have not established that germ theory is correct in the least, so how is it correct? Linking viruses with antibiotics does not really make sense here. (I am only responding to your comment, not the presentation.)
2) Antibiotics are toxic and cause resistance, so they are completely useless. You can use berberine, a plant derivative, with no toxicity or resistance. So why would you choose an antibiotic, which will in the end destroy beneficial microbiota? You need that to digest food.
Exosomes attached to proteins, which are removing those proteins, have probably been mistaken for viruses. Exosomes as far as I understand, from some reading of the literature and also from Stefan Lanka, have a variety of functions in the body, but most involve cell signaling. Some are breakdown products. Some appear to be attaching to proteins. It may be that these specifically are mistaken for viruses.
You can say that in some cases exosomes are markers of toxicity in terms of a cell breakdown, but it doesn't necessarily mean a chemical toxin. Stress is a primary toxin. You could have lack of oxygenation due to chronic musculoskeletal issues. Lots of things. But I can buy that as long as it is understood that these are breaking down and not invaders. I can buy mistaken identity. From a PR perspective, I say it is clever. I actually think it's a great virus believer hack, as long as the other issues are corrected.
But you simply CANNOT rescue germ theory. If you are playing a little politics, good on you for getting it past them. So I will revise my own opinion of your approach from a political standpoint. I will probably even use it. So thanks man. But basically germ theory is dead. The whole idea of the germ is a foreign invader that feeds on a native host.
1.) Germ theory encapsulates more than just 'viruses'. When I say it is not entirely incorrect, what I mean is that bacteria for instance, can on occasion be a problem. I do not think 'viruses' are. If you watch the presentation, my position should hopefully become clearer to you.
2.) Whether you use berberine or something else is somewhat irrelevant – you are acknowledging (correct me if I've misunderstood) that on occasion, bacteria can be problematic. One more time – I am not saying they are the *primary* problem, but controlling their growth may be desirable in some cases.
3.) I never said that 'exosomes' where ONLY a marker for chemical toxicity. Where have I said this?
1. OK ingesting toxic bacteria. Or rotting matter. But they do have to establish that the bacteria are a source of the toxin, and yes I know they emit endotoxins, but generally, matter rotting is toxic. Eat that and it does not matter if it's bacterial. OK, I'll buy that point.
2. Yeah fine on the second point. But those bacteria if they are endemic to the body, NO that is NOT germ theory. Not all bacteria come from the exterior. And bacteria are not sometimes toxic and sometimes not. Mainly they are saprotrophs as Dawn Lester established. But if they are out of hand, and you need one as in drinking toxic water, well honestly you don't need them. You can basically use purgatives. You really should know something about natural medicine. But they may not be toxic in all people. So KO to germ theory in its essence.
3. By saying virology is a subset of toxicology, you said this. Conventional toxicology primarily deals with physical toxins. But natural toxicology I will buy.
Not just that. Bacterial metabolites are also a problem. Again, see the presentation, and what is discussed here:
"In 1838, physician John Snow wrote a letter published in The Lancet, where he denounced the dangers of this practice, how it could “expose the dissector to breathe an atmosphere contaminated with arsenuretted hydrogen, which is, perhaps the most deadly combination of arsenic”. Going back to Semmelweis – the bacteria said to cause ‘puerperal fever’ are said to be the same as those that caused ‘scarlet fever’; ‘Streptococcus pyogenes’. It is interesting to note that the presence of Streptococcus bacteria has been found to correlate positively with arsenic exposure (see here and here)."
Bacteria and fungi can volatilise arsenic into its most toxic form, arsine gas.
Yeah I know about endotoxins. Sure. I edited my comment above so you can see the full answers. Sorry I post and then revise 15 times.
But some bacteria come from the inside. So germ theory is only very rarely at play. And the essence of the argument is also that bacteria and pathogens are invaders. Well no, you ingested it or came across them somehow. And, if they become toxic, it is because you are more toxic. Some people might intake a toxic bacteria but be healthy enough to detox it quickly without issue.
> it would appear that much of what is said about 'germ theory' is technically correct
Really?
>in the sense that poisons (the word 'virus' was once understood to mean poison) can spread from one person to another in much the same way 'viruses' are said to.
Wow, there's a lot there to unpack.
First of all POISONS (or toxins) are very different than "Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Are you actually claiming that if I accidentally eat poison (eg., cyanide, arsenic, strychnine, or Ivermectin), that this poison can leap to another person via coughing or airborne droplets (the typical pathway of exposure claimed for most respiratory viruses like CONVID), well that is a very novel theory, and I would like to see some proof of that. Got a cite?
> bacteria can be pathogenic
If you have ANY proof of any pathogenic particle, or any "communicable disease" or "human to human transmission of infection", I would like to see that.
My present understanding is that while it's true that bacterial show up where there are toxins or trauma, to suggest that bacterial actually are the cause of disease, is the same "Association Fallacy" as claiming that firemen cause fires, because they always seem to be found wherever there are fires.
>I appreciate the introduction may be a little drawn out
It just would be nice to put a few sentences up front to describe your entire thesis and where the essay is going, to orient the reader/listener.
> "in the sense that poisons (the word 'virus' was once understood to mean poison) can spread from one person to another in much the same way 'viruses' are said to."
It depends on the poison. Arsenic for example is known to accumulate in semen. So there's your 'sexually transmitted diseases'. Ionising radiation is another. I used the example of 'monkeypox' in the presentation, where some monkeys got sick because they were in the presence of others that had been irradiated.
Inside the body, they can convert via Ars operons arsenate into arsenite (deemed more toxic to humans and animals). The result is increased RBC death, resulting in more free iron.
At no point have I ever said that they are the *cause* of any given 'disease'. Not once. Could you please show me where I've said this, so I can correct the record if necessary?
> "I appreciate the introduction may be a little drawn out"
Point taken, and I have updated the summary below the video with a top-level summary. Hopefully that makes it clearer, but let me know if not and I will try to improve on it.
No, you do not have it correct. This is why they were warm to you. Because you haven't got the truth and you do not threaten their paradigm. One Q: Is Leo Biddle related to Byram Biddle?
The so-called Virology is one big scam, built on lies and manipulation, to make people sick again and again with toxic injections until death, to help the pharma lobby and all who are involved with shares to profit - and that is clearly criminal!!!! Instead of writing such a mess, you can also present and explain it quite simply, if you really understand something about it - after 40 years(until retirement) in this profession with years of belief in something that never existed up to the realization of the clear fraud with everything that goes with it, I know 100% what I am writing about!!!! You confuse people with something completely nonsensical and alien to science, that has absolutely NO basis!
Hello Mary-Ann, you here state that you have been 40 years in this profession, could you clarify if the profession you refered to you is medicine or virology?
I actually really enjoyed this article and was not confused by it. I think the author had an interesting take on the issues and that there is room for people to have different ideas an opinions.
Have you ever tried using hair mineral analysis to find evidence of arsenic or mercury in any of the individuals who you suspect have symptoms of toxic poisoning ? The test may cost around $200 but the results can be interesting.
Seb, if you meet with the virologists again, or whatever even if you don't, check out microvesicles.org. You can see a whole database of various vesicles. The scary thing is they are using them as biomarkers for disease, and that's going to be a sketchy proposition. Another one germ, one disease model. The reason it is sketchy is because the body and nature are pleomorphic. We can't have standardized databases and Lanka pointed this out with the human genome project.
But the point is, all of those exosomes have been said to be isolated. Only viruses do not follow the same method, as Tom noted, and have not been similarly "isolated". (Of course they are not fully isolated because they admit they still get smaller vesicles in with the larger.) But as stated, those should work, if viruses exist.
But the viros say, well we don't have enough if we do it that way. They can't find them. Well then you don't have a virulent pathogen that replicates as is said. There would be tons of them.
Wow, none other than Dr. Tom Cowan did a commentary on this today!
(I wonder how he found this? I didn't send it to anyone)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/uMmYoHuLQ3Ps/
I think you'll enjoy it, Seb.
He does raise some of the same points that I was making.
But he's very gentle and polite. :)
Thank you for sharing this Bill. I watched it this morning. I appreciated the approach he took, but I think he missed a number of points / misunderstood what I was saying.
For example, if I thought 'viruses' were actually identical to 'exosomes' (including the whole replication piece) then I would just call them 'viruses' and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. What I'm showing here is how, *using their own literature*, they are unable to differentiate them which puts everything they say about 'viruses' into question.
I will be writing up something later this week to answer in more detail the points he raised, and hopefully clear that up for everyone.
Hello from the UK.
I would agree that the mainstream virologists and doctors cannot actually differentiate between so called viral diseases, merely lumping symptoms together to try and foll people into believing they are incredibly clever and the only ones to be trusted.
And then offer harmful vaccines and big pharma drugs which add to the diseases by poisoning the recipients.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/11/14/vaccination-industry-in-a-nutshell/
I approach it thus.
The whole thing is virology is fundamentally flawed. The definition of viruses is fundamentally flawed. Viruses don't exist as we are told and the variants are just plain made up nonsense to scare the children and gullible as I once was.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2021/12/02/various-variants-covid-19/
I approach the virus question thus:
Viruses should be considered as:
They are either poisons which are chemical not biological and must be dealt with by the immune system.
Or they are the exosome, part of the body's defense system. This is in fact what people are seeing under the electron microscope.
In essence disease is toxic poisoning where the chemical balance is upset and needs restoring, perhaps to be considered as + and - to from a neutral solution, a harmony.
It can even be considered as a dance, a couple in perfect unison moving fluidly in time to the music.
The waters have been muddied on virology by taking the truth - there is a particle in our bodies - and saying it is harmful, whereas the exosome is there to clear up the rubbish and take it to the lymph system etc for disposal.
Your point does not sound clear. Think on it more. Check out my comments. I am trying to help you because I like your PR hack. "Mistaken identity" may be a better approach than just telling them, viruses don't exist. That has only been partly successful.
I don't think it's helpful to say they 'don't exist', because you then get the likes of Kirsch saying that they do because we have photographs of them. And they're not wrong, because what do you mean by 'don't exist'? Do you mean the particles don't exist? Or do you mean they don't do what they claim they do? So I think it's better to approach it this way. Again, this is made clear here: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg
I would argue your approach isn't clear.
I sent it to him. I basically gave him his show today. I sent the exosome study too. I am super happy to do it. I am a big Tom fan.
That's awesome!
I think Tom did a great job. Fair and also kind.
Yeah he's a great guy. Good humor.
Hi Seb, I used to follow you on Twitter before I get permanently banned (4x accounts!).
I've listened to probably 30 minutes of this now, skipping around to various points. But I'm having trouble discerning exactly what your thesis is.
Can you summarize in a couple of paragraphs here how you and Caroline propose "revising" Germ Theory?
First of all, as Alec Zeck pointed out when he spoke to Doctors for COVID Ethics last month, "Germ Theory" is really just a (failed) hypothesis. It cannot rise to the status of a "Theory" until the basic hypothesis has been shown, vie experimental data, to be a predictive model and is thus likely correct. This is impossible, as the independent variable, the alleged "virus" has never been shown to exist.
Thanks,
BH
https://rumble.com/v1yx1dk-alec-zeck.html
To my way of thinking, that's like suggesting that we revise Geocentrism.
I would suggest that bad ideas should be discarded, not revised.
Hello Bill,
Thanks for the feedback. As I mentioned at the start, it would appear that much of what is said about 'germ theory' is technically correct, in the sense that poisons (the word 'virus' was once understood to mean poison) can spread from one person to another in much the same way 'viruses' are said to.
These 'viruses' however, appear to be markers for toxicity ('exosomes'), which also fits the pattern we've seen for bacteria and so-called 'parasites' (bacteria can be pathogenic in the sense that they can 'manufacture' toxic metabolites, and thus they can, on occasion, prove to be a problem. They are not the primary problem, but can on occasion be a problem nonetheless). So it's not as simple as saying that 'germ theory' is entirely incorrect, because it clearly isn't, which in turn would suggest that antibiotics (to take just one example) aren't completely useless in the way that many within what we could refer to as the 'alternative health movement' seem to think they are.
Does that make sense? We delve more into the toxic hypothesis and 'mistaken identity' of 'viruses' in the second half, so maybe skip to that.
I appreciate the introduction may be a little drawn out for someone who is familiar with the subject as you are. I did it this way because of the audience I was presenting to, and the idea that a first principles approach should be taken so as to ensure that we were all coming at the subject from a position of shared understanding. My goal was not to get into a shouting match with 'the other side', but have a calm discussion, which we did end up having in the Q/A. I don't think this would have been possible if I hadn't taken the approach I did.
I was thinking about this some more, and to answer your question in simple terms; the central hypothesis is that all these seemingly disparate 'diseases' are in fact varying symptoms of poisoning, and one poison in particular that we have been able to link back to virtually every one of these 'diseases'. Genetics, microorganisms, 'auto-immunity' etc are all what we might call secondary problems. Arsenic for example has been clearly shown to have a genotoxic effect. I used the example of cystic fibrosis. Technically, it isn't incorrect to say that this 'disease' is 'genetic' – but it isn't the primary problem. The primary problem is whatever it is that damages DNA resulting in such 'diseases'. Virology is essentially a subset of toxicology.
>the central hypothesis is that all these seemingly disparate 'diseases' are in fact varying symptoms of poisoning,
Agree. Poisoning or trauma or unhealthy mind-states.
> Virology is essentially a subset of toxicology
No. Again, viruses are, "Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Toxins cause damage to living tissue directly. Toxins do not reproduce, they do not meet the definition of parasites. and Toxins do not transmits host-to-host.
> Virology is essentially a subset of toxicology
I think you are missing my point. I discussed the alleged differences between 'viruses' and 'exosomes' here: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg. There clearly are none, because they are in fact one and the same. Therefore, that definition you cited is one of the fundamental axioms I mentioned right at the start that needs to be binned.
If 'viruses' are in fact 'exosomes', and 'exosomes' are, in some cases, markers for toxicity, then I would argue that 'virology' is indeed a subset of toxicology, in that it is studying what happens to the body when it is intoxicated.
For example, 'viral genomes' can essentially be thought of as a 'snapshot' of a given part of the body that is out of homeostatic balance, because these 'genomes' (which are really nothing more than genomic sequences), are likely to include markers for toxicity, such as gamma-H2AX (discussed in the aforementioned article).
> I discussed the alleged differences between 'viruses' and 'exosomes' here: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg. There clearly are none, because they are in fact one and the same
No, that is incorrect. Again, let's refer to the best definition of a "virus" that I have found:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Viruses are DEFINED to be pathogenic. I know of no one who suggests that exsosomes are pathogenic. Clearly they are not the same at all.
But a more fundamental point which must be established before we start comparing the properties of viruses to other particles, and that is DO VIRUSES EXIST?
It's a bit like comparing Unicorns to Exosomes.
No wait a minute. We need to discuss whether Unicorns exist first, please.
> 'viral genomes' can essentially be thought of as a 'snapshot' of a given part of the body that is out of homeostatic balance
No sorry, that is a giant leap of faith about like Evel Knievel jumping the Snake River Canyon.
I don't want to discuss "viral genomes" before you prove to me that viruses exist.
It almost seems like that you agree with me, but you seem driven to bolt-on an alternative definition for a virus which is sensible and rooted in reality.
I question the usefulness of that mission. I think it is prudent to DISCARD bad ideas, rather than trying drape it in a costume of sensibility.
My advice: Let's all recognize that virology / contagion / germ "theory" (hypothesis) is an incorrect model of disease. It does not serve us propagating it any longer. Let's send it to the scrap yard, and start over, and begin grounded in reality rather than 150 years of fraud.
If you read the article I shared above, you will see what I mean when I say they are the same. I don't think 'viruses' exist in the conventional sense, so we agree. As I have previously stated, the definition you keep citing is where I draw the line. And just to be very clear what I mean by this; the particles appear to exist, they are 'exosomes'. They appear to be markers for 'disease', but they are not contagious, or the cause of 'disease'. At no point have I suggested that 'exosomes' are pathogenic, although it would appear they are able to spread poisons throughout the body (this is explained in the aforementioned article).
On the question of 'viral genomes' you have completely missed the point. 'Viruses' – that is to say the particles they take photos of – are never isolated. All they do is take fluids from a sick organism, and then inject that into animals or cell culture. Those fluids are likely to be contaminated with one or more poisons (see the example of Percy I gave in the presentation), which is why the organisms they are extracted from are sick in the first place (unless you are suggesting that these organisms just get sick for no reason?). These fluids, in turn, will contain certain markers, such as those I mentioned previously. Those markers will in turn be contained within the sequence they are creating of the 'virus'. This is what I am referring to. I am not talking about the particles, and I am not talking about 'viruses' in the conventional sense. So saying "prove to me that viruses exist" is completely irrelevant because it is not what I am talking about.
"Let's all recognize that virology / contagion / germ "theory" (hypothesis) is an incorrect model of disease" you are lumping together a bunch of different concepts, some of which are correct, others not. 'Contagion' is real enough as per what I said right at the beginning; poisons can spread from one person to another. Or are you saying that can't and doesn't ever happen?
I don't think it's useful to make out that someone is saying something that they're not, as you have now done on two occasions. If you are unsure what it is I'm saying, why not just ask questions? Why do you keep asserting that I'm wrong, when you quite clearly haven't understood what it is I'm saying?
Well again, you would have to establish an actual toxin is involved, it poison for it to be toxicology. However, that said, cells can break down from emotional reactions that go somatic, lack of sleep (can't repair cells), etc. as I said.
So, if you redefine toxicology as any toxin defined as a stressor, or actual poison, we have to enlarge our definition of toxin, and I actually already do that. Ayurveda similarly describes food as anything you take in. Stress is a primary toxin. Being around toxic people (abusive people).
So I would not say it's a subset of toxicology as it currently exists, but if you have a natural medicine view, then I can buy that. But basically they're not viruses. They're exosomes. I agree with Bill that no viruses exist as such.
But I like your expansive thinking and your angle on that.
There is plenty of evidence that an 'actual toxin(s)' is / are involved. Again, this is covered in some detail in the presentation.
"By 1944, 40 million kg of lead arsenate and around 23 million kg of calcium arsenate was used each year in the United States alone" (https://adlonlinecourses.com/the-history-of-pesticides-part-iii-sulphur-copper-and-arsenic/)
I will be writing a more detailed piece on this shortly.
"But basically they're not viruses. They're exosomes. I agree with Bill that no viruses exist as such." – at no point have I said that they're not. If I thought 'viruses' were actually identical to 'exosomes' then I would just call them 'viruses' and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. What you, Bill, and Tom seem to have missed is that I'm showing how, *using their own literature*, they are unable to differentiate them which puts everything they say about 'viruses' into question.
1) You have not established that germ theory is correct in the least, so how is it correct? Linking viruses with antibiotics does not really make sense here. (I am only responding to your comment, not the presentation.)
2) Antibiotics are toxic and cause resistance, so they are completely useless. You can use berberine, a plant derivative, with no toxicity or resistance. So why would you choose an antibiotic, which will in the end destroy beneficial microbiota? You need that to digest food.
Exosomes attached to proteins, which are removing those proteins, have probably been mistaken for viruses. Exosomes as far as I understand, from some reading of the literature and also from Stefan Lanka, have a variety of functions in the body, but most involve cell signaling. Some are breakdown products. Some appear to be attaching to proteins. It may be that these specifically are mistaken for viruses.
You can say that in some cases exosomes are markers of toxicity in terms of a cell breakdown, but it doesn't necessarily mean a chemical toxin. Stress is a primary toxin. You could have lack of oxygenation due to chronic musculoskeletal issues. Lots of things. But I can buy that as long as it is understood that these are breaking down and not invaders. I can buy mistaken identity. From a PR perspective, I say it is clever. I actually think it's a great virus believer hack, as long as the other issues are corrected.
But you simply CANNOT rescue germ theory. If you are playing a little politics, good on you for getting it past them. So I will revise my own opinion of your approach from a political standpoint. I will probably even use it. So thanks man. But basically germ theory is dead. The whole idea of the germ is a foreign invader that feeds on a native host.
1.) Germ theory encapsulates more than just 'viruses'. When I say it is not entirely incorrect, what I mean is that bacteria for instance, can on occasion be a problem. I do not think 'viruses' are. If you watch the presentation, my position should hopefully become clearer to you.
2.) Whether you use berberine or something else is somewhat irrelevant – you are acknowledging (correct me if I've misunderstood) that on occasion, bacteria can be problematic. One more time – I am not saying they are the *primary* problem, but controlling their growth may be desirable in some cases.
3.) I never said that 'exosomes' where ONLY a marker for chemical toxicity. Where have I said this?
4.) I don't 'play politics'.
1. OK ingesting toxic bacteria. Or rotting matter. But they do have to establish that the bacteria are a source of the toxin, and yes I know they emit endotoxins, but generally, matter rotting is toxic. Eat that and it does not matter if it's bacterial. OK, I'll buy that point.
2. Yeah fine on the second point. But those bacteria if they are endemic to the body, NO that is NOT germ theory. Not all bacteria come from the exterior. And bacteria are not sometimes toxic and sometimes not. Mainly they are saprotrophs as Dawn Lester established. But if they are out of hand, and you need one as in drinking toxic water, well honestly you don't need them. You can basically use purgatives. You really should know something about natural medicine. But they may not be toxic in all people. So KO to germ theory in its essence.
3. By saying virology is a subset of toxicology, you said this. Conventional toxicology primarily deals with physical toxins. But natural toxicology I will buy.
4. It's good to be political on this.
Not just that. Bacterial metabolites are also a problem. Again, see the presentation, and what is discussed here:
"In 1838, physician John Snow wrote a letter published in The Lancet, where he denounced the dangers of this practice, how it could “expose the dissector to breathe an atmosphere contaminated with arsenuretted hydrogen, which is, perhaps the most deadly combination of arsenic”. Going back to Semmelweis – the bacteria said to cause ‘puerperal fever’ are said to be the same as those that caused ‘scarlet fever’; ‘Streptococcus pyogenes’. It is interesting to note that the presence of Streptococcus bacteria has been found to correlate positively with arsenic exposure (see here and here)."
Bacteria and fungi can volatilise arsenic into its most toxic form, arsine gas.
https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/on-infectious-diseases-and-contagion
Yeah I know about endotoxins. Sure. I edited my comment above so you can see the full answers. Sorry I post and then revise 15 times.
But some bacteria come from the inside. So germ theory is only very rarely at play. And the essence of the argument is also that bacteria and pathogens are invaders. Well no, you ingested it or came across them somehow. And, if they become toxic, it is because you are more toxic. Some people might intake a toxic bacteria but be healthy enough to detox it quickly without issue.
> it would appear that much of what is said about 'germ theory' is technically correct
Really?
>in the sense that poisons (the word 'virus' was once understood to mean poison) can spread from one person to another in much the same way 'viruses' are said to.
Wow, there's a lot there to unpack.
First of all POISONS (or toxins) are very different than "Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
Are you actually claiming that if I accidentally eat poison (eg., cyanide, arsenic, strychnine, or Ivermectin), that this poison can leap to another person via coughing or airborne droplets (the typical pathway of exposure claimed for most respiratory viruses like CONVID), well that is a very novel theory, and I would like to see some proof of that. Got a cite?
> bacteria can be pathogenic
If you have ANY proof of any pathogenic particle, or any "communicable disease" or "human to human transmission of infection", I would like to see that.
My present understanding is that while it's true that bacterial show up where there are toxins or trauma, to suggest that bacterial actually are the cause of disease, is the same "Association Fallacy" as claiming that firemen cause fires, because they always seem to be found wherever there are fires.
>I appreciate the introduction may be a little drawn out
It just would be nice to put a few sentences up front to describe your entire thesis and where the essay is going, to orient the reader/listener.
> "in the sense that poisons (the word 'virus' was once understood to mean poison) can spread from one person to another in much the same way 'viruses' are said to."
It depends on the poison. Arsenic for example is known to accumulate in semen. So there's your 'sexually transmitted diseases'. Ionising radiation is another. I used the example of 'monkeypox' in the presentation, where some monkeys got sick because they were in the presence of others that had been irradiated.
People who are treated with radio-iodine are told to stay 6ft apart from others (sound familiar?) https://www.businessinsider.com/thyroid-treatment-made-me-radioactive-for-month-photos-weird-things-2022-5?r=US&IR=T
> "bacteria can be pathogenic"
I am not talking about "communicable diseases" here. I am talking about the fact that bacteria can, for instance, volatilise arsenic into arsine gas, it's most toxic form. This is discussed in some detail here: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/on-infectious-diseases-and-contagion.
Inside the body, they can convert via Ars operons arsenate into arsenite (deemed more toxic to humans and animals). The result is increased RBC death, resulting in more free iron.
At no point have I ever said that they are the *cause* of any given 'disease'. Not once. Could you please show me where I've said this, so I can correct the record if necessary?
> "I appreciate the introduction may be a little drawn out"
Point taken, and I have updated the summary below the video with a top-level summary. Hopefully that makes it clearer, but let me know if not and I will try to improve on it.
No, you do not have it correct. This is why they were warm to you. Because you haven't got the truth and you do not threaten their paradigm. One Q: Is Leo Biddle related to Byram Biddle?
What parts are incorrect? I have no idea, you'd have to ask him.
I'm unclear who you are speaking to pseudonym? Seb or me?
The second guy's name is Byram BRIDLE, so now they are not related because the name is different.
OK got it. Thanks. Oversight. It's always worth checking out.
The so-called Virology is one big scam, built on lies and manipulation, to make people sick again and again with toxic injections until death, to help the pharma lobby and all who are involved with shares to profit - and that is clearly criminal!!!! Instead of writing such a mess, you can also present and explain it quite simply, if you really understand something about it - after 40 years(until retirement) in this profession with years of belief in something that never existed up to the realization of the clear fraud with everything that goes with it, I know 100% what I am writing about!!!! You confuse people with something completely nonsensical and alien to science, that has absolutely NO basis!
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-66c
Hello Mary-Ann, you here state that you have been 40 years in this profession, could you clarify if the profession you refered to you is medicine or virology?
I actually really enjoyed this article and was not confused by it. I think the author had an interesting take on the issues and that there is room for people to have different ideas an opinions.
Thank you, that's good to hear.
When you say 'writing such a mess', are you referring to your own 'articles'?
Have you ever tried using hair mineral analysis to find evidence of arsenic or mercury in any of the individuals who you suspect have symptoms of toxic poisoning ? The test may cost around $200 but the results can be interesting.
Seb, if you meet with the virologists again, or whatever even if you don't, check out microvesicles.org. You can see a whole database of various vesicles. The scary thing is they are using them as biomarkers for disease, and that's going to be a sketchy proposition. Another one germ, one disease model. The reason it is sketchy is because the body and nature are pleomorphic. We can't have standardized databases and Lanka pointed this out with the human genome project.
But the point is, all of those exosomes have been said to be isolated. Only viruses do not follow the same method, as Tom noted, and have not been similarly "isolated". (Of course they are not fully isolated because they admit they still get smaller vesicles in with the larger.) But as stated, those should work, if viruses exist.
But the viros say, well we don't have enough if we do it that way. They can't find them. Well then you don't have a virulent pathogen that replicates as is said. There would be tons of them.