At the covid1984 inquiry they are still advocating the covid1984 intramuscular transfection. It's flabbergasting to me. I presume 'experts' are paid enough to just go along to get along.
Have you noticed that comments have been turned off on biologyphenom's article? One can't even see the existing 19(?) comments. That's odd. Maybe they were off-the-charts sledging those two morons?
Does this mean there are distinct particles identifiable as viruses that are hosted by bacteria. Can they be seen under a microscope?
This needs explaining to me: Complex intercellular signals mediated by exosomes may have been muddled into virology, and that the methodology for "isolating" "viruses", ofttimes involving transfection(RNA)/transformation(DNA) of cells in culture, may have generated results that in hindsight have been clouded by false assumptions.... it's not necessary to explain here, but a face to face discussion would help if a book were to be produced.
Interesting: One of the most overarching assumptions has been that these small particles are "from outside us" and they are intent to attack, hijack and sicken our tissues in order to "spread" to others by contagion. All of these assumptions need to be revisited by biologists with clear heads and open minds, which is a big ask, considering how much money and prestige is gained by holding fast to the old models.
I'm curious about stuff inside us being mistaken for stuff 'outside of us'.
02
There's little sign of any book my end. I've long been willing, but....
03
Your being a 'little pedantic' is welcome. This is why it requires a Dr. Seuss/Beatrix Potter child/adult type book to clearly explain. I suspect it can be clearly explained with the aid of artwork once I understand the simplicity of the concept. Any complexity is probably just the lack of clear explanation. We had a 'shingles' case in the family recently. I do not buy the idea that it is a dormant chickenpox virus. I'm not even convinced that all cases of skin rash are necessarily the same 'viral' manifestation. I suspect that stuff, 'toxin', needs to come out of the body and bicarbonate of soda seemed to help do that in our case. I learned that 3-4 different contacts have 'shingles' cases in their families often recurring. It's interesting they are all labelled as the same ailment.
04
No, I was not aware that comments had been turned off on Biologyphenom's article. He has done that once before. He has not responded to my post featuring his work.
This is all interesting. I doubt e.g. the Bailey's are scripted actors or purposefully 'misleading'. They simply believe as they do. Egos may get in the way. Brett Whinestein on the other hand is just a plonker.
By the way, to be a little pedantic, I don't think Dr Couey calls all vaccines "intramuscular transfections", because they aren't. That is, a lot of vaccines, but not all, are these days injected intramuscularly, so these ones can be called "intramuscular injections", and congratulations on avoiding them; but the "transfections" only started with the mRNA Covid injections, which are rightly called "intramuscular transfections", because they rely on the much used bench technique of transfection, ie, putting RNA into cells in order to get them to produce a foreign protein. I hope that makes sense :)
I guess from this retired biologist's brainwashed-by-her-education point of view, the question "Do viruses exist?" requires a nuanced unpacking to answer. Those who answer a simple "no" might be doing a "baby-with-the-bathwater" (inadvertently or deliberately). For instance, none of them seem to dispute the existence of the viruses that are hosted by bacteria (so-called bacteriophages) which were the stuff of early molecular biology, but this ecosystem seems to have gone by the wayside and there is little mention these days, except from Dr Couey, of phages and their role in our health; Dr Couey also points to the possibility that the complex intercellular signals mediated by exosomes may have been muddled into virology, and that the methodology for "isolating" "viruses", ofttimes involving transfection(RNA)/transformation(DNA) of cells in culture, may have generated results that in hindsight have been clouded by false assumptions. One of the most overarching assumptions has been that these small particles are "from outside us" and they are intent to attack, hijack and sicken our tissues in order to "spread" to others by contagion. All of these assumptions need to be revisited by biologists with clear heads and open minds, which is a big ask, considering how much money and prestige is gained by holding fast to the old models.
If viruses are not real (I believe they are not), then there is no way they can make them up in a bio-lab because they would not have a firm example to copy or regenerate. No doubt that some of the junk they make up in labs can be toxic, but then again are these lab rats going to risk their lives making super toxic junk?
They apparently create synthetic sequences referred to as viruses; then it would seem they are not viruses, but synthetic something or others.
Dr. Couey says he's worked with viruses 'at the bench'.
I've just about given up asking for clear definition or proof.
Search: Bacteriophages, or phages, are viruses that specifically infect and replicate within bacteria, acting as natural predators.
I too doubt they are a naturally occurring thing, but my last biology class was 'o' level some time ago. I'm not arguing with you one way or the other; I'm not definitive either way.
Have you noticed that comments have been turned off on biologyphenom's article? One can't even see the existing 19(?) comments. That's odd. Maybe they were off-the-charts sledging those two morons?
Thanks for this response.
01
Does this mean there are distinct particles identifiable as viruses that are hosted by bacteria. Can they be seen under a microscope?
This needs explaining to me: Complex intercellular signals mediated by exosomes may have been muddled into virology, and that the methodology for "isolating" "viruses", ofttimes involving transfection(RNA)/transformation(DNA) of cells in culture, may have generated results that in hindsight have been clouded by false assumptions.... it's not necessary to explain here, but a face to face discussion would help if a book were to be produced.
Interesting: One of the most overarching assumptions has been that these small particles are "from outside us" and they are intent to attack, hijack and sicken our tissues in order to "spread" to others by contagion. All of these assumptions need to be revisited by biologists with clear heads and open minds, which is a big ask, considering how much money and prestige is gained by holding fast to the old models.
I'm curious about stuff inside us being mistaken for stuff 'outside of us'.
02
There's little sign of any book my end. I've long been willing, but....
03
Your being a 'little pedantic' is welcome. This is why it requires a Dr. Seuss/Beatrix Potter child/adult type book to clearly explain. I suspect it can be clearly explained with the aid of artwork once I understand the simplicity of the concept. Any complexity is probably just the lack of clear explanation. We had a 'shingles' case in the family recently. I do not buy the idea that it is a dormant chickenpox virus. I'm not even convinced that all cases of skin rash are necessarily the same 'viral' manifestation. I suspect that stuff, 'toxin', needs to come out of the body and bicarbonate of soda seemed to help do that in our case. I learned that 3-4 different contacts have 'shingles' cases in their families often recurring. It's interesting they are all labelled as the same ailment.
04
No, I was not aware that comments had been turned off on Biologyphenom's article. He has done that once before. He has not responded to my post featuring his work.
This is all interesting. I doubt e.g. the Bailey's are scripted actors or purposefully 'misleading'. They simply believe as they do. Egos may get in the way. Brett Whinestein on the other hand is just a plonker.
Thanks Rosemary.
By the way, to be a little pedantic, I don't think Dr Couey calls all vaccines "intramuscular transfections", because they aren't. That is, a lot of vaccines, but not all, are these days injected intramuscularly, so these ones can be called "intramuscular injections", and congratulations on avoiding them; but the "transfections" only started with the mRNA Covid injections, which are rightly called "intramuscular transfections", because they rely on the much used bench technique of transfection, ie, putting RNA into cells in order to get them to produce a foreign protein. I hope that makes sense :)
I guess from this retired biologist's brainwashed-by-her-education point of view, the question "Do viruses exist?" requires a nuanced unpacking to answer. Those who answer a simple "no" might be doing a "baby-with-the-bathwater" (inadvertently or deliberately). For instance, none of them seem to dispute the existence of the viruses that are hosted by bacteria (so-called bacteriophages) which were the stuff of early molecular biology, but this ecosystem seems to have gone by the wayside and there is little mention these days, except from Dr Couey, of phages and their role in our health; Dr Couey also points to the possibility that the complex intercellular signals mediated by exosomes may have been muddled into virology, and that the methodology for "isolating" "viruses", ofttimes involving transfection(RNA)/transformation(DNA) of cells in culture, may have generated results that in hindsight have been clouded by false assumptions. One of the most overarching assumptions has been that these small particles are "from outside us" and they are intent to attack, hijack and sicken our tissues in order to "spread" to others by contagion. All of these assumptions need to be revisited by biologists with clear heads and open minds, which is a big ask, considering how much money and prestige is gained by holding fast to the old models.
Your illustrations of Dr Jay theories are my favorite biology references, thank you!! <3
Yes! I hope that upcoming book has lots more of them.
Thanks Pamela.
If viruses are not real (I believe they are not), then there is no way they can make them up in a bio-lab because they would not have a firm example to copy or regenerate. No doubt that some of the junk they make up in labs can be toxic, but then again are these lab rats going to risk their lives making super toxic junk?
They apparently create synthetic sequences referred to as viruses; then it would seem they are not viruses, but synthetic something or others.
Dr. Couey says he's worked with viruses 'at the bench'.
I've just about given up asking for clear definition or proof.
Search: Bacteriophages, or phages, are viruses that specifically infect and replicate within bacteria, acting as natural predators.
I too doubt they are a naturally occurring thing, but my last biology class was 'o' level some time ago. I'm not arguing with you one way or the other; I'm not definitive either way.