From the start, and like the BMJ, Hart has swung both ways. I'll stay with the opinions of Dr. Mark Bailey and Kevin Corbett PhD. As they have said, this argument will run and run into infinity until it runs out of energy.
From the start, and like the BMJ, Hart has swung both ways. I'll stay with the opinions of Dr. Mark Bailey and Kevin Corbett PhD. As they have said, this argument will run and run into infinity until it runs out of energy.
Please can you elaborate on what you mean by Hart having "swung both ways" from the start?
This article is entirely consistent with our long-held position: we cannot say that viruses do not exist per se, but how they relate to disease is very incompletly understood, and certainly nowhere near enough to form the basis of any of the so-called "public health" policies or other interventions imposed on the population recently.
We are in neither of the "camps" you imply - and to attempt to impose this dichotomy is in itself somewhat artificial.
If you want to place us in a specific camp I'd suggest ours might best be those who understand that:
"it would be better if we all acknowledged what we don't know, as it's almost certainly more important than what we do know, and in any case a lot of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong"
This paper is an embarrassment. A joke by alleged scientific types having no understanding of science and refusing to really understand terrain theory and the absurd claims of germ theory and virology the fake science.
The NO VIRUS position is very simple: there is NO EVIDENCE that a virus (as defined and accepted) - a replication competent particle that spreads between people (contagion) and CAUSES disease EXISTS.
The arguments presented by Kaufman, Cowan, Bailey and Co. are very clear, logical and based on documented scientific studies that go back more than a century. This particle has never been isolated (removed from everything else) from ANY person and therefore does NOT spread and therefore cannot CAUSE disease.
They do not seek to explain all the many mechanisms by which people become ill, they are simply stating a fact - there is NO EVIDENCE of a virus as per its accepted definition.
When a model such as the virus/germ theory, does not fulfill ALL of the evidence, then it should be denounced and a new model/theory that better suits, should be proposed. This is the only way we will be able to realise what actually CAUSES disease.
Members of the HART group: At the end of the day isn’t that what we all want?
By continuing with a unproven ‘best fit’ model we will never get to the truth.
I must add that even the mainstream concept of what is a "disease" is in question. As it is mostly based on the premise that the body is being attacked by some microorganism, which is unproven.
My current perspective (understanding) is that the human body is almost entirely in symbiosis with colonies of bacteria (from our mouth to our anus, all over our skin, hair). Participating in a circle of life.
Just as the mind and the physical body are indivisible, the body/mind and bacterias are unseparable. And it seems like "nobody" [of the three] is ever in full control. And this idea of sharing our body with microorganism defies our belief in our [illusionary] freedom, our supremacy over the living nature. A big slap to the resisting egos.
My take on it, is that our bodies are always trying to reach balance - so yes symbiosis all the way and yes, these bacteria (in all their different forms) plus water make us who we are physically, mentally and spiritually, so yes, the same as what you’re saying. Everyday a new piece of the puzzle of life is solved.
I have a question please. Why we never hear about somatides? While the existence of viruses is unproven, the existence of somatides are proven by Gaston Naessens and his early recordings still can be found even on Youtube. This little particles in the blood are shape-shifters (polymorphic) and form bacteria and fungi to help to heal. They are visible in the living blood and a strong proof of the terrain theory. Why they are not openly examined and discussed? The shape-shifting is recorded and at about 50 years old recording.
Ahhh Gunde, this reminds me vaguely of Antoine Béchamp's book "The blood and its Third Element", 1899 (yes! 1899)... Still in my 2read list. Any relations?? (if you know)
From the start, and like the BMJ, Hart has swung both ways. I'll stay with the opinions of Dr. Mark Bailey and Kevin Corbett PhD. As they have said, this argument will run and run into infinity until it runs out of energy.
Please can you elaborate on what you mean by Hart having "swung both ways" from the start?
This article is entirely consistent with our long-held position: we cannot say that viruses do not exist per se, but how they relate to disease is very incompletly understood, and certainly nowhere near enough to form the basis of any of the so-called "public health" policies or other interventions imposed on the population recently.
We are in neither of the "camps" you imply - and to attempt to impose this dichotomy is in itself somewhat artificial.
If you want to place us in a specific camp I'd suggest ours might best be those who understand that:
"it would be better if we all acknowledged what we don't know, as it's almost certainly more important than what we do know, and in any case a lot of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong"
This paper is an embarrassment. A joke by alleged scientific types having no understanding of science and refusing to really understand terrain theory and the absurd claims of germ theory and virology the fake science.
The NO VIRUS position is very simple: there is NO EVIDENCE that a virus (as defined and accepted) - a replication competent particle that spreads between people (contagion) and CAUSES disease EXISTS.
The arguments presented by Kaufman, Cowan, Bailey and Co. are very clear, logical and based on documented scientific studies that go back more than a century. This particle has never been isolated (removed from everything else) from ANY person and therefore does NOT spread and therefore cannot CAUSE disease.
They do not seek to explain all the many mechanisms by which people become ill, they are simply stating a fact - there is NO EVIDENCE of a virus as per its accepted definition.
When a model such as the virus/germ theory, does not fulfill ALL of the evidence, then it should be denounced and a new model/theory that better suits, should be proposed. This is the only way we will be able to realise what actually CAUSES disease.
Members of the HART group: At the end of the day isn’t that what we all want?
By continuing with a unproven ‘best fit’ model we will never get to the truth.
Amen. I second that.
I must add that even the mainstream concept of what is a "disease" is in question. As it is mostly based on the premise that the body is being attacked by some microorganism, which is unproven.
Cheers
Agreed! As is the belief that bacteria is the cause of illness, when they are simply the cleanup crew. I’m with you all the way!
I'll go even further...
My current perspective (understanding) is that the human body is almost entirely in symbiosis with colonies of bacteria (from our mouth to our anus, all over our skin, hair). Participating in a circle of life.
Just as the mind and the physical body are indivisible, the body/mind and bacterias are unseparable. And it seems like "nobody" [of the three] is ever in full control. And this idea of sharing our body with microorganism defies our belief in our [illusionary] freedom, our supremacy over the living nature. A big slap to the resisting egos.
There always more than what meets the eyes.
Just my little grain of salt, cheers.
My take on it, is that our bodies are always trying to reach balance - so yes symbiosis all the way and yes, these bacteria (in all their different forms) plus water make us who we are physically, mentally and spiritually, so yes, the same as what you’re saying. Everyday a new piece of the puzzle of life is solved.
Cheers and thanks for the support!
Thank you for the dialogue :)
I have a question please. Why we never hear about somatides? While the existence of viruses is unproven, the existence of somatides are proven by Gaston Naessens and his early recordings still can be found even on Youtube. This little particles in the blood are shape-shifters (polymorphic) and form bacteria and fungi to help to heal. They are visible in the living blood and a strong proof of the terrain theory. Why they are not openly examined and discussed? The shape-shifting is recorded and at about 50 years old recording.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJW94ciq4c&t=464s
Hey amigo... you know you got to raise your hand before questioning the virus dogma. Otherwise, you're committing blaspheme. A sacrilege !!!
Just kidding :D
Here the same link, but starting from the beginning of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGJW94ciq4c
Ahhh Gunde, this reminds me vaguely of Antoine Béchamp's book "The blood and its Third Element", 1899 (yes! 1899)... Still in my 2read list. Any relations?? (if you know)
Thx.