All Viruses are Manmade and Did Not Evolve on this Earth Naturally

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: andy06shake


I wonder ( I hate being serious in this thread) how people explain plant viruses, TMV, or any number of non-human viruses.

Can you explain how adult parasites get into your system.
Can you identify redia?

Umm, we eat it.

Correct.
But not the adult.
2 more life cycles stages before an adult.
Can you identify a redia without calling it a virus?

originally posted by: andy06shake

I think Viruses operate differently when it comes to genetic replication.

Cells come with a complete set of genetic material(DNA/RNA), but viruses lack cellular structure and rely on the host cells of living organisms to replicate.

Which various viral infections do you associate with schizophrenia?

Edit: NV, Toxoplasma is indeed interesting i suppose where schizophrenia is concerned.

Not a virus through but a single-celled parasite.

"The viral hypothesis for schizophrenia suggests that viruses have the ability to target specific types of neurons in the central nervous system, and that childhood viral infection is associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of adult schizophrenia"

There's also some wild experiments conducted by Luc Montagnier that shows that viruses can assemble from particular electromagnetic frequencies being emitted upon a vial of water that contains the building blocks for life. Viruses have an ability to emit particular electromagnetic signals. Dr. Montagnier emitted that same detected frequency on a vial of water filled with biological matter. Just from the frequency alone, the virus was able to configure from biological matter with about 96% accuracy.

source



Dr. Montagnier's hypothesis is that the electromagnetic signals are causing particular water structures which then orchestrate the assembly of the virus:



So in essence, viruses are not just material capsids, but instead should be considered informatic electromagnetic frequencies which manifest according to particular resonances.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Except viruses do not exist. Unless you acredit disinfo and misidentification to support the vaccine industry

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: cooperton
I wondered if viruses occur from faulty genetic replication in organisms. I don't think it would be blind luck though, I would suppose that certain abberrant or perverse ways of existence directly cause the transcription of viruses that take over the host. This would be in association with the idea of demonic possession, whether subtle or overt. A virus, like a demon, tricks the host into thinking it is part of the host. Even schizophrenia is highly correlated to various viral infections.

I wrote more evidence for this assertion here: viruses are the material manifestation of demons

I think that viruses pre-date anything like ethical issues. When biology was more basic than multicellular organisms. Also, the vast majority of viruses are benign. They aren't all 'only evil'.

Enough for the philosophical speculation, lets speculate on the question of how viruses originated. I believe that biology had gained an organizing methodology which is centered around genomic templates, organizing chemistry of four primary bases, in sequences of three, that code for the production of amino acids.

Now I will ignore the irreducible complexity required to have a cell with all the mechanisms to read write and transform these genomic sequences, as well as metabolize, maintain osmotic pressure with a semipermeable membrane, and eject wastes and take in nutrients. That is getting way too complex and everything is interdependent. So we won't solve that here. We'll just speculate on the origins of viruses.

So, we have these living cells, that need to do all this functionality and are quite fragile. And, lets say, an energetic particle comes in from some nuclear source and bashes straight through this fragile chemical bubble, and lets say it dissects a strand of genomic material and splits off a bit that already has a good chunk of function, but now lacks the capability to replicate on its own. And it makes contact with the ribosome, and out comes a few copies of this small molecule that looks non-foreign to those types of cells, but each one has enough stuff to replicate into another of itself.

In the process, all this junk biochemistry kills its host cell, which ruptures, and is subsequently freed from the cell wall and able to stick to the wall of another cell, where it binds and the cell begins to 'eat it up' because it looks like nutrient.

And suddenly, we have this rogue genomic sequence inside a new fresh cell, just waiting to hit a ribosome and be regenerated into new copies again.

Viola! We have a virus.

Show me a picture of a virus that is not colored.

The only true images of viruses are made by electron microscopes, and aren't really optical images with color. Often these images are false-colored to clarify their form.

The YouTube videos linked in this thread only have artistic renditions, because the real images are nowhere near as clear or spectacular.

Here's a Wikipedia page on the History of virology that explains the specifics of how viral theories came about and the science that confirms them. It has monochrome images of viruses.

Can you identify if those images are the interaction with cells from the miricia of fasciolosis busking (human intestinal fluke life stage after egg)?

Like Hulda Clarke clearly identifies?
Is there a comparison study?
Why not?

Sorry, driving. Might screw up some spelling.
It's 20 years removed from my study

I imagine that they would isolate the viruses by using those same filters and filtering the liquids from the mulched up diseased things that they used in the old days.

Then all you'd have to do is prepare them to be imaged on the electron microscope and then pick out the different populations, and the most populous one would be the most likely to be the one that caused the disease.

Doesn't sound that difficult.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: IgorMartinez

50. Million. Dead. Pretty sure you can blame the virus for that.

Have IQ's suddenly dropped on here, or what?

50. Million. Dead. From. Spanish. Flu.

How much did aspirin account for those numbers.
You need to grasp the M.O. of the depop methods incorporated.
I am driving today and this one is significant and important.
I will not let this go and get back on it.
Believe it or not aspirin is the main culprit

The 1918 flu was in, well, in 1918.

Aspirin was first synthesized by the dye company Beyer, in 1899.

So, aspirin would not have contributed to those flu death at all.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: IgorMartinez

50. Million. Dead. Pretty sure you can blame the virus for that.

Have IQ's suddenly dropped on here, or what?

50. Million. Dead. From. Spanish. Flu.

How much did aspirin account for those numbers.
You need to grasp the M.O. of the depop methods incorporated.
I am driving today and this one is significant and important.
I will not let this go and get back on it.
Believe it or not aspirin is the main culprit

The 1918 flu was in, well, in 1918.

Aspirin was first synthesized by the dye company Beyer, in 1899.

So, aspirin would not have contributed to those flu death at all.

www.sciencedaily.com...#

Additionally, autopsy reports from 1918 are consistent with what we know today about the dangers of aspirin toxicity, as well as the expected viral causes of death.

The motivation behind the improper use of aspirin is a cautionary tale, said author Karen Starko, MD. In 1918, physicians did not fully understand either the dosing or pharmacology of aspirin, yet they were willing to recommend it. Its use was promoted by the drug industry, endorsed by doctors wanting to “do something,” and accepted by families and institutions desperate for hope.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
Except viruses do not exist. Unless you acredit disinfo and misidentification to support the vaccine industry

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: cooperton
I wondered if viruses occur from faulty genetic replication in organisms. I don't think it would be blind luck though, I would suppose that certain abberrant or perverse ways of existence directly cause the transcription of viruses that take over the host. This would be in association with the idea of demonic possession, whether subtle or overt. A virus, like a demon, tricks the host into thinking it is part of the host. Even schizophrenia is highly correlated to various viral infections.

I wrote more evidence for this assertion here: viruses are the material manifestation of demons

I think that viruses pre-date anything like ethical issues. When biology was more basic than multicellular organisms. Also, the vast majority of viruses are benign. They aren't all 'only evil'.

Enough for the philosophical speculation, lets speculate on the question of how viruses originated. I believe that biology had gained an organizing methodology which is centered around genomic templates, organizing chemistry of four primary bases, in sequences of three, that code for the production of amino acids.

Now I will ignore the irreducible complexity required to have a cell with all the mechanisms to read write and transform these genomic sequences, as well as metabolize, maintain osmotic pressure with a semipermeable membrane, and eject wastes and take in nutrients. That is getting way too complex and everything is interdependent. So we won't solve that here. We'll just speculate on the origins of viruses.

So, we have these living cells, that need to do all this functionality and are quite fragile. And, lets say, an energetic particle comes in from some nuclear source and bashes straight through this fragile chemical bubble, and lets say it dissects a strand of genomic material and splits off a bit that already has a good chunk of function, but now lacks the capability to replicate on its own. And it makes contact with the ribosome, and out comes a few copies of this small molecule that looks non-foreign to those types of cells, but each one has enough stuff to replicate into another of itself.

In the process, all this junk biochemistry kills its host cell, which ruptures, and is subsequently freed from the cell wall and able to stick to the wall of another cell, where it binds and the cell begins to 'eat it up' because it looks like nutrient.

And suddenly, we have this rogue genomic sequence inside a new fresh cell, just waiting to hit a ribosome and be regenerated into new copies again.

Viola! We have a virus.

Show me a picture of a virus that is not colored.

Perhaps you should explain why viruses don't exist rather than attacking the pharmaceutical industry.

originally posted by: zaderamsesholloway
The CIA has been using information to control us within this society for longer than you could imagine. It likely started with word of mouth, but evolved into manipulation of information by newspaper in 1704. This worked for a while, but as the population grew the CIA needed a more effective way to spread mass propaganda to people. Thus, the radio was invented in 1896, and information control was streamlined to everyone’s living room. Now, I ask you people, do you know what was “discovered” immediately before the radio was invented? Viruses.

A new common enemy was needed to keep people in fear, thus viruses were invented, or discovered. They pumped the information of this new deadly pathogen to the masses through radio. Now, what came immediately after the invention of viruses? And don’t fret, we will get to the point of this chapter. On why viruses were invented, rather than discovered.

Immediately after viruses and radios were invented, the United States began requiring all children to attend schools (around 1900) so they could ensure the majority of the population knew exactly the same things regarding life and the biological sciences. And yes, of course, students were taught about viruses. Now let’s jump to the definition of bIology, people. The study of living things. Do you know the ONLY non-living entity studied in biology? Viruses. They are the only entity within the field of biology that is not actually alive. Viruses are not on the tree of life. The majority of scientists will affirm that they are not considered living. They did not evolve from natural processes.

Why aren’t they considered alive? Because all living things require independent energy production and more importantly, movement. All living things can move and produce energy on their own. All of them. Viruses cannot produce energy on their own and cannot move on their own, which all other living things can do. Therefore, they are not alive. So, does that seem suspicious to you all yet? Why is this one non-living entity studied in biology when biology is the study of living things? Does it seem peculiar that there are no other entities like viruses on Planet Earth? That’s because they didn’t evolve here naturally, people. But we will dive further.

Most viruses inject their DNA into a host cell. But keep in mind people, for a virus to eject any DNA it must be able to move. It must have working parts that it can move on its own. And you need energy to move those working parts. If it can’t move, it cannot “eject” its DNA as the virologists will tell you it does. Look up bacteriophage viruses really quick.

youtu.be...

Do you see its legs? Those legs bend when it ejects its DNA. Now how is that possible? Viruses cannot move. It’s a fact. They cannot bend their legs. I’m sure you’ve also heard that viruses “hijack” cellular machinery, right? How, people? How can they “hijack” machinery if the laws of physics and nature say that viruses CANNOT move on their own. They are not capable of hijacking cellular machinery.

Now for the fun part. You are all probably wondering about all of the illnesses viruses cause and all of the death, right? Well, did you know that virus is Latin for “poison”? That’s because viruses were invented to act like poison. You see, something else was invented around the same time as viruses. Pesticides. A poisonous chemical that can give you all of the symptoms of a viral overload, such as nausea, vomiting, fever, and even death. The pesticide was called DDT and was invented only a couple of years before viruses were discovered. They sprayed it on our food up until about 1975.

Take a look at the polio outbreak for example. Do you know what they sprayed on people to eliminate the polio virus? DDT. They sprayed it directly on people, throughout the towns, and made sure children got a healthy dose too. It comes as no surprise that the symptoms of DDT poisoning are identical to the symptoms of the polio virus. Look it up if you do not believe me. What’s funny is after they banned the use of DDT on our food in 1975, polio was magically eradicated from the US in 1979. Are you making the connection I’m trying to get you to? Does nobody wonder why the common cold and corona are both of the same viral family but one shut down the United States and the other nobody cares about? Because it’s all BS people. If you want to have a “virus outbreak” in the United States, they just increase the number of pesticides on our food. Hence, everyone starts exhibiting viral symptoms.

Don’t forget about malaria, people! No malaria in the United States but it is rampant in parts of Africa and Asia. Do you know what they use to combat malaria spreading in those areas? DDT. The same pesticide that was used in the US during the polio outbreak.Those people are advised to spray it in their homes, on their bed nets, and on their bodies. Guess what? The symptoms of toxic DDT exposure are the same symptoms of toxic malaria viral overload. Go look it up and fact check me.

And don’t come at me with the use of viruses in research and how we can see them under a microscope. People, if viruses are a real thing, then biology did not evolve them. They are a poison created by mankind. If viruses aren’t real at all and have been used to cover up the use of pesticides and their deadly effects since the 1800s, then I also would not be surprised.

We all know this statement isn't true.
You need to go back in time and examine if viruses were present. You can do the same for all other microorganisms.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: zaderamsesholloway

It’s a conspiracy theory.

No, it isn't.
It's made up nonsense with no substance and no supportive evidence.

It's stuff like this that discredits all conspiracy theories and theorists.

I like having a laugh, if you are going to continue posting this sort of stuff at least put it in the LOL Forum.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: andy06shake

I think Viruses operate differently when it comes to genetic replication.

Cells come with a complete set of genetic material(DNA/RNA), but viruses lack cellular structure and rely on the host cells of living organisms to replicate.

Which various viral infections do you associate with schizophrenia?

Edit: NV, Toxoplasma is indeed interesting i suppose where schizophrenia is concerned.

Not a virus through but a single-celled parasite.

"The viral hypothesis for schizophrenia suggests that viruses have the ability to target specific types of neurons in the central nervous system, and that childhood viral infection is associated with a nearly twofold increased risk of adult schizophrenia"

There's also some wild experiments conducted by Luc Montagnier that shows that viruses can assemble from particular electromagnetic frequencies being emitted upon a vial of water that contains the building blocks for life. Viruses have an ability to emit particular electromagnetic signals. Dr. Montagnier emitted that same detected frequency on a vial of water filled with biological matter. Just from the frequency alone, the virus was able to configure from biological matter with about 96% accuracy.

source

Dr. Montagnier's hypothesis is that the electromagnetic signals are causing particular water structures which then orchestrate the assembly of the virus:

So in essence, viruses are not just material capsids, but instead should be considered informatic electromagnetic frequencies which manifest according to particular resonances.

People are looking for viruses and bacteria to blame for all human diseases. In reality most human diseases are not caused by microorganisms.

a reply to: cooperton

Sounds like hokum to me cooperton it will be 5G and elf waves next i surmise.

But like i said i do enjoy the effort you put in.

Have to ponder through if indeed a viral infection was responsible for schizophrenic episodes then would that not mean the likes of antiviral medications may be able to help the body fight off the virus?

As far as im aware we don't use those drugs as an effective care option or medication to treat schizophrenia.

And is this the same Luc Montagnier who has been debunked silly over the COVID vaccines?

www.newswise.com...
www.reuters.com...

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Not a myth.

Yes it is.

Because viruses are real and undeniably proven to exist through the likes of electron microscopy.

A product of nature and predominantly not man-made.

And they have been around since long before humanity walked this Earth.

Which kind of makes the premise of this thread somewhat untenable at best unless we wish to start introducing time travel to the equation.

A deception. A mislabeled.
A red herring.

A bit like yourself really.

Having said that.
You don't believe in a man's interpretation of a God.

So prove Mans's interpretation of a God please, unequivocally and beyond reasonable doubt of course?

Not that it's in any way relevant to the discussion.

All you are attempting to do is sidestep and detract from the topic at hand which is that all viruses are man-made.

But you believe in one that fits your personal idea of what a God would be.

How do you know what i believe?

Are you not a man?

Aye with a job, kids and a Mrs, what's your claim to fame aside from Mom's basement?

Does your idea of a God use toilet paper?

I'm apt to require some to mop up the p@sh and s@it you are coming away with, that's a given.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

How much did aspirin account for those numbers.

Did you just blame aspirin for the deaths of 50 million people instead of the Spanish Flu?

You need to grasp the M.O. of the depop methods incorporated.

Not much more than a couple of billion people on the planet back when said bout of flu was doing the rounds(about 1.9 billion), so why would depopulation agendas even be a thing?

And if so clearly said depopulation agenda has not worked very well given our numbers 100+ years later, which is also something for you to consider.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Not a myth.

Yes it is.

Because viruses are real and undeniably proven to exist through the likes of electron microscopy.

A product of nature and predominantly not man-made.

And they have been around since long before humanity walked this Earth.

Which kind of makes the premise of this thread somewhat untenable at best unless we wish to start introducing time travel to the equation.

A deception. A mislabeled.
A red herring.

A bit like yourself really.

Having said that.
You don't believe in a man's interpretation of a God.

So prove Mans's interpretation of a God please, unequivocally and beyond reasonable doubt of course?

Not that it's in any way relevant to the discussion.

All you are attempting to do is sidestep and detract from the topic at hand which is that all viruses are man-made.

But you believe in one that fits your personal idea of what a God would be.

How do you know what i believe?

Are you not a man?

Aye with kids and a Mrs, what's your claim to fame aside from Mom's basement?

Does your idea of a God use toilet paper?

I'm apt to require some to mop up the p@sh and s@it you are coming away with, that's a given.

I don't know what is it with these theories that postulate viruses are not real. They attract quite a lot of attention but all they do is to make a statement without any explanations or evidence..

It's possible humans can create viruses in the laboratory in our days or experiment with existing viruses like the gain of functions research.

Blaming aspirin for the Spanish Flu is one of the most wild claims I ve ever seen.

a reply to: Farboso

I don't know what is it with these theories that postulate viruses are not real. They attract quite A lot of attention but all they do is to make a statement without any explanations or evidence..

Makes good doom porn i should imagine.

It's possible humans can create viruses in the laboratory in our days or experiment with existing viruses like the gain of functions research.

Not impossible, but to create a biological virus from scratch would be a complex and challenging task.

Involving a deep understanding of molecular biology, genetics, and virology.

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that humans have successfully created a novel, fully synthetic biological virus as of yet but again its certainly not beyond the realms of possibility at some point in the not-to-distant future.

We certainly have the ability to modify viruses nature has produced, but the production of a truly novel synthetic virus remains to be achieved as far as I'm aware.

originally posted by: Farboso
People are looking for viruses and bacteria to blame for all human diseases. In reality most human diseases are not caused by microorganisms.

I think terrain theory is correct, viruses and bad bacteria will be able to infect weakened organisms. The weakening of organisms is due to a whole host of reasons.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

Sounds like hokum to me cooperton it will be 5G and elf waves next i surmise.

But like i said i do enjoy the effort you put in.

Have to ponder through if indeed a viral infection was responsible for schizophrenic episodes then would that not mean the likes of antiviral medications may be able to help the body fight off the virus?

As far as im aware we don't use those drugs as an effective care option or medication to treat schizophrenia.

And is this the same Luc Montagnier who has been debunked silly over the COVID vaccines?

www.newswise.com...
www.reuters.com...

He had put out that research before Covid so it wasn't related to 5G and covid. He also won a nobel prize in the past, he's not a quack.

And of course they will character assassinate anyone who disagrees with their super correct infallible covid narrative. He merely claimed that vaccines will give rise to new variants, which is hard to falsify considering all those scary variants that were coming out after the original vaccine roll-out

a reply to: cooperton

Viruses and certain types of bacteria are "opportunistic pathogens".

Meaning they are indeed more likely to infect and cause disease to organisms with a weakened or compromised immune system.

I suppose it's also important to note that not all viruses and bacteria are harmful with many microorganisms coexisting in relative harmony with humans and other organisms without causing fuss or disease.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Farboso
People are looking for viruses and bacteria to blame for all human diseases. In reality most human diseases are not caused by microorganisms.

I think terrain theory is correct, viruses and bad bacteria will be able to infect weakened organisms. The weakening of organisms is due to a whole host of reasons.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

Sounds like hokum to me cooperton it will be 5G and elf waves next i surmise.

But like i said i do enjoy the effort you put in.

Have to ponder through if indeed a viral infection was responsible for schizophrenic episodes then would that not mean the likes of antiviral medications may be able to help the body fight off the virus?

As far as im aware we don't use those drugs as an effective care option or medication to treat schizophrenia.

And is this the same Luc Montagnier who has been debunked silly over the COVID vaccines?

www.newswise.com...
www.reuters.com...

He had put out that research before Covid so it wasn't related to 5G and covid. He also won a nobel prize in the past, he's not a quack.

And of course they will character assassinate anyone who disagrees with their super correct infallible covid narrative. He merely claimed that vaccines will give rise to new variants, which is hard to falsify considering all those scary variants that were coming out after the original vaccine roll-out

Viruses can infect everyone but they don't affect everyone the same way. Look at SARS-COV-2 that can cause COVID. Around 1/3 of the people infected have no symptoms and no COVID disease. The vast majority of people infected either have mild symptoms or flu like symptoms that can last up to 1 or 2 weeks. A very small percentage of infected people dies and it correlates very strongly with the terrain theory.

a reply to: cooperton

He had put out that research before Covid so it wasn't related to 5G and covid. He also won a nobel prize in the past, he's not a quack.

That may be but the unfounded unsubstantiated connections have indeed been made regarding COVID 19, mRNA vaccines, and 5G.

Plenty of threads here at ATS will testify to that fact.

Just because he's not a quack cooperton does not make him correct through.

Best laid intentions of mice and men, and all that jazz.

The fact is people change, and it's somewhat past 2008, by more than a decade and a half.

Lets move off the man through and on to the other question.

Have to ponder through if indeed a viral infection was responsible for schizophrenic episodes then would that not mean the likes of antiviral medications may be able to help the body fight off the virus?

As far as im aware we don't use those drugs as an effective care option or medication to treat schizophrenia.

Why are we not treating schizophrenia with antiviral medications if a virus is responsible for the condition?

Or are we, and ive simply not heard about it, which could also be the case.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

He had put out that research before Covid so it wasn't related to 5G and covid. He also won a nobel prize in the past, he's not a quack.

That may be but the unfounded unsubstantiated connections have indeed been made regarding COVID 19, mRNA vaccines, and 5G.

Plenty of threads here at ATS will testify to that fact.

Just because he's not a quack cooperton does not make him correct through.

Best laid intentions of mice and men, and all that jazz.

The fact is people change, and it's somewhat past 2008, by more than a decade and a half.

Lets move off the man through and on to the other question.

Have to ponder through if indeed a viral infection was responsible for schizophrenic episodes then would that not mean the likes of antiviral medications may be able to help the body fight off the virus?

As far as im aware we don't use those drugs as an effective care option or medication to treat schizophrenia.

Why are we not treating schizophrenia with antiviral medications if a virus is responsible for the condition?

Or are we, and ive simply not heard about it, which could also be the case.

From what I understand some believe it is a viral infection gotten while a child that may cause changes in the structure of the brain. This then increases the chance of mental health issues later in life. So treating these illnesses with anti viral would be of no benefit as the virus has long since left the body.