There is no such thing as a virus.

Author: Somebody

Posts

Total: 128
Topic's author
#61
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
I have shown you videos of children being sprayed with DDT and Africans being tricked by salesmen that you can eat DDT for breakfast. You have not responded to this information because your weaselly nature only sees establishment nonsense. You keep dodging and weaving away from things which disprove your pathetic and weak arguments. You refuse to provide any evidence that viruses are real. You know that germs are weak little microorganisms that are incapable of harming anybody if left in their proper place. (the human gut).

The concept of germs attacking humans is ridiculous illogical nonsense.
1. Germs have no incentive or nothing to gain by attacking humans for a start.
2. It would be genetic suicide for germs to kill a host.
3. Germs are incapable of organising a large assault on mankind in a pandemic situation.
4. Most pandemics follow wars and natural disasters like volcanoes and droughts etc.
5. Starvation, pesticides, toxic chemicals, and natural disasters are what causes large scale death.
6. Eating inappropriate foods such as sugar, grain, dairy and alcohol cause individual, or small scale death and illness.

Germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause - Antoine Bechamp





Extract - Furthermore, rural agricultural households with limited resources often reuse pesticide containers.Where residues are not entirely cleaned from a container’s internal surface and family members willingest the contents later put into the containers (collected water, stored grains, etc.), the potential for alsoconsuming pesticide residues is high.

#62
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
So, as I said : and you keep ignoring.

Just throwing out irrational as-hoc non explanations is not evidence. Throwing out unsupported and irrational accusations is not evidence either. It’s not that I’m not responding, it’s that there is really nothing to respond to.

Let me explaince - again.

Ebola, Polio, smallpox, flu, col, SARS, the Plague, malaria - all have specific patterns of outbreaks, that all demonstrably show that illness correlated with exposure via the specific disease vector.


If Ebola was caused by DDT - then you would expect people to get sick based on their exposure to DDT. So, you would expect people who are directly sprayed or villages and farms to ALL get sick. You wouldn’t expect, the people they get in contact with to get as sick, or the people they get in contact with, or the people they get in contact with.

The pattern of outbreak doesnt match your claims.

That is evidence that shows you are wrong. You may want to accuse the government of spraying people in a pattern to mimic a viral outbreak - but you have no evidence that they did that - and it is irrational pseudoscientific clap trap to simply make some nonsense up to explain away inconvenient evidence.


This pattern repeats: Malaria. Malaria is caused by a parasite carried by mosquitos. We know this because it is prevented by mosquito nets. You have no evidence that shows any other correlating factor. Are only people with mosquito nets sprayed? Or have good diets? No: there is no evidence to support that. So we have evidence with another disease to show you the wrong. You may try and create a different ad hoc explanation to explain why the evidence doesn’t support your position, but again: explaining away evidence with unsupported assertions for which you have no evidence is pseudoscience.









And again HIV, you’ve ignored pretty much everything so far to focus on your nonsense. In the case of HIV the correlating factor, it is direct internal exposure of blood or unprotected sex. No matter how bad your diet is, or how many drugs you take, or alcohol you drink: you will not catch HIV unless you have exposure to that.

Snallpox has been eradicated - it doesn’t happen any more. You may claim it’s diet related - but let’s face it - that does not hold up to scrutiny. If it were diet related it would not be eradicated, and the pattern of who caught it wouldn’t be yhensame
as it is.

You may assert - without any evidence - that it was simply caused by vitamin C deficiency, or whatever nonsense you have: but that doesn’t match the data - where people with good diets caught it, and people with bad diets did not. There are still people with bad diets, and none of them currently catch small pox.


All you seem to have, is vague hand waving and generic arguments that assert what causes these diseases. You make no attempt to explain why non of the actual evidence of outbreaks and transmission refute your position completely.






Topic's author
#63
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
You need to explain the logic of a germ attacking and killing a human.

(a) What does a germ gain by killing the host?

(b) How can a germ carry on its genes if it kills the host? 

Note - Parasites and germs need the host as much as the host needs the germ. Its a symbiotic relationship. Gut bacteria aid digestion. You would starve to death without gut bacteria. Yet, doctors administer antibiotics which can kill all internal gut bacteria. This tells us that doctors are ignorant of the role of germs in the gut. Thus, they can't or don't want to see that germs are good if they are in the right location. Now, if somebody eats grain, then, the walls of the intestine become permeable and allow gut bacteria to enter the blood stream. Thus, the person becomes sick.

Note - The germs entering the blood stream is a SECONDARY effect of eating the grain and is not a PRIMARY cause of the disease. This is where doctors are getting confused. They see germs in the blood and assume that the germs are causing the disease. This is a false assumption.

In the medieval period of history, towns used centrally located wells to supply a town with water. Now and then, an animal would fall into the well and the water would become foul and poisonous. People who lived closest to the well would get sick and die first. Then, gradually, people who lived further away from the well would get sick and die. Thus, the sickness would appear to be spreading person to person in concentric circles from a central location. Thus, some clever people assumed that invisible germs and or rats/fleas were responsible for this pattern based disease spreading. Thus, was born the idea of the contagious disease. But, alas, this is just stupid thinking and all they needed to do was check the bottom of the well for dead animals and to clear the animal from the well. 

But, alas, germ theory is very profitable to unscrupulous people who can profit from people's gullibility and they still believe this nonsense till this very day.

Can you answer the questions and respond in a appropriate manner instead of using diversionary tactics.
#64
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
I pointed out why the detailed evidence and analysis of the real world clearly refuted your position. It seems you’re now ignoring all that evidence that disproves your argument, and changing the subject.

a.) Viruses are not humans - they do not think, they do not asses “gain”. Viruses don’t gain anything other than republicatedncopies of themselves

b.) by infecting another host.

both a and b are ridiculous simply to answer. If you didn’t know the answer, then you know nothing about virology, or germ theory.


The remainder if your nonsensical rant has already been comprehensively dealt with in my last 10 replies.
Topic's author
#65
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
Quote - This pattern repeats: Malaria. Malaria is caused by a parasite carried by mosquitos. We know this because it is prevented by mosquito nets. You have no evidence that shows any other correlating factor. Are only people with mosquito nets sprayed? Or have good diets? No: there is no evidence to support that. So we have evidence with another disease to show you the wrong. You may try and create a different ad hoc explanation to explain why the evidence doesn’t support your position, but again: explaining away evidence with unsupported assertions for which you have no evidence is pseudoscience.

If people eat proper diets, then, the malaria parasite won't bother you. It can only attack you if you are vitamin deficient. Especially if you are vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D or iodine is important in killing any small parasite or germ that infiltrates below the skin layer. People who get sick or die from malaria parasite are deficient in vitamin D. Thus, you don't need a mosquito net to prevent malaria. All you need is vitamin D.


Extract -  As well as causing rickets, vitamin D deficiency has been associated with tuberculosis (TB) and influenza. It has also been linked with various other inflammatory and long‐term diseases, including cardiovascular diseases (myocardial infarction), multiple sclerosis, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 and type 2 diabetes (Wagner 2008a), and cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, and prostate (Cavalier 2009).

Topic's author
#66
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
a.) Viruses are not humans - they do not think, they do not asses “gain”. Viruses don’t gain anything other than republicatedncopies of themselves

Really?

So, if viruses can't think, then, maybe you can explain how viruses can organize themselves to attack humans on mass in a pandemic situation like the 1918 flu pandemic?

You need to explain how do they know where to go to find their victims if they have no senses to detect their environment. (Illogical nonsense)

#67
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
If people eat proper diets, then, the malaria parasite won't bother you. It can only attack you if you are vitamin deficient. Especially if you are vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D or iodine is important in killing any small parasite or germ that infiltrates below the skin layer. People who get sick or die from malaria parasite are deficient in vitamin D. Thus, you don't need a mosquito net to prevent malaria. All you need is vitamin D.
This is wholly and completely untrue. You just made this up.

les start with the basics.

Firstly, the human body produces vitamin D from sunlight. That means I’m areas where there is a lot of sun, there should be less malaria. In locations where there is less sun - there should be more. The exact opposite is true - because mosquitos that carry malaria  fair better in warm climates.

Your claims are refuted by the evidence.

You claim multiple illnesses are caused by vitamin D deficiencies. Some, like rickets, are definitely caused by vitamin D deficiency. We can tell the difference by looking at incidence: 

2.9/100,000 children incidence rate of rickets in canada. 0 cases of malaria in Canada by people who haven’t travelled to an area where malaria is transmitted.

if they are caused by the same deficiency, why is rickets still found all around the world while malaria is not? 

Again, your claims are refuted by the evidence.


Finally, and this is the really stupid part. You claim malaria is down to poor diet. This means that people with good diets who travel to malaria infested regions can’t catch malaria - this is completely untrue. This means that people outside of malaria infested regions but have similarly poor diets would also find themselves with malaria - this is completely untrue. It would also mean that people with bad diets that own mosquito nets, would become sick at the same rate as those who don’t - this is completely untrue.







Your “explanation”, fails to explain any evidence, and is clearly refuted by the patterns of illness we see in reality. You’re just making up your claims, and haven’t supported them with any semblence of coherent or scientific rationale.




#68
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
Really?
Yes - really. Are you insane?

So, if viruses can't think, then, maybe you can explain how viruses can organize themselves to attack humans on mass in a pandemic situation like the 1918 flu pandemic?
What about the standard epidemiological explanation of the Spanish flu epidemic do you feel is not sufficient to explain the outbreak?

You need to explain how do they know where to go to find their victims if they have no senses to detect their environment. (Illogical nonsense)
It’s already explained by the germ theory of disease, and general explanations of the virulence of the particular strain.  Which part of this do you feel is insufficient.


Quite frankly; if you think this is either a logical or reasonable attack on viruses, you are solely mistaken: this is one of the most insane, and incoherent pieces of cretinous nonsense I have heard thus far - and little else you’ve said is much better.

Topic's author
#69
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu

Quote - Firstly, the human body produces vitamin D from sunlight. That means I’m areas where there is a lot of sun, there should be less malaria. In locations where there is less sun - there should be more. The exact opposite is true - because mosquitos that carry malaria  fair better in warm climates.


Extract from previous post #65 -


It is estimated that around 1 billion people in the world may be vitamin D insufficient or deficient. Lack of sunlight (especially during winter months), vegetarian diets, a dark pigmented skin (as melanin acts as a natural sunscreen), increased pollution, and wearing long‐sleeved garments or clothes completely covering the body are the major risk factors (Williams 2008). Modern recommendations to avoid the sun to prevent skin cancers may also be contributing to a deficiency in vitamin D (Misra 2008).
Over the past 20 years, much attention has been paid to recognizing vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency in children worldwide. Childhood vitamin D deficiency is very prevalent in many developing countries, even those with abundant sunlight such as Turkey (Ozgur 1996), Iran (Salimpour 1975), Saudi Arabia (Elidrissy 1984), India (Ghai 1991; Wayse 2004), China (Zhao 1991; Zhao 1992; Du 2001), Algeria (Garabedian 1991), and Nigeria (Akpede 1999; Akpede 2001). A study on the health status of children in low‐ and middle‐income countries reported that 73.1% of underprivileged children were 25D deficient (< 8 ng/mL) and 23.1% were 25D insufficient (8 to 15 ng/mL) (Manaseki‐Holland 2008). A high occurrence of insufficiency or deficiency of vitamin D in infants and children has also been reported in many other countries, including industrialized ones (Prentice 2008) like the US (Mansbach 2009), the UK (Lawson 1999), Greece (Nicolaidou 2006), Finland Lehtonen‐Veromaa 1999), Canada (Ward 2007), and New Zealand (Grant 2009).

You clearly didn't read my previous post reference article.

We can see that because of medical system propaganda about sunlight causing skin cancer, people now avoid the sun and are becoming increasingly vitamin D deficient. Young children are kept indoors and wear long sleeved protective clothing. This is more misguided and foolish advice from the medical authorities. Note - If a person gets skin cancer, its because they eat a bad diet and not because they got too much sun. Dairy, grain and sugar causes blockages and vitamin depletion. To find a cancer just look for a lump of calcium. (i.e. too much dairy product).

Quote - Your claims are refuted by the evidence.

Answer - What evidence? You haven't given me any??????


Quote - 2.9/100,000 children incidence rate of rickets in canada. 0 cases of malaria in Canada by people who haven’t travelled to an area where malaria is transmitted.
If they are caused by the same deficiency, why is rickets still found all around the world while malaria is not? 

Answer - Rickets is a skeletal disorder that's caused by a lack of vitamin D, calcium, or phosphate. Malaria is a parasite found mostly in tropical areas.


Note - 488 cases of malaria in Canada. Thus, you are a blind fool.
Topic's author
#70
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
Don't stamp and stomp little boy. Just answer the questions.
#71
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
My last 15 or so posts cover substantial details of why you’re insane claims make no sense and beat no relation to reality.

You’ce not addresses any of these key outbreak patterns and how diet cannot explain these patterns.
Topic's author
#72
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
Still waiting for you to answer questions about how viruses can find humans etc. I couldn't find the establishment answer because there isn't one to my knowledge.
#73
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
You don’t think there is an “establishment” explanation of how viruses infect new people? Really?

Topic's author
#74
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
I am like you in that I can only find what I agree with.
#75
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
Erm no. 

So, you’re basically telling everyone that virus’s don’t exist - yet haven’t even done the most basic research into either epidemiology or virology - both of which would clearly answer both of these key questions.

Topic's author
#76
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
No. I have done the research and I definitely know that they don't exist and that any explanation that you find will be made up illogical nonsense. Thus, if you can't supply a logic of how viruses find their host then I will win the debate by default.
#77
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
So you’ve done your research, and you can tell me there are no explanations, and the ones that exist are made up?

Which is it? 

That no explanation exists.

Or explanations exists but they are made up?
Topic's author
#78
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
I can't find any logical explanations so guess they don't exist and I guess I win the debate. Thanks for participating.
#79
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
Like I said, how viruses spread from person to person is literally the foundational cornerstone of modern virology and epidemiology.

The whole concept of how virus’s reach new hosts, even has a term, it’s called a disease vector. 

That you appear to be so comprehensively ignorant of such a foundational premise of virology shows everyone that you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about.

Topic's author
#80
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
Then, you can supply details of this 'disease vector' nonsense to justify how viruses spread in a pandemic situation like the 1918 flu epidemic.
#81
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
Of course.

1.) Person has flu
2.) Virus multiples in nose and throat.
3.) person coughs and sneezes, projecting the virus in tiny aerosol particles, gets on hands, gets spread to door handles, surfaces, food, etc, and everything anyone touches.
4.) second person nearby inhales aerosol particles, touches somewhere that has particles on it, rubs face, nose, etc. Virus transfers info second host
5.) second person catches flu.

Spanish flu spread widely and fast primarily because it was a novel strain, that humanity had no in built immunity.

This is the basics of epidemiology - if you didn’t know this - you have no ability to be talking about viruses.


Now what is your explanation? That the entire world suddenly had a crappy diet for a year and a half, then magically got better? No your explanation makes no sense.

Diet can’t explain the Spanish flu epidemic because there is no correlation between who died, who caught it, and diet.

Alp you can do is simply assert loudly how it was all down to diet - yet without any facts, or ability to explain any of the relevant facts.

Topic's author
#82
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
A typical explanation of viral flu vector


The importance of aerosol transmission is illustrated by an outbreak of influenza aboard a commercial airplane in the late 1970s. The plane, carrying 54 persons, was delayed on the ground for three hours, during which time the ventilation system was not functional. Most of the travelers remained on board. Within 72 hours, nearly 75% of the passengers developed influenza. The source of the infection was a single person on the airplane with influenza.

Reply - Note - The air conditioning was switched off for 3 hours. The people in the plane were breathing in noxious carbon dioxide for 3 hours and they were wondering why everybody got sick? Surely not? This is medical system cover up nonsense at its best. The airline has to find an excuse for poisoning the passengers with CO2 and has come up with the good old flu virus cover story. Thank you germ theory for covering the arse of yet another negligent company. It definitely wasn't a bad batch of contaminated food was it? What? You mean nobody bothered to test the food for bacteria build up due to power failure. Surely not!!! Thanks again Luis Pasteur you saved another executive from a long jail term. Good work. The system loves you for that. lol

I guess the 25% who didn't get sick were eating sensible foods and not drinking alcohol or eating sugar, milk and grain foods.
Topic's author
#83
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
Have you studied the food shortages problems caused by World War I?


Why is it that pandemics always occur when food is scarce?

(a) Viruses like skinny people best

(b) Viruses wait for famines to occur (no brains to think with unfortunately)
 
(c) Viruses don't cause disease. Its caused by vitamin deficiency. 

Now, think carefully here. Only use the answer which is logical and plausible.

Quote - "Spanish flu spread widely and fast primarily because it was a novel strain, that humanity had no in built immunity."

Reply - Really, and in 1918 which electron microscope did they use to detect this viral strain difference?

Note - The first prototype electron microscope, capable of four-hundred-power magnification, was developed in 1931 by the physicist Ernst Ruska and the electrical engineer Max Knoll. The apparatus was the first practical demonstration of the principles of electron microscopy.

Thus, the new virus claim is just unsupported nonsense.
#84
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
food scarcity doesn’t spread across a planet as if transferred from person to person. Nor does it explain the other flu pandemics, nor why it killed people in North America where there wasn’t a substantial food shortage, nor why it didn’t kill people in 1916, or 1917 when there was also a pretty significant food shortage. Nor does it explain why there isn’t major flu outbreaks in other examples of food shortages, such as recent African famines, world war 2, or others. Nor does it explain why other major pandemics occur without any food shortages... its almost as if there is no relationship betweem flu outbreaks and diet...

Over generalized hand waving may make you feel better, but is completely insufficient to explain ANY of the evidence when you view it in any detail.




Topic's author
#85
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
That's it! You nailed it. You haven't viewed anything in detail so you know absolutely nothing.

Quote - "other flu pandemics" 

Reply  - You keep making off-hand on-the-fly statements and never supplying any detail. Thus, you are skating on thin ice and you know that you can't dwell on any particular issue for too long or the facts will eventually emerge and pull you down into the freezing cold water (facts). Thus, the devil always lies in the detail.



Studying this article on vaccination during 1918-1919 I have concluded that most of the deaths in North America can be attributed to medical system meddling and profiteering from vaccines. The article states that vaccines were "distributed without any testing". That's enough for me to see that millions of people were poisoned by these interfering medical numbskulls.

Now, if you want to make a pile of cash out of a bunch of suckers. All you need to do is to start a panic about some Spanish Flu virus and then sell untested cheap vaccines which contain poisonous chemicals as preservatives. Now, if anybody dies as a result. No worries! The vaccine was adminstered too late and the person was going to die anyway. Right! Yeah! I'am sure there's plenty of suckers who'll believe that one. lol  All the way to the bank!!!! lolololololololo
Topic's author
#86
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu
Quote - "why it killed people in North America where there wasn’t a substantial food shortage, nor why it didn’t kill people in 1916, or 1917 when there was also a pretty significant food shortage"

Either your English grammar is very bad or you just contradicted yourself.
Note - "also a pretty significant food shortage" which thus, also includes North America in the food shortage. Its called a 'subconscious mistake' because you knew you were lying and your subconscious punished you without letting you know about it. lol 
#87
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Somebody
Studying this article on vaccination during 1918-1919 I have concluded that most of the deaths in North America can be attributed to medical system meddling and profiteering from vaccines. The article states that vaccines were "distributed without any testing". That's enough for me to see that millions of people were poisoned by these interfering medical numbskulls.
Nothing in your link indicates this. What you’re doing is a typical pseudoscience approach: You take actual facts and actual real scenarios and situations that refute your ideas, then you assert some unproven, unverified and unevidenced explanation to superficially dismiss the contradictory evidence.

No, the death count in North America is not down to hospital interference, it was down to this being a specifically virulent virus. This fact, like many others, completely refutes your idea of diet:

- there were food shortages in 1916,1917, and in multiple other years where there were no pandemics.
- there were pandemics in years with no food shortages.
- North America had no food shortage and a high number of deaths.
- it affected young healthy people more than old and infirm people.

What is also odd, is that people only catch one disease at a time, you’ve told me that Malaria, Smallpox, flu, and all diseases are caused by diet of some kind.


Why in 1917, 1918 and 1919 were there not also smallpox pandemics, and malaria pandemics - or pandemics if any other illness that you claim is caused by poor diet? You keep asserting that all these illnesses are caused by the same thing, yet it seems what people catch seems unrelated to dietary factors - and much more related to what illness are geographical spreading at the time.

Od course, you can’t and won’t explain any of this - it all refutes your position, and you are left with asserting multiple separate explanations in each case.

Topic's author
#88
Somebody
Somebody's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 123
0
1
2
Somebody's avatar
Somebody
0
1
2
-->
@Ramshutu

The failure to satisfy Koch's Postulates by producing an experimental disease in animals by the inoculation of pure culture was not in itself damning. Koch, himself, had sometimes failed in this regard.

If you can't reproduce a virus from a pure culture and then create the same results means that you have no virus in other words.
Thus, because I am experienced in lab work I can recognize the incompetencies of the lab procedures whereas you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Extract - Those who already had a vaccine in hand were quick off the mark to promote their vaccines as sure preventives or cures for influenza. Drug manufacturers aggressively promoted their stock vaccines for colds, grippe, and flu. These vaccines were of undisclosed composition. As public anxiety and demand swelled, there were complaints of price gouging and kickbacks.13 (p. 114–6) Preexisting vaccines of undisclosed composition were also endorsed by physicians such as M.J. Exner, who actively promoted in newspaper interviews and testimonials the vaccine developed some six years earlier by his colleague, Ellis Bonime.

Reply - Profiteering from untested vaccines.


Extract - In the crisis atmosphere of the pandemic, the Pittsburgh vaccine developers isolated their strains, prepared the vaccine, tested it for toxicity in some laboratory animals and in two humans, and turned it over to the Red Cross for use in humans—all in one week.

Reply - By today's standards this would be a punishable crime with a 50 year jail sentence. Totally crazy hysteria with no possibility of producing anything of usefulness to the human body.

Don't forget that germ theory and vaccination were created by 2 people who were not biologists or doctors. Just con artists or snake oil salesmen. Thus, you can't build a solid foundation of science a on bed of quicksand.


Extract from vaccination liberation-
A report from US Secretary of War Henry L Stimson not only verified these deaths but also stated that there had been 63 deaths and 28,585 cases of hepatitis as a direct result of yellow fever vaccination during only six months of the war.
That was only one of the 14 to 25 shots given to recruits.
Army records also reveal that after vaccination became compulsory in the US Army in 1911, not only did typhoid increase rapidly but all other vaccinal diseases increased at an alarming rate.
After America entered the war in 1917, the death rate from typhoid vaccination rose to the highest point in the history of the US Army.
The deaths occurred after the shots were given in sanitary American hospitals and well-supervised army camps in France, where sanitation had been practised for years.


#89
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Why do you keep changing the subject when I point out that you’re making things up, and when provide specific details of why the germ theory fully explains the evidence and, your dietary claims fail in all ways.

You asked how viruses can find hosts. You made a big deal out of there being no explanation - despite the explanation being one of the most basic premises of germ theory.

When it was explained, you changed the subject.

Now, details of multiple diseases have been provided, with specific patterns that cannot be explained by diet in any way. You ignore it all you focus on some irrational and incoherent nonsense.

So, please refer back: I have provided substantial details about all the fundamental ways your unsupported conjecture fails entirely to explain any major viral out breaks - where as the germ theory of disease, and epidemiology explains it completely.
#90
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Somebody
You're this clown from DDO...   https://www.debate.org/Akhenaten/   and you're still peddling the same bat shit crazy garbage as you were there. I've given up trying to reason with you nutters, it isn't worth it because you'll always be peddling bat shit crazy garbage no matter what anyone says.