What do you faggots make of the conspiracy that our bodies create virus as a way to deal with disease, we don't "catch viruses"?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (76).

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

No such thing as a "living" virus. They do not have. They're not living. Your body creates them to act as a cleaner or solvent to break up dead, toxic, or decaying cells in our bodies. That's what the flu is. They are not contagious and do not spread from person to person or from animal to person.

They're both theories. Terrain and germ theory. One is propped up by an industry so they'll keep making money, and while the other is being shouted by a few Doctors, Virologists, and Microbiologists that get labeled as "quacks" while receiving zero benefit from it while also risking their careers.

I'm on the side against the rich bankers interests. Also definitely not the side of the germ theory that is based off of Talmudic principles.....

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Correct. Since you seem to haven't noticed the English nomenclature, and are echoing "verbatim's" argument, who is a German national, I'm rather suspicious you are also a foreigner. Nevertheless, I'll repeat the same as I did with him. The term 'live' when used with describing a virus, is indeed technically not correct by the current 'understanding' of micro-biologists. Virus are, according to the prevailing thought in micro-biology, neither 'alive' or 'dead'. However, current science articles do refer to viruses as being 'live'. If you understood why the apostrophes were used when I wrote the word 'virus', you'd pick up on this and I wouldn't have to waste our time with the 'technical' usage of this word. Notwithstanding, a recent discovery of what is called a "nanomicroscope" can now actually see a 'live' virus. If you you want to argue the use of this word, I'll help you in your language barrier to instead refer to a virus as being 'undead'. Simply, replace 'live' with 'undead'. The article is called - *"'Nanoscope' makes live viruses visible for first time". You should contact the author and demand the article replace 'live' with some other word, such as 'undead'. Let's see how far you get with this minutia.

>"Your body creates them to act as a cleaner or solvent to break up dead, toxic, or decaying cells in our bodies."

You don't actually know this, nor can you state it as fact. It is in my view a good theory. However, micro-biologists cannot currently prove it. It is nothing more than an educated guess.

>"I'm on the side against the rich bankers interests. Also definitely not the side of the germ theory that is based off of Talmudic principles....."

Alright, here is something to ruminate on. A thought that does have an impelling history to consider and weigh. Don't get me wrong regarding the germ theory. We simply do not understand it. The vaccine industry is pretending they know when in reality it is not true. I believe that a healthy immune system beats any petroleum-based pharmaceutical ever created. And petroleum-based chemicals are what we are really dealing with when we are referring to pharmaceuticals. In fact, a healthy immune is better than any remedy ever produced. Immunologists admit they understand less than 1% of how our immune systems operate. If people knew this, why would they ever elect to get an injection? I believe our largest organ is not meant to be pierced whatsoever. Anything whatsoever piercing it, especially against my wishes, is rape.

Correct. Since you seem to haven't noticed the English nomenclature, and are echoing "verbatim's" argument, who is a German national, I'm rather suspicious you are also a foreigner. Nevertheless, I'll repeat the same as I did with him. The term 'live' when used with describing a virus, is indeed technically not correct by the current 'understanding' of micro-biologists. Virus are, according to the prevailing thought in micro-biology, neither 'alive' or 'dead'. However, current science articles do refer to viruses as being 'live'. If you understood why the apostrophes were used when I wrote the word 'virus', you'd pick up on this and I wouldn't have to waste our time with the 'technical' usage of this word. Notwithstanding, a recent discovery of what is called a "nanomicroscope" can now actually see a 'live' virus. If you you want to argue the use of this word, I'll help you in your language barrier to instead refer to a virus as being 'undead'. Simply, replace 'live' with 'undead'. The article is called - *"'Nanoscope' makes **live** viruses visible for first time". You should contact the author and demand the article replace 'live' with some other word, such as 'undead'. Let's see how far you get with this minutia. >>"Your body creates them to act as a cleaner or solvent to break up dead, toxic, or decaying cells in our bodies." You don't actually know this, nor can you state it as fact. It is in my view a good theory. However, micro-biologists cannot currently prove it. It is nothing more than an educated guess. >>"I'm on the side against the rich bankers interests. Also definitely not the side of the germ theory that is based off of Talmudic principles....." Alright, here is something to ruminate on. A thought that does have an impelling history to consider and weigh. Don't get me wrong regarding the germ theory. We simply do not understand it. The vaccine industry is pretending they know when in reality it is not true. I believe that a healthy immune system beats any petroleum-based pharmaceutical ever created. And petroleum-based chemicals are what we are really dealing with when we are referring to pharmaceuticals. In fact, a healthy immune is better than any remedy ever produced. Immunologists admit they understand less than 1% of how our immune systems operate. If people knew this, why would they ever elect to get an injection? I believe our largest organ is not meant to be pierced whatsoever. Anything whatsoever piercing it, especially against my wishes, is rape.

parent
link