Your work is a valuable tool in helping us all wrap our heads around the many who don’t understand science and our attempts to help the sleepers realize what’s going on. Thank you for all the hard work and great information you share.
Great work, Mike. This will be a great resource to refer to. I can only imagine the number of hours it took to research and compile and I appreciate the work you put into it. It adds more proof to my assertion that virology and germ theory are a religion. They deny any evidence that goes against their current belief, even when it comports with previously accepted doctrine.
The one thing that always comes up when I discuss this issue is the anecdotal evidence for the causes of disease, and some of the questions are difficult to answer, because they do make sense. For example, if bacteria don't cause disease then why do antibiotics work? My answer is that a certain bacteria may be present in a host that has symptoms of a disease, but they are also present in others that are not experiencing disease (This violates Koch's postulates). It may be that the disease state is only present when the bacteria or something they produce (possibly a poison) overwhelms the host's system, or it may just be coincidence. The bacteria could have always been present, but was just identified when the host was tested due to symptoms. Also, there may be other variables that antibiotics affect by killing bacteria that we are not aware of. As we know from Koch's anthrax and tuberculosis experiments, he was not able to spread the diseases through introducing the spores or bacteria through the hypothesized route of infection. That tends to show that bacteria themselves don't cause disease.
Have you been following Sasha Latypova's work regarding injections and anaphylaxis?
Thanks for the very kind words, Sean! I believe that you are correct in that there is most likely unknown reasons for why antibiotics appear to "work." They obviously cannot get them to work all of the time, hence the "evolution" and "resistance" excuses to explain away the failures.
As for Sasha's work, I have not seen it. I have been so busy with my own research, I don't often get the time to read much of what others are doing. I will see if I can find her work and give it a look when I get some free time. 🙂
I think it's pretty obvious why antibiotics work in cases like chlamydia: the body is using bacteria to do some of its cleaning work, and this gets messy so you get an unpleasant discharge from the urethra. Antibiotics stop this work. No mystery there!
I think the confusion comes because we have allowed the mainstream view to creep into the framing of "germ theory" and even the rejection of it: they want to say that rejection of germ theory means rejecting that microbes are ever involved in any symptoms. That's just silly, though, and we cannot hold to such a position. Rather, the primary argument is not that "germs don't cause symptoms" (even in the sense of a proximal cause) but that any symptoms they "cause" are not harmful and are in fact highly beneficial.
Think about this more and you can see that this mainstream framing of "germs don't ever cause disease/symptoms" is fool's position; it's not a position we would even want to defend because the key point is that some/most symptoms are GOOD. The mainstream wants our position to be that bacteria cannot even be involved in creating beneficial symptoms. Think how absurd it would be to have to hold to that. This has created, and continues to create daily, much needless confusion that keeps people from cleanly agreeing.
"if bacteria don't cause disease then why do antibiotics work?"
I've grown to hate the phrasing "germs don't cause disease," because it's actually not any Terrain theorist's position and it results in endless confusion. Yes, in the Terrain paradigm it is said that germs are not the ROOT cause of disease, but there is something called a proximal cause. For example, the root cause of increasing prices is often Fed money printing, but the proximal cause is that the merchant instructs his workers to *put on new price tags*. It would be ridiculous for an Austrian-school economist to argue that "merchants don't cause price increases." They do, proximally.
By the same token, if your have a urethral discharge that smells like baking bread, you have a symptom that is *proximally caused* by microbes. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that "germs are making you sick," but it means that germs are a key link in the body's procedure for cleaning and that cleaning is resulting in that symptom. It's absolutely crucial that we get clear on this.
The Terrain camp should either say that "germs are not the root cause of disease" or more usefully that "the body uses microbes to effect certain detoxification symptoms, yes, but is that a bad thing"? At present there is this counterproductive dissonance in the phrasing used by many in this Terrain circles that is resulting in losing debates and skirmishes across the Internet unnecessarily, even as virologists are being resoundingly defeated.
I think this illustrates a weak point in Koch's postulates: a substance may be present in both healthy and unhealthy subjects, the crucial factor being the quantity present. Homeopathy is based on using substances in low doses to effect healing which in higher doses are toxic. This particular postulate seems untenable. I am puzzled as to why it was put forward to begin with.
If, for virology and its believers, it's not so important whether viruses exist or not, whether the existence is proven rigorously and beyond doubt, then it can't be so important what you do about them. Right?
Considering that the existence has never been physically proven, it must be recognised that the entire construct of the virus hypothesis could have arisen from anything: a nightmare, a drug episode, an adaptation of a fairy tale, a joke , some superstition. Anything is possible as long as the scientifically and rigorously conducted experimental process does not produce a single unequivocal result. How one can then abstract and soften the central object of this theory so much is beyond me. Superstition of the worst kind.
Your work is a valuable tool in helping us all wrap our heads around the many who don’t understand science and our attempts to help the sleepers realize what’s going on. Thank you for all the hard work and great information you share.
Thank you so much for the very kind words, Sammie! I greatly appreciate it. 🙂
Great work, Mike. This will be a great resource to refer to. I can only imagine the number of hours it took to research and compile and I appreciate the work you put into it. It adds more proof to my assertion that virology and germ theory are a religion. They deny any evidence that goes against their current belief, even when it comports with previously accepted doctrine.
The one thing that always comes up when I discuss this issue is the anecdotal evidence for the causes of disease, and some of the questions are difficult to answer, because they do make sense. For example, if bacteria don't cause disease then why do antibiotics work? My answer is that a certain bacteria may be present in a host that has symptoms of a disease, but they are also present in others that are not experiencing disease (This violates Koch's postulates). It may be that the disease state is only present when the bacteria or something they produce (possibly a poison) overwhelms the host's system, or it may just be coincidence. The bacteria could have always been present, but was just identified when the host was tested due to symptoms. Also, there may be other variables that antibiotics affect by killing bacteria that we are not aware of. As we know from Koch's anthrax and tuberculosis experiments, he was not able to spread the diseases through introducing the spores or bacteria through the hypothesized route of infection. That tends to show that bacteria themselves don't cause disease.
Have you been following Sasha Latypova's work regarding injections and anaphylaxis?
Thanks for the very kind words, Sean! I believe that you are correct in that there is most likely unknown reasons for why antibiotics appear to "work." They obviously cannot get them to work all of the time, hence the "evolution" and "resistance" excuses to explain away the failures.
As for Sasha's work, I have not seen it. I have been so busy with my own research, I don't often get the time to read much of what others are doing. I will see if I can find her work and give it a look when I get some free time. 🙂
I think it's pretty obvious why antibiotics work in cases like chlamydia: the body is using bacteria to do some of its cleaning work, and this gets messy so you get an unpleasant discharge from the urethra. Antibiotics stop this work. No mystery there!
I think the confusion comes because we have allowed the mainstream view to creep into the framing of "germ theory" and even the rejection of it: they want to say that rejection of germ theory means rejecting that microbes are ever involved in any symptoms. That's just silly, though, and we cannot hold to such a position. Rather, the primary argument is not that "germs don't cause symptoms" (even in the sense of a proximal cause) but that any symptoms they "cause" are not harmful and are in fact highly beneficial.
Think about this more and you can see that this mainstream framing of "germs don't ever cause disease/symptoms" is fool's position; it's not a position we would even want to defend because the key point is that some/most symptoms are GOOD. The mainstream wants our position to be that bacteria cannot even be involved in creating beneficial symptoms. Think how absurd it would be to have to hold to that. This has created, and continues to create daily, much needless confusion that keeps people from cleanly agreeing.
"if bacteria don't cause disease then why do antibiotics work?"
I've grown to hate the phrasing "germs don't cause disease," because it's actually not any Terrain theorist's position and it results in endless confusion. Yes, in the Terrain paradigm it is said that germs are not the ROOT cause of disease, but there is something called a proximal cause. For example, the root cause of increasing prices is often Fed money printing, but the proximal cause is that the merchant instructs his workers to *put on new price tags*. It would be ridiculous for an Austrian-school economist to argue that "merchants don't cause price increases." They do, proximally.
By the same token, if your have a urethral discharge that smells like baking bread, you have a symptom that is *proximally caused* by microbes. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that "germs are making you sick," but it means that germs are a key link in the body's procedure for cleaning and that cleaning is resulting in that symptom. It's absolutely crucial that we get clear on this.
The Terrain camp should either say that "germs are not the root cause of disease" or more usefully that "the body uses microbes to effect certain detoxification symptoms, yes, but is that a bad thing"? At present there is this counterproductive dissonance in the phrasing used by many in this Terrain circles that is resulting in losing debates and skirmishes across the Internet unnecessarily, even as virologists are being resoundingly defeated.
I think this illustrates a weak point in Koch's postulates: a substance may be present in both healthy and unhealthy subjects, the crucial factor being the quantity present. Homeopathy is based on using substances in low doses to effect healing which in higher doses are toxic. This particular postulate seems untenable. I am puzzled as to why it was put forward to begin with.
If, for virology and its believers, it's not so important whether viruses exist or not, whether the existence is proven rigorously and beyond doubt, then it can't be so important what you do about them. Right?
Considering that the existence has never been physically proven, it must be recognised that the entire construct of the virus hypothesis could have arisen from anything: a nightmare, a drug episode, an adaptation of a fairy tale, a joke , some superstition. Anything is possible as long as the scientifically and rigorously conducted experimental process does not produce a single unequivocal result. How one can then abstract and soften the central object of this theory so much is beyond me. Superstition of the worst kind.