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 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.
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 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.