They just invent viruses out of thin air from genetic sequencing.
No wonder why the dummies like Zach Bush think that humans have a virome.
No shit, if you test a sick person, you'll find DNA fragments all over due to cell damage and death.
That's the result of sickness, not the cause and those sequences are of broken DNA, not some imagined new virus.
Genetics is such a scam that hasn't delivered much, if at all.
Now that virology is obsessed with it, it's a tool of obfuscation. Hide real causes of diseases with the "detection" of genetic codes called viruses. What a joke 🤡
I agree 100%, Rob. We need to continue to expose the genomic scam as it is heavily tied into the mess that is virology, and it is becoming an increasingly bigger part of the lie.
I used to be very interested in genetics until I found out that half of DNA matches are false positives. The show Adam Ruins Everything explained how this is a valid defense in court cases. Unfortunately the court system is so stupid that one needs to hire an expert in order to make that case.
You would think that it would be accepted knowledge that DNA tests are not as objective as we were told.
The current religion that runs first world society is scientism, fueled by the sci Fi bullshit that we were propagandized with in the media!
Hopefully people will start to learn that it's pseudoscience.
I agree with you Rob, however, I am very sceptical about the future as this lie is in every textbook, in every school, in every university, in every media, all around the world. I homeschool my kids and have found that there isn’t an educational programme or material that we go trough that I don’t feel compelled to correct. Today was antibiotics and their “preventative” use before operating 🙄
At any rate, understanding Koch's Postulates is a vital tool in putting doubt in the mind of virus theorists. Two people can have the exact same symptoms of illness, yet one has a positive culture and the other doesn't. Or conversely, one with no symptoms tests positive for the disease they don't have! I have always thought the label, asymptomatic was fishy long before I doubted the existence of viruses. I remember years ago sitting in the doctor's office with a very ill teenage daughter. She was certain she had the flu. Her test was negative, but you can be sure she was feeling every bit as sick as any other patient who tested positive for the honest-to-goodness flu. This is overwhelming proof that whatever doctors look at in a microscope has nothing to do with the cause of the disease or symptoms of illness. It really puts doubt on the labeled sickness of the flu. This would be an interesting topic of its own: What is the Flu?
I agree that influenza is an interesting topic. I believe it is a detoxification process that can occur at any time due to the needs of the body. However, there seems to be a seasonal component to it as well where the changes in temperature and environment can help initiate the cleansing process.
where the option to revise initial assumption - ie contagious transmissible agent.
The issue in all this is not a matter of establishing truth, but of protecting investments of identity that reflect in the social corporate order in which truth is sacrificed that lies can be saved.
The mutative entity is thus the mind of evasions by which to maintain the face of control - albeit framed in sickness, sin and death.
Investments are protected unless re-cognised as liabilities of mounting or unacceptable cost.
Mike, Not sure if you have seen Miles Mathis document Terrain Theory is a Psyop? Here is the link http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html and just CtrlF and search for terrain.
Learning about Koch's Postulates, and how they have never been satisfied, in early 2020 was likely my biggest light bulb moment regarding the fraud. Thank you for this comprehensive but reader-friendly piece that any dumb-ass who can read should be able to comprehend. I hope it is also a chapter in the book I am looking forward to seeing in print.
Hi Sue! Learning about Koch's Postulates was a big part of awakening me to the fraud of germ theory as well. It will definitely be discussed in the book. 😁
This is like reading hieroglyphics to the medical crowd. They are dense and blind. I am convinced that viruses do not exist as they are pretended to be by the doctors and big pharma. It's 100% a scare tactic to sell drugs and medical tyranny.
I'm not positive. I tried reading the article and it is very convoluted and all over the place. He also misquoted and misrepresented Dr. Lanka. I'm not sure his article it is even worth responding to.
Nothing to apologize for. Here is an interview with Dr. Lanka. He claimed that he discovered the first "giant virus."
"At the time I was still a student who had had the opportunity to work in a laboratory and using his findings on nucleic acid discovered a structure in a seaweed that I mistakenly defined as "a harmless virus". In reality, as I will explain in detail later, this structure was what is now called a "giant virus", which is really nothing more than a mini-spore similar to bacterial phages, which are also phages. So what I isolated was actually a "giant virus" but I classified it as a "harmless virus”."
From Jordan's article, he cut out pertinent sections from the link he shared where Dr. Lanka admitted that what he thought was wrong and that "viruses" do not exist:
"My name is Stefan Lanka, I am a biologist and virologist. I discovered the first virus, which was in the ocean. That’s how I became involved in this matter. First, I recognized that this virus doesn’t cause any harm. Secondly, the Austrian professor Fritz Pol alerted me to the fact, that something was wrong with the entire AIDS affair and the virus might not even exist at all. I checked this and realized, that was indeed the case. I thought this couldn’t be and I remained silent for half a year, for I assumed, I misunderstand something. I couldn’t imagine that the entire world would go along with this."
I am trying to understand what happened to the two controls in the study published in Cell Research on July 7, 2020 using rhesus macaques. It's my understanding that the prevailing assertion is that the "exposed" monkeys became infected, developed disease, and developed antibodies to the virus and that this did not occur with the controls. I (admittedly) am having trouble understanding from the study what the heck happened with regard to the controls (which it appears were also given a DMEM mixture minus the "virus" via the same method). I mostly want to understand if they showed signs of disease. I believe the study is indicating that they did not, and that the exposed animals did. However, I am an admitted rookie trying to figure this stuff out! Is there any resource you can recommend for understanding what occurred regarding the controls in that study (and whether they were true controls)? [I hope this question makes sense --- Again, a total rookie here in trying to understand the evidence and arguments regarding the question of whether viruses exist.]
I concede. I had four commenters on my stack make the point that anyone still defending virus theory is either stupid or in on the con. This was in regards to Malone (who we all agree is in on the con), Meryl Nass or the Breggins. Some sent me here, some to Tom Cowen's video, Terra Times, and Sam Bailey. I don't know if I would make that harsh a judgment on the Breggins but after reviewing these, I concede the point. There's no logical data to show that viruses exist. Here's the article: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/meryl-and-malone.
I like you Mike, but you have never been in the real frontline healthcare situations. If you had observed what I have experienced, patients developing the same or similar symptoms within very short period of time, probably because of close contact, like being in the same room of 8 or 4, you would doubt yourself.
You can go on with your supposed evidence, but unless you see it, you will not become a believer.
I don't think viruses cause whatever people believe, but contagion is real. I don't think whatever SARS-CoV-2 was labeled as is a new "pathogen", but Dr. Kory's experiences with something spreading like wildfire within the hospital wards was real. I have seen worse in 2016-17 winter. Our hospital was overwhelmed with mainly elderly patients from nursing homes with flu like symptoms of whom 95% plus received the life-saving flu vaccine. Our hospital gym was closed and converted to the overflow unit. May peopled died. Too many...
I have a theory what can cause contagion without spreading microbes. Only if I could prove it...
People getting sick around the same time with the same or similar symptoms does not mean that they caught disease from those that they were in close contact with. People seem to forget about the shared environment, whether it is the polluted air we all breathe, the similar foods and drinks that we consume, the various shared mental stressors, etc. As you said yourself by stating that it was "probably because of close contact," this is an assumption that one person caught something from another person. We tend to forget the many times that we (or friends and family) are around those who are sick and no illness occurs afterwards.
This is all fine and dandy but the environmental theory requires proof by the scientific method, just like any other theory proposed, such as contagion. I'd like to see your evidence to support your theory but I already suspect what you and terrain theory supporters will say to avoid the clear lack of verifiable evidence not to mention controls.
As an example of a mechanism (s) of disease spread verifiable by the scientific method are chloroquine resistance in human malaria as well as an antibiotic resistance (antimicrobial resistance). I'm not sure if you have ever been to a lab where these examples can be easily verified by the scientific method with controls.
You can make predictions with almost 100% accuracy, which in experimental science is as good as it gets, and infer the causal agent.
Both chloroquine and antimicrobial resistance (E.coli) can be easily verified by identifying the mutations that cause the resistance with almost 100% accuracy.
If you’d like, you can propose the experiment (s) to verify your theory but as far as I know neither such experiments have ever been performed nor proposed to be performed. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. I’d like to become a terrein theory supporter but I need more than just assumptions.
Just as an example from my work, I’ve identified a link (one or two of them) between diet and lifestyle (terrain, I guess) and a disorder that affects well over a billion people. My theory can be verified by the scientific method with controls.
What about your theory? If you are so sure of your theory, write a proposal for an experiment (s) with controls.
Are you under the assumption that pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, stress, lack of sleep and exercise, toxic pharmaceuticals, etc. have no effect on the health of a person? Even germ "theory" supporters admit that these all factor into the state of a person's health.
"chloroquine resistance in human malaria as well as an antibiotic resistance (antimicrobial resistance)"
This is using an effect to claim a cause. The fact that chloroquine and antibiotics may not stop symptoms of disease in all cases does not mean that this determines a cause, especially one that can be transmitted from human-to-human. The extraordinary claim is that humans can transmit disease from one to another, and that what is being transmitted are invisible pathogenic microbes. This is what requires scientific evidence in support.
It doesn't matter what I assume. It only matters what I can prove...I'm a scientist and not a storyteller…
Here are the 4 main steps of the scientific method you must be familiar with, right?
Ask a question (or challenge a theory or a hypothesis);
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Can you prove your obvious assumptions that pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, stress, lack of sleep and exercise, and toxic pharmaceuticals cause respiratory infections that develop within the same hospital ward, nursing home room shared by patients or people within the same household? I doubt that…
Do you realize you are either unknowingly or deliberately not differentiate between the symptoms of a possible infection or the actual infection?
You should stop right there.
If there are patients who have tested positive for the same microbe lung infection and you treat them with the same medication, among those who do not respond to the treatment, there is 8 out of 10 chance they have developed a resistance.
You can confirm this in the lab. When this is confirmed, and you can treat them with another medication that the lab testing confirmed would work, and most of them will respond to the treatment, especially if they are younger and overall healthy. All this can be verified by a very simple method as a chest X-rays or CT. This is as good the scientific method asks for in medicine or any other scientific field.
Can you follow the same 4 step scientific method of evidence to prove your assumptions?
"It doesn't matter what I assume. It only matters what I can prove"
Are you saying that, for instance, exposure to air pollution does not lead to respiratory disease? Do you believe that it has no effect on a person's health? How about the side effects of toxic pharmaceuticals that mimic the diseases that they are supposed to prevent?
"Can you prove your obvious assumptions that pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, stress, lack of sleep and exercise, and toxic pharmaceuticals cause respiratory infections"
I'm not claiming a single cause for any specific symptoms of disease. I am pointing out known factors that are said to impact our health. I never said that this has been scientifically proven. It is mostly common sense along with personal, as well as shared, experiences. While there are studies looking at the impact air pollution, nutirition, stress, etc. have on our health, there are too many variables to try and control when factoring the impact of them all on our health. As I have said, I believe that disease is multifactorial.
"Do you realize you are either unknowingly or deliberately not differentiate between the symptoms of a possible infection or the actual infection?"
You are claiming such a thing as "infection," which implies that something outside entered in and caused disease. You are claiming that certain "infections" cause different diseases. This would be your burden to prove with the necessary scientific evidence.
"If there are patients who have tested positive for the same microbe lung infection and you treat them with the same medication, among those who do not respond to the treatment, there is 8 out of 10 chance they have developed a resistance."
You are once again trying to use the effect of a medicine in order to claim a cause. You must provide scientific proof of a cause first before claiming that "resistance" to medications has any meaning.
"Can you follow the same 4 step scientific method of evidence to prove your assumptions?"
I'm not trying to prove that air pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, lack of sleep/exercise, increased stress, toxic pharmaceuticals, drugs/alcohol use, etc. can lead to disease. I do not need to prove my belief that these factors impact our health in order to point out the lack of scientific evidence supporting pathogenic microbes.
"Are you saying that, for instance, exposure to air pollution does not lead to respiratory disease? Do you believe that it has no effect on a person's health? How about the side effects of toxic pharmaceuticals that mimic the diseases that they are supposed to prevent?"
And
"I'm not trying to prove that air pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, lack of sleep/exercise, increased stress, toxic pharmaceuticals, drugs/alcohol use, etc. can lead to disease. I do not need to prove my belief that these factors impact our health in order to point out the lack of scientific evidence supporting pathogenic microbes."
I'm glad YOU wrote this because I was going to point out this contradiction and deliberate ignorance…
It is clear to me, correct me if I’m wrong, next time members of your family develop the same or similar respiratory disease, beginning with say you, then your wife, and then gradually your one child and then the other, within few days, you are going to assume it has something to do with pollution, toxic pharmaceuticals, stress or diet and you are going to take what measures exactly?
It must follow, you will not go to the doctor, or a hospital, in order to have this disease checked out because the most likely diagnosis you are going to receive is the one you do not believe in, like say microbial pneumonia.
You would also have to refuse the treatment for diagnosed respiratory disease, like antibiotics, because antibiotics are made from microbes that are designed to kill other microbes, which according to you do not cause respiratory diseases…
I don’t wish you this at all, but I hope you never have to face a situation where you would have to stick to your beliefs in face of possible serious consequences of refusing life saving treatments because of your blind beliefs…
I must admit, I admire your faith to a degree... though blind…
Nowadays they don't even isolate things.
They just invent viruses out of thin air from genetic sequencing.
No wonder why the dummies like Zach Bush think that humans have a virome.
No shit, if you test a sick person, you'll find DNA fragments all over due to cell damage and death.
That's the result of sickness, not the cause and those sequences are of broken DNA, not some imagined new virus.
Genetics is such a scam that hasn't delivered much, if at all.
Now that virology is obsessed with it, it's a tool of obfuscation. Hide real causes of diseases with the "detection" of genetic codes called viruses. What a joke 🤡
https://viroliegy.com/2022/01/26/the-epistemological-crisis-in-genomics/
I agree 100%, Rob. We need to continue to expose the genomic scam as it is heavily tied into the mess that is virology, and it is becoming an increasingly bigger part of the lie.
I used to be very interested in genetics until I found out that half of DNA matches are false positives. The show Adam Ruins Everything explained how this is a valid defense in court cases. Unfortunately the court system is so stupid that one needs to hire an expert in order to make that case.
You would think that it would be accepted knowledge that DNA tests are not as objective as we were told.
The current religion that runs first world society is scientism, fueled by the sci Fi bullshit that we were propagandized with in the media!
Hopefully people will start to learn that it's pseudoscience.
I agree with you Rob, however, I am very sceptical about the future as this lie is in every textbook, in every school, in every university, in every media, all around the world. I homeschool my kids and have found that there isn’t an educational programme or material that we go trough that I don’t feel compelled to correct. Today was antibiotics and their “preventative” use before operating 🙄
Fantastic article. Easy to understand.
Thanks, Rob! I'm happy to hear that it was easy to understand. That was my goal. 🙂
That's why I became a subscriber! :)
At any rate, understanding Koch's Postulates is a vital tool in putting doubt in the mind of virus theorists. Two people can have the exact same symptoms of illness, yet one has a positive culture and the other doesn't. Or conversely, one with no symptoms tests positive for the disease they don't have! I have always thought the label, asymptomatic was fishy long before I doubted the existence of viruses. I remember years ago sitting in the doctor's office with a very ill teenage daughter. She was certain she had the flu. Her test was negative, but you can be sure she was feeling every bit as sick as any other patient who tested positive for the honest-to-goodness flu. This is overwhelming proof that whatever doctors look at in a microscope has nothing to do with the cause of the disease or symptoms of illness. It really puts doubt on the labeled sickness of the flu. This would be an interesting topic of its own: What is the Flu?
Thanks, Rob. 🙂
I agree that influenza is an interesting topic. I believe it is a detoxification process that can occur at any time due to the needs of the body. However, there seems to be a seasonal component to it as well where the changes in temperature and environment can help initiate the cleansing process.
I could imagine a logic flow chart.
where the option to revise initial assumption - ie contagious transmissible agent.
The issue in all this is not a matter of establishing truth, but of protecting investments of identity that reflect in the social corporate order in which truth is sacrificed that lies can be saved.
The mutative entity is thus the mind of evasions by which to maintain the face of control - albeit framed in sickness, sin and death.
Investments are protected unless re-cognised as liabilities of mounting or unacceptable cost.
Logic will never been out of date in science, but it is out of date when dealing with pseudo-science and pronouncements by the Department of Excuses.
Mike, Not sure if you have seen Miles Mathis document Terrain Theory is a Psyop? Here is the link http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html and just CtrlF and search for terrain.
Hi Sunface Jack,
I haven't seen that yet, but I will check it out. I'm sure it's entertaining at the very least. 😉
Learning about Koch's Postulates, and how they have never been satisfied, in early 2020 was likely my biggest light bulb moment regarding the fraud. Thank you for this comprehensive but reader-friendly piece that any dumb-ass who can read should be able to comprehend. I hope it is also a chapter in the book I am looking forward to seeing in print.
Hi Sue! Learning about Koch's Postulates was a big part of awakening me to the fraud of germ theory as well. It will definitely be discussed in the book. 😁
This is like reading hieroglyphics to the medical crowd. They are dense and blind. I am convinced that viruses do not exist as they are pretended to be by the doctors and big pharma. It's 100% a scare tactic to sell drugs and medical tyranny.
Hey Mike :)
Has anyone from your side ever dealt with Patrick Jordan's claims? Here is his latest stack on this topic:
https://open.substack.com/pub/generalportal55/p/the-sigh-ant-terriffic-method?r=1n81cx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Hi Sirius,
I'm not positive. I tried reading the article and it is very convoluted and all over the place. He also misquoted and misrepresented Dr. Lanka. I'm not sure his article it is even worth responding to.
Sorry about that - I have the same issue! If he is so sure why not say it plain and simple...
But I am not so well versed in this field and so I could not decide if his claim had any weight.
Wait, he misquoted Lanka? The claim of isolating a virus from the ocean?
And thank you for your time.
Nothing to apologize for. Here is an interview with Dr. Lanka. He claimed that he discovered the first "giant virus."
"At the time I was still a student who had had the opportunity to work in a laboratory and using his findings on nucleic acid discovered a structure in a seaweed that I mistakenly defined as "a harmless virus". In reality, as I will explain in detail later, this structure was what is now called a "giant virus", which is really nothing more than a mini-spore similar to bacterial phages, which are also phages. So what I isolated was actually a "giant virus" but I classified it as a "harmless virus”."
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Stefan-Lanka-DSalud-Nu%CC%81mero-249-English-1-of-3.pdf
From Jordan's article, he cut out pertinent sections from the link he shared where Dr. Lanka admitted that what he thought was wrong and that "viruses" do not exist:
"My name is Stefan Lanka, I am a biologist and virologist. I discovered the first virus, which was in the ocean. That’s how I became involved in this matter. First, I recognized that this virus doesn’t cause any harm. Secondly, the Austrian professor Fritz Pol alerted me to the fact, that something was wrong with the entire AIDS affair and the virus might not even exist at all. I checked this and realized, that was indeed the case. I thought this couldn’t be and I remained silent for half a year, for I assumed, I misunderstand something. I couldn’t imagine that the entire world would go along with this."
Thank you once more Mike! Feel free to delete these comments...
Have a nice day
Of course. You have a nice day as well, Sirius. 🙂
I am trying to understand what happened to the two controls in the study published in Cell Research on July 7, 2020 using rhesus macaques. It's my understanding that the prevailing assertion is that the "exposed" monkeys became infected, developed disease, and developed antibodies to the virus and that this did not occur with the controls. I (admittedly) am having trouble understanding from the study what the heck happened with regard to the controls (which it appears were also given a DMEM mixture minus the "virus" via the same method). I mostly want to understand if they showed signs of disease. I believe the study is indicating that they did not, and that the exposed animals did. However, I am an admitted rookie trying to figure this stuff out! Is there any resource you can recommend for understanding what occurred regarding the controls in that study (and whether they were true controls)? [I hope this question makes sense --- Again, a total rookie here in trying to understand the evidence and arguments regarding the question of whether viruses exist.]
I concede. I had four commenters on my stack make the point that anyone still defending virus theory is either stupid or in on the con. This was in regards to Malone (who we all agree is in on the con), Meryl Nass or the Breggins. Some sent me here, some to Tom Cowen's video, Terra Times, and Sam Bailey. I don't know if I would make that harsh a judgment on the Breggins but after reviewing these, I concede the point. There's no logical data to show that viruses exist. Here's the article: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/meryl-and-malone.
I like you Mike, but you have never been in the real frontline healthcare situations. If you had observed what I have experienced, patients developing the same or similar symptoms within very short period of time, probably because of close contact, like being in the same room of 8 or 4, you would doubt yourself.
You can go on with your supposed evidence, but unless you see it, you will not become a believer.
I don't think viruses cause whatever people believe, but contagion is real. I don't think whatever SARS-CoV-2 was labeled as is a new "pathogen", but Dr. Kory's experiences with something spreading like wildfire within the hospital wards was real. I have seen worse in 2016-17 winter. Our hospital was overwhelmed with mainly elderly patients from nursing homes with flu like symptoms of whom 95% plus received the life-saving flu vaccine. Our hospital gym was closed and converted to the overflow unit. May peopled died. Too many...
I have a theory what can cause contagion without spreading microbes. Only if I could prove it...
Hi Tomas,
People getting sick around the same time with the same or similar symptoms does not mean that they caught disease from those that they were in close contact with. People seem to forget about the shared environment, whether it is the polluted air we all breathe, the similar foods and drinks that we consume, the various shared mental stressors, etc. As you said yourself by stating that it was "probably because of close contact," this is an assumption that one person caught something from another person. We tend to forget the many times that we (or friends and family) are around those who are sick and no illness occurs afterwards.
This is all fine and dandy but the environmental theory requires proof by the scientific method, just like any other theory proposed, such as contagion. I'd like to see your evidence to support your theory but I already suspect what you and terrain theory supporters will say to avoid the clear lack of verifiable evidence not to mention controls.
As an example of a mechanism (s) of disease spread verifiable by the scientific method are chloroquine resistance in human malaria as well as an antibiotic resistance (antimicrobial resistance). I'm not sure if you have ever been to a lab where these examples can be easily verified by the scientific method with controls.
You can make predictions with almost 100% accuracy, which in experimental science is as good as it gets, and infer the causal agent.
Both chloroquine and antimicrobial resistance (E.coli) can be easily verified by identifying the mutations that cause the resistance with almost 100% accuracy.
If you’d like, you can propose the experiment (s) to verify your theory but as far as I know neither such experiments have ever been performed nor proposed to be performed. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. I’d like to become a terrein theory supporter but I need more than just assumptions.
Just as an example from my work, I’ve identified a link (one or two of them) between diet and lifestyle (terrain, I guess) and a disorder that affects well over a billion people. My theory can be verified by the scientific method with controls.
What about your theory? If you are so sure of your theory, write a proposal for an experiment (s) with controls.
https://youtu.be/yybsSqcB7mE?si=kU3bByU1gUAK61fZ
Are you under the assumption that pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, stress, lack of sleep and exercise, toxic pharmaceuticals, etc. have no effect on the health of a person? Even germ "theory" supporters admit that these all factor into the state of a person's health.
"chloroquine resistance in human malaria as well as an antibiotic resistance (antimicrobial resistance)"
This is using an effect to claim a cause. The fact that chloroquine and antibiotics may not stop symptoms of disease in all cases does not mean that this determines a cause, especially one that can be transmitted from human-to-human. The extraordinary claim is that humans can transmit disease from one to another, and that what is being transmitted are invisible pathogenic microbes. This is what requires scientific evidence in support.
It doesn't matter what I assume. It only matters what I can prove...I'm a scientist and not a storyteller…
Here are the 4 main steps of the scientific method you must be familiar with, right?
Ask a question (or challenge a theory or a hypothesis);
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Test the prediction.
Can you prove your obvious assumptions that pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, stress, lack of sleep and exercise, and toxic pharmaceuticals cause respiratory infections that develop within the same hospital ward, nursing home room shared by patients or people within the same household? I doubt that…
Do you realize you are either unknowingly or deliberately not differentiate between the symptoms of a possible infection or the actual infection?
You should stop right there.
If there are patients who have tested positive for the same microbe lung infection and you treat them with the same medication, among those who do not respond to the treatment, there is 8 out of 10 chance they have developed a resistance.
You can confirm this in the lab. When this is confirmed, and you can treat them with another medication that the lab testing confirmed would work, and most of them will respond to the treatment, especially if they are younger and overall healthy. All this can be verified by a very simple method as a chest X-rays or CT. This is as good the scientific method asks for in medicine or any other scientific field.
Can you follow the same 4 step scientific method of evidence to prove your assumptions?
"It doesn't matter what I assume. It only matters what I can prove"
Are you saying that, for instance, exposure to air pollution does not lead to respiratory disease? Do you believe that it has no effect on a person's health? How about the side effects of toxic pharmaceuticals that mimic the diseases that they are supposed to prevent?
"Can you prove your obvious assumptions that pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, stress, lack of sleep and exercise, and toxic pharmaceuticals cause respiratory infections"
I'm not claiming a single cause for any specific symptoms of disease. I am pointing out known factors that are said to impact our health. I never said that this has been scientifically proven. It is mostly common sense along with personal, as well as shared, experiences. While there are studies looking at the impact air pollution, nutirition, stress, etc. have on our health, there are too many variables to try and control when factoring the impact of them all on our health. As I have said, I believe that disease is multifactorial.
"Do you realize you are either unknowingly or deliberately not differentiate between the symptoms of a possible infection or the actual infection?"
You are claiming such a thing as "infection," which implies that something outside entered in and caused disease. You are claiming that certain "infections" cause different diseases. This would be your burden to prove with the necessary scientific evidence.
"If there are patients who have tested positive for the same microbe lung infection and you treat them with the same medication, among those who do not respond to the treatment, there is 8 out of 10 chance they have developed a resistance."
You are once again trying to use the effect of a medicine in order to claim a cause. You must provide scientific proof of a cause first before claiming that "resistance" to medications has any meaning.
"Can you follow the same 4 step scientific method of evidence to prove your assumptions?"
I'm not trying to prove that air pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, lack of sleep/exercise, increased stress, toxic pharmaceuticals, drugs/alcohol use, etc. can lead to disease. I do not need to prove my belief that these factors impact our health in order to point out the lack of scientific evidence supporting pathogenic microbes.
"Are you saying that, for instance, exposure to air pollution does not lead to respiratory disease? Do you believe that it has no effect on a person's health? How about the side effects of toxic pharmaceuticals that mimic the diseases that they are supposed to prevent?"
And
"I'm not trying to prove that air pollution, unhealthy foods and drinks, lack of sleep/exercise, increased stress, toxic pharmaceuticals, drugs/alcohol use, etc. can lead to disease. I do not need to prove my belief that these factors impact our health in order to point out the lack of scientific evidence supporting pathogenic microbes."
I'm glad YOU wrote this because I was going to point out this contradiction and deliberate ignorance…
It is clear to me, correct me if I’m wrong, next time members of your family develop the same or similar respiratory disease, beginning with say you, then your wife, and then gradually your one child and then the other, within few days, you are going to assume it has something to do with pollution, toxic pharmaceuticals, stress or diet and you are going to take what measures exactly?
It must follow, you will not go to the doctor, or a hospital, in order to have this disease checked out because the most likely diagnosis you are going to receive is the one you do not believe in, like say microbial pneumonia.
You would also have to refuse the treatment for diagnosed respiratory disease, like antibiotics, because antibiotics are made from microbes that are designed to kill other microbes, which according to you do not cause respiratory diseases…
I don’t wish you this at all, but I hope you never have to face a situation where you would have to stick to your beliefs in face of possible serious consequences of refusing life saving treatments because of your blind beliefs…
I must admit, I admire your faith to a degree... though blind…
You answer your own question here :” of whom 95% plus received the life-saving flu vaccine”