slug.com slug.com

1 1

There's nothing political about this video, but the information is interesting.

WftRight 6 Nov 3
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

That is the storyline claimed to be derived from science when the predetermined conclusion is employed from The Germ Theory Dogma. In the Germ Theory Dogma the "cause" of the set of symptoms is a microorganism or "germ" or "virus."

The science used to determine the cause of the sickness is "majority rules," or "science by consensus."

Competitive diagnosis other than The Germ Theory with The Germ Theory Dogma include the identification of things called exozomes.

I decided to stop watching The Germ Theory Dogma (political false propaganda) when the "Germ" reproduces itself by instructing the human body to crreate copies of the "Germ."

The competitive diagnosis, as far as I have read so far, is such that poisons invading the body (non-living toxic substances, heavy metals, including radioactive heavy metals, chemicals such as pesticides, etc.) trigger processes in the body to defend against the invasion by toxin.

An analogy of the two competitive diagnosis is:

Germ Theory Dogma:
One lie invades the system, once in the system the lie convinces a healthy cell in the system to start lying, then the two liars move to two more healthy cells in the system, soon the whole system if a big pile of lies.

Alternative Theories:

Actual identification of the actual cause of any specific set of symptoms, tested for consistent reproducing of the same exact results as the same isolated suspected cause of the specific set of symptoms causes the same set of symptoms each time the same suspected cause of the same specific set of symptoms is injected into a healthy body, instead of assuming, and the confirming by consensus an assumption, that happens to make a few people very rich, that the "cause" of the specific set of symptoms is also the "cure" of the poverty on the horizon for those who confirm by consensus.

Are you saying that bacteria and viruses don't exist?

@WftRight

No.

Why do you ask that question? What did I write that triggered you and caused you to ask that question?

Do you know about Koch's Postulates?

Do you know about The Gold Standard procedure used to isolate a suspected microorganism that is suspected of causing a specific set of symptoms?

My words intended to inform anyone who cares to know that The Germ Theory is an old , but often repeated, Con Game: fraud.

Do you know about the competitive work done by Antoine Béchamp as an alternative to the work done by Pasteur which is arguably the start of The Germ Theory?

Do you know what an exozome is, or what it is claimed to be by those who are working on solving the causes of specific sets of symptoms plaguing mankind?

I'm asking because I am relatively new to this subject matter, and I need help learning the facts that matter.

@Josf-Kelley You might want to start here: [sciencebasedmedicine.org] You also might want to take some actual science classes (with labs) at you local community college. Main reason is so you sound more like an educated and informed person that has a clue what they are talking about rather than a crackpot that is using words and concepts that they don't understand.

@Void

Your response is void of relevance. Your response is a very thinly veiled attempt at Character Assassination. You can stuff it.

PASTEUR VERSUS BÉCHAMP: THE HISTORY OF GERM THEORY
[darinolien.com]

"It generally goes something like this: French biologist Louis Pasteur discovered that microorganisms or “germs” caused disease. According to the resulting “germ theory” he championed, we “catch” bacteria, colds, viruses and they should be prevented through drugs, vaccines, and other means. We were taught to be afraid of these germs and out of fear try to “kill” them with drugs rather than generating good environments in our bodies (the beneficial microorganisms and healthy immune balance, healthy PH levels, etc.)."

Points that repeat (as if doing a science experiment to see if a hypothesis is supported by evidence and to seek evidence that does not support the hypothesis):

  1. Those perpetrating The Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud - as a rule - will not use what they claim to be their Gold Standard for Isolating the cause of the set of symptoms, which they claim to be a specific virus. Now, this does not even pass the laugh test as a claim is made that a specific cause is the cause of the specific set of symptoms while they claim that they have not, and will not, employ the process by which the cause is found specifically: isolating the suspected cause (See: Koch's Postulates)

  2. Those perpetrating The Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud - as a rule - treat the already misdiagnosed (by their own confession) cause with clearly documented (their own documents) mistreatments, such as: ventilation (death sentence), mask wearing (lowers immunity, decreases oxygen, increases CO2, works as a petri dish attached to the mistreated victims mouth), isolation (psychological damage leading to lowered immune system), and orders to send old people into nursing homes, etc.

  3. Discredit known treatments known to work.

  4. Avoid publishing data (or censor data) leading people to methods which boost immune systems.

Of course the empirical evidence is not going to be absolutely conclusive whereby not one single individual pushing the "Germ Theory" dutifully follows the laundry list above, which makes the hypothesis dubious, having obvious evidence proving the opposite theory.

The point however is again misdiagnosis leads to mistreatment.

Misdiagnosis is evident:

"Interestingly enough, in the next paragraph, the CDC scientists say they used “quantitative PCR” for further analysis/construction, which goes against what Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, once said – namely that “quantitative PCR is an oxymoron” since PCR is inherently a qualitative technique not a quantitative one."
[thefreedomarticles.com]

@Josf-Kelley

We're reached that point in society where not accepting another's passionate view is taken as an insult. I'm not trying to insult you, but I'm going to raise a few points of disagreement or at least a different interpretation of some things where there is less than complete agreement.

If you were implying that I was angry by asking what "triggered" me to ask the question, I assure you that I wasn't angry when I asked whether you believed in viruses and bacteria. I wasn't aware that there was a big debate between "germ theory" and "host theory." I'd heard the terms a little bit, but I wasn't aware that people were dividing into "Team Pasteur" and "Team Bechamp" and having a major feud. You seemed to be very passionate against the idea that germs can cause sickness, and that made me wonder whether you doubted the existence of germs. By "germs," I mean bacteria, viruses, fungi, and whatever other little microorganisms they've discovered. Maybe the argument isn't as angry and entrenched as it seems, but what little searching I've had time to do since your post makes me think that his another point of drawing battle lines for a modern feud.

I read your Darin Olien link with some interest and did a few other searches. From what I've seen so far, parts of the argument are just each side knocking down straw man arguments against the other side.

One part of your link says that Bechamp claims that "microzymes" create bacteria in response to problems within the body. I don't see any way that I could ever believe this assertion. The Wikipedia link that Olien provides says that "microzymes" are organisms that can create anything from a blood clot to a bacteria. With what we know now of DNA, that assertion seems very weak. If his mechanism is correct, these little beings could create a bacteria with the unique DNA of a bacteria or create a blood clot with the unique DNA of the host. I guess the most zealous members of "Team Bechamp" could insist that someone is hiding the existence of these organisms from us or might even deny the existence of DNA, but I believe that DNA is real and don't believe that there are little organisms that can manufacture different substance or even different beings with unique DNA.

Olien's page that you linked then goes on to make a strong distinction between non-communicable diseases and infectious diseases. Based on how I read Olien's little essay, he seems to admit that "germ theory" is a legitimate explanation of infectious diseases. He tries to add that other factors can affect people's immune systems and how readily these germs can grow in any individual, but there's nothing in modern "germ theory" that contradicts that. Most of us who believe in "germs" as the transmitters of disease understand that all kind of other factors play a part. Saying that all of us see all human beings as perfectly equal in immune response and therefore equally likely to catch a disease if the large enough number of germs find us is a strawman argment.

Likewise, whether Pasteur believed that "germs" cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. is irrelevant to modern germ theory as understood by most people. Most of us realize that these diseases arise from other causes. Saying that we don't is another strawman argument.

Maybe Pasteur tried to oversell his version of germ theory when he developed it. That doesn't make germ theory completely wrong. The old saying is that if a man's only tool is a hammer, he's going to see every problem as a nail. In the same way, the guy who invents a new and better hammer is going to try to portray all kinds of problems as nails. That doesn't mean that his new hammer isn't a better hammer.

In my career, I occasionally ran into people who had invented or developed something that was a remarkable improvement in some areas. Inevitably, they would try to promote that product in a wide range of other areas. Sometimes, the product didn't work in those areas and would be a tremendous failure in those areas. The failures in some areas don't negate how great the product was in the applications where the product was great.

My point is that Pasteur overreaching in some areas doesn't completely discredit germ theory, particularly regarding infectious diseases. I think malaria and yellow fever are caused by germs that are transmitted from person to person by mosquito bites. That some people don't get these diseases or don't die of these diseases because they have strong constitutions as a result of diet, exercise, and other actions doesn't change the fact that the disease is transmitted because mosquitoes take germs from one person to another. The germs are not generated within the human body by microzymes that are responding to some other imbalance.

@WftRight

Excellent response thanks. I saw very few things in your response that trigger my sense of a need to defend against misdiagnosis of my viewpoint or mistreatment of me in public.

Misdiagnosis of my viewpoint would be for someone to claim that I am passionate about a nebulous "belief" in either a "Germ Theory" or an alternative theory that contends with a "Germ Theory."

I do no such thing. The evidence exists, when the evidence is contradictory, that fact suggests that the people confronted with contradictory evidence are unaware of enough of the facts that matter in the case, and they must get back to the drawing board and solve those apparent contradictions, doing so before claiming to be an authority on the facts that matter in the case.

The Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud is not a theory, the evidence does not contradict. The evidence from the criminals paperwork (documentations, publications) contradict from day to day, a self-evident, self-confessed, fact that matters in the case. I can be very passionate about any injury done to innocent people when it is specifically done by criminals seeking power and profit.

The members of "The Germ Theory" SIDE create a SIDE when their (any one of them, and all of them who do so) misdiagnosis followed by their mistreatment are subsidized within the "government" organs. The SIDE then is a SIDE because it has the OFFICIAL stamp of approval, and has access to the enforcement SIDE, access to the subsidized false advertising SIDE, and as proven in their paperwork, they have access to the IMMUNITY from prosecution SIDE, when their misdiagnosis causes billions of "dollars" worth of mistreatment done to innocent people, for a few dimes and a few votes of confidence on their SIDE.

So, guilty me, I get passionate about innocent people whose lives are ruined to line the pockets of criminals on The Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud Side.

Do you know the history involved in an American government subsidized Crusade known as The War on Quackery?

"Maybe Pasteur tried to oversell his version of germ theory when he developed it. That doesn't make germ theory completely wrong. The old saying is that if a man's only tool is a hammer, he's going to see every problem as a nail."

Problem:
Misdiagnosis leads to mistreatment and mistreatment leads to injury, over, and over, and over, again, and again, and again, like subsidized madness.

Solution:
Get the "government" to force immunity of prosecution against those innocent people who have suffered injury, add insult to injury and force those people to have to pay twice since their "damages" will be paid out of the "Public Fund." Pay off (bribe) some of them, hand the bill to the rest of them.

Which hammer are you speaking about?

[korenwellness.com]

"They call it the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) and it was designed to protect pharmaceutical companies from being sued because of deaths and injuries resulting from their vaccines."

@Josf-Kelley

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure that I follow all of the details, but I have health issues and couldn't sleep last night. I'm not at my best right now (and haven't been for six years). I'll try to give you a somewhat coherent answer to your question assuming that it wasn't a rhetorical question. I'll also give you a couple of anecdotes that might establish some common ground.

To me, Pasteur's "hammer" was his germ theory, and he then tried to see every disease as a "nail." Having discovered something important, he may have wanted to apply that discovery to everything. People are people, and the fact that we get carried away with things doesn't negate everything good that we do. As the Olien page mentions, germ theory partially explains many infectious diseases. I believe that we are attacked by some germs. I believe that good overall health makes our bodies less susceptible to these diseases, but I also believe that sometimes a virus or bacteria just has some individual's "number." I believe that health is a factor of both genetics and environment.

The first anecdote I'll tell is about my first statistics class. I earned my first engineering degree between 1981 and 1986. I think I took my first statistics class around 1984 or 1985. I don't know how much background you have in statistics, but much of statistics is based on confidence intervals. The equations are also built around probabilities of different kinds of errors within each confidence interval. I was an engineer at an engineering school. The professor was fairly high in the statistics department, and when he was talking about the confidence intervals that we would generally use in class, he said that we'd mostly work with 90%, 95%, and 98% confidence intervals. He said that in a class full of engineers, those were the best ones to teach because those are the confidence intervals most used in the engineering world.

He went on to explain that in some other fields, they calculated tables for confidence intervals of 99.9%, 99.99%, and even higher. He said that those confidence intervals were needed for fields like the pharmaceutical industry because in those fields, they could tolerate almost no errors of certain types. At that time, calculating the tables took some work. I'm sure that people can now just run computer programs that will calculate those tables almost any confidence interval one needed. The point is that I got the very real message that for something like the pharmaceutical industry, the "first do no harm" part of medicine meant using these very high confidence intervals.

I tell this story because it explains how shocked I was when I saw the CDC paper saying that they had show no correlation between vaccines and autism. Just going through the abstract, I saw that they used only a 95% confidence interval. I thought to myself that a 95% confidence interval is fine for deciding whether a temperature change in a reactor is really producing more output or a higher yield of some reaction, but 95% was far to low for assessing drug safety.

I've more recently heard that the law that changed the liability passed in the late 80's. Maybe I was one of the last groups of college students to learn statistics when the pharmaceutical companies still held a strong "first do no harm" attitude.

The second anecdote is that I understand and sympathize with people who are concerned about drug allergies. I had a few tetanus shots as a kid. I assume that they were always the DPT or TDaP as they call it now. I never had a reaction. In 1983, I was at a co-op job as part of my college program and was required to have the vaccine. I had the vaccine on a Thursday and felt terrible on Friday. I could barely lift my left arm and came home from work with a fever of about 101 or 102. By the next day, I was fine and didn't think anything more about it.

In 1993, I was working for another company. I was no longer required to have the DPT vaccine (which I still thought of as "the tetanus shot" ), but on the day that they gave vaccines, they had extras that they offered to other employees on a first come - first served basis until they ran out. I figured that it was free so I might as well get it.

I had the vaccine at three o'clock on a Wednesday. At ten o'clock, I felt unnaturally tired and fell asleep across the foot of my bed. Around midnight, I awoke with numbness all over my body and a fever of 104.5. I drank huge quantities of water and cooled myself with compresses. If the fever hadn't budged, I would have gone to the ER. Because the fever started to relent, I kept treating myself. I left a message on my boss's answering machine to say that I wouldn't be at work and told him I'd had a reaction to the shot which he'd also gotten. He said I sounded so bad that he didn't know which employee was calling and had to wait until everyone arrived to see who was missing. I spent the day getting calls from the safety people at work. Eventually, the company doctor called and told me that he was putting a note in my file that I would never receive a company vaccination again. He said that I should never have the DPT again from anyone. When I told him that I wanted protection from tetanus, he said that I wouldn't get tetanus if I were dead.

I don't think that I got a bad vaccination. I think I got the same vaccination that everyone else got that day. The difference is just that my body is sensitive. I don't know how many tetanus shots I had in my life, but I became sensitized and had a severe allergic reaction. That doesn't mean that others should avoid the DPT vaccination, but I understand anyone being wary. I was very healthy at the time. I just had a sensitivity to something in that vaccine.

In the same way, I can accept that many diseases, particularly infectious diseases, are caused by "germs" which I see as a catch-all for bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other microorganisms. In that sense, I agree in general with "germ theory." I understand that good health overall makes a person more resistant, but I also believe that some people are just going to be sensitive to certain germs. When that germ hits that person, a very bad result could happen.

In any case, I don't have to believe every detail of this video to find it interesting. I don't feel a need to accept or reject the video based on anything we've said here or anything I've seen or heard elsewhere. In my past, I went to scientific conferences and heard world class professors argue like school children over details of one idea or another. In most cases, I really believed that the truth lay somewhere in the middle of all that they were saying. I share this video in that spirit. I thought that the guy's ideas were interesting. I thought maybe others would find them interesting as well.

I also believe that much of the public policy around COVID-19 has been a hoax and a scam, but I shared the video to share this doctor's explanation and not to get into the public policy issues.

@WftRight

I hope you find a way toward better health. I'm 63 or so...losing count, and the writing on the wall is inspiring. Better health is statistically unlikely.

Thanks for the workout, my viewpoint is severely limited without help.

I had a class in the mid 80s, at a Trade School in New Jersey, called Statics and Dynamics, it was one of my best classes, one of the best teachers, right up there with the Electronics Teacher who told us right away to get a calculator, don't waste time, we have work to do.

Perhaps you can answer a question I have on statistics, something I learned in detail, but it has since escaped my memory, or my processor, for a time I was able to think my way back to the memory, but not now.

The teacher told us about statistics used to prove the validity of tests, which then prove the validity of the test by testing the test with statistics.

As you can see, with the words above, I've lost it. Whatever I had learned, it is gone.

The teacher was exemplifying the concept with tests called personality tests, then used (80s) by government officers seeking membership in their offices. The teacher said that the tests were used to find people who lie. The questions were framed to entrap a liar, to see if the liar would lie, but those doing the tests were not confident in the results at first. So, they made up a test to test the validity of the test, and that is when I get lost in my fading memory.

Perhaps I am merely babbling at this point.

Can statistical analysis of tested people, who scored on a personality test, who were then given another personality test, increase the accuracy of results (the goal) of the tests? In other words; do statistics offer a means by which feedback is possible when the goal is to increase the accuracy of the means (the methods) of reaching goals?

My response to your welcome words is to describe the path your words launch me. The question is asked so as to get an answer, an accurate one preferably.

As to the Hoax.

Accurate identification of specific causes of specific sets of symptoms in the "Germ Theory" (not dogmatic: false on purpose) is something called Koch's Postulates.

In the documented HOAX the criminals avoid, on purpose, the procedures laid out in Koch's Postulates, which then admits, confesses, that the criminals perpetrating the HOAX claim to not find the cause as they claim to find the cause of a specific set of symptoms.

That is a fact that matters in the case of the Hoax.

In the case of the "Germ Theory," there are clearly laid out methods by which the cause is "isolated" and clearly laid out methods by which the suspected and "isolated" cause is then tested to see if that suspected cause does, in fact, cause those specific symptoms.

How do they test the accuracy of the test?

Do you know what was in the stuff injected into you when you then suffered a specific set of symptoms?

Should I ask instead: do you believe that you were injected with a tried and true treatment so that your body could defend against a specific cause of a specific set of symptoms that you were going to get if you didn't get the stuff injected into you?

Or

Do you trust that the stuff injected into you was not intentionally harmful to you, and therefore do you trust that no one put any poisonous substances known to harm people in the stuff injected into you?

Words can cause a specific set of symptoms.

@Josf-Kelley

I'm sorry to be slow responding. I'll try to give a more substantive answer soon. I just wanted to touch base.

I brought up some of this with my chiropractor. She said that the discussion took her back to her first semesters in chiropractic college. We do acupuncture as well as adjustment, so she has to listen to all the things that pass through my mind as I lie there with the needles. She said that she might try to find some of that material for me.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:146494
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.