"Viruses": Tiny Invisible Airborne Killer-Dots. (Really?)

[Harvey]

^ Nothing you've written is original work. You cite personal smears from the mediaplex, perhaps true, but smears nevertheless. What you do not do is point to how the current model of virology, especially the post 2019 model, is correct in all its details.

[Iamwhomiam]

I mean no offense Harvey, but what on earth gives you the notion it is my job to determine, to prove "the current model of virology, especially the post 2019 model, is correct in all its details?" I could argue either it was and why it was or why it wasn't and why it didn't, but why would I? Neither one of us nor anyone posting here these days has the expertise to argue such points intelligently.

You also presume too much. I am sympathetic to those opposing forced "vaccination" of a new sort of experimental vaccine.

If Lanka winds up being the one to raise human consciousness to a higher level than the primitive combative level we now exist within, from one that treasures self-aggrandizement more than they do the well-being of their fellow humans, I'd be astonished.

I suppose my being a life-long activist adds to my frustration. Eisenhower's farewell speech, we all listened and did nothing. Kennedy assassinations and nuclear weapons we complained about, but just a little; Wars all over the place and some protested, while we warred on - Love it or Leave it! Not our warming climate, nor pollution, raised us from our sotted slumber. Not famine, fire, or flood brought us to action. Nearly a trillion dollars to be spent modernizing our nuclear weapons and developing new mach 20 Hypersonic nuclear missiles, and nary a word spent here. Wear a mask, we're first told and then, so ordered.

Who would have, who could have possibly imagined masks as being the straw that broke the camel's back!

[Harvey]

I mean no offense Harvey, but what on earth gives you the notion it is my job to determine, to prove "the current model of virology, especially the post 2019 model, is correct in all its details?" I could argue either it was and why it was or why it wasn't and why it didn't, but why would I? Neither one of us nor anyone posting here these days has the expertise to argue such points intelligently.

You make my argument precisely. You don't want to, you will not, you recognise it is bullshit. I can't make those arguments either, but you know. You fucking well know. And so do I.

[Iamwhomiam]

Harvey, I have no fucking idea what you're going on about. What, precisely, is your argument? What is "bullshit"?

Here's my response to Mac's comment on my earlier posting on the previous page:

Good questions to ask, Mac. So good in fact, I think I'll ask them, too.

Regarding Mac's commentary on my posting, I suggest to all readers to allow his conglomerate to marinate. Let it ferment. Follow the scientific method and examine it closely at regular intervals. Seriously. It's instructive. What's really going on there?

Mac, why don't you tell us what is going on there in my earlier conglomeration? In which way do you find it instructive? Surely, after your close, periodic examination of my words, you must have more to say. Don't be shy.

To me, your reply was instructive. You, with your caustic wit remain unchanged. After all is said and done, you're as pitiful as ever, and that is saddening. What's going on there is a failed effort to insult, nothing more, and adds nothing of value to argue. Pitiful.

Long Live Dr. Tom!

Your response can be found above, as is mine to it.

[Harvey]

Upon first hearing the argument, and as a believer in viruses, I asked myself, can I prove that viruses exist? I couldn't. I studied all the arguments I could find, yet nothing, so far, has proved viruses exist. In fact, the more I look, the more holes in the argument become apparent. I recognise that people claim viruses exist, but nobody, so far, has actually proved it to me. I also recognise that this does not mean viruses do not exist, but when it comes to Covid and Covid measures, where are all those to loudly insist that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Nowhere to be found.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Your thesis appears to be that discrediting people through rumour and providing links to existing arguments is proof of something. True as far as it goes. You can prove that some people somewhere said some things.

But can you prove that the therapeutics should be mandated?



Can you prove that the definition of 'vaccinated' will not change in three weeks time?

My argument is this, can you even prove that viruses exist or can you not? If it's so easy, "just do it" as the saying goes. Everything else is bullshit.

Science really only disproves things. Thru "falsification" ie a test or experiment that shows the theory doesn't work. No one has done that to germ theory. Its all very well to say "its not this its that" but you have to demonstrate it. I've worked with viruses in labs years ago. I'm happy enough they exist you don't need to be tho. But anyway there are "photos" of covid from advanced imaging and gene sequencing that matches the photos - why isn't this proof enough for you is your business.

But can you prove that the therapeutics should be mandated?

This is politics not science. You can't prove it. Even if covid vaccines were 100% effective against transmission and illness you couldn't "prove" they "should" be mandated. Its a political decision.

Can you prove that 'unvaccinated people' are a greater risk of transmitting the SARS virus than 'vaccinated' people?

This nationwide cohort study showed that individuals without COVID-19 immunity had a 45% to 97% lower risk of infection that was in line with the increase in the number of immune family members. Similar results were found regardless of whether immunity was acquired from a previous infection, a single dose of vaccine, or full vaccination. These findings suggest that vaccines are associated with a reduction in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus within families, which likely has implications for herd immunity and pandemic control. However, caution is warranted given the emerging variants of concern, which appear more transmissible and may be less sensitive to a single dose of vaccine.


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... erm=101121

There are a heap of studies like this.


That is, can you prove that people who have in good faith received two anti-Covid injections or less, are a greater danger than the 'vaccinated', that is, people who have in good faith taken two or more supposed anti-Covid injections.

LOL So you want someone to prove that people with two vaccinations are different to people with two vaccinations.

You've got to stop transferring the stupid shit you hear in the media onto people who post on this website. Its fucked. up.

[Harvey]

Your thesis appears to be that discrediting people through rumour and providing links to existing arguments is proof of something. True as far as it goes. You can prove that some people somewhere said some things.

But can you prove that the therapeutics should be mandated?



Can you prove that the definition of 'vaccinated' will not change in three weeks time?

My argument is this, can you even prove that viruses exist or can you not? If it's so easy, "just do it" as the saying goes. Everything else is bullshit.

Science really only disproves things. Thru "falsification" ie a test or experiment that shows the theory doesn't work. No one has done that to germ theory. Its all very well to say "its not this its that" but you have to demonstrate it. I've worked with viruses in labs years ago. I'm happy enough they exist you don't need to be tho. But anyway there are "photos" of covid from advanced imaging and gene sequencing that matches the photos - why isn't this proof enough for you is your business.

But can you prove that the therapeutics should be mandated?

This is politics not science. You can't prove it. Even if covid vaccines were 100% effective against transmission and illness you couldn't "prove" they "should" be mandated. Its a political decision.

Can you prove that 'unvaccinated people' are a greater risk of transmitting the SARS virus than 'vaccinated' people?

This nationwide cohort study showed that individuals without COVID-19 immunity had a 45% to 97% lower risk of infection that was in line with the increase in the number of immune family members. Similar results were found regardless of whether immunity was acquired from a previous infection, a single dose of vaccine, or full vaccination. These findings suggest that vaccines are associated with a reduction in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus within families, which likely has implications for herd immunity and pandemic control. However, caution is warranted given the emerging variants of concern, which appear more transmissible and may be less sensitive to a single dose of vaccine.


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... erm=101121

There are a heap of studies like this.


That is, can you prove that people who have in good faith received two anti-Covid injections or less, are a greater danger than the 'vaccinated', that is, people who have in good faith taken two or more supposed anti-Covid injections.

LOL So you want someone to prove that people with two vaccinations are different to people with two vaccinations.

You've got to stop transferring the stupid shit you hear in the media onto people who post on this website. Its fucked. up.

I'd already amended that 'two or more' to 'three or more'. In any case, in adding to the post, I seem to have lost the whole fucking post somehow, so thanks for preserving it.

Prove that viruses exist. It's simple. Go ahead.

[Harvey]

Science really only disproves things.

Santa Claus exists. Please disprove.

[Harvey]

Science really only disproves things.

God exists. Please disprove.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Your thesis appears to be that discrediting people through rumour and providing links to existing arguments is proof of something. True as far as it goes. You can prove that some people somewhere said some things.

But can you prove that the therapeutics should be mandated?



Can you prove that the definition of 'vaccinated' will not change in three weeks time?

My argument is this, can you even prove that viruses exist or can you not? If it's so easy, "just do it" as the saying goes. Everything else is bullshit.

Science really only disproves things. Thru "falsification" ie a test or experiment that shows the theory doesn't work. No one has done that to germ theory. Its all very well to say "its not this its that" but you have to demonstrate it. I've worked with viruses in labs years ago. I'm happy enough they exist you don't need to be tho. But anyway there are "photos" of covid from advanced imaging and gene sequencing that matches the photos - why isn't this proof enough for you is your business.

But can you prove that the therapeutics should be mandated?

This is politics not science. You can't prove it. Even if covid vaccines were 100% effective against transmission and illness you couldn't "prove" they "should" be mandated. Its a political decision.

Can you prove that 'unvaccinated people' are a greater risk of transmitting the SARS virus than 'vaccinated' people?

This nationwide cohort study showed that individuals without COVID-19 immunity had a 45% to 97% lower risk of infection that was in line with the increase in the number of immune family members. Similar results were found regardless of whether immunity was acquired from a previous infection, a single dose of vaccine, or full vaccination. These findings suggest that vaccines are associated with a reduction in the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus within families, which likely has implications for herd immunity and pandemic control. However, caution is warranted given the emerging variants of concern, which appear more transmissible and may be less sensitive to a single dose of vaccine.


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... erm=101121

There are a heap of studies like this.


That is, can you prove that people who have in good faith received two anti-Covid injections or less, are a greater danger than the 'vaccinated', that is, people who have in good faith taken two or more supposed anti-Covid injections.

LOL So you want someone to prove that people with two vaccinations are different to people with two vaccinations.

You've got to stop transferring the stupid shit you hear in the media onto people who post on this website. Its fucked. up.

I'd already amended that 'two or more' to 'three or more'. In any case, in adding to the post, I seem to have lost the whole fucking post somehow, so thanks for preserving it.

Prove that viruses exist. It's simple. Go ahead.

I don't need to prove it. Its been proved by 50 years (well more but 50 will do cos DNA/RNA) of experimental science.

What you are asking for is an easy, simply digestible soundbyte to convince you instead of you doing the hard work required to understand all the processes involved. You're being lazy and childish and will no doubt use me saying this to confirm your belief that I'm an establishment stooge of some sort.

Anyway at this stage it appears that the omicron variant is recognised by Tcells induiced by natural infection or two doses of vaccine.

So a third dose of booster vaccines is probably unnecessary. This is marketing but whinging about it here won't make a difference. you need to whinge about it in your community to people who probably won't listen. Pfizer have released this data so you could use their own stuff against them if you wanted.

[maple syrup]

"God exists. Please disprove."

Which God?

[Harvey]

"God exists. Please disprove."

Which God?

Whichever you can disprove?

[maple syrup]

"Whichever you can disprove?"

Psalm 91:15

He will call upon Me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.

I am a child. I attend a church. At first I like the church. Then, human representative of the diety abuses me. Regularly. Continuously. I turn to the teachings. I pray every night it stop. Yet, every morning I am abused.

What kind of Ghad lets that prayer go un-aswered? One that does not exist.

[Iamwhomiam]

Joe wrote, "Science really only disproves things." I know exactly what you mean, but there's a better way with different words to say the same thing. Theorems remain theoretical until experimentation by more than one researcher develops into an accepted proof if and when the same results are independently returned. Better to say science is temporarily true, at best.

Quite like, "all models are wrong." We choose the best statistically informed guess to go with and trust it will be less in error from reality than the other models we could have chosen. I know you already know these things.

[DrEvil]

Science really only disproves things.

God exists. Please disprove.

There's a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. Please disprove.