Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Crixcyon's avatar

I am never buying that dead viruses come back to life when finding a host. Viruses = fear = taking more deadly actions like vaccinating and taking drugs. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Rider's avatar

Mr. Wurst declares, "Viruses exist โ€” but they may act more like messengers than invaders..." How does he know that 'viruses' exist? Does such claim to knowledge not require proof and definition?

There is a lot to agree with in this article that correctly points out no 'virus' has ever been isolated nor tested for chemical makeup nor biological role. Viruses were invented as sexier more fashionable germs, after bacteriology repeatedly failed to demonstrate causation.

There is a breed of sceptic that cannot quite let go of the framework of 'viruses'. Are 'viruses' really exosomes, or messengers from God, or little angels traveling through liquids (huh?) to rescue us? Has anyone ever proven a biological function supposedly performed by an exosome? Or is this another version of imaginative science? Is 'exosome' another fancy name attached to particles someone sees under microscope with no knowledge their nature?

Mr. Wurst informs us that 'viruses' are a piece of genetic material enclosed in protein. How could he or any other imagineer know that when in fact no claimed 'virus particle' has ever been found in sick people, studied, dna rna extracted, protein capsid identified and so forth?

When people adapt the world view of those who have been fully proven wrong, but who insist on controlling debate, the adaptors offer intellectual validation to false ideas, even after remodeling. The pretense is there is a shred of truth in patent nonsense.

Thanks, again Mr. Wurst makes many sound points in his remodeling.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?