infact Bechamp came first with his theory, he talked about little particles, and Pasteur, not knowing what he was talking about, jumped to the occasion and now there we stand, Pasteur all over the place and no none knows Bechamp - or certainly not many. His books are still available but the one I bought is barely readably in 200 year old language and medical terminology (which I never studied).
I am not on the Fakebook nor on the Xrays, so I won't see you there.
as long as people treat a theory as a theory it is okay - but until proven no one knows for sure. The only thing I know is, that there are illnesses that jump from one person to another (ex came home sick and I got it a few hours later too, happened a few times) and others do not (worked at a house with all sick people and did not get it, embraced sick people but did not get it). Those are facts because they happened to me. What happens to mice in labs is not my thing.
I am with you, think whatever you want to think as long as you are not telling me to perform any medical intervention based on it. And if you are going to show me what happened to mice in a lab, you better have pretty darn convincing evidence if you are going to make public proclamations of policy.
There are many things in common use that we only have theories on how they work, like turbines. Steam turbines have been around for a very long time but we learned turbine theory in basic ship propulsion school. There is other equipment too that we know even less about but still get it to do its thing. I am not as bothered by theories being used as they are.
I too have similar experience with being around ill people and sometimes catching it too and most times not. This reality may not necessarily be countered to germ or virus theory as the general health of the people involved may account for these outcomes. It also may not be why, but it could be. Mandating shots over any of this though, is another kettle of fish, one that more people are rightfully questioning.
That's true, but at the same time, with a steam turbine, we at least know that it is heated water that is responsible for making the turbine move. We also know what works and does not work. We know how much temperature metal can withstand.
There were probably many hours of trial and error to figure out the most efficient configuration of the turbine blades. And still there are times when engineers and workers are at a loss of why it stops working. Some unknown condition that has bottlenecked the works.
But what if the turbine just "ran" and no one knew why, or it stopped running and no one knew why and told you it was invisible particles that stopped it from running. And then on top of that, they stated that in order to counter the invisible particles from ruining the engine each member of the crew had to get up and walk ten minutes counterclockwise in a circle every six hours. Or that, in order to get the turbine to work again, they had to inject it with an experimental lubricant or additive to destroy the invisible particles.
I wasn’t going to add this but on further thought, I think it might add to the discussion. Also let me add, I do so only to add depth to our discussion, not as a counter to your comments. It’s not just steam turbines; gas, air and to lesser extent, water as water cannot be compressed are designed based upon turbine theory. The theory evolved from observing steam turbines work was later applied to other types without complete knowledge of how the first actually works.
The difference between air travel with gas turbines of which our knowledge of how they work it not complete and vaccines is that with the former, we can easily observe that they do get the plane into the air and keep it there until we desire they don’t far more often than not, while with vaccines we are now learning that we have been lied to for generations, they not only do not have they same level of proof they work. In many cases, they never even bothered to collect any data with which to make comparisons on. If the great calling of medicine applied their level of due diligence to turbines, we’d have ancient versions of gas turbines that were prone to fly apart mid flight as often as not and the designers and builders of the turbines and NTSB would go after any who suggested it wasn’t gremlins at fault.
Thanks to Ingrid and yourself, I have finally been able to distill the problem I have with complaints of medicine being impart based upon theory rather than established fact. It’s not that a large part of the profession is based upon a theory, it’s that it’s based upon an untested theory or worse; the theory has been tested but the results which were horrible have been buried and lied about.
And there are things I think about all the time and question.
In terms of virology/vaccinology, I ask...well, maybe they haven't properly isolated a virus, but nonetheless, the process wherein vaccines are created works because although viruses cannot be seen, the theory that they do work holds true in practice.
It does make sense at first glance that infected samples should have something in them that are diseased. That the process of symptomatic coughing and sneezing is the body rejecting whatever foreign pathogen is within it.
It doesn't, though. Smallpox cases still continued in spite of the vaccine. The early polio vaccine actually increased the number of polio cases earlier on.
As in, they take an infected sample, and from that sample they create a solution that includes either an alleged inert virus or something that will "educate" the immune system to provide an immune response to it. And so when actually exposed to the real unidentified agent of transmission and infection, the immune system mounts the previous response to it and thus mitigates damage.
But the reality is much more complex than that.
I wish you a good fourth even in your area of the world!
True and a good point. However, with the LP liquid nitrogen/ liquid oxygen producer, it is closer to the hypothetical you give than most will believe. The makers have a guess how a certain function works, it does not make sense given the state of human knowledge but it is all we are left with, given that knowledge. I speak of how gaseous air cools other gaseous air in the heat exchanger that comes out liquid. If it were water, it would be like liquid water freezing water on the other side of the heat exchanger while remaining liquid.
The case you present, it actually works that when you take something down below it's boiling point, it liquified. The problem with viruses and vaccines, is that you can create theories all you want, but what if the results are uneven or could have other answers to them than "transmission" and "infection?"
In 1918 during the time of the Spanish flu, they actually conducted studies concerning flu transmission on the Gallop Islands. The results were that of the volunteers who were subjected to modalities of infection, none of the 18-25 year old volunteers got sick.
Try this, before you (or your child) is vaccinated, place a bet. How? Insurance is basically a bet. Try to buy an insurance policy for a nice round number, let's say one million dollars, against dying within 10 days of the vaccine, or perhaps 100,000 against getting the disease within 10 years. Choose your preferred option and format. The price of the insurance would give you the risk level, in real dollar terms. There's just one problem. No insurance company, and no betting agency will give you a quote. They don't dare. Safe and effective is a great marketing strategy, has great sizzle, but buying the steak is impossible.
infact Bechamp came first with his theory, he talked about little particles, and Pasteur, not knowing what he was talking about, jumped to the occasion and now there we stand, Pasteur all over the place and no none knows Bechamp - or certainly not many. His books are still available but the one I bought is barely readably in 200 year old language and medical terminology (which I never studied).
I am not on the Fakebook nor on the Xrays, so I won't see you there.
It's a good impulse to not spend time on social media. It is quite disappointing.
Bacteria can be seen and watched. Just because virus theory may be bunk, that does not necessarily mean that germ theory is.
as long as people treat a theory as a theory it is okay - but until proven no one knows for sure. The only thing I know is, that there are illnesses that jump from one person to another (ex came home sick and I got it a few hours later too, happened a few times) and others do not (worked at a house with all sick people and did not get it, embraced sick people but did not get it). Those are facts because they happened to me. What happens to mice in labs is not my thing.
I am with you, think whatever you want to think as long as you are not telling me to perform any medical intervention based on it. And if you are going to show me what happened to mice in a lab, you better have pretty darn convincing evidence if you are going to make public proclamations of policy.
There are many things in common use that we only have theories on how they work, like turbines. Steam turbines have been around for a very long time but we learned turbine theory in basic ship propulsion school. There is other equipment too that we know even less about but still get it to do its thing. I am not as bothered by theories being used as they are.
I too have similar experience with being around ill people and sometimes catching it too and most times not. This reality may not necessarily be countered to germ or virus theory as the general health of the people involved may account for these outcomes. It also may not be why, but it could be. Mandating shots over any of this though, is another kettle of fish, one that more people are rightfully questioning.
That's true, but at the same time, with a steam turbine, we at least know that it is heated water that is responsible for making the turbine move. We also know what works and does not work. We know how much temperature metal can withstand.
There were probably many hours of trial and error to figure out the most efficient configuration of the turbine blades. And still there are times when engineers and workers are at a loss of why it stops working. Some unknown condition that has bottlenecked the works.
But what if the turbine just "ran" and no one knew why, or it stopped running and no one knew why and told you it was invisible particles that stopped it from running. And then on top of that, they stated that in order to counter the invisible particles from ruining the engine each member of the crew had to get up and walk ten minutes counterclockwise in a circle every six hours. Or that, in order to get the turbine to work again, they had to inject it with an experimental lubricant or additive to destroy the invisible particles.
I wasn’t going to add this but on further thought, I think it might add to the discussion. Also let me add, I do so only to add depth to our discussion, not as a counter to your comments. It’s not just steam turbines; gas, air and to lesser extent, water as water cannot be compressed are designed based upon turbine theory. The theory evolved from observing steam turbines work was later applied to other types without complete knowledge of how the first actually works.
The difference between air travel with gas turbines of which our knowledge of how they work it not complete and vaccines is that with the former, we can easily observe that they do get the plane into the air and keep it there until we desire they don’t far more often than not, while with vaccines we are now learning that we have been lied to for generations, they not only do not have they same level of proof they work. In many cases, they never even bothered to collect any data with which to make comparisons on. If the great calling of medicine applied their level of due diligence to turbines, we’d have ancient versions of gas turbines that were prone to fly apart mid flight as often as not and the designers and builders of the turbines and NTSB would go after any who suggested it wasn’t gremlins at fault.
Thanks to Ingrid and yourself, I have finally been able to distill the problem I have with complaints of medicine being impart based upon theory rather than established fact. It’s not that a large part of the profession is based upon a theory, it’s that it’s based upon an untested theory or worse; the theory has been tested but the results which were horrible have been buried and lied about.
Thanks for adding to the discussion.
And there are things I think about all the time and question.
In terms of virology/vaccinology, I ask...well, maybe they haven't properly isolated a virus, but nonetheless, the process wherein vaccines are created works because although viruses cannot be seen, the theory that they do work holds true in practice.
It does make sense at first glance that infected samples should have something in them that are diseased. That the process of symptomatic coughing and sneezing is the body rejecting whatever foreign pathogen is within it.
It doesn't, though. Smallpox cases still continued in spite of the vaccine. The early polio vaccine actually increased the number of polio cases earlier on.
As in, they take an infected sample, and from that sample they create a solution that includes either an alleged inert virus or something that will "educate" the immune system to provide an immune response to it. And so when actually exposed to the real unidentified agent of transmission and infection, the immune system mounts the previous response to it and thus mitigates damage.
But the reality is much more complex than that.
I wish you a good fourth even in your area of the world!
True and a good point. However, with the LP liquid nitrogen/ liquid oxygen producer, it is closer to the hypothetical you give than most will believe. The makers have a guess how a certain function works, it does not make sense given the state of human knowledge but it is all we are left with, given that knowledge. I speak of how gaseous air cools other gaseous air in the heat exchanger that comes out liquid. If it were water, it would be like liquid water freezing water on the other side of the heat exchanger while remaining liquid.
However, this is not with the human body.
The case you present, it actually works that when you take something down below it's boiling point, it liquified. The problem with viruses and vaccines, is that you can create theories all you want, but what if the results are uneven or could have other answers to them than "transmission" and "infection?"
In 1918 during the time of the Spanish flu, they actually conducted studies concerning flu transmission on the Gallop Islands. The results were that of the volunteers who were subjected to modalities of infection, none of the 18-25 year old volunteers got sick.
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/no-flu-no-proof-rosenaus-1918-challenge?utm_source=publication-search
I have long used a pic from outbreak to show what is necessary to protect against a virus. Have yet to be successful.
If Covid were truly dangerous, we would have all invested in creating a clean room and getting a moon suit.
Or be pushing up daisies.
Jimmy -- send me an email, please.
Try this, before you (or your child) is vaccinated, place a bet. How? Insurance is basically a bet. Try to buy an insurance policy for a nice round number, let's say one million dollars, against dying within 10 days of the vaccine, or perhaps 100,000 against getting the disease within 10 years. Choose your preferred option and format. The price of the insurance would give you the risk level, in real dollar terms. There's just one problem. No insurance company, and no betting agency will give you a quote. They don't dare. Safe and effective is a great marketing strategy, has great sizzle, but buying the steak is impossible.