Thread by @PerpetualValue

we are now almost 1,5 year into this madness.

In my opinion there's enough evidence by now that non-pharmaceutical interventions don't really have effect. masks, lockdowns, excessive cleaning, etc.

Reducing human contact seems so logical,
but doesn't seem to work.

Time to rethink virology

There can be 2 (or more) reasons for that:
- Transmission is mostly by the very infectious (and thus with significant symptoms). They stay at home anyway.
- Terrain theory. We create the virus from within. They're exosomes with a corresponding RNA code

Virology is based on many assumptions.
Never has a virus been completely purely isolated w/o other genetic material.
Is virology as we know it actually based on the correct assumptions?
If it is, why don't these measures help?
Is human to human transmission actually proven?

https://twitter.com/FrankfurtZack/status/1372985292785917952

How did the Spanish flu spread so quickly over continents IF it was based on human-to-human transmission and with only having horse and boat as transportation options?

Are there many things we simply don't know and assume wrongly at the moment?

virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…

Similar studies by Beare et al on other H1N1 viruses found 46 of 55 directly inoculated volunteers failed to develop constitutional symptoms [6].

If influenza is highly infectious, why doesn't direct inoculation of a novel virus cause universal illness in seronegative volunteers?

that's about the same amount of people that would not be infected by Influenza in a typical Influenza season relatively

Given that influenza vaccinations increase adaptive immunity, why don't epidemiological studies show increasing vaccination rates are translating into decreasing illness?

Two of the three most recent reviews about the epidemiology of influenza state it is "generally accepted" that influenza is highly infectious and repeatedly transmitted from the sick to the well, but none give references documenting such transmission [11–13]

However, according to Jordan's frightening monograph on the 1918 pandemic, there were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the pandemic and all were "singularly fruitless" [19]. (p. 441)

Jordan reports that all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients [51–55].

In 1919 – in a series of experiments – he and six colleagues at the U.S. Public Health Service attempted to infect 100 "volunteers obtained from the Navy." He reports all volunteers were "of the most susceptible age," and none reported influenza symptoms in 1918.

That is, "from the most careful histories that we could elicit, they gave no account of a febrile attack of any kind," during the previous year

Obviously, another explanation is that sick-to-well transmission is not the usual mode of contagion.

The airline study, like other naturalistic studies, is very suggestive of a common source and aerosol transmission, but offers no proof that the common source was the suspected index case, other than the logic that if A preceded B then A must have caused B.

However, they were unable to get the newly sickened mice to transmit, that is, instigate a chain of transmission from sick to well mice.

8.

Why does experimental inoculation of seronegative humans fail to cause consistent illness?

If influenza is highly infectious, one would expect most, if not all, human volunteers iatrogenically inoculated with a novel virus to fall ill. Although the rate of illness depends

on the virus used and the dose of the inoculum, variations in the innate immunity of the volunteers also explain such variable illness response. We propose individual variations in 25(OH)D levels explain some degree of the variations in illness response.

is virology the correct 'science'?
is it based on the correct assumptions?
How does the illness develop?
Does it actually transmit from human to human?
are there actually many things we don't know?

All these observations can be explained by the Terrain Theory (exosomes) as explained by Bechamp in contrast to the Germ Theory (virus) by Pasteur.

amazon.com/Bechamp-Pasteu…

Pasteur allegedly on deathbed:

“The Microbe is Nothing. The Terrain is Everything.”

When can we break down all the assumptions that we have about virology and start discussing based on a disconditioned belief system?

When I look to both theories, I have to admit that Terrain Theory sounds much more logical.

Do radiomagnetic waves have influence on our health?

A book that is high on my to-read list: "The Invisble Rainbow"

amazon.com/Invisible-Rain…

work on your health by:
- exercise
- reduce stress (fear)
- healthy diet
- reduce toxins (GMO food etc.)
- reduce electromagnetic waves
- maintain healthy relationships
- being in a natural environment

Let's discuss.

The Germ Theory is ideal for pharmaceutical companies:
Disease -> 'virus' -> 'cure'

Shouldn't we clean the septic tanks instead of 'curing' the fish?

What do you think?
Germ Theory or Terrain Theory?

@patricksavalle