Vaccines are a scam

Akhenaten

Well, I know the truth and millions of other well read and informed people know the truth. But, can we can do anything about it is a matter which is the most difficult.
The newspapers won't publish it because they are being paid by the pharmaceutical companies not to publish such information. The same goes for radio and T.V.
If you ring up a radio station and tell them you disagree with vaccination they will cut you off or shout out some insult at you.

MayCaesar

@Akhenaten

This is not what I was asking. I was asking what prevents anyone from funding their own research and confirming your claims. It is not too hard nowadays to publish any research on the Internet. You can submit almost anything on ArXiv, for example, that satisfies certain formatting standards. Yet there are no such papers anywhere, and even you cannot find one, no matter how hard you try.

Akhenaten

These organisations are funded by pharmaceutical companies which filter out things that they don't want published. I know, I have tried many times before. Thus, that's the mechanism. It's called filtering.

Dee

@Akhenaten

You say .....Talk back radio represents the real world.

My reply ....Really? So conspiracy talk in shows represent you .....interesting 

You say .....Which world do you represent?

My reply ....I represent myself , you seem to want to represent everyone 

Akhenaten

@Dee

Generalisations are worst than useless and you keep generalising all the time. So what does that tell us about you? lol

MayCaesar

@Akhenaten

All of them? Every single one? Including non-profit and home-made ones?

Please.

Akhenaten

The pharmaceutical industry leaves nothing to chance and covers all possible angles of exposure. They even funded Adolf Hitler because of their diligence in looking after civilisation. lol

Dee

@Akhenaten

You say ......Generalizations are worst than useless and you keep generalising all the time. 

My reply .....You obviously do not understand what the term means let me help .......

generalization

/dʒɛn(ə)rəlʌɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

noun: generalisation

1. a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases."he was making sweeping generalizations"

You said ......Talk back radio represents the real world. 

My reply ......Proof that you’re the one generalizing not I , as I said I represent no one but myself that’s the opposite of generalization, do try and keep up .....LOL 

Akhenaten

The only thing worst than a generalisation is a person who uses themselves as the only witness. rofl

Dee

@Akhenaten

You say ......The only thing worst than a generalization 

My reply .....Ahhh there’s something worse than you generalizing 

You say ......is a person who uses themselves as the only witness. rofl

My reply .....Witness to what exactly?  I don’t think you even know what you’re saying anymore,  everything you’ve said so far has being void of implication I can not see that improving in the near future......maybe it’s time for you to get back to your weekly conspiracy theory meet up?

Akhenaten

I think you should take up baking scones in your spare time debating is too difficult for you.

Dee

You say .....I think you should take up baking scones in your spare time

My reply .....Actually that suggestion would not go amiss on yourself it would give you a break  from the You Tube conspiracy channel  

You say ......debating is too difficult for you.

My reply .....It’s actually not ,  my interactions here with most will readily testify to that. You on the other hand don’t debate you merely make childish assertions based on nothing but opinion pieces.  I treat cranks and crackpots like you as the intellectual inferiors yous are 

MayCaesar

@Akhenaten

I see... Funding every single person in the world who has ever tried making a website is powerful, indeed. Any evidence to back it up, or are you just putting out your fantasies?

And what is with the "lol"s and "rofl"s at the end of most of your posts? Cannot stop laughing over your ideas?

Akhenaten

@whiteflame

1. http://theconversation.com/whats-killing-tassie-devils-if-it-isnt-a-contagious-cancer-32318

This article shows that the Tasmanian Devil population in Tasmania is threatened by a 'cancer'. This 'cancer' is said to be 'contagious'.
Note - Cancer has never been known to be contagious except for this case apparently.
Note - Tasmanian forestry uses many different chemicals to keep down foraging pests (animals) which damage young plants. They use Atrazine, 1080, fire retardants and plant defoliants.
The Tasmanian Devils are a carnivorous top of the chain predators. Thus, they will eat any small dead animal that may have been poisoned by 1080 baits. They also forage through contaminated grasslands which have been sprayed with Atrazine.  Thus, you can safely say that the cancer theory is total nonsense and is just a typical way that the pharmaceutical industry covers their tracks by creating diversions and red herrings.

2. Quote - " if anyone ever discovered such a thing were true, they could sue.  Why aren't they? "
and they do indeed..............
Medical journal extract -
By the time doctors are 65 years old, 75% who practice in a low-risk speciality will be sued, and 99% who practice in a high-risk speciality will be sued. And, in the U.S. alone, more than 17,000 malpractice suits are filed every year. Some types of doctors are more likely to be sued.

3. Quote -"I don't think any doctor worth their salt is ignoring this." (gut bacteria)

I have been to dozens of medical specialists and general GPs and I am still waiting for one of them to mention either diet or gut bacteria as being the cause of any of my previous problems. I have never  ever heard of any doctor mentioning diet as a cause of disease.  Note - They would be immediately deregistered if the pharmaceutical companies got wind of it. in fact, doctors are regularly tested with fake patients to see if they are system compliant.

4. Quote - " It does not and cannot identify the cause of illness ("leakiness" isn't a cause), and homogenizes a population of patients under a single heading with no purpose or value."

Reply - If you eat inappropriate foods which cause your gut to leak then the inappropriate food is the cause and leaky gut syndrome is the result. This allows gut bacteria and faecal material to enter the blood stream. Thus, you are just being pedantic and tricky by saying that leaky gut syndrome is not a cause of anything. You are just playing with words to avoid the obvious truth which is that most disease is caused by a leaky gut and not by exterior bacteria which infect through contact.
Note - Exterior bacteria have to get past the skin layer and the digestive system which is just about impossible to do. Thus, the germ theory of external origin is a total nonsense and is illogical. Whereas, the interior gut bacteria are already inside the body and only need the gut lining to open a little and they are already in the blood stream. This is far more logical.

5. Quote - "However, it's your argument that diet is responsible for pretty much every form of illness, including everything that is transmissible and every disease that has nothing to do with the gut. "

The gut is the doorway to the whole body. Thus, if something gets in through the door the whole body will be affected to some extent. Thus, a leaky gut will allow poisonous substances to flow throughout the body causing any number of disease conditions depending on what kind of inappropriate food the person was eating. Thus, people who drink Coca Cola every day usually end up with a bad liver and become diabetic. I know because I used to work in the soft drink business and I personally seen the results of people who drank Coca Cola to excess.

6. Measles

http://www.vaclib.org/intro/measles-intro.htm

This site comprehensively shows the scams and misinformation involved with detecting, recording and diagnosing measles. The medical system does tell the public all the facts and filters out things that would give vaccination a bad reputation.

The standard ingredients of MMR vaccine are: chick embryo cell culture (decaying), human diploid lung fibroblasts, salt, amino acids, fetal bovine serum, sucrose, sodium phosphate, glutamate, recombinant human albumin, neomycin, sorbitol and hydrolyzed gelatin.
I don't see anything in here which would enhance the integrity of the human body system. These dangerous chemical and substances would be injected directly into the blood stream bypassing the digestive system.
Note - Bypassing the digestive system is a very dangerous thing to do.

7. Pesticides cause nerve damage and stops ability to breathe. (iron lung - polio etc)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5484550/

whiteflame

@Akhenaten

1. I'll say up front that I don't know enough about the cancer spreading among the Tasmanian Devil population to adequately respond to the article, though I don't see a reason to do so. I can both recognize that symptoms like these could occur due to toxins in the environment and recognize that there are also infectious agents that are responsible for a great deal of disease, including among wild animals. Even if they're right, this single example doesn't prove your theory true. 

2. So, tell me: what are most of these doctors sued for? The term is malpractice, and when we use that term, it's usually because they screwed up. People make mistakes, and some doctors just aren't good doctors, so the numbers aren't shocking. Now, if you can present to me how many of these cases are coming from patients who have found that the entire doctoring profession is full of charlatans and that their treatments are all bunk, that would be interesting to see. 

3. You often do this. You speak from personal experience with your own doctors and treat them as representative of the entire profession. What if I told you that every doctor visit I've ever had has been accompanied by questions regarding my diet? Would that convince you that doctors do this? As for the deregistration argument... source? That sounds like to me.

4. The entirety of your argument for why leaky gut syndrome is a good designation is that we know precisely how to treat every single case. So, it's scientifically established which foods are "appropriate"? Oh, that's right, they don't exist because the bad pharma men are stopping everyone from publishing what would be ground-shattering claims that would upend the entire medical establishment. Given that, there are probably lots of interpretations regarding what is an appropriate diet, and therefore the treatment you suggest is largely based on how close they get to some unknown diet with their subjective understanding of what foods are good for you. Also, I had thought you were arguing before that the same symptoms could be caused by toxic chemicals going into the body, but if you want to drop that and say it's all inappropriate food, then let's see how well that holds up.

Someone with classic signs of cholera (usually rice water diarrhea) is going to require a very different treatment regimen from someone who has classic signs of hemolytic-uremic syndrome (often caused by a strain of E. coli). If the cause was the same, as you assert it is, then we should be able to resolve both with the treatment method, in this case shifting diets. In the former case, all that food will go straight through them. In the latter, they will likely be losing too much blood to care much about their dietary intake. And that's excluding a plethora of other diseases that manifest as a variety of very different symptoms and require a myriad of different treatments to save the patients. If you want to call this pedantic, go right ahead, but it's been your assertion (not mine) that leaky gut syndrome tells doctors something clearly useful that they should act upon immediately. However, if I treated hemolytic-uremic syndrome the same way I treat cholera (usually with an IV drip), both of which would fall under leaky gut syndrome, my patient would almost definitely die. If that's the case, how does a designation like this help in any form of treatment?

As for the note you appended here, it's just plain wrong. Cuts in our skin allow bacteria in without any fancy mechanisms on their part. Many external bacteria survive just fine in the human gut, and have all the appropriate mechanisms to destabilize the barrier between the gut and the bloodstream. Again, not that you believe in them or care, but these are the reality.

5. Your response here is confusing. To some degree, I agree that the gut is a doorway to the body, but largely because the bloodstream is right there. However, that's not the point I was making. A bacterium that can survive the environment in the gut won't necessarily do well in other parts of the body. There's no reason to believe that any organisms that can infect the brain are found in the gut, yet your argument assumes there must be. Once again, I will reiterate that the existence of poisonous and damaging substances is an entirely separate issue. Your argument here is that literally every infection that we as humans suffer comes from our own guts. Therefore, you should be able to find every single known pathogen in the human gut. I'd love to see your microbiome sequencing data.

6. That article on measles provides scant little in the way of scientific data to support any of its conclusions and often cites other articles on the site in an effort to prove its points, none of which suffice as evidence. You're welcome to claim it to be true in the same ways that they do, but both they and you are not going to make any headway if you don't have the studies to show we'd be better off without the measles vaccine. If you want to show that the way that health professionals handle vaccination and outbreaks is flawed, that's an entirely separate discussion because it doesn't show why the MMR vaccine is ineffective or damaging. On that front, it's interesting that you cite all the ingredients from the vaccine (I beg to differ on the state of the chicken embryo cell culture - saying it's decaying is entirely opinion) except the very first one that's listed on the Merck website they take their information from:

"M-M-R II is a sterile lyophilized preparation of (1) ATTENUVAX® (Measles Virus Vaccine Live), a more attenuated line of measles virus, derived from Enders' attenuated Edmonston strain"

https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

That's the ingredient that enhances the immune response to the virus because it, essentially, is the virus. If you want to claim that any of these other ingredients are dangerous, by all means, support your argument. 

7. Just because pesticides present similar symptoms to polio doesn't mean that all cases of polio were the result of pesticides. That's just another massive assertion.

Akhenaten

Gut bacteria 

More than 2,000 years ago, Hippocrates — the father of modern medicine — suggested that all disease begins in the gut.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/does-all-disease-begin-in-the-gut#endotoxemia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiota#Bacteria

It is estimated that 500 to 1,000 species of bacteria live in the human gut but belong to just a few phyla: Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes dominate but there are also Proteobacteria, Verrumicrobia, Actinobacteria, Fusobacteria and Cyanobacteria


Quote - "However, if I treated hemolytic-uremic syndrome the same way I treat cholera (usually with an IV drip), both of which would fall under leaky gut syndrome, my patient would almost definitely die. If that's the case, how does a designation like this help in any form of treatment?"

Reply - Both of these problems are from contaminated water or food. The best solution for both of these problems would be to flush out the large intestine with water. (enema)
Usually occurs in places where there is no good clean water supply or the people aren't educated in personal hygiene. 

Your  MMR vaccine website has all the same ingredients so I don't know why you showed it.

Quote - "There's no reason to believe that any organisms that can infect the brain are found in the gut, yet your argument assumes there must be."

Reply - Leaky gut syndrome will allow all kinds of faecal material to enter the blood stream. If you eat dairy foods you may get a blockage in the brain from casein build up or an inflammation from eating grain food.  

whiteflame

@Akhenaten

You know, for someone who keeps saying that all medical techniques are based on extremely old and outdated information, it's strange that you would point back to someone from 2,000 years ago as a viable source. Nice bit of hypocrisy there.

Yes, the gut is very diverse. There are lots of organisms that live there. However, and I'll state this again, that does not mean that the gut is the source of literally every microbe that ever does harm to humans. Pointing out their great diversity doesn't prove your point, all it does is beg the question of why other organisms that also harm humans aren't found in the gut. You want me to give you a list? It's a long one, and there are plenty of bacteria on it.

As for your response on my two examples...

First off, you're likely going to kill both patients by treating them solely with an enema. Both of these patients are losing lots of water rapidly, and "flushing" their large intestines will only add to the loss because that's where it's coming out of. Simply adding to the flow doesn't stem it, and it certainly does nothing for patients experiencing blood loss and damage to their intestines, particularly in the case of hemolytic-uremic syndrome.

Second, you're missing my point. These are two extremely different presentations of gut disease requiring that we look for different symptoms. Both patients will have diarrhea, but they will not have the same look. If that's the case, tell me: why is a diagnosis like "leaky gut syndrome" helpful? It would have to span such a wide range of disease symptoms that it's absurd.

As for the MMR vaccine, you were the one who stated, and I quote: "I don't see anything in here which would enhance the integrity of the human body system." You left out the attenuated virus, which is what stimulates the immune response. So, yes, it had the same ingredients (barring your addendum), but you left out the most important one.

Finally, and I'll re-iterate this, your argument still doesn't account for organisms that cannot survive in the gut. Dairy-based organisms can (though you're absolutely wrong that casein causes "brain blockage" and grain causes inflammation), but your argument relies on diet being the sole source of all things bacterial that enter our bodies. Blood-borne infections can occur after someone gets a cut and does not clean or cover the wound. Hell, gaseous gangrene is almost entirely the result of this, and was responsible for a lot of lost limbs before we could effectively treat the bacterial infections. How do you explain the fact that it was much more common among patients who had been injured at the sites where the infection was occurring?

Akhenaten

@whiteflame

Gluten and casein damage to the brain by Kelly Brogan MD.

https://kellybroganmd.com/two-foods-may-sabotage-brain/

Thus, we can see that dairy and grain are the main cause of brain disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar, anxiety, depression, autistic and Alzheimer's disease.
How many viruses and germs cause these problems? Answer - None. 

Dr Mercola on good and bad bacteria.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/10/bad-bacteria-gut.aspx

If somebody has blood in their intestine it means that this person has been vitamin deficient for a long period of time. A lack of vitamin C will cause the skin and blood vessels to rupture and crack. Eating grain will also damage the intestinal tract because grain contains microscopic shards which can perforate the intestinal wall.

Dr Eric Berg DC on leaky gut syndrome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_TZbz16C-U&t=5s

Gangrene 

Caused by too much sugar, grain and dairy in the diet or any other unnatural substance which causes blocking and/or inflammation.

whiteflame

@Akhenaten

...None of these sources prove your points. I'll commend you on picking sources that actually cite scientific literature (albeit infrequently, more often self-citing or citing someone else on the same site), but none of these are proof of your claims. All you've done is present doctors making the same claims you're making with only the smallest degree of support. The first points to papers that dance around the issue, mainly pointing to patients with celiac disease and pointing out problems that come with the inability to digest gluten and casein. That's not proof that either of these cause damage to the brain, though several of the papers cited do point out that there's a lot of neurological tissue in the gut that can be disrupted by them if they aren't properly broken down. That can have neurological effects, though again, your claim was that this directly affects the brain.

The second points to problems that occur in the absence of good microbes, which I generally agree with. There's nothing wrong with this article, except if you assume that this is the sole possible means by which disease occurs in the human body. I don't think this asserts that anywhere, yet you are.

And that last video... wow, you should really check these. First off, he talks about IBS, Crohn's and vitamin deficiency entirely separately from leaky gut, so he clearly recognizes that leaky gut stands as a pretty bad way to characterize all gut distress. Second, he talks about viruses causing damage to the gut. Clearly, he has not read your gospel. Not that he's a particularly good source in the first place because all he's doing is giving a short primer on how damage to the gut occurs and what possible recourse we have. He doesn't state that diet is the only way to affect this, and he doesn't spurn modern medicinal interventions.

The rest of this post amounts to assertions on your part. You know the cause of blood in the intestine because... reasons. You know that gaseous gangrene is caused by diet because... reasons. You provide no citations for those claims, and the latter is just flagrantly wrong. If it was correct, it wouldn't have been a common problem among victims of injury during our extensive history of warfare. If you want a list of viruses and bacteria that are known to be associated with psychological disorders, I can give it to you, though I doubt you'd care in the slightest. You don't seem interested in anything that doesn't match your view of how the world works.

Akhenaten

You don't seem to understand basic principles like the how the brain originally developed. The brain was originally just a long gut which kept folding in on itself and became specialised as a nerve centre. Thus, when you say that whatever happens in the gut is separate to what happens in the brain is enough to make a person laugh. This is because you don't understand that the brain is just an added appendage of the gut. 

Koch's postulates

Koch’s postulates:

1. The organism must be regularly associated with the disease and its characteristic lesions.
2. The organism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in culture.
3. The disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the organism is introduced into a healthy, susceptible host.
4. The same organism must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host.

The fact that disease germs have failed to successfully satisfy all of Koch's postulates suggests that germs/viruses are not the cause of disease.
For viruses, Koch's 3rd postulate has been ever been successfully achieved or attempted because viruses simply don't exist.
There is nothing wrong with Koch's postulates. They are a perfectly sound system of deriving at a logical and truthful analysis of whether germs do or do not cause disease.
Unfortunately, repeated tested has failed to prove that germs do cause disease. Thus, we can only conclude that germs don't cause disease due to this inability to completely satisfy Koch's postulates.

The electron microscope
The limitations of the electron microscope which can only photograph dead specimens means that the medical system doesn't really know if a virus is dead or alive. This means, from a logical point of view, that saying that a virus is alive or dead is impossible. Thus, the science world can never confirm that any given virus is alive or ever will be alive in the future. The concept that viruses only come to life when they are inside a living cell is just guess work at best and has no logical reasoning behind it. Nobody has ever seen or witnessed a living virus. It is just a theoretical hypothesis that has never been proven and can never be proved due to it's small size and inaccessibility. This has all been carefully worked out by the medical establishment though. They know that the general public have no access to electron microscopes and lab equipment. Thus, they feel that their little secret is safe.

Akhenaten

You don't seem to understand basic principles like the how the brain originally developed. The brain was originally just a long gut which kept folding in on itself and became specialised as a nerve centre. Thus, when you say that whatever happens in the gut is separate to what happens in the brain is enough to make a person laugh. This is because you don't understand that the brain is just an added appendage of the gut. 

Koch's postulates

Koch’s postulates:

1. The organism must be regularly associated with the disease and its characteristic lesions.
2. The organism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in culture.
3. The disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the organism is introduced into a healthy, susceptible host.
4. The same organism must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host.

The fact that disease germs have failed to successfully satisfy all of Koch's postulates suggests that germs/viruses are not the cause of disease.
For viruses, Koch's 3rd postulate has been ever been successfully achieved or attempted because viruses simply don't exist.
There is nothing wrong with Koch's postulates. They are a perfectly sound system of deriving at a logical and truthful analysis of whether germs do or do not cause disease.
Unfortunately, repeated tested has failed to prove that germs do cause disease. Thus, we can only conclude that germs don't cause disease due to this inability to completely satisfy Koch's postulates.

The electron microscope
The limitations of the electron microscope which can only photograph dead specimens means that the medical system doesn't really know if a virus is dead or alive. This means, from a logical point of view, that saying that a virus is alive or dead is impossible. Thus, the science world can never confirm that any given virus is alive or ever will be alive in the future. The concept that viruses only come to life when they are inside a living cell is just guess work at best and has no logical reasoning behind it. Nobody has ever seen or witnessed a living virus. It is just a theoretical hypothesis that has never been proven and can never be proved due to it's small size and inaccessibility. This has all been carefully worked out by the medical establishment though. They know that the general public have no access to electron microscopes and lab equipment. Thus, they feel that their little secret is safe.

Akhenaten

You don't seem to understand basic principles like the how the brain originally developed. The brain was originally just a long gut which kept folding in on itself and became specialised as a nerve centre. Thus, when you say that whatever happens in the gut is separate to what happens in the brain is enough to make a person laugh. This is because you don't understand that the brain is just an added appendage of the gut. 

Koch’s postulates:

1. The organism must be regularly associated with the disease and its characteristic lesions.
2. The organism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in culture.
3. The disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the organism is introduced into a healthy, susceptible host.
4. The same organism must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host.

The fact that disease germs have failed to successfully satisfy all of Koch's postulates suggests that germs/viruses are not the cause of disease.
For viruses, Koch's 3rd postulate has been ever been successfully achieved or attempted because viruses simply don't exist.
There is nothing wrong with Koch's postulates. They are a perfectly sound system of deriving at a logical and truthful analysis of whether germs do or do not cause disease.
Unfortunately, repeated tested has failed to prove that germs do cause disease. Thus, we can only conclude that germs don't cause disease due to this inability to completely satisfy Koch's postulates.

The electron microscope
The limitations of the electron microscope which can only photograph dead specimens means that the medical system doesn't really know if a virus is dead or alive. This means, from a logical point of view, that saying that a virus is alive or dead is impossible. Thus, the science world can never confirm that any given virus is alive or ever will be alive in the future. The concept that viruses only come to life when they are inside a living cell is just guess work at best and has no logical reasoning behind it. Nobody has ever seen or witnessed a living virus. It is just a theoretical hypothesis that has never been proven and can never be proved due to it's small size and inaccessibility. This has all been carefully worked out by the medical establishment though. They know that the general public have no access to electron microscopes and lab equipment. Thus, they feel that their little secret is safe.

Akhenaten

You don't seem to understand basic principles like the how the brain originally developed. The brain was originally just a long gut which kept folding in on itself and became specialised as a nerve centre. Thus, when you say that whatever happens in the gut is separate to what happens in the brain is enough to make a person laugh. This is because you don't understand that the brain is just an added appendage of the gut. 

Koch’s postulates:

1. The organism must be regularly associated with the disease and its characteristic lesions.
2. The organism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in culture.
3. The disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the organism is introduced into a healthy, susceptible host.
4. The same organism must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host.

The fact that disease germs have failed to successfully satisfy all of Koch's postulates suggests that germs/viruses are not the cause of disease.
For viruses, Koch's 3rd postulate has been ever been successfully achieved or attempted because viruses simply don't exist.
There is nothing wrong with Koch's postulates. They are a perfectly sound system of deriving at a logical and truthful analysis of whether germs do or do not cause disease.
Unfortunately, repeated testing has failed to prove that germs do cause disease. Thus, we can only conclude that germs don't cause disease due to this inability to completely satisfy Koch's postulates.

The electron microscope.
The limitations of the electron microscope which can only photograph dead specimens means that the medical system doesn't really know if a virus is dead or alive. This means, from a logical point of view, that saying that a virus is alive or dead is impossible. Thus, the science world can never confirm that any given virus is alive or ever will be alive in the future. The concept that viruses only come to life when they are inside a living cell is just guess work at best and has no logical reasoning behind it. Nobody has ever seen or witnessed a living virus. It is just a theoretical hypothesis that has never been proven and can never be proved due to it's small size and inaccessibility. This has all been carefully worked out by the medical establishment though. They know that the general public have no access to electron microscopes and lab equipment. Thus, they feel that their little secret is safe.

Akhenaten

You don't seem to understand basic principles like the how the brain originally developed. The brain was originally just a long gut which kept folding in on itself and became specialised as a nerve centre. Thus, when you say that whatever happens in the gut is separate to what happens in the brain is enough to make a person laugh. This is because you don't understand that the brain is just an added appendage of the gut. 

Koch’s postulates:

1. The organism must be regularly associated with the disease and its characteristic lesions.
2. The organism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in culture.
3. The disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the organism is introduced into a healthy, susceptible host.
4. The same organism must be re-isolated from the experimentally infected host.

The fact that disease germs have failed to successfully satisfy all of Koch's postulates suggests that germs/viruses are not the cause of disease.
For viruses, Koch's 3rd postulate has been ever been successfully achieved or attempted because viruses simply don't exist.
There is nothing wrong with Koch's postulates. They are a perfectly sound system of deriving at a logical and truthful analysis of whether germs do or do not cause disease.
Unfortunately, repeated tested has failed to prove that germs do cause disease. Thus, we can only conclude that germs don't cause disease due to this inability to completely satisfy Koch's postulates.

The electron microscope.
The limitations of the electron microscope which can only photograph dead specimens means that the medical system doesn't really know if a virus is dead or alive. This means, from a logical point of view, that saying that a virus is alive or dead is impossible. Thus, the science world can never confirm that any given virus is alive or ever will be alive in the future. The concept that viruses only come to life when they are inside a living cell is just guess work at best and has no logical reasoning behind it. Nobody has ever seen or witnessed a living virus. It is just a theoretical hypothesis that has never been proven and can never be proved due to it's small size and inaccessibility. This has all been carefully worked out by the medical establishment though. They know that the general public have no access to electron microscopes and lab equipment. Thus, they feel that their little secret is safe.

whiteflame

@Akhenaten

The entirety of that first paragraph is conjecture. If you want to actually show evidence of it instead of just making massive claims about the origins of specific tissues, be my guest. I'm not responding to something that doesn't warrant anything more than this.

All of Koch's postulates have been satisfied by numerous bacteria, viruses and fungi. Viruses are actually among the clearest because they're very easy to purify away from every bit of living tissue, and thus #3 has been proven time and time again for numerous viruses. Hell, I've fulfilled Koch's postulates with my own organism and my own virus:

1. It consistently produces the same disease symptoms on the same plants
2. It can consistently be isolated from the host and grown in a plant tissue culture
3. I can ultracentrifuge my virus through a sucrose cushion (excluding exogenous RNA and DNA), resuspend the pellet, rub it on a plant, and reproduce the same symptoms in distal leaves
4. I can repeat the isolation process with these plants

I don't know where these assertions are coming from, but just because you claim something to be false doesn't mean it is false. 

Similarly, you keep asserting how the electron microscope is limited. Yes, it can only photograph dead specimens. That's not the reason we can't know if a virus is dead or alive - the definition of life that we consistently use doesn't quite match viruses, though again, that's up for debate. I know I've said this before, and you just brushed it off, but regardless of whether a virus is considered alive or dead, it does not go through stages of life and death based on its entry into a living cell. Either it is alive inside and outside of the cell, and is merely inactive outside of the cell (like a spore), or it is not alive both inside and outside the cell, and merely becomes active (like a machine given a source of electricity) inside the cell. The question of whether it's alive is entirely philosophical - it has nothing to do with the inherent logic regarding the existence of viruses. However, I think the underlying assumption that you have to see an organism alive and active in order to know that it's alive is flawed. If we find a dead organism that has never been seen in the wild, we can still say that it was once alive based on its characteristics. The current status of the organism doesn't obviate its history.

As for your final claim, I guess you would say that I'm part of that "medical establishment", then? I've used an electron microscope. I've taken images of the virus I'm researching. It has absolutely no effect on public health, as it solely infects plants. So, tell me: who am I trying to fool and why am I trying to fool them? And, please, don't tell me it's the people who pay for my work to continue or who will review the papers I produce. They have electron microscopes, too.

AmericanFurryBoy

If you say that “germs are the result not the cause” then what is the cause? Ya, because Ebola is caused by some f*cking grass allergies

Akhenaten

@whiteflame

The brain gut connection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oym87kVhqm4

Dr Amandha Vollmer BSc on vaccination

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj6pw6Jx2-M&t=5867s

Vitamin deficiency causes disease with Dr Daniel Nuzum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75ne1AVkzM

Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEj81aMh7q4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCCugkznIs4&t=4s

Modern medicine is a male dominated approach which sees germs as the enemy which need to be killed. This is an aggressive male response to a threat. They fail to see that the germs are not the enemy.
The real enemy is the wrong food that people eat which creates a bad environment in which bad bacteria thrive and escape through a leaky and damaged gut into the blood supply. Thus, there is no need to study about germs because germs are not the problem. The average human breathes in 14, 000 germs in an hour but none of these germs do any harm. This is because germs are harmless until you eat something unnatural which causes the bad germs to multiply. 

Akhenaten

@AmericanFurryBoy

Ebola is caused by pesticides as is polio and Zika 'viruses'. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EtxYxEKww

Akhenaten

@AmericanFurryBoy

Ebola is caused by pesticides as is polio and Zika 'viruses'. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EtxYxEKww

Akhenaten

@AmericanFurryBoy

Ebola is caused by pesticides, as is polio and Zika 'viruses'. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EtxYxEKww

Akhenaten

@AmericanFurryBoy

Ebola is caused by pesticides, as is polio and Zika 'viruses'. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EtxYxEKww

Akhenaten

@AmericanFurryBoy

Ebola is caused by pesticides, as is polio and Zika viruses. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EtxYxEKww

AmericanFurryBoy

@Akhenaten
Yeah because a Random YT video is totally credible. Please, do yourself a favor and get a credible source

Akhenaten

It's a government archive film. It doesn't get any more official than that. I am sorry that I have not reached your impossible standards of excellence. lol

whiteflame

@Akhenaten

Look, it's clear that you don't have anything new to add to this discussion. All you want to do is let others do the talking for you, and they're not even on the same page as you. You keep grabbing your claims from people who disagree with you on the majority of your argument, as though you can cite them for one line said in passing while ignoring the rest of what they have to say. Several of these people acknowledge the existence of viruses, and none of them claims that all infections are derived from the gut. The first video doesn't match your claims about the brain being derived from the gut at all; the fact that they are connected by nervous tissue doesn't prove your point because that's true of literally every organ in our bodies.

If you want to go around making outrageous claims about some phantom "male approach" to disease, go right ahead. Go ahead and try to prove that all viruses are some massive conspiracy. You can't change reality just by spitting at it. 

Akhenaten

 @whiteflame

Quote -"If we find a dead organism that has never been seen in the wild, we can still say that it was once alive based on its characteristics. The current status of the organism doesn't obviate its history."

The point is that at least you seen something with the dead organism. On the other hand, with a virus, you see nothing because they don't exist. Note - You can't see something that doesn't exist. 
Let's face it. You work in the biology field, thus, you can't afford not to believe in viruses because you make a living out of them.
Thus, whatever you say is going to be very biased and one sided.
Thus, if viruses don't exist, then, your income and status won't exist either.
Therefore, you can't afford not to believe in them.

whiteflame

@Akhenaten

If you believe I’m fabricating every bit of data I get solely for the purpose of financing research that others have also fabricated, then no amount of proof will ever convince you. You want to talk about bias? What kind of bias goes into such an absolute statement about someone you do not know, whose research you cannot know? For that matter, what makes you so certain about this that you can dismiss decades of research from countless other scientists? Where do you check your bias?

IshaanKhalap

You continually claim that vaccinations have not eradicated any disease or viruses. Most people are not claiming that vaccinations will eradicate anything. The claim is that they stop you from getting the flu, for example. Which they do. 

Secondly, you say that people use vaccinations without really knowing how they work. This is false in itself. However just because people don’t know how something works, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work at all.

Thirdly, if you want evidence of people being more healthy with vaccines, there have been plenty of studies with evidence and conclusive data to confirm that vaccines work. The whole anti-vaccination ideology is causing the deaths of many children, and it is sad to think that so many people think this way. People who don’t vaccinate are honestly just population control.

Akhenaten

@IshaanKhalap

Disease is caused by inappropriate diet and not by germs. See my other debate - There is no such thing as a biological virus.
Note - It's the medical and food manufacturers that are the ones that are killing people prematurely.
Grain, sugar, dairy, fat and alcohol are all poisonous to humans and destroy the gut lining which allows bacteria and faecal material to enter the blood stream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_TZbz16C-U&t=43s

Polaris95

It's clear @Akhenaten isn't going to change his/her mind on this issue, so I find it futile trying to debate against years of indoctrination and brainwashing. If you're so far down the rabbit hole that you're deaf to logic and evidence, then there's no point trying to get you out. It's a waste of time and effort to debate this guy, since no matter what anyone says, no matter the evidence, his stubborn mindset is still going to persist unchanged.

Akhenaten

@Polaris95

This is a debate site. This is not a place where you air your prejudices and biases. If you have any evidence that disproves my opening statement, then show everybody what it is or keep quiet.