The "Virus" Concept | Viroliegy Newsletter

[Scott]

I started a thread at the end of last year called "Settling the Virus Debate". Some reading this may be familiar with it. If not and you're interested, it's here:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?197952-Settling-the-Biological-Virus-Debate

It petered out a few months ago. It may be that this subject is just one that no one else here wants to discuss anymore, but I thought that perhaps if I started a thread on the origins of the concept of a virus, which some may note rings eerily similar to the parable of the Emperor's New Clothes, this might get some interested in discussing it a bit more. So with that in mind, an excerpt from a recent post from a blogger who posts on the subject of viruses quite a bit...

**
When you can't find a culprit to blame, create one out of thin air.

Mike Stone

August 18, 2023

“You go through narrow-pored clay filters, which hold back all bacteria, easily pass through and you have they are not yet visible with the best microscopes, including the ultramicroscope can do. We must infer their existence because they represent various human, animal and plant diseases. It's a very special strange fact that we are dealing with these microorganisms that are completely invisible to us can operate in exactly the same way as with pure cultures of bacteria.”

-Robert Koch

https://tinyurl.com/yth9wx87

The above quote was taken from one of German bacteriologist Robert Koch's final speeches, the inaugural address at the Academy of Sciences on July 1, 1909. He passed away almost a year later on May 27th, 1910. At the time, Koch acknowledged his belief that there were entities that were invisible even under the best microscopes. As they were invisible and represented certain diseases, their existence had to be inferred from evidence that was similar to that seen in the studies on bacteria. In other words, if a bacterium was sought after and failed to be identified as the causative agent of a disease, it was acceptable to blame an unseen culprit. The diseases that could not be linked to bacteria and required the invisible scapegoat to keep the germ theory alive included measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, rabies, influenza, yellow fever and cattle plague. According to Field's Virology textbook, the concept of the invisible “virus” was born once the researchers realized that they were unable to satisfy Koch's Postulates, the criteria considered absolutely necessary to fulfill in order to prove that microbes cause disease:

“These studies formalized some of Jacob Henle's original ideas in what are now termed Koch's postulates for defining whether an organism was indeed the causative agent of a disease. These postulates state that (a) the organism must be regularly found in the lesions of the disease, (b) the organism must be isolated in pure culture, (c) inoculation of such a pure culture of organisms into a host should initiate the disease, and (d) the organism must be recovered once again from the lesions of the host. By the end of the 19th century, these concepts became the dominant paradigm of medical microbiology. They outlined an experimental method to be used in all situations. It was only when these rules broke down and failed to yield a causative agent that the concept of a virus was born.”​

Researchers began to claim that, if they used filters that were small enough to keep known bacteria out, and the resulting fluids after filtration resulted in symptoms of disease in animals, this was evidence that something smaller than a bacteria existed within the fluids that caused the disease. This gave rise to the term “filterable viruses.” The Field's Virology textbook goes on to explain that, once this idea of “filterable viruses” was accepted, a procedure was created in order to find them. This is the technique known as the cell culture that was established by John Franklin Enders in 1954, nearly 60 years after the idea of the “filterable virus” was conjured up. Virologists had to rely on factors such as the size of the pore of the filters, whether there was a reaction to chemical agents (alchohol and ether), and whether or not they observed cytopathogenic effects (CPE) in the cell culture as indirect evidence (i.e. evidence that does not prove a fact but can be used to infer that the fact exists) in order to claim that the invisible entities were within the fluids. As virologists could not see the entities that they assumed to be present, they had to rely on faith that they were there: [snip]
**

Source:
The "Virus" Concept | Viroliegy Newsletter

The article goes on, but I think this introduction lays firm groundwork that virology started more as a pseudoscientific article of faith, rather than science. Now to see if we can get a bit of constructive discussion going...

 

[Tinkerpeach]

What exactly is it you want to discuss?

You weren't very clear about that.

 

[Scott]

What exactly is it you want to discuss?

You weren't very clear about that.

This may be true . Basically, the same issue that I was discussing in the "Settling the Virus" debate thread, only perhaps from a more historical perspective, that is, when people first started believing in biological viruses, and why.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

This may be true . Basically, the same issue that I was discussing in the "Settling the Virus" debate thread, only perhaps from a more historical perspective, that is, when people first started believing in biological viruses, and why.

Well to keep it simple without getting into your very technical link, I would assume they started believing in them when they became widespread. For instance, the Black Plague, while they didn't have the science more than likely back then, everyone believed there was something spreading.

Leprosy might have been another one.

They believed in these because they saw it spreading to lots of other people and they contained the same symptoms so obviously they would have thought that it was the same thing killing or hurting many people. Not sure if they even knew what a virus was back then but they knew something was up.

 

[Scott]

This may be true . Basically, the same issue that I was discussing in the "Settling the Virus" debate thread, only perhaps from a more historical perspective, that is, when people first started believing in biological viruses, and why.

Well to keep it simple without getting into your very technical link, I would assume they started believing in them when they became widespread. For instance, the Black Plague, while they didn't have the science more than likely back then, everyone believed there was something spreading.

Leprosy might have been another one.

They believed in these because they saw it spreading to lots of other people and they contained the same symptoms so obviously they would have thought that it was the same thing killing or hurting many people. Not sure if they even knew what a virus was back then but they knew something was up.

I agree, they knew something was up. What Mike Stone (the author of the article) and others believe is that what was up was not viruses, but other things, frequently toxins. The alleged discovery of viruses was pretty close to when germ theory took hold in the mainstream. Mike Stone writes about that as well:

All Terrain | Viroliegy Newsletter

Quoting a bit from it:

**
When I initially began to question the fraud of virology, a big influence on my ability to push away the germ theory indoctrination that I had been subjected to for the majority of my life was learning that there was in fact an alternate theory for how disease manifests. This theory is known as the terrain theory of disease. It was developed as an explanation for how one aquires a state of dis-ease initially by French physiologist Claude Bernard (1813–1878) and was expanded upon greatly by French scientist Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908). This theory was in direct contrast to the germ theory of disease as proposed by French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) as it stated that disease was not caused by invading pathogens from outside of the body. Instead, the dis-ease process began from within due to the status of the internal environment of the body. If there occurs an imbalance within the internal environment and the body becomes too toxic, which could be brought about by a combination of many factors such as what we eat, drink, think, feel, etc., this would materialize in symptoms of dis-ease as the body intitiates a detoxification process in an attempt to restore balance.

I do not remember how I initially came across this theory early on in my journey but I knew that it resonated with me greatly. While one does not need an alternative theory in order to critique the prevalent one, terrain theory provided me with a strong foundation to help myself and others to compare and contrast the differences in the ideologies of dis-ease. Terrain theory incorporates common sense and logic in order to explain that it is what we ultimately do to our own bodies that results in the initiation of a cleansing process; one that has been mistaken as being detrimental and in need of being shut down. Attempting to stop this process through pharmaceutical interventions and vaccinations may reduce and/or halt the symptoms, but doing so halts the healing process as well which will lead to further disease in the future. Terrain theory promotes a personal responsibility and ownership in one’s health. If we take care of our body by addressing the various factors which can influence and affect the balance of the internal environment, we will be granted a high state of health.

Germ theory, on the other hand, pushes an illogical scenario which views us as helpless victims of invisible invaders floating around, looking for the most opportune moment to strike. In order to subscribe to this theory, one must accept that the invisible entities actually exist and that they can be spread from person-to-person despite the absence of clear direct scientific evidence proving either scenario. One is ultimately powerless to aquire health unless they partake in various medications, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, etc. that are claimed to do what the body can not. Germ theory takes away personal responsibility and ownership of one’s health and ultimately places it within the hands of the medical establishment selling the ‘magic pill” as the cure. Germ theory looks to create a life-long customer of disease rather than provide a foundation to make changes in the toxic habits which led to the dis-eased state in the first place.
**

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I agree, they knew something was up. What Mike Stone (the author of the article) and others believe is that what was up was not viruses, but other things, frequently toxins. The alleged discovery of viruses was pretty close to when germ theory took hold in the mainstream. Mike Stone writes about that as well:

All Terrain | Viroliegy Newsletter

Quoting a bit from it:

**
When I initially began to question the fraud of virology, a big influence on my ability to push away the germ theory indoctrination that I had been subjected to for the majority of my life was learning that there was in fact an alternate theory for how disease manifests. This theory is known as the terrain theory of disease. It was developed as an explanation for how one aquires a state of dis-ease initially by French physiologist Claude Bernard (1813–1878) and was expanded upon greatly by French scientist Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908). This theory was in direct contrast to the germ theory of disease as proposed by French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) as it stated that disease was not caused by invading pathogens from outside of the body. Instead, the dis-ease process began from within due to the status of the internal environment of the body. If there occurs an imbalance within the internal environment and the body becomes too toxic, which could be brought about by a combination of many factors such as what we eat, drink, think, feel, etc., this would materialize in symptoms of dis-ease as the body intitiates a detoxification process in an attempt to restore balance.

I do not remember how I initially came across this theory early on in my journey but I knew that it resonated with me greatly. While one does not need an alternative theory in order to critique the prevalent one, terrain theory provided me with a strong foundation to help myself and others to compare and contrast the differences in the ideologies of dis-ease. Terrain theory incorporates common sense and logic in order to explain that it is what we ultimately do to our own bodies that results in the initiation of a cleansing process; one that has been mistaken as being detrimental and in need of being shut down. Attempting to stop this process through pharmaceutical interventions and vaccinations may reduce and/or halt the symptoms, but doing so halts the healing process as well which will lead to further disease in the future. Terrain theory promotes a personal responsibility and ownership in one’s health. If we take care of our body by addressing the various factors which can influence and affect the balance of the internal environment, we will be granted a high state of health.

Germ theory, on the other hand, pushes an illogical scenario which views us as helpless victims of invisible invaders floating around, looking for the most opportune moment to strike. In order to subscribe to this theory, one must accept that the invisible entities actually exist and that they can be spread from person-to-person despite the absence of clear direct scientific evidence proving either scenario. One is ultimately powerless to aquire health unless they partake in various medications, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, etc. that are claimed to do what the body can not. Germ theory takes away personal responsibility and ownership of one’s health and ultimately places it within the hands of the medical establishment selling the ‘magic pill” as the cure. Germ theory looks to create a life-long customer of disease rather than provide a foundation to make changes in the toxic habits which led to the dis-eased state in the first place.
**

Well you are discussing things way above my knowledge on this subject so I am going to have to bow out here.

Maybe if you can dumb it down for me a little bit I can contribute more.

 

[Scott]

I agree, they knew something was up. What Mike Stone (the author of the article) and others believe is that what was up was not viruses, but other things, frequently toxins. The alleged discovery of viruses was pretty close to when germ theory took hold in the mainstream. Mike Stone writes about that as well:

All Terrain | Viroliegy Newsletter

Quoting a bit from it:

**
When I initially began to question the fraud of virology, a big influence on my ability to push away the germ theory indoctrination that I had been subjected to for the majority of my life was learning that there was in fact an alternate theory for how disease manifests. This theory is known as the terrain theory of disease. It was developed as an explanation for how one aquires a state of dis-ease initially by French physiologist Claude Bernard (1813–1878) and was expanded upon greatly by French scientist Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908). This theory was in direct contrast to the germ theory of disease as proposed by French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) as it stated that disease was not caused by invading pathogens from outside of the body. Instead, the dis-ease process began from within due to the status of the internal environment of the body. If there occurs an imbalance within the internal environment and the body becomes too toxic, which could be brought about by a combination of many factors such as what we eat, drink, think, feel, etc., this would materialize in symptoms of dis-ease as the body intitiates a detoxification process in an attempt to restore balance.

I do not remember how I initially came across this theory early on in my journey but I knew that it resonated with me greatly. While one does not need an alternative theory in order to critique the prevalent one, terrain theory provided me with a strong foundation to help myself and others to compare and contrast the differences in the ideologies of dis-ease. Terrain theory incorporates common sense and logic in order to explain that it is what we ultimately do to our own bodies that results in the initiation of a cleansing process; one that has been mistaken as being detrimental and in need of being shut down. Attempting to stop this process through pharmaceutical interventions and vaccinations may reduce and/or halt the symptoms, but doing so halts the healing process as well which will lead to further disease in the future. Terrain theory promotes a personal responsibility and ownership in one’s health. If we take care of our body by addressing the various factors which can influence and affect the balance of the internal environment, we will be granted a high state of health.

Germ theory, on the other hand, pushes an illogical scenario which views us as helpless victims of invisible invaders floating around, looking for the most opportune moment to strike. In order to subscribe to this theory, one must accept that the invisible entities actually exist and that they can be spread from person-to-person despite the absence of clear direct scientific evidence proving either scenario. One is ultimately powerless to aquire health unless they partake in various medications, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, etc. that are claimed to do what the body can not. Germ theory takes away personal responsibility and ownership of one’s health and ultimately places it within the hands of the medical establishment selling the ‘magic pill” as the cure. Germ theory looks to create a life-long customer of disease rather than provide a foundation to make changes in the toxic habits which led to the dis-eased state in the first place.
**

Well you are discussing things way above my knowledge on this subject so I am going to have to bow out here.

Maybe if you can dumb it down for me a little bit I can contribute more.

Alright, basically the idea is that ever since Louis Pasteur and his idea that microbes were the main problem (germ theory), the medical industry has been focused on finding microbes as the problem for most illnesses. Mike Stone points out that although germ theory came to dominate the mainstream narrative, at around the same time that it was created, another theory was posited, first by Claud Bernard and then by Antoine Bechamp, called terrain theory. In this theory, the main cause of disease was that people's body's were being worn down by various factors, such as things that our bodies ingest and/or are injected with, and that this was the true cause of most if not all disease.


Like myself, Mike Stone had heard of this theory before he first started questioning whether or not biological viruses existed.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Alright, basically the idea is that ever since Louis Pasteur and his idea that microbes were the main problem (germ theory), the medical industry has been focused on finding microbes as the problem for most illnesses. Mike Stone points out that although germ theory came to dominate the mainstream narrative, at around the same time that it was created, another theory was posited, first by Claud Bernard and then by Antoine Bechamp, called terrain theory. In this theory, the main cause of disease was that people's body's were being worn down by various factors, such as things that our bodies ingest and/or are injected with, and that this was the true cause of most if not all disease.


Like myself, Mike Stone had heard of this theory before he first started questioning whether or not biological viruses existed.

I shall be interested in the after action report where you talk about whether investing in Tink was worth the trouble.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Alright, basically the idea is that ever since Louis Pasteur and his idea that microbes were the main problem (germ theory), the medical industry has been focused on finding microbes as the problem for most illnesses. Mike Stone points out that although germ theory came to dominate the mainstream narrative, at around the same time that it was created, another theory was posited, first by Claud Bernard and then by Antoine Bechamp, called terrain theory. In this theory, the main cause of disease was that people's body's were being worn down by various factors, such as things that our bodies ingest and/or are injected with, and that this was the true cause of most if not all disease.


Like myself, Mike Stone had heard of this theory before he first started questioning whether or not biological viruses existed.

What if it were the microbes that caused the body to wear down?

Or can't the microbes have an even bigger effect if the body is worn down?

Why does it need to be one or the other?

 

[Lightbringer]

I shall be interested in the after action report where you talk about whether investing in Tink was worth the trouble.

Do I detect a catfight?

Yes...yes I do.

 

[Scott]

I shall be interested in the after action report where you talk about whether investing in Tink was worth the trouble.

I've always had a very cordial relationship with Tinkerpeach. I still remember one post where I wrote that I had thread banned some people due to their constant personal attacks on me, and her response hoping that I wouldn't do that to her. I responded "Perish the thought Tink, you're a peach !" or something like that.

I believe it was soon after that that I asked if she'd like to be friends on here, and she accepted. I have a few friends on here now, including Lightbringer- I'm not completely sure, but I suspect that most if not all of them were at my request. Speaking of friends on here, I know we haven't always agreed, but I'd like to think that we agree enough that we might become friends here too. I decided to send you a friend request to see if I'm right .

In summary, I don't believe I've ever had a serious disagreement with Tinkerpeach, at least not as far as I know. I don't mean that we haven't disagreed, we have, but we have always disagreed cordially, which to me is the epitome of a good discussion.

 

[Scott]

Alright, basically the idea is that ever since Louis Pasteur and his idea that microbes were the main problem (germ theory), the medical industry has been focused on finding microbes as the problem for most illnesses. Mike Stone points out that although germ theory came to dominate the mainstream narrative, at around the same time that it was created, another theory was posited, first by Claud Bernard and then by Antoine Bechamp, called terrain theory. In this theory, the main cause of disease was that people's body's were being worn down by various factors, such as things that our bodies ingest and/or are injected with, and that this was the true cause of most if not all disease.

Like myself, Mike Stone had heard of this theory before he first started questioning whether or not biological viruses existed.

What if it were the microbes that caused the body to wear down?

Or can't the microbes have an even bigger effect if the body is worn down?

Why does it need to be one or the other?

To your last question, I've actually seen a hybrid theory that combines elements of germ and terrain theory. But I personally believe that terrain theory alone makes more sense. To your first question, I think we have to first establish that not only are microbes always in our bodies, they are essential to their function. Your second question is actually very much in line with terrain theory, namely that it is a worn down terrain that provides the grounds for the wrong types of microbes to become an issue in the body. Mike Stone elaborates on how this works in the Terrain article of his that I quoted previously. Quoting the relevant portion:

**
What makes the germ theory so dangerous is that it seems so obviously true. But it is true only secondarily. Bechamp said "There is no doctrine so false that it does not contain some particle of truth. It is thus with microbian doctrines." Béchamp discovered Microzyma (now known as micro-organisms) minute or small ferment bodies--the basic structure of cell life; and that germs definitely are the result, not the cause of disease. Through his experiments he showed that the vital characteristics of cells and germs are determined by the soil in which their microzyma feed, grow and multiply in the human body. Both the normal cell and germ have constructive work to do. The cells organize tissues and organs in the human body. Germs cleanse the human system and free it from accumulations of pathogenic and mucoid matter. We are constantly breathing in some 14,000 germs and bacteria per hour. If germs are so harmful, why aren't we all dead?

In the primary stages of inflammation (pus formation), the bacteria present are streptococci but as blood cells and tissues further disintegrate, the "streps" turn into the staphylococcus--changing into forms native to their new surroundings of dead tissues. Bacteria do not have any action on live cells; only dead cells. They are not the cause of disease but the result thereof. That's why in many cases of pneumonia; the pneumococci don't appear on the scene until 36 to 72 hours after the onset of the disease. His biological work might then have revolutionized medicine with profound insight into the nature of life. But in a political world, he found himself up against a skillful politician with wealthy connections--Louis Pasteur. Antoinne Béchamp was a scientist, while apothecary Pasteur was a chemist with no education in life sciences, and an advertiser, plagiarized the research of Béchamp, distorted it, submitted it to the French Academy of Science as his own! And by making public these premature research findings, Pasteur had a devoted following--people acclaiming him a scientific genius. Pasteur was responsible in large part for the onslaught of animal experimentation in medical research. Pasteur used preparations made from the diseased tissues of previously sick animals, thus making the injected ones sick. This gave the appearance that a germ caused a disease, when if fact these preparations were extremely poisonous. This is not a scientific procedure, but simply demonstrates the fact that you can make someone sick by poisoning his or her blood. Based on his theory of microzymas, Béchamp warned emphatically against such direct and artificial invasion of the blood.
**

 

[Scott]

I shall be interested in the after action report where you talk about whether investing in Tink was worth the trouble.

Do I detect a catfight?

Yes...yes I do.

I'd like to think that he was actually reconsidering his stance with Tink, or at least seemed amenable to doing so. Anyway, nice to see you Lightbringer