Settling the Biological Virus Debate

[Scott]

I gave you an explanation way back in Post #594. It's at the top of the nested quotes above, but I'll pinpoint the exact sentence for you:
"I believe all the factors for diseases are environmental, with the top 3 factors being pollutants/toxins, harmful EMFs and malnutrition."

If you believe that then you should be able to present some actual evidence that doesn't rely on musicians or doctors that are no longer licensed.

Tessa Lena (the musician Saunders is referring to) offers a plethora of evidence that various toxic substances may be factors in polio. As to doctors losing their license for speaking truth to power, such as at least 2 of the doctors who signed the statement challenging anyone to find strong evidence that biological viruses exist, you seem to think that reflects badly on the doctors, when it in fact reflects badly on the medical establishment that's responsible for removing their licenses to practice.

You believe that 3 factors cause all disease.

I said I believe those are the -top- 3 factors. I do believe that bacterial infection, or perhaps generally more accurate, bacterial overgrowth, can be a factor, though I believe this isn't one of the top 3 factors and as generally brought on by one of the 3 factors I mentioned.

The problem you have is you can't show which factor it is for any given disease.

There are limits to how much I know, but I've certainly provided a lot of evidence that polio can be caused by various toxic substances, thanks to Tessa Lena's great article on the subject. For anyone who hasn't been following this thread too closely, here is the article from Tessa Lena that I'm referring to:

A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

Covid was allegedly caused by a virus. You claim it is caused by one of your 3 factors.

No, I believe that -all- diseases are caused by one or -more- of the top 3 factors. I definitely believe that the disease that is labelled Covid 19 may be caused by more than one of these factors.

Which factor is your cause for Covid? It can't be a pollutant because Covid has been found worldwide. There is no evidence of any pollutant traveling around the world in that short of a time frame without evidence of it existing.

There is pollution worldwide, so I definitely think this could be one of the causes. As to this bit about "travelling", I think you're stuck with the notion that Covid is an -infectious- disease, which I don't believe, so there is no need for it to "travel" at all.

It can't be EMF because your argument for flu is that EMFs change with the seasons. Covid has been found in countries with a lot of electricity and countries with almost no electricity.

I definitely believe that EMFs may be part of the reason for some of the people who have been labelled as having Covid 19. I actually started a thread back in 2021 with evidence that 5G networks may have played a part in starting Covid off. Just in case someone's interested, it's here:

Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks | thepoliticsforums.com

2019 was the low spot in the sun's activity. So it can't be EMFs.

That'd certainly be a point in your favour if human technologies weren't generating a ton of man made EMFs at this point in our history.

Covid has also been found in countries without malnutrition and with malnutrition. So malnutrition seems unlikely since being overweight is a factor in making Covid more deadly. Malnourished people typically aren't obese.

Of the 3 factors I mentioned, I certainly suspect that malnourishment wouldn't play a large role in the disease labelled as Covid 19.

 

[Scott]

I found the following paragraph from an article I found online to be informative on the subject of pollution:

**
The 7 Different Types of Pollution

When you think of environmental pollution, it typically comes in seven different types. These include air, water, land, radioactive, thermal, light, and sound pollution. Explore the definition and causes of each type of pollution.
**

Source:
What Are the 7 Different Types of Pollution? | yourdictionary.com

Still can't define the 'pollution', eh?

I listed 7 different types of polution, but I acknowledge that I didn't actually define what pollution is. I believe Wikipedia has a good article on the term. Quoting from it:

**
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.[1] Pollution can take the form of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or energy (such as radioactivity, heat, sound, or light). Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants. Although environmental pollution can be caused by natural events, the word pollution generally implies that the contaminants have an anthropogenic source – that is, a source created by human activities. Pollution is often classed as point source or nonpoint source pollution. In 2015, pollution killed nine million people worldwide (one in six deaths).[2][3] This remained unchanged in 2019, with little real progress against pollution being identifiable. Air pollution accounted for 3⁄4 of these earlier deaths.[4][5]

Major forms of pollution include air pollution, light pollution, litter, noise pollution, plastic pollution, soil contamination, radioactive contamination, thermal pollution, visual pollution, and water pollution.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

If you don't like their definition, feel free to provide your own and I'll tell you what I think of it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I had been considering asking you who you were speaking about until I finally found the bit of text about Tessa in the article after the end of her article. For anyone interested, here's the complete text:

**
Tessa Lena is a strongly opinionated musician living in New York. She is a classically trained pianist and singer, born and raised in Moscow.
**

Source:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

In response to your comment, I rely on -evidence-. If you have a problem with any of the evidence that Tessa Lena presents in her article, I suggest focusing on that instead of attacking the messenger simply because she was born and raised in Russia.



Please keep in mind that Tessa Lena's article didn't single out DDT as the only potential cause of polio. Again from her article:

**
In 2021, Ryan Matters published an excellent, in-depth article called, “mRNA ‘Vaccines,’ Eugenics & the Push for Transhumanism,” in which he looked at the link between polio and DDT, among other things. (I very highly recommend reading his entire article.) Matters wrote:

“One crop pesticide in widespread use at the time was DDT, a highly toxic organochlorine that was widely publicized as being ‘good for you,’ but eventually banned in 1972. In 1953, Dr. Morton Biskind published a paper in the American Journal of Digestive Diseases pointing out that:

“‘McCormick (78), Scobey (100-101) and Goddard (57), in detailed studies, have all pointed out that factors other than infective agents are certainly involved in the etiology of polio, varying from nutritional defects to a variety of poisons which affect the nervous system.’

“The danger of toxic pesticides, including DDT, and their disastrous effects on the environment were illustrated by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.

“In more recent times, researchers, Dan Olmstead, co-founder of the Age of Autism, and Mark Blaxill conducted two brilliant investigations into the polio epidemics of the 20th century, reaching a similar conclusion to Scobey and Biskind, namely that the disease was caused by the widespread use of neurotoxic pesticides such as arsenite of soda and DDT.
**

Another interesting bit of information, the banning of DDT was only a few years before polio was allegedly eradicated. From Tessa Lena's article:

**
The Salk vaccine was introduced in 1954. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. Polio was officially eradicated in the U.S. in 1979. (The vaccine-derived version of polio (!) is reported to be spreading now in developing countries, and according to ABC News, “More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus.”)
**


There's also the fact that Salk's vaccines caused many injuries as well:
**
“Although Salk’s vaccine was hailed as a success, the vaccine itself caused many cases of injury and paralysis. And though there does appear to be a convincing correlation between the timing of the vaccine and the reduction in polio cases, as all good scientists know, causation doesn’t equal correlation [sic], especially considering the fact that DDT was phased out, at least in the US, over the same period.”
**

So you admit that Tessa has no science at all if she is not identifying any source of polio. This is what you seem to think proves your case. Denial of any science and providing nothing that can be considered a cause.

Polio was declared eradicated in 1979, but by 1960 it was almost nonexistent. Eradication is defined by WHO as when the virus no longer exists.
In 1952, the US had over 50,000 cases of polio. The number of total cases in 1962 was less than 50.
Canada went from 9,000 cases of Polio on 1953 to only 3 in 1965.
By only using the eradication marker for Polio you are doing two things. First you are ignoring the reality of how the disease disappeared long before 1979. Second, you are admitting that a virus exists that causes Polio.
https://www.britannica.com/science/polio/Polio-through-history

 

[Scott]

I hadn't heard that claim before. Do you have a link to this claim? I found an article after an internet search, this one:
Cell Phone Towers Rigged as Mind Influencing Directed Energy Weapons | stillnessinthestorm.com

However, I'm not sure as to the reliability of the article.

In any case, I certainly believe that cell phone towers can damage people's health, especially the 5g ones. I've been talking about an article that Suzanne Burdick published on Children's Health Defense that gets into 2 case reports that provide evidence for this:
5G Towers Can Make Healthy People Sick, Two Case Reports Show | Children's Health Defense

I also hadn't heard this claim before, couldn't find an article that claims this either. Do you have such an article?

no.

and

no.

do your own research.

I do plenty of research when posting articles for this and pretty much any other thread I participate in. In this particular case, I even did some internet searches to see if I could find evidence for your claims, something which I rarely do when it comes to claims that I'm not making myself.

I had been hoping that you had done some research of your own and had some articles you could link to that backed up your positions. You seem to be saying that you have no such articles, fair enough.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Tessa Lena (the musician Saunders is referring to) offers a plethora of evidence that various toxic substances may be factors in polio. As to doctors losing their license for speaking truth to power, such as at least 2 of the doctors who signed the statement challenging anyone to find strong evidence that biological viruses exist, you seem to think that reflects badly on the doctors, when it in fact reflects badly on the medical establishment that's responsible for removing their licenses to practice.

Please cite what you think is evidence. It is clear you don't understand what evidence is.

I said I believe those are the -top- 3 factors. I do believe that bacterial infection, or perhaps generally more accurate, bacterial overgrowth, can be a factor, though I believe this isn't one of the top 3 factors and as generally brought on by one of the 3 factors I mentioned.

So now you seem to be arguing that bacteria can't be found using Koch's postulates.
Polio virus has been grown in direct contradiction of your claim that no virus has been grown.
In 1948 the team of John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins, working at Harvard Medical School in Massachusetts, showed how the virus could be grown in large amounts in tissue culture
I guess, I will take the Nobel committee's beliefs over yours every day of the week.

There are limits to how much I know, but I've certainly provided a lot of evidence that polio can be caused by various toxic substances, thanks to Tessa Lena's great article on the subject. For anyone who hasn't been following this thread too closely, here is the article from Tessa Lena that I'm referring to:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

LOL. Limits? I don't think there are any limits to how much you don't know. Tessa doesn't present any science. She simply asks stupid questions and provides stupid answers.

No, I believe that -all- diseases are caused by one or -more- of the top 3 factors. I definitely believe that the disease that is labelled Covid 19 may be caused by more than one of these factors.

So you believe something that you can't provide any evidence for. I guess that seems to be your stock in trade. Make claims you can't provide support for and then run away when asked for your evidence.

There is pollution worldwide, so I definitely think this could be one of the causes. As to this bit about "travelling", I think you're stuck with the notion that Covid is an -infectious- disease, which I don't believe, so there is no need for it to "travel" at all.

Are you really going to argue that the train derailment in Ohio has caused rivers in China and Brazil to be contaminated? Pollution is localized to the source of that pollution. Pollution didn't travel from Wuhan to Italy, England and NYC. The virus did. Pollution has to follow air currents or water flows. It can't just hop on a plane. Not only do you argue something that is impossible you then can't provide any evidence that supports your claim. Pollution is fairly easy to test for. What pollution in Wuhan can also be found in Venice?

I definitely believe that EMFs may be part of the reason for some of the people who have been labelled as having Covid 19. I actually started a thread back in 2021 with evidence that 5G networks may have played a part in starting Covid off. Just in case someone's interested, it's here:

Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks | thepoliticsforums.com

A belief with out evidence? Surprise, surprise. If 5G was the cause then why didn't the disease first appear in Shanghai or Bejing which had more 5G than Wuhan? Why didn't it originate in the US which was testing 5G in cities before China rolled out their 5G? The problem with your argument is that it makes no sense. Something that seems to be common with most of your arguments.

If 5G is the cause of Covid then explain the following:
Why did Covid not start in all cities where 5G coverage was rolled out?
Why has Covid lessened as 5G coverage increased?
Why has Covid spread as if it was contageous rather than popping up in the cities with 5G?
Why has Covid been found in areas that have no 5G?

The holes in your 5G argument are so large you will run away and not answer any of them. It is what you do.

That'd certainly be a point in your favour if human technologies weren't generating a ton of man made EMFs at this point in our history.

There were not a ton of EMFs in the 1700s when smallpox was rampant. There were not a ton of EMFs when polio was rampant.

Of the 3 factors I mentioned, I certainly suspect that malnourishment wouldn't play a large role in the disease labelled as Covid 19.

Then explain why the majority of those with complications were obese and overweight. Your argument once again flies in the face of reality.

 

[Into the Night]

I listed 7 different types of polution, but I acknowledge that I didn't actually define what pollution is. I believe Wikipedia has a good article on the term. Quoting from it:

**
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.[1] Pollution can take the form of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or energy (such as radioactivity, heat, sound, or light). Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants. Although environmental pollution can be caused by natural events, the word pollution generally implies that the contaminants have an anthropogenic source – that is, a source created by human activities. Pollution is often classed as point source or nonpoint source pollution. In 2015, pollution killed nine million people worldwide (one in six deaths).[2][3] This remained unchanged in 2019, with little real progress against pollution being identifiable. Air pollution accounted for 3⁄4 of these earlier deaths.[4][5]

Major forms of pollution include air pollution, light pollution, litter, noise pollution, plastic pollution, soil contamination, radioactive contamination, thermal pollution, visual pollution, and water pollution.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

If you don't like their definition, feel free to provide your own and I'll tell you what I think of it.

Define 'adverse change'.
Is a flood an 'adverse change'? Is rain pollution?
How about a drought? Is the Sun pollution?
How about rust? Is oxygen pollution?
How about drowning? Is a mountain freshwater lake pollution?
How about suffocation? Is open space pollution?
Getting hit and killed by an electric vehicle is an adverse change. Is the EV pollution?

Wikipedia, once again, is wrong. A circular definition won't work. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference with me. Cut and pasting mindlessly isn't going to work. You can't define 'pollution' as 'pollution'.

Try again.

 

[Into the Night]

I do plenty of research when posting articles for this and pretty much any other thread I participate in. In this particular case, I even did some internet searches to see if I could find evidence for your claims, something which I rarely do when it comes to claims that I'm not making myself.

I had been hoping that you had done some research of your own and had some articles you could link to that backed up your positions. You seem to be saying that you have no such articles, fair enough.

Lie.
You do no research. At best you just cut and paste.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Tessa Lena (the musician Saunders is referring to) offers a plethora of evidence that various toxic substances may be factors in polio. As to doctors losing their license for speaking truth to power, such as at least 2 of the doctors who signed the statement challenging anyone to find strong evidence that biological viruses exist, you seem to think that reflects badly on the doctors, when it in fact reflects badly on the medical establishment that's responsible for removing their licenses to practice.

Cite what you think is evidence. The only documents she seems reference were written prior to 1954 before the polio vaccine was shown to be effective and before viruses were sequenced. The polio virus had been isolated and grown in tissue culture in 1948.
In 1954, John Enders, Thomas Weller, and Frederick Robbins were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discovery of the ability of poliomyelitis viruses to grow in cultures of various types of tissue
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17469121/

The vaccine itself causing injuries is one manufacturer had faulty controls in place. This resulted in their vaccine not being properly manufactured and the virus was active in the vaccine and caused infections. Once again, we see you are arguing that viruses MUST exist. The vaccine problem caused the government to create a regulatory system to oversee the manufacture of vaccines and that problem has been eliminated.
Three larger companies produced safe polio vaccines according to Salk's protocol for inactivating the virus with formaldehyde. The lack of experience and expertise at Cutter Laboratories, undetected by the inspectors, caused the disaster.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I said I believe those are the -top- 3 factors. I do believe that bacterial infection, or perhaps generally more accurate, bacterial overgrowth, can be a factor, though I believe this isn't one of the top 3 factors and as generally brought on by one of the 3 factors I mentioned.

You believe you just can't provide any evidence. I keep asking you for evidence and you keep repeating your same unsubstantiated allegations.
If it's caused by a bacterial infection then it would be easy to identify. Bacteria are visible under a microscope. Bacteria can be isolated and grown in culture using Koch's postulates. Are you saying Bacteria are not subject to Koch's postulates?
You have no evidence that bacteria is the cause. You have already argued that something (a virus) doesn't exist if it can't be isolated using Koch's postulates. Since you have no evidence of any bacteria being isolated that is associated with Covid then by your own standards that bacteria does NOT exist.
Viruses don't exist because they haven't been isolated and purified.
Bacteria exists because it hasn't been isolated and purified.
Your argument is bullshit and we all see it as bullshit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I definitely believe that EMFs may be part of the reason for some of the people who have been labelled as having Covid 19. I actually started a thread back in 2021 with evidence that 5G networks may have played a part in starting Covid off. Just in case someone's interested, it's here:

Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks | thepoliticsforums.com



.

LOL. Now you are using yourself as a reference?
That's funny. You make a post on another message board where you argue that viruses likely exist and then use it as a source to argue that viruses don't exist.

viruses are created by the body in order to try to purge toxins form the body,

 

[Scott]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not biological viruses exist. I find that Arthur Firstenberg's evidence in regards to EMFs being damaging to humans to be well sourced, as well as his evidence that alleged viruses such as the flu aren't contagious. I think he's on the right track, I just find that, combined with the extensive research done by Dr. Mark Bailey and other doctors, there is more evidence suggesting that biological viruses don't exist at all. If you think about it, Mr. Firstenberg was already on the same track when he said that the flu wasn't contagious. Since biological viruses are defined as being contagious, it stands to reason that what he's talking about isn't actually biological viruses at all, but something else, exosomes perhaps.

So you agree with Firstenberg that EMF exists. Other than that you seem to completely disagree with his entire premise.

Perhaps it would be best to list what I agree with Mr. Firstenberg and where we disagree in the case of viruses.

Agreements:

1- I think he provided a lot of evidence that various man made non ionizing EMFs have harmed a lot of people, playing integral roles in diseases such as the flu.

2- I agree with him that the flu is not contagious and believe he presented a lot of good evidence for this.

Disagreements:

1- We disagree that biological viruses exist.

Biological viruses are not defined as being contagious.

From Wikipedia:
**
A virus is a submicroscopic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism.[1]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

Because these alleged life forms aren't capable of reproducing on their own, if they weren't contagious, they would have become extinct a long time ago.

They vary in how they spread.

I agree that they allegedly spread in varying ways, but the point is that they are all defined as being parasitical in nature.

 

[Scott]

No, the reason I referenced and quoted his work is because of the evidence he provided that certain EMFs are harmful to biological life and that the flu is not contagious. Since definition of biological viruses are that they are contagious, what he is describing is clearly not a biological virus even if he is labelling it as such.

You disagree with the majority of what Firstenberg says

I strongly disagree with you there, I agree with him on most of his points, with the only known exception being that we don't agree on the existence of viruses. Importantly, however, he doesn't consider viruses to be that big of a threat to human health. The less someone considers viruses to be a threat, the closer they are to my position that they are no threat, because they don't exist.

but you used him anyway because you can cherry pick that EMFs exist?

Hardly. I don't know anyone who -doesn't- believe that EMFs exist. I chose to reference and quote him because he provides a lot of evidence of the powerful role EMFs play in regards to the flu, and he also provides solid evidence that the flu is not contagious.

 

[Scott]

He does, you just didn't read the part where he does. I quoted the most relevant section in post #627 to get your attention, but the complete sentence is this:
**
They claimed that, “ribosomal RNA depletion was performed during library construction,” however, see page 43 as to why this is dubious as there remained a high match for known human RNA sequences.
**

Going to page 43 of his essay, we find this (bolding the most relevant section):
**
MORE DECEPTION FROM WUHAN?

In early 2022, a mathematician working with Dr Stefan Lanka released an analysis of the associated sequence data produced by Fan Wu et al.136 Startlingly, it was concluded that:

a repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported [by Fan Wu et al.]...Evidence is lacking that only viral nucleic acids were used to construct the claimed viral genome for SARS- CoV-2. Further, with respect to the construction of the claimed viral genome strand, no results of possible control experiments have been published. This is equally true for all other reference sequences considered in the present work. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, an obvious control would be that the claimed viral genome cannot be assembled from unsuspected RNA sources of human, or even other, origin.​

Aside from the fact that virology’s current methodologies for finding viruses should be rejected, the lack of reproducibility of their own experiment instantly raises questions about the circumstances in which the original inventors of SARS-CoV-2 announced their new virus to the world. Indeed, this independent analysis only obtained 28,459 contigs, significantly less than the number (384,096) described by Fan Wu et al. Additionally, the longest contig independently obtained was 29,802 nucleotides, which was 672 nucleotides shorter than Fan Wu’s, meaning that, “the published sequence data cannot be the original reads used for assembly.” The mathematician's analysis also concluded that:

Alignment with the nucleotide database on 05/12/2021 showed a high match (98.85%) with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S preribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020). This observation contradicts the claim in [1] that ribosomal RNA depletion was performed and human sequence reads were filtered using the human reference genome (human release 32, GRCh38.p13). Of particular note here is the fact that the sequence NR_146117.1 was not published until after the publication of the SRR10971381 sequence library considered here. This observation emphasizes the difficulty of determining a priori the exact origin of the individual nucleic acid fragments used to construct claimed viral genome sequences.​

**

Source:
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) | drsambailey.com

That's some funny stuff. Funny as in it's completely unclear how they were able to find a 98.5% match.
If it was that much of a match then I should be able to take 10% of the Covid and match it exactly to the RNA.

Here is GenBank: NR_146117.1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NR_146117.1

Here is the Wuhan Covid virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1798174254

So, lets start to do a comparison...
The first 5 bases of Covid are found once in the RNA sequence and the leading and trailing sequences are not the same.
The next 6 bases of Covid are found once in the RNA sequence and the leading and trailing sequences are not the same.
The 10 base pairs found at 541 in Covid are not found anywhere in the RNA.
The 10 base pair sequence found at 1261 in Covid are not found anywhere in the RNA
The 10 base pair sequence found at 1691 in Covid are not found anywhere in the RNA
The 10 base pair sequence found at 1691 in Covid are not found anywhere in the RNA
The 10 base pair sequence found at 3021 in Covid are not found anywhere in the RNA
The 10 base pair sequence found at 3891 in Covid are not found anywhere in the RNA
The 10 base pair sequence found at 5901 in Covid are not found anywhere in the RNA

Either the mathematician is lying or they aren't really a mathematician.

I suspect the issue is that Dr. Mark Bailey didn't start with the beginning of the paragraph of the analysis he was quoting. I downloaded a copy of the actual analysis and will quote the complete paragraph below, bolding the first sentence:

**
At this point, the contig with the identification k141_27232, with which 1,407,705 sequences are associated, and thus about 5% of the remaining 26,108,482 sequences, should be discussed in detail. Alignment with the nucleotide database on 05/12/2021 showed a high match (98.85%) with "Homo sapiens RNA, 45S pre- ribosomal N4 (RNA45SN4), ribosomal RNA" (GenBank: NR_146117.1, dated 04/07/2020). This observation contradicts the claim in [1] that ribosomal RNA depletion was performed and human sequence reads were filtered using the human reference genome (human release 32, GRCh38.p13). Of particular note here is the fact that the sequence NR_146117.1 was not published until after the publication of the SRR10971381 sequence library considered here.
**

Source:
https://brandfolder.com/s/3z266k74ppmnwkvfrxs6jjc

It seems that the mathematician is saying that this 98.85% match was for a specific contig with the id of K141_27232.

 

[Scott]

the point is we all agree Electromagnetic Frequencies can harm humans in some capacity.

I think the point is we can all agree that not all harm to humans come from EMFs.

I think we may be able to all agree to both statements.

 

[Scott]

In the case of polio, the idea is that there is a link between the rise of certain toxic substances such as DDT with the rise of polio cases.

I see you have decided to completely ignore why there is no credible link between DDT and polio. Polio decreased rapidly from the introduction of the vaccines to almost no cases by 1960. DDT use did not decrease during that time frame.

First of all, polio's decline started well before Salk's polio vaccine was introduced:

**
Diagram 2
Polio death rates began to decline long before major
inoculation campaigns were started



From 1923 to 1953, long before large-scale polio vaccinations began to be carried out in the mid-1950s, mortalities attributed to polio had already decreased substantially: in the USA by 47 percent; in Great Britain by 55 percent; in other European countries, the statistics are comparable.
**

Source:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (p. 73). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.

Secondly, while I agree that DDT did not decrease during your time frame, exposure to it after 1954 did, and fairly dramatically too. There's also the fact that pesticide production in general dropped off dramatically after 1954 as well. Again from Virus Mania:

**
Diagram 3 Polio cases and DDT production in the USA, 1940-1970


A look at statistics shows that the polio epidemic in the United States of America reached its peak in 1952, and from then on rapidly declined. We have seen that this cannot be explained by the Salk-inoculation, since this was first introduced in 1955. There is a most striking parallel between polio development and the utilization of cide historian Pete Daniel goes a step further in saying that “[the officials in charge] knew better, but the bureaucratic imperative to protect pesticides led the division into territory alien to honesty.”392

It would be years before the US government held a hearing on DDT and even longer until they finally prohibited it in 1972. Unfortunately, the government discussions were not widely reported, so the general public remained unaware of the connection between polio (in humans!) and pesticides, or other non-viral factors. To achieve this, in the beginning of the 1950’s, ten years before Carson’s Silent Spring, someone would have had to have written a bestseller which described the repercussions of DDT (and other toxins) in humans. Unfortunately, this was not the case; and even later on such a book has not appeared.

Diagram 4 Polio cases and pesticide production in the USA, 1940-1970


**

Source:
Engelbrecht, Torsten; Köhnlein, Claus; Bailey, Samantha; Scoglio, Stefano. Virus Mania (pp. 84-85). Books on Demand. Kindle Edition.


Some more interesting info I just found:

**
Listed below are public health statistics (U.S. Public Health Reports) from the four states which adopted compulsory vaccination, and the figures from Los Angeles, California (similar results in other states available from books listed at the back of this booklet):

TENNESSEE

1958: 119 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 386 cases of polio after compulsory shots

OHIO

1958: 17 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 52 cases of polio after compulsory shots

CONNECTICUT

1958: 45 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 123 cases of polio after compulsory shots

NORTH CAROLINA

1958: 78 cases of polio before compulsory shots

1959: 313 cases of polio after compulsory shots


LOS ANGELES

1958: 89 cases of polio before shots

1959: 190 cases of polio after shots
**

Source:
Vaccines: The Biggest Medical Fraud in History (History of Vaccination Book 26) | Amazon.com

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I do plenty of research when posting articles for this and pretty much any other thread I participate in. In this particular case, I even did some internet searches to see if I could find evidence for your claims, something which I rarely do when it comes to claims that I'm not making myself.

I had been hoping that you had done some research of your own and had some articles you could link to that backed up your positions. You seem to be saying that you have no such articles, fair enough.

I said do your own research.

 

[Scott]

Context is important here. Here's the complete paragraphs from which Saunders got those snippets, bolding the complete sentences with the snippets that Saunders quoted:
**
A disclaimer

To me, the conversation about causes of polio is not about the hardcore debate about the germ theory vs. the terrain theory, it’s about truth in all its complexity. As a human being, I am at peace knowing that I don’t know the “final answer” to that important question. I think that “instant gratification” is not very helpful in science!

Thus, on my end, I am willing to listen to all sides — and keep listening, making my working theories and changing my mind as many times as I want if good evidence presents itself.
**

Source:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

Which only proves that your source is not a scientific source at all.

I don't even understand -how- you think this is proof of your claim.

It [is] just someone that doesn't know the answers so is asking stupid questions.

I'd say it's someone who is not -sure- of the answers, and is pointing that out. I personally think that all of her questions are quite good. I think her first 2 are a very good start:

**
This story is about polio, pesticide poisoning as a possible cause of it and the meaning of science. We are taught that the science on polio has been settled — but is it so? And what if the world is far more complex than we think, and “the science” is not settled at all?
**

Source:
A Story About Polio, Pesticides and the Meaning of Science | Children's Health Defense

Without context, it may certainly seem like an ad hominem attack to conclude that the group of people who are being put in charge of our health have historically been involved in Eugenics. However, Tessa backs up her assertion in her article. Quoting from it:

**
An indirect (and sometimes direct) connection to eugenics

In his article, Ryan Matters also pointed out the fact that “Dr. Salk’s polio research was funded by the mother of Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon family banking fortune who idealized Margaret Sanger and later joined the board of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation,” and who supported compulsory sterilization as a means to limit birth rates in developing countries.

Notably, May was also on the board of the Population Council, an organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III, that focused on population reduction. The passion of the wealthiest families for population control (under their leadership) and eugenics is not a conspiracy theory. It’s been thoroughly documented even in the mainstream media.

Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood, in her 1932 “Plan for Peace,” advocated for “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring,” as well as for “giving certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

By the way, according to Matters, in 1995, the Population Council collaborated with the World Health Organization on their fertility regulating vaccines.
**

They are wrong because they are bad people is an ad hominem.

Repeating it doesn't suddenly make it no longer an ad hominem.

She doesn't actually say they are "bad people". As you yourself quoted, she said:

**
In conclusion, I will say that having the same group of people who have historically been big fans of eugenics now run both the official transition to what they call “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and the global “health response” doesn’t make me feel relaxed.
**

She backs up every single one of her claims. So while I can agree with you that what she's saying certainly doesn't cast those in charge in a good light, if the shoe fits...

Whether they were or were not involved in eugenics has nothing to do with whether Polio is caused by a virus as is the current scientific consensus [snip]

If various organizations involved in our health over the years were also fans of forced or coerced eugenics, it suggests that the purpose of at least some vaccines is not to actually improve their health, but rather to decrease the population. Certainly the 1990 paper from the WHO's Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation suggests this may well be the goal for some of those involved with our health. Tessa Lena linked to it in the last bit of text I quoted above, speciflcally:

**
By the way, according to Matters, in 1995, the Population Council collaborated with the World Health Organization on their fertility regulating vaccines.
**

May's connection with both the Population Council and Salk's vaccine suggests that perhaps her goal in funding Salk's polio vaccine may have been part of an effort to reduce the population. Even if not, the WHO's task force mentioned above certainly put money on that goal.

 

[Scott]

Nothing 'activates' any virus.

I agree, namely because I don't believe contagious biological viruses exist at all.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

5G is a protocol. It is not a weapon.

the energy is the weapon. not the protocol.

quit being a fucking dildo farmer.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Holy Link Worship.

Quoting scripture means nothing.
5G is a protocol. It is not radio or light. It is not a cell tower. It is not an electrical or magnetic field. It has no effect on the human body.

quit lying for the nazis, fucktoid.