I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Grant's May 2022 Update
Every test is "indirect". The only "direct" way to measure viral load is to cut somebody open and microscopically scan every last fragment of the body for viral RNA/DNA.
SARS-COV-2 and every other established virus has been "isolated". If you can repeatedly sequence the same genetic material from a a source, you can reasonably argue that you have "isolated" the source of that genetic material. You're perpetuating more non-sense that's been generated on the internet. Using an outdated concept like Koch's postulates to rebut current viral science is simply invalid, because the flaws in such a concept have been identified. You're basically making the argument that if you can't see it with your own eyes, it doesn't exist...I hope you see the flaw in that logic.
PCR is not a good diagnostic tool for viral disease. Antigen testing certainly has its drawbacks. But they are both measuring real things. The key is in deciding how to interpret what is being accurately measured and whether it provides useful and actionable information.
This is in response to your earlier comments.
Yes, the general consensus in biology and virology is that viruses are somehow “alive”, and that they do mutate / evolve.
Vincent Racaniello is a well known virologist at Columbia University. He has many of his lectures on-line. In this one he discusses whether or not viruses are alive.
And I think it’s in this one where he claims that they are not “alive” until they enter the cell, and then they do become “alive”.
Do you believe that? I sure don’t.
Very oddly enough, within the biological scientific community there isn’t actually an accepted definition of what a life form is. Isn’t that convenient? This would be equivalent to engineers not knowing / agreeing on what a force is.
We could argue this point all day and never be able to resolve it because there is no definition to judge it by.
As to your claim that viruses do mutate. Well, yes, and no. Of course there will be millions, if not billions of variations of them being created every day. That's because they are being produced in different cells of different people, and all with their own unique conditions and DNA. But, that's not at all the same as what most people would call a mutation. So, no viruses never evolve, because they are not a life form (by the common sense definition of the term).
You seem to think that by seeing a system manufacturing an entity somehow implies that the entity is actually replicating / reproducing itself. An analogy would be to sit in the shipping dock of a semiconductor manufacturing plant. Then seeing the endless stream of semiconductors being shipped out. No one would ever think to claim the microchips have hijacked the plant and have tricked the plant into replicating themselves. Yes, the microchips contain super sophisticated circuitry and logic (their DNA), and many are incredibly “clever”. But, no, they have not hijacked/ tricked the plant.
But, that’s essentially the nonsensical claim virologists and microbiologists want us to buy into. I think it is totally ridiculous.
Anyways, I really don’t have the time nor the desire to get into a long debate on this. I’ve learned a long time ago that most people will cling to their beliefs regardless of the evidence presented to them.
Grant
https://wholistic.substack.com/p/mysterious-hepatitis-caused-by-vaccine?s=r
"This raises a question: Has co-infection with another adenovirus, along with the vector being introduced to an unwitting person either in the form of the J&J or AstraZeneca vaccines, resulted in reassortment in the body and a transmissible adenovirus that causes liver damage?"
So, hundreds of children all over the world have come down with sudden liver destruction. About 60% of them are coming out positive for adenovirus (and none are coming out positive for viral hepatitis). Adenoviruses in general only make kids sick. A baby's adenovirus (which was supposed to not be dangerous) was used to make certain covid 19 shots (for instance, the J&J). Are adults who got these shots inadvertently passing on this virus to children in their lives? And do the authorities already know this? They've backed off from pushing the J & J shot, just this week, although they are blaming blood clots, which they already copped to a year ago. Shenanigans?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/05/us-johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine-blood-clot
Would Grant's model explain this better? I wonder whether a poor understanding of what viruses ARE could lead to them thinking that a virus might be "non-dangerous" when it wasn't. From the first story on substack: "The theory is this: The supposed 'unable to replicate' adenovirus used to deliver the DNA payload in COVID-19 viral vector vaccines is somehow replicating."
Thanks for taking the time to respond, but I don't feel that you've actually addressed any of the points I've made.
You're arguing that the definition of life is important in determining the existence of viruses, yet you're saying that there is no way to know what is alive because we lack the knowledge to define it. If we cannot know what is alive, then you cannot use the presence/absence of life to argue that viruses don't exist, because you cannot use the presence/absence of life to describe anything, because you have rendered it a non-functional concept by saying that we cannot define it.
A mutation is simply an alteration in a nucleic acid sequence. It can come about many different ways, but it clearly happens during the replication process, however that replication process comes about. Whether we call it a virus, or you call is a misstructured protein, there is mutation occurring whenever a packet of RNA/DNA imperfectly undergoes replication in a cell and the result is a different sequence than the original RNA/DNA. With viral replication, we can construct a phylogeny that explains the evolutionary trajectory of changing sequences over time and how and why they are related to one another, and why one variation replaces another variation in a population over time. With your misstructured proteins, there is no basis for which a phylogeny should exist because you propose that there is no evolution of such proteins, yet one clearly does exist.
Again, viruses are not technically "self-replicating", they rely on gained entry into a host cell, and then replication on behalf of the host cell using the host's resources. Cells don't just let random bits of stuff in either, so you might actually call this process of gaining access "trickery".
Your analogy to a semiconductor plant is invalid. In your [incomplete] analogy, the substance going into the plant is in a completely different configuration than what comes out of the plant: separate bits of disordered metal go in, and a highly configured semiconductor comes out. In contrast, with viral replication, the substance going into the plant (the viral genome entering the cell) is identical to the substance being produced by the cell. Additionally, for every single virus that enters the cell, there are typically many viruses that result from that entry.
In a proper analogy, where entry of a single complete semiconductor into a manufacturing plant, taking with it no excess material, results in many more complete semiconductors of the exact same configuration exiting the plant, you very well might draw the conclusion, for lack of a better explanation, that the semiconductors have "hijacked" the plant and are using resources internal to the plant (external to the semiconductors) to reproduce themselves. You might even call it replication of artificial intelligence.
You still haven't even touched on why some vaccines are extremely effective (I don't think anybody can dispute the effectiveness of a rabies vaccine, to name one), or the complex immune response/immune learning that results in varying degrees of future protection against viruses.
(As an aside, I love how the people opposed to my completely rational ideas are more and more fervently clicking the thumbs up button for other people's "rebuttals". And I'm the one clinging to my beliefs? lol I am prepared to abandon my beliefs in favor of a better explanation, just as soon as one comes along, which is why I shifted from a "plants are necessary for health" mindset to a "plants are killing me" mindset when I finally heard all of the supporting evidence for a plant-free diet and saw that evidence corroborated in my own experience.)
Quote from ggenereux on May 7, 2022, 6:13 pmThis is in response to your earlier comments.
Yes, the general consensus in biology and virology is that viruses are somehow “alive”, and that they do mutate / evolve.
Vincent Racaniello is a well known virologist at Columbia University. He has many of his lectures on-line. In this one he discusses whether or not viruses are alive.
And I think it’s in this one where he claims that they are not “alive” until they enter the cell, and then they do become “alive”.
Do you believe that? I sure don’t.
Very oddly enough, within the biological scientific community there isn’t actually an accepted definition of what a life form is. Isn’t that convenient? This would be equivalent to engineers not knowing / agreeing on what a force is.
We could argue this point all day and never be able to resolve it because there is no definition to judge it by.
As to your claim that viruses do mutate. Well, yes, and no. Of course there will be millions, if not billions of variations of them being created every day. That's because they are being produced in different cells of different people, and all with their own unique conditions and DNA. But, that's not at all the same as what most people would call a mutation. So, no viruses never evolve, because they are not a life form (by the common sense definition of the term).
You seem to think that by seeing a system manufacturing an entity somehow implies that the entity is actually replicating / reproducing itself. An analogy would be to sit in the shipping dock of a semiconductor manufacturing plant. Then seeing the endless stream of semiconductors being shipped out. No one would ever think to claim the microchips have hijacked the plant and have tricked the plant into replicating themselves. Yes, the microchips contain super sophisticated circuitry and logic (their DNA), and many are incredibly “clever”. But, no, they have not hijacked/ tricked the plant.
But, that’s essentially the nonsensical claim virologists and microbiologists want us to buy into. I think it is totally ridiculous.
Anyways, I really don’t have the time nor the desire to get into a long debate on this. I’ve learned a long time ago that most people will cling to their beliefs regardless of the evidence presented to them.
Grant
Grant, thank you for all of the responses given, all your time, all your effort. =) I am learning so much from you! Stefan is an amazing character.
"I was thinking about psyllium husk powder to increase pooping (and hence vitamin A detox) on a carnivore diet. What do you think about that idea?"
I meant to add that I am always happy to hear about people's experiments and compare them with my own, so if you do decide to try psyllium or another fiber, I would certainly be interested to hear what happens. If you can, try to do it in a way where you can be relatively sure of what effect, if any, it is having.
I chatted with a person on Smith's site who did carnivore for 6 years without completely healing, and then introduced fiber and a few supplements and seems to have had a breakthrough. I don't think he can actually say whether it was the fiber or the supplements, but it's certainly worth thinking about since he claims to have been strict about his carnivore diet for such a long time. It could be that the rare person does need some kind of "kick" from fiber to get started in the right direction...I have a hard time thinking of what that mechanism would be though. It would make much more sense to me that they weren't getting enough of some trace mineral from meat to overcome a long-standing barrier...that's probably a good reason to try to eat meat that comes from different locations, in case one or two locations are low in a particular trace mineral.
@ggenereux2014
.@wavygravygadzooks
While Grant is working on his new book, I think wavygravygadzooks, should consider reading the following 2 books that provide a lot of experimental and statistical evidence that prove that both viruses and germs don't cause diseases. It's not just virologists who are wrong about viral diseases. All doctors are very likely wrong about the germ theory of disease and this is a monumental blunder. The more I read about the evidence against germ theory, the more I think that this is the case.
In what Really Makes You Sick, the two authors who are admittedly not medical doctors, discuss how germs (bacteria) are pleomorphic and how bacteria can, under the right conditions, produce biotoxins that can causes diseases and so called "infections".
Being "hoodwinked" or "indoctrinated" into believing in viruses or viral theory are really just the same thing to me. And I don't find this surprising at all. I'm an atheist and I see that the vast majority of humans on this Earth believe in a god or set of gods. If 99% of the human species can be "hoodwinked" or "indoctrinated" into believing in a god or pantheon of gods, then why can't virologists, some of whom openly say that they believe in God, also be indoctrinated?
One virologist called Judy Mikovitz, who has a nice little biography on Wikipedia, believes that some vaccines are dangerous and cause Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. If she is willing to say in interviews with alternative medicine practitioners that she believes in something as fictious as a supernatural god, why is it surprising that she also believes in something as fictious as the viral theory of disease? It would be easier to conclude or believe that vaccines cause chronic fatigue syndrome by depleting B vitamins and essential minerals, but that is not a line of reasoning that Judy is willing to entertain.
Here is an example of a book discussing how vaccines deplete B vitamins. It discusses how vaccines deplete Thiamine (vitamin B1) and cause Beriberi disease in its very first chapter: Thiamine Deficiency Disease, Dysautonomia, and High Calorie Malnutrition.
Many pastors might be atheists who simply profit from religion for a living and likewise, many virologists might not believe in the virology theory they promote, but feel that it's very profitable to do so and are simply lying about what they really believe.
Who knows if Dr. Fauci, the director of the infectious disease division of America's Center for Disease Control, really believes in viral theory or is just another profiteer. Until Dr. Fauci and many virologists volunteer to have their brains scanned, we will never truly know which virologists truly believe in virology and which ones are just lying for money.
The two books below not only argue that viruses don't exist, but they also argue that infectious diseases of any kind don't exist. Some doctors such as Mark Bailey argue that there are several different things referred to as "viruses". There are "giant viruses" in the ocean and other so called viruses are identifiable defective proteins within the body (the prion like proteins that I think Grant is talking about) and then there are dead cells in petri dishes referred to as "viruses".
What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong.
Too many things are referred to as viruses and the two books above don't make any effort to clarify the confusing use of the term "virus". From what I've understood so far, some viruses exist as defective proteins in the body while others only exist in the imagination of virologists who manufacture genomes from thin air using AI algorithms.
I'm very curious to see what evidence Grant has found that suggests that defective proteins from the human body can, indeed, be spread from person to person. In Virus Mania, for example, I remember reading that Mad Cow Disease could not be spread to other cows by feeding healthy cows the dead bodies of cows with Mad Cow Disease (a disease that is defined by defective prion proteins). If I remember correctly, this cow cannibalism did not increase the spread of Mad Cow Disease. The authors ultimately concluded that Mad Cow Disease was likely caused by the selective breeding of cows causing a genetic susceptibility to suffering from neurodegeneration of this kind when consuming plants bathed with toxic man-made pesticides.
I would love to hear why some defective proteins (such as the prions in Mad Cow Disease) are not transmissible, but defective proteins produced in the human body are, in fact, transmissible. And I really want to understand the exact mechanism of how these "defective proteins" can be transmitted through the air.
Sorry, I can't waste my time discussing this anymore. I've already wasted too much of my time trying to save people on these forums from idiocy, and I should have realized earlier that this is a horribly inefficient way of going about it. These discussions need to be done in person so you can go back and forth, point by point...online versions of "discussion" tend to devolve into a game of whack-a-mole that's impossible to complete satisfactorily (example: you started out by talking about the existence of viruses, but then devolved into talking about side effects of vaccines...there are obviously side effects of vaccines, but the existence of side effects is not an argument against the efficacy of vaccines for protection against viruses).
The alternatives to germ theory create way more holes than they fill...in fact, so far, I have yet to see anything that they explain better than existing germ theory, which I should add is not exclusive of "terrain theory". There is homeostasis and resilience, and there are pathogens that survive and propagate by taking advantage of bodies that are not resilient and easily fall out of homeostasis. Vitamin A toxicity is an example of a body falling out of homeostasis and losing resilience, which is why it opens you up to pathogenic infection.
If you can't see how something like Ebola or Norovirus is extremely contagious and well explained by viral theory and NOT by whatever the hell this latest hogwash is called, then I wish you serious luck navigating the rest of life with the type of reasoning you are using. Virology is an academic field...people don't go into academia to make money and swindle others, they go into it seeking truth and objective knowledge. There are bad apples in every corner of life, including academics, but they don't represent the scientific community. For every asshole like Fauci, there are thousands of hardworking scientists with integrity seeking objective truth.
If anyone is truly interested in getting their head straight on subjects like this, I will once again highly recommend listening to Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's Darkhorse Podcast. They are fallible, just like everyone else, and I've found a number of things with which I disagree with them (on a minor scale), but they have extremely good reasoning skills, they are blatantly honest and genuine, and they are published evolutionary biologists and professors. If nothing else, they will show you how to think like a proper scientist.
@jude, science and religion are identical in their modus operandi. They both rely of faith. However, from a very young age we were brainwashed into believing that they stand on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
We rarely think about the vocabulary we use in science, like *viral theory. Theory is something we believe in until another theory comes around and replace it. The theoretical prove of the virus existence is more akin to alchemy that it is to science that is supposed to be logical and above board.
All we need to see is how the viruses are isolated - and most of even slightly intelligent people would realise that we have been hoodwinked. The laboratory brew they create to “isolate” the virus would put any witch to shame. With the monkey kidney cells, embryonic cells, several antibiotics, dyes, poisons, etc. it’s a hairbreadth short of spider legs and bat’s wings (and I am not sure about the bat’s wings…). Then the computer models complete the sloppy job of the virologist/alchemists in white coats that we were told to trust implicitly.
If this last two years taught me anything is that we know shit and the bigger shit we think we know, the louder we shout how logical and objective we are.
The world we experience is a concoction based on theories - and being the argumentative humans - we like to pit against each other. Such a debate is clearly comparing apples to apes, so trying to find common grounds is ridiculous.
@are, “I felt that I could not refer him to this site, simply because he would see this thing here about viruses not being real, and write this "VA not being a vitamin"-theory off immediately.”
This is a public forum with people expressing their opinions, beliefs, experiences and knowledge. Am I understanding you? Are you saying that we all should accept that viruses are real, so we can accommodate your doctor’s biases and teach him about the dangers of vitamin A?
If I read Grant’s post correctly, the very man who discovered that vitamin A has more to it that its ‘eye nourishing qualities’ also deduced that viral theory is just that, a theory than has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and in actuality seeds more doubts that certainty, and much harm along the way.
If we all could just accept the blind men and elephant, we could communicate more effectively and appreciate different paradigms that we ascribe to. Like…your doctor is absolutely correct about the vitamin A. He learned it through the western medical paradigm and within it, he is right. German New Medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy, etc. Are they all wrong because they do not ascribe to the Rockefeller’s style of medical programming?