Good job man! Been following you here and there since you started your show, really appreciate your contribution so far. Haven't checked this one out, but getting Hammond on is definitely the way to go about opening the dialogue. Keep pushing mate!
Ah Jeremy "That's demonstrably False" Hammond offering zero reasoning more than just a confident opinion to back up his arguments. Liev, you have the patience of a saint.
What is left out of the Viral question; is the probability of whatever it is we call viruses could very well be part of a yet to be understood vital life process. The viral response is essential for the breaking down of dysfunctional tissue , as well as the rebuilding healthy tissue. If better understood it could explain how evolution actually works. Viral induced mutagenesis of the genetic structures of life itself may be the driving force behind adaptation. There is a higher intelligence at work and our science is still largely in the dark ages.
Yeah, but I can hear that anywhere. As this is a Terrain centered podcast, I would have preferred a more robust discussion on areas of disagreement, though I did appreciate the respectful tone set. While there are a number of obnoxious no virus commentators out there, I think the movement gets a bad rap because of a few bad apples. Meanwhile the germ theorists have been rampantly poisoning children and adults for over a hundred years and most of their 'experts' refuse to engage in a civil debate on their precepts and procedures without resorting to ad hominem attacks against those upholding the terrain model.
No need to discuss virus existence. A basic scientific tenet requires that confounding factors must be addressed. Virology patently ignores industrial toxicity (elephant in the room). Until this foundation is secured, virology is nothing. Critics have no burden of proof.
I would love to do a stream one day and discuss with you to help you understand why we do not need germ theory, or terrain theory, because daoists who created traditional chinese medicine figured all of this out long ago, and can prevent, treat and explain all these symptoms without any products or technology.
I believe his work (as well as Jamie Andrews) to be a true falsification of the cytopathic effect methodology. The papers that describe mock infection in the literature make no attempt to describe the methodology, and the few that do explain the steps taken in the experimental group, but never the control. This is often outsourced to other papers as well. It is bad science, extremely poor scientific style, terrible transparency, and a means to cover up the fact that the true scientific method is not being used.
So if you cant do the research all you can do is listen to the experts ...even when if defys common sense. How do they know the squencing is right. They dont. They guess and hope through trial and erro
Hi this was something that is stuck with me. He says they are pulling at random. So if they are not pulling at random and pulling with certain standards, does that give the significance to the results? Do they have really figured out the virus material?
