Caught offGuardian💂

Alt title, “offGuardian admin in virus craze”

This was one of the most unexpected rumble-tumble threads I’ve been involved with in 4 years. Here you can see nearly every commenter (some who also write on my SS) was very logical about no-virus being found and who got attacked by the Admins at offGuardian. Admin Sam was illogical, rude and derisive, and just surprisingly unpleasant to numerous commenters on a platform that usually promotes rational and logical critical articles about virology and other topics (most platforms try to be nice to their readers ya think?). Has offGuardian been bought off by Pharma, or a more sinister group even?

👉 Sam’s MO was clearly to water down the no-virus comments and leave doubt in the reader that a virus could exist. Sam’s hands were “tainted” we could say?

The current article on measles by Kit Knightly was itself a good article albeit did not mention that no measles virus has ever been found, nor that the measles vax was started in 1963 way AFTER measles cases and deaths plummeted to near zero in the late 40s. The measles vax obviously did nothing, and was an unnecessary injection of junk into little babies.

It’s a long comment section, let me just give you a short part of this comedy. At the top when the comments were still new you can see the routing Sam the Admin got in the dislike column. I cut out lines with 0 likes or dislikes.

---

reante Mar 15, 2024 6:49 PM Reply to  Howard

“I’m open to the possibility that the virus does indeed not exist – at least as a pathogen. What I am NOT open to is the outright dismissal of those symptoms and sicknesses attributed to viruses.”

Nobody dismisses the symptomologies of ‘colds’ and ‘flus’ because everyone has experienced those symptoms. We terrain folk merely dismiss the false ‘viral’ theory.

Given that our bodies are water-based, there are two fundamental types of toxins in the world: water-soluble toxins and fat-soluble toxins.

Our primary detoxification function is our our daily detox which primarily happens at night when we sleep. Generally speaking, ‘colds’ are secondary/seasonal detoxifications from an over accumulation of water-soluble toxins that our daily detoxed a haven’t been keeping up with for whatever reason(s), and ‘flus’ are secondary fat-soluble detoxes, but the two also can and often do overlap.

Because we are water-based, excess fat-soluble toxins, which are more complex molecules that are harder to break down — and more carcinogenic — must be stored in fat cells. In order to detox from stored fat-soluble carcinogens we have to raise our body temperature such that the fat cells loosen (think butter or coconut oil or most relevantly, tallow) and release the toxins into the interstitial tissue in coordination with the release of powerful classes of enzymes like the monooxygenases that can breakdown the fat-soluble toxins into water-soluble ones that can then enter the water-based bloodstream for further processing. The raised body temperature is the fever we associate with ‘flu.’

There is no ‘virus’ causing ‘colds’ and ‘flus.’ The correlated bodies that they are wrongly assigning causation to are in actuality signaling exosomes which have identical morphology to ‘viruses.’ The function of the ‘cold’ and ‘flu’ signaling exosomes are to coordinate the respective detoxes across the trillion-fold cellular culture (the human). Obviously coordination is necessary, and intercellular communication is neverending.

The problem is cultural. Germ Theory is a subfield of allopathic culture. Allopathy’s etymological meaning is “beyond suffering.” Therefore the underlying goal of allopathic ‘medicine’ is to suppress symptoms because we suffer (from) symptoms. Holistic medicine, on the other hand, has always known it to be self-evident that healing entails suffering. When we detox it hurts because we are metabolizing pollution in order to excrete it, which causes acute inflammation, and for a good cause which to get clean again.

+13 -3

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 16, 2024 12:01 AM Reply to  reante

You are simply arguing by assertion.

Arguing by assertion while providing no scientific, corroboratory evidence, while also insisting virology is invalid unless it proves certain evidence, is simply the height of hypocrisy.

I don’t have an unconditional faith in science. It does make mistakes. After Covid, who could not be sceptical. However, there is a big difference between evidence-based reasoning and evidence-free belief.

You appear (to this admin) to be dressing one up as the other, to be special pleading and mixing and matching logic to put most wokists to shame lol

Let’s be consistent.

Believe what you want, however you will preface all further comments as your belief, OR you will link to quality evidence (not some middle-aged snide dude narrating a video on bitchute called something like ‘viral delusion’ or whatever, I’m talking about good quality, scientifically-valid sources).

+4 -17

Jill Mar 16, 2024 12:59 AM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

There’s no money to be made from the body’s own detoxification initiatives, so it doesn’t get studied.

+9 -1

Reply

NickM Mar 16, 2024 9:13 AM Reply to  Jill

You forgot to mention that “the body’s own detoxification initiates the body’s own detoxification initiatives” include natural immunity against infection by micro-organisms such as amoeba, bacteria and — of course — viruses.

+3 -5

Reply

Proton Magic Mar 18, 2024 10:38 AM Reply to  NickM

Pls show a paper finding purified isolated virus of any type, not a genome, EM photo, or cell culture-none of those can actually FIND an object..
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-virus-rouse-going-going-gonzo

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 18, 2024 1:53 PM Reply to  Proton Magic

Happy to accept there aren’t any, however are yo happy to accept that this doesn’t mean virology is ‘disproved’. There are many ways to prove a hypothesis.

Please show a paper demonstrating that toxins can cause identical measles symptoms in many multiple people.

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 16, 2024 9:32 AM Reply to  Jill

I take that point, however let’s not commit a modal fallacy. Just because there isn’t a lot of study in this area, that doesn’t mean your assertions are accurate, and nor does it mean virology is de facto incorrect.

In actual fact, allopathic medicine/pathogenesis AND hollistic terrain theory could coexist and influence one another. Or BOTH theories might be wrong.

I think it’s about time someone did some research into terrain etc.. Without this research we are arguing from the unknown, also known as an Appeal to Ignorance.

This is not a new age health festival, and we are not recruiting followers here. Lol We need to argue from the evidence.

+4 -12

Lizzyh7 Mar 16, 2024 5:24 PM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Here’s the thing about that research though, and you’ll recognize this as well as the rest of us do. Many out here do indeed cite actual literature about viral theory vs terrain. But most of that research is NOT something that will ever hit the main stream for the public to even observe, much less will that actually be studied with honest intent by those who hold themselves out as experts. So how can we really say no research at all into that topic has been done? Would we know about it if it were? And would most believe or even contemplate something that basically upends the entire field of medicine, along with their own entire world view? When doctors are held out as Gods? You seem to be almost buying into the fallacy that if something is true our owners would reveal it to us through some public forum, perhaps the boob tube? And if they do not do that, then it didn’t happen…

As for recruiting followers here, well, no, not really. But the very idea that our comments need to be moderated by those who have more “expertise” or more open minds than we do, does show at least a tendency to encourage following behavior. Or perhaps corralling is more like it. We must stay in our lane at all times, and if we do not have 100% solid evidence of a thing then we’d best not discuss or debate it?

+2 0

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 16, 2024 11:56 PM Reply to  Lizzyh7

I just want people to be consistent.

I’ve made that very clear. No one addresses that, they pretend like i’m saying something else. It’s all rather predictable at this point lol. Maybe people are a bit mad with me because they don’t like to have their inconsistent thinking pointed out to them, but frankly that’s probably a burden I’ll have to bear as admin here.

People say, why do I get involved in this discussion? Well, I don’t think there is another subject on here that’s discussed with so much faux certainty. It chokes up every article relating to viruses.

Believe in terrain. Sure. But we mustn’t preach our beliefs as though they are fact, and we mist be consistent in our reasoning. If pathogenesis was never ‘proved’ because some evidence is brought into question, terrain certainly hasn’t been proved either. As long as we can acknowledge that, we can discuss it usefully! 🙂 A2

+2 -2

NixonScraypes Mar 17, 2024 8:03 PM

Reply to  Sam - Admin2 We have to realise that as far as the majority here are concerned- the science is settled and the consensus is overwhelming- viruses don’t exist. Mind you, the overwhelming consensus is that science is never settled. Figure that one out.

+1 -1

Proton Magic Mar 18, 2024 11:02 AM Reply to  NixonScraypes

Viruses have not been found, and likely do not exist, but we can’t say they categorically do not exist and if you are not clear they only have not been found you may get more blowback than necessary from the yes virus camp.

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 18, 2024 1:59 PM Reply to  NixonScraypes

We have to realise that as far as the majority here are concerned- the science is settled

The point of science is that it isn’t subjective, therefore you’re making my point… most people here apparently aren’t even attempting to approach this evidentially or scientifically – further, they are special pleading that virology must do these things, but not them.

What future does this have for challenging the corrupt medical establishment?

i’m going to go out on a limb here and say fucking zero. Downvote that to your hearts’ content, offg terrain community. 😂

NixonScraypes Mar 18, 2024 3:02 PM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Read it again sam before picking up your musket. For the record, I didn’t down vote you and I was agreeing with you. I don’t care who you fuck, as long as it’s not me, wash your mouth with soap and water before you address me in future.

0 0

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 18, 2024 5:46 PM Reply to  NixonScraypes

If you’re agreeing with me you’d be the first, since there is obviously a group of people campaigning on this issue who are very vocal btl.

Don’t be afraid, you know, to chime in a bit less ambiguously in future, since you can read your comment either way, depending lol.

btw, i was speaking to the wider community re. downvoting. I’ll amend to make that clearer.

Veri Tas Mar 16, 2024 10:23 PM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Scientific evidence … hmmm.

The trouble with orthodox medical research is that fraud is very likely second to incompetence in generating erroneous results .

“Unreliable Research – Trouble at the lab”, The Economist, 19 Oct 2013
(http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble).

According to the authors of Tarnished Gold – The Sickness of Evidence-based Medicine (EBM), S Hickey & H Roberts, EBM breaks the laws of so many disciplines that it cannot be considered scientific or even rational. 

They also claim that the concept of proof is not scientific, being a feature of mathematics and logic. By definition, logical proof is absolute, however, all scientific knowledge is uncertain!

According to the authors, the scientific community has unquestioningly accepted the notion of “legal proof” into its paradigm which protects corporate medicine, not patients.

There’s no such thing as “scientific proof”. A person’s viewpoint can and does skew their results, even when the results are repeatable and the statistical significance is high. For instance, light is both a wave and a particle. You can design an experiment to find “proof” for either, depending on your viewpoint!

According to Richard Feynman EBM is a “cargo cult”, as it is based on specific ritual methods that supposedly lead to the best evidence.

These methods are validated by authorities, tradition and organisational approval, rather than by decision science (dealing with the rationality and optimality of choices) and the scientific method. As with all systems based on tradition and ritual, competing paradigms are vilified.

Medical education is not set up to nurture brilliance. Years of medical training can instil recipients with a stultifying respect for the status quo.

Further, the RTCs EBM is so proud of are only required to be so large because they study clinically insignificant effects; the larger the number of people enrolled, the greater the effect appears.

Significance is further rigged by using power calculations, subgroup analysis, multiple outcomes, etc….

+3 0

Baldmichael Theresolute Mar 18, 2024 10:59 AM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Everything is ultimately belief. We have to believe our faculties, that our senses, our minds, are giving us the truth, even with so-called evidence.

Reasoning is still based on belief or faith if you will that what we observe is true or real in some sense.

reante used logic based on observation. It is presented for discussion and trying to ridicule it as you do is the height of hypocrisy.

I see you like to use ‘lol’ in your comments. It can have its place but not in this case.

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 18, 2024 6:03 PM Reply to  Baldmichael Theresolute

Everything is ultimately belief

Let’s not get solipsistic now lol

If i concede that Koch’s postulates and isolation have never been fulfilled, will you concede that there are more ways than these to ‘prove’ a hypothesis? Scientific proof is often arrived at by a circuitous path, using proxy evidence. It is rarely as straightforward as an easter egg hunt, ya know?

If you are happy to concede this, are you also happy to concede that there are no terrain ‘Koch’s postulate’ equivalents, and de facto these have not been ‘fulfilled’ either, nor are there any ‘isolates’ or other definitive proof of toxins repeatably and predictably reproducing measles symptoms in test subjects.

The onus is surely on terrain adherents to prove all this before they start citing it as a valid alternative to pathogenesis?

Pavol Mar 18, 2024 8:05 PM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

So far, no scientist has ever been able to demonstrate using the scientific method (control experiments and the null hypothesis) that the independent variable under investigation (the alleged ‘pathogen’) causes the hypothesized dependent effect (a set of symptoms called a ‘disease’).

Proton Magic Mar 19, 2024 4:03 AM Reply to  reante

You made a logical comment. Sam wants an absolute proof negation of virology which is impossible because that is asking to prove that no virus exists in any and all places which is an unfalsifiable logic fallacy.

The onus is on the virus hypothesis makers to disprove the null hypothesis that there is a virus (defined as replication competent obligate intracellular parasite with protein coat and genome) in some specified location (usually patient fluids). Since they have not in >100 years and thousands of studies, the validity of virology as a science of virus objects actually looks bleak, but is not disproven. A virus is still findable somewhere over the rainbow maybe?

Admin Sam - Admin Mar 19, 2024 10:28 AM Reply to  Proton Magic

Wilfully misunderstanding people is not debating, btw.

I am not defending virology here, I’m sure it does need an overhaul, I have no doubt. What I’m suggesting is, those taking virology to task need to up their game if they are to stand any chance of succes and avoid the very same anti-science pitfalls they accuse virology of!!!!

Now, when it comes to ‘proving’ a hypothesis, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I know you wish to reframe this as a virus easter egg hunt in which no isolates = no cigar. However, this feels a bit simplistic to me. Have you stopped to consider whether your terms of proof are realistic or meaningful? Are you doing the equivalent of asking science to put lightning in a bottle? I’m sure I don’t know either way.

Science is under the impression it has successfully been crystallising viruses since the 1940s. It is not in any doubt as to whether viruses exist. It considers the science essentially settled, citing a huge mass of experimental laboratory evidence to back that up. Viruses are used to infect and modify cells in genetic sciences all the time, for instance.

Are these scientists fully correct? Far be it from me to appeal to consensus on this one. I question the science of climate change, I question the science of covid, therefore I should be open to anti-scientific institutional madness in all areas, shouldn’t I?

Yes indeed, and this is why I find this conversation about viruses so disappointing. Why is everyone peddling terrain theory, which is scientifically completely unproven and unresearched, while criticising a lack of evidence for virology?

This double standard makes no sense. It makes a mockery of the whole thing. It is daft.

Why can’t we address this? Why must people pretend that I’m saying something else?

Proton Magic Mar 19, 2024 2:27 PM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Hi Sam, you impressively spent your valuable time in looking at this issue, thank you.
A virus is said to be a replication competent intracellular parasite with protein coat and genetic material used to design its replication and ability to leave the host cell and invade other cells. This is the definition and the finding of such requires an actual object that is characterized. In order to find this kind of object it needs to be separated from everything else (purified-isolated by centrifuge) and characterized. Neither an EM photo of mixed and dead objects of unknown provenance, cell culture of mixed things that break down cells (whether or not patient fluid is added), nor letters printed from a computer erroneously called a “genome”, finds an actual object. Some like to say the genomes are homologous with prior viruses, but when you look into those, they also have never been isolated-characterized either.

👉see this post and the Virus Finding 101 section at the bottom, then the Sars is only a registration.. and The common cold.. posts in the body.

https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-virus-rouse-going-going-gonzo

The issue is viruses have never been FOUND, thus not yet proven to exist. No one can prove they don’t exist someplace but the possibility looks bleak since they have never been found. You need to stop using the word “exist” that is not what my comments are about, they are about FOUND.

Antibodies/antigens are nonspecific no matter how indoctrinated we’ve been to think they are specific that won’t change the facts.
 
“It considers the science fully settled, with a huge mass of experimental laboratory evidence to back that up.”
👉All the science has done is the indirect and non-object finding of phenomena that do not correspond with an actual object as in #1 above. The jobs, grants, and other goodies these “scientists” get from this just continue to flow on the gravy train.

“Viruses are used to modify cells in the genetic sciences all the time, for instance”.
👉The name of a virus like Adenovirus that is said to modify cells is just a label and statements about a mixed fluid that you might believe. Are labels and statements biologic objects? No Adeno nor other virus object has ever been found from these “vectors”.
👉Myself and many others are only saying, “sure please give us a paper showing purified isolation and characterization of an object that fits being a virus”. We don’t care if this has been found or not, we are just saying it has not. It is not our onus to go into a lab and look, we are not saying nor trying to prove they don’t exist. They havn’t been found and that is just fact.
👉Maybe some persons with my kind of thinking peddle terrain, but I do not and have not in these comments nor on my substack.

Neither the validity of terrain nor what makes people sick has anything to do with finding an object defined as a virus. These are separate topics.

Ok you want me to prove you can get sick without a virus? Sure, drink 500ml of bleach and I promise you will get sick. But what makes people sick has nothing to do with a virus and I don’t give a rats arse if they are found some day, I’m just telling you the facts on the ground as of 3.19.2024 is, “never found”.

Best regards

Admin Sam - Admin2 Mar 19, 2024 5:33 PM Reply to  Proton Magic

This is more waffle missing the point.

You are attempting to frame a complicated issue in over simplified terms. There have been many things which couldn’t be ‘isolated’ due to technological/physical limitations, and yet science successfully predicted their existence through processes of elimination, later to be vindicated when technology has caught up.

I’m thinking about particle physics etc.

There are many clear precedents of your ‘see it to believe it’ logic simply constituting luditeism if applied historically. It’s kinda parochial, ya know?

Does this mean virology is right? No. Does this mean virology is as flawless/honest/noble as people would like to believe? No.

What i’m saying is your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and kinda sucks lol.

You are being too simplistic. I see no one attempting to set up a dialogue and test their convictions in an open-minded way with the virological community. I see a closed-minded echo chamber in the terrain camp, preaching blind belief as facts – eg. evidence-free concepts like ‘toxaemia’ as a universal explanation for ALL disease.

Where is the ‘isolated’ evidence for this? What measles ‘toxin’ are you talking about, or herpes ‘toxin’? Where are these ‘isolated’?

If you can’t be methodical and consistent and respect evidence-based reasoning yourself, respect dialogue and debate… then your position has zero merit, it’s a mockery, you’re just a bunch of folks looking for an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and chant ‘la la la’.

Disbelieve pathogenesis all you want. I respect your beliefs, and I don’t completely disbelieve them myself, but I am always openminded. You and your band of terrain believers don’t get to coerce and shut down conversation btl with evidence-free prattle and bald assertions.

There is an infinite gulf between presenting your beliefs fairly and accurately as beliefs, and misrepresented them as facts.

Learn the difference, because as admin I won’t be allowing more of the same through. Thank you

Proton Magic Mar 20, 2024 1:20 AM Reply to  Sam - Admin2

Thanks Sam, while I stand by the logic my comment reply to you, I agree we are at the end of our discussion rope.

---

One screen shot as proof of Sam’s “nice” replies:

---

Don’t get caught offGuardian

Yours Truly, Proton Magic & Co.

---

Moving song to listen to while you read Proton Magic posts:

The Chicken or The Egg

---