One of the reasons I have not posted as many articles this month is because I am currently finishing up a second edition of my last book "What Now? Recovering From A Tragic Mistake." For those of you who have already received the first edition, to put your mind at ease, there will be nothing added to the second edition that changes the advice or specific recommendations I make, so you do not necessarily have to read this second version. Its not that much different, it just includes a few things I thought needed to be in there to make the overall book a bit better, and the passage below is such an example.
The book addresses covid vaccine injury as a primary focus but also provides some general information that is relevant to that topic. I assert repeatedly in it that viruses do not exist throughout the book but I never said what I think they are, and I noticed much later that is something that should be in there someplace.
So, to clear that up once and for all, I think viruses are exosomes, that the two terms are frequently considered synonyms, but one must also be clear about all the capabilities that are either properly or falsely attributed to each. This is the topic I am covering today and the passages below will be added to the second edition.
The book addresses covid vaccine injury as a primary focus but also provides some general information that is relevant to that topic. I assert repeatedly in it that viruses do not exist throughout the book but I never said what I think they are, and I noticed much later that is something that should be in there someplace.
So, to clear that up once and for all, I think viruses are exosomes, that the two terms are frequently considered synonyms, but one must also be clear about all the capabilities that are either properly or falsely attributed to each. This is the topic I am covering today and the passages below will be added to the second edition.
What I strongly feel needs to happen is the entire field of study needs to start over. The medical establishment has built a giant house of cards upon a number of assumptions that do not stand up to serious examination. All such assumptions should be rigorously vetted according to sound scientific principles. What has come to be accepted over the years has been almost entirely driven by the pharmaceutical industrial complex in their pursuit of profit. Making money is not the purpose of medicine, the fact that is has been has led us astray.
Based on all my research into all of this it is my conclusion that viruses are exosomes, that the two terms are frequently considered synonyms, and this is incorrect. To properly define these terms one must be clear about all the capabilities that are either properly or falsely attributed to each. This is the topic I am covering in this chapter. This information was not part of the first edition of this book, which was only a rough draft and never officially published in hard copy form, so hopefully that will not be a problem for readers of this edition.
The way the term 'virus' is commonly used it refers to a kind of capsule with messages. I like to think of these structures, rather unceremoniously, as a mailbag, and the proper term for this mailbag is 'exosome'. I use the analogy of a mailbag not because it is a perfect description, but because a mailbag is something most people can relate to. Normally, these mailbags/exosomes/viruses just contains junk mail, not explosive devices, so the way the term 'virus' is commonly used, everyone believes them to be something not only reactive, but dangerous, in other words, a pathogen. And there is no medical data that can differentiate a virus from an exosome. Observationally, and in the minds of many experts, they are one and the same. Functionally, the two terms describe structures that are very different.
Virologists are frequently labeling artifacts that result from the preparations they do prior to using various forms of equipment, such as electron microscopy, and calling those artifacts viruses. Other times they use the term "virus" to describe structures that only form as a result of their culturing procedures. Occasionally, they are applying the term to exosomes, a needless distinction and an erroneous one as well. Exosomes are not dangerous in the way they believe, and their presence simply informs us of a process that is going on in the body or culture in which they are observed.
Exosome creation is a natural bodily response. Virologists see these things and mistakenly conclude their presence is unnatural, that they somehow randomly exploited some available means to enter the body from outside the body, and that seeing more than one is evidence of reproduction in the way we understand normal cellular reproduction, which is not only incorrect, it borders on lying. I say that because at the same time, the evidence they provide to prove 'viruses' bud off the detritus in their cultures, they claim, is "proof viruses reproduce, and they must know budding is not the same process as cell division. If they don't know this, it is further evidence that virologists are simply incompetent in the extreme.
The result here in terms of definitions is that everything virologists are looking at and all the assumed processes they believe to be happening when "viruses spread" just corrupt the meaning of cellular reproduction, with the common inference being that viruses reproduce and "spread".
To eliminate the confusion my suggestion would be to just eliminate the source of it by banishing the term 'virus' completely. It is redundant. When an exosome is the structure that virologists are observing, they are giving it this secondary name (virus) and attaching to that name all sorts of evil capabilities and intents that are simply not there. While we are at it we should also eliminate the entire field of virology since it refers to a profession of researchers who are examining exosomes.
When a group of cells come into contact with exosomes they did not create they are seen as unrecognized foreign bodies and the cells that encounter them enter a state of alarm, due to a hostile environment within the body. They will then initiate functions to eliminate toxins and broken DNA strands, in an attempt to survive. This secretion is called exosome.
Just as a sidebar, I also think this process is understood by those involved in gain of function research though it may be discussed in terms used by virologists. Adenoviral shells are structures that have been used for years by vaccine manufacturers as empty mailbags, because they are covered with spikes that function like a set of keys, even a master key, and they unlock doors that allow them to deposit material inside cells they come into contact with. Synthetic versions of these structures can now be created and they can even be engineered to target only specific kinds of cells. So this means the presence of a synthetic exosome can trigger the production of additional exosomes, and this seems to be the process by which mRNA vaccines get a cell to express whatever proteins they are coded to create.
But normally, all the natural exosomes that are produced, as a response, are not the same as the one causing the alarm in the first place.
Therefore, exosomes are a method of communication between cells and a toxin elimination system and nothing more, so if you inject synthetic ones into the body, as is the case with a vaccine product, the only thing that can happen is the body will respond by creating additional exosomes to eliminate the ones it does not recognize. And as a bonus here -- You now know what an antibody is as well.
This exosome production is observed with the same set of misunderstandings and polluted definitional terms that have been used for decades and such production is counted as antibodies. So these capsules with messages (exosome/virus/antibody) will be observed if cells decide their production as appropriate and necessary, since many times this secretion will kill the cell.
So what we have going on here is the entire process being observed is totally misunderstood and mistakenly assumed to be an invasion of pathogens that are killing cells that make up bodily tissue and the destruction of
tissue infers their presence is destroying the body and represents a contagious infection.
You can never create a vaccine against an exosome. Because it is a trigger of an already latent condition within each cell and that is programmed at the DNA level. In other words, a vaccine does not cause an immune reaction to anything other than the general presence of an unrecognized foreign body.
To block an exosome you need to manufacture a reactive biological substance against its sensors or spikes, neutralizing them. But this cannot be done without harming the rest of the host organism, since the exosome is made from the host itself. In simple explanatory terms so that it is understood -- You cannot block the key receptors for any exosome, which exist on the cell membrane, without also damaging the cell on which they exist.
Exosomes will enter the bloodstream and cause a protective alarm reaction in other cells as long as they have or are in a similar condition to the one that excreted the exosome. That similarity of condition I am referring to here is the latent ability to secrete the exact same exosome if triggered to do so by that same alarm.
Ultimately these exosomes will be excreted (shed), and if they are in sufficient quantity will go out into the environment outside the individual through respiration and other body fluids. They will float in the air and can potentially end up entering through the mucous membranes of another individual.
IT IS AT THIS POINT THAT THE PROCESS EITHER CONTINUES OR STOPS:
If a second individual has the same latent complications as the sender of the exosome then it will start an alarm reaction in their body, which is being mistakenly interpreted as the start of a disease. If the recipient individual of an excreted exosome is not compatible, the exosome will have no effect on him.
I realize how precise I am getting with such intricate descriptions of each part of the process but this is very important to do, because it is from this level of scrutiny that small misunderstandings lead to disastrously magnified and dangerous conclusions, and the myth of "viral contagion" is one example of this.
If your understanding of this process lacks precision you can see how this leads to assumptions like "viruses spread between people who all become ill, but some people, for whatever reason, do not catch it while others do."
This error can snowball from there, creating another questionable field of study which is epidemiology, the practitioners of which simply count occurrences and correlate what is frequently completely irrelevant simultaneous occurrences of almost anything else which then leads to the next mistake, which is to infer a relationship exists.
In some cases there may be one, but in other cases there is no relationship and epidemiologists never offer proof if they are so bold as to suggest such relationships exist which, by the way, is not and never has been their job.
Just to drive this point home, consider a radiation leak at a nuclear power plant. Nobody will argue the fact that nuclear radiation is deadly today, but we did not always know radiation was dangerous. An epidemiologist might look at such a situation and see cases of radiation sickness in the immediate vicinity of the power plant and amongst those who have physically been there or had contact with people who have been there, and with just that evidence, conclude radiation sickness must be caused by a contagious virus. All they do is count and make statistical models. Epidemiologists are not qualified to do anything else and should not draw any conclusions about any of the models they create.
What tends to happen however, is unsupported assumptions are almost always added later by somebody, and the need for proof they are evidence of an actual causal relationship is overlooked. The sad fact is inappropriate decisions are frequently made as to how to deal with what can appear to be, through the lens of an untrained eye, an outbreak of pathogen, but in every case you examine this essential proof is missing. The lack of it is only glaring if you are very nitpicky with describing exactly what process is going on. If you are not, it appears like germ theory has merit. It does not. This clarification, of the processes assumed by germ theory, proves it is not.
As individuals of the same group have contact with each other, many times, most of them, share the same problems, and the same environment, habitat, etc… This makes them prone to have the same latent health problems and environmental toxicity that causes somatic toxicity (inside their bodies), causing them to be lock-key compatible with the exosomes of other members of their same group. It is here that we get ideas like herd immunity and the like.
But if a person is from another group, they may or may not have exosome reactivity. This happens more often than not. That is to say, because they come from outside they do not share the same latency, therefore they do not react to shared exosomes in the same way.
Sometimes it happens that an individual from outside arrives with foreign exosomes to an isolated community, and as this community has not had the latent pathology for a long time but it is already contained within the genetic code of the human being, or any other species, In such cases it will trigger a violent response to the presence of an exosome of the person coming from outside. As happened with the arrival of the Spaniards in the New World, among other similar scenarios.
So, when we see this happen this means that the problem, disease or medical condition, is already contained within the genetic code of a particular population. Because that is what exosomes contain, partial genetic code competent to the damage or health problem that hosts or damages the cell that has emitted it, because
the exosome is already inside the cell, it does not carry anything new, it only causes a cellular reaction according to the genetic DNA code that the exosome contains.
This leads us to the fact that a 'virus' does not mutate, (remember we are banishing the term' virus' in favor of exosome, because we know what exosomes are capable of and what they are not capable of, whereas the term 'virus' refers to a pathogen with all kinds of assumed capabilities)
Exosomes DO NOT create new variants to adapt to an environment.
What happens is that each compatible individual will produce its own exosomes as a response to the stimulus of other exosomes that have reached it from other compatible individuals around it, thus creating his/her own variant. That is to say, strictly speaking, there is one exosome variant for each person that has emitted it.
And I am talking about exosomes that carry the same genetic code activator of one or another medical conditions already inherent within individuals. For example smallpox, the onset of which is always preceded by prolonged exposure to conditions of squalor.
The process described above makes it even more impossible to create a vaccine, since the isolated exosome that causes a pathology varies and mutates with each person it touches.
The creation of supposed vaccines against SARS-CoV2 indicates that they are not vaccines at all, but the excuse of a non-existent viral disease is being used to force an inoculation of the entire human population with other substances in order to perpetuate dark and malevolent agendas.
With this explanation, anyone with a little intelligence, and little or no medical knowledge, should now be able to see that the components evidently within the inoculations "against" SARS-CoV2 simply have nothing to do with the creation of antibodies against viruses/exosomes.
Specifically, about the group of "viruses" called SARS, that contain SARS-CoV2, aka covid-19; they are essentially respiratory pulmonary. They are flu exosomes. This means that they have a very high range of variants and of effects and symptoms, and they obey the same pattern of behaviors coinciding with exosomes of chronic stress activation.
Now, lets look at the term "mutation". Because the story here we are being given is "covid is a virus that mutates". Lets not forget anything we have learned thus far and just continue the education:
An exosome does not mutate by itself, it's not something that has an agenda or that changes, like a staphylococcus bacteria would. The 'virus' is just an exosome that is secreted by people's cells when certain conditions occur and the same exosomes can be excreted into that persons immediate enviornment. So an exosome doesn't mutate, it just is.
But each different person whose cells respond to the stimulus of another person's exosomes will create slightly different exosomes or viruses. Because it comes from another person, not the original one. So the original exosome has not mutated. It is mutated by each person as they mutate their cells.
It's like making paper airplanes. You make one, I make another, some guy named Fred will make another. It's not that the airplane mutates because you can see differences between them, but rather they are slightly different because they were made by different people. And they all started making paper airplanes because they got the same idea. It is the same with exosomes.
The mutation process observed in bacteria is not the same, this natural proliferation of additional slightly customized additional exosomes are not a mutation from the point of view of what defines a biological mutation.
A staphylococcus does mutate. It changes its form as a response to the environment in which it lives, resulting in differences or changes (mutations) in its descendants as a method of adaptation to its environment. An exosome lacks this ability, it is only a stimulus that if the conditions are right, will cause another person to make its own specific and particular version of the first exosome alarm stimulus it received in the beginning.
Another analogy that might make sense is a line up of people passing a verbal message down the line. You compose a paragraph and relay the message verbally, the next person repeats it and so on. By the end of the line the message will have been received and repeated so many times with each person paraphrasing a bit that what is finally received by the last person in the line will have changed a bit from its original form, but overall its likely to be the same general message. The original message has not mutated. It was mutated by the people as the message was passed on.
The same thing occurs with exosomes.
I am not a doctor, virologist, microbiologist, scientist, etc. Many will use this against me. My formal educational background is in business but my lifelong pursuit to expand my knowledge in countless other areas that interest me has resulted in an extra ordinary ability that I possess and frequently put to use. Put bluntly, I can find the bullshit in anything and there is so much bullshit in medicine that is being put forward as evidence for pandemics and vaccines that the world is literally DROWNING in it. What I present here may sound erudite to some, and who knows, maybe it is, but to me it is simple logic. It doesn’t require that anyone have any specialized knowledge of the field. It just helps when you have to confront people that do.
Based on all my research into all of this it is my conclusion that viruses are exosomes, that the two terms are frequently considered synonyms, and this is incorrect. To properly define these terms one must be clear about all the capabilities that are either properly or falsely attributed to each. This is the topic I am covering in this chapter. This information was not part of the first edition of this book, which was only a rough draft and never officially published in hard copy form, so hopefully that will not be a problem for readers of this edition.
The way the term 'virus' is commonly used it refers to a kind of capsule with messages. I like to think of these structures, rather unceremoniously, as a mailbag, and the proper term for this mailbag is 'exosome'. I use the analogy of a mailbag not because it is a perfect description, but because a mailbag is something most people can relate to. Normally, these mailbags/exosomes/viruses just contains junk mail, not explosive devices, so the way the term 'virus' is commonly used, everyone believes them to be something not only reactive, but dangerous, in other words, a pathogen. And there is no medical data that can differentiate a virus from an exosome. Observationally, and in the minds of many experts, they are one and the same. Functionally, the two terms describe structures that are very different.
Virologists are frequently labeling artifacts that result from the preparations they do prior to using various forms of equipment, such as electron microscopy, and calling those artifacts viruses. Other times they use the term "virus" to describe structures that only form as a result of their culturing procedures. Occasionally, they are applying the term to exosomes, a needless distinction and an erroneous one as well. Exosomes are not dangerous in the way they believe, and their presence simply informs us of a process that is going on in the body or culture in which they are observed.
Exosome creation is a natural bodily response. Virologists see these things and mistakenly conclude their presence is unnatural, that they somehow randomly exploited some available means to enter the body from outside the body, and that seeing more than one is evidence of reproduction in the way we understand normal cellular reproduction, which is not only incorrect, it borders on lying. I say that because at the same time, the evidence they provide to prove 'viruses' bud off the detritus in their cultures, they claim, is "proof viruses reproduce, and they must know budding is not the same process as cell division. If they don't know this, it is further evidence that virologists are simply incompetent in the extreme.
The result here in terms of definitions is that everything virologists are looking at and all the assumed processes they believe to be happening when "viruses spread" just corrupt the meaning of cellular reproduction, with the common inference being that viruses reproduce and "spread".
To eliminate the confusion my suggestion would be to just eliminate the source of it by banishing the term 'virus' completely. It is redundant. When an exosome is the structure that virologists are observing, they are giving it this secondary name (virus) and attaching to that name all sorts of evil capabilities and intents that are simply not there. While we are at it we should also eliminate the entire field of virology since it refers to a profession of researchers who are examining exosomes.
When a group of cells come into contact with exosomes they did not create they are seen as unrecognized foreign bodies and the cells that encounter them enter a state of alarm, due to a hostile environment within the body. They will then initiate functions to eliminate toxins and broken DNA strands, in an attempt to survive. This secretion is called exosome.
Just as a sidebar, I also think this process is understood by those involved in gain of function research though it may be discussed in terms used by virologists. Adenoviral shells are structures that have been used for years by vaccine manufacturers as empty mailbags, because they are covered with spikes that function like a set of keys, even a master key, and they unlock doors that allow them to deposit material inside cells they come into contact with. Synthetic versions of these structures can now be created and they can even be engineered to target only specific kinds of cells. So this means the presence of a synthetic exosome can trigger the production of additional exosomes, and this seems to be the process by which mRNA vaccines get a cell to express whatever proteins they are coded to create.
But normally, all the natural exosomes that are produced, as a response, are not the same as the one causing the alarm in the first place.
Therefore, exosomes are a method of communication between cells and a toxin elimination system and nothing more, so if you inject synthetic ones into the body, as is the case with a vaccine product, the only thing that can happen is the body will respond by creating additional exosomes to eliminate the ones it does not recognize. And as a bonus here -- You now know what an antibody is as well.
This exosome production is observed with the same set of misunderstandings and polluted definitional terms that have been used for decades and such production is counted as antibodies. So these capsules with messages (exosome/virus/antibody) will be observed if cells decide their production as appropriate and necessary, since many times this secretion will kill the cell.
So what we have going on here is the entire process being observed is totally misunderstood and mistakenly assumed to be an invasion of pathogens that are killing cells that make up bodily tissue and the destruction of
tissue infers their presence is destroying the body and represents a contagious infection.
You can never create a vaccine against an exosome. Because it is a trigger of an already latent condition within each cell and that is programmed at the DNA level. In other words, a vaccine does not cause an immune reaction to anything other than the general presence of an unrecognized foreign body.
To block an exosome you need to manufacture a reactive biological substance against its sensors or spikes, neutralizing them. But this cannot be done without harming the rest of the host organism, since the exosome is made from the host itself. In simple explanatory terms so that it is understood -- You cannot block the key receptors for any exosome, which exist on the cell membrane, without also damaging the cell on which they exist.
Exosomes will enter the bloodstream and cause a protective alarm reaction in other cells as long as they have or are in a similar condition to the one that excreted the exosome. That similarity of condition I am referring to here is the latent ability to secrete the exact same exosome if triggered to do so by that same alarm.
Ultimately these exosomes will be excreted (shed), and if they are in sufficient quantity will go out into the environment outside the individual through respiration and other body fluids. They will float in the air and can potentially end up entering through the mucous membranes of another individual.
IT IS AT THIS POINT THAT THE PROCESS EITHER CONTINUES OR STOPS:
If a second individual has the same latent complications as the sender of the exosome then it will start an alarm reaction in their body, which is being mistakenly interpreted as the start of a disease. If the recipient individual of an excreted exosome is not compatible, the exosome will have no effect on him.
I realize how precise I am getting with such intricate descriptions of each part of the process but this is very important to do, because it is from this level of scrutiny that small misunderstandings lead to disastrously magnified and dangerous conclusions, and the myth of "viral contagion" is one example of this.
If your understanding of this process lacks precision you can see how this leads to assumptions like "viruses spread between people who all become ill, but some people, for whatever reason, do not catch it while others do."
This error can snowball from there, creating another questionable field of study which is epidemiology, the practitioners of which simply count occurrences and correlate what is frequently completely irrelevant simultaneous occurrences of almost anything else which then leads to the next mistake, which is to infer a relationship exists.
In some cases there may be one, but in other cases there is no relationship and epidemiologists never offer proof if they are so bold as to suggest such relationships exist which, by the way, is not and never has been their job.
Just to drive this point home, consider a radiation leak at a nuclear power plant. Nobody will argue the fact that nuclear radiation is deadly today, but we did not always know radiation was dangerous. An epidemiologist might look at such a situation and see cases of radiation sickness in the immediate vicinity of the power plant and amongst those who have physically been there or had contact with people who have been there, and with just that evidence, conclude radiation sickness must be caused by a contagious virus. All they do is count and make statistical models. Epidemiologists are not qualified to do anything else and should not draw any conclusions about any of the models they create.
What tends to happen however, is unsupported assumptions are almost always added later by somebody, and the need for proof they are evidence of an actual causal relationship is overlooked. The sad fact is inappropriate decisions are frequently made as to how to deal with what can appear to be, through the lens of an untrained eye, an outbreak of pathogen, but in every case you examine this essential proof is missing. The lack of it is only glaring if you are very nitpicky with describing exactly what process is going on. If you are not, it appears like germ theory has merit. It does not. This clarification, of the processes assumed by germ theory, proves it is not.
As individuals of the same group have contact with each other, many times, most of them, share the same problems, and the same environment, habitat, etc… This makes them prone to have the same latent health problems and environmental toxicity that causes somatic toxicity (inside their bodies), causing them to be lock-key compatible with the exosomes of other members of their same group. It is here that we get ideas like herd immunity and the like.
But if a person is from another group, they may or may not have exosome reactivity. This happens more often than not. That is to say, because they come from outside they do not share the same latency, therefore they do not react to shared exosomes in the same way.
Sometimes it happens that an individual from outside arrives with foreign exosomes to an isolated community, and as this community has not had the latent pathology for a long time but it is already contained within the genetic code of the human being, or any other species, In such cases it will trigger a violent response to the presence of an exosome of the person coming from outside. As happened with the arrival of the Spaniards in the New World, among other similar scenarios.
So, when we see this happen this means that the problem, disease or medical condition, is already contained within the genetic code of a particular population. Because that is what exosomes contain, partial genetic code competent to the damage or health problem that hosts or damages the cell that has emitted it, because
the exosome is already inside the cell, it does not carry anything new, it only causes a cellular reaction according to the genetic DNA code that the exosome contains.
This leads us to the fact that a 'virus' does not mutate, (remember we are banishing the term' virus' in favor of exosome, because we know what exosomes are capable of and what they are not capable of, whereas the term 'virus' refers to a pathogen with all kinds of assumed capabilities)
Exosomes DO NOT create new variants to adapt to an environment.
What happens is that each compatible individual will produce its own exosomes as a response to the stimulus of other exosomes that have reached it from other compatible individuals around it, thus creating his/her own variant. That is to say, strictly speaking, there is one exosome variant for each person that has emitted it.
And I am talking about exosomes that carry the same genetic code activator of one or another medical conditions already inherent within individuals. For example smallpox, the onset of which is always preceded by prolonged exposure to conditions of squalor.
The process described above makes it even more impossible to create a vaccine, since the isolated exosome that causes a pathology varies and mutates with each person it touches.
The creation of supposed vaccines against SARS-CoV2 indicates that they are not vaccines at all, but the excuse of a non-existent viral disease is being used to force an inoculation of the entire human population with other substances in order to perpetuate dark and malevolent agendas.
With this explanation, anyone with a little intelligence, and little or no medical knowledge, should now be able to see that the components evidently within the inoculations "against" SARS-CoV2 simply have nothing to do with the creation of antibodies against viruses/exosomes.
Specifically, about the group of "viruses" called SARS, that contain SARS-CoV2, aka covid-19; they are essentially respiratory pulmonary. They are flu exosomes. This means that they have a very high range of variants and of effects and symptoms, and they obey the same pattern of behaviors coinciding with exosomes of chronic stress activation.
Now, lets look at the term "mutation". Because the story here we are being given is "covid is a virus that mutates". Lets not forget anything we have learned thus far and just continue the education:
An exosome does not mutate by itself, it's not something that has an agenda or that changes, like a staphylococcus bacteria would. The 'virus' is just an exosome that is secreted by people's cells when certain conditions occur and the same exosomes can be excreted into that persons immediate enviornment. So an exosome doesn't mutate, it just is.
But each different person whose cells respond to the stimulus of another person's exosomes will create slightly different exosomes or viruses. Because it comes from another person, not the original one. So the original exosome has not mutated. It is mutated by each person as they mutate their cells.
It's like making paper airplanes. You make one, I make another, some guy named Fred will make another. It's not that the airplane mutates because you can see differences between them, but rather they are slightly different because they were made by different people. And they all started making paper airplanes because they got the same idea. It is the same with exosomes.
The mutation process observed in bacteria is not the same, this natural proliferation of additional slightly customized additional exosomes are not a mutation from the point of view of what defines a biological mutation.
A staphylococcus does mutate. It changes its form as a response to the environment in which it lives, resulting in differences or changes (mutations) in its descendants as a method of adaptation to its environment. An exosome lacks this ability, it is only a stimulus that if the conditions are right, will cause another person to make its own specific and particular version of the first exosome alarm stimulus it received in the beginning.
Another analogy that might make sense is a line up of people passing a verbal message down the line. You compose a paragraph and relay the message verbally, the next person repeats it and so on. By the end of the line the message will have been received and repeated so many times with each person paraphrasing a bit that what is finally received by the last person in the line will have changed a bit from its original form, but overall its likely to be the same general message. The original message has not mutated. It was mutated by the people as the message was passed on.
The same thing occurs with exosomes.
I am not a doctor, virologist, microbiologist, scientist, etc. Many will use this against me. My formal educational background is in business but my lifelong pursuit to expand my knowledge in countless other areas that interest me has resulted in an extra ordinary ability that I possess and frequently put to use. Put bluntly, I can find the bullshit in anything and there is so much bullshit in medicine that is being put forward as evidence for pandemics and vaccines that the world is literally DROWNING in it. What I present here may sound erudite to some, and who knows, maybe it is, but to me it is simple logic. It doesn’t require that anyone have any specialized knowledge of the field. It just helps when you have to confront people that do.
I hope this information is helpful to you in finding the BS in all the propaganda
you are forced to deal with.
you are forced to deal with.
RSS Feed