From my point of view, all theories that adhere to the germ or contagion hypothesis are questionable. The paucity of literature and suppression of critical questions about this form of "science" is systematic. The deeply rooted belief that other living beings can infect us with deadly bacteria or viruses is certainly older than even the plague. If we lived under a permanently plural Enlightenment community, there would be a lot more actuation with this contagion theory and real science would never push for consensus because otherwise it is fake science. In science, as I have understood it, consensus is not really conducive, but a decision at what point you promote something into the world as true and erect a dogma on it. Every theory should be open to questioning, because that's what theories are for. That they are always looked at anew.
Apart from that, I have consciously decided to work against this kind of inculcated conviction. My decision is that it is better for me not to believe in contagion, because it makes enemies of my fellow human beings. I don't want that. Therefore, I try to find historical records that oppose this always prevailing image of "man as the enemy of man" and tell something different, a better story. If it is told by people with a sense of humour, so much the better.
I read about Salk, the eponym of the institute at the beginning of your text. He appears in connection with the machinations that the pharmaceutical industry was already engaged in at that time. I'm not surprised that today's institute continues to promote the virus theory. Even if it seems here that they are among the "good guys".
I can't find the source where I read about him. Maybe I'll give it to you later. But probably you can find it by researching about Stefan Lanka, a German biologist and critic of the vaccine narratives. If you find my suggestion worthwhile.
Here a quote from the book I previously gave you the link:
Many vaccines also cause other diseases besides the one for which they are given. For instance, smallpox vaccine often causes syphilis, paralysis, leprosy, and cancer. (See the chapters on smallpox and plagues.) Polio shots, diphtheria toxin-antitoxin, typhoid vaccine, as well as measles, tetanus and all other shots often cause various other stages of disease such as post-vaccinal encephalitis (inflammation of the brain,) paralysis, spinal meningitis, blindness, cancer (sometimes within two years,) tuberculosis, (two to twenty years after the shot,) arthritis, kidney disease, heart disease (heart failure sometimes within minutes after the shot and sometimes several hours later.) Nerve damage and many other serious conditions also follow the injections.
When several shots are given (different vaccines) within a few days or a few weeks apart, they often trigger intensified cases of all the diseases at once, because the body cannot handle such a large amount of deadly poison being injected directly into the bloodstream. The doctors call it a new disease and proceed to suppress the symptoms.
When poison is taken by the mouth, the internal defense system has a chance to quickly eject some of it by vomiting, but when the poisons are shot directly into the body, bypassing all the natural safeguards, these dangerous poisons circulate immediately throughout the entire body in a matter of seconds and keep on circulating until all the cells are poisoned.
I'm afraid you're not making any sense to me. I'm a biologist and nurse and find your conviction amusing but incredibly misguided. Spreading that kind of misinformation is truly dangerous. Please reconsider, or at least have a better understanding of the basic facts before continuing.
last comment so far:
For a better understanding: I personally am interested in what can be found off the usual main streams of information. I can understand that people strategically opt for those justifications that promise to herald the end of the Corona measures, such as that the virus escaped from a laboratory. As has now been the case with the questioning of Fauci. For you, this is perhaps a legitimate strategy and perspective? This is a question for you that I interpret from what I have read from you so far. It is not an insinuation, I would like to emphasise that much.
I don't have this perspective for the following reason: Those who believe in cultivated viruses and bioweapons ultimately believe in the virus theory (which has never been proven according to the Max Planck Institute and other sources) and in my view serve the narrative of the dangerousness of viruses of all kinds. This does nothing to alleviate the fear among people, but on the contrary continues to perpetuate it. Because it is perhaps calculated to get a significant majority on the side of finding Fauci & Co guilty as driving actors, in the hope that the Corona regime will come to an end in this way. Ostensibly, this may solve this particular problem for the time being. That is also my hope. However, I think that as far as one believes in the technical ability of artificial virus breeding, it can just go on forever that a next, "far more deadly virus" is around the corner. Based on this assumption I have made, please explain to me how a fear-free social life is supposed to evolve from this?
Which facts and what basics are you referring to?
Here is one of those works, from which I got some basics - a scientific investigation of the virus theory (Max-Planck-Institute) - the translation I cannot deliver to you:
https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P125.PDF
That PDF is in a language I don't understand. I would love to speak German but I wasn't even good at learning other languages 30 years ago in high school. Science was my thing, and still is.
here is the second translation I did:
For me, it's quite a valuable statement, made by an established scientific institute. What do you think?
I think that "science" does not automatically equal "science" from how it is or was understood by those, who said, that real science always leaves a doubt, is open and even appreciates to be questioned and that every theory is refutable, it must be refutable in order to develop progressive understanding of scientific matters.
Here, I have translated what I found important in that paper:
So much for some basics. How is your interpretation of this text?
I will send also one passage from page 57 later on. There the paper refers to virus-theory in particular.
So it is dangerous ...
... to express my view of the world?
... to use quotes and works by people who do not fit into your view of the world?
Please explain this dangerousness to me.
You say it makes no sense to you. Okay. I can live with that. It makes sense to me and why should I keep quiet about it, since you don't keep quiet about your findings either?