in response to the themes in:
https://viroliegy.com/2022/06/16/purification-virologys-black-sheep/
#1
How were exosomes proven to exist?
The cell debris may be said to exist as an empirical observation - assuming it is not an artefact of the means for observation - as with electron microscopy (Re H Hillman's critiques).
But the name implies extracellular exchange or function.
The modelling and mapping out of body function has a lot of reliance on in vitro experiments and dissections of the dead, and the captive. Along with techniques that are invasive that carry their own capacity to influence results. But not least of which is the basis from which we already presume to model our self and world, and operate from as 'normal' or presumed self-evident. Which is to say we cannot start with a blank slate, but only use such tools as we have already developed, as part of an ongoing development of modelling, imaging and theorising or theologising our sense of self each other and world. The key fact being that the image of reality is never the reality. But resonances found helpful become mapped in as part of explorative focus and experience.
I sense the nature of cells in reality is not at all as our frozen snapshots have led us to model - along with all the fudge that then attaches to or is imagined within. The physics of water as self-structuring according to various terrain attributes is opening a much more complex and alive symbiosis than a pathological model rising from a species in trauma from which it has yet to waken. The way of which calls a discernment of felt resonance or kinship in our being, rather than confirmations to boost an invested thinking as a private sense of control set over life. Or at least Gaining the illusion Of such a Function by the lens of narrative distortions given priority.
#2
A common theme to the idea of both virus and exosome is of communication or transmission and reception to information energetically encoded or carried by cell debris. Either to and from 'cells' or within a Biome that is greater than the sum of its parts (Terrain as total environment always embraces its seeming parts)
Another common theme to both is of communication occurring outside the mind - as the posit of separate minds in, as or through separate bodies, though our own mind is no more 'isolatable' than the postulated virus.
My current assumption is that some extracellular communication or process has been observed that involves or is associated with exosomes. I haven't read up on that. But is there anything to support any of the dramatic functions assigned to virus as exogenous hijackers of cells, by which to propagate a contagion of cell functioning as some kind of attack on the body? The cytopathic effect is a cytopath-etic prop for a dying cause, given solemn worship within the church founded on a War against Disease. Only a trained monkey could believe it demonstrates the existence of its god.
BUT the virus theory carries all the signature characteristics of the mind of its maker. It is this 'jump' from an externalise casting out of our mind to an awakened responsibility for thought that I give most focus. When fear is denied and masked over, a state of dis-integrity runs as a masking over, supported by a diversionary defence, that is itself masked over, such as to have not just turned a blind eye, but compounded a mindset by which blindness dictates what can be seen or at least interprets and accepted.
The primary issue to me in all this is not that people for their own reasons believe or act from beliefs that may be self-destructive (or educationally instructive) to their own living, but that such beliefs are weaponised as a cultic demand for sacrifice or tyranny over those who freely choose not to share those beliefs and behaviours.
As I see it the invested and defended lie has run out of time and space to maintain an ability to pass off as true, but many will die with, rather than release, the identity it gives them.
