I haven't read Tom Cowan's piece, and I don't trust him not least because of involvement with the occult, but here's my critique :-).
1. The germ / contagion theory is clearly an elegant hypothesis which seems to explain at least some observations very well - thus far we are in agreement.
2. However - the purpose of "science" is to design appropriate experiments to test hypotheses and show whether they are true or not. In the case of viruses, such experiments do not provide the proof which should have been easy to provide. In essence there are four kinds of experiments which have been done:
(a) initial experiments to "isolate" viruses and show that the "isolated virus" can cause disease. As far as I can discover these experiments are all deeply flawed in two senses
(i) none of them involved a proper control arm and/or the control arm produced the same result as the active arm of the experiment.
(ii) "causing the disease" is often conflated with cytopathic effect - which are of course two different things.
(b) subsequent experiments to gather information about a virus (e.g. molecular structure etc.) which all beg the question - in other words they assume that the initial experiment (a) successfully proved the existence of a virus, when that was not the case.
(c) detection experiments to try and find viruses directly in samples taken from a patient. This has never been successfully done despite the fact that we are told that millions of virus particles sufficient to cause infection are present not only in the sick patient's cells, but that they survive in droplets, on surfaces etc. for a long enough period to cause infection. This is all highly counter-intuitive - there is no really good reason which stands up to scrutiny which explains why virus particles cannot be found in the cells of a patient who supposedly has the disease but can only be found after being cultured in diseased kidney cells of a different animal which is not even susceptible to the disease.
(d) controlled contagion experiments to show that disease does indeed pass from one patient to another. Again these experiments have all failed to show that people exposed to sick people acquire disease more frequently than people who are not so exposed. If contagion occurred it really should not be difficult to show - but dozens and dozens of properly controlled experiments (from tobacco mosiac virus on), some involving many thousands of patients, have failed to show evidence of contagion.
3. There have been several cases where diseases which doctors thought were contagious because of the type of observation you have advanced as evidence of contagion have now been definitively shown to be caused by terrain. Beri-beri is one such, and scurvy another.
4. The reason we conduct controlled experiments is because hard experience has taught scientists of the danger of drawing conclusions purely from observation. Yes of course observations should guide the initial hypothesis - but if experiments fail to confirm the hypothesis then it MUST be discarded. Just because alternative explanations don't seem convincing is not sufficient reason to stick with a seductive explanation which has failed the test of science.
PS Oh - and let's not forget (5) - the germ theory of disease has
(a) been pushed very hard by deeply untrustworthy people. The Rockefellers are intertwined with modern medicine to an enormous extent.
(b) been enormously profitable for drug salesmen - i.e. the same Rockefellers who have worked so hard to corrupt medicine with their ideas.
Thanks for laying this down so succinctly! And BTW, the initial statement about Tom being into the occult isn’t really supported by his words or actions. The guy is a complete open book focused on empirical / rational thinking and isn’t ‘hiding’ anything. 🤙
Sorry - but there is strong evidence for Tom's involvement in Theosophy which is a kabbalistic cult closely tied to freemasonry, and a precursor to New Age spiritualism and scientology. If I have time I'll dig up some links for you later - not promising though - sometimes you have to do your own research :-). Also you can just go to Tom Cowan's web-site and look at the logo which is a typical variation on the square and compass that should tell you all you need to know.
The Baileys also engage in occult (masonic) symbolism as does Coppolino and (afair - less certain here - this one could be me misremembering) Mike Stone.
Sounds fun - unfortunately I have only communicated with the Baileys and Coppolino via email. But in re the topic of proof of a virus, why give us a logical fallacy?
What paper can you cite to show that viruses exist; are contagious; and are pathogenic?
1. I don't believe I have given you a logical fallacy.
2. I can't cite any paper to show that viruses exist, are contagious, or are pathogenic. Obviously this is not the same as knowing for certain that there are no such papers, but my critique of Meers' article at the top of this sub-thread states all that very clearly.
My position is that your comments about the Baileys and Coppolino were ad hominem attacks.
They have no bearing to the topic of scientific method and verifications of claims of virology. The Baileys and Coppolino simply address the arguments and evidence of virology, and find it lacking.
They were indeed ad hominem attacks. However, while ad hominem attacks can be logical fallacies, they are not necessarily so - and in this case
(a) I believe that the masonic and theosophy connections are relevant in terms of assessing the trustworthiness of a source of information
(b) I have carefully avoided drawing definitive conclusions about the truth of any individual, specific statement made by these people from those associations, simply pointing out that their statements need careful checking.
You also don't appear to have realized that despite my reservations, I am (cautiously) agreeing with the arguments these folks have presented wrt virology. The main concern I have is the claim that no virology experiment has been properly controlled as many papers make reference to a control, and the Baileys/Coppolino/Cowan et al make the claim that such controls are not performed with identical processes and are therefore not real/proper controls. While this is evident in some papers, it is not evident in all of them - so this is the area where one must trust these folks to be making the correct call - and trusting folks who are members of organizations whose very existence is predicated on deception is a dangerous decision.
And finally - you appear not to agree that occult links are significant in the way that I suggest that they are. However your other comment suggests that you have very limited knowledge of the nature of occult societies and their involvement in historical events. I would again refer you to Nesta Webster's "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements" as an excellent introduction to the nature of such societies, their methods of operation, and the historical record over the last 1200 years or so.
Actually it was anthroposophical medicine (Steiner) which has been extremely de-occulted over the last few decades but since Covid, Tom has been very vocal about his distancing himself from them to focus on his own journey of scientific discovery that he openly shares on a weekly basis.
You can't deoccult Steiner :-). Steiner was a Theosophist who fell out with Annie Besant and split Anthroposophy off from Theosophy as a result. His work is deeply occult - his schools knowingly deceived parents (as directly instructed by Steiner), and have frequently thrown up abuse scandals as all occult groups inevitably do.
And you can't get away from the masonic logo on Cowan's web-site either.
However the specific occult links I am referring to are more recent than the the anthroposophy evident in his book. He made explicit references to an ascended master advising him within the last couple of years and this was reported on extensively by at least two authors here on substack. I can no longer find the links easily and I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying because, while that sort of connection renders any and all information and behavior from such a source suspect, it doesn't prove 100% definitive guilt. But it just means for me that everything he says and does needs to be questioned and carefully checked.
Just a guess, but an argument could be made that the novirus celebrities (Cowan, Kaufman, Zeck, etc.) were placed in those positions to tell the truth about novirus to those who were already waking up, while simultaneous engaging in behavior and spreading other ideas that could be used to discredit the novirus concept so that it does not spread widely.
From a scientific perspective, ad hominem attacks (he's a freemason, he must be lying!) are a logical fallacy, but they are highly effective in discouraging people from taking the target seriously.
1. I carefully avoided the statement "he's a freemason, he must be lying".
2. While ad hominem arguments can be logical fallacies, they are not necessarily so. The key is whether the attack is simply a smear or whether it is relevant. In this case I made the argument that membership of an occult society implies that statements require careful checking. Given the nature of occult societies and their proven record of deception I do not accept that this is fallacious at all.
I know all of them personally and believe me, there is no conspiracy here but when one comes to see the no virus paradigm it leads to broader questions about materiality which naturally leads to deeper spirit sciences that back in the day were occulted for fear of persecution but today are being cracked wide open…even in the face of stark Christian and atheist fear and superstition.
FWIW I don't think "he's a freemason, he must be lying" is a valid or logical statement.
However ad-hominem reasoning is not always fallacious and I would not accept that "he's a freemason, therefore he cannot be trusted to be telling the truth" is logically fallacious.
I realize that this is not strictly relevant to your point here - but it is worth being aware of the fact that ad hominem reasoning, while often fallacious, is not always so.
Absolutely. That might well be the case. Or it might not. My point however is merely that whatever they say or do cannot be trusted because of the occult links - everything must be suspect and carefully verified.
Re: Rudolf Steiner, I believe that "by their fruits ye shall know them". I personally think Waldorf schools have been a good thing in the world... don't you?
1. He reportedly told his schoolteachers that they must hide from the parents what they were actually teaching the children + as always when occult groups and children are combined - there is a long string of abuse scandals associated with Steiner schools.
2. Teaching people anthroposophy - one of the many variants of Luciferiansim - is IMO never a good thing. Luciferianism and its occult societies always lead to evil.
The definition of isolation is to separate one thing from everything else. In the example of viruses, this has never been done. As much as you think it must have been or we wouldn’t have vaccines for example or micrographs showing them, this is false. Without a completely isolated item with which to test a theory of contagion and causation of disease, the whole of germ theory falls on its face. If there is one properly made scientific paper without flaws and with proper controls to prove a virus has been isolated and used to create disease in another person (or animal) by natural means, ie inhalation, then the no virus group will admit defeat. It’s never happened and the paper doesn’t exist. Viruses are a total hoax. If you want to learn the real history of viruses and vaccines then Roman Bystrianyk’s substack is great. As is Daniel Roytas’ book “Can You Catch A Cold” as is Jamie Andrew’s substack. Hope that helps
Dear Dan, I like much of the efforts of Roman Bystrianyk, but he merely assume that "exogenous, contagious, infectious, pathogenic" viruses exist. Bystrianyk has done a nice job to show the harms of "vaccines" - but because he is stuck in the "germ theory" (the virus did it) paradigm, Bystrianyk cannot see the inanity of "vaccination." Best
Yes! I totally agree. I might not be the only one here who thinks something extremely well documented is missing from Baaijen's post: parasites!
Parasites abound, can be seen, and felt, itching, typically draining our energy, and can expel loads of toxins in our bodies. So what? The term "virus" is Latin for "toxin" or "poison", Our terminology needs to be put right. Parasites can spread/transfer, e.g. from animals to people (if your dog sleeps in your bed!) and between people, but poisons i.e. VIRUSES - ARE NOT CONTAGIOUS. They're a bi-product. What a pity that Baaijen finds opponents impossible to convert, but seems unable to question his own belief.
Viruses are not contagious is bullSIT, or even bullSHIT: please study foot and mouth disease, which is supercontagious, with very typical symptoms, for all even toed ungulates. It can jump from cows to pigs to camels, from to deer to buffaloes, etc. But not to horses giraffes, donkeys mules, zebras.
I had a case on parasites in the original article, but took it out because it was getting too long:
In Costa Rica, for 25 years I bred tropical hair sheep for their delicious meat. I selected them on various traits, with resistance to gastrointestinal worms as the most important. That made me the only sheep farmer in the country who could keep his sheep organically, without deworming: the year-round high humidity and lack of frost creates an ideal environment for the larvae of these parasites. This was proven in a trial where a 50% Dorper ram was paired to part of my resistant ewes. Dorpers originate from deserts in South Africa where such parasites are very rare: they lost their genetic resistance. The offspring of this ram (only 25% Dorper) became soon ill with intestinal parasites, and a few even died. Under exactly the same terrain conditions and no deworming, the other lambs (sired by resistant rams) were fat and thriving.
But the resistance in my selected herd was not absolute: ewes under the stress (terrain) of a high milk yield (twin lambs at the peak of lactation) would sometimes become seriously ill due to a sudden massive presence (tens of thousands!) of the red stomach worm, Hemonchus contortus (part of the parasite mix), which can easily be seen during necropsy. That many worms can suck a sheep to death in a few hours, from small blood vessels in the fourth stomach. If you are luckier, you’ll find the ewe standing in the meadow, panting heavily, with paper white mucous membranes. A shot of ivermectin (anti-parasitical) stops the process abruptly and protects for the following weeks. Without this treatment, they invariably die. During a week of nursing in the barn, they recover rapidly: the body has an impressive capacity for regeneration.
Dear Mees, I understand your claims, but reference to worms (as intestinal parasites) is not evidence of the proof of any exogenous, contagious, pathogenic virus. What is your definition of a virus? Are you using Summers (2009)
"Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that can exist as potentially active [sic], but inert [sic] entities, outside of cells”?
Anecdotal stories, however consistent they may be, do not prove a theory. When flawed experiments are used as proof of said theory one must ask themselves, why? Why are such allowances granted to a particular hypothesis when everything else must bear the burden of proof via rigorous scientific exploration and demonstative methodology before accepted as a working truth, and what could possibly go wrong when a hypothesis dealing with a fundamental tenant of a whole category of scientific endeavor is accepted as truth when all it really is is an institutionally driven belief? Hint, a global plandemic, perhaps? Or maybe the wedge used to install (deceive and terrorize into) a technocratic top down organizing principle? But I digress. This is the essence of what Dr Cowan is inquiring from those who use the unproven hypothesis as gospel because this is what has allowed us to be deceived on an unprecedented scale.
There is nothing nefarious about Dr Cowan's matter of inquiry, nor is he mean spirited, yet somehow he is habitually slandered by those devoted to their non-scientific 'science' as such.. Dr Cowan possess an entirely understandable brand of gallows humor as does Mees. Which probably explains my affinity for the both of them. Probably a byproduct of tirelessly pushing through the onslaught of critics who NEVER manage to address basic and salient questions for whatever reason.
Both Mees and Tom desire to rid the people from the predator, lets not forget that. It is just that one can spot indoctrinated bias better than the other.
It will pass, no worries. Of course, disease is an interaction between different factors (terrain, heredity, general health, history...), including germs, viruses, bacterias, fungus, or whatever you want to call these LIVING ORGANISMS. This no-virus vs terrain is a real madhouse. Personally, I prefer to keep my energy for sociological, moral and historical problems. After having been Wittgenstein's and Popper's guest for a few years, as well as Richard Rorty fellow ("The postulates are facultatives", The Specular Man), I came to the natural conclusion that the language is a tool, not a reality. And after few more years of fury running against the damned platonistic nominalists, I put the gloves and the skates down, and really do enjoy my metaphysic with a grain of salt and fiction, in a beckettian way, with a certain dose of humour. Keep the focus. Leave the pearls to the pigs and follow your path.
Thanks Louis! I also try to keep in the humour, also in the Cowan piece. It was just another opportunity to see how deceptive he is. I am worried about these guys because they absorb more and more people of the alternative community, and cause an enormous distraction. Anyhow i learned a lot from preparing this, and from my new contact with Adam Finnegan, whose book is fabulous.
Great discussion here. I also am a veterinarian and have been looking at the virus/no virus arguments for a while. I have come to the same conclusions as you have. Obviously terrain theory makes a lot of sense and is valid but it does not by definition rule out the germ theory. My real life experience as a veterinarian and working with livestock systems in North America is that the germ theory is real and in 100's of instances seems to be the best explanation for what I have seen and experienced. I have worked with large systems with farms in different locations across North America. For example: The introduction of single source new animals simultaneously to a number of new locations caused identical disease outbreaks in these new locations in previously unexposed animals. The clinical signs, necropsy and pathology results at these various remote locations were all identical. This is just one simple example. I have many examples like this with variations but the same story. Some of these were bacterial disease outbreaks while other could not be explained by bacterial causes. There is a lot of literature on TGE, PRRS virus, Circovirus etc on spread and outbreaks in swine systems. This is not theoretical but real lived experience. I could go on but to sum up my real life experience is solidly in the camp of germ and terrain theory both playing a role. On the germ theory I am fully convinced on the bacterial side and 90% there on the virus side after living with these disease outbreaks and spreads over the last decades. ( just so you know I am not in the pharma camp and have very little respect for them) Keep up the good discussions Mees and I am really enjoying your Predators book.
Dear Josh, can you please cite just ONE paper showing that a virus exists; and then another showing natural transmission (via inhalation or ingestion); and thus pathogenesis? Thanks.
Notes on public education and litigation strategies based on characterization of Covid-19 vaccines as biological weapons, legal or illegal. {Katherine Watt ~ Bailiwick News (February 2025)}
Does it matter whether vaccines are characterized, to the public or in litigation, as legal or illegal biological weapons?
Can any bioweapon be fairly promoted by a government officer as a safe and effective means of combating a (pretend) pandemic?
Katherine Watt responses:
I think it’s important to understand the difference between legalized biological weapons, which includes all vaccines, and illegal biological weapons, under the terms of (and exemptions from) the main US domestic law criminalizing use of biological weapons (18 USC 175) and laws related to that one, including the Enhanced control of dangerous biological agents and toxins law or Biological Select Agents and Toxins/BSAT law (42 USC 262a).
The general public trying to understand what’s been revealed through Covid events, and courts handling cases, also need to assess the legitimacy of public officials, in the US and abroad, relying on the de facto HHS-PHS-FDA classification of Covid-19 vaccines as legal biological weapons, in making their public policy decisions to promote and use the products on the populations of their countries.
This point — whether Covid vaccines are legal biological weapons or illegal biological weapons — is a point on which my conclusions differ from the late Dr. Francis A. Boyle's conclusions and several other individuals' conclusions and public education and case strategies.
The issues relate to the inherent (unavoidable, intrinsic) toxicity, heterogeneity and instability of all biological material introduced into a living organism for whom the introduced biological material is foreign or non-self, and the intentionality of the legalized poisoning program known as vaccination campaigns, dating back to the early 20th century.
In other words, all vaccines are biological weapons, and they have all been legal biological weapons for as long as vaccination campaigns have been conducted...
There are no objective (able to be verified with valid tests, measurements, assays etc), applicable, or enforceable scientific or legal standards or definitions for the words or products (more properly understood as dynamic processes) “virus” and “vaccine” or for the descriptor words “safe” and “effective”.
There are no objective legal or scientific standards for the words, objects or events “communicable disease”, “communicable disease pathogen”, “epidemic” or “pandemic”.
As a result, any biological material can be classified as a communicable disease pathogen, virus or vaccine, and any biological material can be described as pathogenic, toxic, safe or effective, without violation of any laws about labeling, dosing, contamination, adulteration, or misbranding.
If a substance induces an immune response, it can accurately be described as toxic, pathogenic and effective, because the expected or anticipated effect of introducing foreign biological matter into a living organism is a process carried out by the body to respond to, dismantle, eliminate or excrete foreign matter: to detoxify.
That's the effect that has been induced by any poisoning act, whether the exposure has been dilute or concentrated in time and space; whether the effect is mild, moderate or severe; and whether the effect occurs at the subvisible, microscopic level, at the observable, symptomatic level (rash, coughing, fever, dizziness, paralysis, vomiting, diarrhea, organ failure) or at both subvisible and observable levels.
Biological products are exempt from evidentiary standards or criteria applied to other, non-biological drugs under drug manufacturing regulation systems.
The decisions about how to classify biological material are arbitrary, and political (i.e., the classifications are used to advance the goal of inducing public compliance with public policies).
Vaccination proponents, and proponents of communicable disease as caused by pathogenic viruses use probability-of-harm units derived from population-wide studies (for example, the amount of a product or series of product administration events that result in death to 50% of the test animals to whom the product or series is administered within a short time range), rather than mass, weight, volume, concentration or other objectively measurable physical units.
And they use surrogate endpoints such as antibody titres (another false measure) in animals (another layer of removal from human studies) as evidence of therapeutic benefit for humans, rather than objective clinical endpoints such as direct measures of how an individual human patient feels, functions or survives.
Because poisons and the proposed remedies or shields are the same basic substances — non-self biological materials that induce detoxification effects — the indicators for harm and benefit are the same, non-specific, probability-based units of measure.
The trick or crime is mostly in how the poisoners get the targeted victims to perceive the substances and confuse cause and effect relationships.
They get people to perceive a hypothetical substance, (an allegedly circulating, allegedly transmissible virus, observable only through the proxy of manipulated test kits) as a threat.
And they get people to perceive the alleged remedy, vaccines, which are actually threats, as a benefit, shield or treatment.
The Covid-19 pandemic, and all "vaccine-preventable disease" outbreak classifications were and are pretend, fabricated from manipulated diagnoses and disease classifications.
The products (vaccines) put forward as preventatives or remedies were and are not safe and not effective, from the point of view of common understanding of what safe and effective mean, which again, is not defined by objective scientific or legal criteria in biological product and communicable disease control law.
But the public presentation of the fake pandemic as real and as dangerous was legal, and the public presentation of vaccines/biological weapons as safe and effective was also legal, because there are no objective legal or scientific definitions or standards for those words, products and events.
Good targets for public education and litigation strategies are, in my view, the legal instruments and the lawmakers who legalize public policies executed through the holes made by intentional omission (from biological product and communicable disease control law) of legal provisions establishing objective, enforceable scientific and legal standards of evidence.
Some supporting evidence from US law, about the arbitrary dual legal classification of biological material/processes/bottled products as simultaneously biological weapons and licensed biological products:
SARS-CoV-2 is listed as a biological select agent or toxin subject to transportation and use restrictions, having been so classified by US-HHS as of November 2021, under the statute 42 USC 262a, which provides exemptions from 18 USC 175 (the biological weapons criminal law), through the implementing regulation for 42 USC 262a, which is 42 CFR 73.3. (86 FR 64075)
And it simultaneously is the biological material, the S-protein of which the mRNA vaccine product allegedly codes, for which US-FDA has provided a simulation of drug manufacturing regulation (relied upon by countries around the world through Mutual Recognition Agreements) in the form of legal EUA "authorizations" under 21 USC 360bbb (Dec.11,2020) and legal BLA license "approvals" under 42 USC 262 (Aug.23,2021), such that it can be legally introduced into interstate commerce and used on targets.
Related:
June 28, 2022 - “There are treaties that prevent the usage of chemical and biological weapons to main and kill.” Unless the weapons are reclassified as public health measures, and human beings are reclassified as public health threats. {Katherine Watt}
April 10, 2023 - Design of a Weapon: Targeting the Human Microbiome “Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology” {Sasha Latypova}
April 13, 2023 - Vaccine production facilities are indistinguishable from bioweapon production facilities, and vaccines are indistinguishable from bioweapons. {Katherine Watt}
April 24, 2023 - At-home gain-of-function kits. Biodefense is indistinguishable from biowarfare; the so-called biodefense industry is, in truth, the biochemical munitions industry. {Katherine Watt}
Sept. 14, 2024 - Scientifically unsupported and insupportable Presidential designation of quarantinable communicable diseases; habeas corpus petitions. {Katherine Watt} - ”... Reader: What was unclear for me before was: what makes a “communicable disease” a “quarantinable communicable disease”?
And I learned the answer, which is the disease's [arbitrary, without scientific or legal evidentiary standards or criteria] inclusion on the list of diseases in presidential executive orders...."
It's fascinating that this terrain/germ theory of illness is still so divisive and indeed (dare I suggest) still unsettled. My problem is that medical practice and theory has been so historically closely linked with the pharmaceutical industry from earliest times and as such attracts a high level of suspicion. Indeed the inflamatory/compromised immunity responses to alleged viral ailments could be caused by medical interventions. Who knows how much varied and diverse forms of sickness have been caused by vaccines. As for Covid, I have yet to meet one person who didn't believe in it that actually caught it. How true this might be also of other "sympathetic" ailments. Dawn Lester and David Parker wrote a fascinating study on this debate in their What Really Makes You ill? For now my money is on the "no virus" theory but I have an open mind on the issue and Cowan should not be personalising the argument. BTW the People v Predators is a tour de force so many grateful thanks for that.
By Christine Massey - 3000 pages of "virus" freedom of information responses and court documents, from 211 institutions in 40 countries - including 52 Canadian institutions - are available to everyone on the internet, in compilation pdfs here, along with my notarized declaration regarding the blatantly anti-scientific nature of virology and the fraudulent nature of everything to do with "COVID-19" to be viewed here.
Why are you wading into a subject into which you clearly have not spent any time to research the basic premises?
The fundamental claim of the "novirus" people is that "viruses" have never been properly isolated or proven to be transmissible and cause infectious diseases.
Viruses and bacteria are clearly fundamentally different things, and your mixing/combining the two is not constructive.
Some novirus people lean towards terrain theory and also call into question the idea of infectious diseases caused by bacteria, but that is a *separate* topic which should not be confused with whether or not viruses have been proved to exist (according to Koch's postulates).
I will say that showing that there is no virus doesn’t mean that there is no contagion. What it means is that we have been underestimating parasites, fungal infections and other causes.
Is it your belief that a depressed, deluded man sitting alone drinking copious amounts of alcohol in an Antarctic outpost or some desolate apartment will suffer from no syndrome approximating what we would call a cold or flu?
Strangely formulated question, but you can catch a cold on your own, especially after getting undercooled (draught, cold rain etc). You get the flu from others. Everybody of my generations knows that, so we stay home when we think we have the flu.
In the normally mild cases of a cold, your respiratory microbiome gets out of balance.
Dear Mees, "you get the flu from others"? Can you cite a paper, using any falsifiable method, demonstrating that sick people, make well people ill, via breathing? Thanks.
As a vet, I invite you to have a brief look at the history of foot and mouth disease:
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease
Fred Brown 1
Affiliations
PMID: 12527434
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00268-x
Abstract
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease falls into several distinct areas. In this short chapter I have highlighted what I consider to be the significant advances in our knowledge of the disease and its causal agent. 1. Loeffler and Frosch's landmark description in 1898 that the disease is caused by a filterable agent, the first observation that an animal disease could be caused by a virus. 2. The search for experimental laboratory animals, culminating in the demonstration by Waldmann and Pape of the susceptibility of the guinea pig in 1920 and the suckling mouse by Skinner in 1951. 3. The discovery of three distinct serotypes O, A and C in the 1920s by Vallée and Carré in France and by Waldmann in Germany, and the subsequent recognition in the 1940s and 1950s by the Pirbright group of the three Southern African Territory Types SAT 1-3, and Asia 1. 4. The development of in vitro techniques for the growth of the virus which have been crucial for the large-scale production of vaccines and for the accurate assay of virus infectivity. Early work by Hecke and the Maitlands in the early 1930s, followed by the crucial demonstration by Frenkel in 1947 that large amounts of the virus could be produced in surviving tongue epithelium, formed the basis for the vaccination programmes initiated in Europe in the 1950s. The subsequent development of cell lines has brought a remarkable degree of sophistication to the study of virus growth. 5. The impact of molecular studies on the structure of the virus and its mode of replication which have led to practical applications such as an in vitro test for vaccine potency, rapid diagnosis methods, and international epidemiological surveys. In addition, they have provided the means to design molecular vaccines.
No-virus throws such enormous bodies of knowledge without even knowing that this exists! In the 1950s, the circle became round with a good working vaccin applied in EU and leter other countries. The diseases stopped, until a political decision was taken to stop vaccination, and it resurged again, on a smaller scale. This is not to say I am always in favor of vaccines, but as a rare measure against extremely dangerous diseases they can be justified.
Sorry, we need to start with falsifiable methods. The claim of "filterable" agents compels at LEAST four questions:
(a) is the agent a cause or effect of the disease state in the animal;
(b) is the agent evidence of healing and or other regular biological processes;
(c) is there a catalyst (malnutrition; toxicity; weather patterns) which causes both the disease state AND the agent;
(d) is the agent an artifact of any process by which said agent is found?
The FIRST use of an electron microscope to declare presence of pathogenic parasites (i.e., viruses) occurred in the 1930s. Any argument than Loeffler and Frosch FOUND a virus in 1898, means EITHER the use of the EM is unnecessary, OR L&F could NOT have seen any "virus."
Vaccination programs - in EVERY form are all derived from the practice of variolation (ingrafting) smallpox pox from one human to another. Such is an act of sympathetic magic. When. you say that someone PRODUCED virus in 1947 on epithelial cells, we must protest. Show us the methodology. Why do we presume that the result of said tinkering was the creation of an obligate intracellular parasite?
A few questions. What is the difference between a cold and the flu? Is it something other than intensity? I thought the dogma was that coronaviruses were the cause of the common cold? Are you saying our drunk would produce his own viruses to make him sick? Ate you also saying he would be out of the reach of “flu viruses?” Please answer these questions simply and directly. You tend to scoot away when the rubber starts to hit the road. (Slight correction: the dogma says rhinoviruses cause he common cold and coronavirus is a subset of those…still, doesn’t that contradict your above assertion?)
You are obviously ignorant of the human microbiome, which contains 100.000s of species of viruses and bacteria that are always present in the digestive track, the respiratory track, the skin etc. A cold is a dysbiosis, where the microbiome goes out of balance. Other diseases are acquired by transmission from sick to healthy people, where some may get ill, and others not depending on immunity, etc. When Covid started, 80-90 % of the people were already immune, because of earlier contact with coronaviruses, be it acquired or cohabiting viruses.
I haven't read Tom Cowan's piece, and I don't trust him not least because of involvement with the occult, but here's my critique :-).
1. The germ / contagion theory is clearly an elegant hypothesis which seems to explain at least some observations very well - thus far we are in agreement.
2. However - the purpose of "science" is to design appropriate experiments to test hypotheses and show whether they are true or not. In the case of viruses, such experiments do not provide the proof which should have been easy to provide. In essence there are four kinds of experiments which have been done:
(a) initial experiments to "isolate" viruses and show that the "isolated virus" can cause disease. As far as I can discover these experiments are all deeply flawed in two senses
(i) none of them involved a proper control arm and/or the control arm produced the same result as the active arm of the experiment.
(ii) "causing the disease" is often conflated with cytopathic effect - which are of course two different things.
(b) subsequent experiments to gather information about a virus (e.g. molecular structure etc.) which all beg the question - in other words they assume that the initial experiment (a) successfully proved the existence of a virus, when that was not the case.
(c) detection experiments to try and find viruses directly in samples taken from a patient. This has never been successfully done despite the fact that we are told that millions of virus particles sufficient to cause infection are present not only in the sick patient's cells, but that they survive in droplets, on surfaces etc. for a long enough period to cause infection. This is all highly counter-intuitive - there is no really good reason which stands up to scrutiny which explains why virus particles cannot be found in the cells of a patient who supposedly has the disease but can only be found after being cultured in diseased kidney cells of a different animal which is not even susceptible to the disease.
(d) controlled contagion experiments to show that disease does indeed pass from one patient to another. Again these experiments have all failed to show that people exposed to sick people acquire disease more frequently than people who are not so exposed. If contagion occurred it really should not be difficult to show - but dozens and dozens of properly controlled experiments (from tobacco mosiac virus on), some involving many thousands of patients, have failed to show evidence of contagion.
3. There have been several cases where diseases which doctors thought were contagious because of the type of observation you have advanced as evidence of contagion have now been definitively shown to be caused by terrain. Beri-beri is one such, and scurvy another.
4. The reason we conduct controlled experiments is because hard experience has taught scientists of the danger of drawing conclusions purely from observation. Yes of course observations should guide the initial hypothesis - but if experiments fail to confirm the hypothesis then it MUST be discarded. Just because alternative explanations don't seem convincing is not sufficient reason to stick with a seductive explanation which has failed the test of science.
PS Oh - and let's not forget (5) - the germ theory of disease has
(a) been pushed very hard by deeply untrustworthy people. The Rockefellers are intertwined with modern medicine to an enormous extent.
(b) been enormously profitable for drug salesmen - i.e. the same Rockefellers who have worked so hard to corrupt medicine with their ideas.
Thanks for laying this down so succinctly! And BTW, the initial statement about Tom being into the occult isn’t really supported by his words or actions. The guy is a complete open book focused on empirical / rational thinking and isn’t ‘hiding’ anything. 🤙
Follow the leader!
Sorry - but there is strong evidence for Tom's involvement in Theosophy which is a kabbalistic cult closely tied to freemasonry, and a precursor to New Age spiritualism and scientology. If I have time I'll dig up some links for you later - not promising though - sometimes you have to do your own research :-). Also you can just go to Tom Cowan's web-site and look at the logo which is a typical variation on the square and compass that should tell you all you need to know.
The Baileys also engage in occult (masonic) symbolism as does Coppolino and (afair - less certain here - this one could be me misremembering) Mike Stone.
Thanks, that's a good starting point for further research!
Dear Horace the Menace,
Sounds fun - unfortunately I have only communicated with the Baileys and Coppolino via email. But in re the topic of proof of a virus, why give us a logical fallacy?
What paper can you cite to show that viruses exist; are contagious; and are pathogenic?
Thanks.
I'm not really following you here.
1. I don't believe I have given you a logical fallacy.
2. I can't cite any paper to show that viruses exist, are contagious, or are pathogenic. Obviously this is not the same as knowing for certain that there are no such papers, but my critique of Meers' article at the top of this sub-thread states all that very clearly.
Dear Horace,
My position is that your comments about the Baileys and Coppolino were ad hominem attacks.
They have no bearing to the topic of scientific method and verifications of claims of virology. The Baileys and Coppolino simply address the arguments and evidence of virology, and find it lacking.
Best
They were indeed ad hominem attacks. However, while ad hominem attacks can be logical fallacies, they are not necessarily so - and in this case
(a) I believe that the masonic and theosophy connections are relevant in terms of assessing the trustworthiness of a source of information
(b) I have carefully avoided drawing definitive conclusions about the truth of any individual, specific statement made by these people from those associations, simply pointing out that their statements need careful checking.
You also don't appear to have realized that despite my reservations, I am (cautiously) agreeing with the arguments these folks have presented wrt virology. The main concern I have is the claim that no virology experiment has been properly controlled as many papers make reference to a control, and the Baileys/Coppolino/Cowan et al make the claim that such controls are not performed with identical processes and are therefore not real/proper controls. While this is evident in some papers, it is not evident in all of them - so this is the area where one must trust these folks to be making the correct call - and trusting folks who are members of organizations whose very existence is predicated on deception is a dangerous decision.
And finally - you appear not to agree that occult links are significant in the way that I suggest that they are. However your other comment suggests that you have very limited knowledge of the nature of occult societies and their involvement in historical events. I would again refer you to Nesta Webster's "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements" as an excellent introduction to the nature of such societies, their methods of operation, and the historical record over the last 1200 years or so.
Actually it was anthroposophical medicine (Steiner) which has been extremely de-occulted over the last few decades but since Covid, Tom has been very vocal about his distancing himself from them to focus on his own journey of scientific discovery that he openly shares on a weekly basis.
You can't deoccult Steiner :-). Steiner was a Theosophist who fell out with Annie Besant and split Anthroposophy off from Theosophy as a result. His work is deeply occult - his schools knowingly deceived parents (as directly instructed by Steiner), and have frequently thrown up abuse scandals as all occult groups inevitably do.
And you can't get away from the masonic logo on Cowan's web-site either.
However the specific occult links I am referring to are more recent than the the anthroposophy evident in his book. He made explicit references to an ascended master advising him within the last couple of years and this was reported on extensively by at least two authors here on substack. I can no longer find the links easily and I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying because, while that sort of connection renders any and all information and behavior from such a source suspect, it doesn't prove 100% definitive guilt. But it just means for me that everything he says and does needs to be questioned and carefully checked.
Just a guess, but an argument could be made that the novirus celebrities (Cowan, Kaufman, Zeck, etc.) were placed in those positions to tell the truth about novirus to those who were already waking up, while simultaneous engaging in behavior and spreading other ideas that could be used to discredit the novirus concept so that it does not spread widely.
From a scientific perspective, ad hominem attacks (he's a freemason, he must be lying!) are a logical fallacy, but they are highly effective in discouraging people from taking the target seriously.
FWIW.
1. I carefully avoided the statement "he's a freemason, he must be lying".
2. While ad hominem arguments can be logical fallacies, they are not necessarily so. The key is whether the attack is simply a smear or whether it is relevant. In this case I made the argument that membership of an occult society implies that statements require careful checking. Given the nature of occult societies and their proven record of deception I do not accept that this is fallacious at all.
I know all of them personally and believe me, there is no conspiracy here but when one comes to see the no virus paradigm it leads to broader questions about materiality which naturally leads to deeper spirit sciences that back in the day were occulted for fear of persecution but today are being cracked wide open…even in the face of stark Christian and atheist fear and superstition.
Could very well be the case. While everyone is busy arguing about one little detail, the rest of the program is continuing as planned.
FWIW I don't think "he's a freemason, he must be lying" is a valid or logical statement.
However ad-hominem reasoning is not always fallacious and I would not accept that "he's a freemason, therefore he cannot be trusted to be telling the truth" is logically fallacious.
I realize that this is not strictly relevant to your point here - but it is worth being aware of the fact that ad hominem reasoning, while often fallacious, is not always so.
Absolutely. That might well be the case. Or it might not. My point however is merely that whatever they say or do cannot be trusted because of the occult links - everything must be suspect and carefully verified.
Re: Rudolf Steiner, I believe that "by their fruits ye shall know them". I personally think Waldorf schools have been a good thing in the world... don't you?
How did he deceive parents?
1. He reportedly told his schoolteachers that they must hide from the parents what they were actually teaching the children + as always when occult groups and children are combined - there is a long string of abuse scandals associated with Steiner schools.
2. Teaching people anthroposophy - one of the many variants of Luciferiansim - is IMO never a good thing. Luciferianism and its occult societies always lead to evil.
What is wrong the "occult" - it just means hidden (uncommon) knowledge. LOL
Too long an answer required here. May I suggest Nesta Webster's "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements" as a good intro to the subject?
PS I don't know if you intend it, but you come across as supercilious and insincere.
Well said 👍
Hi Horace, could you please give me permission to quote this comment in full? (I blog at Nevermore Media.)
Of course
This is good. Well done
The definition of isolation is to separate one thing from everything else. In the example of viruses, this has never been done. As much as you think it must have been or we wouldn’t have vaccines for example or micrographs showing them, this is false. Without a completely isolated item with which to test a theory of contagion and causation of disease, the whole of germ theory falls on its face. If there is one properly made scientific paper without flaws and with proper controls to prove a virus has been isolated and used to create disease in another person (or animal) by natural means, ie inhalation, then the no virus group will admit defeat. It’s never happened and the paper doesn’t exist. Viruses are a total hoax. If you want to learn the real history of viruses and vaccines then Roman Bystrianyk’s substack is great. As is Daniel Roytas’ book “Can You Catch A Cold” as is Jamie Andrew’s substack. Hope that helps
Dear Dan, I like much of the efforts of Roman Bystrianyk, but he merely assume that "exogenous, contagious, infectious, pathogenic" viruses exist. Bystrianyk has done a nice job to show the harms of "vaccines" - but because he is stuck in the "germ theory" (the virus did it) paradigm, Bystrianyk cannot see the inanity of "vaccination." Best
Yes! I totally agree. I might not be the only one here who thinks something extremely well documented is missing from Baaijen's post: parasites!
Parasites abound, can be seen, and felt, itching, typically draining our energy, and can expel loads of toxins in our bodies. So what? The term "virus" is Latin for "toxin" or "poison", Our terminology needs to be put right. Parasites can spread/transfer, e.g. from animals to people (if your dog sleeps in your bed!) and between people, but poisons i.e. VIRUSES - ARE NOT CONTAGIOUS. They're a bi-product. What a pity that Baaijen finds opponents impossible to convert, but seems unable to question his own belief.
Viruses are not contagious is bullSIT, or even bullSHIT: please study foot and mouth disease, which is supercontagious, with very typical symptoms, for all even toed ungulates. It can jump from cows to pigs to camels, from to deer to buffaloes, etc. But not to horses giraffes, donkeys mules, zebras.
Dear Mees, can you please present a paper demonstrating natural transmission (inhalation or ingestion) of any pathogenic, contagious virus?
I had a case on parasites in the original article, but took it out because it was getting too long:
In Costa Rica, for 25 years I bred tropical hair sheep for their delicious meat. I selected them on various traits, with resistance to gastrointestinal worms as the most important. That made me the only sheep farmer in the country who could keep his sheep organically, without deworming: the year-round high humidity and lack of frost creates an ideal environment for the larvae of these parasites. This was proven in a trial where a 50% Dorper ram was paired to part of my resistant ewes. Dorpers originate from deserts in South Africa where such parasites are very rare: they lost their genetic resistance. The offspring of this ram (only 25% Dorper) became soon ill with intestinal parasites, and a few even died. Under exactly the same terrain conditions and no deworming, the other lambs (sired by resistant rams) were fat and thriving.
But the resistance in my selected herd was not absolute: ewes under the stress (terrain) of a high milk yield (twin lambs at the peak of lactation) would sometimes become seriously ill due to a sudden massive presence (tens of thousands!) of the red stomach worm, Hemonchus contortus (part of the parasite mix), which can easily be seen during necropsy. That many worms can suck a sheep to death in a few hours, from small blood vessels in the fourth stomach. If you are luckier, you’ll find the ewe standing in the meadow, panting heavily, with paper white mucous membranes. A shot of ivermectin (anti-parasitical) stops the process abruptly and protects for the following weeks. Without this treatment, they invariably die. During a week of nursing in the barn, they recover rapidly: the body has an impressive capacity for regeneration.
Dear Mees, I understand your claims, but reference to worms (as intestinal parasites) is not evidence of the proof of any exogenous, contagious, pathogenic virus. What is your definition of a virus? Are you using Summers (2009)
"Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that can exist as potentially active [sic], but inert [sic] entities, outside of cells”?
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Anecdotal stories, however consistent they may be, do not prove a theory. When flawed experiments are used as proof of said theory one must ask themselves, why? Why are such allowances granted to a particular hypothesis when everything else must bear the burden of proof via rigorous scientific exploration and demonstative methodology before accepted as a working truth, and what could possibly go wrong when a hypothesis dealing with a fundamental tenant of a whole category of scientific endeavor is accepted as truth when all it really is is an institutionally driven belief? Hint, a global plandemic, perhaps? Or maybe the wedge used to install (deceive and terrorize into) a technocratic top down organizing principle? But I digress. This is the essence of what Dr Cowan is inquiring from those who use the unproven hypothesis as gospel because this is what has allowed us to be deceived on an unprecedented scale.
There is nothing nefarious about Dr Cowan's matter of inquiry, nor is he mean spirited, yet somehow he is habitually slandered by those devoted to their non-scientific 'science' as such.. Dr Cowan possess an entirely understandable brand of gallows humor as does Mees. Which probably explains my affinity for the both of them. Probably a byproduct of tirelessly pushing through the onslaught of critics who NEVER manage to address basic and salient questions for whatever reason.
Both Mees and Tom desire to rid the people from the predator, lets not forget that. It is just that one can spot indoctrinated bias better than the other.
Welcome into The Nest of Deadly Vipers Mees LOL
It will pass, no worries. Of course, disease is an interaction between different factors (terrain, heredity, general health, history...), including germs, viruses, bacterias, fungus, or whatever you want to call these LIVING ORGANISMS. This no-virus vs terrain is a real madhouse. Personally, I prefer to keep my energy for sociological, moral and historical problems. After having been Wittgenstein's and Popper's guest for a few years, as well as Richard Rorty fellow ("The postulates are facultatives", The Specular Man), I came to the natural conclusion that the language is a tool, not a reality. And after few more years of fury running against the damned platonistic nominalists, I put the gloves and the skates down, and really do enjoy my metaphysic with a grain of salt and fiction, in a beckettian way, with a certain dose of humour. Keep the focus. Leave the pearls to the pigs and follow your path.
Thanks Louis! I also try to keep in the humour, also in the Cowan piece. It was just another opportunity to see how deceptive he is. I am worried about these guys because they absorb more and more people of the alternative community, and cause an enormous distraction. Anyhow i learned a lot from preparing this, and from my new contact with Adam Finnegan, whose book is fabulous.
Hi Mees,
Great discussion here. I also am a veterinarian and have been looking at the virus/no virus arguments for a while. I have come to the same conclusions as you have. Obviously terrain theory makes a lot of sense and is valid but it does not by definition rule out the germ theory. My real life experience as a veterinarian and working with livestock systems in North America is that the germ theory is real and in 100's of instances seems to be the best explanation for what I have seen and experienced. I have worked with large systems with farms in different locations across North America. For example: The introduction of single source new animals simultaneously to a number of new locations caused identical disease outbreaks in these new locations in previously unexposed animals. The clinical signs, necropsy and pathology results at these various remote locations were all identical. This is just one simple example. I have many examples like this with variations but the same story. Some of these were bacterial disease outbreaks while other could not be explained by bacterial causes. There is a lot of literature on TGE, PRRS virus, Circovirus etc on spread and outbreaks in swine systems. This is not theoretical but real lived experience. I could go on but to sum up my real life experience is solidly in the camp of germ and terrain theory both playing a role. On the germ theory I am fully convinced on the bacterial side and 90% there on the virus side after living with these disease outbreaks and spreads over the last decades. ( just so you know I am not in the pharma camp and have very little respect for them) Keep up the good discussions Mees and I am really enjoying your Predators book.
Thanks for your nice words Josh! My next post will be on Pierre Kory's ivermectine book, and its implications for no-virus.
Dear Josh, can you please cite just ONE paper showing that a virus exists; and then another showing natural transmission (via inhalation or ingestion); and thus pathogenesis? Thanks.
You might've want to read Can you catch a cold by Daniel Roytas.
Notes on public education and litigation strategies based on characterization of Covid-19 vaccines as biological weapons, legal or illegal. {Katherine Watt ~ Bailiwick News (February 2025)}
Does it matter whether vaccines are characterized, to the public or in litigation, as legal or illegal biological weapons?
Can any bioweapon be fairly promoted by a government officer as a safe and effective means of combating a (pretend) pandemic?
Katherine Watt responses:
I think it’s important to understand the difference between legalized biological weapons, which includes all vaccines, and illegal biological weapons, under the terms of (and exemptions from) the main US domestic law criminalizing use of biological weapons (18 USC 175) and laws related to that one, including the Enhanced control of dangerous biological agents and toxins law or Biological Select Agents and Toxins/BSAT law (42 USC 262a).
The general public trying to understand what’s been revealed through Covid events, and courts handling cases, also need to assess the legitimacy of public officials, in the US and abroad, relying on the de facto HHS-PHS-FDA classification of Covid-19 vaccines as legal biological weapons, in making their public policy decisions to promote and use the products on the populations of their countries.
This point — whether Covid vaccines are legal biological weapons or illegal biological weapons — is a point on which my conclusions differ from the late Dr. Francis A. Boyle's conclusions and several other individuals' conclusions and public education and case strategies.
The issues relate to the inherent (unavoidable, intrinsic) toxicity, heterogeneity and instability of all biological material introduced into a living organism for whom the introduced biological material is foreign or non-self, and the intentionality of the legalized poisoning program known as vaccination campaigns, dating back to the early 20th century.
In other words, all vaccines are biological weapons, and they have all been legal biological weapons for as long as vaccination campaigns have been conducted...
There are no objective (able to be verified with valid tests, measurements, assays etc), applicable, or enforceable scientific or legal standards or definitions for the words or products (more properly understood as dynamic processes) “virus” and “vaccine” or for the descriptor words “safe” and “effective”.
There are no objective legal or scientific standards for the words, objects or events “communicable disease”, “communicable disease pathogen”, “epidemic” or “pandemic”.
As a result, any biological material can be classified as a communicable disease pathogen, virus or vaccine, and any biological material can be described as pathogenic, toxic, safe or effective, without violation of any laws about labeling, dosing, contamination, adulteration, or misbranding.
If a substance induces an immune response, it can accurately be described as toxic, pathogenic and effective, because the expected or anticipated effect of introducing foreign biological matter into a living organism is a process carried out by the body to respond to, dismantle, eliminate or excrete foreign matter: to detoxify.
That's the effect that has been induced by any poisoning act, whether the exposure has been dilute or concentrated in time and space; whether the effect is mild, moderate or severe; and whether the effect occurs at the subvisible, microscopic level, at the observable, symptomatic level (rash, coughing, fever, dizziness, paralysis, vomiting, diarrhea, organ failure) or at both subvisible and observable levels.
Biological products are exempt from evidentiary standards or criteria applied to other, non-biological drugs under drug manufacturing regulation systems.
The decisions about how to classify biological material are arbitrary, and political (i.e., the classifications are used to advance the goal of inducing public compliance with public policies).
Vaccination proponents, and proponents of communicable disease as caused by pathogenic viruses use probability-of-harm units derived from population-wide studies (for example, the amount of a product or series of product administration events that result in death to 50% of the test animals to whom the product or series is administered within a short time range), rather than mass, weight, volume, concentration or other objectively measurable physical units.
And they use surrogate endpoints such as antibody titres (another false measure) in animals (another layer of removal from human studies) as evidence of therapeutic benefit for humans, rather than objective clinical endpoints such as direct measures of how an individual human patient feels, functions or survives.
Because poisons and the proposed remedies or shields are the same basic substances — non-self biological materials that induce detoxification effects — the indicators for harm and benefit are the same, non-specific, probability-based units of measure.
The trick or crime is mostly in how the poisoners get the targeted victims to perceive the substances and confuse cause and effect relationships.
They get people to perceive a hypothetical substance, (an allegedly circulating, allegedly transmissible virus, observable only through the proxy of manipulated test kits) as a threat.
And they get people to perceive the alleged remedy, vaccines, which are actually threats, as a benefit, shield or treatment.
The Covid-19 pandemic, and all "vaccine-preventable disease" outbreak classifications were and are pretend, fabricated from manipulated diagnoses and disease classifications.
The products (vaccines) put forward as preventatives or remedies were and are not safe and not effective, from the point of view of common understanding of what safe and effective mean, which again, is not defined by objective scientific or legal criteria in biological product and communicable disease control law.
But the public presentation of the fake pandemic as real and as dangerous was legal, and the public presentation of vaccines/biological weapons as safe and effective was also legal, because there are no objective legal or scientific definitions or standards for those words, products and events.
Good targets for public education and litigation strategies are, in my view, the legal instruments and the lawmakers who legalize public policies executed through the holes made by intentional omission (from biological product and communicable disease control law) of legal provisions establishing objective, enforceable scientific and legal standards of evidence.
Some supporting evidence from US law, about the arbitrary dual legal classification of biological material/processes/bottled products as simultaneously biological weapons and licensed biological products:
SARS-CoV-2 is listed as a biological select agent or toxin subject to transportation and use restrictions, having been so classified by US-HHS as of November 2021, under the statute 42 USC 262a, which provides exemptions from 18 USC 175 (the biological weapons criminal law), through the implementing regulation for 42 USC 262a, which is 42 CFR 73.3. (86 FR 64075)
And it simultaneously is the biological material, the S-protein of which the mRNA vaccine product allegedly codes, for which US-FDA has provided a simulation of drug manufacturing regulation (relied upon by countries around the world through Mutual Recognition Agreements) in the form of legal EUA "authorizations" under 21 USC 360bbb (Dec.11,2020) and legal BLA license "approvals" under 42 USC 262 (Aug.23,2021), such that it can be legally introduced into interstate commerce and used on targets.
Related:
June 28, 2022 - “There are treaties that prevent the usage of chemical and biological weapons to main and kill.” Unless the weapons are reclassified as public health measures, and human beings are reclassified as public health threats. {Katherine Watt}
April 10, 2023 - Design of a Weapon: Targeting the Human Microbiome “Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology” {Sasha Latypova}
April 13, 2023 - Vaccine production facilities are indistinguishable from bioweapon production facilities, and vaccines are indistinguishable from bioweapons. {Katherine Watt}
April 24, 2023 - At-home gain-of-function kits. Biodefense is indistinguishable from biowarfare; the so-called biodefense industry is, in truth, the biochemical munitions industry. {Katherine Watt}
Sept. 14, 2024 - Scientifically unsupported and insupportable Presidential designation of quarantinable communicable diseases; habeas corpus petitions. {Katherine Watt} - ”... Reader: What was unclear for me before was: what makes a “communicable disease” a “quarantinable communicable disease”?
And I learned the answer, which is the disease's [arbitrary, without scientific or legal evidentiary standards or criteria] inclusion on the list of diseases in presidential executive orders...."
Sept. 24, 2024 - Biological select agents and toxins. {Katherine Watt}
https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/notes-on-public-education-and-litigation
It's fascinating that this terrain/germ theory of illness is still so divisive and indeed (dare I suggest) still unsettled. My problem is that medical practice and theory has been so historically closely linked with the pharmaceutical industry from earliest times and as such attracts a high level of suspicion. Indeed the inflamatory/compromised immunity responses to alleged viral ailments could be caused by medical interventions. Who knows how much varied and diverse forms of sickness have been caused by vaccines. As for Covid, I have yet to meet one person who didn't believe in it that actually caught it. How true this might be also of other "sympathetic" ailments. Dawn Lester and David Parker wrote a fascinating study on this debate in their What Really Makes You ill? For now my money is on the "no virus" theory but I have an open mind on the issue and Cowan should not be personalising the argument. BTW the People v Predators is a tour de force so many grateful thanks for that.
Can anyone, including Mees, explain why Mees finds it necessary to spend so much energy defending the belief in viruses?
His well researched book, The Predators, mentions vaccines (for viruses such as covid) repeatedly as an important tool of the Glafia.
So why defend this tool of the Glafia?
No virus -> no vaccines for "viruses"
WHAT IS A VIRUS?
The Pseudoscientific Absurdity of Modern Virology
https://mega.nz/file/VNIAgK4a#fG7kOEFSs4WWhl_vQY3ZCRZBt9of_wtVDgeqrpiQIEQ
Introduction to ViroLIEgy
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/26/introduction-to-viroliegy/
By Christine Massey - 3000 pages of "virus" freedom of information responses and court documents, from 211 institutions in 40 countries - including 52 Canadian institutions - are available to everyone on the internet, in compilation pdfs here, along with my notarized declaration regarding the blatantly anti-scientific nature of virology and the fraudulent nature of everything to do with "COVID-19" to be viewed here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1okJiB4PdWN3tiei_g67zTUfok92kuqqS
Good Lord,
Why are you wading into a subject into which you clearly have not spent any time to research the basic premises?
The fundamental claim of the "novirus" people is that "viruses" have never been properly isolated or proven to be transmissible and cause infectious diseases.
Viruses and bacteria are clearly fundamentally different things, and your mixing/combining the two is not constructive.
Some novirus people lean towards terrain theory and also call into question the idea of infectious diseases caused by bacteria, but that is a *separate* topic which should not be confused with whether or not viruses have been proved to exist (according to Koch's postulates).
You are analysing my paper just as Cowan did, without touching the central part, which is based on logical reasoning.
Mees, have a look at Jamie Andrews Substack for his contributions on the critique of viral theory.
Thanks JAS, at first sight it looks more nuanced. Burt see what I just wrote to John Calvinn Jones, a few comments below this on
I will say that showing that there is no virus doesn’t mean that there is no contagion. What it means is that we have been underestimating parasites, fungal infections and other causes.
The Predators sure got lucky. If viruses didn’t exist it would have been necessary for them to invent them.
Is it your belief that a depressed, deluded man sitting alone drinking copious amounts of alcohol in an Antarctic outpost or some desolate apartment will suffer from no syndrome approximating what we would call a cold or flu?
Strangely formulated question, but you can catch a cold on your own, especially after getting undercooled (draught, cold rain etc). You get the flu from others. Everybody of my generations knows that, so we stay home when we think we have the flu.
In the normally mild cases of a cold, your respiratory microbiome gets out of balance.
Dear Mees, "you get the flu from others"? Can you cite a paper, using any falsifiable method, demonstrating that sick people, make well people ill, via breathing? Thanks.
As a vet, I invite you to have a brief look at the history of foot and mouth disease:
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease
Fred Brown 1
Affiliations
PMID: 12527434
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00268-x
Abstract
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease falls into several distinct areas. In this short chapter I have highlighted what I consider to be the significant advances in our knowledge of the disease and its causal agent. 1. Loeffler and Frosch's landmark description in 1898 that the disease is caused by a filterable agent, the first observation that an animal disease could be caused by a virus. 2. The search for experimental laboratory animals, culminating in the demonstration by Waldmann and Pape of the susceptibility of the guinea pig in 1920 and the suckling mouse by Skinner in 1951. 3. The discovery of three distinct serotypes O, A and C in the 1920s by Vallée and Carré in France and by Waldmann in Germany, and the subsequent recognition in the 1940s and 1950s by the Pirbright group of the three Southern African Territory Types SAT 1-3, and Asia 1. 4. The development of in vitro techniques for the growth of the virus which have been crucial for the large-scale production of vaccines and for the accurate assay of virus infectivity. Early work by Hecke and the Maitlands in the early 1930s, followed by the crucial demonstration by Frenkel in 1947 that large amounts of the virus could be produced in surviving tongue epithelium, formed the basis for the vaccination programmes initiated in Europe in the 1950s. The subsequent development of cell lines has brought a remarkable degree of sophistication to the study of virus growth. 5. The impact of molecular studies on the structure of the virus and its mode of replication which have led to practical applications such as an in vitro test for vaccine potency, rapid diagnosis methods, and international epidemiological surveys. In addition, they have provided the means to design molecular vaccines.
No-virus throws such enormous bodies of knowledge without even knowing that this exists! In the 1950s, the circle became round with a good working vaccin applied in EU and leter other countries. The diseases stopped, until a political decision was taken to stop vaccination, and it resurged again, on a smaller scale. This is not to say I am always in favor of vaccines, but as a rare measure against extremely dangerous diseases they can be justified.
Dear Mees,
Sorry, we need to start with falsifiable methods. The claim of "filterable" agents compels at LEAST four questions:
(a) is the agent a cause or effect of the disease state in the animal;
(b) is the agent evidence of healing and or other regular biological processes;
(c) is there a catalyst (malnutrition; toxicity; weather patterns) which causes both the disease state AND the agent;
(d) is the agent an artifact of any process by which said agent is found?
The FIRST use of an electron microscope to declare presence of pathogenic parasites (i.e., viruses) occurred in the 1930s. Any argument than Loeffler and Frosch FOUND a virus in 1898, means EITHER the use of the EM is unnecessary, OR L&F could NOT have seen any "virus."
Vaccination programs - in EVERY form are all derived from the practice of variolation (ingrafting) smallpox pox from one human to another. Such is an act of sympathetic magic. When. you say that someone PRODUCED virus in 1947 on epithelial cells, we must protest. Show us the methodology. Why do we presume that the result of said tinkering was the creation of an obligate intracellular parasite?
And next time, please do more than such CUT and PASTE an abstract of Brown 2003. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12527434/
Onjuist is dat!
A few questions. What is the difference between a cold and the flu? Is it something other than intensity? I thought the dogma was that coronaviruses were the cause of the common cold? Are you saying our drunk would produce his own viruses to make him sick? Ate you also saying he would be out of the reach of “flu viruses?” Please answer these questions simply and directly. You tend to scoot away when the rubber starts to hit the road. (Slight correction: the dogma says rhinoviruses cause he common cold and coronavirus is a subset of those…still, doesn’t that contradict your above assertion?)
You are obviously ignorant of the human microbiome, which contains 100.000s of species of viruses and bacteria that are always present in the digestive track, the respiratory track, the skin etc. A cold is a dysbiosis, where the microbiome goes out of balance. Other diseases are acquired by transmission from sick to healthy people, where some may get ill, and others not depending on immunity, etc. When Covid started, 80-90 % of the people were already immune, because of earlier contact with coronaviruses, be it acquired or cohabiting viruses.
Cowan is a raging narcissist. Don't waste another thought moment on him.
Do you know where he comes from? What motivates him to mislead so many people?
If you have any information to share, I would be happy to receive it!
If necessary, we can also communicate via email
thanks
Mees