Mees, can you please point to the data that experimentally proves viruses as causative agents of disease? Also, can you please point to the experimental data proving that the Earth is spinning, while we are at it, bashing the people that insist on using scientific method? Virus believers are a religious cult. They believe in miracles but not God.
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) has been recognized as a significant epidemic disease threatening the cattle industry since the sixteenth century, and in the late nineteenth century [1897] it was shown by Loeffler and Frosch to be caused by a submicroscopic, filterable transmissible agent, smaller than any known bacteria.
The agent causing FMD was thus the first virus of vertebrates to be discovered, soon after the discovery of tobacco mosaic virus of plants. It was not until 1920 that a convenient animal model for the study of FMD virus was established by Waldmann and Pape, using guinea-pigs, and with the later development of in vitro cell culture systems for the virus, the chemical and physical properties of FMD virus were elucidated during the remainder of the twentieth century, culminating in 1989 with a complete description of the three-dimensional structure of the virion.
FMD virus is classified as a species in the Aphthovirus genus of the family Picornaviridae. The virus is acid labile, and the genome RNA contains a characteristic tract of polyC located about 360 nucleotides from the 5′ terminus. Seven main serotypes exist throughout the world, as well as numerous subtypes.
The World Reference Laboratory for FMD is located at Pirbright, Surrey, UK and undertakes surveillance of FMD epidemics by serotyping as well as by genotyping isolates of the virus. A major epidemic of FMD occurred in the UK in 2001 and was caused by a virulent strain of FMD virus with origins in Asia. The advantages and some disadvantages of controlling FMD outbreaks by vaccination are discussed.
---
There is since long a gigantic body of knowledge on this probably most contagious virus of all: no problem for no-virus, which without knowing a single detail of it, throws it blindly out of the window. Now you even call this a cult, where apparently nobody believes in God!
As to the other question, sorry, but I am 72 with a lot still to do, and have decided not to waste one minute of the rest of my to flat earth theory, but you may look up "inertial frame of reference".
This is all great, thank you for a detailed answer. However your answer, detailed as it is, does not have any experimental proof that 1)FMD is caused by a virus and 2)it is transmissible. If you have the paper that is cited by the link you provided (Loeffler and Frosch, 1897) it would be interesting to see what experiments they conducted. However, the "foundational" papers in the field of virology is frequently absent from easy access by humans (I wonder why! no, I don't wonder, I know why). In any case, if you locate it, my guess is that demonstration of "viral cause of FMD" was accomplished... drumroll... by injection! Well duh! That's how all viruses are proven, by injection of poisonous rotting matter, how else? It's totally natural "transmission". This is what I mean when I say that people who question virology insist on using scientific method, because we know that virology does not use it. Ever. It would ruin everything if they did.
for proof of virus, see my latest article A 128-year-old lesson in virology.
You were right in saying that they would use injections to transmit it, but that was just because in those days it was very difficult to collect lymph during outbreaks. They tried all other other ways of transmission, as I briefly describe.
On flat earth, I decided recently that I would not spend a minute more of the rest of my life.
Mees, I have not read your article in detail yet. However, I was correct even not having seen that study from the late 1800's that allegedly "discovered" the FMD "virus". As I said, they demonstrated it by injecting the animals! That's not a proof of "transmission", it's proof of poisoning by injection. All of the virology papers are like this - complete bullshit, no scientific method used, witches brewing their brew and injecting everyone and claiming it's a virus. No! That's their poison that they made up by assuming stuff and playing with putrid cocktails to fit their preconceived notions. That single point (injecting their own made up cocktail of rotting matter) invalidates all of their "discovery".
I my last article I wrote about Loeffler: After transmission to cattle (by injection or natural methods)....
Loefflers problem was how to get the blister liquid, in times without cars, telephone, electricity. The most sure and efficient way was injection, and the disease symptoms were the same.
It is beyond my comprehension that I, and all those others who have concluded there is no scientific evidence for the existence of viruses (to date), could be accused of controlled opposition. Or that our efforts to expose the fraud of viruses, could in any way constitute cognitive dissonance.
We (or many of us) are the ones who have struggled through months of cognitive dissonance to report a different story. It was we who overcame decades of indoctrination to question the existence of viruses. Asking ourselves and others “Well, if viruses don’t exist, how do you explain chicken pox? And what about small pox? How did all those native people die? How could they perpetrate a lie so big? And what about all those scientists who work in virology labs?” And on and on we kept asking ourselves and each other.
Until finally, the only thing that made sense was to trust the scientific method. We didn’t know the answers to all of those questions, but that didn’t change the science. Those other questions required further inquiry.
Of all the lies being perpetrated on the human race, the virus tale is one of the most insidious. It has resulted in massive deaths and destruction, and threatened the health of most of humanity.
If there is indeed a problem of cognitive infiltration, it's a the side of the leaders, not the followers. By the way, all important opposition movements are always infiltrated, be they fake or real.
Having been a skeptic most of my adult life, I would say that the last five years have sharply honed my critical thinking skills. Connecting the dots comes rather naturally to me these days. And I certainly am on the lookout for infiltration – relying on myself and other more expert skeptics to rout it out. But even wrapping myself into contortionist configurations, I cannot deduce how in general, the virus skeptics could be accused of controlled opposition. (Although there may be some claiming anti virus sentiments who try to weaken our position) We virus skeptics are calling out the whole basis of Rockefeller medicine. If viruses fall, the whole medical sham crumbles. And personally, without all the baggage of virus fear mongering, I am on to a healthier life, and able to enter a future where I can answer the questions of what really does make us ill, and how to trust my body’s wisdom to heal.
Now, to talk about divisiveness. How about we look at that topic through a different lens. Is it really a problem? Isn’t it OK that we disagree and air our disagreements? Sure, I would like to win you over to my point of view, but if not, we can continue to talk and to share and to explore together, no?
When David Icke says that our leaders are in fact shape shifting reptilians, does that help to convince "normal people" that he is right on other points?
Same with no-virus, it de-legitimates the truth movement. That's the reason I wrote these pieces and got covered in shit.
But the no-virus lifestyle rules are largely fine, and I follow those. That's because in our era most germs have lost the virulence they used to have over a century ago, which is a (bio)logical evolution.
But throwing the whole body of virology out of the window is insane, and I hope to proof it soon.
Always remember the 1916 Rockefeller caused NY poliomyelitis outbreak, with 25% dying of 23,000 cases!
I will have a look in your article, but in my book I cite many people who prove that Darwanian evolution is a fraud: Wolfgang Smith, James Tour, Demski, Peter Borger, etc
Here’s another argument (and there are many more) that completely thrashes Darwin’s theory: we now know that the genetic DNA code sys-tem at the basis of all life on earth is Complex Specified Information (CSI), and that such information cannot arise from accidental or random inter-actions between matter, or by natural means. In plain English, infor-mation cannot be created in a naturalist way, it must be designed by a con-scious and intelligent mind (a term used by Max Planck, B3). That was proved in William Dembski’s mathematical theorem: The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2023).
Here’s another argument (and there are many more) that completely thrashes Darwin’s theory: we now know that the genetic DNA code sys-tem at the basis of all life on earth is Complex Specified Information (CSI), and that such information cannot arise from accidental or random inter-actions between matter, or by natural means. In plain English, infor-mation cannot be created in a naturalist way, it must be designed by a con-scious and intelligent mind (a term used by Max Planck, B3). That was proved in William Dembski’s mathematical theorem: The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2023).
Okay, good. I should get my hands on your book. The Darwinism lie is ultimately more important than virology... but if you understand the Darwinism fraud, you can surely understand how groupthink can take over entire scientific disciplines.
Fry, E., R. Acharya and D. Stuart (1993). "Methods used in the structure determination of foot-and-mouth disease virus." Acta Crystallogr A 49 ( Pt 1): 45-55.
The structure of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) strain O1 BFS 1860 has been determined to 2.9 A resolution using the molecular-replacement method [Acharya, Fry, Stuart, Fox, Rowlands & Brown (1989). Nature (London), 337, 709-716]. Crystals of the virus with average dimensions 0.12 x 0.06 x 0.12 mm belong to space group I23, a = 345 A with 1/12 of the icosahedral particle per asymmetric unit giving fivefold noncrystallographic redundancy. Oscillation diffraction photographs were collected at the SERC Synchrotron Radiation Source at Daresbury in accordance with strict disease security regulations. The ambiguity in particle orientation was resolved using a self-rotation function and starting estimates of the phases to 8 A were derived from the known structures of two picornaviruses similarly oriented in the I23 unit cell. The phases were refined and extended using iterative averaging and solvent flattening with the implementation of a simple automatic envelope-determination procedure to increase the phasing power available.
many more studies have been published, see this database
Li, H., P. Liu, H. Dong, A. Dekker, M. M. Harmsen, H. Guo, X. Wang and S. Sun (2024). "Foot-and-mouth disease virus antigenic landscape and reduced immunogenicity elucidated in atomic detail." Nature Communications 15(1): 8774.
Unlike most other picornaviruses, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) intact virions (146S) dissociate easily into small pentameric subunits (12S). This causes a dramatically decreased immunogenicity by a mechanism that remains elusive. Here, we present the high-resolution structures of 12S (3.2 Å) and its immune complex of a single-domain antibody (VHH) targeting the particle interior (3.2 Å), as well as two 146S-specific VHHs complexed to distinct sites on the 146S capsid surface (3.6 Å and 2.9 Å). The antigenic landscape of 146S is depicted using 13 known FMD virus-antibody complexes. Comparison of the immunogenicity of 146S and 12S in pigs, focusing on the resulting antigenic sites and incorporating structural analysis, reveals that dissociation of 146S leads to structural alteration and destruction of multiple epitopes, resulting in significant differences in antibody profiles/lineages induced by 12S and 146S. Furthermore, 146S generates higher synergistic neutralizing antibody titers compared to 12S, whereas both particles induce similar total FMD virus specific antibody titers. This study can guide the structure-based rational design of novel multivalent and broad-spectrum recombinant vaccines for protection against FMD.
All of these have the same problem: no initial source of virus.
It’s not enough to say “this sample contains virus X. We made the following manipulations eg crystallise the protein and analysed it using X-ray crystallography”.
The obligation is on you to show proof that any of these papers have got a defined thing, the purported virus, to start with.
They never do, because there’s no scientific evidence of the existence of said virus.
No. You’re engaging with this debate in an extremely disingenuous way. You don’t seem to be considering the history of virology. Although you acknowledge that the HIV/AIDS “epidemic” was a scam of epic proportions, you don’t seem to realize the implications. At least in America, the entire scientific establishment was captured by a deeply corrupt nexus of bureaucratic and pharmaceutical interests.
I don’t really want to get into the debate about Ivermectin, but I will point out that it is classified as an anti-parasitic drug. No one disputes the existence of parasites. You act as its efficacy is proof of virology, but it has long been used for a variety of conditions that are not attributed to a viral cause.
The Ivermectin debate is a massive waste of time because the fact is that there never was a novel illness called COVID-19. People were sick, sure, but their illness was caused by the cold and flu being bundled together with pneumonia and other things. @Denis Rancourt has proven with hard data that COVID was a pseudo-pandemic. This means that the entire debate about Ivermectin missed the point, something that was pointed out by @Kit Knightly early on.
That is why some of the most insightful writers of the COVID era, such as @Paul Cudenec, @Iain Davis, and Whitney Webb, ignored Ivermectin altogether. Every minute spent debating the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating a non-existent illness was a minute wasted.
Things tend to get heated when you bring this subject up because the reality is that most anti-maskers/anti-vaxxers did accept that COVID was a real thing, and have not run a system upgrade on their brains yet.
You are getting up on a soapbox and pontificating about how you alone understand the truth of epidemiology, whilst simultaneously demonstrating your ignorance of the subject at hand.
You should consider making a full retraction. Your intervention in this debate has been misguided.
@Rozali @Tobin Owl @Jordan Henderson @Tereza Coraggio @Tim West @Dr Sam Bailey @Dr Mark Bailey @Dr Mike Yeadon @Michael Yeadon
I think the accusations of controlled opposition are understandable. Flat earth made its comeback after everyone had been online for 10 years and everyone realised they had been lied to about every war ever and a full scale revolt was coming into view. No virus theory came into popularity… hmmmm let me try and remember. Oh yeah it was in 2020. They released a bioweapon on us, stole half the world’s money and suddenly everyone is saying viruses are a lie but can’t explain why we catch a cold. It’s not difficult to see how this works. You got psyoped. Happens to EVERYONE at some point.
As someone who also made that trek to confident awareness of a momentous and long lived fraud, I would add that among the terrifying implications is that no vaccine has ever prevented & illness or stopped “spread”, because that (contagion) doesn’t happen, either.
In short form, I claim that the evidence shows:
Virus lie + contagion lie = vaccine lie.
A hallmark of an honest investigator is that they charge their mind when the facts change.
if it was covid, the answer would be that the mRNA vaccine damages the immune system, so you get covid often. We have several friends with this problem.
Chatgpt says it's a dead vaccine, but errors occur in vaccine production:
🔍 Why Can Someone Get Shingles After the Shingles Vaccine?
There are two main reasons this can happen:
1. The Vaccine Doesn’t Guarantee Full Immunity
No vaccine is 100% effective.
The shingles vaccine (Shingrix) is about 90–97% effective, but this means some people can still get shingles even after getting the shot.
In those cases, symptoms are usually milder, shorter in duration, and have fewer complications (especially less nerve pain called postherpetic neuralgia).
2. Exposure Timing: Already Infected Before Vaccination
If your father already had the virus reactivating in his system — even just days before the shot — the vaccine wouldn’t prevent the outbreak.
The shingles virus (varicella-zoster) lies dormant in nerve tissue and can reactivate due to age, stress, or a weakened immune system.
In this case, the vaccine simply came too late to stop that specific episode.
❌ Misconception: “The Vaccine Gave Him Shingles”
Shingrix, the current shingles vaccine used in most countries, is not a live virus vaccine, so it cannot cause shingles.
An earlier vaccine (Zostavax) was a live attenuated virus, and very rarely caused shingles-like reactions — but even that was extremely uncommon and typically mild.
🧠 In Summary:
Situation Explanation
Got shingles shortly after shot Already infected before vaccine could take effect
Got shingles months after shot Vaccine not 100% effective; rare breakthrough case
Vaccine gave them shingles ❌ False — current vaccines (like Shingrix) do not contain live virus
Yes, yes and yes. The vaccine lie leads to such horrific consequences. And the virus lie also leads to further important questions. If viruses don't exist, what other lies are being told to us about health and healing? "That trek to confident awareness" has led me to greater confidence in all areas of my life.
Great article, except for the unfortunate skid into the shadow world of virology. One and all make-believe. It lacks any shred of evidence. Kindly take note of the very careful review of the relevant science that prompted Dr. Mike Yeadon to see the light, as much as anyone does who reviews the evidence and cannot come up with an alternative explanation. Even Pasteur yielded to terrain theory during his lifetime. He was the Anthony Fauci of his day - great at playing enough of a scientist to get political and financial support, but not to convince the scientists of his day.
Thanks Rogier, I think Mike Yeadon has lost his reputation ... in his first act as commenter on my virus articles he started to make noise about climate change, as if he had been given the wrong instruction.
In my conclusion, No-virus is a group with no scientific credentials in the field of virology,
which then throws out the whole body of 130 years of virology blindly out of the window, all based on a "science trick" (the first step in isolation should be 100% of purification, which is impossible). This is so bizar that it must have a dark origin, and dark aims too.
Too bad about your personal experience with Yeadon. I trust him completely, and have never seen any carelessness on his part. Virology to me is complete nonsense. I've thought that for the past 70 years trained to be a sceptic by my MD father. ;-)
It's not the virology that is nonsense, it's the vaccinology, see Suzanne Humphries book. Almost all human germs, bacteria and viruses, have become milder due to housing, sanitary and working conditions in the last century. So people start to doubt their existence and importance.
But in the animal world, there are still some classical viral diseases around, like foot and mouth disease, which refutes all nonsense which no-virus is spreading.
I spent $5 on the book and 5 minutes screening it, and I doubt I will dedicate it another 5 minutes. What I immediately saw was what I call the "science trick": if a researcher does not follow the exact procedures as established by the no-virologists (who haven't done any virus research at all, because as we all know, viruses don't exists), then it's not science.
Experience, empirical observations, trials with treatments by honest and independent doctors on the battlefield, risking their lives and livelihoods: that's not science!
The Pharmafia does the same with Evidence Based Medicine: only Controlled Randomized Trials are "science", any other method to try to explain reality is not. They then do these trials in totally fraudulent ways, with a too low or too high dose of ivermectin etc, too late in the course of the disease, with patients in bad conditions, and then publish it in their corrupt journals, while facilitating distribution by their equally corrupt mainstream media, which then trumpet the news:
1. The fact that 100% purification is impossible doesn't mean that no-virus proponents are wrong. That is not a valid logical conclusion.
Consider a hypothetical example where a scientist wants to claim that chlorine gas causes trees to grow faster. And I in turn say well he needs to get some chlorine gas first and then we can conduct experiments to see if the trees grow faster.
You cannot turn around and say
(1) using today's technology we are not able to get chlorine gas (obviously we can - but this is a hypothetical example so let's assume that there is no way to produce chlorine gas for the purposes of this argument)
(2) so that means that the scientist cannot conduct those experiments
(3) so he must be right.
Firstly (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). And secondly simply because we are not able to get chlorine gas today does not mean that we don't need to do so in order for this scientist to prove his claims.
2. Just because farmers ran cloths through cows mouths and "spread" the disease does not prove that that was how the disease spread. For hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years sailors whistled for wind. Are you arguing that that means that whistling is the cause of wind?
3. Virology's existence for 130 years (and this is a gross exaggeration by the way - virology was still considered dubious as late as the 1980s) is not evidence of anything. Humans have held erroneous beliefs for far longer time periods than this.
4. Virology is not being thrown out because of "a trick". It is being thrown out because no set of experiments seems to show that it is correct. If you want to disprove the no-virus people you need to list the experiments which you believe constitute evidence that viruses do exist. Perhaps there is such a series of experiments. But if there is, why has no-one produced it yet?
Please don't treat people who don't believe in viruses as a monolithic group with a single perspective. That's intellectually dishonest and you should know that.
It seems like a sleight of hand to be talking about a disease that doesn't affect humans. Is this the best silver bullet argument you could come up with?
Biologically we are all mammals, and spiritually there are also things we share. I only need one black swan to prove that not all swans are white, and FMD virus is the oldest case, and interesting because none of the items of Cowan 's gold standard for proving the existence of viruses is fulfilled.
The difference I would make between viruses and Flat Earth is that viruses are an essential and indispensable element in the Globalist agenda. Without the belief in invisible deadly viruses, there would be no way to create fake pandemics and instill the necessary fear into the populations so that they could be easily submitted to vaccination. The fact that Thomas Milton Rivers, who has been serving the Rockefeller Foundation most of his life, is said to be the father of modern virology, this seems sufficient to me to use quotation marks when qualifying today's virology as a "science". For the Global Mafia, science is a also a flexible tool used to support its agenda, we see it with the Climate "science". All international organisations, such as UN, UNESCO, WHO, IMF etc... are tools designed to implement the globalist agenda. Therefore GAVI proves that vaccination is part of their agenda and this organisation cannot function without the "existence" of viruses.
Now if contagious viruses really existed, it seems to me that there would be no need to organize a fake pandemic with fake PCR tests. I am therefore inclined to think that virology, vaccinology and theology belong to the same category of tools used by the Global Mafia.
You can't solve the climate hoax by stating that there is no climate, only weather. Abuse of science - which I denounce, including vaccines - is not proof of non existence of realities, such as viruses.
You can solve the climate hoax by stating there is no sound science proving that climate is changed significantly by human behavior. It is impossible because there can be no controls on a shared planet.
Mees, ik zou even een boekje lezen "Can you catch a cold?" van Daniel Roytas. Misschien houd je dan op dit soort onlogische argumentatie te verspreiden. Ik wens je veel sterkte.
I read the summary of Daniel Roytas and agree with most. Under the present conditions there is rarely a one on one contagion because almost all germs have lost virulence since over a century, and that was not due to vaccinations or antibiotics, but an evolutionary adaptation too a stronger host. 80-90 % had immunity when Covid was brought in.
A second reason is "immune tolerance" as explained in The Sleeper Agent by Adam Finnegan: the - lab altered - germ(s) neutralize the immune system, like in Lyme disease.
But always remember what happened when the Rockefellers made a deadly polio virus in 1916, in their NY lab: of 23.000 cases, 5000 died!
Susan Humpries book Dissolving Illusions dedicates about 70 very interesting pages to poliomyelitis and poliovirus, see also Joe Rogan interview with her
Having both his and Mees' interview summary up, I will do a comparison:
Mees starts with five paragraphs stating his common ground, which goes much further than just the medical front into geopolitics, economics, revisionist history, inverted ideologies and methods of psychological control. No one can accuse him of falling for things he doesn't question, if they've read his work.
His points of contention is that "Virology, both medical and veterinary, has been developed over the last 130 years, and has developed an enormous body of knowledge" and "the no-virus theory ... throws the whole body of virology blindly out of the window, as the proverbial baby with the bathwater."
That isn't a personal attack and not contentious--the very point of the no-virus position is that not one study is valid and the entire field has always been a sham. Mees quotes Ron Unz on past instances of 'cognitive infiltration', what I call circles of psyops. That's also not controversial, it's a proven part of the playbook. Is it happening with Covid? We all know it is. We only differ on who and how.
On Crow's substack, he writes, "Mees Baaijen has unleashed a deluge of posts in which he attempts to convince his readers that people who deny the existence of viruses are a bunch of credulous dupes who have fallen for a psy op meant to divide the Truth Movement. Since March, he has published no less than seven articles in which he beats his dead pet horse like it owes him money. ... I think that he is quite convinced of his own Belief System (BS for short), and that he thinks that he thinks that he is doing the world a service by berating us dupes for our gullibility. Clearly we’ve all been brainwashed by the beguiling Baileys!" Do I really need to point out why that's insulting and condescending? Because I'll be happy to, if you need it.
Crow then misstates Mees' evidence. Crow writes, "Mees has a background as a veterinarian, and is convinced that viruses are real because he has personally observed outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease when working with livestock." That wasn't his proof at all. It was that FMD could be intentionally spread manually by using a cloth contaminated from a sick animal.
Crow asks, "Is this all you've got?" But he misses the point. Intentionally spreading diseases that people might die of is a little bit unethical. Yes? So this experiment could never be done with humans.
No one is addressing this evidence. When I read the comments, I've yet to find one where Mees insults anyone. If you need me to, I'll do a point by point analysis showing how Mees is talking about why he disagrees with the theory and why the stridency of the movement is destructive, and how Crow's statements are insulting and condescending. I know that if I called Crow's Belief System BS for short, he would be justifiably offended. And much more so if I called his research and evidence a 'belief system.'
About Sasha, I didn't even know that a commenter could retract its comments. I tried to engage her in a specific discussion, but failed. After the frightening details you gave on her, I'm glad it didn't work out.
Crow has copied the typical Cowan style, and probably thinks that's the way scientific discussions are held. I have thrown several commenters out, trying to keep their comments as examples on my site, but most of the times the comments disappeared. Fortunately at 72 I have a well developed elephant skin and consider it his problem, not miine
At this point in time, it is hard to know exactly what to believe. So my mantra is to keep an open mind about everything. It's the people that believe flat earth and "no viruses" that push me in the opposite direction, as they insist that they are right with no better proof.
Yes, it can be very confusing. This is what I wrote on flat earth in my first no-virus post:
the “flat earth theory” and the “no-germ theory”, very similar to the “terrain theory” and the “no-virus theory”. As for “flat earth”, there are many indications that it’s a psy-op by the CIA. It can however be debunked elegantly in two minutes, see the video at the end of the linked article, where one and the same sunset is shown three times, first from ground level, a bit later from a drone at 100 meters, and then at 300 meters high. After seeing it, you won’t spend one minute more of your life on flat earth theory!
I should be polite to the morons who think the earth is flat and viruses are a psyop. So I will. I hope you morons have a great day and may I politely recommend some fresh air. Maybe get away from the algorithms for a bit, clear your head. When you get back I hear the Alien Autopsy video from the 90s has been remastered
Well, this is disappointing. I should have time to respond to you this week but let me say up front that I really don't appreciate being compared to a Flat Earthers. You're basically saying that people who don't believe in viruses are a bunch of credulous dupes. I like healthy debate but we're not off to a good start here.
I enjoyed the interview on Bitchute. Interesting that just prior, I had watched an analysis by Dr. John Campbell about reduced fertility in the jabbed in the Czech Republic. So no catastrophic depopulation, but certainly fertility has been affected. Add that to the social engineering over the decades of getting women to stop having babies, and a depop agenda starts to look plausible.
It's always the same game: Whenever a dissident scene forms, questioning any kind of official narrative (9/11, Covid, you name it), there's always a certain type of actors showing up, spouting absolutely outlandish claims with lots of fuss and amplification. Guess who sent them.
If a global criminocracy controls the world, I agree it does, is it a coincidence that Virology, emerged at the same time as the emergence of the other ideologies that make up the global criminal network? How convenient is it that invisible pathogens, such as viruses or evenl CO2, have given so much power to these criminals to erode individual and national sovereignty.
You are right, invisible enemies are very convenient for Glafia. And viruses can relatively easy be adapted to their wishes. And how convenient then that people can be convinced that viruses don’t exist!
Maybe they do but the lethality is in question. In the absence of toxicity or sufficient mineral nutrition, they appear benign. What is clearly contrived is the efficacy of ‘vaccines"‘.
Due to all kind of hygienic measures and improvement in living and working conditions once dangerous germs have been tamed (adapted to lower virulence), even before large scale vaccinations and antibiotics.
the biggest threads are now artificially enhanced germs.
Mees, can you please point to the data that experimentally proves viruses as causative agents of disease? Also, can you please point to the experimental data proving that the Earth is spinning, while we are at it, bashing the people that insist on using scientific method? Virus believers are a religious cult. They believe in miracles but not God.
Hi Sasha
here's how FMD started https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-27109-0_1
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) has been recognized as a significant epidemic disease threatening the cattle industry since the sixteenth century, and in the late nineteenth century [1897] it was shown by Loeffler and Frosch to be caused by a submicroscopic, filterable transmissible agent, smaller than any known bacteria.
The agent causing FMD was thus the first virus of vertebrates to be discovered, soon after the discovery of tobacco mosaic virus of plants. It was not until 1920 that a convenient animal model for the study of FMD virus was established by Waldmann and Pape, using guinea-pigs, and with the later development of in vitro cell culture systems for the virus, the chemical and physical properties of FMD virus were elucidated during the remainder of the twentieth century, culminating in 1989 with a complete description of the three-dimensional structure of the virion.
FMD virus is classified as a species in the Aphthovirus genus of the family Picornaviridae. The virus is acid labile, and the genome RNA contains a characteristic tract of polyC located about 360 nucleotides from the 5′ terminus. Seven main serotypes exist throughout the world, as well as numerous subtypes.
The World Reference Laboratory for FMD is located at Pirbright, Surrey, UK and undertakes surveillance of FMD epidemics by serotyping as well as by genotyping isolates of the virus. A major epidemic of FMD occurred in the UK in 2001 and was caused by a virulent strain of FMD virus with origins in Asia. The advantages and some disadvantages of controlling FMD outbreaks by vaccination are discussed.
---
There is since long a gigantic body of knowledge on this probably most contagious virus of all: no problem for no-virus, which without knowing a single detail of it, throws it blindly out of the window. Now you even call this a cult, where apparently nobody believes in God!
As to the other question, sorry, but I am 72 with a lot still to do, and have decided not to waste one minute of the rest of my to flat earth theory, but you may look up "inertial frame of reference".
This is all great, thank you for a detailed answer. However your answer, detailed as it is, does not have any experimental proof that 1)FMD is caused by a virus and 2)it is transmissible. If you have the paper that is cited by the link you provided (Loeffler and Frosch, 1897) it would be interesting to see what experiments they conducted. However, the "foundational" papers in the field of virology is frequently absent from easy access by humans (I wonder why! no, I don't wonder, I know why). In any case, if you locate it, my guess is that demonstration of "viral cause of FMD" was accomplished... drumroll... by injection! Well duh! That's how all viruses are proven, by injection of poisonous rotting matter, how else? It's totally natural "transmission". This is what I mean when I say that people who question virology insist on using scientific method, because we know that virology does not use it. Ever. It would ruin everything if they did.
Hi sasha, I accpt your invitation but need some time to prepare a proposal to the no-virus community ....
I am not part of any community, all opinions and questions are my own.
Hi Sasha, do you read German?
Do you have the german version, i would like to read it.
Thank you Mees for forcing the hand of players to reveal their true selves
Hi Sasha
for proof of virus, see my latest article A 128-year-old lesson in virology.
You were right in saying that they would use injections to transmit it, but that was just because in those days it was very difficult to collect lymph during outbreaks. They tried all other other ways of transmission, as I briefly describe.
On flat earth, I decided recently that I would not spend a minute more of the rest of my life.
Mees, I have not read your article in detail yet. However, I was correct even not having seen that study from the late 1800's that allegedly "discovered" the FMD "virus". As I said, they demonstrated it by injecting the animals! That's not a proof of "transmission", it's proof of poisoning by injection. All of the virology papers are like this - complete bullshit, no scientific method used, witches brewing their brew and injecting everyone and claiming it's a virus. No! That's their poison that they made up by assuming stuff and playing with putrid cocktails to fit their preconceived notions. That single point (injecting their own made up cocktail of rotting matter) invalidates all of their "discovery".
sorry Sasha,
please read the article in 5 minutes of your time,
and tell me where Loeffler went wrong
I've no biology background, but doesn't injecting something into a body bypass all natural defences?
thanks
I my last article I wrote about Loeffler: After transmission to cattle (by injection or natural methods)....
Loefflers problem was how to get the blister liquid, in times without cars, telephone, electricity. The most sure and efficient way was injection, and the disease symptoms were the same.
"Virus believers are a religious cult. They believe in miracles but not God."
Hear, hear!
It is beyond my comprehension that I, and all those others who have concluded there is no scientific evidence for the existence of viruses (to date), could be accused of controlled opposition. Or that our efforts to expose the fraud of viruses, could in any way constitute cognitive dissonance.
We (or many of us) are the ones who have struggled through months of cognitive dissonance to report a different story. It was we who overcame decades of indoctrination to question the existence of viruses. Asking ourselves and others “Well, if viruses don’t exist, how do you explain chicken pox? And what about small pox? How did all those native people die? How could they perpetrate a lie so big? And what about all those scientists who work in virology labs?” And on and on we kept asking ourselves and each other.
Until finally, the only thing that made sense was to trust the scientific method. We didn’t know the answers to all of those questions, but that didn’t change the science. Those other questions required further inquiry.
Of all the lies being perpetrated on the human race, the virus tale is one of the most insidious. It has resulted in massive deaths and destruction, and threatened the health of most of humanity.
Don't take this personally Rose.
If there is indeed a problem of cognitive infiltration, it's a the side of the leaders, not the followers. By the way, all important opposition movements are always infiltrated, be they fake or real.
No affront is taken.
Having been a skeptic most of my adult life, I would say that the last five years have sharply honed my critical thinking skills. Connecting the dots comes rather naturally to me these days. And I certainly am on the lookout for infiltration – relying on myself and other more expert skeptics to rout it out. But even wrapping myself into contortionist configurations, I cannot deduce how in general, the virus skeptics could be accused of controlled opposition. (Although there may be some claiming anti virus sentiments who try to weaken our position) We virus skeptics are calling out the whole basis of Rockefeller medicine. If viruses fall, the whole medical sham crumbles. And personally, without all the baggage of virus fear mongering, I am on to a healthier life, and able to enter a future where I can answer the questions of what really does make us ill, and how to trust my body’s wisdom to heal.
Now, to talk about divisiveness. How about we look at that topic through a different lens. Is it really a problem? Isn’t it OK that we disagree and air our disagreements? Sure, I would like to win you over to my point of view, but if not, we can continue to talk and to share and to explore together, no?
When David Icke says that our leaders are in fact shape shifting reptilians, does that help to convince "normal people" that he is right on other points?
Same with no-virus, it de-legitimates the truth movement. That's the reason I wrote these pieces and got covered in shit.
But the no-virus lifestyle rules are largely fine, and I follow those. That's because in our era most germs have lost the virulence they used to have over a century ago, which is a (bio)logical evolution.
But throwing the whole body of virology out of the window is insane, and I hope to proof it soon.
Always remember the 1916 Rockefeller caused NY poliomyelitis outbreak, with 25% dying of 23,000 cases!
Evolution is a lie too. I've written a bunch of pieces about that recently.
Here's one of them:
https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/how-fish-learned-to-fly?utm_source=publication-search
I will have a look in your article, but in my book I cite many people who prove that Darwanian evolution is a fraud: Wolfgang Smith, James Tour, Demski, Peter Borger, etc
from my book:
Here’s another argument (and there are many more) that completely thrashes Darwin’s theory: we now know that the genetic DNA code sys-tem at the basis of all life on earth is Complex Specified Information (CSI), and that such information cannot arise from accidental or random inter-actions between matter, or by natural means. In plain English, infor-mation cannot be created in a naturalist way, it must be designed by a con-scious and intelligent mind (a term used by Max Planck, B3). That was proved in William Dembski’s mathematical theorem: The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2023).
from my book:
Here’s another argument (and there are many more) that completely thrashes Darwin’s theory: we now know that the genetic DNA code sys-tem at the basis of all life on earth is Complex Specified Information (CSI), and that such information cannot arise from accidental or random inter-actions between matter, or by natural means. In plain English, infor-mation cannot be created in a naturalist way, it must be designed by a con-scious and intelligent mind (a term used by Max Planck, B3). That was proved in William Dembski’s mathematical theorem: The Design Inference, Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (2023).
Okay, good. I should get my hands on your book. The Darwinism lie is ultimately more important than virology... but if you understand the Darwinism fraud, you can surely understand how groupthink can take over entire scientific disciplines.
Agreed. Speciation is not explained by the processes outlined by a Darwin or his successors.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
There is no scientific evidence for the existence of FMD virus or indeed any virus.
If you have compelling evidence you’re invited to post it here. You won’t, though, as you don’t have any, either.
My new post is out, please tell me where Loeffler went wrong.
How about this, all phantasy?
https://www.rcsb.org/structure/1BBT
Fry, E., R. Acharya and D. Stuart (1993). "Methods used in the structure determination of foot-and-mouth disease virus." Acta Crystallogr A 49 ( Pt 1): 45-55.
The structure of foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) strain O1 BFS 1860 has been determined to 2.9 A resolution using the molecular-replacement method [Acharya, Fry, Stuart, Fox, Rowlands & Brown (1989). Nature (London), 337, 709-716]. Crystals of the virus with average dimensions 0.12 x 0.06 x 0.12 mm belong to space group I23, a = 345 A with 1/12 of the icosahedral particle per asymmetric unit giving fivefold noncrystallographic redundancy. Oscillation diffraction photographs were collected at the SERC Synchrotron Radiation Source at Daresbury in accordance with strict disease security regulations. The ambiguity in particle orientation was resolved using a self-rotation function and starting estimates of the phases to 8 A were derived from the known structures of two picornaviruses similarly oriented in the I23 unit cell. The phases were refined and extended using iterative averaging and solvent flattening with the implementation of a simple automatic envelope-determination procedure to increase the phasing power available.
many more studies have been published, see this database
https://www.rcsb.org/search?request=%7B"query"%3A%7B"type"%3A"group"%2C"nodes"%3A%5B%7B"type"%3A"group"%2C"nodes"%3A%5B%7B"type"%3A"group"%2C"nodes"%3A%5B%7B"type"%3A"terminal"%2C"service"%3A"text"%2C"parameters"%3A%7B"attribute"%3A"struct_keywords.text"%2C"operator"%3A"contains_phrase"%2C"value"%3A"FOOT%20AND%20MOUTH%20DISEASE%20VIRUS%2C%20FMDV%2C%20VIRUS"%7D%7D%5D%2C"logical_operator"%3A"and"%7D%5D%2C"logical_operator"%3A"and"%2C"label"%3A"text"%7D%5D%2C"logical_operator"%3A"and"%7D%2C"return_type"%3A"entry"%2C"request_options"%3A%7B"paginate"%3A%7B"start"%3A0%2C"rows"%3A25%7D%2C"results_content_type"%3A%5B"experimental"%5D%2C"sort"%3A%5B%7B"sort_by"%3A"score"%2C"direction"%3A"desc"%7D%5D%2C"scoring_strategy"%3A"combined"%7D%2C"request_info"%3A%7B"query_id"%3A"415b0f4ba08438bc0fdc70381239306b"%7D%7D
As an example:
Li, H., P. Liu, H. Dong, A. Dekker, M. M. Harmsen, H. Guo, X. Wang and S. Sun (2024). "Foot-and-mouth disease virus antigenic landscape and reduced immunogenicity elucidated in atomic detail." Nature Communications 15(1): 8774.
Unlike most other picornaviruses, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) intact virions (146S) dissociate easily into small pentameric subunits (12S). This causes a dramatically decreased immunogenicity by a mechanism that remains elusive. Here, we present the high-resolution structures of 12S (3.2 Å) and its immune complex of a single-domain antibody (VHH) targeting the particle interior (3.2 Å), as well as two 146S-specific VHHs complexed to distinct sites on the 146S capsid surface (3.6 Å and 2.9 Å). The antigenic landscape of 146S is depicted using 13 known FMD virus-antibody complexes. Comparison of the immunogenicity of 146S and 12S in pigs, focusing on the resulting antigenic sites and incorporating structural analysis, reveals that dissociation of 146S leads to structural alteration and destruction of multiple epitopes, resulting in significant differences in antibody profiles/lineages induced by 12S and 146S. Furthermore, 146S generates higher synergistic neutralizing antibody titers compared to 12S, whereas both particles induce similar total FMD virus specific antibody titers. This study can guide the structure-based rational design of novel multivalent and broad-spectrum recombinant vaccines for protection against FMD.
All of these have the same problem: no initial source of virus.
It’s not enough to say “this sample contains virus X. We made the following manipulations eg crystallise the protein and analysed it using X-ray crystallography”.
The obligation is on you to show proof that any of these papers have got a defined thing, the purported virus, to start with.
They never do, because there’s no scientific evidence of the existence of said virus.
question: do you believe in HIV/AIDS?
if this question is for me: no, it's a fraud, see Peter Duisberg and later RFK's book on Fauci
Seems we only differ on virology - please debate my upcoming article once it is out
okay, so you understand that much of the virology industry is corrupt, then?
is this enough for you?
https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/p/pharmafia-the-new-merchants-of-death
No. You’re engaging with this debate in an extremely disingenuous way. You don’t seem to be considering the history of virology. Although you acknowledge that the HIV/AIDS “epidemic” was a scam of epic proportions, you don’t seem to realize the implications. At least in America, the entire scientific establishment was captured by a deeply corrupt nexus of bureaucratic and pharmaceutical interests.
I don’t really want to get into the debate about Ivermectin, but I will point out that it is classified as an anti-parasitic drug. No one disputes the existence of parasites. You act as its efficacy is proof of virology, but it has long been used for a variety of conditions that are not attributed to a viral cause.
The Ivermectin debate is a massive waste of time because the fact is that there never was a novel illness called COVID-19. People were sick, sure, but their illness was caused by the cold and flu being bundled together with pneumonia and other things. @Denis Rancourt has proven with hard data that COVID was a pseudo-pandemic. This means that the entire debate about Ivermectin missed the point, something that was pointed out by @Kit Knightly early on.
That is why some of the most insightful writers of the COVID era, such as @Paul Cudenec, @Iain Davis, and Whitney Webb, ignored Ivermectin altogether. Every minute spent debating the effectiveness of Ivermectin in treating a non-existent illness was a minute wasted.
Things tend to get heated when you bring this subject up because the reality is that most anti-maskers/anti-vaxxers did accept that COVID was a real thing, and have not run a system upgrade on their brains yet.
You are getting up on a soapbox and pontificating about how you alone understand the truth of epidemiology, whilst simultaneously demonstrating your ignorance of the subject at hand.
You should consider making a full retraction. Your intervention in this debate has been misguided.
@Rozali @Tobin Owl @Jordan Henderson @Tereza Coraggio @Tim West @Dr Sam Bailey @Dr Mark Bailey @Dr Mike Yeadon @Michael Yeadon
is this enough for you?
https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/p/pharmafia-the-new-merchants-of-death
All of it is fraud.
Not a single alleged virus has been shown to exist.
I think the accusations of controlled opposition are understandable. Flat earth made its comeback after everyone had been online for 10 years and everyone realised they had been lied to about every war ever and a full scale revolt was coming into view. No virus theory came into popularity… hmmmm let me try and remember. Oh yeah it was in 2020. They released a bioweapon on us, stole half the world’s money and suddenly everyone is saying viruses are a lie but can’t explain why we catch a cold. It’s not difficult to see how this works. You got psyoped. Happens to EVERYONE at some point.
Rose,
As someone who also made that trek to confident awareness of a momentous and long lived fraud, I would add that among the terrifying implications is that no vaccine has ever prevented & illness or stopped “spread”, because that (contagion) doesn’t happen, either.
In short form, I claim that the evidence shows:
Virus lie + contagion lie = vaccine lie.
A hallmark of an honest investigator is that they charge their mind when the facts change.
Please explain my father getting the shingles shot and then getting shingles.
if it was covid, the answer would be that the mRNA vaccine damages the immune system, so you get covid often. We have several friends with this problem.
Chatgpt says it's a dead vaccine, but errors occur in vaccine production:
🔍 Why Can Someone Get Shingles After the Shingles Vaccine?
There are two main reasons this can happen:
1. The Vaccine Doesn’t Guarantee Full Immunity
No vaccine is 100% effective.
The shingles vaccine (Shingrix) is about 90–97% effective, but this means some people can still get shingles even after getting the shot.
In those cases, symptoms are usually milder, shorter in duration, and have fewer complications (especially less nerve pain called postherpetic neuralgia).
2. Exposure Timing: Already Infected Before Vaccination
If your father already had the virus reactivating in his system — even just days before the shot — the vaccine wouldn’t prevent the outbreak.
The shingles virus (varicella-zoster) lies dormant in nerve tissue and can reactivate due to age, stress, or a weakened immune system.
In this case, the vaccine simply came too late to stop that specific episode.
❌ Misconception: “The Vaccine Gave Him Shingles”
Shingrix, the current shingles vaccine used in most countries, is not a live virus vaccine, so it cannot cause shingles.
An earlier vaccine (Zostavax) was a live attenuated virus, and very rarely caused shingles-like reactions — but even that was extremely uncommon and typically mild.
🧠 In Summary:
Situation Explanation
Got shingles shortly after shot Already infected before vaccine could take effect
Got shingles months after shot Vaccine not 100% effective; rare breakthrough case
Vaccine gave them shingles ❌ False — current vaccines (like Shingrix) do not contain live virus
Thank you for your answer. I have just found this Substack and am very glad I did. Looking forward to reading your posts.
Thanks Lynda, you are welcome!
Yes, yes and yes. The vaccine lie leads to such horrific consequences. And the virus lie also leads to further important questions. If viruses don't exist, what other lies are being told to us about health and healing? "That trek to confident awareness" has led me to greater confidence in all areas of my life.
Couldn't agree more.
Great article, except for the unfortunate skid into the shadow world of virology. One and all make-believe. It lacks any shred of evidence. Kindly take note of the very careful review of the relevant science that prompted Dr. Mike Yeadon to see the light, as much as anyone does who reviews the evidence and cannot come up with an alternative explanation. Even Pasteur yielded to terrain theory during his lifetime. He was the Anthony Fauci of his day - great at playing enough of a scientist to get political and financial support, but not to convince the scientists of his day.
Thanks Rogier, I think Mike Yeadon has lost his reputation ... in his first act as commenter on my virus articles he started to make noise about climate change, as if he had been given the wrong instruction.
In my conclusion, No-virus is a group with no scientific credentials in the field of virology,
which then throws out the whole body of 130 years of virology blindly out of the window, all based on a "science trick" (the first step in isolation should be 100% of purification, which is impossible). This is so bizar that it must have a dark origin, and dark aims too.
Too bad about your personal experience with Yeadon. I trust him completely, and have never seen any carelessness on his part. Virology to me is complete nonsense. I've thought that for the past 70 years trained to be a sceptic by my MD father. ;-)
It's not the virology that is nonsense, it's the vaccinology, see Suzanne Humphries book. Almost all human germs, bacteria and viruses, have become milder due to housing, sanitary and working conditions in the last century. So people start to doubt their existence and importance.
But in the animal world, there are still some classical viral diseases around, like foot and mouth disease, which refutes all nonsense which no-virus is spreading.
Refute Dr. Mark Bailey, point for point, and then we may have something to talk about.
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
or
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Virology-Mark-Bailey-ebook/dp/B0F3HSTNYP/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1
just bought the book
I spent $5 on the book and 5 minutes screening it, and I doubt I will dedicate it another 5 minutes. What I immediately saw was what I call the "science trick": if a researcher does not follow the exact procedures as established by the no-virologists (who haven't done any virus research at all, because as we all know, viruses don't exists), then it's not science.
Experience, empirical observations, trials with treatments by honest and independent doctors on the battlefield, risking their lives and livelihoods: that's not science!
The Pharmafia does the same with Evidence Based Medicine: only Controlled Randomized Trials are "science", any other method to try to explain reality is not. They then do these trials in totally fraudulent ways, with a too low or too high dose of ivermectin etc, too late in the course of the disease, with patients in bad conditions, and then publish it in their corrupt journals, while facilitating distribution by their equally corrupt mainstream media, which then trumpet the news:
Ivermectin does not work!!
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience
Mike Yeadon is one of the greatest heroes of the COVID era. Up there with Denis Rancourt.
1. The fact that 100% purification is impossible doesn't mean that no-virus proponents are wrong. That is not a valid logical conclusion.
Consider a hypothetical example where a scientist wants to claim that chlorine gas causes trees to grow faster. And I in turn say well he needs to get some chlorine gas first and then we can conduct experiments to see if the trees grow faster.
You cannot turn around and say
(1) using today's technology we are not able to get chlorine gas (obviously we can - but this is a hypothetical example so let's assume that there is no way to produce chlorine gas for the purposes of this argument)
(2) so that means that the scientist cannot conduct those experiments
(3) so he must be right.
Firstly (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). And secondly simply because we are not able to get chlorine gas today does not mean that we don't need to do so in order for this scientist to prove his claims.
2. Just because farmers ran cloths through cows mouths and "spread" the disease does not prove that that was how the disease spread. For hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years sailors whistled for wind. Are you arguing that that means that whistling is the cause of wind?
3. Virology's existence for 130 years (and this is a gross exaggeration by the way - virology was still considered dubious as late as the 1980s) is not evidence of anything. Humans have held erroneous beliefs for far longer time periods than this.
4. Virology is not being thrown out because of "a trick". It is being thrown out because no set of experiments seems to show that it is correct. If you want to disprove the no-virus people you need to list the experiments which you believe constitute evidence that viruses do exist. Perhaps there is such a series of experiments. But if there is, why has no-one produced it yet?
Do you have scientific credentials?
Please don't treat people who don't believe in viruses as a monolithic group with a single perspective. That's intellectually dishonest and you should know that.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
Very astute.
You’re correct.
Viruses are real.
Hi James, this is what I am sending around:
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
And your proof is exactly?
Will write an article on it. The evidence is voluminous.
I can't wait for that article! ;P
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
It seems like a sleight of hand to be talking about a disease that doesn't affect humans. Is this the best silver bullet argument you could come up with?
Biologically we are all mammals, and spiritually there are also things we share. I only need one black swan to prove that not all swans are white, and FMD virus is the oldest case, and interesting because none of the items of Cowan 's gold standard for proving the existence of viruses is fulfilled.
The difference I would make between viruses and Flat Earth is that viruses are an essential and indispensable element in the Globalist agenda. Without the belief in invisible deadly viruses, there would be no way to create fake pandemics and instill the necessary fear into the populations so that they could be easily submitted to vaccination. The fact that Thomas Milton Rivers, who has been serving the Rockefeller Foundation most of his life, is said to be the father of modern virology, this seems sufficient to me to use quotation marks when qualifying today's virology as a "science". For the Global Mafia, science is a also a flexible tool used to support its agenda, we see it with the Climate "science". All international organisations, such as UN, UNESCO, WHO, IMF etc... are tools designed to implement the globalist agenda. Therefore GAVI proves that vaccination is part of their agenda and this organisation cannot function without the "existence" of viruses.
Now we know that COVID-19 was a fake pandemic (just read the short conclusion of Denis Rancourt's 500-pages report of July 2024): https://correlation-canada.org/covid-excess-mortality-125-countries/
Now if contagious viruses really existed, it seems to me that there would be no need to organize a fake pandemic with fake PCR tests. I am therefore inclined to think that virology, vaccinology and theology belong to the same category of tools used by the Global Mafia.
You can't solve the climate hoax by stating that there is no climate, only weather. Abuse of science - which I denounce, including vaccines - is not proof of non existence of realities, such as viruses.
You can solve the climate hoax by stating there is no sound science proving that climate is changed significantly by human behavior. It is impossible because there can be no controls on a shared planet.
Mees, ik zou even een boekje lezen "Can you catch a cold?" van Daniel Roytas. Misschien houd je dan op dit soort onlogische argumentatie te verspreiden. Ik wens je veel sterkte.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/791252/episodes/14812008-117-daniel-roytas-can-you-catch-a-cold-untold-history-human-experiments
I read the summary of Daniel Roytas and agree with most. Under the present conditions there is rarely a one on one contagion because almost all germs have lost virulence since over a century, and that was not due to vaccinations or antibiotics, but an evolutionary adaptation too a stronger host. 80-90 % had immunity when Covid was brought in.
A second reason is "immune tolerance" as explained in The Sleeper Agent by Adam Finnegan: the - lab altered - germ(s) neutralize the immune system, like in Lyme disease.
But always remember what happened when the Rockefellers made a deadly polio virus in 1916, in their NY lab: of 23.000 cases, 5000 died!
Haha, you just keep making unsubstantiated claims! What a shame for the truth community.
Be patient, I am preparing to get you ....
So tell me what is the scientific proof for the existence of the polio virus?
Susan Humpries book Dissolving Illusions dedicates about 70 very interesting pages to poliomyelitis and poliovirus, see also Joe Rogan interview with her
Humpfries' book is not a scientific study or experiment.
Did Sasha remove her own comment, with 12 likes and 12 replies by Mees and others? It showed up and then disappeared. Speaking of controlling the opposition: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/sashas-daughter-soph.
Elsewhere on this thread, I proved to Crow that the no-virus camp engages in insults and character attacks: https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/p/mees-baaijen-says-no-viruses-is-another/comment/118111816. Crow then stated "Okay, some anti-virus people can be insulting... I'll give you that. But are the pro-virus people any better? I definitely feel insulted by Mees's condescending attitude."
Having both his and Mees' interview summary up, I will do a comparison:
Mees starts with five paragraphs stating his common ground, which goes much further than just the medical front into geopolitics, economics, revisionist history, inverted ideologies and methods of psychological control. No one can accuse him of falling for things he doesn't question, if they've read his work.
His points of contention is that "Virology, both medical and veterinary, has been developed over the last 130 years, and has developed an enormous body of knowledge" and "the no-virus theory ... throws the whole body of virology blindly out of the window, as the proverbial baby with the bathwater."
That isn't a personal attack and not contentious--the very point of the no-virus position is that not one study is valid and the entire field has always been a sham. Mees quotes Ron Unz on past instances of 'cognitive infiltration', what I call circles of psyops. That's also not controversial, it's a proven part of the playbook. Is it happening with Covid? We all know it is. We only differ on who and how.
On Crow's substack, he writes, "Mees Baaijen has unleashed a deluge of posts in which he attempts to convince his readers that people who deny the existence of viruses are a bunch of credulous dupes who have fallen for a psy op meant to divide the Truth Movement. Since March, he has published no less than seven articles in which he beats his dead pet horse like it owes him money. ... I think that he is quite convinced of his own Belief System (BS for short), and that he thinks that he thinks that he is doing the world a service by berating us dupes for our gullibility. Clearly we’ve all been brainwashed by the beguiling Baileys!" Do I really need to point out why that's insulting and condescending? Because I'll be happy to, if you need it.
Crow then misstates Mees' evidence. Crow writes, "Mees has a background as a veterinarian, and is convinced that viruses are real because he has personally observed outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease when working with livestock." That wasn't his proof at all. It was that FMD could be intentionally spread manually by using a cloth contaminated from a sick animal.
Crow asks, "Is this all you've got?" But he misses the point. Intentionally spreading diseases that people might die of is a little bit unethical. Yes? So this experiment could never be done with humans.
No one is addressing this evidence. When I read the comments, I've yet to find one where Mees insults anyone. If you need me to, I'll do a point by point analysis showing how Mees is talking about why he disagrees with the theory and why the stridency of the movement is destructive, and how Crow's statements are insulting and condescending. I know that if I called Crow's Belief System BS for short, he would be justifiably offended. And much more so if I called his research and evidence a 'belief system.'
Thanks again Tereza
About Sasha, I didn't even know that a commenter could retract its comments. I tried to engage her in a specific discussion, but failed. After the frightening details you gave on her, I'm glad it didn't work out.
Crow has copied the typical Cowan style, and probably thinks that's the way scientific discussions are held. I have thrown several commenters out, trying to keep their comments as examples on my site, but most of the times the comments disappeared. Fortunately at 72 I have a well developed elephant skin and consider it his problem, not miine
At this point in time, it is hard to know exactly what to believe. So my mantra is to keep an open mind about everything. It's the people that believe flat earth and "no viruses" that push me in the opposite direction, as they insist that they are right with no better proof.
Yes, it can be very confusing. This is what I wrote on flat earth in my first no-virus post:
the “flat earth theory” and the “no-germ theory”, very similar to the “terrain theory” and the “no-virus theory”. As for “flat earth”, there are many indications that it’s a psy-op by the CIA. It can however be debunked elegantly in two minutes, see the video at the end of the linked article, where one and the same sunset is shown three times, first from ground level, a bit later from a drone at 100 meters, and then at 300 meters high. After seeing it, you won’t spend one minute more of your life on flat earth theory!
I wonder what Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi would make of this.
he is certainly not a virus denier, he said that the pandemic was fake, not the virus. From his amazon text:
Dr. Bhakdi and Dr. Reiss provide dates, facts, and background information, including:
• How Covid-19 compares with previous coronaviruses and the flu virus
I think that the entities identified as viruses are actually cell death debris.
Contagion can be explained by thinking that there is another root cause such as microscopic parasites or radiation poisoning.
Hi Frances, I am preparing another explanation. ...
Hi Frances, read your latest article, wishing you strength and good health!
The promised explanation is ready on my site, "An 128-year-old lesson in virology".
Cheers!
I should be polite to the morons who think the earth is flat and viruses are a psyop. So I will. I hope you morons have a great day and may I politely recommend some fresh air. Maybe get away from the algorithms for a bit, clear your head. When you get back I hear the Alien Autopsy video from the 90s has been remastered
Well, this is disappointing. I should have time to respond to you this week but let me say up front that I really don't appreciate being compared to a Flat Earthers. You're basically saying that people who don't believe in viruses are a bunch of credulous dupes. I like healthy debate but we're not off to a good start here.
my final attempt to destroy no virus is underway. In fact it was done long ago, in 1897, by Friedrich Loeffler.
I enjoyed the interview on Bitchute. Interesting that just prior, I had watched an analysis by Dr. John Campbell about reduced fertility in the jabbed in the Czech Republic. So no catastrophic depopulation, but certainly fertility has been affected. Add that to the social engineering over the decades of getting women to stop having babies, and a depop agenda starts to look plausible.
This monster has many tentacles, see my book and articles
It's always the same game: Whenever a dissident scene forms, questioning any kind of official narrative (9/11, Covid, you name it), there's always a certain type of actors showing up, spouting absolutely outlandish claims with lots of fuss and amplification. Guess who sent them.
Yes, it certainly can be cognitive infiltration, see Kevin Barrett's interview with me.
You will find the answers to this question in German New Medicine - 'the philosopher's stone of medicine'.
Thanks, I have a book at home, but haven't got time to study it yet, life is too short ...
If a global criminocracy controls the world, I agree it does, is it a coincidence that Virology, emerged at the same time as the emergence of the other ideologies that make up the global criminal network? How convenient is it that invisible pathogens, such as viruses or evenl CO2, have given so much power to these criminals to erode individual and national sovereignty.
You are right, invisible enemies are very convenient for Glafia. And viruses can relatively easy be adapted to their wishes. And how convenient then that people can be convinced that viruses don’t exist!
Maybe they do but the lethality is in question. In the absence of toxicity or sufficient mineral nutrition, they appear benign. What is clearly contrived is the efficacy of ‘vaccines"‘.
Due to all kind of hygienic measures and improvement in living and working conditions once dangerous germs have been tamed (adapted to lower virulence), even before large scale vaccinations and antibiotics.
the biggest threads are now artificially enhanced germs.