Thanks Mees for agreeing to venture back into this topic again albeit for the last time! I don't think either side will be persuaded to concede ground at this stage. However I do think that the greater danger is not that denying the existence of pathogenic viruses will undermine the credence of opposition and may confer further totalitarian measures by governments as Jeremy asserts, , but that conceding their existence will definately lead to exploitative measures by governments.
There is a possible middle ground. That viruses exist but pathogenic viruses are a myth. A virus may simply be the body's attempt to isolate a toxin and separate it from the normal body function. To blame this isolation for a pathogen is like blaming an ambulance for all accidents as it is always present at the scene.
For my own part I am not convinced by the existence of pathogenic viruses. Pharma has been linked to medical science from the outset ans I susoect fraud is endemic. See Eustace Mullin's book Death by Injection. AIDS seems to have been a total fraud according to Jon Rappoport's Aids Inc.
Also I have not met one person who didn't believe in ConVid that actually caught it. It seems only to have affected the very old who already were very ill. Not such a deadly virus , really!
Medicine is capitalised and politicised and these are red flags to me. Just an opinion of course and people are free to disagree.
Seems to me this statement can also apply to folks who strongly insist that viruses do exist
Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon
Thanks, let my try to explain. The science of viruses started over 130 years ago. An enormous body of research and publications has resulted. Just see this abstract, or more, of the research history in foot and mouth disease (I'm a vet)
The no-virus movement throws all this out of the window, without presenting one scientific paper which proves their point. I can't find anything on PubMed, just their BS on their websites, like Sam Bailey's ivermectin video. That's not just weird, that's useless, futile and pointless, and very dangerous!
Should we trust these dubious and deceptive people more than all those doctors who risked their job and career by curing Covid patients with ivermectin? That's up to you!
Am I saying that all is well in the medical-industrial complex? Absolutely not! See my chapter on Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death (under Book Preview).
Can you copy the section of that article that recounts how the virus for foot & mouth disease was isolated and identified? The whole article is not freely accessible. Thanks.
"...fluid from the vesicles which form the main outward lesion of foot-and-mouth disease in bovines, could, after dilution with water, be passed through kieselguhr filters without suffering loss of potency, it has been customary to regard the virus of this, perhaps the most contagious of all animal diseases, as belonging to the group of ultra-visible or filter-passing viruses."
So, what they were using as a "virus" was fluid from the F&M lesions, diluted and filtered, as their experimental substance. diluted and filtered fluid from a lesion is not a pure virus, however. Do you know how the virus in question was purified in order to be studied for its genome and other characteristics that would be the basis of the modern tests? Apparently there was a recent outbreak of FMD in Germany, where the illness was confirmed by testing, so clearly there's more than is in this 100-year-old article I found.
Thanks for the reference. After perusing it a bit, and entering into the search bar "original purification of FMD virus" and a few other iterations of that request, all the information I find assumes the virus, but does not give any link or reference as to where or how that virus was first detected and determined to be a virus, or the cause of FMD. So we're left with Loeffler's experiments in which he found that diluted and filtered fluid from F&M lesions could cause similar symptoms when inoculated into scratches on a guinea pig's paw.
Do you see the problem here? In an article in which you literally call the "no virus" position a contagious disease that can kill you, you don't have any references or links to scientific studies that actually show how any virus's existence has been confirmed and its characteristics documented. And even in the comment section, when asked to provide such evidence, you don't have such a reference even in your own specialty of veterinary medicine.
Based on this, it would seem that the actual danger is from accepting the unproven virus hypothesis as the basis for treating and preventing illnesses, rather than to continue to probe, to discover what might be a common source of toxins or nutritional deficiencies behind the different symptom patterns we see in ourselves and our animals. After all, diseases we now know to be caused by nutrient deficiencies (scurvy, beri-beri, pellagra) were once thought to be contagious diseases. It's certainly not impossible that similar deficiencies - or unknown environmental toxins - might be behind diseases like FMD.
I believe viruses are toxic events. This way noone can argue that toxins don't exist. I've heard arguments that immune systems don't exist, it's all a bit ridiculous. My commonsense approach to health is to understand that my body needs vitamins, sun, rest & water. All these things add to my immunity. A saline nasal spray daily keeps down bacteria & toxicity however it comes in, or what name we choose to give it, does not lay me off for a week w/ 'flu-like' symptoms. The name arguments as u say were dangerous distractions, the focus on evidence-based, 'what works' medicine, like ivermectin, doxycyclin & HCQ, vitamin C & D at higher doses, to treat people who were unwell or even prophylactically before getting sick, much more important.
Given that ivermectin is Pharma produced, can we be sure there are no long term effects associated with it that may cause damage in the long run? I don’t trust any of their poisons.
Ivermectin has one of the best safety records and has been in use for fifty years. No virus have told me that's toxic and reduces female fertily. They have not offered proof and I was also unable too find any. of course the general rule would e to take as less medicine as possible.
I'm w/ U there too Rose🌹 it's important to know who the manufacturer is, what the ingredients are & make an informed decision.
I've done just as well on supplement protocols and plain saline nasal spray. We do need a lot more clarity.
I get a good multi w/ 1000mg vit C w/ electrolytes from Martin & Pleasance in Aus. Most of their stuff is made in-house. The company has been around for donkeys years.
They have another awesome product called Vital All in One, which contains every vitamin & mineral we need that we wld miss in food grown in depleted soils.
All we can do is be discerning & I pray over everything I consume for purity. I believe prayer works for healing.
that's all fine and well, but what if you arrive at the emergency room with very low oxygen, etc. That happened a lot, see Pierre Kory's The War on Ivermectine. He fought to get intravenous Vit C accepted (mixed with other ingredients), and won in the end. Idem, ivermectin.
The mental liberation experienced once the pathogenic virus myth is lifted is immense. I have no fear of catching colds or flu or mixing with the sick. The anti-Lockdown groups met regularly as part of the Stand in the Parks protests. About 40 people met weekly. Given that each of us mixed with others during the week, our "bubble" would have run to millions after a few months. Not one of us in three years experienced ConVid. This can be classified as an experiment in my view notwithstanding we had no credentialled "scientist" on board.
Well, the big human contagious diseases have been brought under control (mostly by sanitary measures and improved diets) so what's left are mostly the less spectacular respiratory viruses. If you immune system works well you will quickly get rid of a minor flu, or not become ill at all (80-90 %).
On the veterinary side we still have some spectacularly classical contagious diseases such as foot and mouth disease popping up every now and then.
During Covid we never used mask and kept hugging and kissing our friends and neighbours, and had no problems either. But Covid outbreaks have been recorded and studied. I just finished reading Pierre Kory's The War on Ivermectin, and will problably write a review. He gives indirect (clinical) proof of a virus, and mentions how at the start (before effective treatments were used) several doctors and nurses he knew died.
Forgot to mention that we had a contagion, when we were together at the marriage of my daughter in August '23 in Holland. My youngest son (35) came from Greece wit a flu, passed it to his brother, and both were so ill (w/fever) that they spent days in bed. We and the inlaws got a milder form, but it took me a month to get rid of it. We visited friends in Scotland, and they later confirmed that they also became ill. People we visited had a Covid test, and i was positive (which means very little).
Here in the US, where most people believe in viruses, the general health of the populace is abysmal, “health care” is 18 percent of gdp and half a million or so people die at the hands of the allopathic industry each year. I, on the other hand, a “virus denier,” who, now 62, has never had a single medical or dental intervention as an adult, am in perfect health and maintain fitness superior to virtually all of any age.
I agree with your viewpoint that virus's do exist. During COVID I was in a pub in England, and unbeknown to the rest of us (6 people in total), my nephew had COVID. Everyone at the table in the pub except me came down with covid a day or two later. I was taking Quercetin and other things that I believe helped me to stay healthy. In addition. what are those childhood illnesses such as Measles and mumps etc. if not a virus. As a child in England in the late 50's early 60's we used to go to friends houses to spread the mumps so they could get it and have the life long immunity. That worked to give our friends the illness. Terrain is crucial as far as how one copes with a virus or is vulnerable to a virus but no more than that in my view.
If this is a spontaneous simultaneous detox as no-virus says, there would be all kind of symptoms. So an agent must be involved, which could be a toxin you all picked up in the pub. But then, if it spreads to others in your household, you know enough: it's the flu!
You people really wind me up. Just have a look at the argument against no virus. Watch a Tom Cowan video about it and come back to me telling me he’s full of shit and the virus / contagion myth is acceptable to you. There’s no such thing as covid. No such things as viruses. The whole thing is entirely made up and uses magic tricks to fool you in to thinking there’s an actual test for a make believe particle too tiny for a microscope to see and too elusive to find direct in a human sample. If you believe this bollocks there’s no hope for you
The problem with your response, aside from your rudeness, is the fact that you don't address the points I am making with a rebuttal, such as childhood illnesses that seem to spread from one child to another. You just point to someone else's information as a response and then add rude remarks. How adult of you!
If you still believe in the lies after this article and a hundred others you could educate yourself with, then you’re beyond help. If you find my tone rude then you maybe need to develop some thicker skin. The time for gentle persuasion is well over and violent shaking is necessary
Where's the evidence that the alleged novel virus Sars Cov2 has been proven to exist?
A virus so novel that it's spike protein sequence had been patented by its inventors and assigned to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and allegedly provided to Moderna in November 2019
You know how it goes - Please name the studies that indisputably show that the Covid Virus has been proven to exist - complete purification, isolation and definition of biochemical properties plus electron micrographs.
For the clinical arguments, please read The War on Ivermectine, by Pierre Kory, who saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Ivermectin has virus killing properties in vitro (known since 2004), and also is extremely effective against clinical Covid.
Note that it does not work against stress, nutritional problems, radiation or toxins. The pneumonia it causes is interstitial, or organized as Kory calls its, that means dry (often leading to "happy hypoxia", a whole chapter in the book). This was seldomly seen before Covid.
In the case of the flue, the secondary pneumonia is normally wet and bacterial, with liquid in the lung tissue and air tracks.
You approvingly quote Jeremy Hammond as saying: "The message to the public harmfully becomes, for example, that there is no need to get more sunshine or supplement vitamin D to support your immune system against SARS‑CoV‑2 since the virus doesn’t exist!"
Yet you give no evidence that any virus, SARS-CoV-2 included, does actually exist. And those of us who have yet to see any actual evidence of said viruses, absolutely promote sunlight, exercise, sleep, good nutrition and all the rest because it is absence of THOSE things that cause the symptoms we call illness. It's not some invisible dangerous particle that you might "catch" if you're deficient in essential nutrients or the other essential factors mentioned above.
Hammond and Baaijen are more than ignorant, they are prisoners to the voices in their heads, making it impossible for them to have productive relationships with reality. The lead voices of No Virus see the creatures of creation as charged, structured water beings animated by the light and energy of the sun - so, the message is the opposite of what Hammond writes and Baaijen repeats. As to synthetic vitamins and the very existence of the immune system as postulated and generally understood, New Biology may think one unnecessary and the other a fiction but in no way is the message indifference or apathy in regards to proactive health practices. ( And, of course, it is the same voices who push viruses who also push the sun/ skin cancer lie).
And now they're peddling ivermectin. We may think that's beyond ignorant.
Also this hyperfocus on "viruses" is in itself misleading. Intelligent people should study Harold Hillman for example to get a firm grasp on biochemistry in general and all of the flawed logic and hocus pocus involved.
They effectively replaced the words "flu" and "pneumonia" with "COVID" in order to achieve the goals of OPERATION COVIDIUS. Once success was reached they re-introduced once again the forbidden words.
Just do the same with the word "virus".
Unfortunately the word "virus" is an extremely powerful and excellent source of PROFIT for the Medical & Pharma CARTEL. So those pieces of DNA/RNA will keep on doing their stuff no matter the moronic words we invent...
Those who question the existence of viruses preface their concerns with a statement that it is not possible to prove viruses don’t exist. It is up to the “viruses exist” proponents to prove that they do exist. There is no evidence that any virus has been isolated.
I think you especially Mees would know that just because we’ve taken for granted 130 years of science dogma, that doesn’t prove anything. You are exposing hundreds of years of lies, which is a tremendous service.
“Intelligent people do not believe the no virus theory” is attempted intellectual battery.
“The no virus deception” is labelling – not proof.
Calling ivermectin an anti-viral proves viruses exist!
What? Give me a break!
The existence of epidemiology proves pandemics exist!
We just had a pandemic – that proves pandemics exist - right? Wrong!
Some indications of possible contagion, prove that contagion exists, despite proof to the contrary!
Most doctors apparently do not get the flu from their patients in winter!
Does the existence of the climate change industry prove that climate change exists?
Viruses are different – they must exist because some people are convinced they do!
The existence of virology proves viruses exist – right? Wrong!
Jeremy Hammond is a virologist - right? Wrong!
Hammond is a journalist, who claims that viruses have been proven to exist.
He presumes to be qualified to discredit any claims to the contrary by anyone, credentialed or not.
He presumes to be entitled to spank any naughty dissenters into compliance!
Hammond’s word salads are full of unsubstantiated claims.
How is he the only one who has read and interpreted the decisive information correctly?
Perhaps someone could inform him, that not all “peer reviewed” journal articles are reliable!
Nor the CDC, FDA, WHO & CO, PCR “tests” etcetera.
Some very intelligent people with obvious integrity, with or without credentials, are understandably questioning the “proof” of the existence of “viruses”.
Those who sling mud at others lose their credibility IMHO.
Are you familiar with the saying, Better to remain silent and be thought the fool then to speak and remove all doubt?” Provide a scientific study that proves Unicorns don’t exist. Else, I will remain convinced they do.
Let's not forget Mees has a deep understanding with regard to the "predators".
Those "predators" would never monopolize "the science" or the publishing industry or the education system or the medical profession and they would never use any Nobel-prizes to force any fairytales down our throats.
Those "predators" would never want to control any "scientific" narrative using (lack of) funding and (lack of) career opportunities and blatant censorship (peer review).
For the third time: shame on you! You are malicious and dishonest and just sucking things up. You haven't even read my chapter Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death, which I made available on my site, under Book Preview. I should have blocked you long ago, but I have left you one so that other people can see how venomous no-virus fighters operate.
An old axiom says that you cannot prove a negative. So there will be no proof that viruses don’t exist. At best, as to my knowledge no virus has been isolated let alone identified, viruses are a theory for the spread of certain types of disease, upon which a huge superstructure of speculative science has been built.
I first came across the assertion that viruses have never been proven to exist, let alone be a cause of disease, nearly 30 years ago. At the time I lacked the time and motivation to investigate this further, so I dismissed it as a fringe belief. It was only back in March 2020 that I was able to get to grips with the arguments made to support this position, thanks to the work of Cowan, Kaufman, the Baileys et (many) al., who have been able to clearly explain the seemingly impenetrably complex topic of viral theory in a manner which ordinary people such as myself can understand. It’s still not been an easy ride, but I am now firmly of the opinion that virology is a pseudoscience which persists only by virtue of it being a multi-billion global industry and because the belief in the germ theory of disease has become so imbedded in our societies that it will require nothing short of a massive paradigm shift in order for alternative explanations for disease to be properly and scientifically investigated.
It has been interesting to observe how some of the people I follow and greatly admire are very resistant to the suggestion that virology could be a failed hypothesis. I have had to formulate some speculative explanations as to why this could be so. These include that perhaps some people lack the humility to consider that something they have held to be self-evident for all their life could possibly be wrong. Or maybe it is an unwillingness to consider that so many people working within a so-called, scientific discipline, could possibly have unwittingly abandoned the scientific method in order to assert a wholly incorrect explanation for disease. Many are unable to grasp that epidemiological observations and anecdotal stories are not proof of a physical contagious particle and to insist that they are is the logical fallacy of begging the question. For those with a large following I can understand that this unwillingness to consider a change of position may stem from a fear of ridicule and loss of respect from much of their readership. In some cases, I can see a clear vested interest, for example, when someone is selling a product which claims to ‘combat viral infection’. Others appear to have adopted a mindset that the ‘no-virus’ position is either a deliberate psyop or an unwitting distraction from all the ‘good work’ being done by the ‘proper’ sceptics. Then there is the shadowy world of deliberate disinfo. agents and useful idiots to consider.
Personally I have found it extremely liberating to come to the understanding that virology and indeed, germ 'theory' are merely a failed hypothesis and I have no fear of contagion when in the presence of someone exhibiting symptoms of disease. I look forward to the time when enough people understand this and maybe then there can be some serious research done to try and understand what really makes us ill.
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief." - Frantz Fanon
When this is a ONE WAY street - MY WAY - this is a huge red flag!
You are making the classic logical fallacy of burden of proof reversal. The case against virology is that pseudoscientific methods have been deployed in order to falsely assert the claim that ‘viruses’ have been proven to exist as pathogenic, self-replicating, transmissible particles. There is no obligation for those who are pointing this out to present an alternative hypothesis on the cause of disease in order to demonstrate that virology fails to stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore it is no more possible to prove that 'viruses' don't exist as it is to prove that 'unicorns' or 'Father Christmas' do not exist.
To prove the non-existence of something is a scientific impossibility.
This is about the integrity of "the proof" of the existence of viruses.
Virology is a belief that some hold.
Yet they have not provided any "proof", that has survived rigourous testing and is readily and clearly replicable.
"Vaccines are safe and effective".
Every intelligent person knows this!
The fact is, that vaccines have NEVER been proven to be safe and effective.
Vaccines are NOT safe and NOT effective!
The mantra is a pack of lies.
Provable by careful examination of the legal (but unlawful) framework surrounding them.
RFK has had to walk through the sewerage of vaccine bigotry for decades, trying to defend children seriously injured and even killed by "safe and effective vaccines", and prevent more children from suffering and dying at the hands of the drug mafia.
I heard some of the vindictive of bigoted US senators at RFK's confirmation hearings - shocking!
"Vaccination" is a sacred western medical health cow!
No proof needed - just chant the mantra!
Exactly why "the mantra" was glorified in the recent past, to justify unsafe and ineffective injections, that injured, sickened and killed massive numbers of people worldwide, furthering the nefarious agenda of some.
Since virologists are making the positive claim that disease-causing viruses exist, they should be required to demonstrate this conclusively through proper scientific methodology.
That's what they did, for many disease this was done 50-130 YEARS AGO. YOU HAVE
NO IDEA OF Virology and its enormous body of work and publications!
It was built on logic: 1) the virus should be present in a sick animal, plant or person 2) it should reproduce on a suitable cell culture to distinguish it from a non reproducing toxin 3) the lab cultivated virus should be able to provoke the same disease in suitable animals (with human diseases this is not always possible).
Now you are asking them to repeat the whole thing for the few people that follow a few deceitful people who have never published scientific proof that viruses don't exist?? Send me ONE publication!
What's more, since sequencing of viral genomes was developed in the past decades, all known viruses have their confirmed place in the respective genealogical tree. It is even possible to create an existing virus from public domain specs and off the counter nucleotide strings (Wimmer, mentioned in my second virus piece).
Well, my guess would be it may be vaccine induced Guillain-Barré syndrome. Presumably the placebo group was not simply injected with a harmless saline solution ~ otherwise there is no explanation.
I am really not at all sure that this was done. Have you actually read the early experiments?
(1) If you go read Ender's experimental record for example it is quite clear that he at least proved nothing - he saw cell death in both arms of his experiment - but claimed that a stained sample "appeared" different to an "experienced viewer". And his control arm was not even identical to the infected arm as he lacked an actual sample which he should have taken from a healthy person.
(2) Enders was a member of Scroll and Key. Were you aware of that?
(3) The tobacco mosaic virus experiments were similar crocks of **** without any controls - and interestingly the "virus" did not spread between any of the many plants which were growing together during the experiments - it was just that plants which were messed up (leaves abraded, stalks broken off, juice from other plants injected) became sick. If viruses are real why couldn't they spread between sick and healthy plants the way they presumably spread in the wild? Why is all the plant abuse necessary for the plants to become "infected"? And again note - no controls were perfomed - I'm willing to bet that plants subject to this same abuse without any juice from an unealthy plant would also shown signs of "disease" - i.e. discolored and wilting leaves.
(4) It is certainly the case that some experiments done more recently claim to use controls. However, of the ones which I have found
(a) when the control is described in detail it is not the same as the infected arm. Often a lower percentage antibiotic solution is used for example, or a higher percentage bovine serum - both of which tricks lead to lower cell death rates.
(b) in many cases, the control process is not described in detail. I have contacted the people who did one of these experiments (a lady who works at the CDC in this case) and asked about the exact process used in the control arm. She did not respond.
Obviously I have not exhaustively gone through every paper - so perhaps there are some which have documented proper controls in which case I would view your argument here as stronger - but right now I'm skeptical that this is the case.
I've read all the opinions and it seems to me that this is a false debate.
It doesn't matter whether viruses exist or not, since the real cause of all diseases is toxemia, or intoxication of the body. Toxins promote the appearance of diseases, and we can see that the biggest problems appeared at the same time as the modern industrial era and chemistry, overconsumption, and the marketing campaigns of the system (etc.).
We can add the novelty of products such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea (which are themselves adulterated and less pure); foods (plant or meat) produced by conventional agriculture using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and the massive use of antibiotics, food additives, refined or ultra-processed foods, bad food combinations (sources of fermentation and toxic intestinal putrefaction), air pollution (chemtrails, etc.) and water (with, in the end, no organic foods), the use of creams, deodorants, toothpastes, shampoo, etc., containing toxic chemical substances, waves, stress ... Long list to complete.
The system has put us all into distorted lives, cut off from natural well-being, with erroneous "beliefs" about food, medicine, etc.
Like cancers which are not diseases but a last attempt of the body to heal itself and survive (Read Andreas Moritz)
In short, let us not fall into this trap, with a debate that leads nowhere, as long as this system (of domination and control) continues.
I add that the system has done everything to weaken us (both physically and psychologically, and so on) so that a simple cold sends the weakest to their deaths.
I actually did respond to your point "that highly variable terrain patterns cannot lead to the fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns we see in many infectious diseases" but perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit that I was responding to it. I will respond again, and add a second refutation
(i) The main refutation is that the no virus people are actually making two separate claims: firstly that the science of virology is fraudulent; and secondly that diseases are caused by terrain. It is possible for the first claim to be correct and the second to be incorrect. Imagine a complex math problem - it is perfectly possible to spot errors in another man's proposed solution without being able to solve the problem correctly oneself. The fact that team no-virus's explanation for disease may be flawed does not invalidate their criticism of team virus's explanation.
And the same is true in reverse. You cannot simply point out a possible flaw in terrain theory and say that that also invalidates the claim that virology is flawed - these are two separate claims. It is perfectly possible that both are flawed, and a third - as yet unknown - solution is the correct one.
The team "no virus" argument on the first claim (virology is a fraud), if they are correct in their assertions regarding the experimental record (and that is an if), is compelling. The logic is sound, provided the premises (their claims about the nature of the experiments which have been conducted) are correct. And you have done nothing to dismantle those arguments at all.
(ii). In addition, there is a second problem with the core of you argument (one which I did not make following your last article). You claim that terrain is highly variable because everyone is different, has a different history, diet etc. However that is I think somewhat misleading. It is not necessary for everyone's terrain to be identical for them all to suffer from the same disease - it is only necessary for their to be a single common, overriding factor which causes the disease. History provides illustrative examples here. Both scurvy and pellagra were once thought to contagious diseases because they appeared to affect people in close contact with each other. However both diseases are caused by vitamin deficiencies which were often shared by people in the same place - which created outbreaks of disease which superficially seemed to spread from person to person.
By your logic you are claiming that scurvy and pellagra must be caused by viruses.
It is perfectly possible that other diseases which are currently attributed to viruses are also caused by external, as yet unidentified, factors.
Finally it is worth noting that all the towers of logic (virus molecular structures, mutation, PCR testing etc.) which have been built on top of the supposed proof of viruses existence tumble into nonsense if the base proof is invalid - and the base proof *is* invalid if the behavior of properly conducted controls is actually identical to that of the supposed viruses.
“Never expect a man (especially an old man) to understand that which his (former) paycheck, (sense of self and accomplishment, standing in the community, etc) depends on him not understanding.” The ridiculousness of much of Mees’ writings, the vast gaps in logic and rational thinking, and the running from any real scrutiny of said are all here for anyone to see. Anyone but Mees.
Jeremy Hammond states: It is also irresponsible to mislead people into believing that a potentially deadly virus does not exist since anyone espousing that belief will naturally feel it unnecessary to take any steps to protect themselves or their loved ones. The message to the public harmfully becomes, for example, that there is no need to get more sunshine or supplement vitamin D to support your immune system against SARS‑CoV‑2 since the virus doesn’t exist!
Just because some people don't believe in the virus, does not mean that they think there is nothing out there that can harm them. (think some pathogens, bacteria, toxins, mold). The governments on mass stated to stay indoors (no sunshine), no fresh air, reduced chances to exercise, no contact, masks that hamper breathing, building on fear instead of positive solutions. That is very suspect to me at least. What do you think? Kman, DIGILEAK WORLD
Couldn't agree more. It is a psychological experiment to herd us like cattle, control our behaviour with fear porn and drive us like lemmings over the edge. The eugenics agenda is plain to see if you are aware. Peace, love and building our own vision, not their dystopia. Kman
always respect your opinion, only point i have in question is the "half million covid deaths" proclamation which previous years stats showed attributable to pneumonia and cancer?
I am not an oracle, and it is clear that many death certificates were falsified, and many false positive PCR resulted for several reasons, and the the data has been altered etc (I follow Woodhouse 76).
The Covid virus had to be "helped" to create sufficient impact and fear. Then came the real biowepon: the mRNA jabs.
Thanks Mees for agreeing to venture back into this topic again albeit for the last time! I don't think either side will be persuaded to concede ground at this stage. However I do think that the greater danger is not that denying the existence of pathogenic viruses will undermine the credence of opposition and may confer further totalitarian measures by governments as Jeremy asserts, , but that conceding their existence will definately lead to exploitative measures by governments.
There is a possible middle ground. That viruses exist but pathogenic viruses are a myth. A virus may simply be the body's attempt to isolate a toxin and separate it from the normal body function. To blame this isolation for a pathogen is like blaming an ambulance for all accidents as it is always present at the scene.
For my own part I am not convinced by the existence of pathogenic viruses. Pharma has been linked to medical science from the outset ans I susoect fraud is endemic. See Eustace Mullin's book Death by Injection. AIDS seems to have been a total fraud according to Jon Rappoport's Aids Inc.
Also I have not met one person who didn't believe in ConVid that actually caught it. It seems only to have affected the very old who already were very ill. Not such a deadly virus , really!
Medicine is capitalised and politicised and these are red flags to me. Just an opinion of course and people are free to disagree.
Seems to me this statement can also apply to folks who strongly insist that viruses do exist
Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief. - Frantz Fanon
Thanks, let my try to explain. The science of viruses started over 130 years ago. An enormous body of research and publications has resulted. Just see this abstract, or more, of the research history in foot and mouth disease (I'm a vet)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12527434/
The no-virus movement throws all this out of the window, without presenting one scientific paper which proves their point. I can't find anything on PubMed, just their BS on their websites, like Sam Bailey's ivermectin video. That's not just weird, that's useless, futile and pointless, and very dangerous!
Should we trust these dubious and deceptive people more than all those doctors who risked their job and career by curing Covid patients with ivermectin? That's up to you!
Am I saying that all is well in the medical-industrial complex? Absolutely not! See my chapter on Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death (under Book Preview).
Can you copy the section of that article that recounts how the virus for foot & mouth disease was isolated and identified? The whole article is not freely accessible. Thanks.
No but search for Loeffler, foot and mouth disease virus
I found this article from 1925, ( https://www.nature.com/articles/116489a0 ) that seems to be a foundational paper, and which says this:
"...fluid from the vesicles which form the main outward lesion of foot-and-mouth disease in bovines, could, after dilution with water, be passed through kieselguhr filters without suffering loss of potency, it has been customary to regard the virus of this, perhaps the most contagious of all animal diseases, as belonging to the group of ultra-visible or filter-passing viruses."
So, what they were using as a "virus" was fluid from the F&M lesions, diluted and filtered, as their experimental substance. diluted and filtered fluid from a lesion is not a pure virus, however. Do you know how the virus in question was purified in order to be studied for its genome and other characteristics that would be the basis of the modern tests? Apparently there was a recent outbreak of FMD in Germany, where the illness was confirmed by testing, so clearly there's more than is in this 100-year-old article I found.
Thanks, interesting! This page gives you the state of the art of FMD in Holland, and you can also ask questions!
https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/research-institutes/bioveterinary-research/animal-diseases/virology/foot-and-mouth-disease-2.htm?_gl=1*179dca*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTI5NjA1ODQ0MC4xNzQyODIxNzYy*_ga_SZ1PQDSPJD*MTc0MjgyMTc2Mi4xLjAuMTc0MjgyMTc2Mi4wLjAuMA..
Just saw that the English version has less details, but many publications are mentioned and you can still ask questions.
Thanks for the reference. After perusing it a bit, and entering into the search bar "original purification of FMD virus" and a few other iterations of that request, all the information I find assumes the virus, but does not give any link or reference as to where or how that virus was first detected and determined to be a virus, or the cause of FMD. So we're left with Loeffler's experiments in which he found that diluted and filtered fluid from F&M lesions could cause similar symptoms when inoculated into scratches on a guinea pig's paw.
Do you see the problem here? In an article in which you literally call the "no virus" position a contagious disease that can kill you, you don't have any references or links to scientific studies that actually show how any virus's existence has been confirmed and its characteristics documented. And even in the comment section, when asked to provide such evidence, you don't have such a reference even in your own specialty of veterinary medicine.
Based on this, it would seem that the actual danger is from accepting the unproven virus hypothesis as the basis for treating and preventing illnesses, rather than to continue to probe, to discover what might be a common source of toxins or nutritional deficiencies behind the different symptom patterns we see in ourselves and our animals. After all, diseases we now know to be caused by nutrient deficiencies (scurvy, beri-beri, pellagra) were once thought to be contagious diseases. It's certainly not impossible that similar deficiencies - or unknown environmental toxins - might be behind diseases like FMD.
I believe viruses are toxic events. This way noone can argue that toxins don't exist. I've heard arguments that immune systems don't exist, it's all a bit ridiculous. My commonsense approach to health is to understand that my body needs vitamins, sun, rest & water. All these things add to my immunity. A saline nasal spray daily keeps down bacteria & toxicity however it comes in, or what name we choose to give it, does not lay me off for a week w/ 'flu-like' symptoms. The name arguments as u say were dangerous distractions, the focus on evidence-based, 'what works' medicine, like ivermectin, doxycyclin & HCQ, vitamin C & D at higher doses, to treat people who were unwell or even prophylactically before getting sick, much more important.
Given that ivermectin is Pharma produced, can we be sure there are no long term effects associated with it that may cause damage in the long run? I don’t trust any of their poisons.
Ivermectin has one of the best safety records and has been in use for fifty years. No virus have told me that's toxic and reduces female fertily. They have not offered proof and I was also unable too find any. of course the general rule would e to take as less medicine as possible.
I'm w/ U there too Rose🌹 it's important to know who the manufacturer is, what the ingredients are & make an informed decision.
I've done just as well on supplement protocols and plain saline nasal spray. We do need a lot more clarity.
I get a good multi w/ 1000mg vit C w/ electrolytes from Martin & Pleasance in Aus. Most of their stuff is made in-house. The company has been around for donkeys years.
They have another awesome product called Vital All in One, which contains every vitamin & mineral we need that we wld miss in food grown in depleted soils.
All we can do is be discerning & I pray over everything I consume for purity. I believe prayer works for healing.
that's all fine and well, but what if you arrive at the emergency room with very low oxygen, etc. That happened a lot, see Pierre Kory's The War on Ivermectine. He fought to get intravenous Vit C accepted (mixed with other ingredients), and won in the end. Idem, ivermectin.
I believe there are extensive experiments showing lack of contagion.
The mental liberation experienced once the pathogenic virus myth is lifted is immense. I have no fear of catching colds or flu or mixing with the sick. The anti-Lockdown groups met regularly as part of the Stand in the Parks protests. About 40 people met weekly. Given that each of us mixed with others during the week, our "bubble" would have run to millions after a few months. Not one of us in three years experienced ConVid. This can be classified as an experiment in my view notwithstanding we had no credentialled "scientist" on board.
Well, the big human contagious diseases have been brought under control (mostly by sanitary measures and improved diets) so what's left are mostly the less spectacular respiratory viruses. If you immune system works well you will quickly get rid of a minor flu, or not become ill at all (80-90 %).
On the veterinary side we still have some spectacularly classical contagious diseases such as foot and mouth disease popping up every now and then.
During Covid we never used mask and kept hugging and kissing our friends and neighbours, and had no problems either. But Covid outbreaks have been recorded and studied. I just finished reading Pierre Kory's The War on Ivermectin, and will problably write a review. He gives indirect (clinical) proof of a virus, and mentions how at the start (before effective treatments were used) several doctors and nurses he knew died.
It’s good we can discuss this without animosity Mees. Thanks for your patience.
Forgot to mention that we had a contagion, when we were together at the marriage of my daughter in August '23 in Holland. My youngest son (35) came from Greece wit a flu, passed it to his brother, and both were so ill (w/fever) that they spent days in bed. We and the inlaws got a milder form, but it took me a month to get rid of it. We visited friends in Scotland, and they later confirmed that they also became ill. People we visited had a Covid test, and i was positive (which means very little).
Here in the US, where most people believe in viruses, the general health of the populace is abysmal, “health care” is 18 percent of gdp and half a million or so people die at the hands of the allopathic industry each year. I, on the other hand, a “virus denier,” who, now 62, has never had a single medical or dental intervention as an adult, am in perfect health and maintain fitness superior to virtually all of any age.
I agree with your viewpoint that virus's do exist. During COVID I was in a pub in England, and unbeknown to the rest of us (6 people in total), my nephew had COVID. Everyone at the table in the pub except me came down with covid a day or two later. I was taking Quercetin and other things that I believe helped me to stay healthy. In addition. what are those childhood illnesses such as Measles and mumps etc. if not a virus. As a child in England in the late 50's early 60's we used to go to friends houses to spread the mumps so they could get it and have the life long immunity. That worked to give our friends the illness. Terrain is crucial as far as how one copes with a virus or is vulnerable to a virus but no more than that in my view.
Trust your own observations! And logic!
If this is a spontaneous simultaneous detox as no-virus says, there would be all kind of symptoms. So an agent must be involved, which could be a toxin you all picked up in the pub. But then, if it spreads to others in your household, you know enough: it's the flu!
Everyone at the table at the pub got sick except you.
Taking Quercetin protected you - speculation.
Many children attending measles and mumps parties remain healthy.
Are they all taking "something protective" too?
The apparent spread of infection, indicates but does not prove possible contagion.
Observations can lead to speculations, but prove nothing conclusively.
People do or do not get sick via association, regardless.
All medical/scientific papers documenting attempts to infect others with "the flu", via grossly shared "yucky stuff", have failed to prove contagion.
How do you know your nephew had c-v-d?
How do you know everyone else got c-v-d except you?
Obviously flawed, if not fake, PCR "tests"?
Definitely not a logical conclusion.
You people really wind me up. Just have a look at the argument against no virus. Watch a Tom Cowan video about it and come back to me telling me he’s full of shit and the virus / contagion myth is acceptable to you. There’s no such thing as covid. No such things as viruses. The whole thing is entirely made up and uses magic tricks to fool you in to thinking there’s an actual test for a make believe particle too tiny for a microscope to see and too elusive to find direct in a human sample. If you believe this bollocks there’s no hope for you
Thanks for the intersting remarks and the elegant way you deal with your opponents!
I think that everyone's input should be treated with respect, not just summarily dismissed, even if presented a little inelegantly.
I try to treat others as I would like to be treated myself.
The problem with your response, aside from your rudeness, is the fact that you don't address the points I am making with a rebuttal, such as childhood illnesses that seem to spread from one child to another. You just point to someone else's information as a response and then add rude remarks. How adult of you!
Steady Dan, steady.
Remember Ferdinand the bull!
He refused to be bullied into conformity by his peers; enraged by the bullfighter's red flags; or goaded by the crowd!
He escaped from the bullfighting arena alive and returned to a peaceful life in the country.
https://open.substack.com/pub/suavek1/p/the-arguments-for-no-virus-part-14-9f0?r=14kak9&utm_medium=ios
If you still believe in the lies after this article and a hundred others you could educate yourself with, then you’re beyond help. If you find my tone rude then you maybe need to develop some thicker skin. The time for gentle persuasion is well over and violent shaking is necessary
Please stop this nonsense
and send me ONE scientific publication that ONE virus that has past the logical diagnostic steps that I mention in another comment doet NOT exist
Remind us please how to prove a negative, thank you.
Where's the evidence that the alleged novel virus Sars Cov2 has been proven to exist?
A virus so novel that it's spike protein sequence had been patented by its inventors and assigned to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and allegedly provided to Moderna in November 2019
You know how it goes - Please name the studies that indisputably show that the Covid Virus has been proven to exist - complete purification, isolation and definition of biochemical properties plus electron micrographs.
I a not your errand boy, so search for yourself.
For the technical arguments, go to Jeremy Hammond
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/articles/collections/virus/ and
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/is-the-virus-real.
For the clinical arguments, please read The War on Ivermectine, by Pierre Kory, who saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Ivermectin has virus killing properties in vitro (known since 2004), and also is extremely effective against clinical Covid.
Note that it does not work against stress, nutritional problems, radiation or toxins. The pneumonia it causes is interstitial, or organized as Kory calls its, that means dry (often leading to "happy hypoxia", a whole chapter in the book). This was seldomly seen before Covid.
In the case of the flue, the secondary pneumonia is normally wet and bacterial, with liquid in the lung tissue and air tracks.
You've made the claim therefore you should be willing to back that up and provide the required evidence to support that claim.
You approvingly quote Jeremy Hammond as saying: "The message to the public harmfully becomes, for example, that there is no need to get more sunshine or supplement vitamin D to support your immune system against SARS‑CoV‑2 since the virus doesn’t exist!"
Yet you give no evidence that any virus, SARS-CoV-2 included, does actually exist. And those of us who have yet to see any actual evidence of said viruses, absolutely promote sunlight, exercise, sleep, good nutrition and all the rest because it is absence of THOSE things that cause the symptoms we call illness. It's not some invisible dangerous particle that you might "catch" if you're deficient in essential nutrients or the other essential factors mentioned above.
Hammond and Baaijen are more than ignorant, they are prisoners to the voices in their heads, making it impossible for them to have productive relationships with reality. The lead voices of No Virus see the creatures of creation as charged, structured water beings animated by the light and energy of the sun - so, the message is the opposite of what Hammond writes and Baaijen repeats. As to synthetic vitamins and the very existence of the immune system as postulated and generally understood, New Biology may think one unnecessary and the other a fiction but in no way is the message indifference or apathy in regards to proactive health practices. ( And, of course, it is the same voices who push viruses who also push the sun/ skin cancer lie).
And now they're peddling ivermectin. We may think that's beyond ignorant.
Also this hyperfocus on "viruses" is in itself misleading. Intelligent people should study Harold Hillman for example to get a firm grasp on biochemistry in general and all of the flawed logic and hocus pocus involved.
"virus" is just a simple word...
They effectively replaced the words "flu" and "pneumonia" with "COVID" in order to achieve the goals of OPERATION COVIDIUS. Once success was reached they re-introduced once again the forbidden words.
Just do the same with the word "virus".
Unfortunately the word "virus" is an extremely powerful and excellent source of PROFIT for the Medical & Pharma CARTEL. So those pieces of DNA/RNA will keep on doing their stuff no matter the moronic words we invent...
Those who question the existence of viruses preface their concerns with a statement that it is not possible to prove viruses don’t exist. It is up to the “viruses exist” proponents to prove that they do exist. There is no evidence that any virus has been isolated.
I think you especially Mees would know that just because we’ve taken for granted 130 years of science dogma, that doesn’t prove anything. You are exposing hundreds of years of lies, which is a tremendous service.
Proving a negative is not possible scientifically. There's nothing to work with.
Demanding proof for nonexistence is either not very intelligent or purposefully misleading.
Yes this ruckus may bring the real facts into the light to the benefit of all.
Also reveal the true light bearers - those who are not afraid of the dark.
And the others - those who are afraid of the light.
“Intelligent people do not believe the no virus theory” is attempted intellectual battery.
“The no virus deception” is labelling – not proof.
Calling ivermectin an anti-viral proves viruses exist!
What? Give me a break!
The existence of epidemiology proves pandemics exist!
We just had a pandemic – that proves pandemics exist - right? Wrong!
Some indications of possible contagion, prove that contagion exists, despite proof to the contrary!
Most doctors apparently do not get the flu from their patients in winter!
Does the existence of the climate change industry prove that climate change exists?
Viruses are different – they must exist because some people are convinced they do!
The existence of virology proves viruses exist – right? Wrong!
Jeremy Hammond is a virologist - right? Wrong!
Hammond is a journalist, who claims that viruses have been proven to exist.
He presumes to be qualified to discredit any claims to the contrary by anyone, credentialed or not.
He presumes to be entitled to spank any naughty dissenters into compliance!
Hammond’s word salads are full of unsubstantiated claims.
How is he the only one who has read and interpreted the decisive information correctly?
Perhaps someone could inform him, that not all “peer reviewed” journal articles are reliable!
Nor the CDC, FDA, WHO & CO, PCR “tests” etcetera.
Some very intelligent people with obvious integrity, with or without credentials, are understandably questioning the “proof” of the existence of “viruses”.
Those who sling mud at others lose their credibility IMHO.
Send me one scientific paper that viruses don't exist.
Are you familiar with the saying, Better to remain silent and be thought the fool then to speak and remove all doubt?” Provide a scientific study that proves Unicorns don’t exist. Else, I will remain convinced they do.
Let's not forget Mees has a deep understanding with regard to the "predators".
Those "predators" would never monopolize "the science" or the publishing industry or the education system or the medical profession and they would never use any Nobel-prizes to force any fairytales down our throats.
Those "predators" would never want to control any "scientific" narrative using (lack of) funding and (lack of) career opportunities and blatant censorship (peer review).
For the third time: shame on you! You are malicious and dishonest and just sucking things up. You haven't even read my chapter Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death, which I made available on my site, under Book Preview. I should have blocked you long ago, but I have left you one so that other people can see how venomous no-virus fighters operate.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to read a book or even a chapter by an author who does not understand that one cannot prove a negative.
You FEEL like I'm being dishonest just because I'm pointing out your lack of comprehension.
You make a lot of noise and very little sense (none).
He’s just trying to make sense of- and poke a little fun at - your incoherence.
Send me proof that "God" does not exist!
An old axiom says that you cannot prove a negative. So there will be no proof that viruses don’t exist. At best, as to my knowledge no virus has been isolated let alone identified, viruses are a theory for the spread of certain types of disease, upon which a huge superstructure of speculative science has been built.
I first came across the assertion that viruses have never been proven to exist, let alone be a cause of disease, nearly 30 years ago. At the time I lacked the time and motivation to investigate this further, so I dismissed it as a fringe belief. It was only back in March 2020 that I was able to get to grips with the arguments made to support this position, thanks to the work of Cowan, Kaufman, the Baileys et (many) al., who have been able to clearly explain the seemingly impenetrably complex topic of viral theory in a manner which ordinary people such as myself can understand. It’s still not been an easy ride, but I am now firmly of the opinion that virology is a pseudoscience which persists only by virtue of it being a multi-billion global industry and because the belief in the germ theory of disease has become so imbedded in our societies that it will require nothing short of a massive paradigm shift in order for alternative explanations for disease to be properly and scientifically investigated.
It has been interesting to observe how some of the people I follow and greatly admire are very resistant to the suggestion that virology could be a failed hypothesis. I have had to formulate some speculative explanations as to why this could be so. These include that perhaps some people lack the humility to consider that something they have held to be self-evident for all their life could possibly be wrong. Or maybe it is an unwillingness to consider that so many people working within a so-called, scientific discipline, could possibly have unwittingly abandoned the scientific method in order to assert a wholly incorrect explanation for disease. Many are unable to grasp that epidemiological observations and anecdotal stories are not proof of a physical contagious particle and to insist that they are is the logical fallacy of begging the question. For those with a large following I can understand that this unwillingness to consider a change of position may stem from a fear of ridicule and loss of respect from much of their readership. In some cases, I can see a clear vested interest, for example, when someone is selling a product which claims to ‘combat viral infection’. Others appear to have adopted a mindset that the ‘no-virus’ position is either a deliberate psyop or an unwitting distraction from all the ‘good work’ being done by the ‘proper’ sceptics. Then there is the shadowy world of deliberate disinfo. agents and useful idiots to consider.
Personally I have found it extremely liberating to come to the understanding that virology and indeed, germ 'theory' are merely a failed hypothesis and I have no fear of contagion when in the presence of someone exhibiting symptoms of disease. I look forward to the time when enough people understand this and maybe then there can be some serious research done to try and understand what really makes us ill.
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief." - Frantz Fanon
When this is a ONE WAY street - MY WAY - this is a huge red flag!
Thank you for your balanced and respectful input.
No-virus is a belief, based on what some leaders say. Yet these leaders haven't published one scientific paper to proof that one virus does not exist.
You are making the classic logical fallacy of burden of proof reversal. The case against virology is that pseudoscientific methods have been deployed in order to falsely assert the claim that ‘viruses’ have been proven to exist as pathogenic, self-replicating, transmissible particles. There is no obligation for those who are pointing this out to present an alternative hypothesis on the cause of disease in order to demonstrate that virology fails to stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore it is no more possible to prove that 'viruses' don't exist as it is to prove that 'unicorns' or 'Father Christmas' do not exist.
To prove the non-existence of something is a scientific impossibility.
This is about the integrity of "the proof" of the existence of viruses.
Virology is a belief that some hold.
Yet they have not provided any "proof", that has survived rigourous testing and is readily and clearly replicable.
"Vaccines are safe and effective".
Every intelligent person knows this!
The fact is, that vaccines have NEVER been proven to be safe and effective.
Vaccines are NOT safe and NOT effective!
The mantra is a pack of lies.
Provable by careful examination of the legal (but unlawful) framework surrounding them.
RFK has had to walk through the sewerage of vaccine bigotry for decades, trying to defend children seriously injured and even killed by "safe and effective vaccines", and prevent more children from suffering and dying at the hands of the drug mafia.
I heard some of the vindictive of bigoted US senators at RFK's confirmation hearings - shocking!
"Vaccination" is a sacred western medical health cow!
No proof needed - just chant the mantra!
Exactly why "the mantra" was glorified in the recent past, to justify unsafe and ineffective injections, that injured, sickened and killed massive numbers of people worldwide, furthering the nefarious agenda of some.
The facts not only matter - they are critical.
Since virologists are making the positive claim that disease-causing viruses exist, they should be required to demonstrate this conclusively through proper scientific methodology.
That's what they did, for many disease this was done 50-130 YEARS AGO. YOU HAVE
NO IDEA OF Virology and its enormous body of work and publications!
It was built on logic: 1) the virus should be present in a sick animal, plant or person 2) it should reproduce on a suitable cell culture to distinguish it from a non reproducing toxin 3) the lab cultivated virus should be able to provoke the same disease in suitable animals (with human diseases this is not always possible).
Now you are asking them to repeat the whole thing for the few people that follow a few deceitful people who have never published scientific proof that viruses don't exist?? Send me ONE publication!
What's more, since sequencing of viral genomes was developed in the past decades, all known viruses have their confirmed place in the respective genealogical tree. It is even possible to create an existing virus from public domain specs and off the counter nucleotide strings (Wimmer, mentioned in my second virus piece).
Timeline of The Great Polio Hoax. Step right up, folks! The greatest medical sleight of hand—decades in the making! https://turfseer.substack.com/p/tineline-of-the-great-polio-hoax
Could you please explain to me why polio outbreaks have followed polio vaccination, even in the placebo group?
Well, my guess would be it may be vaccine induced Guillain-Barré syndrome. Presumably the placebo group was not simply injected with a harmless saline solution ~ otherwise there is no explanation.
I am really not at all sure that this was done. Have you actually read the early experiments?
(1) If you go read Ender's experimental record for example it is quite clear that he at least proved nothing - he saw cell death in both arms of his experiment - but claimed that a stained sample "appeared" different to an "experienced viewer". And his control arm was not even identical to the infected arm as he lacked an actual sample which he should have taken from a healthy person.
(2) Enders was a member of Scroll and Key. Were you aware of that?
(3) The tobacco mosaic virus experiments were similar crocks of **** without any controls - and interestingly the "virus" did not spread between any of the many plants which were growing together during the experiments - it was just that plants which were messed up (leaves abraded, stalks broken off, juice from other plants injected) became sick. If viruses are real why couldn't they spread between sick and healthy plants the way they presumably spread in the wild? Why is all the plant abuse necessary for the plants to become "infected"? And again note - no controls were perfomed - I'm willing to bet that plants subject to this same abuse without any juice from an unealthy plant would also shown signs of "disease" - i.e. discolored and wilting leaves.
(4) It is certainly the case that some experiments done more recently claim to use controls. However, of the ones which I have found
(a) when the control is described in detail it is not the same as the infected arm. Often a lower percentage antibiotic solution is used for example, or a higher percentage bovine serum - both of which tricks lead to lower cell death rates.
(b) in many cases, the control process is not described in detail. I have contacted the people who did one of these experiments (a lady who works at the CDC in this case) and asked about the exact process used in the control arm. She did not respond.
Obviously I have not exhaustively gone through every paper - so perhaps there are some which have documented proper controls in which case I would view your argument here as stronger - but right now I'm skeptical that this is the case.
I've read all the opinions and it seems to me that this is a false debate.
It doesn't matter whether viruses exist or not, since the real cause of all diseases is toxemia, or intoxication of the body. Toxins promote the appearance of diseases, and we can see that the biggest problems appeared at the same time as the modern industrial era and chemistry, overconsumption, and the marketing campaigns of the system (etc.).
We can add the novelty of products such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea (which are themselves adulterated and less pure); foods (plant or meat) produced by conventional agriculture using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and the massive use of antibiotics, food additives, refined or ultra-processed foods, bad food combinations (sources of fermentation and toxic intestinal putrefaction), air pollution (chemtrails, etc.) and water (with, in the end, no organic foods), the use of creams, deodorants, toothpastes, shampoo, etc., containing toxic chemical substances, waves, stress ... Long list to complete.
The system has put us all into distorted lives, cut off from natural well-being, with erroneous "beliefs" about food, medicine, etc.
Like cancers which are not diseases but a last attempt of the body to heal itself and survive (Read Andreas Moritz)
In short, let us not fall into this trap, with a debate that leads nowhere, as long as this system (of domination and control) continues.
I add that the system has done everything to weaken us (both physically and psychologically, and so on) so that a simple cold sends the weakest to their deaths.
I do not find this article compelling.
I actually did respond to your point "that highly variable terrain patterns cannot lead to the fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns we see in many infectious diseases" but perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit that I was responding to it. I will respond again, and add a second refutation
(i) The main refutation is that the no virus people are actually making two separate claims: firstly that the science of virology is fraudulent; and secondly that diseases are caused by terrain. It is possible for the first claim to be correct and the second to be incorrect. Imagine a complex math problem - it is perfectly possible to spot errors in another man's proposed solution without being able to solve the problem correctly oneself. The fact that team no-virus's explanation for disease may be flawed does not invalidate their criticism of team virus's explanation.
And the same is true in reverse. You cannot simply point out a possible flaw in terrain theory and say that that also invalidates the claim that virology is flawed - these are two separate claims. It is perfectly possible that both are flawed, and a third - as yet unknown - solution is the correct one.
The team "no virus" argument on the first claim (virology is a fraud), if they are correct in their assertions regarding the experimental record (and that is an if), is compelling. The logic is sound, provided the premises (their claims about the nature of the experiments which have been conducted) are correct. And you have done nothing to dismantle those arguments at all.
(ii). In addition, there is a second problem with the core of you argument (one which I did not make following your last article). You claim that terrain is highly variable because everyone is different, has a different history, diet etc. However that is I think somewhat misleading. It is not necessary for everyone's terrain to be identical for them all to suffer from the same disease - it is only necessary for their to be a single common, overriding factor which causes the disease. History provides illustrative examples here. Both scurvy and pellagra were once thought to contagious diseases because they appeared to affect people in close contact with each other. However both diseases are caused by vitamin deficiencies which were often shared by people in the same place - which created outbreaks of disease which superficially seemed to spread from person to person.
By your logic you are claiming that scurvy and pellagra must be caused by viruses.
It is perfectly possible that other diseases which are currently attributed to viruses are also caused by external, as yet unidentified, factors.
Finally it is worth noting that all the towers of logic (virus molecular structures, mutation, PCR testing etc.) which have been built on top of the supposed proof of viruses existence tumble into nonsense if the base proof is invalid - and the base proof *is* invalid if the behavior of properly conducted controls is actually identical to that of the supposed viruses.
“Never expect a man (especially an old man) to understand that which his (former) paycheck, (sense of self and accomplishment, standing in the community, etc) depends on him not understanding.” The ridiculousness of much of Mees’ writings, the vast gaps in logic and rational thinking, and the running from any real scrutiny of said are all here for anyone to see. Anyone but Mees.
Jeremy Hammond states: It is also irresponsible to mislead people into believing that a potentially deadly virus does not exist since anyone espousing that belief will naturally feel it unnecessary to take any steps to protect themselves or their loved ones. The message to the public harmfully becomes, for example, that there is no need to get more sunshine or supplement vitamin D to support your immune system against SARS‑CoV‑2 since the virus doesn’t exist!
Just because some people don't believe in the virus, does not mean that they think there is nothing out there that can harm them. (think some pathogens, bacteria, toxins, mold). The governments on mass stated to stay indoors (no sunshine), no fresh air, reduced chances to exercise, no contact, masks that hamper breathing, building on fear instead of positive solutions. That is very suspect to me at least. What do you think? Kman, DIGILEAK WORLD
I dedicate a chapter in my book to Covid.
It was a test case to measure our resistance to digital ID, digital prison etc
It's part of their plan to run the whole world as their private farm, and humans as their remotely controlled cattle.
Couldn't agree more. It is a psychological experiment to herd us like cattle, control our behaviour with fear porn and drive us like lemmings over the edge. The eugenics agenda is plain to see if you are aware. Peace, love and building our own vision, not their dystopia. Kman
Hi Mees
always respect your opinion, only point i have in question is the "half million covid deaths" proclamation which previous years stats showed attributable to pneumonia and cancer?
I am not an oracle, and it is clear that many death certificates were falsified, and many false positive PCR resulted for several reasons, and the the data has been altered etc (I follow Woodhouse 76).
The Covid virus had to be "helped" to create sufficient impact and fear. Then came the real biowepon: the mRNA jabs.