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).
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In my view the virus defined is more scientism than science. People can still realize that some bacteria, parasites, EMFs and toxins do exist. With that being said, your best defense against sickness is having a healthy body that can respond to these threats. Sunshine, exercise, healthy foods, a sound sleep pattern, clean air, water and the state of your environment all contribute to your well being. Knowledge of what is attacking you can add to how you deal with countering the affects. According to Dr. Shiv Chopra, no vaccines have ever been properly tested. Kman, DIGILEAK WORLD. - Dr Dave Janda Vaccine interviews with Dr Shiv Chopra on Freedom Radio https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZlsTj0ZuJfPRolWocVzAL4J1iyjMQIu5MGk
I read Jeremy Hammond's articles and did not conclude that he has proved that viruses exist or that the no virus team are substantively wrong.
He has found some cases where the no-virus team have made statements which were inaccurate - which is at least useful. But he seems to have focused on attempting to prove bad faith on the part of the no-virus proponents (and a fair amount of semantics/nit-picking as well) more than on actually disproving their ultimate claim that virologists have failed to show that virology is valid.
This whole field of viruses is surrounded by occultists. It was invented by occultists, profited from by occultists, and it is being challenged by occultists. That leaves the truth somewhat difficult to locate.
We don't generally have a good idea of how critical tiny amounts of chemicals can be. For example 300 grams of cobalt sulphate spread over a full hectare could determine life or death for a sheep...b12 synthesis. That is 0.03 GM/ square metre, or approx 3 to the power of 22 molecules. If you try to imagine how many grams or molecules a lamb might digest over a few months you might get an idea of how sensitive animals are to micro changes in the terrain.
Another easier example is the sensitivity of a dogs nostrils. From memory of a chemistry lecture experiment to find the weight of a molecule of an ester we found after comparing to the real modern technique, that a human nostril only needed 10 molecules to register it.
PS..anyone including James Delingpole who wants to waste my time with flat earth drivel, for or against, has lost me.
As a trained vet with 50 years of experience and 25 years as a sheep breeder I can confirm this. Mineral deficiencies predispose to disease, especially parasites. Terrain is extremely important. As I mentioned, 80% of healthy people (with adequate vitamin and mineral levels) do not get sick after contacting the Covid virus. The virus is a necessary, but not a determining element in the disease.
Ironically you begin your article with a logical fallacy:
"I pointed at a logical fallacy of no-virus:... that highly variable terrain patterns cannot lead to the fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns we see in many infectious diseases."
Your are begging the question by assuming "infectious diseases" from the beginning.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that with "covid" for example, no symptoms whatsoever are required in order to be deemed a "confirmed case" ("cases" can be completely disease-free)... and the 'covid' symptoms that do exist and are blamed on the imagined SARS-COV-2 are completely nonspecific and overlap with numerous other supposedly 'viral illnesses' but in fact have never been shown to be caused by any alleged virus.
The "covid" patterns are based solely on fraudulent tests that have not and cannot be validated because the alleged virus that they supposedly relate to has never been shown to exist let alone do the things that a virus is claimed to do. So you are analyzing fraudulent, meaningless data. Same goes with other supposedly 'viral' illnesses. And obviously once it's announced that cases of a supposedly contagious illness have been detected, people start testing for that supposed virus and therefore "positive" results predictably occur. All that is needed is a test that will sometimes provide "positive" results.
No-virus people assert, correctly, that no alleged virus has ever been shown to exist (some might say this only in regards to "covid"). So the only way to refute no-virus is to show that alleged viruses actually have been shown to exist. Neither you nor Hammond have done this or could do this. I challenge you to cite a valid study to show that I'm wrong.
My first argument against “no virus” statements is based on personal observations during my 50 years as a vet and farmer, and can be formulated in a more neutral way as:
A logical fallacy of “no-virus” is that highly variable terrain patterns cannot lead to the fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns we see in many, what often are or were called, “infectious diseases".
You criticized my formulation "infectious diseases", which I have now adapted, but you did NOT address my main argument. Please go ahead! Maybe you can use the foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Europe this month as illustration.
My second argument, on which you have not reacted, is:
The fact that ivermectin (which kills many viruses in vitro as demonstrated from 2004 on) was also proven - during battlefield treatments, large scale campaigns in many countries and in hundreds of CRT (meta-)studies - to be a drug with a consistent and very significant positive effect on millions of people at risk or with symptoms of respiratory distress during the period which was officially called the Covid pandemic.
In my post on Pierre Kory’s book The War against Ivermectin I wrote (slightly modified) about it:
That ivermectin, with its anti-viral qualities, cured so many people – and often very quickly - is logically because they suffered from a viral infection (parasites and bacteria causing a respiratory syndrome can easily be ruled out). From the clinical differences, that virus was not the good old influenza virus (which by the way can also make hospitals overflow). The new virus had spikes which blocked ACE2 receptors in the patient’s cells, which was the main mechanism underlying the inflammatory syndrome (in lungs, heart, blood vessels, and other organs) in these patients.
To state that ivermectin did not influence the viral infection, but impacted on “terrain” factors like stress, toxins, nutritional problems, or radiation is pure undocumented nonsense. As is the statement that ivermectin did not cure these Covid patients: it just depressed their symptoms, for which no evidence has ever been published. The Covid virus hypothesis is simply the only valid one. Moreover, it has been confirmed in many labs (see Hammond’s papers).
I know of course that the PCR tests were highly fraudulent. My conviction is that this was a massive, centrally controlled operation (part of a much bigger project for world control), which could not depend on an accidental lab leak or contact with wild animals. So this lab-altered virus must have been spread on purpose (which could explain its erratic occurrence and the hot spots).
All this to prepare the public for a mass acceptance of the real bioweapon, the mRNA jabs. When the mortality turned out to be too low, other democidal methods (withholding treatment, midazolam, incorrect ventilation, Big Pharma’s dangerous and inefficient anti-virals, etc) and fraudulent data manipulation were used to increase it while attributing the excess deaths to Covid.
And I am not analyzing fraudulent, meaningless data, as you suggest: my claims for the ivermectin hypothesis are in the first place based on the observations of honest clinical doctors like Kory.
If you reject the hypothesis that a disease that can be consistently and significantly cured by a known anti-viral drug must be a disease caused by a virus, then I invite you to propose an alternative explanation that better explains that phenomenon.
Not sure what you mean by "fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns" but no-virus is not based on trying to explain anything through terrain arguments. No-virus is the refutation of the evidence put forward for imagined viruses.
There is no onus on me to explain anything. You are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. Those making the positive claim that a specific particle exists, infects and hijacks cells, replicates and causes a contagious illness have the burden. And people or animals getting the same/similar symptoms at the same time/place is not evidence of contagion. Common environmental factors can obviously cause that to happen.
You continue begging the question with your claim about ivermectin killing viruses. A drug being labelled "anti-viral" and having an effect (in addition to its negative effects) is not evidence of a virus. Logic please. It could just as easily be labelled "anti-evil-spirit" and people like Kory would claim that is proof of an evil "covid" spirit.
Any analysis of "covid" statistics is based on "cases" that were determined via fake/fraudulent means. There is no such thing as a "confirmed case".
The burden is on you and Kory and all the other virus-pushers: prove the specific particles with the claimed "genomes" and proteins exist and do all of the things they care claimed to do.
Kory was not pushing for virus, he was pushing hard to find anti-virals because there was already sufficient evidence for a viral agent (although not based on the unachievable extreme gold standard of Cowan et al, behind which the no-virus movement is hiding, as I described in my Kory piece).
And Kory et al fortunately found an incredible anti-viral, ivermectin, and applied it on the battlefield, with consistent and significantly positive therapeutic results.
Your reaction is: “A drug being labelled "anti-viral" and having an effect (in addition to its negative effects) is not evidence of a virus. Logic please.” I invited you to propose an alternative explanation that better explains this ivermectin phenomenon, is this all you have to say after those four years of misery?
Not only that, ivermectin also has a solid preventive effect: very few people taking prophylactic ivermectin got sick with the respiratory disease that occurred from 2020 to 2024, while that was not the case in control groups.
You say that cases of contagion (disease outbreaks) obviously can be caused by common environmental factors.
So what is your explanation of a preventive effect: which environmental factors - other than ivermectin – are causing this difference with the untreated group?
And what about the present outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Europe – are that just staged “fake viral” events, where environmental factors were manipulated by some rogue gang so that groups of animals suddenly and collectively get blisters on the tongue and inflamed feet? Which environmental factors – other than a virus or bacterium - would according to you be able to cause such “fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns” (as I call it in my first argument)? Please help to explain our reality!
You lost me at "Kory was not pushing for virus, he was pushing hard to find anti-virals because there was already sufficient evidence for a viral agent".... I don't have time for this nonsense. Cite valid evidence or admit you can't because it doesn't exist.
Thanks Rose, I will send it to Jeremy Hammond and come back with his response.
Elsewhere I commented on JJ Couey, a serious scientist who brings up many good doubts and arguments, but who also says that RNA viruses can't spread. Well, one of the fastest spreading viral diseases in animals is foot and mouth disease, an RNA virus...
I tried to contact Woodhouse 776 but they only permit comments by paid subscribers. They are right when they state that many aspects of the Covid event can't be explained by a spreading virus. It had to be "helped" to get sufficient impact. They (esp. JJ Couey) wrong when they say that a (RNA) can't spread: foot and mouth disease by RNA virus spreads like a hellfire, again in europe these days.
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).
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!
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.
Thanks for the intersting remarks and the elegant way you deal with your opponents!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In my view the virus defined is more scientism than science. People can still realize that some bacteria, parasites, EMFs and toxins do exist. With that being said, your best defense against sickness is having a healthy body that can respond to these threats. Sunshine, exercise, healthy foods, a sound sleep pattern, clean air, water and the state of your environment all contribute to your well being. Knowledge of what is attacking you can add to how you deal with countering the affects. According to Dr. Shiv Chopra, no vaccines have ever been properly tested. Kman, DIGILEAK WORLD. - Dr Dave Janda Vaccine interviews with Dr Shiv Chopra on Freedom Radio https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZlsTj0ZuJfPRolWocVzAL4J1iyjMQIu5MGk
I agree with almost everything you say, including that vaccines have not been properly tested, as I mention in my book.
But viruses are for real, see Jeremy Hammonds articles.
I read Jeremy Hammond's articles and did not conclude that he has proved that viruses exist or that the no virus team are substantively wrong.
He has found some cases where the no-virus team have made statements which were inaccurate - which is at least useful. But he seems to have focused on attempting to prove bad faith on the part of the no-virus proponents (and a fair amount of semantics/nit-picking as well) more than on actually disproving their ultimate claim that virologists have failed to show that virology is valid.
This whole field of viruses is surrounded by occultists. It was invented by occultists, profited from by occultists, and it is being challenged by occultists. That leaves the truth somewhat difficult to locate.
I will check him out. Thanks Mees. Ken
Jeremy Hammond the hacker is the one I found. Ken
the link is in today's article
We don't generally have a good idea of how critical tiny amounts of chemicals can be. For example 300 grams of cobalt sulphate spread over a full hectare could determine life or death for a sheep...b12 synthesis. That is 0.03 GM/ square metre, or approx 3 to the power of 22 molecules. If you try to imagine how many grams or molecules a lamb might digest over a few months you might get an idea of how sensitive animals are to micro changes in the terrain.
Another easier example is the sensitivity of a dogs nostrils. From memory of a chemistry lecture experiment to find the weight of a molecule of an ester we found after comparing to the real modern technique, that a human nostril only needed 10 molecules to register it.
PS..anyone including James Delingpole who wants to waste my time with flat earth drivel, for or against, has lost me.
As a trained vet with 50 years of experience and 25 years as a sheep breeder I can confirm this. Mineral deficiencies predispose to disease, especially parasites. Terrain is extremely important. As I mentioned, 80% of healthy people (with adequate vitamin and mineral levels) do not get sick after contacting the Covid virus. The virus is a necessary, but not a determining element in the disease.
Ironically you begin your article with a logical fallacy:
"I pointed at a logical fallacy of no-virus:... that highly variable terrain patterns cannot lead to the fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns we see in many infectious diseases."
Your are begging the question by assuming "infectious diseases" from the beginning.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that with "covid" for example, no symptoms whatsoever are required in order to be deemed a "confirmed case" ("cases" can be completely disease-free)... and the 'covid' symptoms that do exist and are blamed on the imagined SARS-COV-2 are completely nonspecific and overlap with numerous other supposedly 'viral illnesses' but in fact have never been shown to be caused by any alleged virus.
The "covid" patterns are based solely on fraudulent tests that have not and cannot be validated because the alleged virus that they supposedly relate to has never been shown to exist let alone do the things that a virus is claimed to do. So you are analyzing fraudulent, meaningless data. Same goes with other supposedly 'viral' illnesses. And obviously once it's announced that cases of a supposedly contagious illness have been detected, people start testing for that supposed virus and therefore "positive" results predictably occur. All that is needed is a test that will sometimes provide "positive" results.
No-virus people assert, correctly, that no alleged virus has ever been shown to exist (some might say this only in regards to "covid"). So the only way to refute no-virus is to show that alleged viruses actually have been shown to exist. Neither you nor Hammond have done this or could do this. I challenge you to cite a valid study to show that I'm wrong.
Dear Christine Massey
Thank you for your comment!
My first argument against “no virus” statements is based on personal observations during my 50 years as a vet and farmer, and can be formulated in a more neutral way as:
A logical fallacy of “no-virus” is that highly variable terrain patterns cannot lead to the fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns we see in many, what often are or were called, “infectious diseases".
You criticized my formulation "infectious diseases", which I have now adapted, but you did NOT address my main argument. Please go ahead! Maybe you can use the foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Europe this month as illustration.
My second argument, on which you have not reacted, is:
The fact that ivermectin (which kills many viruses in vitro as demonstrated from 2004 on) was also proven - during battlefield treatments, large scale campaigns in many countries and in hundreds of CRT (meta-)studies - to be a drug with a consistent and very significant positive effect on millions of people at risk or with symptoms of respiratory distress during the period which was officially called the Covid pandemic.
In my post on Pierre Kory’s book The War against Ivermectin I wrote (slightly modified) about it:
That ivermectin, with its anti-viral qualities, cured so many people – and often very quickly - is logically because they suffered from a viral infection (parasites and bacteria causing a respiratory syndrome can easily be ruled out). From the clinical differences, that virus was not the good old influenza virus (which by the way can also make hospitals overflow). The new virus had spikes which blocked ACE2 receptors in the patient’s cells, which was the main mechanism underlying the inflammatory syndrome (in lungs, heart, blood vessels, and other organs) in these patients.
To state that ivermectin did not influence the viral infection, but impacted on “terrain” factors like stress, toxins, nutritional problems, or radiation is pure undocumented nonsense. As is the statement that ivermectin did not cure these Covid patients: it just depressed their symptoms, for which no evidence has ever been published. The Covid virus hypothesis is simply the only valid one. Moreover, it has been confirmed in many labs (see Hammond’s papers).
I know of course that the PCR tests were highly fraudulent. My conviction is that this was a massive, centrally controlled operation (part of a much bigger project for world control), which could not depend on an accidental lab leak or contact with wild animals. So this lab-altered virus must have been spread on purpose (which could explain its erratic occurrence and the hot spots).
All this to prepare the public for a mass acceptance of the real bioweapon, the mRNA jabs. When the mortality turned out to be too low, other democidal methods (withholding treatment, midazolam, incorrect ventilation, Big Pharma’s dangerous and inefficient anti-virals, etc) and fraudulent data manipulation were used to increase it while attributing the excess deaths to Covid.
And I am not analyzing fraudulent, meaningless data, as you suggest: my claims for the ivermectin hypothesis are in the first place based on the observations of honest clinical doctors like Kory.
If you reject the hypothesis that a disease that can be consistently and significantly cured by a known anti-viral drug must be a disease caused by a virus, then I invite you to propose an alternative explanation that better explains that phenomenon.
Not sure what you mean by "fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns" but no-virus is not based on trying to explain anything through terrain arguments. No-virus is the refutation of the evidence put forward for imagined viruses.
There is no onus on me to explain anything. You are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. Those making the positive claim that a specific particle exists, infects and hijacks cells, replicates and causes a contagious illness have the burden. And people or animals getting the same/similar symptoms at the same time/place is not evidence of contagion. Common environmental factors can obviously cause that to happen.
You continue begging the question with your claim about ivermectin killing viruses. A drug being labelled "anti-viral" and having an effect (in addition to its negative effects) is not evidence of a virus. Logic please. It could just as easily be labelled "anti-evil-spirit" and people like Kory would claim that is proof of an evil "covid" spirit.
Any analysis of "covid" statistics is based on "cases" that were determined via fake/fraudulent means. There is no such thing as a "confirmed case".
The burden is on you and Kory and all the other virus-pushers: prove the specific particles with the claimed "genomes" and proteins exist and do all of the things they care claimed to do.
Kory was not pushing for virus, he was pushing hard to find anti-virals because there was already sufficient evidence for a viral agent (although not based on the unachievable extreme gold standard of Cowan et al, behind which the no-virus movement is hiding, as I described in my Kory piece).
And Kory et al fortunately found an incredible anti-viral, ivermectin, and applied it on the battlefield, with consistent and significantly positive therapeutic results.
Your reaction is: “A drug being labelled "anti-viral" and having an effect (in addition to its negative effects) is not evidence of a virus. Logic please.” I invited you to propose an alternative explanation that better explains this ivermectin phenomenon, is this all you have to say after those four years of misery?
Not only that, ivermectin also has a solid preventive effect: very few people taking prophylactic ivermectin got sick with the respiratory disease that occurred from 2020 to 2024, while that was not the case in control groups.
You say that cases of contagion (disease outbreaks) obviously can be caused by common environmental factors.
So what is your explanation of a preventive effect: which environmental factors - other than ivermectin – are causing this difference with the untreated group?
And what about the present outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Europe – are that just staged “fake viral” events, where environmental factors were manipulated by some rogue gang so that groups of animals suddenly and collectively get blisters on the tongue and inflamed feet? Which environmental factors – other than a virus or bacterium - would according to you be able to cause such “fairly uniformed and synchronized disease patterns” (as I call it in my first argument)? Please help to explain our reality!
You lost me at "Kory was not pushing for virus, he was pushing hard to find anti-virals because there was already sufficient evidence for a viral agent".... I don't have time for this nonsense. Cite valid evidence or admit you can't because it doesn't exist.
Mees, I suggest you read the comment by Mike Yeadon on this post.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/on-dividing-a-resistance-the-existence/comment/102335597?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thanks Rose, I will send it to Jeremy Hammond and come back with his response.
Elsewhere I commented on JJ Couey, a serious scientist who brings up many good doubts and arguments, but who also says that RNA viruses can't spread. Well, one of the fastest spreading viral diseases in animals is foot and mouth disease, an RNA virus...
You may have noticed that this link was on Wood House 76. I think you said that you follow that substack
Yes, I do, and I obtained Jeremy's view on Yeadon: Yeadon has destroyed his credibility.
I tried to contact Woodhouse 776 but they only permit comments by paid subscribers. They are right when they state that many aspects of the Covid event can't be explained by a spreading virus. It had to be "helped" to get sufficient impact. They (esp. JJ Couey) wrong when they say that a (RNA) can't spread: foot and mouth disease by RNA virus spreads like a hellfire, again in europe these days.