"they have NOT proven anything and have NOT published any scientific paper proving that specific viruses or all viruses do NOT exist" - Do you go out of your way to confuse and mislead people? It is not possible prove that no viruses exist anywhere on the planet, nor is there any onus on anyone to do that. We have shown that there is no scientific evidence that any virus does exist. For SARS-COV-2 specifically, 225 institutions in 40 countries were challenged and all failed. The history of virology has been dissected ad nauseum and shown to be based on logical fallacies and pseudoscience.
And yes, purification is a necessary first step, otherwise one is "sequencing" a mixed brew, not a specific particle. And virologists rarely even come close to purifying an alleged virus from any bodily fluid or tissue, let alone following through with sequencing, characterization and valid scientific experiments. They can't even show that a "viral genome" exists - they literally have to make them up on computers because none have ever been found intact, let alone an entire "virus" particle.
The only way to show that I am wrong is to cite valid evidence of a virus, but interestingly you prefer insults and fallacious arguments. So I challenge you to pick a study that you think proves the existence of a virus and walk your readers through the methods and explain how you believe a virus is proven by those methods. Are you afraid to do this? Your readers will see just how idiotic virology actually is.
"A second, endlessly repeated big “scientific” lie of no-virus is that virologists observe cytopathic effects only in inoculated cell cultures and not in uninoculated controls." - You are severely confused because this is the exact opposite of what we say. First of all, virologists to do show that they have a potential "virus" particle taken from a "host" with which to "inoculate" anything. Secondly, they stress a cell line via poisoning and starvation and this stress alone can cause the "cytopathic effect" that they pass off as evidence that they have "isolated the virus". And from the very beginning of this methodology - in 1954 Enders' "measles" study - it was seen that even cultures that were thought not to be "inoculated" still broke down. This has been demonstrated numerous times since then.
Re ivermectin, I also challenge you to cite scientific studies showing safety. I've challenged many people on this and no one has been able to. Regarding efficacy with "covid" this is impossible because there is no covid, only fraudulent tests. You'd first to prove that there is a coronavirus before you could even try to test for effectiveness of a treatment for "covid". Logic 101.
I am not joining the “scientific” trick that you always play, with the arguments you always give. That only leads to a useless repetition of arguments.
I have asked you something different, and you (the no-virus leaders) have not responded: to explain some important phenomena of our reality, some with great consequences for our health or economy, and you haven’t answered any of those questions:
1. What explains the consistent and significant lifesaving effects of ivermectine (proven in hundreds of studies by independent doctors) on patients with respiratory problems during the covid period?
2. What explains the consistent and significant prophylactic effect of ivermectine on respiratory diseases during the covid period, in people at risk or working in the health frontlines?
3. What explains the recent foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Europe? And, for this occasion I add another question, what should be done to prevent more cases? I know that you are not a veterinarian, but please give it a try. If you prefer a human case, how about the severe poliomyelitis outbreak in 1916 in New York, as described by Suzanne Humpfries?
Logic please. You have to first show that a phenomena exists before demanding an explanation. And you are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. You insist that viruses exist and ivermectin works and treats so-called "viral" illnesses, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence.
I have not made any claims as to how a so-called "foot and mouth" outbreak should be treated. It's up to you to show that "foot and mouth disease" is a distinct illness and is diagnosed in a valid manner and that it's caused by a virus, if that is your position.
This isn't complicated. The one who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. It seems you are afraid to cite a study because if you did I could show how illogical it is.
"Logic please. You have to first show that a phenomena exists before demanding an explanation. And you are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. You insist that viruses exist and ivermectin works and treats so-called "viral" illnesses, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence."
This evidence on ivermectin comes from Kory's book, already 2 years ago, but you have still not enough evidence for your "science trick" to say something useful to your followers on what to do if you get sick with respiratory complaints and an inflamatory syndrome in the lungs or other organs, an that's a shame:
As of this writing [2023], there are ninety-five studies from 1,023 scientists including 134,554 patients from twenty-seven countries that show ivermectin’s efficacy.1 (Please read that sentence again.) These stats are from c19early.org, a website that features the work of an anonymous group of expert statisticians and researchers and which has been an indispensable tool to clinicians and researchers around the world during Covid. From the onset, they established a rigid protocol for data analysis, such that their approach is consistent across all medicine evaluations, even the Big Pharma ones. They update their analyses daily as studies on emerging therapeutics appear in peer-reviewed literature or on preprint servers. Their scientific objectivity, consistency, and comprehensiveness in compiling clinical trial evidence for every single therapeutic studied in Covid is an unparalleled body of work, and much of it is extremely inconvenient to Big Pharma’s interests.
McCarthy, Jenna ; Kory, Pierre Daniel . War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic (pp. 169-170). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.
You lost me at your 2nd paragraph. You are clearly not willing to engage in an honest look at the evidence for alleged viruses. What a pity for your readers who buy into your hand-waving.
Even if Ivermectin is efficacious, that does NOT prove virus. I prefer selenium, bee pollen, high does vitamin C, vitamin D3, and sun light. I also advocate that people take cell salts and adhere to their eating type as outlined by William Donald Kelley. No need to presume virus.
"Thus, without much ado and in the absence of sophisticated methods or techniques, Loeffler and Frosch became the first people to discover and describe that a contagious animal disease, foot and mouth disease, was caused by very small particles that somehow replicated in the host where they caused the typical lesions of the disease, from where infectious material could naturally be spread to other animals, but also by artificial means. This is what we now call a virus."
They discovered "very small particles" that they could not see? Somehow replicated? You mean, the cattle replicated said viruses in the way that my body replicates skin cells or hair?
Infectious material? But it were ONLY infectious via "serial inoculations"? So no natural transmission?
My friend, Loeffler and Frosch did not show that anything exists, much less is contagious. Just please show us evidence of FMD virus (how about a publication); and it would be nice to see an article in which authors offer us a falsifiable methodology to isolate said virus.
And by the way, the "black swan" argument is in relation to Bayesian logic and probability. If we see many events, ergo, sex between humans resulting in births of humans, whereas conjugal relations between lions do NOT result in births of humans, does NOT prove that lions cannot give birth to humans. But in terms of probability, I feel confident in predicting that when I see a pregnant lioness, she will not give birth to a human baby.
Such is an idea is unrelated to seeing any falsifiable method of Loeffler and Frosch. What do you think was their falsifiable methodology in finding ANY, natural, infectious agent, that travels from one ill bovine to another?
If we find that people who were ill (though we lack any record of definite symptoms) and they felt better after taking Ivermectin, even if I accept your premise, we have a few explanations:
(1) nutrition;
(2) suppression of symptoms; and
(3) other co-factors.
Note, arguably if people are given citrus - as to raise their vitamin C intake - as eliminates their illness, such does not prove that scurvy is caused by a virus.
Christine asked you for a run down of a paper showing how viruses are 'isolated' and you repeated the nonsense that because there are a large number of papers reviewed by people you admire on IVM that this shows IVM works and therefore viruses are real.
At the first hurdle IVM has not been shown to 'work' against symptoms allegedly from a collection of symptoms called 'covid'. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/ivermectin
this may give you a first impression on the body of knowledge on foot and mouth disease, which you are throwing blindly out of the window for a dogmatic reason, not because you proved that all its details were false:
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease
Fred Brown 1
Affiliations
PMID: 12527434
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00268-x
Abstract
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease falls into several distinct areas. In this short chapter I have highlighted what I consider to be the significant advances in our knowledge of the disease and its causal agent. 1. Loeffler and Frosch's landmark description in 1898 that the disease is caused by a filterable agent, the first observation that an animal disease could be caused by a virus. 2. The search for experimental laboratory animals, culminating in the demonstration by Waldmann and Pape of the susceptibility of the guinea pig in 1920 and the suckling mouse by Skinner in 1951. 3. The discovery of three distinct serotypes O, A and C in the 1920s by Vallée and Carré in France and by Waldmann in Germany, and the subsequent recognition in the 1940s and 1950s by the Pirbright group of the three Southern African Territory Types SAT 1-3, and Asia 1. 4. The development of in vitro techniques for the growth of the virus which have been crucial for the large-scale production of vaccines and for the accurate assay of virus infectivity. Early work by Hecke and the Maitlands in the early 1930s, followed by the crucial demonstration by Frenkel in 1947 that large amounts of the virus could be produced in surviving tongue epithelium, formed the basis for the vaccination programmes initiated in Europe in the 1950s. The subsequent development of cell lines has brought a remarkable degree of sophistication to the study of virus growth. 5. The impact of molecular studies on the structure of the virus and its mode of replication which have led to practical applications such as an in vitro test for vaccine potency, rapid diagnosis methods, and international epidemiological surveys. In addition, they have provided the means to design molecular vaccines.
This Wageningen University site has dozens of publications, and you can even ask questions to a human expert
Your first source is not even a study but a fake-history. And then you link to propaganda on a university website.
You are clearly not willing to cite any actual study, either because you know that there are zero legit studies that you can cite or because you aren't actually familiar with the methods used by virologists and aren't willing to risk finding out that you are wrong.
Yep ... lol. Mees finds the abstracts and post them. He did that with me once. So weird. So delusional. Oh well. I hope that people are waking up to the fraud of virology.
Maybe the widespread use of DDT caused the (so-called) “disease” named “polio”. Maybe (so-called) “polio” was never caused by a virus — either naturally occurring or laboratory made.
The etiology of a disease is NOT as clear cut as the (so-called) “virologists” (and the true believers in virology) claim.
Yours is certainly not the “last word” on the subject.
Christine Massey is completely right about your article. You start from a nonsensical position of demanding that somebody prove a negative, which is an impossibility. One cannot prove that there is no virus. The onus is 100% on those making claims for the existence of viruses to prove they exist by physical isolation and genetic characterization of such particles (not their phony baloney claims of isolation by simply making assertions that viruses exist in a culture in which cells die that die without a sample being added, as proven by Dr Stephan Lanka).
Anyone reading anything you have to say would be well advised to consider you as controlled opposition, whether through sheer ignorance or on purpose, as you are indeed just serving to confuse people about a very important issue that would make all of this go away if people would simply accept this and demand that the liars prove what they are claiming to be true.
The question is clear: "Where did Loefller go wrong?" He clearly demonstrated a phenomena that something sub 200nm gets replicated inside host, is infectious (when passed to new host) and the experiment can be repeated.
The proposed explanation calls the sub 200-nm something a virus, and postulates it has no ability to replicate on its own, it needs host to replicate it.
Instead of resorting to empty rhetoric, attack the experiment and demonstrate where it went wrong.
1) your premise is incorrect. As far as I can tell, you associate use of Ivermectin with "efficacy" in re respiratory problems; AND imply that ANYONE with ANY respiratory "problem" had such due to a VIRUS that was supposedly exorcized or neutralized by Ivermectin.
Just too many gaps and leaps in the argument. As Dr. Cowan is want to say, I do NOT have to PROVE why it is raining, in order to reject a declaration that rain comes from the urine of flying elephants.
Christine Massey is NOT engaged in any sort of trick. We want to see evidence, via a falsifiable method, that tends to prove that an exogenous, obligate intracellular parasite exists. Either you can say that you do not think that such an approach is necessary for proof; OR you can concede that you cannot show any falsifiable proof.
2) SAME response. Your premise is just flawed. I was in the FRONT LINES of the pandemic (living in Shanghai, Suzhou, and Changzhou China) - and did not even wear a mask. Neither I, nor my NEVER vaxxed family, ever got sick. No loss of smell, no respiratory issues. No Ivermectin. Lots of vitamin C, clean water, and good nutrition is OUR medicine.
3) People and animals get sick. But such does not PROVE virus. Furthermore, as you can read in the Flexner papers, they had to inject HUMAN material, directly into the skulls of monkeys in order to "spread" polio virus (which at that time meant DISEASE). See Flexner and Lewis (Nov 13 and Dec 4 1909). JAMA 1909; 53: 1639, 1913.
Flexer and Simon conceded that mere breathing, in no way, transferred any illness. And "polio" was first called infantile paralysis. See Scobey, Ralph, MD. 1951. “Is The Public Health Law Responsible For The Poliomyelitis Mystery?” Archive of Pediatrics (May); referencing Lovett (1911), Trans. Am. Pediat. Soc., 23: 175-185.
Children were often paralyzed or had flu-like symptoms from vaccination AND or exposure to toxic metals. Recall, there was even exposure to lead and arsenic in various sources.
And ONCE again, illness does not prove cause. You are just rejecting ALL tenets of basic logic. But hey, you can have any delusions or logical fallacies you want.
I hope your readers choose to reject illogic and instead, enjoy the scientific method as the preferred means to deduce cause.
Through whale.to I found so many great works, Eleanor McBean, Fred Klenner, JB Biggs, et alia. The best find was William White (1885) the Story of a Great Delusion.
It took me about 4 years, but I fully annotated and edited White (1885). I formatted tables and even performed significance tests on some (especially data from Sweden).
Thanks to what I learned from White, I was able to cross-reference and build my library (I know a lot about the medical science of the 1800s - and how modern allopathic medicine is a house of sand of fog).
After reading what White (1885) said about Copenhagen, circa 1804, when I saw modern-day profs in Denmark claim that vaccination WORKED to stamp out smallpox, I posed a few questions:
(1) how did anyone distinguish smallpox from other rashes and patterns of pustules;
(2) what was the substance used in the "vaccination"?;
(3) where was the quality control.
As usual, the POS professors quit responding after I challenged their dogmatic claims, and asked for EVIDENCE! Funny how that works.
I would be glad to send you my version of White. I think that I added over 1,000 footnotes. He was weak on formal citations (lol).
Generally speaking that's true. Negative proofs demand the presence of constrained context of what you're trying to prove. I can't prove you don't own a house on Jupiter, but I can prove you don't own a house on Jupiter built 100 years ago by construction crew using Wright brothers early flying apparatus to transport materials and labour to Jupiter to build your house.
Going back to viruses, no such constrained context is ever presented. As such proving their non-existence is a logical impossibility. Its not a matter of willing to do it or not
Again the 100s of studies from 'independent doctors' whatever they are do not show proven effects of IVM on respiratory symptoms let alone save lives. Even IVM supporters admit the evidence is weak. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/ivermectin
Nailed it. Your response was a great deal more thorough and logical than the authors. However, in-fighting, I have discovered through the Covid years is wasted time. People believe what they see. If they see a virus or evidence to suggest the reality of invisible agents of attack and malaise then that is what they will see.
I'm open to the idea of the existence of viruses but Mees mention of the importance of terrain is at least a bridge to agree to disagree.
I would add, people also believe what they don’t see - as in never having proven a virus exists using even electron microscopy, just shadows of something that ‘must be there’ … why can’t it be proven to us without a doubt? Why can’t all the world-famous virologists prove without reasonable doubt that viruses are the cause of maladies that must therefore get fought with by their vaccines? So many millions want this answered.
Virologists can't prove thelat viruses are the cause of maladies because virologists fall into 3 main groups:
1. The top of the top. Not only know that the whole thing is a massive scam but they actively manage it to ensure it continues to run in perpetuity. These are the gatekeepers, they only engage publicly within the scope of carefully crafted PR campaigns. If a mere mortal challenges them, he or she will be promptly ignored as unworthy of their time.
2. Those whose eyes have been opened, but keep quiet and just stare in their microscopes daily to keep their cushy jobs. You'll never hear a word from this group in the public space. They just hope the scam will run long enough for them to retire comfortably.
3. The idiots. This is the group which have learned a great deal about chemistry and biology, but have never heard of logical fallacies, epistemological proofs and ... how to do real science. You'll find them all over the place, defending virology as the pinnacle of scientific progress, demanding that no-virus people are locked away and generally ignoring any logical arguments put forth against their claims. The poster children for a Dunning-Kruger effect rundown.
By my observations, group number 3 is by far the most populous.
And then there's group 4 - the likes of Stefan Lanka, though I would not consider them virologists per-se.
I don't see anything in that "lesson" which can be taken as a proof for the existence of any virus, FMD or not. Where exactly did they show that microscopic, replication competent, pathogenic particle was infecting and spreading among the animals? It's basically just a hypothesis that such particle was indeed causing the observable effects. No proof of its existence. Do you not make a difference between the two? You can't use observable effects to postulate existence of something without also performing independent experiment which is not based on said effects. Its all just theoretical and academic. No real proof of anything.
The problem with virology is that the multiplying and sick making viruses can't be seen under a microscope. But that changed 3 weeks ago, when the samba virus was discovered. So now you can have your cake and eat it.
#3 are all over in every single scientific field, especially in biology and life sciences. In addition they have no idea of statistics and what they do is data manipulation/massage day in day out. The rule of thumb: Publish or perish. So they publish... an exponentially growing number of junk, non replicable papers.
Excellent categorizations, Pav - and I would add that there’s been individuals belonging to groups 1 & 2 who had a change of heart (for various reasons) and moved into that 4th group who insist scientific integrity mustn’t ever allow a backing into faulty conclusions and biased narratives. I found this summary on Stefan Lanka - very interesting person indeed, thanks!
100 years ago? 1925? Hmm, please point to a SINGLE study, using a falsifiable method, that demonstrated natural transmission of a "virus" from a sick person to a healthy one - that caused the latter to fall ill.
Jenner (1799; 1800) inoculated disease (ingrafted it - by putting pus under the skin), yet he denied that cow pox was transmissible via inhalation. (His evidence included first-hand observations of nursemaids and babies). Ironically, in absolute contravention of modern viral-immunity theory, Jenner also found that one could suffer the ailment (as well as smallpox) multiple times. See Baron (1838: 265) reporting that Jenner said, "the lady of Mr. Gwinnett, ... had the small-pox five times”.
Please go to Jeremy Hammond, who has fought the scientific battle with Cowan and Kaufman, which in my view Hammond won quite easily, because he also understands their trick. I come from the other side, observations, clinical experience, and simple logic. I should have stopped my argument when I described the ultra-contagion case, with an old cloth into the first sick animal and then the whole herd round (on very large cattle ranches), so that the whole herd was synchronized at once.
You’re unable to boil down even to a single, compelling argument any evidence for the existence of a disease causing “viral pathogen”.
That’s ok if you don’t have the background to do this.
However, in that event, you simply embarrass yourself by your inability to give one example that isn’t arm waving.
I began 2020 believing the central narrative that you outlined.
Prompted to examine the evidence underwriting the claim that viruses exist, cause illnesses are transmissible & can be attenuated or even prevented, I concluded that every “pillar” of so-called evidence was fraudulent. It’s not even close. It’s not a mistake. It’s not about differing interpretations of the evidence. It’s overt fraud, for malign purposes.
Dear TG, it is NOT the inane people about whom I worry. Rather, the thugs with guns at airports, on trains, in cities who are willing to attack and beat us and imprison or kill us for failing to share their viral delusion.
Gosh, it’s really amazing the lengths these scientists will go to pull the wool over all our eyes. Not only writing millions of papers about viruses themselves, but going to the effort of making up a technology - the use of bacteriophages (viruses that eat bacteria) to aid in treatment of antibiotic resistant therapies - and writing thousands of papers about that, too! Just think of all the money and man hours that went into writing what the scientists must have known was complete bunk!
Gee, kind of makes you wonder how SO MANY people were so happy wasting their time and money on a hoax…
Who said that "these scientists" are purposely pulling the wool over our eyes? They have been indoctrinated like everyone else, and as in so many other professions they no doubt simply follow the protocols they are told to follow, don't bother to think critically or if they do they either leave the profession or keep their thoughts to themselves, don't look at the foundational evidence, assume that the foundational evidence is already in place, etc...
You appear to be a great example of how people tend to assume all is well. if I was wrong and you could cite valid evidence to show I'm wrong, surely you would have cited it instead of leaving a sarcastic comment.
All sorts of idiotic things are going on in society. Bankers are complete frauds yet millions and millions of people work for them, oblivious to the fraud of bank "loans".
I agree with most of what you said there, I really do. But I just do not think that actual researchers that work with viruses every day could be so deluded. How would their experiments make sense? They would have no internal validity. What is a phage, then? What causes Ebola symptoms?
I simply do not accept your demand that to prove the existence of viruses, that a virus must be isolated without any of the cells that are necessary for a virus to reproduce. To the lay man that might seem logical, but to those that know that viruses can do nothing on their own - that they MUST hijack the cellular machinery of host cell in order to reproduce - your demand is impossible.
It’s akin to asking for a plant to be grown, but stipulating there can be no sunlight, water or growth medium (ie soil) used to grow it, and then declaring that plants don’t exist because they cannot be produced independently.
Can u please explain how a phage under the genetic virus model can eat bacteria?
Note, viruses it is claimed have no metabolism, no motility, do not eat, do not defecate, do not move, have no moving parts, have no motor ability, have no enzyme ability, have no energy needs....
In the past the same work was done by the priesthood class. Thousands of hours spent in writing and translating "divine" literature. Money, time and effort put in constructing temples and churches. Wars instigated against infidels... Evidently nothing has changed much. Just the format and presentation is different.
But, in those cases, most of the people who laboured to do those things presumably believed they were labouring in service to God. So do you think the virologists really believe in viruses, or are they lying? If they really believe, who started the supposed deception?
I was just drawing parallels between religion and The Science. So much of science today is basically scientific mythology. Wishful thinking dressed in a white coat.
I’m not sure about “so much” of science. Certain areas of research with clear agendas behind them, sure, like vaccine research and climate change research. But “Science” is a big topic and I would be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
In the case of virology, there isn't any baby to throw with the bathwater. It's a pseudoscience based on a heap of logical fallacies and unsubstantiated claims. Here, riddle me this one thing. Virology claims that there are over 200 viruses that infect humans. Amazingly however, whenever a virologist sets out to find a specific virus in a sick person, their "isolation" process always, always finds that specific virus and that specific virus only! With all the samples they take and examine, there's never ever a sign of any other viruses lurking in the cells, just the one they wanted to find. Ain't that something?!? Mother Nature is so helpful 😄 🤣 😂
But it gets even crazier. Human respiratory viruses are "isolated" by infecting and observing cytopathic effects in monkey kidney cells. Not human lung cells? Not even monkey lung cells? Kidney cells. That's very convenient and is by design, because kidney cells have propensity to break up and create cellular debris when mixed with various other concoctions. Virologists then shout "eureka", point to the various debris particles and say "we found the virus". That's your typical virus "isolation" process. Nothing was ever isolated. On the contrary, more stuff was added to the human tissue sample...
You really can't make this stuff up. It's beggar's belief. If civil engineers did science like that, there will be collapsing bridges and falling buildings every day of the year. 🤦♂️
Yes sir, this time you are right, many scientists are employed, by the powers that be, as the new priests. The problem is that you throw the baby away with the bathwater.
Fun facts: Watson and Crick were phage virologists. Their colleague and sometimes collaborator Sydney Brenner also used phage mutants to elegantly demonstrate that the genetic code is composed of triplets.
Dear JOC, good question, "what IS a cold?" Fever, no fever? Stuffy nose, runny nose? Dry cough, wet cough, no cough? Headache, no headache? Diarrhea or constipation? Lots of variables. Oh, by the way, there is a really strong correlation with alcohol consumption, ingesting sugar/sweets, and rapid/extreme changes in ambient temp and humidity. The latter was noted by Al-Razi, circa 910. Best.
Viruses are defined as contagious particles which spread disease through close contact and sharing of bodily fluids. But over 200 real world studies over the last century involving all sorts of disgusting attempts to infect healthy volunteers by exposing them to sick people and their snot have consistently failed to demonstrate contagion.
Contagion theory has been well and truly disproved, and so one of the key properties of these alleged particles (if not their defining feature) does not exist in nature. This shifts 'viruses' out of the realm of objective reality (nature) and into the realm of superstition, social construct, imagination and in recent years we might also add the realm of CGI.
It's worth noting at this point that viruses, and the field of virology, were invented in the absence of any proof that such a particle actually exists. 'Viruses' were invented before we had electron microscopes capable of imaging these hypothetical critters.
The 'no virus' camp are not actually attempting to disprove the existence of 'viruses', they are just waiting patiently at the bus stop waiting for scientific proof of viruses to arrive.
We know from control experiments (performed by the same labs that big pharma uses) that the particles which are often labelled 'viruses' (measles, HIV, SARS COV2 etc) can be produced by performing standard virology cell culture experiments without any other materials added to the culture (no 'viral sample'). This proves the particles are produced by the procedure itself which renders the entire field of virology meaningless and fraudulent.
Virology cell culture ('viral isolation') experiments are like a camera which photographs aliens on the moon, but does so even when the lens cap is left on.
So not only are these particles present in sterile cell cultures (and kidney specialists warned us years ago that kidney cells breaking down produce particles identical to so called 'viruses') but the alleged properties of these particles (pathogenic and contagious) have also been debunked over and over again with hundreds of contagion experiments.
So what we are left with is a bunch of inert, boring, ever present particles which are basically just cellular dandruff, which virologists have imbued with imaginary, superstitious properties - presumably to help prop up the failing germ theory model of disease upon which the entire drug and vaccine industry is based.
History is full of various superstitions and myths which were used to make money and control the masses through fear. Virology appears to be just the latest superstition used in that way.
The only thing which virology proves is that human nature has not changed.
Here is how virology and 'public health' looks to anyone who is immune to superstitious fear mongering. This is also how 'covid' will look to future generations studying history.
1. Aliens are on the moon
2. These aliens cause people's legs to explode.
3. When these aliens arrive on Earth they hide in glasses of milk.
4. Over 200 real world experiments have failed to demonstrate exploding leg syndrome in volunteers exposed to glasses of milk.
5. The alien experts use special cameras to photograph the aliens.
6. These cameras produce images of the aliens even when the lens cap is left on.
7. Fear of aliens from the moon hiding in glasses of milk and causing legs to explode is worth billions annually for all the industries who claim to offer protection from such a threat.
8. People who are skeptical of all this bullshit are accused of 'being unscientific' and 'pushing a narrative'.
It's easier to understand when you remember that virology as a field was invented before any so called 'virus' was ever discovered. It was invented to prop up the germ theory model of disease which was already falling apart at the time. They just said "oh well there must be a smaller 'germ' which we cannot even see".
Then after the electron microscope was invented they pointed arrows at the first tiny particles they could see and said "Ah that must be them!"
This is not science.
The particles they have labelled 'viruses' are produced from sterile cell cultures with or without a supposed 'viral sample' being added to the mix. The CPE is also observed with or without a supposed 'viral sample' added to the cell culture. And the genomes can also be constructed from sterile cell cultures too using the standard genome assembly software.
So all the standard 'proofs' of the existence of 'viruses' are a load of nonsense because virology is (and was never) a scientific field. The methods for 'proving' viruses will provide the proofs regardless, which makes virology unfalsifiable. Until there is a falsifiable method for proving the existence of these imaginary particles virology will remain in the arena of superstition and not science.
So your question makes no sense. Farm animals and people sometimes get sick. Asking me to debunk 'viruses' as the cause is the same as me asking you to debunk 'flying unicorns' as the cause.
The most common reasons for animals or people to get sick is some kind of environmental poisoning, or dietary deficiency, or stress, or psychosomatic cause, or (in the case of 'asymptomatic cases') some kind of bogus 'test' which is used to create a health scare and a market for drugs.
Before we speculate on whether 'viruses' might cause people or animals to get sick we should first establish that such particles exist in nature (as defined). So far nobody has ever been able to provide such proof. All virology experiments have been falsified by performing their respective controls (CPE, EM imaging, genomic assembly etc).
I am sure you have a PhD in no virus, as your piece is full of lies. The first sentence makes it already clear:
It's easier to understand when you remember that virology as a field was invented before any so called 'virus' was ever discovered. It was invented to prop up the germ theory model of disease which was already falling apart at the time. They just said "oh well there must be a smaller 'germ' which we cannot even see".
The first virus in animals was discovered by Loeffler, as I describe in my post A 128--year old lesson. It was a surprise discovery (although tobacco mozaic virus had been discovered 5 years earlier).
Please stop parroting the bizar lies that Cowan et al have been teching you to repeat as a robot.
Anyone can 'discover' viruses because the methods for 'discovering' them do not adhere to the scientific method (non falsifiable).
I could discover the 'scurvy virus' using standard virology procedures, but that does not mean the scurvy virus exists in nature. It just means I can produce CPE, an EM image and a genome.
Virology is perfectly valid on its own terms, but those terms are not the terms of science. It is in the same category as 'reading tea leaves' but with expensive (but pointless) equipment.
Your position (which is also the establishment position) assumes these methods are valid but they are not. Once you realise the methodology is unscientific (as demonstrated consistently by control experiments) everything downstream from virology experiments must be considered invalid.
Proving X with a false methodology is not proof of anything.
"Virology cell culture ('viral isolation') experiments are like a camera which photographs aliens on the moon, but does so even when the lens cap is left on."
I really don't know why I am wasting more time with you.
It is totally unheard and unprecedented when a small group of people without academic publications on the subject, declares in one sweep that the whole body of virological science since 130 years is null and void.
You can only debunk it piece by piece, just as other truthers did with the moonlandings, 9/11, the Kennedy assasinations, etc.
It is perhaps a "testament" to an education system which produces highly schooled academics, scientists and PhDs who have learned a great deal of factual "knowledge" about a subject and yet have not learned how to think properly. That's not a hyperbole. Some scientists quite literally don't know how to think without committing logical fallacies. They don't know what those fallacies are, how to recognise them and how to avoid them. It's a really sad state of affairs.
You can debunk piece by piece or you can just demonstrate that the very foundation of the whole body of virological science is logically unsound and is thus pseudoscientific. You really don't need to debunk the entire virology when you can just show that it's built upon logical fallacies.
It matters not how advanced, widespread and long lived the field of virology is. Insisting that it does falls within various fallacious logical appeals, e.g "appeal to common belief", "appeal to authority", ... etc.
You see? Human knowledge is derived from beliefs once those beliefs become justified. That's the epistemological meaning of the word "knowledge". And beliefs can only ever become truthfully justified when they've been shown to contain no fallacious reasoning. Unfortunately, the very foundation of virology is itself a fallacy - the presumption that a "virus" exists and causes disease is used to design the entire empirical field (all experiments, tests, etc...). You really can't do that in science. It's called circular reasoning. One must first prove that the particle called a virus exist, then prove that this particle causes disease. Not design experiments which assume that the particle exist and never ever try to disprove the results of such experiments. With this kind of reasoning I can prove to you that even fairies and leprechauns exist.
I'd love to be shown how wrong I am and have the opportunity to discover the truth. Unfortunately, after 4 years of reading and debating with both camps, I've yet to see a single coherent, logically sound argument coming from the field of virology. Not one.
I have to admit I am at a stage where I read virology papers and can't stop laughing. It really is that bad. Like reading something written by kids at the kindergarten... or worse.
I agree with the premise that to dismantle something so extensive, so entrenched, one needs to take a piece by piece approach. That is why I have encouraged you to take a look at the literature of Drs. Ralph M Scobey and Morton S. Biskind on polio from the 1950s, or at the work of the Perth medical group on HIV for example. You can find a terrible lot of very detailed examination by competent medical experts in both places.
I have been answering hundreds of comments on my no-virus articles and was often insulted. I have made two conclusions, which are now my standard answer (personalized answers will be the exception):
1. The leaders of team no-virus are clearly acting in bad faith: all their publications are misleading and riddled with contradictions, falsifications, omissions, etc. These errors can’t be random and the only explanation that I can give is that they are part of a psy-op, set up and financed by The Powers That Be. That is nothing new: it has been seen in all opposition movements, i.e., cognitive infiltration as described by Cass Sunstein: … agents should join those online communities and promote a wide range of additional theories, often rather absurd ones, thereby stirring up internal conflicts, diverting the members into theoretical dead-ends, and heavily discrediting them with the broader public.
2. The followers of team no-virus often make ad hominem attacks, probably because they learned it from Tom Cowan, and because their backgrounds in medicine and virological science are – with rare exceptions – insufficient for an academic discussion. Yet their attitude is rarely humble. For the same reason they are also unable to spot the enormous deceit by the leaders. Most of these rude attackers have a quite recent substack account without original posts, but with a facade of restacks. Some have even offered me money, or cooperation with their leaders in research projects. Again, all of this smells psy-op.
And of course, nobody has taken the Loeffler challenge. Please tell me what else can explain his results, if not a virus (a submicroscopic agent replicating in the host)?
On the misleading publications:
After a quick screening I spotted 3 mayor deceptions in Can you catch a cold, see my post The proof of NO no-virus.
I am not saying that Covid was not a hoax or a scam (it was), or that vaccines are good (they are dangerous and largely unnecessary), or that viruses are a mayor health risk for humans (that was long ago), or that the pharmaceutical industry is benevolent: in my book I call them Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death. I am just saying that viruses do exist (including Covid19), that they can be modified into bioweapons, and that anti-viral drugs can be lifesaving.
I will be brief because I'm not supposed to write a book..... but there are dozens of plausible factors that cause (some) people to get sick at the same time. Environmental triggers, seasonal changes (daylight, temperature, humidity etc), psychological factors, stress, anxiety, social conformity etc.
The one factor we know through scientific studies (hundreds of real world studies) which does NOT cause people to get sick together is 'contagion' via snot, coughing or physical touch.
We also know from the studies that simply telling a person they have been 'infected' is enough on its own to trigger them to express real symptoms of a cold. And telling them later on it was a mistake and they did not actually get infected can also cause those symptoms to disappear within an hour or two.
So belief plays a huge part in it. Those who believe they are susceptible will be more likely to trigger their bodies to go into 'detox mode' (which is what a cold or flu is). We might draw a comparison with menstruation which is another form of detox (shedding the old lining of the uterus) which also often occurs in sync.
Some studies suggest families will often detox together, but with the exception of one family member who remains the equivalent of a 'designated driver'. This is a common scenario. Often the caregiver does not get the flu while the rest of the family does. Then after they finish their detox the remaining family member goes through their detox process alone.
Science does not require an alternative explanation before dumping a false theory. We know 'viral contagion' is false because of hundred of studies. We don't need to know exactly how and why people get sick. The majority of the time we don't get sick after being around sick people. In a city you pass by sick people every day if you use public transport. Conformation bias makes us only pay attention to that one time a year we do get sick after riding the subway.
Or explain why docotors and nurses died with the same symptoms as their patients when covid was starting, source Pierre Kory's book. What that a belief?
Mees, your question can he construed as shifting the burden of proof. Note that rejecting a positive claim ("viruses exist") isn't the same as making a negative claim ("viruses do not exist"). It may appear so from practical standpoint, i.e. we can all live our lives as if viruses don't exist, but the philosophical burden of proof can not be shifted to those who rejected the positive claim. It is up to those who made the claim to address the points made in the rejection, not to demand proof for an opposite claim which was never made. In fact, a negative claim can not even be made as it would be impossible to prove.
Virus believers also fall into the traps of appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because we don't know what may be causing disease, it doesn't mean its caused by an entity for which we have no proof. You're basically trying to explain the lightning in the sky with Zeus' thunderbolt (because you have no knowledge how electrostatic charges interact in the clouds). Its the same thing here. We have no proof for the existence of viruses, but we believe they exist because we attribute the disease to them.
A few friends of mine were place on Covid wards. All medics. All unjabbed. They could not be laid off as their speciality is much needed (e.g anaesthesiologist, internist). They never got infected with CONvid.
The observation of sick cows does not make virology or contagion any more valid from a scientific standpoint, just as sick cows does not prove space aliens or evil spells.
The first step is to verify if the cows are really sick. Most of the cows that were slaughtered were perfectly healthy and Captain Panic (Neil Ferguson) was one of the official fear mongers (see also Swine Flu in 2009).
For those cows that were genuinely sick I've heard their symptoms were most likely caused by some a new treatment which poisoned them - I forget what it was but it made sense when I read it. Similar to DDT and polio.
Also the needless mass slaughter of cows destroyed many small family farms and helped the consolidation of farming into the hands of Big Agra. So there is that. It's all basically the same MO, same scam, same fake science, same characters spreading fear.
If any doctors or nurses died unexpectedly in 2020 they should be treated individually with post mortems. In 2020 post mortems were banned, putting 'covid' on the death certificate earned hospitals huge bonuses. FOIA requests have revealed zero deaths among medical staff in some countries in 2020 so if any doctors or nurses died they were an anomaly.
Plus none of this makes virology valid. Control experiments have already exposed virology as a fraud so whatever killed people in 2020 we already know it had nothing to do with 'viruses' which are not real.
you certainly go the most out of your academic freedom for your "studies" when you confused foot and mouth disease with BSE and and proposed "treatment with post mortems". Very profound and impressive, you certainly earn a Kruger Dunning PhD!
We have more than a century of claims about imaginary 'viruses' causing all sorts of health issues. What's lacking is scientific evidence to back up these claims. In the absence of hard evidence, virology goes into the category of a superstition.
These various superstitious (ie unscientific) claims do all tend to blend into one, because at their root they are all the same basic scam - and they're all being perpetrated by the same scammers (the ones making money selling drugs and destroying independent businesses). As I said, I can't remember the details but I've never found any credible science behind any of these claims so in that sense they are all the same.
Also, a common tactic by used by Big Pharma is to constantly reclassify symptoms, by either grouping them together into one diagnosis to create the illusion of an epidemic or pandemic.... or splitting them apart into different diagnoses to create the impression that an epidemic or pandemic has been cured or prevented.
Most symptoms experienced by cows or humans (when they are not just meaningless 'tests' and 'asymptomatic cases') are the result of some kind of deficiency or some kind of poisoning (or both). So the very concept of singular, distinct, monocausal diseases is itself part of the scam. As Florence Nightingale wrote a century and a half ago, there are no specific diseases, there are only disease conditions..... meaning all disease is fundamentally an expression of the body's numerous strategies and mechanisms to restore balance and compensate for some deficiency or toxic overload.
Inventing a name for something does not make it 'real'. For example 'covid' does not refer to any new set of symptoms and is merely a catch all term for existing conditions such as the seasonal flu. Nothing 'new' happened in 2020, other than the invention of a new name 'covid' and a bunch of meaningless 'tests' which were never tests at all.
So anyway, if you can produce scientific evidence of a 'virus' causing any kind of sickness you are free to present the evidence and win the argument. Plus you will be the first person in history to have discovered such evidence.
I'm not a scientist; saw the fraud of the Covid shots immediately and stayed well away; I see the fraud of Pharma in total but find it very hard to believe there are no viruses as I suffer from 'cold sores,' and every few years an actual cold.
I clean out my sinus every night with netty pot (salt & bicarbonate of soda)so it has been a long time since I've had an actual cold. I used to get them every year. This proves to me that my nasopharyngeal area had been infected with something as I'm old now & should still be getting colds every year as my system breaks down.
There was not much evidence of radio waves, either. I don't think they were ever isolated, but we're using them every day.
There's never been any scientific proof that 'viruses' exist. Having symptoms does not prove viruses exist.
If I said aliens cause itchy scalps and then you had an itchy scalp this would not prove aliens exist.
We already went through a whole period where everyone said witches placing curses on people caused infertility, impotence or bad luck and then when people suffered infertility, impotence of bad luck we used that as proof of witchcraft and burned people at the stake.
Blaming 'viruses' for the flu and then locking down the world, making trillions of dollars in profits and injecting people with poison is really not that different to the whole witch burning period of history.
Virology only works if you start off with the assumption that 'viruses' exist, which is what all virology papers do. Their 'viral isolation' experiments are worth nothing because the exact same experiments will produce the same particles without any additional sample being added. It's all nonsense.
Radio waves can be measured independently and are part of objective reality (nature). They actually exist. Viruses exist only as an idea (a social construct/ superstition).
What separates those practicing 'science' from those practicing 'superstition' is the commitment to FALSIFY any existing hypothesis, theory, claim or assumption.
Anyone who labels the 'no virus' camp as 'deniers' or 'non believers' is already admitting they are operating in the realm of superstition and not science.
'Defending the faith' is the the antithesis of science.
the aim of science is to better understand reality
after for years of misery, no-virus cannot even explain why ivermectin has therapeutic and profilactic effects on a sybdrome of respiratory distress occurring in that period
I think we understood reality much better before Big Pharma took over the healthcare industry a century ago and replaced all the text books with their own. But before this happened the conventional wisdom was that sickness (fever, sweating, vomiting, diarrhoea, mucus etc) was the body's mechanisms of detox.
This means the symptoms of colds and flus are not the 'disease' but are actually the body curing itself from the effects of a poor lifestyle, or some kind of toxic insult (sudden or long term).
Under this model, the symptoms were a sign that the body was detoxing and this was a good thing. Symptoms, such as fevers and sweating, were supported with fasting, rest, enemas, saunas etc to help the body to detox completely and return to homeostasis.
The modern Big Pharma based model of healthcare flipped all this on its head, and changed the emphasis to SUPPRESSING these symptoms with various drugs and vaccines. This new model treated the body as a battleground, and the symptoms (the body's healing mechanisms) as the 'enemy' to be defeated with an arsenal of drugs.
Not only did this create profits for the drug companies, but it also aligned with the profit-motivated mindset of the industrialists. Sick, exhausted people suffering from a toxic overload could now be pumped full of drugs to suppress their symptoms (their detox mechanisms) so they could return to work as soon as possible, rather than spend weeks healing and detoxing properly and restoring their health in a meaningful way.
So it's true that drugs can often suppress symptoms. But by suppressing symptoms they are actually halting the body's detox processes, and preventing a proper recovery. At best the drug-based approach just kicks the can further down the road.
This is why people who treat colds and flus as an 'inconvenience' and swear by modern drugs often get sick over and over and over again. After years of blocking the healing process with drugs, and 'fighting' their own bodies, they often becomes so exhausted and overloaded with toxins that they enters a far more profound state of ill health which may even be irreversible.
The can has been kicked as far as it can go.
If your car starts billowing black smoke then obviously shoving a banana up the tailpipe will stop the symptoms. Under the Big Pharma healthcare model the disease ('black smoke syndrome') has now been cured. Any further problems arising from blocking the exhaust pipe will now be treated as a whole new disease, unconnected to the first.
The traditional approach would be to view the car as a whole, and to treat the underlying issue causing the black smoke, rather than just try to suppress the symptoms with a banana. Perhaps the oil needs a complete change or the filters need cleaning. This would be equivalent of fasting, enemas, or even something as simple as a month or two of complete rest and cutting out poisons like sugar, alcohol, drugs and coffee.
So whether or not a drug 'works' depends on what paradigm you are working under.
Even the 'no virus' crowd will admit that - in a pinch - drugs might offer short term benefits, such as blocking the symptoms of a cold long enough to let you present an important lecture at a conference. But in general, suppressing symptoms with drugs should be avoided because this approach is not addressing the root causes of the sickness, and is actually putting the body under more stress overall.
We know that 'covid' was a made up disease, planned well in advance, and based on an imaginary entity called a 'virus' which was (by their own admission) created by a computer and modelled with 30,000 smartphone apps.
And we know what happened in the hospitals because of the testimony of literally thousands of nurses, doctors, family members and independent journalists going in and filming. From the very beginning of the lockdowns we had real time reporting of empty hospitals, complete with footage, and nurses being laid off due to lack of work or given cleaning duties because they had nothing else to do.
Yes a few hospitals in some of the major cities like Elmhurst NYC might have been swamped by patients who had been instructed to turn up at the door if they felt flu like symptoms (most just had anxiety), but the rest of the hospitals in those cities, along with tents and hospital ships were basically empty.
We know that the only excess deaths in 2020 were caused by the 'covid' protocols themselves (midazolam, morphine, ventilators, starvation etc), but even these were highly localised and mostly restricted March/ April time, while the year as a whole saw average death rates (many countries such as Australia, Ireland and Spain saw lower than average death rates in 2020).
Any doctor claiming there was a 'pandemic' or a 'viral disease' in 2020 is either misguided or lying. There was no health emergency of any kind, other than that caused by the actions of politicians and doctors themselves.
The doctors who publicly called out the fake pandemic in 2020 were struck off and some even had to go and work abroad to feed their families. They will be recognised - in time - as the true heroes of 'covid'.
The doctors who said nothing, and took the money (up to $50,000 a week in some cities), will not be regarded as heroes, especially given that the illusion of a health crisis (a 'viral pandemic') in 2020 was used to convince so many people to take the vaccine.
It's in those doctors' interests to perpetuate the false narrative that there was some terrible health emergency in 2020, because that lets them off the hook. But all the evidence is clear that there was not.
Mees, thank you for the excellent article today. The human body is fantastic at healing, yet many are missing vital nutrients such as Vitamins D, C, and A, Zinc, and copper. Fenbendazole, Membendazole, and Ivermectin have been around for years, helping animals and humans worldwide for parasites sometimes mistaken cancer. Germ theory kills all heat radiation. With a microbiome with no beneficial bacteria and a leaky gut/brain axis, it's no wonder dementia is at high levels. We need the carbon-oxygen exchange for life. It is a global cooling, not warming, issue. The chemicals in the atmosphere cause choking and manmade warming up of the planet.
To physically prove aomething that does not exist....
An impossible request.
To physically prove something that does exist, is easy and will settle this debate.
"without the candlestick, the parlor and proffesor Plum, in investigation, are clues, not evidence to a deed."
The onus is on the "people" that profit and use (precautionary principle before use) the proposed singular viral entity.
To prove it is viable and safe.
A simple petri dish culture, with only one type of purified and identified entity, that encompasses and demonstrates ALL the abilties to alter another persons health through natural airbourne transmission means.
Also it's self replicating manner and origin birth of the viral protein for precreation, would be needed to identify the cause of the viral entity.
Due to the FACT....
that NO ONE....
EVER,
in the entire medical and biological fields can physicaly demonstrate a singular viral "particle" with all function is is proposed to have.
One sample..... the whole world!!!!!!
DOES NOT EXIST.
There is no other proof required, due to the opposition's failure to provide any reference of evidence to refute this claim, after multiple legal and medical requests, verifiable by Christine and the wonderful people you dismiss so shoddly.
Now,
Due to the fact you haven't in the slightess mentioned:
The electromagnetic biofield interaction,
optigenics,
pheromones,
spores, molds and fungus.
Heavy metal toxic exposure.
Chemical exposure.
Experimental injections using new technology.
Biogenetics
The Field effect.
Saline and placebo.
Control studies.
This rebuttle is an insult to all healers of advanced knowledge, regardless of the stance on "virus".
You are a product of your environment.
An indoctrinated past, is a history of sickness, with no cures in sight.
As for the documented fertilty problems with constant high dose Ivermectin use, but no need to worry about that.....either eh?
"Show me the Virus!" ~ not symptoms that have come from a million possible different exposures a day.
It's not rocket science, for a 100 Trillion dollar industry to do such a simple request?
Is it?
They don't,
because they ain't got it.
There can be no other reason at this point of enquiry.
The Terrain and Toxicology models of science, have far longer a history than the new pseudoscience of virology.
The truth......
Simply, at the turn of the century,
Toxicology was replaced with virology.
To hide the systematic population control through toxins secretly introduced into society, through consumables and the environment.
Thank you for covering this topic and I agree with both you and Meryl, that at the end of the day, we need to stay together with regard to the larger issues of the Technocratic takeover etc.
Belief that those with a degree in science know everything there is to know, without limit, is a form of Dunning-Kruger and has been used to evil effect during ConVid. Did all scientists agree with the government line on viruses or ConVid? I think not. The latter were just censored. Credentialism is the least persuasive argument. Follow the Science nowadays just means Follow the Money. It is not surprising that most scientist’s findings agree with the beliefs of those paying them.
The novirus crowd is more knowledgeable and understanding of the matter than anyone who believes the virus fraud. You cannot believe in viruses and contagion anymore when you actually know what you're talking about.
You just continue your nonsense. The burden of proof is on those who say there is something, not those who show they have never proven the something to exist… it’s reverse logic and super annoying. Germ theory, contagion has never been proven…. Period.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology". PLease read it!!
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments! You are supposedly supporting a scientific theory, I am giving you all the proof you ask for, and you just reject it blindly.
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
I am saddened to read that this is "finally, the final piece". My understanding is that for a good part of your life you have kept the door open to continually research and question world events - in the light of "The Predators vs The People". I fervently agree with your statement "Let's fight the Big War together." But who is to say that this is a petty quarrel. I think it is not, but rather a huge con game of the predators. I urge you to reconsider delving into this topic. Deeply questioning virology is very empowering. It allows us other opportunities to discover what makes us ill. The body is beautifully designed to heal itself. Given toxic environments, bad nutrition, fear, etc, of course, makes that more difficult. I think it is likely, that the Big War includes The Predators convincing us that tiny microbes exist and can invade our body and render us defenseless. Well, they also try to convince us that they have "cures".
As I have written in other comments and texts, nothing is written in stone. But the Big War is complex and demanding. This is a minor issue that has few followers and that consumes far too much time. Both camps know that Big Pharma is totally corrupted, and we all know the importance of terrain. I, together with more and more doctors and vets, know that in infectious diseases, germs are normally a necessary but not decisive factor - but beware the exceptions, see polio NY 1916. And read Kory, you will be surprised!
"they have NOT proven anything and have NOT published any scientific paper proving that specific viruses or all viruses do NOT exist" - Do you go out of your way to confuse and mislead people? It is not possible prove that no viruses exist anywhere on the planet, nor is there any onus on anyone to do that. We have shown that there is no scientific evidence that any virus does exist. For SARS-COV-2 specifically, 225 institutions in 40 countries were challenged and all failed. The history of virology has been dissected ad nauseum and shown to be based on logical fallacies and pseudoscience.
And yes, purification is a necessary first step, otherwise one is "sequencing" a mixed brew, not a specific particle. And virologists rarely even come close to purifying an alleged virus from any bodily fluid or tissue, let alone following through with sequencing, characterization and valid scientific experiments. They can't even show that a "viral genome" exists - they literally have to make them up on computers because none have ever been found intact, let alone an entire "virus" particle.
The only way to show that I am wrong is to cite valid evidence of a virus, but interestingly you prefer insults and fallacious arguments. So I challenge you to pick a study that you think proves the existence of a virus and walk your readers through the methods and explain how you believe a virus is proven by those methods. Are you afraid to do this? Your readers will see just how idiotic virology actually is.
"A second, endlessly repeated big “scientific” lie of no-virus is that virologists observe cytopathic effects only in inoculated cell cultures and not in uninoculated controls." - You are severely confused because this is the exact opposite of what we say. First of all, virologists to do show that they have a potential "virus" particle taken from a "host" with which to "inoculate" anything. Secondly, they stress a cell line via poisoning and starvation and this stress alone can cause the "cytopathic effect" that they pass off as evidence that they have "isolated the virus". And from the very beginning of this methodology - in 1954 Enders' "measles" study - it was seen that even cultures that were thought not to be "inoculated" still broke down. This has been demonstrated numerous times since then.
Re ivermectin, I also challenge you to cite scientific studies showing safety. I've challenged many people on this and no one has been able to. Regarding efficacy with "covid" this is impossible because there is no covid, only fraudulent tests. You'd first to prove that there is a coronavirus before you could even try to test for effectiveness of a treatment for "covid". Logic 101.
I am not joining the “scientific” trick that you always play, with the arguments you always give. That only leads to a useless repetition of arguments.
I have asked you something different, and you (the no-virus leaders) have not responded: to explain some important phenomena of our reality, some with great consequences for our health or economy, and you haven’t answered any of those questions:
1. What explains the consistent and significant lifesaving effects of ivermectine (proven in hundreds of studies by independent doctors) on patients with respiratory problems during the covid period?
2. What explains the consistent and significant prophylactic effect of ivermectine on respiratory diseases during the covid period, in people at risk or working in the health frontlines?
3. What explains the recent foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Europe? And, for this occasion I add another question, what should be done to prevent more cases? I know that you are not a veterinarian, but please give it a try. If you prefer a human case, how about the severe poliomyelitis outbreak in 1916 in New York, as described by Suzanne Humpfries?
Logic please. You have to first show that a phenomena exists before demanding an explanation. And you are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. You insist that viruses exist and ivermectin works and treats so-called "viral" illnesses, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence.
I have not made any claims as to how a so-called "foot and mouth" outbreak should be treated. It's up to you to show that "foot and mouth disease" is a distinct illness and is diagnosed in a valid manner and that it's caused by a virus, if that is your position.
This isn't complicated. The one who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. It seems you are afraid to cite a study because if you did I could show how illogical it is.
Christine, you write:
"Logic please. You have to first show that a phenomena exists before demanding an explanation. And you are attempting to reverse the burden of proof. You insist that viruses exist and ivermectin works and treats so-called "viral" illnesses, so the burden is on you to provide the evidence."
This evidence on ivermectin comes from Kory's book, already 2 years ago, but you have still not enough evidence for your "science trick" to say something useful to your followers on what to do if you get sick with respiratory complaints and an inflamatory syndrome in the lungs or other organs, an that's a shame:
As of this writing [2023], there are ninety-five studies from 1,023 scientists including 134,554 patients from twenty-seven countries that show ivermectin’s efficacy.1 (Please read that sentence again.) These stats are from c19early.org, a website that features the work of an anonymous group of expert statisticians and researchers and which has been an indispensable tool to clinicians and researchers around the world during Covid. From the onset, they established a rigid protocol for data analysis, such that their approach is consistent across all medicine evaluations, even the Big Pharma ones. They update their analyses daily as studies on emerging therapeutics appear in peer-reviewed literature or on preprint servers. Their scientific objectivity, consistency, and comprehensiveness in compiling clinical trial evidence for every single therapeutic studied in Covid is an unparalleled body of work, and much of it is extremely inconvenient to Big Pharma’s interests.
McCarthy, Jenna ; Kory, Pierre Daniel . War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic (pp. 169-170). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.
“97% of scientists apparently are convinced that humans are primarily responsible for global climate boiling change”.
There is no climate crisis. CO2 follows changes in atmospheric temperature, never leads it.
This, too, is all well funded lies for the gullible to accept without any due diligence on their own part.
Dear Dr. Yeadon, so nice to see you as well. I was so delighted to see your evolution circa 2021. Thank you for being a champion for truth and health.
Best
I am sorry, it seems you landed in the wrong discussion.
Yet I am curious why you recently declared that no viruses exist.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
You lost me at your 2nd paragraph. You are clearly not willing to engage in an honest look at the evidence for alleged viruses. What a pity for your readers who buy into your hand-waving.
Dear Mees,
Even if Ivermectin is efficacious, that does NOT prove virus. I prefer selenium, bee pollen, high does vitamin C, vitamin D3, and sun light. I also advocate that people take cell salts and adhere to their eating type as outlined by William Donald Kelley. No need to presume virus.
Best
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
F&M Disease could be somebody spraying poisons for fumigations.
Oh dear Mees,
Here we go again:
"Thus, without much ado and in the absence of sophisticated methods or techniques, Loeffler and Frosch became the first people to discover and describe that a contagious animal disease, foot and mouth disease, was caused by very small particles that somehow replicated in the host where they caused the typical lesions of the disease, from where infectious material could naturally be spread to other animals, but also by artificial means. This is what we now call a virus."
They discovered "very small particles" that they could not see? Somehow replicated? You mean, the cattle replicated said viruses in the way that my body replicates skin cells or hair?
Infectious material? But it were ONLY infectious via "serial inoculations"? So no natural transmission?
My friend, Loeffler and Frosch did not show that anything exists, much less is contagious. Just please show us evidence of FMD virus (how about a publication); and it would be nice to see an article in which authors offer us a falsifiable methodology to isolate said virus.
Best.
And by the way, the "black swan" argument is in relation to Bayesian logic and probability. If we see many events, ergo, sex between humans resulting in births of humans, whereas conjugal relations between lions do NOT result in births of humans, does NOT prove that lions cannot give birth to humans. But in terms of probability, I feel confident in predicting that when I see a pregnant lioness, she will not give birth to a human baby.
Such is an idea is unrelated to seeing any falsifiable method of Loeffler and Frosch. What do you think was their falsifiable methodology in finding ANY, natural, infectious agent, that travels from one ill bovine to another?
Thanks.
Of course John, supportive treatments are very useful, and are used in the FLCCC and similar protocols, e..g. https://imahealth.org/protocol/i-care-early-covid-treatment/.
May I ask you how you explain the preventive effect of ivermectin?
Dear Mees,
If we find that people who were ill (though we lack any record of definite symptoms) and they felt better after taking Ivermectin, even if I accept your premise, we have a few explanations:
(1) nutrition;
(2) suppression of symptoms; and
(3) other co-factors.
Note, arguably if people are given citrus - as to raise their vitamin C intake - as eliminates their illness, such does not prove that scurvy is caused by a virus.
What did ivermectin prevent, exactly? A false positive PCR test result?
Christine asked you for a run down of a paper showing how viruses are 'isolated' and you repeated the nonsense that because there are a large number of papers reviewed by people you admire on IVM that this shows IVM works and therefore viruses are real.
At the first hurdle IVM has not been shown to 'work' against symptoms allegedly from a collection of symptoms called 'covid'. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/ivermectin
Back to you.
Dear Christine, so nice to see you writing here. I hope you are well. I still tag you on Twitter. Best
Hi and thank you John :) I was kicked off twitter long ago and gave up on it. Cheers.
this may give you a first impression on the body of knowledge on foot and mouth disease, which you are throwing blindly out of the window for a dogmatic reason, not because you proved that all its details were false:
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease
Fred Brown 1
Affiliations
PMID: 12527434
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-1702(02)00268-x
Abstract
The history of research in foot-and-mouth disease falls into several distinct areas. In this short chapter I have highlighted what I consider to be the significant advances in our knowledge of the disease and its causal agent. 1. Loeffler and Frosch's landmark description in 1898 that the disease is caused by a filterable agent, the first observation that an animal disease could be caused by a virus. 2. The search for experimental laboratory animals, culminating in the demonstration by Waldmann and Pape of the susceptibility of the guinea pig in 1920 and the suckling mouse by Skinner in 1951. 3. The discovery of three distinct serotypes O, A and C in the 1920s by Vallée and Carré in France and by Waldmann in Germany, and the subsequent recognition in the 1940s and 1950s by the Pirbright group of the three Southern African Territory Types SAT 1-3, and Asia 1. 4. The development of in vitro techniques for the growth of the virus which have been crucial for the large-scale production of vaccines and for the accurate assay of virus infectivity. Early work by Hecke and the Maitlands in the early 1930s, followed by the crucial demonstration by Frenkel in 1947 that large amounts of the virus could be produced in surviving tongue epithelium, formed the basis for the vaccination programmes initiated in Europe in the 1950s. The subsequent development of cell lines has brought a remarkable degree of sophistication to the study of virus growth. 5. The impact of molecular studies on the structure of the virus and its mode of replication which have led to practical applications such as an in vitro test for vaccine potency, rapid diagnosis methods, and international epidemiological surveys. In addition, they have provided the means to design molecular vaccines.
This Wageningen University site has dozens of publications, and you can even ask questions to a human expert
https://www.wur.nl/en/research-results/research-institutes/bioveterinary-research/animal-diseases/virology/foot-and-mouth-disease-2.htm?_gl=1*1n9zaaq*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTcxNjE2ODAyMi4xNzQzMzQ4NjEw*_ga_SZ1PQDSPJD*MTc0MzM0ODYxMC4xLjAuMTc0MzM0ODYxMC4wLjAuMA..
Your first source is not even a study but a fake-history. And then you link to propaganda on a university website.
You are clearly not willing to cite any actual study, either because you know that there are zero legit studies that you can cite or because you aren't actually familiar with the methods used by virologists and aren't willing to risk finding out that you are wrong.
Yep ... lol. Mees finds the abstracts and post them. He did that with me once. So weird. So delusional. Oh well. I hope that people are waking up to the fraud of virology.
Maybe the widespread use of DDT caused the (so-called) “disease” named “polio”. Maybe (so-called) “polio” was never caused by a virus — either naturally occurring or laboratory made.
The etiology of a disease is NOT as clear cut as the (so-called) “virologists” (and the true believers in virology) claim.
Yours is certainly not the “last word” on the subject.
You could summarize all you've written this way:
"I don't have evidence and I trust the experts that my enemies tell me to trust."
Most people should simply admit to that, and then proudly step on to the meat grinder, as good citizens.
Christine Massey is completely right about your article. You start from a nonsensical position of demanding that somebody prove a negative, which is an impossibility. One cannot prove that there is no virus. The onus is 100% on those making claims for the existence of viruses to prove they exist by physical isolation and genetic characterization of such particles (not their phony baloney claims of isolation by simply making assertions that viruses exist in a culture in which cells die that die without a sample being added, as proven by Dr Stephan Lanka).
Anyone reading anything you have to say would be well advised to consider you as controlled opposition, whether through sheer ignorance or on purpose, as you are indeed just serving to confuse people about a very important issue that would make all of this go away if people would simply accept this and demand that the liars prove what they are claiming to be true.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
You argument is not valid.
The question is clear: "Where did Loefller go wrong?" He clearly demonstrated a phenomena that something sub 200nm gets replicated inside host, is infectious (when passed to new host) and the experiment can be repeated.
The proposed explanation calls the sub 200-nm something a virus, and postulates it has no ability to replicate on its own, it needs host to replicate it.
Instead of resorting to empty rhetoric, attack the experiment and demonstrate where it went wrong.
Dear Mees,
I can reply.
1) your premise is incorrect. As far as I can tell, you associate use of Ivermectin with "efficacy" in re respiratory problems; AND imply that ANYONE with ANY respiratory "problem" had such due to a VIRUS that was supposedly exorcized or neutralized by Ivermectin.
Just too many gaps and leaps in the argument. As Dr. Cowan is want to say, I do NOT have to PROVE why it is raining, in order to reject a declaration that rain comes from the urine of flying elephants.
Christine Massey is NOT engaged in any sort of trick. We want to see evidence, via a falsifiable method, that tends to prove that an exogenous, obligate intracellular parasite exists. Either you can say that you do not think that such an approach is necessary for proof; OR you can concede that you cannot show any falsifiable proof.
2) SAME response. Your premise is just flawed. I was in the FRONT LINES of the pandemic (living in Shanghai, Suzhou, and Changzhou China) - and did not even wear a mask. Neither I, nor my NEVER vaxxed family, ever got sick. No loss of smell, no respiratory issues. No Ivermectin. Lots of vitamin C, clean water, and good nutrition is OUR medicine.
3) People and animals get sick. But such does not PROVE virus. Furthermore, as you can read in the Flexner papers, they had to inject HUMAN material, directly into the skulls of monkeys in order to "spread" polio virus (which at that time meant DISEASE). See Flexner and Lewis (Nov 13 and Dec 4 1909). JAMA 1909; 53: 1639, 1913.
Flexer and Simon conceded that mere breathing, in no way, transferred any illness. And "polio" was first called infantile paralysis. See Scobey, Ralph, MD. 1951. “Is The Public Health Law Responsible For The Poliomyelitis Mystery?” Archive of Pediatrics (May); referencing Lovett (1911), Trans. Am. Pediat. Soc., 23: 175-185.
Children were often paralyzed or had flu-like symptoms from vaccination AND or exposure to toxic metals. Recall, there was even exposure to lead and arsenic in various sources.
And ONCE again, illness does not prove cause. You are just rejecting ALL tenets of basic logic. But hey, you can have any delusions or logical fallacies you want.
I hope your readers choose to reject illogic and instead, enjoy the scientific method as the preferred means to deduce cause.
Best
Great references.
I have mentioned Drs. Scobey and Biskind before. You can find several of their papers on whale.to
They are excellently well written and prolifically referenced.
Dear Tobin, yes, ALL praises to whale.to.
Through whale.to I found so many great works, Eleanor McBean, Fred Klenner, JB Biggs, et alia. The best find was William White (1885) the Story of a Great Delusion.
It took me about 4 years, but I fully annotated and edited White (1885). I formatted tables and even performed significance tests on some (especially data from Sweden).
Thanks to what I learned from White, I was able to cross-reference and build my library (I know a lot about the medical science of the 1800s - and how modern allopathic medicine is a house of sand of fog).
After reading what White (1885) said about Copenhagen, circa 1804, when I saw modern-day profs in Denmark claim that vaccination WORKED to stamp out smallpox, I posed a few questions:
(1) how did anyone distinguish smallpox from other rashes and patterns of pustules;
(2) what was the substance used in the "vaccination"?;
(3) where was the quality control.
As usual, the POS professors quit responding after I challenged their dogmatic claims, and asked for EVIDENCE! Funny how that works.
I would be glad to send you my version of White. I think that I added over 1,000 footnotes. He was weak on formal citations (lol).
biko97jcj (at) hotmail (dot) com
Best
1 & 2) mebe your ivermectin is a potent anti-inflammatory pill.
3) "Foot & mouth" prolly poisons in their food. Give them good food to eat not soylent green crap.
Prove that unicorns didn't cause COVID.
3 is easy. It's caused by vaccinations.
The burden of proof is on you. Prove to me that viruses exist. Thank you.
What explains this, what explains that, what explains this, what explains that, same author:
"Strange how so many no-virus people can't explain a big part of reality and then bring in unicorns ...."
a theory that can't explain (important aspects of) reality is useless - MTB
I'm not putting forward any theories. I'm just not accepting certain "explanations" that fall apart immediately when scrutinized.
Because you cannot prove a negative using any kind of logic whatsoever.
Try proving I don't own a house on Jupiter.
Generally speaking that's true. Negative proofs demand the presence of constrained context of what you're trying to prove. I can't prove you don't own a house on Jupiter, but I can prove you don't own a house on Jupiter built 100 years ago by construction crew using Wright brothers early flying apparatus to transport materials and labour to Jupiter to build your house.
Going back to viruses, no such constrained context is ever presented. As such proving their non-existence is a logical impossibility. Its not a matter of willing to do it or not
Thanks for clarifying that concept!
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
Again the 100s of studies from 'independent doctors' whatever they are do not show proven effects of IVM on respiratory symptoms let alone save lives. Even IVM supporters admit the evidence is weak. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/ivermectin
Nailed it. Your response was a great deal more thorough and logical than the authors. However, in-fighting, I have discovered through the Covid years is wasted time. People believe what they see. If they see a virus or evidence to suggest the reality of invisible agents of attack and malaise then that is what they will see.
I'm open to the idea of the existence of viruses but Mees mention of the importance of terrain is at least a bridge to agree to disagree.
I would add, people also believe what they don’t see - as in never having proven a virus exists using even electron microscopy, just shadows of something that ‘must be there’ … why can’t it be proven to us without a doubt? Why can’t all the world-famous virologists prove without reasonable doubt that viruses are the cause of maladies that must therefore get fought with by their vaccines? So many millions want this answered.
Virologists can't prove thelat viruses are the cause of maladies because virologists fall into 3 main groups:
1. The top of the top. Not only know that the whole thing is a massive scam but they actively manage it to ensure it continues to run in perpetuity. These are the gatekeepers, they only engage publicly within the scope of carefully crafted PR campaigns. If a mere mortal challenges them, he or she will be promptly ignored as unworthy of their time.
2. Those whose eyes have been opened, but keep quiet and just stare in their microscopes daily to keep their cushy jobs. You'll never hear a word from this group in the public space. They just hope the scam will run long enough for them to retire comfortably.
3. The idiots. This is the group which have learned a great deal about chemistry and biology, but have never heard of logical fallacies, epistemological proofs and ... how to do real science. You'll find them all over the place, defending virology as the pinnacle of scientific progress, demanding that no-virus people are locked away and generally ignoring any logical arguments put forth against their claims. The poster children for a Dunning-Kruger effect rundown.
By my observations, group number 3 is by far the most populous.
And then there's group 4 - the likes of Stefan Lanka, though I would not consider them virologists per-se.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
I don't see anything in that "lesson" which can be taken as a proof for the existence of any virus, FMD or not. Where exactly did they show that microscopic, replication competent, pathogenic particle was infecting and spreading among the animals? It's basically just a hypothesis that such particle was indeed causing the observable effects. No proof of its existence. Do you not make a difference between the two? You can't use observable effects to postulate existence of something without also performing independent experiment which is not based on said effects. Its all just theoretical and academic. No real proof of anything.
The problem with virology is that the multiplying and sick making viruses can't be seen under a microscope. But that changed 3 weeks ago, when the samba virus was discovered. So now you can have your cake and eat it.
#3 are all over in every single scientific field, especially in biology and life sciences. In addition they have no idea of statistics and what they do is data manipulation/massage day in day out. The rule of thumb: Publish or perish. So they publish... an exponentially growing number of junk, non replicable papers.
It's a sad state of art!
Excellent categorizations, Pav - and I would add that there’s been individuals belonging to groups 1 & 2 who had a change of heart (for various reasons) and moved into that 4th group who insist scientific integrity mustn’t ever allow a backing into faulty conclusions and biased narratives. I found this summary on Stefan Lanka - very interesting person indeed, thanks!
https://www.reddit.com/r/microbiology/comments/14c6ha1/did_virologist_stefan_lanka_really_say_that/
They have done this, for most diseases already 100 years ago
100 years ago? 1925? Hmm, please point to a SINGLE study, using a falsifiable method, that demonstrated natural transmission of a "virus" from a sick person to a healthy one - that caused the latter to fall ill.
Jenner (1799; 1800) inoculated disease (ingrafted it - by putting pus under the skin), yet he denied that cow pox was transmissible via inhalation. (His evidence included first-hand observations of nursemaids and babies). Ironically, in absolute contravention of modern viral-immunity theory, Jenner also found that one could suffer the ailment (as well as smallpox) multiple times. See Baron (1838: 265) reporting that Jenner said, "the lady of Mr. Gwinnett, ... had the small-pox five times”.
Best
Exactly, all we ask for is ANY falsifiable evidence. Still waiting ...
Please go to Jeremy Hammond, who has fought the scientific battle with Cowan and Kaufman, which in my view Hammond won quite easily, because he also understands their trick. I come from the other side, observations, clinical experience, and simple logic. I should have stopped my argument when I described the ultra-contagion case, with an old cloth into the first sick animal and then the whole herd round (on very large cattle ranches), so that the whole herd was synchronized at once.
You’re unable to boil down even to a single, compelling argument any evidence for the existence of a disease causing “viral pathogen”.
That’s ok if you don’t have the background to do this.
However, in that event, you simply embarrass yourself by your inability to give one example that isn’t arm waving.
I began 2020 believing the central narrative that you outlined.
Prompted to examine the evidence underwriting the claim that viruses exist, cause illnesses are transmissible & can be attenuated or even prevented, I concluded that every “pillar” of so-called evidence was fraudulent. It’s not even close. It’s not a mistake. It’s not about differing interpretations of the evidence. It’s overt fraud, for malign purposes.
Good luck!
Mike
Dear TG, it is NOT the inane people about whom I worry. Rather, the thugs with guns at airports, on trains, in cities who are willing to attack and beat us and imprison or kill us for failing to share their viral delusion.
Me too. The last round was incredibly tough but I fear there is more to come.
I have never denied the importance of terrain, see my first article
I acknowledged that in my response and glad to hear it.
Gosh, it’s really amazing the lengths these scientists will go to pull the wool over all our eyes. Not only writing millions of papers about viruses themselves, but going to the effort of making up a technology - the use of bacteriophages (viruses that eat bacteria) to aid in treatment of antibiotic resistant therapies - and writing thousands of papers about that, too! Just think of all the money and man hours that went into writing what the scientists must have known was complete bunk!
Gee, kind of makes you wonder how SO MANY people were so happy wasting their time and money on a hoax…
Who said that "these scientists" are purposely pulling the wool over our eyes? They have been indoctrinated like everyone else, and as in so many other professions they no doubt simply follow the protocols they are told to follow, don't bother to think critically or if they do they either leave the profession or keep their thoughts to themselves, don't look at the foundational evidence, assume that the foundational evidence is already in place, etc...
You appear to be a great example of how people tend to assume all is well. if I was wrong and you could cite valid evidence to show I'm wrong, surely you would have cited it instead of leaving a sarcastic comment.
All sorts of idiotic things are going on in society. Bankers are complete frauds yet millions and millions of people work for them, oblivious to the fraud of bank "loans".
at least we agree on the bankers ...
perfect!
I agree with most of what you said there, I really do. But I just do not think that actual researchers that work with viruses every day could be so deluded. How would their experiments make sense? They would have no internal validity. What is a phage, then? What causes Ebola symptoms?
I simply do not accept your demand that to prove the existence of viruses, that a virus must be isolated without any of the cells that are necessary for a virus to reproduce. To the lay man that might seem logical, but to those that know that viruses can do nothing on their own - that they MUST hijack the cellular machinery of host cell in order to reproduce - your demand is impossible.
It’s akin to asking for a plant to be grown, but stipulating there can be no sunlight, water or growth medium (ie soil) used to grow it, and then declaring that plants don’t exist because they cannot be produced independently.
please apply for a certificate at Kruger Dunning
That goes for everyone who still believes viruses are real and disease can be contagious
Not quite sure why you would suggest that to me, unless you thought that I was serious I suppose
Can u please explain how a phage under the genetic virus model can eat bacteria?
Note, viruses it is claimed have no metabolism, no motility, do not eat, do not defecate, do not move, have no moving parts, have no motor ability, have no enzyme ability, have no energy needs....
Sorry Tobin, do you really don't how viruses work?
They get into the cell and then program the multiplication of their RNA or DNA by the cell. The same in plants, animals humans, bacteria.
By themselves they are "a chemical molecule" (term by Wimmer, who synthesized polio virus)
In the past the same work was done by the priesthood class. Thousands of hours spent in writing and translating "divine" literature. Money, time and effort put in constructing temples and churches. Wars instigated against infidels... Evidently nothing has changed much. Just the format and presentation is different.
Ok, you took me seriously and I was joking.
But, in those cases, most of the people who laboured to do those things presumably believed they were labouring in service to God. So do you think the virologists really believe in viruses, or are they lying? If they really believe, who started the supposed deception?
I was just drawing parallels between religion and The Science. So much of science today is basically scientific mythology. Wishful thinking dressed in a white coat.
I’m not sure about “so much” of science. Certain areas of research with clear agendas behind them, sure, like vaccine research and climate change research. But “Science” is a big topic and I would be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
In the case of virology, there isn't any baby to throw with the bathwater. It's a pseudoscience based on a heap of logical fallacies and unsubstantiated claims. Here, riddle me this one thing. Virology claims that there are over 200 viruses that infect humans. Amazingly however, whenever a virologist sets out to find a specific virus in a sick person, their "isolation" process always, always finds that specific virus and that specific virus only! With all the samples they take and examine, there's never ever a sign of any other viruses lurking in the cells, just the one they wanted to find. Ain't that something?!? Mother Nature is so helpful 😄 🤣 😂
But it gets even crazier. Human respiratory viruses are "isolated" by infecting and observing cytopathic effects in monkey kidney cells. Not human lung cells? Not even monkey lung cells? Kidney cells. That's very convenient and is by design, because kidney cells have propensity to break up and create cellular debris when mixed with various other concoctions. Virologists then shout "eureka", point to the various debris particles and say "we found the virus". That's your typical virus "isolation" process. Nothing was ever isolated. On the contrary, more stuff was added to the human tissue sample...
You really can't make this stuff up. It's beggar's belief. If civil engineers did science like that, there will be collapsing bridges and falling buildings every day of the year. 🤦♂️
Yes sir, this time you are right, many scientists are employed, by the powers that be, as the new priests. The problem is that you throw the baby away with the bathwater.
Fun facts: Watson and Crick were phage virologists. Their colleague and sometimes collaborator Sydney Brenner also used phage mutants to elegantly demonstrate that the genetic code is composed of triplets.
"phage virologists"?
Why can't you just come and say it: They was phageologists.
Is this your work, Christine?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22Massey%20C%22%5BAuthor%5D
Most of those studies are not me. You are picking up a "Conner Massey", other Christine Masseys, etc. This list is more accurate:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Christine-Massey-59292070
What then, is a cold?
You don't know what a cold is? Or do you mean, "what causes a cold?"
Dear JOC, good question, "what IS a cold?" Fever, no fever? Stuffy nose, runny nose? Dry cough, wet cough, no cough? Headache, no headache? Diarrhea or constipation? Lots of variables. Oh, by the way, there is a really strong correlation with alcohol consumption, ingesting sugar/sweets, and rapid/extreme changes in ambient temp and humidity. The latter was noted by Al-Razi, circa 910. Best.
Viruses are defined as contagious particles which spread disease through close contact and sharing of bodily fluids. But over 200 real world studies over the last century involving all sorts of disgusting attempts to infect healthy volunteers by exposing them to sick people and their snot have consistently failed to demonstrate contagion.
Contagion theory has been well and truly disproved, and so one of the key properties of these alleged particles (if not their defining feature) does not exist in nature. This shifts 'viruses' out of the realm of objective reality (nature) and into the realm of superstition, social construct, imagination and in recent years we might also add the realm of CGI.
It's worth noting at this point that viruses, and the field of virology, were invented in the absence of any proof that such a particle actually exists. 'Viruses' were invented before we had electron microscopes capable of imaging these hypothetical critters.
The 'no virus' camp are not actually attempting to disprove the existence of 'viruses', they are just waiting patiently at the bus stop waiting for scientific proof of viruses to arrive.
We know from control experiments (performed by the same labs that big pharma uses) that the particles which are often labelled 'viruses' (measles, HIV, SARS COV2 etc) can be produced by performing standard virology cell culture experiments without any other materials added to the culture (no 'viral sample'). This proves the particles are produced by the procedure itself which renders the entire field of virology meaningless and fraudulent.
Virology cell culture ('viral isolation') experiments are like a camera which photographs aliens on the moon, but does so even when the lens cap is left on.
So not only are these particles present in sterile cell cultures (and kidney specialists warned us years ago that kidney cells breaking down produce particles identical to so called 'viruses') but the alleged properties of these particles (pathogenic and contagious) have also been debunked over and over again with hundreds of contagion experiments.
So what we are left with is a bunch of inert, boring, ever present particles which are basically just cellular dandruff, which virologists have imbued with imaginary, superstitious properties - presumably to help prop up the failing germ theory model of disease upon which the entire drug and vaccine industry is based.
History is full of various superstitions and myths which were used to make money and control the masses through fear. Virology appears to be just the latest superstition used in that way.
The only thing which virology proves is that human nature has not changed.
Here is how virology and 'public health' looks to anyone who is immune to superstitious fear mongering. This is also how 'covid' will look to future generations studying history.
1. Aliens are on the moon
2. These aliens cause people's legs to explode.
3. When these aliens arrive on Earth they hide in glasses of milk.
4. Over 200 real world experiments have failed to demonstrate exploding leg syndrome in volunteers exposed to glasses of milk.
5. The alien experts use special cameras to photograph the aliens.
6. These cameras produce images of the aliens even when the lens cap is left on.
7. Fear of aliens from the moon hiding in glasses of milk and causing legs to explode is worth billions annually for all the industries who claim to offer protection from such a threat.
8. People who are skeptical of all this bullshit are accused of 'being unscientific' and 'pushing a narrative'.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
It's easier to understand when you remember that virology as a field was invented before any so called 'virus' was ever discovered. It was invented to prop up the germ theory model of disease which was already falling apart at the time. They just said "oh well there must be a smaller 'germ' which we cannot even see".
Then after the electron microscope was invented they pointed arrows at the first tiny particles they could see and said "Ah that must be them!"
This is not science.
The particles they have labelled 'viruses' are produced from sterile cell cultures with or without a supposed 'viral sample' being added to the mix. The CPE is also observed with or without a supposed 'viral sample' added to the cell culture. And the genomes can also be constructed from sterile cell cultures too using the standard genome assembly software.
So all the standard 'proofs' of the existence of 'viruses' are a load of nonsense because virology is (and was never) a scientific field. The methods for 'proving' viruses will provide the proofs regardless, which makes virology unfalsifiable. Until there is a falsifiable method for proving the existence of these imaginary particles virology will remain in the arena of superstition and not science.
So your question makes no sense. Farm animals and people sometimes get sick. Asking me to debunk 'viruses' as the cause is the same as me asking you to debunk 'flying unicorns' as the cause.
The most common reasons for animals or people to get sick is some kind of environmental poisoning, or dietary deficiency, or stress, or psychosomatic cause, or (in the case of 'asymptomatic cases') some kind of bogus 'test' which is used to create a health scare and a market for drugs.
Before we speculate on whether 'viruses' might cause people or animals to get sick we should first establish that such particles exist in nature (as defined). So far nobody has ever been able to provide such proof. All virology experiments have been falsified by performing their respective controls (CPE, EM imaging, genomic assembly etc).
I am sure you have a PhD in no virus, as your piece is full of lies. The first sentence makes it already clear:
It's easier to understand when you remember that virology as a field was invented before any so called 'virus' was ever discovered. It was invented to prop up the germ theory model of disease which was already falling apart at the time. They just said "oh well there must be a smaller 'germ' which we cannot even see".
The first virus in animals was discovered by Loeffler, as I describe in my post A 128--year old lesson. It was a surprise discovery (although tobacco mozaic virus had been discovered 5 years earlier).
Please stop parroting the bizar lies that Cowan et al have been teching you to repeat as a robot.
Anyone can 'discover' viruses because the methods for 'discovering' them do not adhere to the scientific method (non falsifiable).
I could discover the 'scurvy virus' using standard virology procedures, but that does not mean the scurvy virus exists in nature. It just means I can produce CPE, an EM image and a genome.
Virology is perfectly valid on its own terms, but those terms are not the terms of science. It is in the same category as 'reading tea leaves' but with expensive (but pointless) equipment.
Your position (which is also the establishment position) assumes these methods are valid but they are not. Once you realise the methodology is unscientific (as demonstrated consistently by control experiments) everything downstream from virology experiments must be considered invalid.
Proving X with a false methodology is not proof of anything.
if you want to write a book on no-virus, please go ahead but not on this site
Great reply, you really showed him
"Virology cell culture ('viral isolation') experiments are like a camera which photographs aliens on the moon, but does so even when the lens cap is left on."
Love it!
I would like to ask the author what logical pathway he purposes we use to prove the non-existence of viruses.
Give it a try Mees. See if you can come up with something.
I really don't know why I am wasting more time with you.
It is totally unheard and unprecedented when a small group of people without academic publications on the subject, declares in one sweep that the whole body of virological science since 130 years is null and void.
You can only debunk it piece by piece, just as other truthers did with the moonlandings, 9/11, the Kennedy assasinations, etc.
Why do people get old? Viruses!
Yeah, viruses are also the causal agents of pea-brain.
So take the quackzine, so you don’t end up with pea-brain.
sorry my playtime is over, I have no work on the no-virus hoax...
It is perhaps a "testament" to an education system which produces highly schooled academics, scientists and PhDs who have learned a great deal of factual "knowledge" about a subject and yet have not learned how to think properly. That's not a hyperbole. Some scientists quite literally don't know how to think without committing logical fallacies. They don't know what those fallacies are, how to recognise them and how to avoid them. It's a really sad state of affairs.
You can debunk piece by piece or you can just demonstrate that the very foundation of the whole body of virological science is logically unsound and is thus pseudoscientific. You really don't need to debunk the entire virology when you can just show that it's built upon logical fallacies.
It matters not how advanced, widespread and long lived the field of virology is. Insisting that it does falls within various fallacious logical appeals, e.g "appeal to common belief", "appeal to authority", ... etc.
You see? Human knowledge is derived from beliefs once those beliefs become justified. That's the epistemological meaning of the word "knowledge". And beliefs can only ever become truthfully justified when they've been shown to contain no fallacious reasoning. Unfortunately, the very foundation of virology is itself a fallacy - the presumption that a "virus" exists and causes disease is used to design the entire empirical field (all experiments, tests, etc...). You really can't do that in science. It's called circular reasoning. One must first prove that the particle called a virus exist, then prove that this particle causes disease. Not design experiments which assume that the particle exist and never ever try to disprove the results of such experiments. With this kind of reasoning I can prove to you that even fairies and leprechauns exist.
just have a bit of patience, and I will show you how wrong you are
I'd love to be shown how wrong I am and have the opportunity to discover the truth. Unfortunately, after 4 years of reading and debating with both camps, I've yet to see a single coherent, logically sound argument coming from the field of virology. Not one.
I have to admit I am at a stage where I read virology papers and can't stop laughing. It really is that bad. Like reading something written by kids at the kindergarten... or worse.
in the meantime, try Jeremy Hammond's collection of virus papers.
I agree with the premise that to dismantle something so extensive, so entrenched, one needs to take a piece by piece approach. That is why I have encouraged you to take a look at the literature of Drs. Ralph M Scobey and Morton S. Biskind on polio from the 1950s, or at the work of the Perth medical group on HIV for example. You can find a terrible lot of very detailed examination by competent medical experts in both places.
http://whale.to/a/scobey_h.html
http://whale.to/a/biskind_h.html
theperthgroup.com
Dear commenter
I have been answering hundreds of comments on my no-virus articles and was often insulted. I have made two conclusions, which are now my standard answer (personalized answers will be the exception):
1. The leaders of team no-virus are clearly acting in bad faith: all their publications are misleading and riddled with contradictions, falsifications, omissions, etc. These errors can’t be random and the only explanation that I can give is that they are part of a psy-op, set up and financed by The Powers That Be. That is nothing new: it has been seen in all opposition movements, i.e., cognitive infiltration as described by Cass Sunstein: … agents should join those online communities and promote a wide range of additional theories, often rather absurd ones, thereby stirring up internal conflicts, diverting the members into theoretical dead-ends, and heavily discrediting them with the broader public.
2. The followers of team no-virus often make ad hominem attacks, probably because they learned it from Tom Cowan, and because their backgrounds in medicine and virological science are – with rare exceptions – insufficient for an academic discussion. Yet their attitude is rarely humble. For the same reason they are also unable to spot the enormous deceit by the leaders. Most of these rude attackers have a quite recent substack account without original posts, but with a facade of restacks. Some have even offered me money, or cooperation with their leaders in research projects. Again, all of this smells psy-op.
And of course, nobody has taken the Loeffler challenge. Please tell me what else can explain his results, if not a virus (a submicroscopic agent replicating in the host)?
On the misleading publications:
After a quick screening I spotted 3 mayor deceptions in Can you catch a cold, see my post The proof of NO no-virus.
On The Contagion Myth, see this polite but devastating critique https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/craig-holdrege-and-jon-mcalice/some-comments-on-the-contagion-myth
Then there are the hundreds of pages of polite and patient, and very detailed and rational refutations of no-virus theory by Jeremy Hammond,
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/articles/collections/virus/
I am not saying that Covid was not a hoax or a scam (it was), or that vaccines are good (they are dangerous and largely unnecessary), or that viruses are a mayor health risk for humans (that was long ago), or that the pharmaceutical industry is benevolent: in my book I call them Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death. I am just saying that viruses do exist (including Covid19), that they can be modified into bioweapons, and that anti-viral drugs can be lifesaving.
What is the common cold? or Flu if there are no contagions? Why does everybody come down with them at the same time? (with a few exceptions)
I will be brief because I'm not supposed to write a book..... but there are dozens of plausible factors that cause (some) people to get sick at the same time. Environmental triggers, seasonal changes (daylight, temperature, humidity etc), psychological factors, stress, anxiety, social conformity etc.
The one factor we know through scientific studies (hundreds of real world studies) which does NOT cause people to get sick together is 'contagion' via snot, coughing or physical touch.
We also know from the studies that simply telling a person they have been 'infected' is enough on its own to trigger them to express real symptoms of a cold. And telling them later on it was a mistake and they did not actually get infected can also cause those symptoms to disappear within an hour or two.
So belief plays a huge part in it. Those who believe they are susceptible will be more likely to trigger their bodies to go into 'detox mode' (which is what a cold or flu is). We might draw a comparison with menstruation which is another form of detox (shedding the old lining of the uterus) which also often occurs in sync.
Some studies suggest families will often detox together, but with the exception of one family member who remains the equivalent of a 'designated driver'. This is a common scenario. Often the caregiver does not get the flu while the rest of the family does. Then after they finish their detox the remaining family member goes through their detox process alone.
Science does not require an alternative explanation before dumping a false theory. We know 'viral contagion' is false because of hundred of studies. We don't need to know exactly how and why people get sick. The majority of the time we don't get sick after being around sick people. In a city you pass by sick people every day if you use public transport. Conformation bias makes us only pay attention to that one time a year we do get sick after riding the subway.
Just explain me the magic cloth that transmits foot and mouth disease, se my answer to Mike Yeadon.
Or explain why docotors and nurses died with the same symptoms as their patients when covid was starting, source Pierre Kory's book. What that a belief?
Mees, your question can he construed as shifting the burden of proof. Note that rejecting a positive claim ("viruses exist") isn't the same as making a negative claim ("viruses do not exist"). It may appear so from practical standpoint, i.e. we can all live our lives as if viruses don't exist, but the philosophical burden of proof can not be shifted to those who rejected the positive claim. It is up to those who made the claim to address the points made in the rejection, not to demand proof for an opposite claim which was never made. In fact, a negative claim can not even be made as it would be impossible to prove.
Virus believers also fall into the traps of appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because we don't know what may be causing disease, it doesn't mean its caused by an entity for which we have no proof. You're basically trying to explain the lightning in the sky with Zeus' thunderbolt (because you have no knowledge how electrostatic charges interact in the clouds). Its the same thing here. We have no proof for the existence of viruses, but we believe they exist because we attribute the disease to them.
A few friends of mine were place on Covid wards. All medics. All unjabbed. They could not be laid off as their speciality is much needed (e.g anaesthesiologist, internist). They never got infected with CONvid.
The observation of sick cows does not make virology or contagion any more valid from a scientific standpoint, just as sick cows does not prove space aliens or evil spells.
The first step is to verify if the cows are really sick. Most of the cows that were slaughtered were perfectly healthy and Captain Panic (Neil Ferguson) was one of the official fear mongers (see also Swine Flu in 2009).
For those cows that were genuinely sick I've heard their symptoms were most likely caused by some a new treatment which poisoned them - I forget what it was but it made sense when I read it. Similar to DDT and polio.
Also the needless mass slaughter of cows destroyed many small family farms and helped the consolidation of farming into the hands of Big Agra. So there is that. It's all basically the same MO, same scam, same fake science, same characters spreading fear.
If any doctors or nurses died unexpectedly in 2020 they should be treated individually with post mortems. In 2020 post mortems were banned, putting 'covid' on the death certificate earned hospitals huge bonuses. FOIA requests have revealed zero deaths among medical staff in some countries in 2020 so if any doctors or nurses died they were an anomaly.
Plus none of this makes virology valid. Control experiments have already exposed virology as a fraud so whatever killed people in 2020 we already know it had nothing to do with 'viruses' which are not real.
you certainly go the most out of your academic freedom for your "studies" when you confused foot and mouth disease with BSE and and proposed "treatment with post mortems". Very profound and impressive, you certainly earn a Kruger Dunning PhD!
We have more than a century of claims about imaginary 'viruses' causing all sorts of health issues. What's lacking is scientific evidence to back up these claims. In the absence of hard evidence, virology goes into the category of a superstition.
These various superstitious (ie unscientific) claims do all tend to blend into one, because at their root they are all the same basic scam - and they're all being perpetrated by the same scammers (the ones making money selling drugs and destroying independent businesses). As I said, I can't remember the details but I've never found any credible science behind any of these claims so in that sense they are all the same.
Also, a common tactic by used by Big Pharma is to constantly reclassify symptoms, by either grouping them together into one diagnosis to create the illusion of an epidemic or pandemic.... or splitting them apart into different diagnoses to create the impression that an epidemic or pandemic has been cured or prevented.
Most symptoms experienced by cows or humans (when they are not just meaningless 'tests' and 'asymptomatic cases') are the result of some kind of deficiency or some kind of poisoning (or both). So the very concept of singular, distinct, monocausal diseases is itself part of the scam. As Florence Nightingale wrote a century and a half ago, there are no specific diseases, there are only disease conditions..... meaning all disease is fundamentally an expression of the body's numerous strategies and mechanisms to restore balance and compensate for some deficiency or toxic overload.
Inventing a name for something does not make it 'real'. For example 'covid' does not refer to any new set of symptoms and is merely a catch all term for existing conditions such as the seasonal flu. Nothing 'new' happened in 2020, other than the invention of a new name 'covid' and a bunch of meaningless 'tests' which were never tests at all.
So anyway, if you can produce scientific evidence of a 'virus' causing any kind of sickness you are free to present the evidence and win the argument. Plus you will be the first person in history to have discovered such evidence.
I'm not a scientist; saw the fraud of the Covid shots immediately and stayed well away; I see the fraud of Pharma in total but find it very hard to believe there are no viruses as I suffer from 'cold sores,' and every few years an actual cold.
I clean out my sinus every night with netty pot (salt & bicarbonate of soda)so it has been a long time since I've had an actual cold. I used to get them every year. This proves to me that my nasopharyngeal area had been infected with something as I'm old now & should still be getting colds every year as my system breaks down.
There was not much evidence of radio waves, either. I don't think they were ever isolated, but we're using them every day.
There's never been any scientific proof that 'viruses' exist. Having symptoms does not prove viruses exist.
If I said aliens cause itchy scalps and then you had an itchy scalp this would not prove aliens exist.
We already went through a whole period where everyone said witches placing curses on people caused infertility, impotence or bad luck and then when people suffered infertility, impotence of bad luck we used that as proof of witchcraft and burned people at the stake.
Blaming 'viruses' for the flu and then locking down the world, making trillions of dollars in profits and injecting people with poison is really not that different to the whole witch burning period of history.
Virology only works if you start off with the assumption that 'viruses' exist, which is what all virology papers do. Their 'viral isolation' experiments are worth nothing because the exact same experiments will produce the same particles without any additional sample being added. It's all nonsense.
Radio waves can be measured independently and are part of objective reality (nature). They actually exist. Viruses exist only as an idea (a social construct/ superstition).
What separates those practicing 'science' from those practicing 'superstition' is the commitment to FALSIFY any existing hypothesis, theory, claim or assumption.
Anyone who labels the 'no virus' camp as 'deniers' or 'non believers' is already admitting they are operating in the realm of superstition and not science.
'Defending the faith' is the the antithesis of science.
the aim of science is to better understand reality
after for years of misery, no-virus cannot even explain why ivermectin has therapeutic and profilactic effects on a sybdrome of respiratory distress occurring in that period
I think we understood reality much better before Big Pharma took over the healthcare industry a century ago and replaced all the text books with their own. But before this happened the conventional wisdom was that sickness (fever, sweating, vomiting, diarrhoea, mucus etc) was the body's mechanisms of detox.
This means the symptoms of colds and flus are not the 'disease' but are actually the body curing itself from the effects of a poor lifestyle, or some kind of toxic insult (sudden or long term).
Under this model, the symptoms were a sign that the body was detoxing and this was a good thing. Symptoms, such as fevers and sweating, were supported with fasting, rest, enemas, saunas etc to help the body to detox completely and return to homeostasis.
The modern Big Pharma based model of healthcare flipped all this on its head, and changed the emphasis to SUPPRESSING these symptoms with various drugs and vaccines. This new model treated the body as a battleground, and the symptoms (the body's healing mechanisms) as the 'enemy' to be defeated with an arsenal of drugs.
Not only did this create profits for the drug companies, but it also aligned with the profit-motivated mindset of the industrialists. Sick, exhausted people suffering from a toxic overload could now be pumped full of drugs to suppress their symptoms (their detox mechanisms) so they could return to work as soon as possible, rather than spend weeks healing and detoxing properly and restoring their health in a meaningful way.
So it's true that drugs can often suppress symptoms. But by suppressing symptoms they are actually halting the body's detox processes, and preventing a proper recovery. At best the drug-based approach just kicks the can further down the road.
This is why people who treat colds and flus as an 'inconvenience' and swear by modern drugs often get sick over and over and over again. After years of blocking the healing process with drugs, and 'fighting' their own bodies, they often becomes so exhausted and overloaded with toxins that they enters a far more profound state of ill health which may even be irreversible.
The can has been kicked as far as it can go.
If your car starts billowing black smoke then obviously shoving a banana up the tailpipe will stop the symptoms. Under the Big Pharma healthcare model the disease ('black smoke syndrome') has now been cured. Any further problems arising from blocking the exhaust pipe will now be treated as a whole new disease, unconnected to the first.
The traditional approach would be to view the car as a whole, and to treat the underlying issue causing the black smoke, rather than just try to suppress the symptoms with a banana. Perhaps the oil needs a complete change or the filters need cleaning. This would be equivalent of fasting, enemas, or even something as simple as a month or two of complete rest and cutting out poisons like sugar, alcohol, drugs and coffee.
So whether or not a drug 'works' depends on what paradigm you are working under.
Even the 'no virus' crowd will admit that - in a pinch - drugs might offer short term benefits, such as blocking the symptoms of a cold long enough to let you present an important lecture at a conference. But in general, suppressing symptoms with drugs should be avoided because this approach is not addressing the root causes of the sickness, and is actually putting the body under more stress overall.
you make many good points, but you have absolutely no clue about what independent doctors did during Covid. Read Kory's book, if you dare!
We know that 'covid' was a made up disease, planned well in advance, and based on an imaginary entity called a 'virus' which was (by their own admission) created by a computer and modelled with 30,000 smartphone apps.
And we know what happened in the hospitals because of the testimony of literally thousands of nurses, doctors, family members and independent journalists going in and filming. From the very beginning of the lockdowns we had real time reporting of empty hospitals, complete with footage, and nurses being laid off due to lack of work or given cleaning duties because they had nothing else to do.
Yes a few hospitals in some of the major cities like Elmhurst NYC might have been swamped by patients who had been instructed to turn up at the door if they felt flu like symptoms (most just had anxiety), but the rest of the hospitals in those cities, along with tents and hospital ships were basically empty.
We know that the only excess deaths in 2020 were caused by the 'covid' protocols themselves (midazolam, morphine, ventilators, starvation etc), but even these were highly localised and mostly restricted March/ April time, while the year as a whole saw average death rates (many countries such as Australia, Ireland and Spain saw lower than average death rates in 2020).
Any doctor claiming there was a 'pandemic' or a 'viral disease' in 2020 is either misguided or lying. There was no health emergency of any kind, other than that caused by the actions of politicians and doctors themselves.
The doctors who publicly called out the fake pandemic in 2020 were struck off and some even had to go and work abroad to feed their families. They will be recognised - in time - as the true heroes of 'covid'.
The doctors who said nothing, and took the money (up to $50,000 a week in some cities), will not be regarded as heroes, especially given that the illusion of a health crisis (a 'viral pandemic') in 2020 was used to convince so many people to take the vaccine.
It's in those doctors' interests to perpetuate the false narrative that there was some terrible health emergency in 2020, because that lets them off the hook. But all the evidence is clear that there was not.
Mees, thank you for the excellent article today. The human body is fantastic at healing, yet many are missing vital nutrients such as Vitamins D, C, and A, Zinc, and copper. Fenbendazole, Membendazole, and Ivermectin have been around for years, helping animals and humans worldwide for parasites sometimes mistaken cancer. Germ theory kills all heat radiation. With a microbiome with no beneficial bacteria and a leaky gut/brain axis, it's no wonder dementia is at high levels. We need the carbon-oxygen exchange for life. It is a global cooling, not warming, issue. The chemicals in the atmosphere cause choking and manmade warming up of the planet.
Interesting article.
Very elusive and clever.
To physically prove aomething that does not exist....
An impossible request.
To physically prove something that does exist, is easy and will settle this debate.
"without the candlestick, the parlor and proffesor Plum, in investigation, are clues, not evidence to a deed."
The onus is on the "people" that profit and use (precautionary principle before use) the proposed singular viral entity.
To prove it is viable and safe.
A simple petri dish culture, with only one type of purified and identified entity, that encompasses and demonstrates ALL the abilties to alter another persons health through natural airbourne transmission means.
Also it's self replicating manner and origin birth of the viral protein for precreation, would be needed to identify the cause of the viral entity.
Due to the FACT....
that NO ONE....
EVER,
in the entire medical and biological fields can physicaly demonstrate a singular viral "particle" with all function is is proposed to have.
One sample..... the whole world!!!!!!
DOES NOT EXIST.
There is no other proof required, due to the opposition's failure to provide any reference of evidence to refute this claim, after multiple legal and medical requests, verifiable by Christine and the wonderful people you dismiss so shoddly.
Now,
Due to the fact you haven't in the slightess mentioned:
The electromagnetic biofield interaction,
optigenics,
pheromones,
spores, molds and fungus.
Heavy metal toxic exposure.
Chemical exposure.
Experimental injections using new technology.
Biogenetics
The Field effect.
Saline and placebo.
Control studies.
This rebuttle is an insult to all healers of advanced knowledge, regardless of the stance on "virus".
You are a product of your environment.
An indoctrinated past, is a history of sickness, with no cures in sight.
As for the documented fertilty problems with constant high dose Ivermectin use, but no need to worry about that.....either eh?
"Show me the Virus!" ~ not symptoms that have come from a million possible different exposures a day.
It's not rocket science, for a 100 Trillion dollar industry to do such a simple request?
Is it?
They don't,
because they ain't got it.
There can be no other reason at this point of enquiry.
The Terrain and Toxicology models of science, have far longer a history than the new pseudoscience of virology.
The truth......
Simply, at the turn of the century,
Toxicology was replaced with virology.
To hide the systematic population control through toxins secretly introduced into society, through consumables and the environment.
Regards,
Michael
Intriguing mix of deep poetry and high science!
It would be very easy to add the therapeutic and prophylactic use of ivermectin!
Understood, no worries.
Every physiology is different, from age to health, movement to mindset.
I wouldn't be surpirised if there were certain limited beneficial uses for Ivermectin, dosage and application is everything, in everything.
Although the trust of any pharmaceutical product, after many mishaps throughout the century, should be considered.
Something the recent medical treatments have ignored.
I would imagine a 8-900MHz squarewave signal would encourage manifestation.
Contrapuntal in faculty..😂
Thank you for the response.
Cheers,
Michael.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
Thank you for covering this topic and I agree with both you and Meryl, that at the end of the day, we need to stay together with regard to the larger issues of the Technocratic takeover etc.
Christian Drosten & The Fraud Behind COVID 19 PCR Testing
https://principia-scientific.com/christian-drosten-the-fraud-behind-covid-19-pcr-testing/
Very good post.
https://substack.com/@danielgervais1
Meryl Nass is affiliated with the Rockefeller Foundation.
In reality Meryl Nass is a supporter of population reduction.
Why do all the texts of Mees Baaijen feel deceitful? This is not a good sign.
What is the proof for your allegation about Nass?
Where did you find deceit in my writings?
The fact that you present yourself as someone who knows stuff, but then defends the virology fraud, is very deceitful
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
A BIG AMEN to your article and closing statement dear @meesBaaijen !
Rubbish article Name calling is a waste of my time. Do the science.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
There are no viruses, so that goes for FMD as well
Thank you fr your important scientific contribution to this discussion!
Science supposed to be about debate and repeatable experiments providing comparable results.
In a post Covid World it is more Scientism than Science....Kman, https://tinyurl.com/DIGILEAKWORLD
I have yet to encounter a "no virus"-er who was not a chronic Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
Belief that those with a degree in science know everything there is to know, without limit, is a form of Dunning-Kruger and has been used to evil effect during ConVid. Did all scientists agree with the government line on viruses or ConVid? I think not. The latter were just censored. Credentialism is the least persuasive argument. Follow the Science nowadays just means Follow the Money. It is not surprising that most scientist’s findings agree with the beliefs of those paying them.
I think that Kruger Dunning is a cognitive bias, corrupt science is a financial bias.
Money induces a cognitive bias, Mees !
Thanks, I had to look that up but it's the right term!
The novirus crowd is more knowledgeable and understanding of the matter than anyone who believes the virus fraud. You cannot believe in viruses and contagion anymore when you actually know what you're talking about.
read his discussions with Cowan et al, he completely destroys them, but always in a polite way
You just continue your nonsense. The burden of proof is on those who say there is something, not those who show they have never proven the something to exist… it’s reverse logic and super annoying. Germ theory, contagion has never been proven…. Period.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
Mees, no virus has ever been isolated,
Purified from nature, measured, photographed, and characterized. Period, end of story.
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology". PLease read it!!
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments! You are supposedly supporting a scientific theory, I am giving you all the proof you ask for, and you just reject it blindly.
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
Mees
I am saddened to read that this is "finally, the final piece". My understanding is that for a good part of your life you have kept the door open to continually research and question world events - in the light of "The Predators vs The People". I fervently agree with your statement "Let's fight the Big War together." But who is to say that this is a petty quarrel. I think it is not, but rather a huge con game of the predators. I urge you to reconsider delving into this topic. Deeply questioning virology is very empowering. It allows us other opportunities to discover what makes us ill. The body is beautifully designed to heal itself. Given toxic environments, bad nutrition, fear, etc, of course, makes that more difficult. I think it is likely, that the Big War includes The Predators convincing us that tiny microbes exist and can invade our body and render us defenseless. Well, they also try to convince us that they have "cures".
I just posted "A 128-year-old lesson in virology".
The question is now: does FMD virus exist, YES or NO?
If not, please specify your arguments!
If you don't debunk this black swan, it's the end of your theory that all swans are white.
As I have written in other comments and texts, nothing is written in stone. But the Big War is complex and demanding. This is a minor issue that has few followers and that consumes far too much time. Both camps know that Big Pharma is totally corrupted, and we all know the importance of terrain. I, together with more and more doctors and vets, know that in infectious diseases, germs are normally a necessary but not decisive factor - but beware the exceptions, see polio NY 1916. And read Kory, you will be surprised!