I am a total newcomer to the ‘no-virus’ debate. I must admit that I have sort of accepted that no virus actually do exist, totally without trying to approach it on a Scientific level.
So this post arouse my interest in the subject, as I have read the first part of your book, and I get this strong feeling while reading, that you are an extraordinary man. You are so precise in your book, and I agree with all you (in my reading so far) have brought to the table.
So when I read this post, I go wauw, is this like the Flat Earth subject?
Explanation: Last summer I spent at least Four weeks worth of work on research and on presenting my research which made proof that the Earth follows the curvature equation (I am an engineer, so I know science and math to a certain level. I started out investing a (for me) huge sum of money in a Nikon P1000 superzoom camera because some friends had made me believe that the World was flat. I believed them and thought that I should prove it, and present the result to the World. I ended up proving, very very convincing proof, that the Earth has a curvature which can be calculated using the mentioned equation. The World is round, at least in Denmark where I live.
My friends? Did not bother to look into my proof, and still believe the Earth is flat all over. And continually refuse to discuss this with me.
Your post made me think I might have to rethink my view on viruses, and possibly start looking more carefully into this before I make my mind up.
What you describe of your friends can be seen as a dogmatic reaction, on your logical arguments for a spherical earth. It is exactly the same with no-virus.
No virus people are convinced that they understand the virus conspiracy of the Pharmafia and medical science, to force vaccines on us. So they feel they are contributing to a better world, which is an important mechanism in social engineering, like convincing you to take an mRNA jab to save Grandma.
I don't see how this be good-feel good mechanism would work for Flat Earth, do you have an idea? Who or what gets better if we all accept FE??
What I thought myself was that if the World was flat and I could prove it, then that would get mainstream people to surrender more easily, as that would have such a Big impact in their minds.
I have been campaigning since 2019 with 5G, then corona, then the demokratic fiction, always looking for the lever to expand consciousness of all the deceipts. I thought flat Earth could possibly be it (but only for a short while, and only before I really looked into it.
In the same Way as if there were no virus, then that could really drive the point Home, that we are being deceived to such a High degree.
They are time thieves. They are diffusers of benevolent human energy, often enough targeting their subject with the most absurd, non-profound diversions, ones that have some intrinsic stimulating appeal at the basest of levels within the amygdala..
The more absurd, the better for their purposes. As I stated in a p"revious comment after your recent appearance on Hrvoje's "Geoplitics and Empire," they are flooding the zone" as a tactic within their larger strategy of dehumanization by confusion and their dispensation / dispersal of anti-knowledge, a contagion which promulgates stupidity over mere ignorance.
I am in the non-pathogenic virus camp but regard the ad hominem attacks as despicable. Your book is a vital, authoritative account of our predicament and deserves the highest of praise. The Predators immensely enjoy the division on the virus topic as it only serves to hide their crimes against humanity.
You and Swapnil are partners in one big obfuscation. You both invoke god, but you do not define which god you have in mind. Gods are many, thousands of them all constructed by men within religions, thousands of them, 12 dominating ones today. Like American presidents, or Islamic terrorists, or Zionists you use gods as sort of consultants or even military allies.
Pathogenic viruses have not been proven to exist much like any variety of god. Unless you adopt Spinozian thinking that god is everything.
You may be right, but what is devine. Something within religious doctrines, or outside of them, maybe your personal vision of divine? Or devine in the sense of Baruch Spinoza?
Mees and I have argued this with Crow of Nevermore Media, someone else I consider a friend. On Crow's thread, I went through my steps for a better argument: 1) Like who you're arguing with (check!) 2) state the question 3) define the terms and 4) say why it matters.
The real question is "Do anti-vaxxers need to agree on whether viruses exist?" There, we figured out that if virus was defined as an 'invisible infectious agent,' Crow agreed that they did existed, but not as isolated particles. His statement of why it mattered was that it would be easier to convince pro-vaxxers of the non-existence of viruses than the harmfulness of vaccines. And when he realized we were all anti-vaxxers, he said, so why are we arguing? With which I agreed.
However, when I pointed out that he'd conceded my point--that we didn't need to agree--he backtracked to the original question, making all the work of getting to agreement moot. And then he called in Mike Yeadon, who called Mees a fraud and a liar. And then he closed the comments and may have deleted the post.
So if the purpose in convincing others that viruses don't exist is that it makes it easier to convince them vaccines aren't necessary, the no-virus people are barking up the wrong tree. In order to prove your point that it will make it easier, you need to convince pro-vaxxers that there's no such thing as contagion. You should be having this argument with people in your everyday life. Let us know how that goes.
The position of Mees and myself is that it will discredit anti-vaxxers to make that argument, rather than all the evidence we can point to on vaccines. But it's really up to you to do that experiment. If you find that people don't react with "OMG, now I realize we don't need vaccines!" and instead look at you like you're crazy, then our point holds. If you want to hang your credibility on the no-virus position, you should do that with your neighbors.
But perhaps this is an argument about god and not viruses. Apologies, if so!
Well, that's certainly the topic of Mees' book, and mine, and yours.
But your comment on this post was to say that Mees was obfuscating, and to say he was exactly like the person who had lobbed all the ad hominem attacks at him, because Mees gave evidence that contradicted Swapnil.
That didn't step back and address the root causes, on which I think the three of us agree. Instead it went back to pathogenic viruses not having been proven to exist--although Loeffler's evidence DID prove that they exist, and you didn't offer any alternative explanation to his data.
Mees claims that there is an ulterior motive to the virulence and rancor of attacks against anti-vaxxers who don't swear allegiance to the no-virus theory. He sees this as coming from within the intelligence agencies that want others to think of anti-vaxxers as crackpots, now that what we've said all along is coming true.
It's certainly easy to test out whether telling your average 'normie' that there are no viruses would make them think of you as a crackpot. Have you done this? As he points out, you're either a witting or unwitting part of this agenda if you're attacking Mees as 'obfuscating' rather than defending him against these attacks. The root cause has always been turning people against one another rather than against the perpetrators. Isn't that what you're doing?
I do have the pdf of your book, thanks to Regis, and I note that it's 97 pp before the bibliography. That's not exactly one sentence. I also have the pdf of Mees' book and he has mine. I'm happy to send you my pdf by email. Who said that if you can put something in a nutshell, it should stay there?
However, you're changing the question, something that's been common in these arguments. The question is, 'Why is it so important that anti-vaxxers agree there's no virus, that they can be insulted and attacked?" The answer given is that it will be easier for pro-vaxxers to abandon vaccines once they see there's no virus.
This can be tested by sharing your beliefs--not with anti-vaxxers, who already fulfill your purpose--but with your pro-vax neighbors. Have you done this? Was it successful? Have they now changed their minds about vaccines based on your evidence that there are no viruses?
If you can't prove this strategy to be effective, then you owe Mees an apology, because you're doing exactly what he says this agenda is about.
For ten years or so I apply a simple rule to categorize postings.
If you are attacking the person, I'll not take you seriously. If you are attacking the argument, I'll most probably read your blah and take you seriously.
It works perfectly.
Don't have to find out if it's a psyop or put any research time in it. I just ignore that stuff.
Also understand that AI these days can produce any kind of bs in an instant. So fighting against a machine developed to produce tons of bs in a minute is a futile endeavor.
"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." - Cass Sunstein
Thanks, that is a great quote that aptly describes the no-virus but also the 9/11 controlled demolition psyop which has been hugely effective in discrediting and tarpitting the conspiracy community. It provided the proverbial getaway car for the actual criminals.
What really surprises me though is how people do not recognize a psyop and often aggressively defend the lies carefully prepared for them. As Mark Twain said: "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."
That said though, I do have some doubts about the virus narrative regarding covid-19. Why is it that alternative therapies are so often repurposed drugs like antibiotics and anti-parasitics? They have always told us these drugs do not work for a virus. So is it really a virus causing the disease or is it some other pathogen?
Thanks Ron! Repurposing of drugs is very common, but Ivermectin is a very special case.
It had been used for decades as an antiparasitic drug when its antiviral action was discovered (well before covid). More recently, its anticancer properties became known.
But that doesn't mean that Covid or cancer that reacts to ivermectin has a parasitic origin, it simply has several and very different effects.
“There exists a close connection between parasitic infections and cancer (1–3). Helminth infections are widespread the world over, and the causative parasites are thought to be responsible for causing cancer in humans (4). Thus far, Schistosoma haematobium, Clonorchis sinensis, and Opisthorchis viverrini have been recognized as clear biological carcinogens (1). “
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, these parasites may cause chronic inflammation and irritation which can lead to cancer, or have other more specific ways to do it.
But these are only a few of the thousands forms of cancer that exist, where other infections, toxins, deficiencies, excesses or other imbalances, and radiation can play a role.
Keep going and don't let the bad guys get in your way. They want you to be distracted. We follow, read, and consciously benefit from all your writings. You have a large audience, and it's growing every day. That's what matters. Greetings. Appreciation and great respect to you.
I am a total newcomer to the ‘no-virus’ debate. I must admit that I have sort of accepted that no virus actually do exist, totally without trying to approach it on a Scientific level.
So this post arouse my interest in the subject, as I have read the first part of your book, and I get this strong feeling while reading, that you are an extraordinary man. You are so precise in your book, and I agree with all you (in my reading so far) have brought to the table.
So when I read this post, I go wauw, is this like the Flat Earth subject?
Explanation: Last summer I spent at least Four weeks worth of work on research and on presenting my research which made proof that the Earth follows the curvature equation (I am an engineer, so I know science and math to a certain level. I started out investing a (for me) huge sum of money in a Nikon P1000 superzoom camera because some friends had made me believe that the World was flat. I believed them and thought that I should prove it, and present the result to the World. I ended up proving, very very convincing proof, that the Earth has a curvature which can be calculated using the mentioned equation. The World is round, at least in Denmark where I live.
My friends? Did not bother to look into my proof, and still believe the Earth is flat all over. And continually refuse to discuss this with me.
Your post made me think I might have to rethink my view on viruses, and possibly start looking more carefully into this before I make my mind up.
Thank you Mees🙏
What you describe of your friends can be seen as a dogmatic reaction, on your logical arguments for a spherical earth. It is exactly the same with no-virus.
No virus people are convinced that they understand the virus conspiracy of the Pharmafia and medical science, to force vaccines on us. So they feel they are contributing to a better world, which is an important mechanism in social engineering, like convincing you to take an mRNA jab to save Grandma.
I don't see how this be good-feel good mechanism would work for Flat Earth, do you have an idea? Who or what gets better if we all accept FE??
What I thought myself was that if the World was flat and I could prove it, then that would get mainstream people to surrender more easily, as that would have such a Big impact in their minds.
I have been campaigning since 2019 with 5G, then corona, then the demokratic fiction, always looking for the lever to expand consciousness of all the deceipts. I thought flat Earth could possibly be it (but only for a short while, and only before I really looked into it.
In the same Way as if there were no virus, then that could really drive the point Home, that we are being deceived to such a High degree.
Thank you for your work Mees, it is much appreciated.
They are time thieves. They are diffusers of benevolent human energy, often enough targeting their subject with the most absurd, non-profound diversions, ones that have some intrinsic stimulating appeal at the basest of levels within the amygdala..
The more absurd, the better for their purposes. As I stated in a p"revious comment after your recent appearance on Hrvoje's "Geoplitics and Empire," they are flooding the zone" as a tactic within their larger strategy of dehumanization by confusion and their dispensation / dispersal of anti-knowledge, a contagion which promulgates stupidity over mere ignorance.
I am in the non-pathogenic virus camp but regard the ad hominem attacks as despicable. Your book is a vital, authoritative account of our predicament and deserves the highest of praise. The Predators immensely enjoy the division on the virus topic as it only serves to hide their crimes against humanity.
Thank you for your nice and motivational words!
You and Swapnil are partners in one big obfuscation. You both invoke god, but you do not define which god you have in mind. Gods are many, thousands of them all constructed by men within religions, thousands of them, 12 dominating ones today. Like American presidents, or Islamic terrorists, or Zionists you use gods as sort of consultants or even military allies.
Pathogenic viruses have not been proven to exist much like any variety of god. Unless you adopt Spinozian thinking that god is everything.
I am saying that the only explanation for the universe is a divine power.
You may be right, but what is devine. Something within religious doctrines, or outside of them, maybe your personal vision of divine? Or devine in the sense of Baruch Spinoza?
Hello, Blaz! Nice to see you here.
Mees and I have argued this with Crow of Nevermore Media, someone else I consider a friend. On Crow's thread, I went through my steps for a better argument: 1) Like who you're arguing with (check!) 2) state the question 3) define the terms and 4) say why it matters.
The real question is "Do anti-vaxxers need to agree on whether viruses exist?" There, we figured out that if virus was defined as an 'invisible infectious agent,' Crow agreed that they did existed, but not as isolated particles. His statement of why it mattered was that it would be easier to convince pro-vaxxers of the non-existence of viruses than the harmfulness of vaccines. And when he realized we were all anti-vaxxers, he said, so why are we arguing? With which I agreed.
However, when I pointed out that he'd conceded my point--that we didn't need to agree--he backtracked to the original question, making all the work of getting to agreement moot. And then he called in Mike Yeadon, who called Mees a fraud and a liar. And then he closed the comments and may have deleted the post.
So if the purpose in convincing others that viruses don't exist is that it makes it easier to convince them vaccines aren't necessary, the no-virus people are barking up the wrong tree. In order to prove your point that it will make it easier, you need to convince pro-vaxxers that there's no such thing as contagion. You should be having this argument with people in your everyday life. Let us know how that goes.
The position of Mees and myself is that it will discredit anti-vaxxers to make that argument, rather than all the evidence we can point to on vaccines. But it's really up to you to do that experiment. If you find that people don't react with "OMG, now I realize we don't need vaccines!" and instead look at you like you're crazy, then our point holds. If you want to hang your credibility on the no-virus position, you should do that with your neighbors.
But perhaps this is an argument about god and not viruses. Apologies, if so!
A more productive discussion should probably start a step or two back, addressing the root causes of what is really going on in the world today.
Well, that's certainly the topic of Mees' book, and mine, and yours.
But your comment on this post was to say that Mees was obfuscating, and to say he was exactly like the person who had lobbed all the ad hominem attacks at him, because Mees gave evidence that contradicted Swapnil.
That didn't step back and address the root causes, on which I think the three of us agree. Instead it went back to pathogenic viruses not having been proven to exist--although Loeffler's evidence DID prove that they exist, and you didn't offer any alternative explanation to his data.
Mees claims that there is an ulterior motive to the virulence and rancor of attacks against anti-vaxxers who don't swear allegiance to the no-virus theory. He sees this as coming from within the intelligence agencies that want others to think of anti-vaxxers as crackpots, now that what we've said all along is coming true.
It's certainly easy to test out whether telling your average 'normie' that there are no viruses would make them think of you as a crackpot. Have you done this? As he points out, you're either a witting or unwitting part of this agenda if you're attacking Mees as 'obfuscating' rather than defending him against these attacks. The root cause has always been turning people against one another rather than against the perpetrators. Isn't that what you're doing?
Exactly, Tereza! Thanks for your support and explanations!
So, how would you define the essence of what is really going on in the world today? The main civilizational challenge. In one sentence, if possible?
I do have the pdf of your book, thanks to Regis, and I note that it's 97 pp before the bibliography. That's not exactly one sentence. I also have the pdf of Mees' book and he has mine. I'm happy to send you my pdf by email. Who said that if you can put something in a nutshell, it should stay there?
However, you're changing the question, something that's been common in these arguments. The question is, 'Why is it so important that anti-vaxxers agree there's no virus, that they can be insulted and attacked?" The answer given is that it will be easier for pro-vaxxers to abandon vaccines once they see there's no virus.
This can be tested by sharing your beliefs--not with anti-vaxxers, who already fulfill your purpose--but with your pro-vax neighbors. Have you done this? Was it successful? Have they now changed their minds about vaccines based on your evidence that there are no viruses?
If you can't prove this strategy to be effective, then you owe Mees an apology, because you're doing exactly what he says this agenda is about.
I actually asked you for your short definition. Please.
For ten years or so I apply a simple rule to categorize postings.
If you are attacking the person, I'll not take you seriously. If you are attacking the argument, I'll most probably read your blah and take you seriously.
It works perfectly.
Don't have to find out if it's a psyop or put any research time in it. I just ignore that stuff.
Also understand that AI these days can produce any kind of bs in an instant. So fighting against a machine developed to produce tons of bs in a minute is a futile endeavor.
You are absolutely right. But I wanted to gather a burden of proof for my hypothesis that these attackers are in fact agents.
I'm an agnostic until proven otherwise.😁
There is no way to know with certainty whether an agnostic exists or not.
"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." - Cass Sunstein
Thanks, that is a great quote that aptly describes the no-virus but also the 9/11 controlled demolition psyop which has been hugely effective in discrediting and tarpitting the conspiracy community. It provided the proverbial getaway car for the actual criminals.
What really surprises me though is how people do not recognize a psyop and often aggressively defend the lies carefully prepared for them. As Mark Twain said: "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."
That said though, I do have some doubts about the virus narrative regarding covid-19. Why is it that alternative therapies are so often repurposed drugs like antibiotics and anti-parasitics? They have always told us these drugs do not work for a virus. So is it really a virus causing the disease or is it some other pathogen?
Thanks Ron! Repurposing of drugs is very common, but Ivermectin is a very special case.
It had been used for decades as an antiparasitic drug when its antiviral action was discovered (well before covid). More recently, its anticancer properties became known.
But that doesn't mean that Covid or cancer that reacts to ivermectin has a parasitic origin, it simply has several and very different effects.
I just googled this:
“There exists a close connection between parasitic infections and cancer (1–3). Helminth infections are widespread the world over, and the causative parasites are thought to be responsible for causing cancer in humans (4). Thus far, Schistosoma haematobium, Clonorchis sinensis, and Opisthorchis viverrini have been recognized as clear biological carcinogens (1). “
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8117216/
Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, these parasites may cause chronic inflammation and irritation which can lead to cancer, or have other more specific ways to do it.
But these are only a few of the thousands forms of cancer that exist, where other infections, toxins, deficiencies, excesses or other imbalances, and radiation can play a role.
Did you know that cancer cells host bacteria inside them? Proven by science. Many, perhaps all cancer cells. I mentioned this before.
Do your research. I would love to see you writing a piece on this subject. Once you get into this everything is starting to make sense.
I have to leave that to others .... I am concentrating on the global domination project. No-virus was a side step.
Keep going and don't let the bad guys get in your way. They want you to be distracted. We follow, read, and consciously benefit from all your writings. You have a large audience, and it's growing every day. That's what matters. Greetings. Appreciation and great respect to you.
Thank you for your kind words, that helps to keep me going!
Regards
Mees