I suppose the fundamental problem with the idea of a deadly infectious virus is that one has to assume the virus has a suicidal tendency as it kills the host. There have been many attempts at proving transmission of viruses and non has succeeded. Given the necessity of Pharma maintaining the concept of a deadly transmissible virus in order to achieve their vast profits I am not surprised that many people have been persuaded to accept the propaganda through a persistent campaign of fear.
"There have been many attempts at proving transmission of viruses and non has succeeded."
Even Roytas and Baily in their book Can you catch a cold? admit that 32% was infected with flu in the experiments they analyzed, against 10% in the controls!!
Given that 17% of the population will "catch" a cold simply by word suggestion, the 32% proves nothing. Also it proves that 72% DID NOT get flu/cold - so how is this "viral transmission"??? Beats me.
The mind is highly suggestible. It is quite possible that someone will sympathetically assume an illness given their belief in transmission. I am sure it is the case that the administration of a placebo will cure an illness in many a case merely on the word of a doctor. For myself, I happily mix with anyone, safe in the knowledge I will not “catch” anything. I have not been disappointed in my expectation.
Since I stopped believing in virus about 2 or 3 years ago I haven't had a cold. Before that I remember being ill with what I thought was covid and the few brief glimses of the fear porn in the media (it was hard to avoid altogether) of hospitalised people struggling preyed on my mind and made me feel worse until I made a conscious effort to expel the images and think more positive thoughts. That's my experience anyway.
There are many other factors that could account for the subjects displaying symptoms. It’s possible that the methods and contributing factors leading to those symptoms were not adequately described by them. However, this issue is discussed in detail in my paper referenced below:
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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've approached you with respect and clarified that I am not part of any team. I've logically explained that your Loeffler challenge is not direct evidence which can't be disputed. I am not sure why you'd focus on other comments if you feel that they are mostly all of the same and ignore my argument which is not addressed by your standard reply which you have sent to everyone.
I would appreciate your response to my last comment. Thank you in advance.
I can appreciate your position. It would appear that there is a lot of interest in this topic but I can also appreciate the position of others who might be frustrated in seeing the lack of evidence to support your view.
My response to you elsewhere in the comments addressing Loeffler are as follows:
"I'm not part of any "team"—I'm interested in respectful, evidence-based discussions, especially when it comes to virology and vaccines.
Regarding Loeffler’s discovery: while some could argue that it is historically important, the methods he used were indirect and, by today’s standards, insufficient to conclusively demonstrate the existence of a virus. That’s the point my article emphasizes. Scientific methods evolve to reduce ambiguity and improve reliability.
The fact that modern techniques later confirmed the presence of a virus doesn’t retroactively make the original evidence direct. It simply shows that a hypothesis, originally based on indirect clues, was later validated through more rigorous means. That distinction matters in science—logic is essential, but logic based on inadequate data can still lead to incorrect conclusions.
The first truly direct evidence came when it was claimed that viruses could be seen (via electron microscopy), isolated, and characterized—not just inferred from filtrates and symptoms. So while it can be considered by some that early researchers like Loeffler were pioneers, their evidence was indirect and not sufficient."
No one asked you to answer anything. It's a self-imposed penance, that could be explained by hubris and loneliness. You seem to be the type that likes to invite unnecessary aggravation to your life, and then pretend someone attacked you, to obtain compassion from the naïve, who would then be used as puppets by you.
It's a very lame game.
If you were interested in truth, you would simply make your case, avoiding personal attacks and controversy. You are not doing that, therefore, you are not interested in truth.
I myself am not as interested in truth as I am in justice and freedom. But first truth is extremely useful for justice and for freedom; not really necessary or sufficient, but a great helper; and second, most people absolutely hate freedom and have a love-hate relationship with justice. So the pursuit of truth is just instrumental, for most, although they would lie about this and pretend it's their main goal. The people who hate the talent of other people, and envy their happiness and wealth and health, strongly prefer that other people don't get justice, but they feel entitled to all justice. It's a very sad condition of the human soul to grow to be as antisocial as that. Rather, it's better to seek the welfare of all in all aspects: truth, justice and freedom. And this is the reason why some people spend so much time in the search of what is true.
Incomprehensible for most people these days.
I am perplexed that there are so many low-lives everywhere that make every problem about themselves. Where is the love, I wonder?
Anyway. Where was I? Ah, yes, viruses. Where is the evidence that viruses jump from one animal to another animal, or from one plant to another plant? There is a widespread belief, that I think it's wrong, that says empirical evidence can disprove a valid logical reasoning that starts from true premises. This has never happened in all history of human thought, but people believe it. Dire is the state of edumation! In reality, a valid reasoning tells us that we should stop the empirical bullshit and move on to another problem. And, also in reality, a valid piece of empirical evidence that contradicts logic simply means the reasoning was flawed in at least one premise or in the form of the argument. In either case, hard work is necessary. None of this thinking business is easy.
But, sadly, there is no evidence anywhere. Not even a tiny bit. Which leads us to ask, why so many people believe viral disease is a real natural phenomenon? The answer is surprising: most people are very bad at logic.
The good news is that people bad and logic can become better at logic by practicing logic. Which is very logical.
But controversy and prejudice feels so much better and fulfilling than practicing logic. It happens all the time. I've heard that some people even earn money promoting controversies. Scandalous!
You article is mostly correct about many failures to artificially induce infection (and all the wrongs of bypassing the natural barriers). However your conclusion that this implies non-existence of viruses is wrong. The only valid conclusion is that we do not understand viral (natural or artifical) transmission and all factors leading to infection.
If we assume the viruses do not exist, then:
1. nobody (human, animal, etc.) would ever get sick of causes that can not be explained by anything else but viruses (obviously false).
2. viruses could not be used to deliver genetic material into cells.. (also obviously false).
3. and so on ..
Simply put: proponents of the non existence of viruses would have to find an alternative explanation (that holds water) for many observable phenomena.
There is plenty of historical evidence that viruses have been around since the beginning of life ..
If you review the context of the thread, you’ll see that my initial response was specifically addressing the issue of contagion, rather than the broader question of viral existence. Elsewhere in the comments, I’ve gone into more detail regarding why I conclude that viruses, as currently defined, do not exist. I’ll share that reasoning here for clarity:
The foundational basis for the theory of viruses rests primarily on two key hypotheses:
1 - That disease is caused by contagion (person-to-person transmission), and
2 - That cytopathic effects (CPE) observed in cell culture are specific indicators of viral presence.
Both of these premises have been empirically challenged and falsified. The papers below present the evidence and reasoning in more detail:
Reevaluating Viral Transmission: A Scientific Review
Therefore, the rejection is not merely of a mechanism attributed to viruses, but of the foundational assumptions underlying their proposed existence. If the defining characteristics of a virus (such as its role in contagion and its specific identification via CPE) cannot be validated, then the theory lacks empirical grounding.
That said, I am open to reviewing any experimental evidence you believe supports the existence of viruses as independent infectious entities. Constructive scientific dialogue depends on engaging with the strongest available evidence from all perspectives.
MN> 1 - That disease is caused by contagion (person-to-person transmission), and
Lets step back. State of being sick can be defined as an abnormal state where function of organism is impared in some way (leaving out obvious injuries). A "disease" is usually associated with a specific set of symptoms. How "disease" develops in an organism can be due to many things, one of them being direct transmission (of pathogen) from one organism to the other.
MN> 2 - That cytopathic effects (CPE) observed in cell culture are specific indicators of viral presence.
You are correct that observation of effects is not idication of viral presence (only).
That is why proper science has to isolate and purify viral pathogen that is assumed to be present in the cell culture and introduce it into another, and eventually into heathy organizm to confirm it causes the symptoms observed in the original disease.
MN> Reevaluating Viral Transmission: A Scientific Review
I have read (most of your papers), I have not found any fault with the evidence you are presenting. I agree with you that many things science (church) of virology is doing is very wrong and their conclusions are wrong too.
With that said, the phenomena EXISTS and can be observed trivially.
Also, for the point of this discussion, finding a single example of well defined and observable transmission should be sufficient to put to rest the debate of non existence of viruses.
Mr. Baaljen clearly presents the case of FMD and how transmission of the virus can be facilitated by a towel... So, if you want to claim the FMD viruses(s) do not exist, you have to come up with alternative explanation of the phenomena.
Thank you again for your continued engagement and for taking the time to read my work—I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful tone you've brought to this discussion.
Regarding the body of work often cited in defense of viral theory, I’ve seen references to various researchers and institutions, but I have yet to see anyone present a specific, detailed paper and directly engage with the methodological section to show how potential contributing factors—like those I outlined in Section 2 of my paper (Reevaluating Viral Transmission: https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a)—were ruled out. If such an analysis exists and I’ve missed it, I’d be grateful if you could point me toward it.
Before even delving into complex virological methods, we must begin by establishing natural transmission. If contagion is being claimed, there should be evidence that clearly demonstrates transmission occurring under natural conditions, absent the artificial methods typically employed in modern studies (such as injection, swabbing, or other invasive delivery or assessment techniques). If such a study does not exist—or has been omitted due to inconclusive or unfavorable results—we need to ask why. As noted in my article, over 150 peer-reviewed studies failed to demonstrate contagion even under controlled attempts.
If natural transmission is to be scientifically supported, it must be demonstrated without the involvement of the confounding factors discussed in Section 2 of my paper. Only once this foundational point is established can we even begin to discuss more artificial methods, like those used in inoculation protocols. However, these too must be subjected to rigorous control experiments. Unfortunately, such controls—meant to isolate the effects of inoculation methods themselves—are rarely, if ever, included. This is especially critical in light of the issues I explore in Sections 2.3.8 and 2.4.7, which show how procedural artifacts can lead to false-positive results attributed to contagion.
Next, we must look at the only direct evidence virology claims: virus isolation via cell culture. Every current viral detection method has been built upon this technique. Yet, there is no independent method to detect a virus that does not rely on the assumptions built into the cell culture process. Without such a method, any claim of viral presence becomes a circular argument—a topic I address in depth in my latest paper:
To summarize, any valid argument for the existence of a virus must satisfy the following three conditions:
1 - Demonstrate natural transmission, free from artificial interference. While I understand your comment that even one compelling example might suffice, I would suggest this sets an unusually low bar for a field that is said to guide global health policy. If a profession with thousands of experts cannot produce robust, repeatable evidence of natural transmission, this calls into question the foundations of the field itself. In fact, most studies presume transmission rather than test it. I address this imbalance in one of my articles (refer to the bar chart at the bottom of the article showing the volume and importance of evidence being produced - https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/a-brief-summary-of-my-work).
2 - Rule out all contributing factors associated with artificial inoculation and unnatural Transmission Assessment Protocols.
3 - Provide conclusive proof that cytopathic effects (CPE) are virus-specific. Demonstrated in over 30 peer-reviewed papers, as well as by Dr Stefan Lanka and Jamie Andrews to be false (The Non-Specificity of CPE: https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-non-specificity-of-cytopathic).
I hope that we can agree that these three points are not mutually exclusive. All must be satisfied for a coherent, evidence-based claim that a virus exists and causes disease. If even one is left unproven, the entire framework becomes scientifically untenable.
I remain open to reviewing any study or data you believe meets these criteria. I believe that constructive dialogue can only move forward if we collectively agree on the standards of evidence required to justify foundational claims in virology.
Influenza was originally named Radiowave Sickness. So arguing about the existence of imaginary microbes is utterly irrelevant especially when seeking a cure for the reaction to electromagnetic radiation. 5G was rolled out in a specific sequence both chronologically and geographically. Covid 19 followed that very precise pattern.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 have been two months under attack FRances, I am moving on, this was my closing message. Sorry if it was too long.
on 5G, I found this on chatgpt, can you comment please?
Namibia experienced confirmed COVID-19 cases in early 2020, despite having no 5G infrastructure at the time. The country's main telecom provider, MTC, publicly refuted rumors linking 5G to the virus, emphasizing that 5G services were not yet deployed in Namibia.
Iran faced one of the earliest and most severe COVID-19 outbreaks outside China, beginning in February 2020. Notably, Iran had no operational 5G networks during this period.
As of April 2020, Nigeria had not rolled out 5G technology. Nevertheless, the country reported numerous COVID-19 cases. Olusola Teniola, President of the Association of Telecommunications Companies of Nigeria, confirmed that 5G was not deployed in Nigeria and emphasized the absence of any link between 5G and COVID-19.
Lesotho began limited 5G trials in 2018. As of mid-April 2020, the country had no recorded COVID-19 cases, despite the presence of 5G technology.
Health Feedback conducted a thorough review of claims associating 5G with COVID-19. Their analysis highlighted significant methodological flaws in studies attempting to establish such a link. For instance, in Italy, regions like Bergamo and Brescia experienced high infection rates despite lacking 5G infrastructure, whereas cities with 5G, such as Turin, had comparatively lower case numbers.
Thanks very much for replying on topic. Much appreciated.
You gathered (hastily) your information from ChatGPT which, as an AI resource, can only reliably provide a prescribed narrative and is designed to disregard alternative views and potentially relevant information. I have discounted AI from my sources due to numerous inaccurate and mind controlling responses.
I would draw your attention to the fact that confirming C19 cases was done via PCR testing which has since been shown to be completely unreliable and inaccurate. Even school children fooled their testing using cola drinks and dog’s urine! Therefore any report which depends upon PCR test results must be dismissed.
Tehran in Iran tested 5G and immediately switched it off due to the hospitalisation of many citizens with breathing difficulties. All reports on this incident have been scrubbed from the internet. However, those of us who were awake at the time did not have our memories wiped, thank goodness.
Bergamo had 5G installed in its industrial estates. That was also reported at the time.
Exactly what occurred in 2020 is carefully laid out in this article and my extensive archive of recorded EMF overload incidences (since 2016) is referenced in the pinned comment, if you care to take a look:
Chatgpt can be used as a sparring partner, knowing that it is heavily biassed. I use it more and more. Its standard answer is of course the official narrative, but if you insist, it can make unexpectedly correct claims, and detect weaknesses in your argumentation.
Dear Mees, you need a remedial course in logical reasoning. The fact that there is no scientific evidence proving that viruses are causative agents of mass illness + the fact that these claimed viral illnesses are NOT preventable by vaccines does NOT mean that the people you list in your article are “charlatans” as you call them. This simply mean you are grasping for straws, appealing to authority and name dropping in desperation to defend something you cannot defend with facts. Also, I answered your questions (you claim I didn’t). I also provide detailed analyses on this topic on my substack. You do not bother to read them but somehow I need to engage in a “debate” with you? No thanks.
I used the word charlatans once in my article, but not for Team No-virus as you falsily suggest:
"In the case of no-virus, this also implies that people like Peter Duesburg, Kary Mullis, Peter McCullough, “Zev” Zelensky, Meryl Nass, Simone Gold, Sucharit Bhakdi, Wolfgang Wodarg, Vernon Coleman, Tess Lawrie, Mercola, Aseem Malhotra are unscrupulous charlatans who are pulling the wool over our eyes with non-existent viruses. "
Sorry, but here ends my interest in further discussion with you.
Mees, You called Meryl Nass, McCullough etc "charlatans" and that's who I am referring to as your appeal to authority and "big name" dropping (which means absolutely zero to me). These people, I am sure, have a varied and nuanced set of opinions that they are entitled to. You seem to be very uncomfortable when others have different viewpoint and so, you seem to need validation from these "big doctors and scientists" (in your perception).
If your interest in discussing anything with me ends here as you suggest in a huff-n-puff, well then, please abstain from using my name in your idiotic writing on the topic you seem to have no real background in. Thank you for understanding. For the record, I am not part of ANY movement or group, nor am I a "leader" of anything. Thank you one more time!
"Dear Mees, you need a remedial course in logical reasoning."
Now it turns out that you cannot even read a sentence!!
And yes, I am a millionaire ghost writer with a team of experts writing articles which I then sign without reading them!! So I have time for my 8 chickens and organic vegetable garden!
You do need to check your reasoning, that's why I started the sentence that way. You said if I say that there is no proof of viruses as CAUSATIVE agents of mass illness = Meryl Nass is a charlatan. That was your reasoning. And I pointed to it and laughed, dear. Because Meryl is NOT a charlatan, she simply has a different opinion from mine. That does not cause me any angst, but it seem to really perturb you. LOL.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 agree that the no-virus narrative is a lie, a psyop. One of the first websites where it was seeded is off-guardian.org.
However that does not exclude the possibility that BOTH the official narrative and the counter narrative are false. The same masonic forces spread opposing versions to tarpit people and to prevent them finding the truth. The hermetic principle of polarity applies here. When confronted with two opposing ideas, the vast majority believes that one is false and therefore the other must be true. Same with politics. The dual party system generates endless discussions about which hand, the left or the right is good or bad. They catch is, they are both bad.
I'd say it's most likely both narratives in the false dichotomy are false, and we are looking for some other cause, esp. of the massive US death waves in 2020-2022.
“Filtration tests showed that the agent consisted of particles between 20 to100 nanometer (nm) in size – 10 to 50 times smaller than bacteria….”
If we can reconfirm that we have pathogens in that size division, it’s not the case that we ought classify them as viruses. The virus model makes no sense.
After 128 years we should be able to figure out how this foot and mouth agent is doing all this damage, what fuels it ….. All that kind of stuff. The virus model can’t do the job.
It would be very interesting to research that very small stuff. Maybe they can explain the so called leaky gut syndrome better than the current hypothesis.
If there is damage to the normal functioning of intestinal permeability, it will be necessary to have a quantifiable and reproducible set of experiments in order to persuade academic medicine that there may be a problem there. Because, in theory, academic medicine demands high standards of evidence, and not just mere hypotheses that sound plausible but lack a leg to stand on. In reality this is also false: academic medicine is full of charlatans and nincompoops. So, it is wise to no expect nothing from institutions.
Well the big problem is, is that for the last 128 years or so they have abandoned the excellent Koch’s postulates and any chance they can get they ascribe a problem to these hypothetical little fellas. To the point of ignoring much larger parasites, pesticides, electro-magnetic pollution, the deep state poisoning the water and so forth.
Not throwing shade on Mees since this is the first time Tom, Andrew and others have been presented with a valid study that seems to contradict their thesis. But it is kind of telling that he had to go to another species and go back 128 years. That’s got to raise an eyebrow right?
When we were supposed to have had the plague it might be that Europe was loaded up on beer and bread. High glycemic food. The cow gets sugar with every mouthful of grass. We want to know if it’s sugar that the little fellas need for energy. The virus model doesn’t tell us any of that. And it may be that a population that spends 20 out of 24 hours in Ketosis may not be too much vulnerable to critters of this size.
So I say the virus paradigm still must die. Despite the excellent work of Mees here. The virus model cannot tell us what we need to know.
Byrdturd on X: "The "pandemic" was a trigger to accelerate the Cybernetic Revolution.. If you do not know what that is and would like to know, check out this video.. The final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution will begin in the 2030s. COVID-19 pandemic as a trigger for the acceleration of the https://t.co/V8cKySxzGs" / X
You wish to present a method that has mostly been abandoned by the profession as the best evidence for viral existence? Don't you have faith in the current most widely used method?
Yes, i am using the most basic and oldest study that proof the existence of an animal virus, and I am asking you to tell me where Loeffner went wrong and if so, what made his discovery invalid.
It comes as a surprise that you would reaffirm your support for a method that the profession itself no longer considers credible. That would be my first objection. Secondly, beyond the profession's own decision to abandon this method due to concerns over its adequacy and reliability, I have outlined its shortcomings in the article I referenced.
methods come and go, but are not essential in science (see Larouche quote in my post). What is essential is the logic. According to the logic I subscribe to (Koch postulates), Loeffler discovered the first animal virus. Team no-virus has been insisting that only if their ABC Cowan goldstandard is used, the existence of viruses can be proven.
I state that Loeffler discovered the first virus, via a basic method that is now indeed obsolete, and that his discovery was later confirmed by modern techniques.
"Team no virus", that is a simpleton descriptor. You do not "subscribe" to Koch's postulates.
One learns how and why they are still valid.
Modern techiniques is the way they get "virusers" to perpetuate what they so not comprehend. That is because of lack of reasoning skills, the very heart of Koch's postulates. False beliefs are exactly like that. Come up for air.
Perhaps FMD is transmitted by the eggs of a parasite that are teeny and go through the filtration process. If you can’t see a positive agent, you can just make up shit about RNA and DNA and it doesn’t mean shit.
So called viruses are invisible because they have never been proven to exist scientifically. They exist in the minds of ao called virologists due to indoctrination and wishful thinking.
already done: "Friedrich August Johannes Loeffler (* 24. Juni 1852 in Frankfurt (Oder); † 9. April 1915 in Berlin) war ein deutscher Hygieniker und Bakteriologe, einer der bedeutendsten Mitarbeiter Robert Kochs. "
Koch was a big fraudster just like Pateur and Jenner. The RKI is one of the biggest fraud/shill orgs in germoney. case can be closed .
i am not interested in some age old articles abt some obscure "animal virus" i olnly post here to make fun of virus beLIEvers... :) groetjes
but if got time i will look into the guy löffler, his theory was already debunkded by other commenters i see (eg wendy broffman). but i am sure we can find some masonic or jesuit connections for this guy too and maybe for u also :P
Chat GPT which also has its inaccuracies and falsehoods? Who do you think programs and controls Chat GPT ARTIFICIAL intelligence? The very same Globalist Mafia you claim to abhor, yet, you seem to want to believe. Do you not realize that the very theories in which you believe were created by "scientists" who were members of the Globalist Mafia? Have you ever looked up the definition of theory in an old encyclopedia? Theories are called theories for a reason. The definition of theory from Britannica: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. Yes, there may be a bit of truth thrown in there, but that is how they make you believe in it. Then, they put it in a textbook and keep teaching it as if it's true, until everyone accepts that it is. I would think that anything you can see under a microscope that moves, assimilates, replicates and feeds off a host is alive. And, any living thing that behaves in such a manner are probably parasites. Are germs and viruses living things? Has anyone seen them? The only invisible "contagions" that may exist are gases and they are poisons. Poisoning of a human looks just like a "virus" or "disease." It is the body trying to rid itself of the poison. And, yes, it can infect a whole family, a whole community and the whole world. It all depends on how that poison is dispersed and the substance in which it is dispersed, as well as, other factors. Poisons, chemical compounds, nanotechnology and so forth can all be used to create a detox type scenario in the human body which these Mafia "scientist" call viruses or diseases.
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.
Kerry Mullis could find zero papers showing that HIV caused AIDS. The HIV story is total bullshit. And he also said never use the PCR as a diagnostic tool because it could amplify anything into a amount that is detectable. By the way, he won a Nobel prize, and he died in somewhat suspicious circumstances when he started speaking out against using the PCR test (which he discovered ) as a diagnostic tool.
HIV being total bullshit puts a serious mark of bullshit on virus theory.
I am not a virologist and I’m not gonna become one. I need to see one paper that proves very clearly that viruses are agents of an illness. I have yet to see that paper, I’m not gonna search for it. It is very well hidden, can you show it to me? Until I see that paper I will state that viruses are bullshit. Headlines and articles screaming virus this and that does not prove virus is a real. There is so much hype around viruses, people have gone insane on the subject. There’s no article( it would be famous if it existed) that proves viruses cause illness. Maxwell‘s papers on electromagnetism can be read by anyone, and are read by many people. Why isn’t there a single article of the same significance for virology?
In Loeffler and Frosch's 1898 foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) experiments, the "blister fluid" (the liquid from vesicles or lesions of sick animals) was typically injected directly into healthy animals—often intravenously, subcutaneously, or into other tissues. Sometimes rubbed or swabbed into small wounds or incisions made on the skin or mucosa to “mimic” natural infection.
This kind of direct injection or invasive introduction is completely unnatural. In the real world, animals (or humans) don’t get sick by having the internal fluid of another sick animal injected into their bloodstream or forced into lesions.
The blister fluid is not purified. It contains broken-down tissue, toxins, immune cells, and possibly bacteria. Filtering it through a porcelain filter (to block bacteria) doesn’t remove toxins, cell debris, or exosomes—all of which can cause symptoms when injected.
Loeffler never proved that a singular isolated "virus" caused the symptoms—he just showed that some toxic filtered material could still provoke illness when injected. And just as important, there were no proper controls. He did not inject filtered blister fluid from healthy animals, or filtered serum treated identically but without lesions, as proper controls. He did not test if the same symptoms would happen by injecting other biological waste fluids filtered in the same way.
Koch’s postulates were not fulfilled in teh case of isolation--there was no true isolation of a specific agent—only crude filtering.
Pure culture: You can't grow viruses in pure culture like bacteria (a key reason modern virology abandoned Koch’s postulates and replaced them with looser molecular proxies).
Reproduction of disease: Sure, disease was induced by unnatural means.
Re-isolation: Again, no specific “virus” was purified—just repeating the injection cycle of sick tissue.
Synthesized virus: What Wimmer synthesized was a genetic sequence stored in databases—one that has never been verified to correspond to a whole physical entity isolated from nature. This sequence was chemically assembled based on in silico models and introduced into monkey kidney cells, which are notoriously toxic and genetically unstable.
The result was cell death, interpreted as “virus replication” but never confirmed by isolation of intact particles that met the definition of a virus.
Synthesizing RNA does not prove the existence of a natural, disease-causing viral entity. It proves you can follow a computer-generated blueprint and get cells to die.
Finally, your piece ends with personal attacks, likening virus skeptics to cultists, accusing them of obscurantism, and quoting Lyndon LaRouche to paint them as ideologically extreme.
This is not science. It's character assassination. If virology’s case were strong, it wouldn’t need to rely on mockery and ridicule. Many questioning virology are medical doctors, scientists, and researchers, not “cultists”. What they ask for is simple: scientific proof of viral existence through purification, isolation, and control experiments—the baseline of the scientific method. Resorting to emotional manipulation and social shaming is a telltale sign that the evidence is lacking.
i am looking for the original papers by loeffler. All i find is FMD blah blah caused by virus. vaccinate, vaccinate vaccinate -- published in the last five years. on the face of it, this appears to be utter insanity. where are the notes and reports from his experiments or anyone else's that prove viruses exist.
Beijerinck was the first to use the term virus for such an infectious agent. He was, however, convinced that the agent was a liquid (or a solute: mentioned p. 6, line 16, in his 1898 article). In the title of his article he therefore named it: contagium vivum fluidum, or contagious living liquid. Beijerinck thought his interpretation was confirmed by the observation that the sap filtered through Chamberland candles was less infectious than unfiltered sap. He explained this reduction as resulting from adsorption of the agent to the surface of the filter, mainly at the beginning of the filtration. In a control experiment he found that the less diffusible (granulase) of two enzymes present in malt extracts was more strongly retained in Chamberland filters than the more diffusible enzyme (maltase), until saturation was reached. In a footnote of his 1898 paper (see Appendix I) he stated that he could not agree with Loeffler’s conclusion that the agent of foot-and-mouth disease was a particle and not a liquid.
--
all liquids are particles, atoms or molecules. The atomic theory of liquid was proven by Brownian motion and Einstein's paper on the subject.
let me propose a non DNA/RNA model.
there is a small molecule (one of millions in sap or blood). It acts in the blood as a disease causing agent by catalytically breaking an essential chemical pathway. In breaking the chemical pathway it creates copies of itself. Why hasn't this been discovered? is it false or is it masked in the millions of molecular entities flowing through the living? How would one isolate such a molecule among millions? Nearly impossible. Why invoke DNA-RNA? Because that was the newest and grooviest dominant theory of the last century (this one too, evidently). It became a religion. Religions make trillions.
Occam's razor selects the non DNA/RNA model - a catalytic molecule breaks an essential chemical pathway, with one of the products being the catalytic molecule. This could happen inside or outside a cell.
The atomic theory is so well advanced that even a stupid lying Jew like Einstein can say something intelligent about it. Brownian motion was just a small application of the great work of James Maxwell on the atomic theory of heat and gases. Maxwell was not a Jew. He was a genius. Einstein was just a scammer, like every Jew.
Mullis did NOT say what you think he said! I was THERE in our old "AIDS" dissident movement. I MET Mullis, a few times in fact, back when he was still pretending to be a so-called "dissident". I even produced the very seminar where Mullis said the comments you are misinterpreting! Plus, he was NOT killed! Take the time to learn the truth about Mullis, and STOP hero worshipping him! Mullis was a FAUX "dissident" and an establishment FRAUD just like the "PCR" which he claimed to have invented!
cool. if the "inventor" of the PCR who won a nobel prize for its "invention" is a fraud then our working assumption is that every biochemist, virologist, pharmacologist is a fraud as well, until proven otherwise. I am good with that. Many people who "met" buzz aldrin believe he walked on the moon. i meet liars and fraudsters every so often. so, is there a non-bullshit paper that links "HIV" to AIDS?
Mullis sounds like MKULTRA psycho! thanks for sharing. Given the fact that 95% of the Noble prizes seem to be bullshit, what do you think of Ivermectin? I've been taking it and read good things about it. But who knows!! Do you have any negative information about ivermectin?
I definitely urge you to keep digging, but I would prefer not to continue posting on this particular venue, if you don't mind. TBH, I think that, with all due respect, maybe you might need to "get out more", so to speak. I would suggest that you check out what is happening on other people's substacks and on other platforms...
The virus theory is beautiful because it’s a simple statement. It has never been proven clearly by anyone because there’s no foundational paper on the subject. It’s a beautiful theory because it is disproven by a lack of proof. That’s all there’s to be said about virology. It’s a wrong theory because there’s no proof of it.
The virus debate thrives but to me the biggest crime was the lack of treatment, the isolation, the ventilators and the deadly drugs like Remdesivir and Midazolam used to treat influenza and cold symptoms as well as the mainstream media and our own government fear mongering lies. Kman, Digileak World
During the scamdemic, I avoided going down this rabbit hole. As I didn't seen the need in distracting the "unwitting vaxxed" with theories which would further alienate them from reality. 🤔
Love your work, generally, but this piece requires appeals to authority. You're citing statistics derived from tests that don't work. The entirety of the pandemic was a hoax and obviously so. The acceptance of the "coronavirus" theory prevents the true causes of any sort of enhanced sickness from being discovered. There also was not enhanced sickness. There was normal sickness, perhaps compounded by people being kept indoors and becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol, etc... becoming anxious and depressed, suffering job loss and various abuses. There was also a hospital protocol that systematically murdered the elderly. There was no novel viral pandemic.
Please read Pierre Kory's book (find an introduction on one of my posts) on what you call enhanced sickness: there was, with an inflammatory syndrome that required new treatment protocols, which they succeeded to develop.
What’s the proof of enhanced sickness? Covid tests? Death counts? The hospital protocol was killing people and the tests didn’t work. But we can leave it here. There’s no point going in circles.
Not so fast: where did I use those bad statistics?
Indeed, the general hospital protocols were killing the patients (with virus infections) that's why Kory and colleagues developed new protocols, which brought them into a war with the pharmaceutical industry and medical boards.
There is no proof they had virus infections. That’s the problem you’re not grasping. The tests don’t work. There is no proof anyone was infected with a virus. Most people experienced symptoms like a herxheimer reaction. Do you know what that is?
The cause of that reaction, those symptoms, could be a great many things. One thing it was not was a SARS-COV-2 “virus.”
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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.
Yes sir, it was, read Pierre Kory's The War on Ivermectin.
With Covid came the complication of a new inflammatory syndrome, for which they had to create new treatment protocols. And they soon discovered that ivermectin, of known in vitro antiviral ability (even preventive!) worked again the new disease. I have a post on this on my site.
please open your mind a bit more. Many drugs developed for A turned out to be good for a very different C. The term is a repurposed drug. Ivermectine is a miracle and a gift from heaven because it also works against certain cancers.
2. Koch’s postulates have never been fulfilled, Thomas Rivers moved the goalposts and still couldn't fulfill his own postulates, and then later Hills moved them again using terms such as "might, or likely" lol...
3. Not once in the history of science or medicine has any alleged disease causing virus ever been isolated directly from the fluids of any sick host... this is a real problem because you rely 100% on the assumption that there was a virus in the sample to start with!
4. Contagion has never been documented.. if you believe that it has and this is settled science.
I will pay you $ 1000.00 if you can provide a scientific publication documenting host to host transmission of any illness/disease...
Good article. My view is that it is both the virus and the terrain. If you are healthy then you most likely won't get very sick if you get a virus. If you are unhealthy, then you might not fair so well against a virus. They are both part of the puzzle.
From the paucity of responses to this article, I hope that you might appreciate that many of us who are serious about scientific inquiry, have moved on from Mr. Baaijen.
This latest assertion of FMD being caused by a virus, and said virus being "passed through" animals or attenuated, is just silly. If there is a FMD virus, perhaps it can be demonstrated? Perhaps the DNA or unique proteins mapped?
Note that Mr. Baaijen fails to cite a single article, which purports to offer a falsifiable test to prove that FMD virus exists? Then we could start to find contagion; and only THEN pathology.
Lanka, Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Christine Massey, Eric Coppolino, Mike Stone, Samantha and Mark Bailey, Steven Falcon, the Perth Group, et alia keep asking for evidence, and REPLICATION with falsifiable methods.
This is NOT a good article. It is more logical fallacies and magical thinking. Just replace the word "virus" with "unicorn" or "fairy dust". Then consider how much insight you find.
Sorry John, I stated that more references are available from the author, so it's bad faith from your part to say that I don't offer a single article. I can send you a bunch of reports in German by Loeffler, and much more. It would not change anything however, because his methods are basic and easy to understand.
So please tell me where Loeffler went wrong! Be specific and to the point!
I would be delighted to see the references. As you reported, Loeffler never isolated anything, but did engage in impfung (engrafting). Such is hardly natural transmission via inhalation. But I could be wrong.
I recall that in your first article, you cited a SUMMARY of the claims of Loeffler and Frosch. I have only seen English translations of Loeffler. Please send me the original paper and highlight the methods section, maybe we can learn together?
less then zero ( if this exists) these ppl are desperate to keep their easy living earning very good $€ for basically NOTHING to do. cuz it is just playing they do in the labs. if they are not busy to torture animals...(which some suggest is some evil ritual, so no wonder they are so upset this is threatened, their rituals and easy money)
In Loeffler and Frosch's 1898 foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) experiments, the "blister fluid" (the liquid from vesicles or lesions of sick animals) was typically injected directly into healthy animals—often intravenously, subcutaneously, or into other tissues. Sometimes rubbed or swabbed into small wounds or incisions made on the skin or mucosa to “mimic” natural infection.
This kind of direct injection or invasive introduction is completely unnatural. In the real world, animals (or humans) don’t get sick by having the internal fluid of another sick animal injected into their bloodstream or forced into lesions.
The blister fluid is not purified. It contains broken-down tissue, toxins, immune cells, and possibly bacteria. Filtering it through a porcelain filter (to block bacteria) doesn’t remove toxins, cell debris, or exosomes—all of which can cause symptoms when injected.
Loeffler never proved that a singular isolated "virus" caused the symptoms—he just showed that some toxic filtered material could still provoke illness when injected. And just as important, there were no proper controls. He did not inject filtered blister fluid from healthy animals, or filtered serum treated identically but without lesions, as proper controls. He did not test if the same symptoms would happen by injecting other biological waste fluids filtered in the same way.
Koch’s postulates were not fulfilled in teh case of isolation--there was no true isolation of a specific agent—only crude filtering.
Pure culture: You can't grow viruses in pure culture like bacteria (a key reason modern virology abandoned Koch’s postulates and replaced them with looser molecular proxies).
Reproduction of disease: Sure, disease was induced by unnatural means.
Re-isolation: Again, no specific “virus” was purified—just repeating the injection cycle of sick tissue.
Synthesized virus: What Wimmer synthesized was a genetic sequence stored in databases—one that has never been verified to correspond to a whole physical entity isolated from nature. This sequence was chemically assembled based on in silico models and introduced into monkey kidney cells, which are notoriously toxic and genetically unstable.
The result was cell death, interpreted as “virus replication” but never confirmed by isolation of intact particles that met the definition of a virus.
Synthesizing RNA does not prove the existence of a natural, disease-causing viral entity. It proves you can follow a computer-generated blueprint and get cells to die.
Finally, your piece ends with personal attacks, likening virus skeptics to cultists, accusing them of obscurantism, and quoting Lyndon LaRouche to paint them as ideologically extreme.
This is not science. It's character assassination. If virology’s case were strong, it wouldn’t need to rely on mockery and ridicule. Many questioning virology are medical doctors, scientists, and researchers, not “cultists”. What they ask for is simple: scientific proof of viral existence through purification, isolation, and control experiments—the baseline of the scientific method. Resorting to emotional manipulation and social shaming is a telltale sign that the evidence is lacking.
You are right that injection is not a natural way of contagion. It was done for practical reasons, as it was very difficult to get uncontaminated blister liquid in outbreaks. All other thinkable methods were also tried and proven to work (except injection in the skin), including the rag (which did not infect all experimental animals). The contagion even spread in natural ways to neighboring herds, so the experiments were transferred to an island without farms.
Your methodological observations show the same dogmatism as what I call Cowan's ABC, which is a "science trick". What use is it to take fluid from a healthy animal (which has no blisters!), or to stick a needle in an animal, or inject it with 1 ml of plain water? Has that ever resulted in FMD?
Than, where do I practice character assasination?
I present arguments for a psy-op (systematic misleading and falsification in no-virus publications) and from other experiences we know where these come from. See my next (standard)comment, after having been insulted and mistreated by no-virus attackers as never before in my life.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 appreciate your acknowledgment that injection is not a natural route of transmission. But that’s precisely the issue—if the method of transmission isn't natural, then it cannot be used to prove natural contagion. Practicality doesn’t override scientific rigor, especially when you're making claims that underpin the germ theory of disease.
You mention other methods were "proven to work," but without clear, reproducible controls, we can't scientifically say they proved anything. The rag experiment not infecting all animals actually points to the opposite—lack of consistent contagion. That’s not evidence of a virus, it’s evidence of variable outcomes that need careful examination.
As for the spread to neighboring herds, were controls used? Were all other possible factors (environmental, nutritional, toxic exposure) ruled out? Contagion cannot simply be ASSUMED from proximity. That's post hoc reasoning.
Regarding your comment on Cowan’s ABC “science trick”: asking for controls—like fluid from a healthy animal or sterile water—is basic scientific practice, not trickery. If such controls have never caused FMD, that’s exactly the point. We must compare outcomes from different exposures to determine causality.
Finally, when you say that no-virus researchers are part of a psy-op, you’re moving away from empirical argument and into speculation about motives. If your case is strong, it should stand without reference to conspiratorial intentions. Accusing others of bad faith while denying any form of character attack doesn’t hold up if you’re labeling them as agents of disinformation.
If you’d like to continue the discussion, I suggest we keep the focus on experimental design, control groups, and evidence. That’s where science lives.
Sorry, my main point is that I will not discuss the no-virus theory any longer because I and others have demonstrated that its promoters can't be trusted.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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.
Just hours after publishing this post you conclude that there is a paucity in the response! Do you have a PhD in Premature Conclusions? Or do I smell an organized effort to ignore this post, as you cannot play in your beloved ABC ballpark any more?
Why did Mike Yeadon get the smell of it within hours? Why did Crow signal all the no virus leaders? Why are you questioning me on protein and DNA mapping, if you as a PhD, JD know how to find these articles in seconds?
And finally: Why is nobody responding to my simple question on a simple experiment: where did Loeffler go wrong?
All this indicates that you are part of an operation
I appreciate the response. However, my personal experience as the youngest of 5 children growing up in England points to the existence of virus. My sisters, and my friends, often passed things from one to the other, such as mumps, measles etc. I know virus's are difficult to isolate and prove but it is also difficult to prove they don't exist. Hence, we all have to arrive at our own conclusions due to real life experiences unless someone can provide absolute proof they don't exist. I haven't seen that proof yet.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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.
Dear Stella, you mistake the notion of known symptoms for determined cause. And you reverse the burden of proof. As you might be aware, all through the 1700s and 1800s, the medical field in the UK largely employed Latin and Greek terms. Thomas Sydenham published Observationes Medicae in 1676 in Latin.
Hence, although he wrote COMPLETELY in English, it was logical that Jenner (1798) would employ the term Latin "virus" in his description of "smallpox" and so-called cow-pox. But as used then, he meant "disease". Vaccinae Variolae = cow disease. Making lacerations with a lancet and smearing PUS into the cuts is NOT proof of virus (as the term is defined since 1954 - an obligate intracellular parasite).
I would encourage you to see the work and presentations of Stefan Lanka, Samantha Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, and Tom Cowan. Many of their presentations are on Bitchute, Odysee, or their own webpages. There is an excellent documentary, "The Viral Delusion". I show it to my students in order to teach logical reasoning.
I don't find the proof or the theory of terrain theory to be any more compelling than the proof for the existence of viruses. Interestingly enough I rarely see supporters of terrain theory ever bother to explain it, and what the proof of it is. Oh yes we can go read all these scientific papers that you refer us to but that's not very helpful for the lay person. No, all the terrain people ever do is spend their time making these convoluted arguments attacking virus theory while exclaiming how simple it all is.
Whenever I point out that when I don't take my medications my CD4 counts collapse and I become sick when I take my medications my CD4 counts gradually climb up towards the normal range and I remain healthy. Whenever I point this out I'm always attacked from numerous angles but nobody ever explains how my real life experience could possibly be occurring. Very similar to how they fail to make the case for terrain theory. as an AIDS patient taking these horrible toxic drugs that aren't being hoisted upon me my terrain should leave me quite vulnerable. But quite the contrary I am quite healthy. I'm not making the case for Rockefeller medicine mind you as it leaves much to be desired. And I'm totally open to the idea that many of these diseases are being created and that AIDS was a man-made creation. I will go to my deathbed before I take another vaccine I have lost much confidence in the current system but this discussion about viruses is a huge distraction in the same way that when JFK was murdered most of the books that came out about it afterwards were written by CiA operatives and that's exactly what's happening here.
Dear AA, your claims are interesting. I am glad if you say that you get relief by taking some "medicine." I am all for what works. But what is AIDS, and to what might you attribute any cause? Best.
Then please don't state 'with all due respect' if you don't mean it. Just state your position with evidence-based information rather than trying to shut down my free speech with your 'stay in your own lane' arrogant comment.
Yes we can all see that since the advent of the measles vaccines children rarely get the measles. if they do it's an isolated event that usually results from children who have not been vaccinated. I'm not making an argument for vaccines necessarily here I am just saying that it's another one of those lists of facts that the no virus people conveniently ignore. Measles is an extremely contagious disease that rips through populations of the unvaccinated. I think these no virus arguments are being seated throughout social media to keep everybody busy while they finish wrapping up their self-replicating MRNA vaccinations that will lead to the demise of countless millions of souls.
Dear AA, in fact, so called measles cases (and pertussis, etc.) are common in the vaccinated. Do you not review the MMWR?
I will be glad to send you a list of published accounts.
At age 3y 8m, my never-vaxxed child had smallpox (aka chickenpox) after a significant change in diet (she was a vegetarian until age 3, and then started eating muscle meat) and it was winter in Bosnia (see al-Razi on the relationship between weather and smallpox).
After that three-week, cleansing / detox experience, I started giving her high doses of vitamins C, D3, E, and minerals like zinc and magnesium. She has never been sick since - that is 15+ years of health.
Starting in 2012, then age 15, my son started taking Youngevity supplements - he was never sore after workouts, and since then, definitely never had a cold or flu.
BTW, I live in China. Lots of kids are diagnosed with tuberculosis and measles ... despite having 100% vaccination rate. The hospitals hand out antibiotics like candy. Kids are sick here - but oddly, I who reject all vax and allopathic drugs - am not.
Lastly, did you mean "no virus arguments are seated" or seeded?
Dr Jones is clearly being purposefully obtuse. We can all see that since the advent of vaccinations children don't get all of the different childhood diseases that previous generations used to get. He can use his fancy logic and tricky words but it doesn't change a simple fact that we can all see.
Dear AA, hmm, not sure that I follow you. We can all see? Since I was born, no nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. We can all see that Japan does not get all the bombs they use to receive in previous generations ...
For the most part, allopaths simply redefine conditions. Read Scobey (1951) on polio (aka infantile paralysis).
When it comes to rashes, we see "Fifth disease, with its characteristic "slapped cheek" rash, can be mistaken for several other conditions, especially other viral illnesses with rashes. These include measles, rubella, scarlet fever, and roseola. In adults, joint pain associated with fifth disease can mimic symptoms of influenza, mononucleosis, or rheumatoid arthritis."
You can read more about "First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth disease":
Allopaths have developed an extensive vocabulary to describe symptoms. In some cases have identified an abnormal cell type characteristic of a dis-ease. However the profession has no explanation for its origins in most cases, treating only the symptoms.
Pushing this no virus non-theory I can only hope it is because you are dim witted and not some sociopathic maniac trying to get people killed. Psyop rat m……
Sorry, I do not. But as explained by Andrew Kaufman, the "no virus" position is actually a refutation of modern virology. Virologists, emerging in the late 1890s and migrating through the 1950s (from Iwanowski, Beijerinck, then Flexner and Simon, Rivers, to Enders) offered hypotheses, but the claims are not coherent; and the dominant paradigms of CPE and genomic sequencing, have been falsified by Lanka, Kaufman, and Cowan - via their replication of Enders' methodology to create CPE with and without yeast. Best.
What they call viruses are cell debris that are the result of cell damage and death, not the cause of it. Symptoms of illness are primarily caused by toxicities, deficiencies and stress.
Hi Ann, I don't buy the explanation and that doesn't mean their isn't cell debris. Again, my experience as a child with 4 siblings is that the virus (eg Mumps) was often passed from sister to sister. I don't see how cell debris could cause illness of that kind. If you can explain to me how that can happen, then I am all ears.
Dear Stella, the first question is "what is mumps"? Perhaps you could tell us about broader circumstances? What year, location, ages. You say "often", do you imply that whenever one of you were sick (going through a detoxification process), SOME of you would later get sick too?
What about other children in the local school or general neighborhood? I did an analysis of measles in the United States from 1950-1959, pre-vax. The average rate of diagnosis was 2% of ALL children ages 4-15. Such a trend is in direct contravention of viral theory which argues that cases "spread" and follow a bell curve.
Lastly, you might look for the FIRST paper, declaring that mumps virus exists. Then show us the methods section. There is no isolation. Rather stuff is added to a cell culture. And as Christine Massey and others have shown, if you request the CDC to provide any evidence of natural transmission of ANY virus, they cannot show any viruses ... for any disease.
But if you are willing to share, I am all eyes and ears.
I think that you should be nice. I think that Stella Bryan was quite sincere in her inquiry. Of course, your joke was good. I thought that you were going to say that presents are contagious! LOL
Ok... so you have still yet to provide any proof of claim... Kindly show us all where ANY virus was PROPERLY isolated and purified and PROVEN to be a CAUSE of disease... next show us where any bacteria was PROVEN to be a CAUSE of disease... until you provide proof of these things, you are just living your life in conjecture, hearsay, and lies...
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 read 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.
YOU are part of the problem in this world.... i hope you realize that... you are an evil man with foul intentions and NO PROOF to back up your claim... that's how i know you are a deceiver.
Jeremy Hammond and his pictures??? Sorry, pictures aren't proof. I have a picture of a unicorn... does that mean unicorns exits??? So dumb. What you need is an isolated virus and PROOF that it is a CAUSE of disease... but instead you deflect like all other deceivers. You don't "catch" someone's illness anymore than you "catch" someone's health... PROVE YOUR CLAIMS!!
Nope... still haven't provided any proof of your claim... you just bad mouth others with nothing to support what you say...You are a deceiver. You have no proof of viruses and no proof of alleged pathogens causing disease... if you claim what others did was incorrect, then it's YOUR BURDEN to prove... so again, PROVE YOUR CLAIM DECEIVER!!!
You are the umpteenth Cowan parrot with a recent substack without any original note or post, behaving bad on this site. greet your boss from me when he brings you his award!
I suppose the fundamental problem with the idea of a deadly infectious virus is that one has to assume the virus has a suicidal tendency as it kills the host. There have been many attempts at proving transmission of viruses and non has succeeded. Given the necessity of Pharma maintaining the concept of a deadly transmissible virus in order to achieve their vast profits I am not surprised that many people have been persuaded to accept the propaganda through a persistent campaign of fear.
"There have been many attempts at proving transmission of viruses and non has succeeded."
Even Roytas and Baily in their book Can you catch a cold? admit that 32% was infected with flu in the experiments they analyzed, against 10% in the controls!!
Given that 17% of the population will "catch" a cold simply by word suggestion, the 32% proves nothing. Also it proves that 72% DID NOT get flu/cold - so how is this "viral transmission"??? Beats me.
The mere statement, that people catch cold implies there is something to catch. If there was nothing to catch then nobody would ever catch cold.
you don't catch someone's illness any more than you catch someone's health... get it?
The observations do not support your statement.
Explain how does a particular diesease spread.
And for the sake of argument we'll use a specific case of FMD.
Adam is not able to react here because I banned him when after a few comments he started to insult me.
The mind is highly suggestible. It is quite possible that someone will sympathetically assume an illness given their belief in transmission. I am sure it is the case that the administration of a placebo will cure an illness in many a case merely on the word of a doctor. For myself, I happily mix with anyone, safe in the knowledge I will not “catch” anything. I have not been disappointed in my expectation.
I agree with you on the power of the mind, in everything, and also in health. We are spiritual beings, not meat robots.
Since I stopped believing in virus about 2 or 3 years ago I haven't had a cold. Before that I remember being ill with what I thought was covid and the few brief glimses of the fear porn in the media (it was hard to avoid altogether) of hospitalised people struggling preyed on my mind and made me feel worse until I made a conscious effort to expel the images and think more positive thoughts. That's my experience anyway.
There are many other factors that could account for the subjects displaying symptoms. It’s possible that the methods and contributing factors leading to those symptoms were not adequately described by them. However, this issue is discussed in detail in my paper referenced below:
https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 refutation 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.
Mr Baaijen
I've approached you with respect and clarified that I am not part of any team. I've logically explained that your Loeffler challenge is not direct evidence which can't be disputed. I am not sure why you'd focus on other comments if you feel that they are mostly all of the same and ignore my argument which is not addressed by your standard reply which you have sent to everyone.
I would appreciate your response to my last comment. Thank you in advance.
Sorry Matthew, don't take it personally, this was my closing message after two months of attacks.
Maybe I omitted your comment on Loeffler and comments are difficult to find between 7 posts, could you please send your refutation again?
Thank you!
Hi Mr Baaijen
I can appreciate your position. It would appear that there is a lot of interest in this topic but I can also appreciate the position of others who might be frustrated in seeing the lack of evidence to support your view.
My response to you elsewhere in the comments addressing Loeffler are as follows:
"I'm not part of any "team"—I'm interested in respectful, evidence-based discussions, especially when it comes to virology and vaccines.
Regarding Loeffler’s discovery: while some could argue that it is historically important, the methods he used were indirect and, by today’s standards, insufficient to conclusively demonstrate the existence of a virus. That’s the point my article emphasizes. Scientific methods evolve to reduce ambiguity and improve reliability.
The fact that modern techniques later confirmed the presence of a virus doesn’t retroactively make the original evidence direct. It simply shows that a hypothesis, originally based on indirect clues, was later validated through more rigorous means. That distinction matters in science—logic is essential, but logic based on inadequate data can still lead to incorrect conclusions.
The first truly direct evidence came when it was claimed that viruses could be seen (via electron microscopy), isolated, and characterized—not just inferred from filtrates and symptoms. So while it can be considered by some that early researchers like Loeffler were pioneers, their evidence was indirect and not sufficient."
No one asked you to answer anything. It's a self-imposed penance, that could be explained by hubris and loneliness. You seem to be the type that likes to invite unnecessary aggravation to your life, and then pretend someone attacked you, to obtain compassion from the naïve, who would then be used as puppets by you.
It's a very lame game.
If you were interested in truth, you would simply make your case, avoiding personal attacks and controversy. You are not doing that, therefore, you are not interested in truth.
I myself am not as interested in truth as I am in justice and freedom. But first truth is extremely useful for justice and for freedom; not really necessary or sufficient, but a great helper; and second, most people absolutely hate freedom and have a love-hate relationship with justice. So the pursuit of truth is just instrumental, for most, although they would lie about this and pretend it's their main goal. The people who hate the talent of other people, and envy their happiness and wealth and health, strongly prefer that other people don't get justice, but they feel entitled to all justice. It's a very sad condition of the human soul to grow to be as antisocial as that. Rather, it's better to seek the welfare of all in all aspects: truth, justice and freedom. And this is the reason why some people spend so much time in the search of what is true.
Incomprehensible for most people these days.
I am perplexed that there are so many low-lives everywhere that make every problem about themselves. Where is the love, I wonder?
Anyway. Where was I? Ah, yes, viruses. Where is the evidence that viruses jump from one animal to another animal, or from one plant to another plant? There is a widespread belief, that I think it's wrong, that says empirical evidence can disprove a valid logical reasoning that starts from true premises. This has never happened in all history of human thought, but people believe it. Dire is the state of edumation! In reality, a valid reasoning tells us that we should stop the empirical bullshit and move on to another problem. And, also in reality, a valid piece of empirical evidence that contradicts logic simply means the reasoning was flawed in at least one premise or in the form of the argument. In either case, hard work is necessary. None of this thinking business is easy.
But, sadly, there is no evidence anywhere. Not even a tiny bit. Which leads us to ask, why so many people believe viral disease is a real natural phenomenon? The answer is surprising: most people are very bad at logic.
The good news is that people bad and logic can become better at logic by practicing logic. Which is very logical.
But controversy and prejudice feels so much better and fulfilling than practicing logic. It happens all the time. I've heard that some people even earn money promoting controversies. Scandalous!
Have a nice day!
SHOW PROOF THAT VIRUSES EXIST AND ARE THE CAUSE OF ILLNESS... WHY WON'T YOU DO THIS??? I KNOW, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT... YOU ARE A DECEIVER!
You article is mostly correct about many failures to artificially induce infection (and all the wrongs of bypassing the natural barriers). However your conclusion that this implies non-existence of viruses is wrong. The only valid conclusion is that we do not understand viral (natural or artifical) transmission and all factors leading to infection.
If we assume the viruses do not exist, then:
1. nobody (human, animal, etc.) would ever get sick of causes that can not be explained by anything else but viruses (obviously false).
2. viruses could not be used to deliver genetic material into cells.. (also obviously false).
3. and so on ..
Simply put: proponents of the non existence of viruses would have to find an alternative explanation (that holds water) for many observable phenomena.
There is plenty of historical evidence that viruses have been around since the beginning of life ..
To whom are you writing?
I defend the existence of viruses
To Matthew, I am addressing the evidence he presented (which is mostly correct), and the conclusion he draws from it.
Hi Igor,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
If you review the context of the thread, you’ll see that my initial response was specifically addressing the issue of contagion, rather than the broader question of viral existence. Elsewhere in the comments, I’ve gone into more detail regarding why I conclude that viruses, as currently defined, do not exist. I’ll share that reasoning here for clarity:
The foundational basis for the theory of viruses rests primarily on two key hypotheses:
1 - That disease is caused by contagion (person-to-person transmission), and
2 - That cytopathic effects (CPE) observed in cell culture are specific indicators of viral presence.
Both of these premises have been empirically challenged and falsified. The papers below present the evidence and reasoning in more detail:
Reevaluating Viral Transmission: A Scientific Review
https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a
The Non-Specificity of Cytopathic Effects
https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-non-specificity-of-cytopathic
Therefore, the rejection is not merely of a mechanism attributed to viruses, but of the foundational assumptions underlying their proposed existence. If the defining characteristics of a virus (such as its role in contagion and its specific identification via CPE) cannot be validated, then the theory lacks empirical grounding.
That said, I am open to reviewing any experimental evidence you believe supports the existence of viruses as independent infectious entities. Constructive scientific dialogue depends on engaging with the strongest available evidence from all perspectives.
MN> 1 - That disease is caused by contagion (person-to-person transmission), and
Lets step back. State of being sick can be defined as an abnormal state where function of organism is impared in some way (leaving out obvious injuries). A "disease" is usually associated with a specific set of symptoms. How "disease" develops in an organism can be due to many things, one of them being direct transmission (of pathogen) from one organism to the other.
MN> 2 - That cytopathic effects (CPE) observed in cell culture are specific indicators of viral presence.
You are correct that observation of effects is not idication of viral presence (only).
That is why proper science has to isolate and purify viral pathogen that is assumed to be present in the cell culture and introduce it into another, and eventually into heathy organizm to confirm it causes the symptoms observed in the original disease.
MN> Reevaluating Viral Transmission: A Scientific Review
MN> https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a
MN> The Non-Specificity of Cytopathic Effects
MN> https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-non-specificity-of-cytopathic
I have read (most of your papers), I have not found any fault with the evidence you are presenting. I agree with you that many things science (church) of virology is doing is very wrong and their conclusions are wrong too.
With that said, the phenomena EXISTS and can be observed trivially.
Also, for the point of this discussion, finding a single example of well defined and observable transmission should be sufficient to put to rest the debate of non existence of viruses.
Mr. Baaljen clearly presents the case of FMD and how transmission of the virus can be facilitated by a towel... So, if you want to claim the FMD viruses(s) do not exist, you have to come up with alternative explanation of the phenomena.
Hi Igor,
Thank you again for your continued engagement and for taking the time to read my work—I genuinely appreciate the thoughtful tone you've brought to this discussion.
Regarding the body of work often cited in defense of viral theory, I’ve seen references to various researchers and institutions, but I have yet to see anyone present a specific, detailed paper and directly engage with the methodological section to show how potential contributing factors—like those I outlined in Section 2 of my paper (Reevaluating Viral Transmission: https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a)—were ruled out. If such an analysis exists and I’ve missed it, I’d be grateful if you could point me toward it.
Before even delving into complex virological methods, we must begin by establishing natural transmission. If contagion is being claimed, there should be evidence that clearly demonstrates transmission occurring under natural conditions, absent the artificial methods typically employed in modern studies (such as injection, swabbing, or other invasive delivery or assessment techniques). If such a study does not exist—or has been omitted due to inconclusive or unfavorable results—we need to ask why. As noted in my article, over 150 peer-reviewed studies failed to demonstrate contagion even under controlled attempts.
If natural transmission is to be scientifically supported, it must be demonstrated without the involvement of the confounding factors discussed in Section 2 of my paper. Only once this foundational point is established can we even begin to discuss more artificial methods, like those used in inoculation protocols. However, these too must be subjected to rigorous control experiments. Unfortunately, such controls—meant to isolate the effects of inoculation methods themselves—are rarely, if ever, included. This is especially critical in light of the issues I explore in Sections 2.3.8 and 2.4.7, which show how procedural artifacts can lead to false-positive results attributed to contagion.
Next, we must look at the only direct evidence virology claims: virus isolation via cell culture. Every current viral detection method has been built upon this technique. Yet, there is no independent method to detect a virus that does not rely on the assumptions built into the cell culture process. Without such a method, any claim of viral presence becomes a circular argument—a topic I address in depth in my latest paper:
The Circular Reasoning in Virology - https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-circular-reasoning-in-virology
To summarize, any valid argument for the existence of a virus must satisfy the following three conditions:
1 - Demonstrate natural transmission, free from artificial interference. While I understand your comment that even one compelling example might suffice, I would suggest this sets an unusually low bar for a field that is said to guide global health policy. If a profession with thousands of experts cannot produce robust, repeatable evidence of natural transmission, this calls into question the foundations of the field itself. In fact, most studies presume transmission rather than test it. I address this imbalance in one of my articles (refer to the bar chart at the bottom of the article showing the volume and importance of evidence being produced - https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/a-brief-summary-of-my-work).
2 - Rule out all contributing factors associated with artificial inoculation and unnatural Transmission Assessment Protocols.
3 - Provide conclusive proof that cytopathic effects (CPE) are virus-specific. Demonstrated in over 30 peer-reviewed papers, as well as by Dr Stefan Lanka and Jamie Andrews to be false (The Non-Specificity of CPE: https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-non-specificity-of-cytopathic).
I hope that we can agree that these three points are not mutually exclusive. All must be satisfied for a coherent, evidence-based claim that a virus exists and causes disease. If even one is left unproven, the entire framework becomes scientifically untenable.
I remain open to reviewing any study or data you believe meets these criteria. I believe that constructive dialogue can only move forward if we collectively agree on the standards of evidence required to justify foundational claims in virology.
did you actually say "catch" We are not at a baseball game.
Infectious disease or bioweapon deployment has many facets.
Influenza was originally named Radiowave Sickness. So arguing about the existence of imaginary microbes is utterly irrelevant especially when seeking a cure for the reaction to electromagnetic radiation. 5G was rolled out in a specific sequence both chronologically and geographically. Covid 19 followed that very precise pattern.
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/the-fifth-generation-weapon
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 refutation 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 a very long winded way of avoiding the subject I raised. Amazing.
I have been two months under attack FRances, I am moving on, this was my closing message. Sorry if it was too long.
on 5G, I found this on chatgpt, can you comment please?
Namibia experienced confirmed COVID-19 cases in early 2020, despite having no 5G infrastructure at the time. The country's main telecom provider, MTC, publicly refuted rumors linking 5G to the virus, emphasizing that 5G services were not yet deployed in Namibia.
Iran faced one of the earliest and most severe COVID-19 outbreaks outside China, beginning in February 2020. Notably, Iran had no operational 5G networks during this period.
As of April 2020, Nigeria had not rolled out 5G technology. Nevertheless, the country reported numerous COVID-19 cases. Olusola Teniola, President of the Association of Telecommunications Companies of Nigeria, confirmed that 5G was not deployed in Nigeria and emphasized the absence of any link between 5G and COVID-19.
Lesotho began limited 5G trials in 2018. As of mid-April 2020, the country had no recorded COVID-19 cases, despite the presence of 5G technology.
Health Feedback conducted a thorough review of claims associating 5G with COVID-19. Their analysis highlighted significant methodological flaws in studies attempting to establish such a link. For instance, in Italy, regions like Bergamo and Brescia experienced high infection rates despite lacking 5G infrastructure, whereas cities with 5G, such as Turin, had comparatively lower case numbers.
Thanks very much for replying on topic. Much appreciated.
You gathered (hastily) your information from ChatGPT which, as an AI resource, can only reliably provide a prescribed narrative and is designed to disregard alternative views and potentially relevant information. I have discounted AI from my sources due to numerous inaccurate and mind controlling responses.
I would draw your attention to the fact that confirming C19 cases was done via PCR testing which has since been shown to be completely unreliable and inaccurate. Even school children fooled their testing using cola drinks and dog’s urine! Therefore any report which depends upon PCR test results must be dismissed.
Tehran in Iran tested 5G and immediately switched it off due to the hospitalisation of many citizens with breathing difficulties. All reports on this incident have been scrubbed from the internet. However, those of us who were awake at the time did not have our memories wiped, thank goodness.
Bergamo had 5G installed in its industrial estates. That was also reported at the time.
Exactly what occurred in 2020 is carefully laid out in this article and my extensive archive of recorded EMF overload incidences (since 2016) is referenced in the pinned comment, if you care to take a look:
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/the-fifth-generation-weapon
will read your paper!
Chatgpt can be used as a sparring partner, knowing that it is heavily biassed. I use it more and more. Its standard answer is of course the official narrative, but if you insist, it can make unexpectedly correct claims, and detect weaknesses in your argumentation.
Dear Mees, you need a remedial course in logical reasoning. The fact that there is no scientific evidence proving that viruses are causative agents of mass illness + the fact that these claimed viral illnesses are NOT preventable by vaccines does NOT mean that the people you list in your article are “charlatans” as you call them. This simply mean you are grasping for straws, appealing to authority and name dropping in desperation to defend something you cannot defend with facts. Also, I answered your questions (you claim I didn’t). I also provide detailed analyses on this topic on my substack. You do not bother to read them but somehow I need to engage in a “debate” with you? No thanks.
I used the word charlatans once in my article, but not for Team No-virus as you falsily suggest:
"In the case of no-virus, this also implies that people like Peter Duesburg, Kary Mullis, Peter McCullough, “Zev” Zelensky, Meryl Nass, Simone Gold, Sucharit Bhakdi, Wolfgang Wodarg, Vernon Coleman, Tess Lawrie, Mercola, Aseem Malhotra are unscrupulous charlatans who are pulling the wool over our eyes with non-existent viruses. "
Sorry, but here ends my interest in further discussion with you.
Mees, You called Meryl Nass, McCullough etc "charlatans" and that's who I am referring to as your appeal to authority and "big name" dropping (which means absolutely zero to me). These people, I am sure, have a varied and nuanced set of opinions that they are entitled to. You seem to be very uncomfortable when others have different viewpoint and so, you seem to need validation from these "big doctors and scientists" (in your perception).
If your interest in discussing anything with me ends here as you suggest in a huff-n-puff, well then, please abstain from using my name in your idiotic writing on the topic you seem to have no real background in. Thank you for understanding. For the record, I am not part of ANY movement or group, nor am I a "leader" of anything. Thank you one more time!
This is how you started your comment on my post:
"Dear Mees, you need a remedial course in logical reasoning."
Now it turns out that you cannot even read a sentence!!
And yes, I am a millionaire ghost writer with a team of experts writing articles which I then sign without reading them!! So I have time for my 8 chickens and organic vegetable garden!
Goodbye!
You do need to check your reasoning, that's why I started the sentence that way. You said if I say that there is no proof of viruses as CAUSATIVE agents of mass illness = Meryl Nass is a charlatan. That was your reasoning. And I pointed to it and laughed, dear. Because Meryl is NOT a charlatan, she simply has a different opinion from mine. That does not cause me any angst, but it seem to really perturb you. LOL.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 refutation 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.
I agree that the no-virus narrative is a lie, a psyop. One of the first websites where it was seeded is off-guardian.org.
However that does not exclude the possibility that BOTH the official narrative and the counter narrative are false. The same masonic forces spread opposing versions to tarpit people and to prevent them finding the truth. The hermetic principle of polarity applies here. When confronted with two opposing ideas, the vast majority believes that one is false and therefore the other must be true. Same with politics. The dual party system generates endless discussions about which hand, the left or the right is good or bad. They catch is, they are both bad.
As long as everybody is arguing, confusion is sown, and their agendas move forward.
That's true, but unmasking deceptions is still important.
Absolutely!
I'd say it's most likely both narratives in the false dichotomy are false, and we are looking for some other cause, esp. of the massive US death waves in 2020-2022.
“Filtration tests showed that the agent consisted of particles between 20 to100 nanometer (nm) in size – 10 to 50 times smaller than bacteria….”
If we can reconfirm that we have pathogens in that size division, it’s not the case that we ought classify them as viruses. The virus model makes no sense.
After 128 years we should be able to figure out how this foot and mouth agent is doing all this damage, what fuels it ….. All that kind of stuff. The virus model can’t do the job.
Do you mean "haptens"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hapten
It would be very interesting to research that very small stuff. Maybe they can explain the so called leaky gut syndrome better than the current hypothesis.
If there is damage to the normal functioning of intestinal permeability, it will be necessary to have a quantifiable and reproducible set of experiments in order to persuade academic medicine that there may be a problem there. Because, in theory, academic medicine demands high standards of evidence, and not just mere hypotheses that sound plausible but lack a leg to stand on. In reality this is also false: academic medicine is full of charlatans and nincompoops. So, it is wise to no expect nothing from institutions.
Well the big problem is, is that for the last 128 years or so they have abandoned the excellent Koch’s postulates and any chance they can get they ascribe a problem to these hypothetical little fellas. To the point of ignoring much larger parasites, pesticides, electro-magnetic pollution, the deep state poisoning the water and so forth.
Not throwing shade on Mees since this is the first time Tom, Andrew and others have been presented with a valid study that seems to contradict their thesis. But it is kind of telling that he had to go to another species and go back 128 years. That’s got to raise an eyebrow right?
When we were supposed to have had the plague it might be that Europe was loaded up on beer and bread. High glycemic food. The cow gets sugar with every mouthful of grass. We want to know if it’s sugar that the little fellas need for energy. The virus model doesn’t tell us any of that. And it may be that a population that spends 20 out of 24 hours in Ketosis may not be too much vulnerable to critters of this size.
So I say the virus paradigm still must die. Despite the excellent work of Mees here. The virus model cannot tell us what we need to know.
Byrdturd on X: "The "pandemic" was a trigger to accelerate the Cybernetic Revolution.. If you do not know what that is and would like to know, check out this video.. The final phase of the Cybernetic Revolution will begin in the 2030s. COVID-19 pandemic as a trigger for the acceleration of the https://t.co/V8cKySxzGs" / X
https://x.com/Byrdturd86/status/1914123929905500352
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521007794
The theory of viral existence is founded on two main hypotheses:
- Contagion
- CPE in culture is virus-specific
Both hypotheses have been falsified, and therefore the theory can be rejected:
- https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a
- https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-non-specificity-of-cytopathic
I would be willing to look at any experimental proof that disputes this finding.
Not necessarily, please tell me where Loeffler went wrong with his 1897 experiments.
You wish to present a method that has mostly been abandoned by the profession as the best evidence for viral existence? Don't you have faith in the current most widely used method?
https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reassessing-the-foundations-of-virology
Yes, i am using the most basic and oldest study that proof the existence of an animal virus, and I am asking you to tell me where Loeffner went wrong and if so, what made his discovery invalid.
It comes as a surprise that you would reaffirm your support for a method that the profession itself no longer considers credible. That would be my first objection. Secondly, beyond the profession's own decision to abandon this method due to concerns over its adequacy and reliability, I have outlined its shortcomings in the article I referenced.
methods come and go, but are not essential in science (see Larouche quote in my post). What is essential is the logic. According to the logic I subscribe to (Koch postulates), Loeffler discovered the first animal virus. Team no-virus has been insisting that only if their ABC Cowan goldstandard is used, the existence of viruses can be proven.
I state that Loeffler discovered the first virus, via a basic method that is now indeed obsolete, and that his discovery was later confirmed by modern techniques.
Until now team no virus has defined the ballpark of discussion, their ABC standard.
I show that ABC is not essential, and that other much more primitive methods already led to the virus discovery, 128 years ago.
Really? Then you should spend 5 minutes and collect the cool million reward for that proof offered by a wealthy Hedge funder...
Odd that no one has been able to collect.
"Team no virus", that is a simpleton descriptor. You do not "subscribe" to Koch's postulates.
One learns how and why they are still valid.
Modern techiniques is the way they get "virusers" to perpetuate what they so not comprehend. That is because of lack of reasoning skills, the very heart of Koch's postulates. False beliefs are exactly like that. Come up for air.
Perhaps FMD is transmitted by the eggs of a parasite that are teeny and go through the filtration process. If you can’t see a positive agent, you can just make up shit about RNA and DNA and it doesn’t mean shit.
I wonder whether Mees will respond to this...
Hey guys, this is just some wild speculation, shit if you like that better
Parasite’s eggs can be seen via optical microscopes.
Viruses are invisible that way
Whew, thanks. I was beginning to think that viruses were visible. So long as they are INVISIBLE, I know that they are real.
The only exception is the Samba virus
So called viruses are invisible because they have never been proven to exist scientifically. They exist in the minds of ao called virologists due to indoctrination and wishful thinking.
only the braindead or shills think the "virus idea" is real
Thanks for this very original contribution to our discussion!
You sure have an alternative explanation for Loeffler's results too?
already done: "Friedrich August Johannes Loeffler (* 24. Juni 1852 in Frankfurt (Oder); † 9. April 1915 in Berlin) war ein deutscher Hygieniker und Bakteriologe, einer der bedeutendsten Mitarbeiter Robert Kochs. "
Koch was a big fraudster just like Pateur and Jenner. The RKI is one of the biggest fraud/shill orgs in germoney. case can be closed .
i am not interested in some age old articles abt some obscure "animal virus" i olnly post here to make fun of virus beLIEvers... :) groetjes
but if got time i will look into the guy löffler, his theory was already debunkded by other commenters i see (eg wendy broffman). but i am sure we can find some masonic or jesuit connections for this guy too and maybe for u also :P
Chat GPT which also has its inaccuracies and falsehoods? Who do you think programs and controls Chat GPT ARTIFICIAL intelligence? The very same Globalist Mafia you claim to abhor, yet, you seem to want to believe. Do you not realize that the very theories in which you believe were created by "scientists" who were members of the Globalist Mafia? Have you ever looked up the definition of theory in an old encyclopedia? Theories are called theories for a reason. The definition of theory from Britannica: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. Yes, there may be a bit of truth thrown in there, but that is how they make you believe in it. Then, they put it in a textbook and keep teaching it as if it's true, until everyone accepts that it is. I would think that anything you can see under a microscope that moves, assimilates, replicates and feeds off a host is alive. And, any living thing that behaves in such a manner are probably parasites. Are germs and viruses living things? Has anyone seen them? The only invisible "contagions" that may exist are gases and they are poisons. Poisoning of a human looks just like a "virus" or "disease." It is the body trying to rid itself of the poison. And, yes, it can infect a whole family, a whole community and the whole world. It all depends on how that poison is dispersed and the substance in which it is dispersed, as well as, other factors. Poisons, chemical compounds, nanotechnology and so forth can all be used to create a detox type scenario in the human body which these Mafia "scientist" call viruses or diseases.
Yeah, I am taking all the mainstream news and books and GPT and documentaries for granted, so much truth in there that you can accept blindly!!
maybe you missed my standard comment:
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.
Largest virus and smallest parasite are around 1 micron. Both are visible with light microscope.
Please, specify!
Your curious mind needs a rest. Take a break friend.
Thank you for the advice, but I am fine!
And chat GPT already provided me with the answer on the size of parasites and viruses.
Kerry Mullis could find zero papers showing that HIV caused AIDS. The HIV story is total bullshit. And he also said never use the PCR as a diagnostic tool because it could amplify anything into a amount that is detectable. By the way, he won a Nobel prize, and he died in somewhat suspicious circumstances when he started speaking out against using the PCR test (which he discovered ) as a diagnostic tool.
HIV being total bullshit puts a serious mark of bullshit on virus theory.
I agree on HIV/AIDS. A fraud was committed.
That doesn't mean the whole virology is a fraud.
That applies to all fields of science, culture, art, name it.
I am not a virologist and I’m not gonna become one. I need to see one paper that proves very clearly that viruses are agents of an illness. I have yet to see that paper, I’m not gonna search for it. It is very well hidden, can you show it to me? Until I see that paper I will state that viruses are bullshit. Headlines and articles screaming virus this and that does not prove virus is a real. There is so much hype around viruses, people have gone insane on the subject. There’s no article( it would be famous if it existed) that proves viruses cause illness. Maxwell‘s papers on electromagnetism can be read by anyone, and are read by many people. Why isn’t there a single article of the same significance for virology?
Loeffler proved it John. I can send you his reports if you like, in German.
This is the question which nobody of Team no virus will answer:
where did Loeffler go wrong?!?!
They use all kinds of distractions and insults, but never touch this item!
In Loeffler and Frosch's 1898 foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) experiments, the "blister fluid" (the liquid from vesicles or lesions of sick animals) was typically injected directly into healthy animals—often intravenously, subcutaneously, or into other tissues. Sometimes rubbed or swabbed into small wounds or incisions made on the skin or mucosa to “mimic” natural infection.
This kind of direct injection or invasive introduction is completely unnatural. In the real world, animals (or humans) don’t get sick by having the internal fluid of another sick animal injected into their bloodstream or forced into lesions.
The blister fluid is not purified. It contains broken-down tissue, toxins, immune cells, and possibly bacteria. Filtering it through a porcelain filter (to block bacteria) doesn’t remove toxins, cell debris, or exosomes—all of which can cause symptoms when injected.
Loeffler never proved that a singular isolated "virus" caused the symptoms—he just showed that some toxic filtered material could still provoke illness when injected. And just as important, there were no proper controls. He did not inject filtered blister fluid from healthy animals, or filtered serum treated identically but without lesions, as proper controls. He did not test if the same symptoms would happen by injecting other biological waste fluids filtered in the same way.
Koch’s postulates were not fulfilled in teh case of isolation--there was no true isolation of a specific agent—only crude filtering.
Pure culture: You can't grow viruses in pure culture like bacteria (a key reason modern virology abandoned Koch’s postulates and replaced them with looser molecular proxies).
Reproduction of disease: Sure, disease was induced by unnatural means.
Re-isolation: Again, no specific “virus” was purified—just repeating the injection cycle of sick tissue.
Synthesized virus: What Wimmer synthesized was a genetic sequence stored in databases—one that has never been verified to correspond to a whole physical entity isolated from nature. This sequence was chemically assembled based on in silico models and introduced into monkey kidney cells, which are notoriously toxic and genetically unstable.
The result was cell death, interpreted as “virus replication” but never confirmed by isolation of intact particles that met the definition of a virus.
Synthesizing RNA does not prove the existence of a natural, disease-causing viral entity. It proves you can follow a computer-generated blueprint and get cells to die.
Finally, your piece ends with personal attacks, likening virus skeptics to cultists, accusing them of obscurantism, and quoting Lyndon LaRouche to paint them as ideologically extreme.
This is not science. It's character assassination. If virology’s case were strong, it wouldn’t need to rely on mockery and ridicule. Many questioning virology are medical doctors, scientists, and researchers, not “cultists”. What they ask for is simple: scientific proof of viral existence through purification, isolation, and control experiments—the baseline of the scientific method. Resorting to emotional manipulation and social shaming is a telltale sign that the evidence is lacking.
i am looking for the original papers by loeffler. All i find is FMD blah blah caused by virus. vaccinate, vaccinate vaccinate -- published in the last five years. on the face of it, this appears to be utter insanity. where are the notes and reports from his experiments or anyone else's that prove viruses exist.
evidence convinced no fool, premise #1 on disproving Virus non science.
Virus theorists are as hopeless as flat earthers. They refuse to see the obvious. Their theories are piles of cluttered half truths and outright lies.
on the tobacco mosaic virus
from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-reappraisal-of-the-contribution-of-Friedrich-to-Witz/90eb99562a356f3f804a6878cfc0a07b4a6ec7ee
Beijerinck was the first to use the term virus for such an infectious agent. He was, however, convinced that the agent was a liquid (or a solute: mentioned p. 6, line 16, in his 1898 article). In the title of his article he therefore named it: contagium vivum fluidum, or contagious living liquid. Beijerinck thought his interpretation was confirmed by the observation that the sap filtered through Chamberland candles was less infectious than unfiltered sap. He explained this reduction as resulting from adsorption of the agent to the surface of the filter, mainly at the beginning of the filtration. In a control experiment he found that the less diffusible (granulase) of two enzymes present in malt extracts was more strongly retained in Chamberland filters than the more diffusible enzyme (maltase), until saturation was reached. In a footnote of his 1898 paper (see Appendix I) he stated that he could not agree with Loeffler’s conclusion that the agent of foot-and-mouth disease was a particle and not a liquid.
--
all liquids are particles, atoms or molecules. The atomic theory of liquid was proven by Brownian motion and Einstein's paper on the subject.
let me propose a non DNA/RNA model.
there is a small molecule (one of millions in sap or blood). It acts in the blood as a disease causing agent by catalytically breaking an essential chemical pathway. In breaking the chemical pathway it creates copies of itself. Why hasn't this been discovered? is it false or is it masked in the millions of molecular entities flowing through the living? How would one isolate such a molecule among millions? Nearly impossible. Why invoke DNA-RNA? Because that was the newest and grooviest dominant theory of the last century (this one too, evidently). It became a religion. Religions make trillions.
Occam's razor selects the non DNA/RNA model - a catalytic molecule breaks an essential chemical pathway, with one of the products being the catalytic molecule. This could happen inside or outside a cell.
"all liquids are particles, atoms or molecules. The atomic theory of liquid was proven by Brownian motion and Einstein's paper on the subject."
This alleged proof may be deserving of a rethink as well, see Steven A Young's presentation https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YoP_KAOTCo4
The atomic theory is so well advanced that even a stupid lying Jew like Einstein can say something intelligent about it. Brownian motion was just a small application of the great work of James Maxwell on the atomic theory of heat and gases. Maxwell was not a Jew. He was a genius. Einstein was just a scammer, like every Jew.
I would like to see his reports. thank you
ok, please pass me your email address
jvisher@protonmail.com -- thank you
It is not productive to the discussion.
Virology is an academic entity, and thats it. It is not a subspecialty of Medicine.
That fact is telling. Renegade virologists will be common very very soon.
Mullis did NOT say what you think he said! I was THERE in our old "AIDS" dissident movement. I MET Mullis, a few times in fact, back when he was still pretending to be a so-called "dissident". I even produced the very seminar where Mullis said the comments you are misinterpreting! Plus, he was NOT killed! Take the time to learn the truth about Mullis, and STOP hero worshipping him! Mullis was a FAUX "dissident" and an establishment FRAUD just like the "PCR" which he claimed to have invented!
SEE:
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc
2. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage
3. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/new-kary-mullis-was-not-killed-by
4. https://controlstudies.substack.com/p/kary-mullis-dancing-naked-in-the
cool. if the "inventor" of the PCR who won a nobel prize for its "invention" is a fraud then our working assumption is that every biochemist, virologist, pharmacologist is a fraud as well, until proven otherwise. I am good with that. Many people who "met" buzz aldrin believe he walked on the moon. i meet liars and fraudsters every so often. so, is there a non-bullshit paper that links "HIV" to AIDS?
Pretty much tells you what the nobel prize is really all about, sort of like presidential medals of honor.
tou'che
Mullis sounds like MKULTRA psycho! thanks for sharing. Given the fact that 95% of the Noble prizes seem to be bullshit, what do you think of Ivermectin? I've been taking it and read good things about it. But who knows!! Do you have any negative information about ivermectin?
I definitely urge you to keep digging, but I would prefer not to continue posting on this particular venue, if you don't mind. TBH, I think that, with all due respect, maybe you might need to "get out more", so to speak. I would suggest that you check out what is happening on other people's substacks and on other platforms...
The virus theory is beautiful because it’s a simple statement. It has never been proven clearly by anyone because there’s no foundational paper on the subject. It’s a beautiful theory because it is disproven by a lack of proof. That’s all there’s to be said about virology. It’s a wrong theory because there’s no proof of it.
Dr Pasteur didn't prove anything. He took a solution from av sick animal, made a hole in the skull of a healthy animal, and injected it directly into the brain... Repeated, and called it a proof after the seventh dead mutilated animal! https://substack.com/@chemtrails/note/p-162687855?r=1h05tn&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action. Vivisection was an utterly cruel practice. Study this guy!
Please contain the distractions, the question here is if Loeffler went wrong, or was right
The experiment should be repeated then. A good time to do it! Someone?
The virus debate thrives but to me the biggest crime was the lack of treatment, the isolation, the ventilators and the deadly drugs like Remdesivir and Midazolam used to treat influenza and cold symptoms as well as the mainstream media and our own government fear mongering lies. Kman, Digileak World
During the scamdemic, I avoided going down this rabbit hole. As I didn't seen the need in distracting the "unwitting vaxxed" with theories which would further alienate them from reality. 🤔
Love your work, generally, but this piece requires appeals to authority. You're citing statistics derived from tests that don't work. The entirety of the pandemic was a hoax and obviously so. The acceptance of the "coronavirus" theory prevents the true causes of any sort of enhanced sickness from being discovered. There also was not enhanced sickness. There was normal sickness, perhaps compounded by people being kept indoors and becoming addicted to drugs, alcohol, etc... becoming anxious and depressed, suffering job loss and various abuses. There was also a hospital protocol that systematically murdered the elderly. There was no novel viral pandemic.
Please read Pierre Kory's book (find an introduction on one of my posts) on what you call enhanced sickness: there was, with an inflammatory syndrome that required new treatment protocols, which they succeeded to develop.
and number two: show me where i use bad statistics.
I agree that statistics were bad, but where did I use them?
What’s the proof of enhanced sickness? Covid tests? Death counts? The hospital protocol was killing people and the tests didn’t work. But we can leave it here. There’s no point going in circles.
Not so fast: where did I use those bad statistics?
Indeed, the general hospital protocols were killing the patients (with virus infections) that's why Kory and colleagues developed new protocols, which brought them into a war with the pharmaceutical industry and medical boards.
There is no proof they had virus infections. That’s the problem you’re not grasping. The tests don’t work. There is no proof anyone was infected with a virus. Most people experienced symptoms like a herxheimer reaction. Do you know what that is?
The cause of that reaction, those symptoms, could be a great many things. One thing it was not was a SARS-COV-2 “virus.”
Not so fast: where did I use those bad statistics?
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 refutation 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.
Thank you, but the question concerns the inescapable flaws in the evidence you have used to reach that conclusion. No virus was necessary for “covid.”
Yes sir, it was, read Pierre Kory's The War on Ivermectin.
With Covid came the complication of a new inflammatory syndrome, for which they had to create new treatment protocols. And they soon discovered that ivermectin, of known in vitro antiviral ability (even preventive!) worked again the new disease. I have a post on this on my site.
Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic. You should consider what that means if it’s fighting so-called viruses.
please open your mind a bit more. Many drugs developed for A turned out to be good for a very different C. The term is a repurposed drug. Ivermectine is a miracle and a gift from heaven because it also works against certain cancers.
Yes, because all of those are caused by parasites. Viruses, if they exist, are parasitic. That’s the point. Open your mind.
And yet you didn't provide any evidence to support your claims??? That's odd .
1. Pasteur is a proven fraud, his own lab notes are publicly available,
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691633978/the-private-science-of-louis-pasteur
2. Koch’s postulates have never been fulfilled, Thomas Rivers moved the goalposts and still couldn't fulfill his own postulates, and then later Hills moved them again using terms such as "might, or likely" lol...
3. Not once in the history of science or medicine has any alleged disease causing virus ever been isolated directly from the fluids of any sick host... this is a real problem because you rely 100% on the assumption that there was a virus in the sample to start with!
4. Contagion has never been documented.. if you believe that it has and this is settled science.
I will pay you $ 1000.00 if you can provide a scientific publication documenting host to host transmission of any illness/disease...
I'll wait.
Thanks for your offer, but I am not interested, I know enough now about team no-virus and their cognitive infiltration in the truth health movement.
Not interested to discover that the study is offered cash for doesn't exist?? Weird...
I mean the topic of virus or no virus is somewhat moot if you can't even document contagion now isn't it??
Nice cognative dissonance btw...
Loeffler documented enough contagion in 1897.
Please tell me where he was wrong!
No one in team no-virus has had the balls to take on this challenge!
If he was right, then viruses exist.
BTW diphtheria is claimed to be bacterial irrelevant to the existence of a virus...
Failed Koch’s postulates as well...
https://open.substack.com/pub/aldhissla/p/unveiling-the-germ-theory-of-diphtheria?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2bf3zm
Post the study here and lets have a look at his methods??
If you believe it documents contagion then it should be a slam dunk??
What are you afraid of?
Show me that you have the balls to take on my Loeffler challenge.
The rest is distraction.
Oh look an actual scientific study .... what ?? It refutes loeffler's bullshit?? 🤣🤣
Fucking germtards .
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM188903141201102
I just did dumbass…lets have a look at your diphtheria paper??
broken record play over and over
Basic didactic reasoning skills overboard
Good article. My view is that it is both the virus and the terrain. If you are healthy then you most likely won't get very sick if you get a virus. If you are unhealthy, then you might not fair so well against a virus. They are both part of the puzzle.
Dear Stella Bryan,
From the paucity of responses to this article, I hope that you might appreciate that many of us who are serious about scientific inquiry, have moved on from Mr. Baaijen.
This latest assertion of FMD being caused by a virus, and said virus being "passed through" animals or attenuated, is just silly. If there is a FMD virus, perhaps it can be demonstrated? Perhaps the DNA or unique proteins mapped?
Note that Mr. Baaijen fails to cite a single article, which purports to offer a falsifiable test to prove that FMD virus exists? Then we could start to find contagion; and only THEN pathology.
Lanka, Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Christine Massey, Eric Coppolino, Mike Stone, Samantha and Mark Bailey, Steven Falcon, the Perth Group, et alia keep asking for evidence, and REPLICATION with falsifiable methods.
This is NOT a good article. It is more logical fallacies and magical thinking. Just replace the word "virus" with "unicorn" or "fairy dust". Then consider how much insight you find.
Best.
Sorry John, I stated that more references are available from the author, so it's bad faith from your part to say that I don't offer a single article. I can send you a bunch of reports in German by Loeffler, and much more. It would not change anything however, because his methods are basic and easy to understand.
So please tell me where Loeffler went wrong! Be specific and to the point!
Dear Mees,
I would be delighted to see the references. As you reported, Loeffler never isolated anything, but did engage in impfung (engrafting). Such is hardly natural transmission via inhalation. But I could be wrong.
I recall that in your first article, you cited a SUMMARY of the claims of Loeffler and Frosch. I have only seen English translations of Loeffler. Please send me the original paper and highlight the methods section, maybe we can learn together?
Thanks.
biko97jcj(at) hotmail (dot) com
no thanks, I don't trust you anymore
WOW.
Reader: I do not see any references.
Author: References are available from the author.
Reader: Please send. I would be happy to learn.
Author: NO.
It has no sense debating a person who you don’t trust.
You are clearly part of a cognitive infiltration operation, where you play the good cop role, indeed I should say slimy cop.
Goodbye!
Trust is earned. I do not trust you, as you have not earned it.
Neither should you trust me. That is irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether there is any good evidence that virus exist.
You have provided none.
less then zero ( if this exists) these ppl are desperate to keep their easy living earning very good $€ for basically NOTHING to do. cuz it is just playing they do in the labs. if they are not busy to torture animals...(which some suggest is some evil ritual, so no wonder they are so upset this is threatened, their rituals and easy money)
In Loeffler and Frosch's 1898 foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) experiments, the "blister fluid" (the liquid from vesicles or lesions of sick animals) was typically injected directly into healthy animals—often intravenously, subcutaneously, or into other tissues. Sometimes rubbed or swabbed into small wounds or incisions made on the skin or mucosa to “mimic” natural infection.
This kind of direct injection or invasive introduction is completely unnatural. In the real world, animals (or humans) don’t get sick by having the internal fluid of another sick animal injected into their bloodstream or forced into lesions.
The blister fluid is not purified. It contains broken-down tissue, toxins, immune cells, and possibly bacteria. Filtering it through a porcelain filter (to block bacteria) doesn’t remove toxins, cell debris, or exosomes—all of which can cause symptoms when injected.
Loeffler never proved that a singular isolated "virus" caused the symptoms—he just showed that some toxic filtered material could still provoke illness when injected. And just as important, there were no proper controls. He did not inject filtered blister fluid from healthy animals, or filtered serum treated identically but without lesions, as proper controls. He did not test if the same symptoms would happen by injecting other biological waste fluids filtered in the same way.
Koch’s postulates were not fulfilled in teh case of isolation--there was no true isolation of a specific agent—only crude filtering.
Pure culture: You can't grow viruses in pure culture like bacteria (a key reason modern virology abandoned Koch’s postulates and replaced them with looser molecular proxies).
Reproduction of disease: Sure, disease was induced by unnatural means.
Re-isolation: Again, no specific “virus” was purified—just repeating the injection cycle of sick tissue.
Synthesized virus: What Wimmer synthesized was a genetic sequence stored in databases—one that has never been verified to correspond to a whole physical entity isolated from nature. This sequence was chemically assembled based on in silico models and introduced into monkey kidney cells, which are notoriously toxic and genetically unstable.
The result was cell death, interpreted as “virus replication” but never confirmed by isolation of intact particles that met the definition of a virus.
Synthesizing RNA does not prove the existence of a natural, disease-causing viral entity. It proves you can follow a computer-generated blueprint and get cells to die.
Finally, your piece ends with personal attacks, likening virus skeptics to cultists, accusing them of obscurantism, and quoting Lyndon LaRouche to paint them as ideologically extreme.
This is not science. It's character assassination. If virology’s case were strong, it wouldn’t need to rely on mockery and ridicule. Many questioning virology are medical doctors, scientists, and researchers, not “cultists”. What they ask for is simple: scientific proof of viral existence through purification, isolation, and control experiments—the baseline of the scientific method. Resorting to emotional manipulation and social shaming is a telltale sign that the evidence is lacking.
You are right that injection is not a natural way of contagion. It was done for practical reasons, as it was very difficult to get uncontaminated blister liquid in outbreaks. All other thinkable methods were also tried and proven to work (except injection in the skin), including the rag (which did not infect all experimental animals). The contagion even spread in natural ways to neighboring herds, so the experiments were transferred to an island without farms.
Your methodological observations show the same dogmatism as what I call Cowan's ABC, which is a "science trick". What use is it to take fluid from a healthy animal (which has no blisters!), or to stick a needle in an animal, or inject it with 1 ml of plain water? Has that ever resulted in FMD?
Than, where do I practice character assasination?
I present arguments for a psy-op (systematic misleading and falsification in no-virus publications) and from other experiences we know where these come from. See my next (standard)comment, after having been insulted and mistreated by no-virus attackers as never before in my life.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 refutation 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.
Thanks for your response.
I appreciate your acknowledgment that injection is not a natural route of transmission. But that’s precisely the issue—if the method of transmission isn't natural, then it cannot be used to prove natural contagion. Practicality doesn’t override scientific rigor, especially when you're making claims that underpin the germ theory of disease.
You mention other methods were "proven to work," but without clear, reproducible controls, we can't scientifically say they proved anything. The rag experiment not infecting all animals actually points to the opposite—lack of consistent contagion. That’s not evidence of a virus, it’s evidence of variable outcomes that need careful examination.
As for the spread to neighboring herds, were controls used? Were all other possible factors (environmental, nutritional, toxic exposure) ruled out? Contagion cannot simply be ASSUMED from proximity. That's post hoc reasoning.
Regarding your comment on Cowan’s ABC “science trick”: asking for controls—like fluid from a healthy animal or sterile water—is basic scientific practice, not trickery. If such controls have never caused FMD, that’s exactly the point. We must compare outcomes from different exposures to determine causality.
Finally, when you say that no-virus researchers are part of a psy-op, you’re moving away from empirical argument and into speculation about motives. If your case is strong, it should stand without reference to conspiratorial intentions. Accusing others of bad faith while denying any form of character attack doesn’t hold up if you’re labeling them as agents of disinformation.
If you’d like to continue the discussion, I suggest we keep the focus on experimental design, control groups, and evidence. That’s where science lives.
Sorry, my main point is that I will not discuss the no-virus theory any longer because I and others have demonstrated that its promoters can't be trusted.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 refutation 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.
Just hours after publishing this post you conclude that there is a paucity in the response! Do you have a PhD in Premature Conclusions? Or do I smell an organized effort to ignore this post, as you cannot play in your beloved ABC ballpark any more?
Why did Mike Yeadon get the smell of it within hours? Why did Crow signal all the no virus leaders? Why are you questioning me on protein and DNA mapping, if you as a PhD, JD know how to find these articles in seconds?
And finally: Why is nobody responding to my simple question on a simple experiment: where did Loeffler go wrong?
All this indicates that you are part of an operation
I appreciate the response. However, my personal experience as the youngest of 5 children growing up in England points to the existence of virus. My sisters, and my friends, often passed things from one to the other, such as mumps, measles etc. I know virus's are difficult to isolate and prove but it is also difficult to prove they don't exist. Hence, we all have to arrive at our own conclusions due to real life experiences unless someone can provide absolute proof they don't exist. I haven't seen that proof yet.
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.
On the misleading publications:
After a quick read 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 refutation 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.
Dear Stella, you mistake the notion of known symptoms for determined cause. And you reverse the burden of proof. As you might be aware, all through the 1700s and 1800s, the medical field in the UK largely employed Latin and Greek terms. Thomas Sydenham published Observationes Medicae in 1676 in Latin.
Hence, although he wrote COMPLETELY in English, it was logical that Jenner (1798) would employ the term Latin "virus" in his description of "smallpox" and so-called cow-pox. But as used then, he meant "disease". Vaccinae Variolae = cow disease. Making lacerations with a lancet and smearing PUS into the cuts is NOT proof of virus (as the term is defined since 1954 - an obligate intracellular parasite).
I would encourage you to see the work and presentations of Stefan Lanka, Samantha Bailey, Andrew Kaufman, and Tom Cowan. Many of their presentations are on Bitchute, Odysee, or their own webpages. There is an excellent documentary, "The Viral Delusion". I show it to my students in order to teach logical reasoning.
Best
I don't find the proof or the theory of terrain theory to be any more compelling than the proof for the existence of viruses. Interestingly enough I rarely see supporters of terrain theory ever bother to explain it, and what the proof of it is. Oh yes we can go read all these scientific papers that you refer us to but that's not very helpful for the lay person. No, all the terrain people ever do is spend their time making these convoluted arguments attacking virus theory while exclaiming how simple it all is.
Whenever I point out that when I don't take my medications my CD4 counts collapse and I become sick when I take my medications my CD4 counts gradually climb up towards the normal range and I remain healthy. Whenever I point this out I'm always attacked from numerous angles but nobody ever explains how my real life experience could possibly be occurring. Very similar to how they fail to make the case for terrain theory. as an AIDS patient taking these horrible toxic drugs that aren't being hoisted upon me my terrain should leave me quite vulnerable. But quite the contrary I am quite healthy. I'm not making the case for Rockefeller medicine mind you as it leaves much to be desired. And I'm totally open to the idea that many of these diseases are being created and that AIDS was a man-made creation. I will go to my deathbed before I take another vaccine I have lost much confidence in the current system but this discussion about viruses is a huge distraction in the same way that when JFK was murdered most of the books that came out about it afterwards were written by CiA operatives and that's exactly what's happening here.
Dear AA, your claims are interesting. I am glad if you say that you get relief by taking some "medicine." I am all for what works. But what is AIDS, and to what might you attribute any cause? Best.
With all due respect Stella, you are best advised to stay in your lane.
There is no respect in your comment at all.
It was not offered to convey respect. It is crystal clear that you think the existence of something is based on what you assert is a pointer.
Everyone is entitlted to an opinion, some are best left unsaid.
Then please don't state 'with all due respect' if you don't mean it. Just state your position with evidence-based information rather than trying to shut down my free speech with your 'stay in your own lane' arrogant comment.
Yes we can all see that since the advent of the measles vaccines children rarely get the measles. if they do it's an isolated event that usually results from children who have not been vaccinated. I'm not making an argument for vaccines necessarily here I am just saying that it's another one of those lists of facts that the no virus people conveniently ignore. Measles is an extremely contagious disease that rips through populations of the unvaccinated. I think these no virus arguments are being seated throughout social media to keep everybody busy while they finish wrapping up their self-replicating MRNA vaccinations that will lead to the demise of countless millions of souls.
Dear AA, in fact, so called measles cases (and pertussis, etc.) are common in the vaccinated. Do you not review the MMWR?
I will be glad to send you a list of published accounts.
At age 3y 8m, my never-vaxxed child had smallpox (aka chickenpox) after a significant change in diet (she was a vegetarian until age 3, and then started eating muscle meat) and it was winter in Bosnia (see al-Razi on the relationship between weather and smallpox).
After that three-week, cleansing / detox experience, I started giving her high doses of vitamins C, D3, E, and minerals like zinc and magnesium. She has never been sick since - that is 15+ years of health.
Starting in 2012, then age 15, my son started taking Youngevity supplements - he was never sore after workouts, and since then, definitely never had a cold or flu.
BTW, I live in China. Lots of kids are diagnosed with tuberculosis and measles ... despite having 100% vaccination rate. The hospitals hand out antibiotics like candy. Kids are sick here - but oddly, I who reject all vax and allopathic drugs - am not.
Lastly, did you mean "no virus arguments are seated" or seeded?
Best.
Dr Jones is clearly being purposefully obtuse. We can all see that since the advent of vaccinations children don't get all of the different childhood diseases that previous generations used to get. He can use his fancy logic and tricky words but it doesn't change a simple fact that we can all see.
Dear AA, obtuse? No one ever calls me obtuse. Can you elaborate?
(Bringing back Shawshank Redemption? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUD9W6EsMY)
Best
Dear AA, hmm, not sure that I follow you. We can all see? Since I was born, no nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. We can all see that Japan does not get all the bombs they use to receive in previous generations ...
For the most part, allopaths simply redefine conditions. Read Scobey (1951) on polio (aka infantile paralysis).
When it comes to rashes, we see "Fifth disease, with its characteristic "slapped cheek" rash, can be mistaken for several other conditions, especially other viral illnesses with rashes. These include measles, rubella, scarlet fever, and roseola. In adults, joint pain associated with fifth disease can mimic symptoms of influenza, mononucleosis, or rheumatoid arthritis."
You can read more about "First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth disease":
https://www.mdedge.com/familymedicine/article/87594/pediatrics/fifth-and-sixth-diseases-more-fever-and-rash/page/0/1
Best
Allopaths have developed an extensive vocabulary to describe symptoms. In some cases have identified an abnormal cell type characteristic of a dis-ease. However the profession has no explanation for its origins in most cases, treating only the symptoms.
The dog doth chase its tail.
Demonstrably false. The fork in the road is the false belief that health comes from needles. It really is that simple. False beliefs are common.
Evidence convinced no fool.
Bingo John. Mees is flogging a dead horse sadly.
a rather brilliant assessment, add Mike Yeadon to the list. Oddly he was a top of the tree Pfizer goon before admitting his false beliefs.
Tenure here will be short, at most 24 hours.
Pushing this no virus non-theory I can only hope it is because you are dim witted and not some sociopathic maniac trying to get people killed. Psyop rat m……
Yours is the dumbest comment in this thread. Congrats
Thanks, I had to beat out some stiff competition
Dear Alex,
I cannot understand you. What do you mean by "this no virus non-theory"? Thank you for your clarification. Best
No virus. Non-theory. You know EXACTLY what I mean. Thanks, happy to clarify
Dear Alex,
Sorry, I do not. But as explained by Andrew Kaufman, the "no virus" position is actually a refutation of modern virology. Virologists, emerging in the late 1890s and migrating through the 1950s (from Iwanowski, Beijerinck, then Flexner and Simon, Rivers, to Enders) offered hypotheses, but the claims are not coherent; and the dominant paradigms of CPE and genomic sequencing, have been falsified by Lanka, Kaufman, and Cowan - via their replication of Enders' methodology to create CPE with and without yeast. Best.
Now if readers understood those 3 sentences or there implications, it would shatter false beliefs.
That would entail demolishing World Views.
The fallout will not be pleasant.
What they call viruses are cell debris that are the result of cell damage and death, not the cause of it. Symptoms of illness are primarily caused by toxicities, deficiencies and stress.
Hi Ann, I don't buy the explanation and that doesn't mean their isn't cell debris. Again, my experience as a child with 4 siblings is that the virus (eg Mumps) was often passed from sister to sister. I don't see how cell debris could cause illness of that kind. If you can explain to me how that can happen, then I am all ears.
Dear Stella, the first question is "what is mumps"? Perhaps you could tell us about broader circumstances? What year, location, ages. You say "often", do you imply that whenever one of you were sick (going through a detoxification process), SOME of you would later get sick too?
What about other children in the local school or general neighborhood? I did an analysis of measles in the United States from 1950-1959, pre-vax. The average rate of diagnosis was 2% of ALL children ages 4-15. Such a trend is in direct contravention of viral theory which argues that cases "spread" and follow a bell curve.
Lastly, you might look for the FIRST paper, declaring that mumps virus exists. Then show us the methods section. There is no isolation. Rather stuff is added to a cell culture. And as Christine Massey and others have shown, if you request the CDC to provide any evidence of natural transmission of ANY virus, they cannot show any viruses ... for any disease.
But if you are willing to share, I am all eyes and ears.
Best
Did you all get presents under the tree every christmas? Is that proof that Santa Claus is bringing them?
Please, this is to discuss the proof offered by Loeffler that a virus exists, so be specific. Thanks
Dear Ann,
I think that you should be nice. I think that Stella Bryan was quite sincere in her inquiry. Of course, your joke was good. I thought that you were going to say that presents are contagious! LOL
"The virus" that has never been proven to exist scientifically.
I would suggest reading Proton Magic and D. Alec Zeck on substack for clarification on the no virus issue.
Thanks Sue
what I saw there is the now well known ABC Cowan Gold Standard "science trick", which is disproven by Loeffler's work
Ok... so you have still yet to provide any proof of claim... Kindly show us all where ANY virus was PROPERLY isolated and purified and PROVEN to be a CAUSE of disease... next show us where any bacteria was PROVEN to be a CAUSE of disease... until you provide proof of these things, you are just living your life in conjecture, hearsay, and lies...
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 read 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 refutation 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.
YOU are part of the problem in this world.... i hope you realize that... you are an evil man with foul intentions and NO PROOF to back up your claim... that's how i know you are a deceiver.
Jeremy Hammond and his pictures??? Sorry, pictures aren't proof. I have a picture of a unicorn... does that mean unicorns exits??? So dumb. What you need is an isolated virus and PROOF that it is a CAUSE of disease... but instead you deflect like all other deceivers. You don't "catch" someone's illness anymore than you "catch" someone's health... PROVE YOUR CLAIMS!!
Nope... still haven't provided any proof of your claim... you just bad mouth others with nothing to support what you say...You are a deceiver. You have no proof of viruses and no proof of alleged pathogens causing disease... if you claim what others did was incorrect, then it's YOUR BURDEN to prove... so again, PROVE YOUR CLAIM DECEIVER!!!
You are the umpteenth Cowan parrot with a recent substack without any original note or post, behaving bad on this site. greet your boss from me when he brings you his award!