Very cogently argued defense of germ theory. Your essay is missing a few things, which I hope you can put in your next essay. First, the scientific evidence showing viral transmission is the cause of viral infection. Second, scientific evidence for purified samples of viruses.
It is my understanding that the "no-virus" people have been mischaracterized in what is in all a likelihood a psy-op which attempts to make them look ridiculous by imputing that they claim viruses don't exist. Having read through this literature, including works by Cowan, Kaufman, Lanza, Samantha Bailey, Mark Bailey, and others, these individuals are merely exposing the gaps in the science supporting the viral contagion theory. Far from claiming that viruses "don't exist" as has often been incorrectly ascribed to them, most of them usually take a more measured perspective, saying that viruses have not been "proven" scientifically to exist. Some admittedly go to far, but most stick to the science. The failure of viruses to satisfy Koch's or Rogers' criteria is dismissed out of hand by the pro-virus crowd. Personally, as you may suspect, I myself take an agnostic view of viruses -- namely that they have neither been proven to exist nor not to exist. I'm in favor of better science offering superior evidence than we now have. I do confess that viral infection makes a great theory, and explains a lot. I do not have a better explanation. Nor do the virus skeptics. However, the ignorance of one side is not proof that the other side is correct. Scientific evidence must be the final arbiter.
In discussion with no-virus proponents, I found out that they always fall back on a dogma: the explanation for a contagious disease cannot be an infectious agent, because according to the (not generally accepted) no-virus theory, viruses do not exist. So it must be something else, such as a whole series of totally outlandish factors or hypotheses they dream up, all of which can however be ruled out and which are completely implausible anyway.
Koch's postulates have since long been adapted for viruses. The existence of a filterable disease agent (much smaller than a bacteria) was already proven in 1892, the tabacco mosaic virus, and the filtrate from one plant caused the disease in other plants.
See also the few references to scientific critique mentioned in my article, which rest on logical reasoning like the old Greeks did, not on pre-existing dogma's.
It is not a theory but a hypothesis. How would you explain trees dropping their leaves at the same time? The hypothesis is that something happening at the same time means there is a virus but because it is obviously due to cold weather approaching it isn't applied in this situation. It is selectively applied. Virus has not been proven to exist. If I said virus didn't exist it would detract from the fact that the virus is a hypothesis and that it is selectively applied without any effort to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the virus claimants and they have little more than measles parties that have not been documented. It is entirely possible to flip a coin with heads 10 times in a row. It is just as likely as any other combination from 10 coin flips. If you went on tv and asked a million people to flip a coin 10 times there would probably be around 1000 people who would get 10 heads in a row. If you saw it happen it wouldn't be proof that there was a virus tilting the coin to heads.
Like the THEORY of evolution - if enough people believe it then it must be true!
Hey we are all here aren't we - so it must be true!
Just trust "the science" folks!
A BIG BANG resulted in automatic order creation ad infinitum!
Strange - big bangs are usually destructive!
This all happened "millions" of years ago, so nothing can be proved or disproved!
Reportedly no geneticist today believes, that natural selection could credibly lead to evolution in Darwinian terms!
Yet the THEORY persists!
What does this tell us?
Germs, bacteria, viruses, and a myriad of other vague nasties, are threatening our health and happiness, which makes for a very profitable protection racket!
As far as I can see, early virology was not steered yet by the Global Mafia. You just can't throw everything on one heap because we now know that they have hijacked a good part of it since 60 years or so.
Indeed. Also, it's pretty much just the virus bit that's under scrutiny. I've seen some sort of psy-op to characterise "team no-virus" as saying NO germs exists. Nobody says bacteria or other little critters don't exist. Some think bacteria can do no harm if the terrain (i.e. the body) is healthy, others doubt that. Some think bacteria are the result of a sick terrain and never the cause, others think bacteria can do harm on their own. But the main problem pointed out by people you mention is that the scientific evidence for viruses is severely lacking.
Personally I have no problem with saying "I don't know". :) But I do know that if big pharma pushes it, distrust is the best way forward.
@thepredators
Check out this article by Denis Rancourt, it's a very nuanced and balanced piece. And I highly value Denis, as I've always have found him honest and thorough.
Bechamp vs Pasteur is an interesting read. The Rockefellers weren't the first to try to sell snake oil to the masses! ;-)
My view is that most medical science needs a do over. I've looked at a lot of different research, from drugs to causes, and in pretty much all cases I found a lot of problems with the methods used.
The more people who scrutinise medical science, the better the result for the world eventually. Bring on more disagreements, I say!
In this world of rampant propaganda and the politicization of nearly everything, we have to be very cautious about the possible hidden meanings of controversy. Much controversy is manufactured to divide us from one another and distract us from the globalists ongoing mission. The viral contagion may be another question where we can be too busy noticing the flaws in one anothers' arguments to notice that the globalists have hoodwinked most of the population into buying into yet another psy-op. This is a favorite tactic of the CIA, I have read.
Yes, I see your point. I always feel that people get too emotionally attached to certain viewpoints, which is the main driver of the division. Everybody has their own reason to find a certain topic the most important in the world, possibly triggered by trauma. Emotion causes people to close their minds. I'm sure the propagandists use this to their advantage.
It doesn't mean that a lot of science (medicine, climate, etc) doesn't need a do over though!
We were sold millions of dollars worth of "germ fighting agents" to keep us healthy.
Those who only use natural cleaners/sterilisers/etc, are no less healthy than the commercial product addicts.
The un-vaccinated are healthier than the vaccinated.
Germs, bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc - existent or not - dangerous or not - can all be made into nasties that we all need to pay for protection against.
Smacks of a profiteering racket to all thinking people.
So thinking people lift the carpet to see what is under it.
Thinking people try to sort the facts from the lies.
Ye I agree. One of the main tricks of the global Mafia is the protection racket: first set up an enemy or danger, than let them bleed or pay. It has a separate chapter in my book!
I read most of the Rancourt article now, and agree with his conclusion that the excess deaths could not have been caused by the spreading contagion of any novel virus. He thinks it never existed, I think it existed (based on clinical arguments) but turned out to be too weak for the plan, and had to be "helped".
Fair enough, though I am of the opinion that there was no pandemic and no novel virus myself.
I read through Hammond's article which you recommended, but remain unconvinced. There are too many issues with virology even before you get to the sequencing, which to me, makes his article a house of cards built on a weak foundation.
The essay is very factual and uses sound logic, which you like ;-), and from memory I believe this essay deals with both culturing and sequencing, among other aspects of virology.
But I'm happy to agree to disagree. Keep on fighting the good fight! Groetjes! :)
Poisons in the sky, EMF’s, glyphosate, poison injections, pharmaceutical pills, fluoride, atrazine, microplastics, mental anguish, stress, LED light, lack of community, lack of sunlight, sunscreen. I could keep going. Beschamps v Pasteur. Pasteur himself said he was a fraud. Not one example in science of contagion ever being proven, not one. No virus ever being isolated in nature, measured, photographed or characterized. Yet other organisms in the same size range have been. You guys are on a sinking ship… and you just won’t let it go. But the article was crap, and so was your response. Cogent😂😂😂😂. Kojak maybe😂😂
Dear Mees, can you please show us when and where you observed a purportedly invisible thing (a virus) going from unhealthy person to health person, and causing illness? Thanks.
Some say the agnostic fence is made of barbed wire!
Meaning you cannot sit on it - you are either on one side or the other!
As far as theology is concerned, I think this is absolutely true.
There are only theists and atheists - no agnostics!
Agnostics are just atheists with some uncertainties.
They do not believe in "God", but they want to keep their options open!
There are lots of people in churches, who obviously do not really believe in "God" or heaven or hell, but they turn up regularly and pay up just in case.
Doesn't work that way.
We cannot have a foot in both camps!
Viruses ... ?
I am an unbeliever until there is convincing scientific evidence.
Katherine Watts work on "vaccine" legislation is relevant.
"Viruses" are not clearly defined in any legislation apparently.
If there was scientific proof of the existence of viruses, then there would be a valid definition of viruses used in legislation.
There has been scientific proof for viruses since 1892, when tobacco mozaic virus was passed through a Chamberland filter and the filterage could infect tobacco plants and be cultivated in tobacco cells. During the 20th century all major viral diseases were proven this way (via the Koch postulates, which is based on pure logic). People who deny this are sitting on the barbed wire: their lies hurt them, but they continue. The Pharmafia tried to adscribe virus origins to polio, BSE and AIDS, but this is most probably fraudulent.
Dear Mees, did you read the paper? The word "virus", as used by Iwanowski, invoking the Latin concept, simply meant poison. Iwanowski overtly damaged the roots of the plants. There was no "natural" transfer" of any obligate, intracellular parasite.
But "pure logic" and "scientific proof" are two different things.
Logic may be pure or impure, true or false.
Scientific proof can also be true or false.
I am not on top of the science or the research, but when so many highly qualified and informed people disagree, there are valid reasons to question "the science".
You think "the science" is there.
Maybe it is - and maybe it is not - I do not know for certain.
There are many highly respected people who are not convinced.
I am very wary of the contention, that "no virus theory" is a counter theory to cause confusion and discredit.
It may also be an effort to obscure the fact, that there is no decisive proof of the existence of viruses.
This fact, if true, would be very detrimental to the agendas of some.
If "the science" was settled in 1892 as you claim, then "the science" should be truly settled by now.
There is abundant evidence, that "the science" is not settled IMO.
Not saying anyone is right or wrong.
Just asserting my intellectual integrity to remain an unbeliever, until I am
convinced that there is conclusive proof of the existence of viruses.
The tobacco mosaic "virus" experiments don't seem like proof of much to me.
As usual there was no control.
So the experiment amounts to rubbing a mixture of a bunch of chemicals and some processed extract from a sick plant on another plant and noting that the mixture damaged the plant. In another case injecting sap from one plant into another caused disease while uninjected plants growing next to each other never infected each other.
Experiments without controls don't prove anything.
I'm not a fan of Sam Bailey for a number of reasons - however this 17 minute video seems to poke holes in the tobacco mosaic virus experiments fairly effectively:
The 19th century is very funny because it was a time that everyone in the developed world was spraying their crops (including tobacco), livestock feed, and livestock themselves (Cooper's sheep dip) with lead and arsenic-based pesticides (principally lead arsenate), which has resulted in heavy metal contamination of soil and wellwater that persists to this day. Many pesticides were chosen specifically because they are difficult to wash off (either in a sink or via the rain). Use continued until the 1950s but arsenic-based pesticides were not fully banned until 1988-1992. The symptoms of arsenic (and other toxic metal) poisoning is fairly extensive in both plants and animals based on dosage, chronic v. acute exposure, etc. and produce symptoms identical to a number of "viral" and "bacterial" diseases. It is also readily absorbed into food/tobacco/etc and thus can indirectly poison humans and animals.
All pesticides are poisons to some degree but arsenic-based poisons are especially (darkly) hilarious because today everyone acknowledges their obvious extreme toxicity so we don't have to have a big debate about how they "might actually be safe."
So it doesn't surprise me that plants that may have been coated with or absorbed toxic disease-causing poisons being rubbed on other plants could "look like a tobacco mosaic virus infection", unless one were carefully performing controls to ensure their plant samples did not use pesticides or water or soil from pesticide-contaminated areas. Since evidently everyone thought spraying their food, soil, livestock, etc. with lead-arsenate and then subsequently eating arsenic-contaminated food, smoking arsenic-contaminate tobacco, and wearing arsenic-contaminate cotton and wool was perfectly healthy, I have doubts anyone controlled for the presence of simple filtratable "poison" (Latin: virus) in their "virus" experiments.
Could you kindly provide links to the papers that prove, in accordance with Koch's Postulates, that all major viral diseases were proven (to be caused by viruses)?
My understanding is that no paper has ever proved this in a way that is not full of holes.
How did you miss "There is also firm scientific confirmation, obtained long ago via the application of the logic of the postulates of Koch (published in 1890! now with adaptations for viruses)"? Viruses are not actually alive. They do not reproduce in culture on their own, as they require a host to hijack. Thus, Koch's postulates had to be adapted for viruses.
Reading Baaijen's article confirmed my belief that there is no evidence for the existence of viruses, though I would have to read up on the tabacco virus. Baaijen' presents stories about contagion that bear all the marks that are typical of narrative evidence. Mike Stone, for example, in https://mikestone.substack.com/p/the-wonder-twins writes that he and his twin never experienced contagion, while admitting that this is just narrative. Nothing in what Baaijen writes provides evidence for the existence of viruses with a genome of some 30000 nucleotides. There could be tons of alternative explanations for what he presents as evidence. I don't understand how one can, as Mark Brody does, find this article 'cogently argued'. To me this sounds more like a medical doctor just repeating what he learned as a student. PS. Baaijen's article is sloppy in presenting the opponent's view. He writes: 'The proponents claim - with great conviction and certainty - to have absolute scientific proof that pathogenic germs either do not exist, or play no causal role'. Where have you read that? The ones that I have read just claim that there is no evidence for the existence of viruses. For example Denis Rancourt: 'I am sympathetic to the view that human-contagious-disease-causing viruses have not been demonstrated to exist. So far, these demonstrations have not convinced me, despite my earnest study.' https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/germ-theory-critical-excess
Dear Daniel, no one has created an accurate translation of the Iwanowski paper on Tobacco Mosaic Disease / Poison. The word virus, as used then, is not the common definition of modern biology (an obligate intracellular parasite). Sam Bailey has a nice review of the "experiment" conducted by Iwanowski. Hint: no experiment, nothing natural. Lots of plant torture and blending stuff.
Thanks, that's what I try to show in the article, just by logic you can arrive at the conclusion that germs must exist. On which the no-virus adepts will react saying that the science is fully settled: no virus exist. When you present them with clearcut cases, they come up with outlandish explanations, but never a germ.
That is wrong. Logic can do nothing for the virus hypothesis. You might mean that your observations are strong evidence for the existence of viruses. They are not, because there are many other possible explanations, and they are narrative, not systematic. Besides that, they do not say that it is settled that no virus exists, but only that there is no evidence for the existence of viruses.
"But what exactly are viruses? John Coffin, a virology researcher at the TuftsSchool of Medicine, says that at root a virus is simply “a piece of information.”
How precisely does a "piece of information" perform actions?
Viruses are tiny—visible only with an electron microscope—and many contain asfew as two to ten genes, compared to the 20,000 genes in each cell of a person.
Which paper / publication shows that anyone has actually viewed an intact, whole virus, separate from all other materials, with an electron microscope? As far as my understanding goes, they've viewed something, mixed in with a bunch of other somethings, which they've then made a series of assumptions to conclude that this something is a "virus", (acontagious pathogen) when it could be a number of other things. They’ve also made an assumption that these tiny “things” contain as few as two to ten genes, but how could anyone make that statement without first viewing the thing?"
There is arguably no scientific proof of the existence of "God".
However, creation manifests obvious intelligent design!
So logically there must be a "God" right?
So I must subscribe to the "God theory" right?
Wrong.
There are other theories I can subscribe to, logical or not.
In the absence of proof of the existence of germs, viruses, whatever, logic dictates that these things may or may not exist, and I am free to believe whatever I want.
In the absence of proof, logic does not dictate that I must believe regardless, on the basis of inconclusive circumstantial evidence.
To imply otherwise, lacks intellectual integrity in my opinion.
Dear Mees, Drs. Kaufman, Cowan and others posit: no one has proved that a virus exits.
If you can offer a "clear-cut case", of sick person, breathing on a healthy person, and causing illness, I would love to read it. Even Jenner said that smallpox was not transferred via inhalation. Best.
You didn’t analyze anything all you made were assumptions. You never proved contagion and you have never shown a virus to exist other than preconceived. As far as flat earth… if the sun moves around us, it proves your theory wrong..
I make observations, and i draw conclusions, without worrying about dogma's or preconceptions, like no viruses exist. Contagion is in plain view in infectious disease outbreaks the next step is concluding that an infectious agent is for real.
Please read Daniel Roytas' book 'Can You Catch a Cold?'. It has been tried again and again to prove the existence of contagion by viruses systematically. No confirmation of the contagion hypothesis has been obtained. The experiences that you describe could be explained in many other ways. They are not evidence for the existence of viruses in today's sense.
No it’s not. It’s your preconception. My girlfriend has herpes… 3 years together… I got nothing. We are in the house she gets sick. I don’t, I get sick, she doesn’t. Your article was germ theory is real and flat earth isn’t and you had no real observations about either. You had opinions… you know what those are like right Mees?
You are following a dogma formulated by some very suspicious people. And you haven't really read my paper: infectious disease is a complex interaction between three factors
Dear Mees, can you present some examples as demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications? What are these supposed contagions? Where can I see falsifiable evidence that said contagion exists? Thank you.
Dear Mees, given that you have never seen a virus, or its process of contagion, your arguments employ a preconception. I guess there is no need to "worry" - but you certainly do employ dogma: viral-contagion theory. Best.
Presenting the problem as a choice between terrain or germ theory is itself a logical fallacy.
All disease is heavily seasonal and influenza has an extremely interesting epidemiology which actually rules out both transmission and toxicity as causative factors.
Terrain theorists don't particularly like to talk about this as they are all selling some sort of detox protocol and are therefore heavily committed to the idea of toxicity.
Yes, quite true, even heart attacks are seasonal. Only a few things aren't, such as cancer.
Are you familiar with the work of Dr. John Parkin (d. 1886) on what he calls "The Volcanic Origin of Epidemics"? He cites Noah Webster "A History of Epidemics" who believed that epidemics were associated with magnetism. Parkin dismisses that, but I think there may be something to Webster's hypothesis Parkin's and Webster's observations are related..
A seasonal disturbance to the bio-field produces different effects dependent on existing health. Older people have adapted to the specific nature of the field perturbations and have learned not to get ill.
Dear HP, well the first question is: what is smallpox? In the English-language medical lexicon, there are at least ten "diseases" with similar symptoms: chicken pox; smallpox; measles; rubella; foot and mouth; erythema multiforme; syphilis, impetigo; tanapox; and monkey pox.
My understanding is that the "outbreaks" occur under some or a combination of the following: change in diet in children (typically extreme increases in consumption of animal protein) in conjunction with eruption of teeth and weather patterns (rapid, extreme changes in temperature and humidity); and or the result of vaccination (inoculation).
Carey (1932) found these conditions easily remedied with mineral salts (potassium chloride). As noted, if Greenhill (1848) is accurate in his description, the treatment is a diet high in anti-oxidants. Hence, nutrition is a common factor.
Older people are less likely to purge as young ones do, however, we do have diagnoses such as shingles. Further, when toxicity accumulates in the tissues, the older person is diagnosed with cancer or organ failure.
Disease, within this formulation, is dysfunctional regulation:
“Disease occurs when an individual’s autoregulatory abilities are compromised. We encounter this scenario when accumulated stresses overpower the autoregulatory abilities, thereby impinging tissue robustness. These persistent perturbations can manifest as disease over time“
The Core Diseasome is a regulatory pathway common to many diseases. Many different 'imbalances' can trigger the diseasome, thereby explaining common symptom clustering. Activation of the diseasome can manifest slightly different symptoms depending upon the existing health 'state'.
Correct. Reductionism leads to dogmatism and the illusion of primary dyads: either the germ or the terrain. Weather patterns and moisture levels plus other seasonal factors were well understood in ancient times as primary vectors of disease. (Language reveals certain basic truths: how come we speak about "catching a cold"?) Communicability relates to shared exposure to these factors in addition to pathogen vectors (the germ) or terrain weaknesses (toxic overload). Each of these three factors (germ, terrain and seasonal/weather) can be more or less prominent in causation. Then there is the manipulated aspect of weather, air and atmosphere via military geo-engineering etc. So there can be temporal out-of-phase EMF disturbances affecting circadian rhythms. We have not even mentioned frequencies themselves (HAARP digital / 5G /6G) or emotional factors, how emotions can ripple through societies on modulated carrier waves, or as V2K, or how thoughts and beliefs, especially subliminally implanted, affect immune response. Any realistic model of disease process and transmission needs to embrace complexity otherwise it is simply the one-eyed ruler in the kingdom of the blind. I do agree that the whole no-virus ideology was created as a psyops. It was easy to apply because people like simple ideas and naturally recoil from complexity because it makes their brains hurt. It is a simple way to control the opposition by encouraging stupidity and then feeding the influencers. Microbes exist for sure as pathogenic vectors and these have been manipulated into multipurpose bioweapons as we can clearly see.
Well, I think it is possible to reverse engineer this. One must focus primarily on criminal psychology and on history. These amount, in numerous ways, to the same thing. As you know, whoever took control centuries back did so in full awareness that in order to maximize control one must have an indentifiable enemy. The primary means to domination rests upon controlling the friend-or-foe reflex embedded in our survival instinct. If we fast forward to today, we can clearly trace the evolution of bioweapons research at Fort Detrick from bacteria towards viruses due to their simplicity of structure, codability, and also because of their tininess. The relative invisibility of viruses appeals more powerfully to primal human fears of the unknown, and the invisible. Once HIV/AIDS had been created and crowned as the king of killers, they of course realized that they needed an indentifiable opposition which they could use to render the general public more fearful and enrage them more willingly into compliance. Of course, this was a bit of a bitched dummy run, but then they repeated it with Sars-COV-19, with the HIV inserts identified by Montagnier (before his abrupt departure from this plane). So I think it certain that they had long realized the necessity of "culturing" an oppositional voice in order to guarantee greater success for themselves. Fauci's Jesuitical background was perfect for this enterprise. To me then, Peter Duesberg becomes a key figure, a pivot. (By the way, I personally do not subscribe to the view that HIV does not by itself cause AIDS. I fully realize that is an unpopular view that triggers all sorts of people to get indignant. But it is based on empirical clinical observation as opposed to keyboard warriorship). At the same time, rather like an opportunistic infection, and very much like self-learning AI, I think they sort of figured things out as they went along, on the sly, trying this and trying that. By the time of Event 201, all such planning had matured into clear, unequivocal strategy: they would need to cultivate a viable and visible rejectionist sector who were ideologically identifiable not just as anti-vaxxers but as virus deniers. (This playbook could be easily adjusted to climate change deniers). I think they used a wide range of known and lesser known triple letter agencies and thinktanks in operations design. Fauci and Malone's revolving door relationship with the DOD was a pre-requisite since military strategic thinking was a core part of the psyops rollout. Then they had to select the influencers. Some of these would be well-intended but intellectually limited people, others would be attention seekers, and yet others (whom I shall not name) are shills and operatives working under cover. These groups (except for the last) do not understand the others' motivation. The no-virus psyops prepared people to be suckered into the nanotech psyops. Not that nanotech does not exist - it certainly does in my view - rather the paranoia and defeatism engendered by the operatives promoting this ideology ends up splitting society into discrete factions and disempowers both sides, creating spin off conspiracy theories much like the vaunted self-assemblage attributed to hydrogels and quantum dots. We know that Fauci's dream was always to have a globally applied and mandated HIV vaccine, and all the others are simply iterations of the archetype. But their strategy, as I have tried to lay out, required the a prior cultivation of an ideological counterforce. Once sufficiently built up, they would cast this as an existential threat. This is exactly what they did during the height of the "pandemic" and this is why they need to keep the no-virus flame alight for future usage.
It wouldn't rule out toxicity. If you consider the sport where people jump over a bar and then it gets raised until there is a winner who jumps over the highest bar. In this sport there could be a bar set that they could all jump over but if they came back 30 years later or had tried to jump it as a child not all of them might jump over it. With 'vaccines' this is what it is like. The people who can jump the bar benefit from a placebo effect and tell other people the wonders of 'vaccination'. Then later on as they get older they get to the point where they can't jump the bar.
The toxicity is a factor but it isn't always evident. With the weather it could be like that bar. There is the heat production the body has to increase in winter time. During the summer toxins could have accumulated that were manageable but once the additional acids from keeping warm are added it becomes too much. The flu is these acids backing up and suddenly overflowing into the space between the cells.
If it is rainy season it can have a similar effect to cold. Buildings might not have heating or if there is heating it is not sufficient as they are built for the summer. A damp cold is worse than a dry cold. Clothing may be likewise not designed for the cold and if they get wet it can cool the body significantly like sweating does. There can be differences in diet and the reserves of various vitamins. There are other factors like the rainy season will lower vitamin D like a winter does. There is differences in the amount of vitamin D produced with different skin colors and consequently the negative impact of the germ hypothesis.
Somebody just posted a two word comment (counted by Joseph Biden) which I can't find anymore: the Rosenau experiment.
Rosenau could not inoculate volunteers with excretions of the patients of the great influenza epidemic of 1918. I will study this more, I remember that other came to the conclusion that something else than a flu virus was involved.
Finally, a long awaited article from an authoritative and credible source @Mees Baaijen that puts to rest the germ vs terrain camps. The short and sweet of it is that both are real!
Anyone who has done the real science knows that there are no viruses in nature. Yes, I know Mees, here are we again BUT I have the proof in just one room that will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt!
Research it for a few weeks and then you will understand & see it for yourself.
No discussion anymore on this and proof enough that Pasteur & germ theory is one big historical fraud and we are all being had. No denying after this because these are the facts!
You are open & unbiased or you are closed and biased= tunnel vision= you cannot see the real truth of the matter and this is also a fact.
I hope you do not rest and think you have seen all the facts. I know for 100% that you have not. It's up to you and I want to have a debate here AFTER you have seen the other side of this coin. Not sooner.
3000 pages of "virus" freedom of information responses and court documents, from 211 institutions in 40 countries - including 52 Canadian institutions - are available to everyone on the internet, in compilation pdfs here, along with my notarized declaration regarding the blatantly anti-scientific nature of virology and the fraudulent nature of everything to do with "COVID-19" to be viewed here.
Very credible input (IMO) claims that SARS-Cov2 was an uploaded " simulated synthetic chimeric computer generated code".
This code was patented long before the claimed "pandemic".
There never was any "virus" or naturally occurring anything else!
If this is true, this would explain a number of things.
The "virus/no virus debate", revolves around the claim of a potentially deadly "virus" originating in Wuhan, either from a "wet market" or a "lab leak" or both.
The Wuhan story obviously smells very fishy and smacks of a potential coverup.
If there was no "actual virus", then there could have been no isolation and sequencing.
If there was only a "computer generated sequencing code", this could be used as cover.
Access to this computer generated code may have been denied worldwide, because access to the code would inevitably prove, that there was no actual virus involved.
And that the "sequencing code" for "the novel virus" had been patented long ago.
Those who claimed that there was a "real sequence for a real virus" could have been deceived.
There was a real computer sequence, but not for a real virus.
This might explain questionable claims, that the "actual virus" does not need to be isolated and sequenced!
Only the "computer sequence" of the "actual virus" is needed.
This proves nothing about the existence of an actual virus or its sequence.
Who validates the sequencing of the claimed "actual virus"?
In this case only Chinese scientists apparently.
There is no scientific validation without replication.
There appears to be no replication anywhere, so there is no validation.
Nor can there be if there is no "actual virus".
Therefore, arguably there is absolutely no validated scientific proof of the existence of an "actual SARS-COV2 virus."
This does not prove that viruses do not exist in general.
However, without valid proof of the existence of viruses, the jury is still out.
I think you refer to the opinions of Jonathan Couey. Honestly he made me doubt my position, but he is contradicted in the Hammond paper mentioned in the article.
And also, by the clinical and pathological findings (blood clotting, and in the case of depletion of the clotting factors by excessive clotting, in bleeding).
The symptom of anosmia (loss of smell) also had high reports during Covid (Mathew Crawford)
I think the clinical and pathological findings you reference are post "vaccination", so not attributable to "the virus".
Loss of smell points to poisoning of some sort, not "viral infection".
Some people experienced severe health crises consistent with poisoning.
Obviously something else was going on, apart from a "viral infection."
Contagion is a non-argument in the c-v-d context.
The "pandemic" did not spread randomly like wildfire worldwide!
The "virus" clearly respected local, state and national barriers to a significant degree in many places, despite very unconvincing claims to the contrary!
No "pandemic" claims could have been maintained, without the massive numbers of fraudulent, false positive "PCR test" results.
There were credible claims from some doctors, of a somewhat unique respiratory infection and even deaths.
However, the all-cause-mortality rates show no excess deaths!
There is no evidence of millions of excess deaths worldwide!
So without the "pandemic propaganda" fueled by "PCR test" lies, there was no real cause for alarm.
I do not have the medical/scientific knowledge to evaluate this input.
Others who do, are not convinced.
I cannot say for certain if Hammond's claims are valid.
However, logical flaws in his input concern me.
For instance, a potentially lethal "virus" was proven to exist, but all-cause-mortality data worldwide did not prove any excess deaths at all.
Hammond does not address this, or other critical issues.
Most people are just ordinary bods.
They are not scientific/medical "experts".
Nor are they all fools, whose intellectual capabilities can just be negated and their obvious genuine concerns silenced, by claimed scientific evidence beyond their capacity to understand.
If the clear evidence was there, why was it hidden behind a wall of lies?
Hammond claims valid "viral sequencing" was available.
Why was this denied by FOI requests in over 100 nations then?
Hammond's scientific claims, do not gel with the generally available facts.
Ik ben zo vriendelijk geweest om even een stukje van jouw optreden bij "jorn luka" te beluisteren. Via youtube nota bene. Kennelijk mag jouw verhaal daar probleemloos acht maanden blijven staan. Best bijzonder.
In wezen vond ik niet dat je een baggerverhaal had tot je beweerde dat Israël schaakmat zou staan. Sowieso speelde de bijbel/torah geen rol in jouw verhaal, althans tot aan dat moment, want verder heb ik niet gekeken.
Het is mogelijk dat je later alsnog iets over religie gezegd heb, maar het lijkt me dat we mogen stellen dat je schijnbaar geen bijbelkenner bent.
Dat is een probleem.
En jouw verhaal is doorspekt met precies dit probleem, want aangenomen dat je oprecht bent, stel ik dat jouw duiding oppervlakkig blijft juist omdat je de mentaliteit van onze vrolijke vrienden, zoals ik onze stamgasten wel eens noem, niet op waarde schat.
Sowieso neem je duizenden jaren geschiedenis niet mee in jouw verhaal, althans in jouw duiding van de status quo. Je ziet weliswaar patronen, maar je voert ze niet ver genoeg terug. Je zou in elk geval terug moeten gaan tot aan de Hyksos en eigenlijk nog veel verder terug, dus tot aan Babylon en Sumer en mogelijk nog verder terug.
Voor wat betreft virussen, stel je je enkel halsstarrig op. Laatst riep ik nog: als iemand mij zekerheid wil verkopen, want correlatie, dan smijt ik de deur in zijn gezicht. Ik heb verder geen zin in discussies over virussen of andere onzin inzake "de biochemie". Als jij graag in onzin wil geloven, dan moet je dat vooral lekker doen. Ik zou natuurlijk liever zien dat je een open houding aanneemt. Het zou jouw verhaal ten goede komen.
Je hebt me al eerder beledigd, maar ik zal nog een keer reageren. Je hebt een stukje van een interview met mij gehoord en begint dan allerlei valse conclusies te trekken over mijn werk en visie. Als je mijn werk leest zal je zien dat ik wel 3000 jaar terugga, op de rol van de bijbel inga, etc. Nogmaals, shame on you!
Jouw lange tenen zijn niet mijn probleem Mees en dat lawaai maakt weinig indruk.
Ik beschrijf nauwkeurig waarom ik denk wat ik denk en bied jou daarmee ruim de gelegenheid om er iets tegen in te brengen voor zover je dat zou willen.
Met deze reactie laat je nogmaals zien dat jouw ego je parten speelt. Je bent daar op gewezen maar je lijkt het niet te registreren.
My experience with the Mees Baaijens of the world is that they will never allow true, sincere scrutiny of their assumptions, premises, assertions, and logic. They will deny to their opponents an open exposition of the working of their minds and they will never submit themselves to the best tool for uncovering truth - cross examination. These facts alone tell you most of what you need to know about them and their musings
Quite a response that. To the contrary, I care only about the truth. If I’m wrong about something I would appreciate anyone who could disabuse me of my deluded thinking. And I gladly and fully put openly forth the working of my mind, and subject myself to any sincere cross examination as long as there is reciprocity. I follow the Golden Rule.
I understood. Maybe you don’t understand me. This is not a put down - I speak, write and read only one language and have only admiration for those who are my better in that area - but is it possible in this overall discussion you are missing some of the subtleties of the English speakers?
Those who can’t get past the programmed voices in their own heads are able to act competently in transactional and mechanical ways. I don’t doubt Mees is able to perform the mechanics of veterinarian medicine with a certain intelligence. Of course, believing in non-truths can and does have deadly consequences that such practitioners will be completely unable to fully acknowledge. The US allopathic menace admits to killing 100s of thousands of people per year and yet our “good” doctors and their patients gone on blithely marching through the killing fields. Now, that’s an undisputed fact - only the numbers would be in question. Adding in the I acknowledged harms of vaccines and cancer treatments would probably double the tally of slaughter. But the very foundation that monstrosity is built upon should not be questioned? It’s so absurd.
Please do your homework before you disseminate falsities, and read my chapter on Pharmafia that I linked in the first article, or look under Book Preview
The question of the existence of viruses is open, debate and research are necessary. Qualified, truth-seeking people come to different conclusions, with serious arguments. Such disagreements are essential to science. At present, both sides call the other side deluded or stupid. That is not helpful and not adequate. Also Hammond's wording 'Correcting Disinformation …' is condescending and thus not helpful, an attempt to debunk the opponents, instead of simply presenting an argument. I have seen too unfriendly attacks in the other direction too. The proponents of viruses want to defend the existence of viruses without observations of viruses and without Koch's postulates and without control experiments. The critics of viruses say that this is not valid. In my view, it can be attempted, but the proponents of viruses need to accept that there is a challenge, instead of making condescending remarks and comparing virus denial to flat earth.
One observation about Hammond's article https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/in-profile/in-profile-history/, which Baaijen recommends: It is partly a helpful contribution to the debate, but in some places journalistic, partisan rather than truth-seeking. For example, Hammond quotes 'Kaufman and Cowan’s “Statement on Virus Isolation” that the genetic makeup of particles can be “characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have been around for decades.”' Then Hammonds claims that this is 'a puzzling self-contradiction' to Kaufman's claim that genome sequencing is an invalid method because we have no reference genome. But there is of course no contradiction. Kaufman's and Cowan's view is that 'extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles …' would be the right method for discovering a reference genome, but that this has not been done. Hammond claims that it has been done. Very well, carry on discussing. Hammond's comment that 'their mutual argument in response to me is falsified by their own public declaration' is a journalistic device that raises the question whether Hammond is truth-seeking.
Very cogently argued defense of germ theory. Your essay is missing a few things, which I hope you can put in your next essay. First, the scientific evidence showing viral transmission is the cause of viral infection. Second, scientific evidence for purified samples of viruses.
It is my understanding that the "no-virus" people have been mischaracterized in what is in all a likelihood a psy-op which attempts to make them look ridiculous by imputing that they claim viruses don't exist. Having read through this literature, including works by Cowan, Kaufman, Lanza, Samantha Bailey, Mark Bailey, and others, these individuals are merely exposing the gaps in the science supporting the viral contagion theory. Far from claiming that viruses "don't exist" as has often been incorrectly ascribed to them, most of them usually take a more measured perspective, saying that viruses have not been "proven" scientifically to exist. Some admittedly go to far, but most stick to the science. The failure of viruses to satisfy Koch's or Rogers' criteria is dismissed out of hand by the pro-virus crowd. Personally, as you may suspect, I myself take an agnostic view of viruses -- namely that they have neither been proven to exist nor not to exist. I'm in favor of better science offering superior evidence than we now have. I do confess that viral infection makes a great theory, and explains a lot. I do not have a better explanation. Nor do the virus skeptics. However, the ignorance of one side is not proof that the other side is correct. Scientific evidence must be the final arbiter.
In discussion with no-virus proponents, I found out that they always fall back on a dogma: the explanation for a contagious disease cannot be an infectious agent, because according to the (not generally accepted) no-virus theory, viruses do not exist. So it must be something else, such as a whole series of totally outlandish factors or hypotheses they dream up, all of which can however be ruled out and which are completely implausible anyway.
Koch's postulates have since long been adapted for viruses. The existence of a filterable disease agent (much smaller than a bacteria) was already proven in 1892, the tabacco mosaic virus, and the filtrate from one plant caused the disease in other plants.
See also the few references to scientific critique mentioned in my article, which rest on logical reasoning like the old Greeks did, not on pre-existing dogma's.
It is not a theory but a hypothesis. How would you explain trees dropping their leaves at the same time? The hypothesis is that something happening at the same time means there is a virus but because it is obviously due to cold weather approaching it isn't applied in this situation. It is selectively applied. Virus has not been proven to exist. If I said virus didn't exist it would detract from the fact that the virus is a hypothesis and that it is selectively applied without any effort to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the virus claimants and they have little more than measles parties that have not been documented. It is entirely possible to flip a coin with heads 10 times in a row. It is just as likely as any other combination from 10 coin flips. If you went on tv and asked a million people to flip a coin 10 times there would probably be around 1000 people who would get 10 heads in a row. If you saw it happen it wouldn't be proof that there was a virus tilting the coin to heads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1SJ-Tn3bcQ
Like the THEORY of evolution - if enough people believe it then it must be true!
Hey we are all here aren't we - so it must be true!
Just trust "the science" folks!
A BIG BANG resulted in automatic order creation ad infinitum!
Strange - big bangs are usually destructive!
This all happened "millions" of years ago, so nothing can be proved or disproved!
Reportedly no geneticist today believes, that natural selection could credibly lead to evolution in Darwinian terms!
Yet the THEORY persists!
What does this tell us?
Germs, bacteria, viruses, and a myriad of other vague nasties, are threatening our health and happiness, which makes for a very profitable protection racket!
Beware of the scientist with a pitch-fork!
As far as I can see, early virology was not steered yet by the Global Mafia. You just can't throw everything on one heap because we now know that they have hijacked a good part of it since 60 years or so.
Enders was a member of Scroll and Key. That should be enough by itself for a more suspicious stance.
Agreed.
However, this does not necessarily prove anything about the integrity of claimed previous proofs of the the existence of viruses.
Indeed. Also, it's pretty much just the virus bit that's under scrutiny. I've seen some sort of psy-op to characterise "team no-virus" as saying NO germs exists. Nobody says bacteria or other little critters don't exist. Some think bacteria can do no harm if the terrain (i.e. the body) is healthy, others doubt that. Some think bacteria are the result of a sick terrain and never the cause, others think bacteria can do harm on their own. But the main problem pointed out by people you mention is that the scientific evidence for viruses is severely lacking.
Personally I have no problem with saying "I don't know". :) But I do know that if big pharma pushes it, distrust is the best way forward.
@thepredators
Check out this article by Denis Rancourt, it's a very nuanced and balanced piece. And I highly value Denis, as I've always have found him honest and thorough.
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/germ-theory-critical-excess
Edit: I mixed up two articles, though both worthwhile. I was thinking of this one: https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/medical-hypothesis-respiratory-epidemics
My first impression is that Rancourts doubts are eliminated by Jeremy Hammond's article, linked in this post
Apologies, I mixed up two of Denis' articles and just grabbed the first link I saw (even though it's a good article and he states his doubts about virology in there). This is the one I was thinking of: https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/medical-hypothesis-respiratory-epidemics
I did not read that yet, I'll check it out.
thanks for sharing the article, which I ignored.
Pharma pushes it now, as a protection rackets, just as they do for global warming and new "Hitlers".
But virus science goes back to pre-Rockefeller medling in medical science and virology, see my previous comment.
Bechamp vs Pasteur is an interesting read. The Rockefellers weren't the first to try to sell snake oil to the masses! ;-)
My view is that most medical science needs a do over. I've looked at a lot of different research, from drugs to causes, and in pretty much all cases I found a lot of problems with the methods used.
The more people who scrutinise medical science, the better the result for the world eventually. Bring on more disagreements, I say!
In this world of rampant propaganda and the politicization of nearly everything, we have to be very cautious about the possible hidden meanings of controversy. Much controversy is manufactured to divide us from one another and distract us from the globalists ongoing mission. The viral contagion may be another question where we can be too busy noticing the flaws in one anothers' arguments to notice that the globalists have hoodwinked most of the population into buying into yet another psy-op. This is a favorite tactic of the CIA, I have read.
Hi Mark, you are totally right.
Divide-and-rule, and endless distraction to lead the populace away from the real questions. By now I know how energy consuming this discussion is!
Thanks, Mees. You are a wise observer. I have enjoyed reading your writing and look forward to reading more.
Yes, I see your point. I always feel that people get too emotionally attached to certain viewpoints, which is the main driver of the division. Everybody has their own reason to find a certain topic the most important in the world, possibly triggered by trauma. Emotion causes people to close their minds. I'm sure the propagandists use this to their advantage.
It doesn't mean that a lot of science (medicine, climate, etc) doesn't need a do over though!
One bottom line...
We were sold millions of dollars worth of "germ fighting agents" to keep us healthy.
Those who only use natural cleaners/sterilisers/etc, are no less healthy than the commercial product addicts.
The un-vaccinated are healthier than the vaccinated.
Germs, bacteria, fungi, viruses, etc - existent or not - dangerous or not - can all be made into nasties that we all need to pay for protection against.
Smacks of a profiteering racket to all thinking people.
So thinking people lift the carpet to see what is under it.
Thinking people try to sort the facts from the lies.
Ye I agree. One of the main tricks of the global Mafia is the protection racket: first set up an enemy or danger, than let them bleed or pay. It has a separate chapter in my book!
I read most of the Rancourt article now, and agree with his conclusion that the excess deaths could not have been caused by the spreading contagion of any novel virus. He thinks it never existed, I think it existed (based on clinical arguments) but turned out to be too weak for the plan, and had to be "helped".
Fair enough, though I am of the opinion that there was no pandemic and no novel virus myself.
I read through Hammond's article which you recommended, but remain unconvinced. There are too many issues with virology even before you get to the sequencing, which to me, makes his article a house of cards built on a weak foundation.
If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend Mark Bailey's essay about virology: https://archive.org/details/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/mode/2up
The essay is very factual and uses sound logic, which you like ;-), and from memory I believe this essay deals with both culturing and sequencing, among other aspects of virology.
But I'm happy to agree to disagree. Keep on fighting the good fight! Groetjes! :)
Poisons in the sky, EMF’s, glyphosate, poison injections, pharmaceutical pills, fluoride, atrazine, microplastics, mental anguish, stress, LED light, lack of community, lack of sunlight, sunscreen. I could keep going. Beschamps v Pasteur. Pasteur himself said he was a fraud. Not one example in science of contagion ever being proven, not one. No virus ever being isolated in nature, measured, photographed or characterized. Yet other organisms in the same size range have been. You guys are on a sinking ship… and you just won’t let it go. But the article was crap, and so was your response. Cogent😂😂😂😂. Kojak maybe😂😂
I observed real life events, and made conclusions, not influenced by any dogma.
You observed without any conclusion other than it must be contagion, it must be germs. That is the definition of Dogma… you are funny Mees😂😂
Dear Mees, can you please show us when and where you observed a purportedly invisible thing (a virus) going from unhealthy person to health person, and causing illness? Thanks.
Some say the agnostic fence is made of barbed wire!
Meaning you cannot sit on it - you are either on one side or the other!
As far as theology is concerned, I think this is absolutely true.
There are only theists and atheists - no agnostics!
Agnostics are just atheists with some uncertainties.
They do not believe in "God", but they want to keep their options open!
There are lots of people in churches, who obviously do not really believe in "God" or heaven or hell, but they turn up regularly and pay up just in case.
Doesn't work that way.
We cannot have a foot in both camps!
Viruses ... ?
I am an unbeliever until there is convincing scientific evidence.
Katherine Watts work on "vaccine" legislation is relevant.
"Viruses" are not clearly defined in any legislation apparently.
If there was scientific proof of the existence of viruses, then there would be a valid definition of viruses used in legislation.
Silence and obfuscation can speak very loudly.
There has been scientific proof for viruses since 1892, when tobacco mozaic virus was passed through a Chamberland filter and the filterage could infect tobacco plants and be cultivated in tobacco cells. During the 20th century all major viral diseases were proven this way (via the Koch postulates, which is based on pure logic). People who deny this are sitting on the barbed wire: their lies hurt them, but they continue. The Pharmafia tried to adscribe virus origins to polio, BSE and AIDS, but this is most probably fraudulent.
Dear Mees, did you read the paper? The word "virus", as used by Iwanowski, invoking the Latin concept, simply meant poison. Iwanowski overtly damaged the roots of the plants. There was no "natural" transfer" of any obligate, intracellular parasite.
Point taken Mees.
But "pure logic" and "scientific proof" are two different things.
Logic may be pure or impure, true or false.
Scientific proof can also be true or false.
I am not on top of the science or the research, but when so many highly qualified and informed people disagree, there are valid reasons to question "the science".
You think "the science" is there.
Maybe it is - and maybe it is not - I do not know for certain.
There are many highly respected people who are not convinced.
I am very wary of the contention, that "no virus theory" is a counter theory to cause confusion and discredit.
It may also be an effort to obscure the fact, that there is no decisive proof of the existence of viruses.
This fact, if true, would be very detrimental to the agendas of some.
If "the science" was settled in 1892 as you claim, then "the science" should be truly settled by now.
There is abundant evidence, that "the science" is not settled IMO.
Not saying anyone is right or wrong.
Just asserting my intellectual integrity to remain an unbeliever, until I am
convinced that there is conclusive proof of the existence of viruses.
I'm in the "not proven" camp myself.
The tobacco mosaic "virus" experiments don't seem like proof of much to me.
As usual there was no control.
So the experiment amounts to rubbing a mixture of a bunch of chemicals and some processed extract from a sick plant on another plant and noting that the mixture damaged the plant. In another case injecting sap from one plant into another caused disease while uninjected plants growing next to each other never infected each other.
Experiments without controls don't prove anything.
I'm not a fan of Sam Bailey for a number of reasons - however this 17 minute video seems to poke holes in the tobacco mosaic virus experiments fairly effectively:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/tobacco-mosaic-virus-the-beginning-and-end-of-virology/
Are there any specific areas where you feel the video is misleading?
The 19th century is very funny because it was a time that everyone in the developed world was spraying their crops (including tobacco), livestock feed, and livestock themselves (Cooper's sheep dip) with lead and arsenic-based pesticides (principally lead arsenate), which has resulted in heavy metal contamination of soil and wellwater that persists to this day. Many pesticides were chosen specifically because they are difficult to wash off (either in a sink or via the rain). Use continued until the 1950s but arsenic-based pesticides were not fully banned until 1988-1992. The symptoms of arsenic (and other toxic metal) poisoning is fairly extensive in both plants and animals based on dosage, chronic v. acute exposure, etc. and produce symptoms identical to a number of "viral" and "bacterial" diseases. It is also readily absorbed into food/tobacco/etc and thus can indirectly poison humans and animals.
All pesticides are poisons to some degree but arsenic-based poisons are especially (darkly) hilarious because today everyone acknowledges their obvious extreme toxicity so we don't have to have a big debate about how they "might actually be safe."
So it doesn't surprise me that plants that may have been coated with or absorbed toxic disease-causing poisons being rubbed on other plants could "look like a tobacco mosaic virus infection", unless one were carefully performing controls to ensure their plant samples did not use pesticides or water or soil from pesticide-contaminated areas. Since evidently everyone thought spraying their food, soil, livestock, etc. with lead-arsenate and then subsequently eating arsenic-contaminated food, smoking arsenic-contaminate tobacco, and wearing arsenic-contaminate cotton and wool was perfectly healthy, I have doubts anyone controlled for the presence of simple filtratable "poison" (Latin: virus) in their "virus" experiments.
Hi Mees!
Could you kindly provide links to the papers that prove, in accordance with Koch's Postulates, that all major viral diseases were proven (to be caused by viruses)?
My understanding is that no paper has ever proved this in a way that is not full of holes.
How did you miss "There is also firm scientific confirmation, obtained long ago via the application of the logic of the postulates of Koch (published in 1890! now with adaptations for viruses)"? Viruses are not actually alive. They do not reproduce in culture on their own, as they require a host to hijack. Thus, Koch's postulates had to be adapted for viruses.
Reading Baaijen's article confirmed my belief that there is no evidence for the existence of viruses, though I would have to read up on the tabacco virus. Baaijen' presents stories about contagion that bear all the marks that are typical of narrative evidence. Mike Stone, for example, in https://mikestone.substack.com/p/the-wonder-twins writes that he and his twin never experienced contagion, while admitting that this is just narrative. Nothing in what Baaijen writes provides evidence for the existence of viruses with a genome of some 30000 nucleotides. There could be tons of alternative explanations for what he presents as evidence. I don't understand how one can, as Mark Brody does, find this article 'cogently argued'. To me this sounds more like a medical doctor just repeating what he learned as a student. PS. Baaijen's article is sloppy in presenting the opponent's view. He writes: 'The proponents claim - with great conviction and certainty - to have absolute scientific proof that pathogenic germs either do not exist, or play no causal role'. Where have you read that? The ones that I have read just claim that there is no evidence for the existence of viruses. For example Denis Rancourt: 'I am sympathetic to the view that human-contagious-disease-causing viruses have not been demonstrated to exist. So far, these demonstrations have not convinced me, despite my earnest study.' https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/germ-theory-critical-excess
Dear Daniel, no one has created an accurate translation of the Iwanowski paper on Tobacco Mosaic Disease / Poison. The word virus, as used then, is not the common definition of modern biology (an obligate intracellular parasite). Sam Bailey has a nice review of the "experiment" conducted by Iwanowski. Hint: no experiment, nothing natural. Lots of plant torture and blending stuff.
I am no scientist (♡) but even I have the capacity to see the error in their hypothesis.
Virus, no evidence just blind faith?? Where am I???
Please stop this insanity and trust in your own God given jewels of wisdom....
Thanks, that's what I try to show in the article, just by logic you can arrive at the conclusion that germs must exist. On which the no-virus adepts will react saying that the science is fully settled: no virus exist. When you present them with clearcut cases, they come up with outlandish explanations, but never a germ.
That is wrong. Logic can do nothing for the virus hypothesis. You might mean that your observations are strong evidence for the existence of viruses. They are not, because there are many other possible explanations, and they are narrative, not systematic. Besides that, they do not say that it is settled that no virus exists, but only that there is no evidence for the existence of viruses.
"germs must exist"
Why must viruses exist?
Viruses must exist because bacteria exist?
Unicorns must exist because horses exist?
WHAT IS A VIRUS?
The Pseudoscientific Absurdity of Modern Virology
https://mega.nz/file/VNIAgK4a#fG7kOEFSs4WWhl_vQY3ZCRZBt9of_wtVDgeqrpiQIEQ
"But what exactly are viruses? John Coffin, a virology researcher at the TuftsSchool of Medicine, says that at root a virus is simply “a piece of information.”
How precisely does a "piece of information" perform actions?
Viruses are tiny—visible only with an electron microscope—and many contain asfew as two to ten genes, compared to the 20,000 genes in each cell of a person.
Which paper / publication shows that anyone has actually viewed an intact, whole virus, separate from all other materials, with an electron microscope? As far as my understanding goes, they've viewed something, mixed in with a bunch of other somethings, which they've then made a series of assumptions to conclude that this something is a "virus", (acontagious pathogen) when it could be a number of other things. They’ve also made an assumption that these tiny “things” contain as few as two to ten genes, but how could anyone make that statement without first viewing the thing?"
There is arguably no scientific proof of the existence of "God".
However, creation manifests obvious intelligent design!
So logically there must be a "God" right?
So I must subscribe to the "God theory" right?
Wrong.
There are other theories I can subscribe to, logical or not.
In the absence of proof of the existence of germs, viruses, whatever, logic dictates that these things may or may not exist, and I am free to believe whatever I want.
In the absence of proof, logic does not dictate that I must believe regardless, on the basis of inconclusive circumstantial evidence.
To imply otherwise, lacks intellectual integrity in my opinion.
Dear Mees, Drs. Kaufman, Cowan and others posit: no one has proved that a virus exits.
If you can offer a "clear-cut case", of sick person, breathing on a healthy person, and causing illness, I would love to read it. Even Jenner said that smallpox was not transferred via inhalation. Best.
God did not create any virus.. please stop also with these nonsens!
You didn’t analyze anything all you made were assumptions. You never proved contagion and you have never shown a virus to exist other than preconceived. As far as flat earth… if the sun moves around us, it proves your theory wrong..
I make observations, and i draw conclusions, without worrying about dogma's or preconceptions, like no viruses exist. Contagion is in plain view in infectious disease outbreaks the next step is concluding that an infectious agent is for real.
Please read Daniel Roytas' book 'Can You Catch a Cold?'. It has been tried again and again to prove the existence of contagion by viruses systematically. No confirmation of the contagion hypothesis has been obtained. The experiences that you describe could be explained in many other ways. They are not evidence for the existence of viruses in today's sense.
Rosenau experiment…
No it’s not. It’s your preconception. My girlfriend has herpes… 3 years together… I got nothing. We are in the house she gets sick. I don’t, I get sick, she doesn’t. Your article was germ theory is real and flat earth isn’t and you had no real observations about either. You had opinions… you know what those are like right Mees?
You are following a dogma formulated by some very suspicious people. And you haven't really read my paper: infectious disease is a complex interaction between three factors
There is no infectious disease. I follow no dogma, am healthy and have no fear. It’s awesome!
Dear Mees, can you present some examples as demonstrated in peer-reviewed publications? What are these supposed contagions? Where can I see falsifiable evidence that said contagion exists? Thank you.
Dear Mees, given that you have never seen a virus, or its process of contagion, your arguments employ a preconception. I guess there is no need to "worry" - but you certainly do employ dogma: viral-contagion theory. Best.
Presenting the problem as a choice between terrain or germ theory is itself a logical fallacy.
All disease is heavily seasonal and influenza has an extremely interesting epidemiology which actually rules out both transmission and toxicity as causative factors.
Influenza outbreaks are correlated with specific and quite local weather events and will often be synchronised along lines of latitude: https://library-of-atlantis.com/2024/06/13/influenza-and-weather/
All diseases even heart attacks show strong seasonal influence: https://library-of-atlantis.com/2024/01/03/seasonal-disease/
Terrain theorists don't particularly like to talk about this as they are all selling some sort of detox protocol and are therefore heavily committed to the idea of toxicity.
Other local outbreaks were caused by 5G radiation which confuses the issue even further. Cattle are particularly sensitive. https://library-of-atlantis.com/5g-and-covid/
indeed, infectious disease is a complex interaction between three factors
You are my hero Horius!
Yes, quite true, even heart attacks are seasonal. Only a few things aren't, such as cancer.
Are you familiar with the work of Dr. John Parkin (d. 1886) on what he calls "The Volcanic Origin of Epidemics"? He cites Noah Webster "A History of Epidemics" who believed that epidemics were associated with magnetism. Parkin dismisses that, but I think there may be something to Webster's hypothesis Parkin's and Webster's observations are related..
Dear HP, this is interesting. Al-Razi (Rhazes) wrote something like this. See Greenhill (1848).
I didn't realise it went so far back.
Hypothesis - Smallpox is a product of:
1) Seasonal effects
2) Physical temperament
3) Age (old people less likely to succumb)
A seasonal disturbance to the bio-field produces different effects dependent on existing health. Older people have adapted to the specific nature of the field perturbations and have learned not to get ill.
Yes, very smart indeed, you should first throw out al previous knowledge since thousands of years e.g. https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/microbiolspec.poh-0004-2014, and and then start from scratch and build your own theory and research institute.
Dear HP, well the first question is: what is smallpox? In the English-language medical lexicon, there are at least ten "diseases" with similar symptoms: chicken pox; smallpox; measles; rubella; foot and mouth; erythema multiforme; syphilis, impetigo; tanapox; and monkey pox.
My understanding is that the "outbreaks" occur under some or a combination of the following: change in diet in children (typically extreme increases in consumption of animal protein) in conjunction with eruption of teeth and weather patterns (rapid, extreme changes in temperature and humidity); and or the result of vaccination (inoculation).
Carey (1932) found these conditions easily remedied with mineral salts (potassium chloride). As noted, if Greenhill (1848) is accurate in his description, the treatment is a diet high in anti-oxidants. Hence, nutrition is a common factor.
Older people are less likely to purge as young ones do, however, we do have diagnoses such as shingles. Further, when toxicity accumulates in the tissues, the older person is diagnosed with cancer or organ failure.
Best
The Core Diseasome.
Disease, within this formulation, is dysfunctional regulation:
“Disease occurs when an individual’s autoregulatory abilities are compromised. We encounter this scenario when accumulated stresses overpower the autoregulatory abilities, thereby impinging tissue robustness. These persistent perturbations can manifest as disease over time“
The Core Diseasome is a regulatory pathway common to many diseases. Many different 'imbalances' can trigger the diseasome, thereby explaining common symptom clustering. Activation of the diseasome can manifest slightly different symptoms depending upon the existing health 'state'.
https://library-of-atlantis.com/2023/06/29/bio-regulatory-medicine/
Correct. Reductionism leads to dogmatism and the illusion of primary dyads: either the germ or the terrain. Weather patterns and moisture levels plus other seasonal factors were well understood in ancient times as primary vectors of disease. (Language reveals certain basic truths: how come we speak about "catching a cold"?) Communicability relates to shared exposure to these factors in addition to pathogen vectors (the germ) or terrain weaknesses (toxic overload). Each of these three factors (germ, terrain and seasonal/weather) can be more or less prominent in causation. Then there is the manipulated aspect of weather, air and atmosphere via military geo-engineering etc. So there can be temporal out-of-phase EMF disturbances affecting circadian rhythms. We have not even mentioned frequencies themselves (HAARP digital / 5G /6G) or emotional factors, how emotions can ripple through societies on modulated carrier waves, or as V2K, or how thoughts and beliefs, especially subliminally implanted, affect immune response. Any realistic model of disease process and transmission needs to embrace complexity otherwise it is simply the one-eyed ruler in the kingdom of the blind. I do agree that the whole no-virus ideology was created as a psyops. It was easy to apply because people like simple ideas and naturally recoil from complexity because it makes their brains hurt. It is a simple way to control the opposition by encouraging stupidity and then feeding the influencers. Microbes exist for sure as pathogenic vectors and these have been manipulated into multipurpose bioweapons as we can clearly see.
Thanks Nicholas, I fully agree with you, as is often the case!
Do you happen to know more obout how they did the psyops operation?
Well, I think it is possible to reverse engineer this. One must focus primarily on criminal psychology and on history. These amount, in numerous ways, to the same thing. As you know, whoever took control centuries back did so in full awareness that in order to maximize control one must have an indentifiable enemy. The primary means to domination rests upon controlling the friend-or-foe reflex embedded in our survival instinct. If we fast forward to today, we can clearly trace the evolution of bioweapons research at Fort Detrick from bacteria towards viruses due to their simplicity of structure, codability, and also because of their tininess. The relative invisibility of viruses appeals more powerfully to primal human fears of the unknown, and the invisible. Once HIV/AIDS had been created and crowned as the king of killers, they of course realized that they needed an indentifiable opposition which they could use to render the general public more fearful and enrage them more willingly into compliance. Of course, this was a bit of a bitched dummy run, but then they repeated it with Sars-COV-19, with the HIV inserts identified by Montagnier (before his abrupt departure from this plane). So I think it certain that they had long realized the necessity of "culturing" an oppositional voice in order to guarantee greater success for themselves. Fauci's Jesuitical background was perfect for this enterprise. To me then, Peter Duesberg becomes a key figure, a pivot. (By the way, I personally do not subscribe to the view that HIV does not by itself cause AIDS. I fully realize that is an unpopular view that triggers all sorts of people to get indignant. But it is based on empirical clinical observation as opposed to keyboard warriorship). At the same time, rather like an opportunistic infection, and very much like self-learning AI, I think they sort of figured things out as they went along, on the sly, trying this and trying that. By the time of Event 201, all such planning had matured into clear, unequivocal strategy: they would need to cultivate a viable and visible rejectionist sector who were ideologically identifiable not just as anti-vaxxers but as virus deniers. (This playbook could be easily adjusted to climate change deniers). I think they used a wide range of known and lesser known triple letter agencies and thinktanks in operations design. Fauci and Malone's revolving door relationship with the DOD was a pre-requisite since military strategic thinking was a core part of the psyops rollout. Then they had to select the influencers. Some of these would be well-intended but intellectually limited people, others would be attention seekers, and yet others (whom I shall not name) are shills and operatives working under cover. These groups (except for the last) do not understand the others' motivation. The no-virus psyops prepared people to be suckered into the nanotech psyops. Not that nanotech does not exist - it certainly does in my view - rather the paranoia and defeatism engendered by the operatives promoting this ideology ends up splitting society into discrete factions and disempowers both sides, creating spin off conspiracy theories much like the vaunted self-assemblage attributed to hydrogels and quantum dots. We know that Fauci's dream was always to have a globally applied and mandated HIV vaccine, and all the others are simply iterations of the archetype. But their strategy, as I have tried to lay out, required the a prior cultivation of an ideological counterforce. Once sufficiently built up, they would cast this as an existential threat. This is exactly what they did during the height of the "pandemic" and this is why they need to keep the no-virus flame alight for future usage.
It wouldn't rule out toxicity. If you consider the sport where people jump over a bar and then it gets raised until there is a winner who jumps over the highest bar. In this sport there could be a bar set that they could all jump over but if they came back 30 years later or had tried to jump it as a child not all of them might jump over it. With 'vaccines' this is what it is like. The people who can jump the bar benefit from a placebo effect and tell other people the wonders of 'vaccination'. Then later on as they get older they get to the point where they can't jump the bar.
The toxicity is a factor but it isn't always evident. With the weather it could be like that bar. There is the heat production the body has to increase in winter time. During the summer toxins could have accumulated that were manageable but once the additional acids from keeping warm are added it becomes too much. The flu is these acids backing up and suddenly overflowing into the space between the cells.
If it is rainy season it can have a similar effect to cold. Buildings might not have heating or if there is heating it is not sufficient as they are built for the summer. A damp cold is worse than a dry cold. Clothing may be likewise not designed for the cold and if they get wet it can cool the body significantly like sweating does. There can be differences in diet and the reserves of various vitamins. There are other factors like the rainy season will lower vitamin D like a winter does. There is differences in the amount of vitamin D produced with different skin colors and consequently the negative impact of the germ hypothesis.
Somebody just posted a two word comment (counted by Joseph Biden) which I can't find anymore: the Rosenau experiment.
Rosenau could not inoculate volunteers with excretions of the patients of the great influenza epidemic of 1918. I will study this more, I remember that other came to the conclusion that something else than a flu virus was involved.
Resilienciero just past this note on substack
Finally, a long awaited article from an authoritative and credible source @Mees Baaijen that puts to rest the germ vs terrain camps. The short and sweet of it is that both are real!
Anyone who has done the real science knows that there are no viruses in nature. Yes, I know Mees, here are we again BUT I have the proof in just one room that will prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt!
Research it for a few weeks and then you will understand & see it for yourself.
Let's start with the beginning: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4oaxQMIizBsv/
Béchamp vs. Pasteur & The Germ Theory Hoax Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ3bL23bsiQ Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46jzErpM0k
The Disease Deception - Bioterrain 3.0 w/ Dr. Barre Lando & Mike Winner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VSwdi4WCHE
These are the basics that you clearly have not seen or researched. And here is the rest: https://t.me/+J6D8fcsO32UxOGI0
No discussion anymore on this and proof enough that Pasteur & germ theory is one big historical fraud and we are all being had. No denying after this because these are the facts!
You are open & unbiased or you are closed and biased= tunnel vision= you cannot see the real truth of the matter and this is also a fact.
The pot and the kettle
I have given you enough for at least three weeks, and before that you have no real idea about this Mees!
It's not the pot & kettle! You see, this tells me that you have not gone through the real facts of the matter!
The fact is we are also being lied to and yes I have one that exposes the FE psyop right here: https://t.me/flat_earth_debunked
I hope you do not rest and think you have seen all the facts. I know for 100% that you have not. It's up to you and I want to have a debate here AFTER you have seen the other side of this coin. Not sooner.
WHAT IS A VIRUS?
The Pseudoscientific Absurdity of Modern Virology
https://mega.nz/file/VNIAgK4a#fG7kOEFSs4WWhl_vQY3ZCRZBt9of_wtVDgeqrpiQIEQ
Introduction to ViroLIEgy
https://viroliegy.com/2022/04/26/introduction-to-viroliegy/
3000 pages of "virus" freedom of information responses and court documents, from 211 institutions in 40 countries - including 52 Canadian institutions - are available to everyone on the internet, in compilation pdfs here, along with my notarized declaration regarding the blatantly anti-scientific nature of virology and the fraudulent nature of everything to do with "COVID-19" to be viewed here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1okJiB4PdWN3tiei_g67zTUfok92kuqqS
Are most of us digging in the wrong rabbit holes?
Very credible input (IMO) claims that SARS-Cov2 was an uploaded " simulated synthetic chimeric computer generated code".
This code was patented long before the claimed "pandemic".
There never was any "virus" or naturally occurring anything else!
If this is true, this would explain a number of things.
The "virus/no virus debate", revolves around the claim of a potentially deadly "virus" originating in Wuhan, either from a "wet market" or a "lab leak" or both.
The Wuhan story obviously smells very fishy and smacks of a potential coverup.
If there was no "actual virus", then there could have been no isolation and sequencing.
If there was only a "computer generated sequencing code", this could be used as cover.
Access to this computer generated code may have been denied worldwide, because access to the code would inevitably prove, that there was no actual virus involved.
And that the "sequencing code" for "the novel virus" had been patented long ago.
Those who claimed that there was a "real sequence for a real virus" could have been deceived.
There was a real computer sequence, but not for a real virus.
This might explain questionable claims, that the "actual virus" does not need to be isolated and sequenced!
Only the "computer sequence" of the "actual virus" is needed.
This proves nothing about the existence of an actual virus or its sequence.
Who validates the sequencing of the claimed "actual virus"?
In this case only Chinese scientists apparently.
There is no scientific validation without replication.
There appears to be no replication anywhere, so there is no validation.
Nor can there be if there is no "actual virus".
Therefore, arguably there is absolutely no validated scientific proof of the existence of an "actual SARS-COV2 virus."
This does not prove that viruses do not exist in general.
However, without valid proof of the existence of viruses, the jury is still out.
I think you refer to the opinions of Jonathan Couey. Honestly he made me doubt my position, but he is contradicted in the Hammond paper mentioned in the article.
And also, by the clinical and pathological findings (blood clotting, and in the case of depletion of the clotting factors by excessive clotting, in bleeding).
The symptom of anosmia (loss of smell) also had high reports during Covid (Mathew Crawford)
I was not referring to Jonathan Couey.
I found the Hammond paper unconvincing.
I think the clinical and pathological findings you reference are post "vaccination", so not attributable to "the virus".
Loss of smell points to poisoning of some sort, not "viral infection".
Some people experienced severe health crises consistent with poisoning.
Obviously something else was going on, apart from a "viral infection."
Contagion is a non-argument in the c-v-d context.
The "pandemic" did not spread randomly like wildfire worldwide!
The "virus" clearly respected local, state and national barriers to a significant degree in many places, despite very unconvincing claims to the contrary!
No "pandemic" claims could have been maintained, without the massive numbers of fraudulent, false positive "PCR test" results.
There were credible claims from some doctors, of a somewhat unique respiratory infection and even deaths.
However, the all-cause-mortality rates show no excess deaths!
There is no evidence of millions of excess deaths worldwide!
So without the "pandemic propaganda" fueled by "PCR test" lies, there was no real cause for alarm.
As far as I know, the "c-v-d virus" sequence was never made available in any nation.
This raises critical questions, that surely need to be addressed in any discussion of the facts.
The US military claimed to have "the sequence" from China I think.
However, there was never any proof of this claim to my knowledge.
At least one prominent "truth fighter" has claimed that the sequence exists.
Whether this refers to the US military claim or not I do not know.
There appears to be absolutely no definite proof of the existence of the sequence.
Then there is Delta and Omicron and Whatever else!
Where is the "scientific proof" of the isolation and sequencing of these "variants"?
There appears to be none.
Curiouser and curiouser!
Please have a look at the Hammond paper linked in the article.
Thank you Mees.
I do not have the medical/scientific knowledge to evaluate this input.
Others who do, are not convinced.
I cannot say for certain if Hammond's claims are valid.
However, logical flaws in his input concern me.
For instance, a potentially lethal "virus" was proven to exist, but all-cause-mortality data worldwide did not prove any excess deaths at all.
Hammond does not address this, or other critical issues.
Most people are just ordinary bods.
They are not scientific/medical "experts".
Nor are they all fools, whose intellectual capabilities can just be negated and their obvious genuine concerns silenced, by claimed scientific evidence beyond their capacity to understand.
If the clear evidence was there, why was it hidden behind a wall of lies?
Hammond claims valid "viral sequencing" was available.
Why was this denied by FOI requests in over 100 nations then?
Hammond's scientific claims, do not gel with the generally available facts.
I suggest you read Betsy Barnum's Substack
https://barn0346.substack.com/
"This Changes Everything"
An overall easily understood critical look at viruses, contagion, terrain, questioning authority, logical fallacies.
Hoi Mees,
Ik ben zo vriendelijk geweest om even een stukje van jouw optreden bij "jorn luka" te beluisteren. Via youtube nota bene. Kennelijk mag jouw verhaal daar probleemloos acht maanden blijven staan. Best bijzonder.
In wezen vond ik niet dat je een baggerverhaal had tot je beweerde dat Israël schaakmat zou staan. Sowieso speelde de bijbel/torah geen rol in jouw verhaal, althans tot aan dat moment, want verder heb ik niet gekeken.
Het is mogelijk dat je later alsnog iets over religie gezegd heb, maar het lijkt me dat we mogen stellen dat je schijnbaar geen bijbelkenner bent.
Dat is een probleem.
En jouw verhaal is doorspekt met precies dit probleem, want aangenomen dat je oprecht bent, stel ik dat jouw duiding oppervlakkig blijft juist omdat je de mentaliteit van onze vrolijke vrienden, zoals ik onze stamgasten wel eens noem, niet op waarde schat.
Sowieso neem je duizenden jaren geschiedenis niet mee in jouw verhaal, althans in jouw duiding van de status quo. Je ziet weliswaar patronen, maar je voert ze niet ver genoeg terug. Je zou in elk geval terug moeten gaan tot aan de Hyksos en eigenlijk nog veel verder terug, dus tot aan Babylon en Sumer en mogelijk nog verder terug.
Voor wat betreft virussen, stel je je enkel halsstarrig op. Laatst riep ik nog: als iemand mij zekerheid wil verkopen, want correlatie, dan smijt ik de deur in zijn gezicht. Ik heb verder geen zin in discussies over virussen of andere onzin inzake "de biochemie". Als jij graag in onzin wil geloven, dan moet je dat vooral lekker doen. Ik zou natuurlijk liever zien dat je een open houding aanneemt. Het zou jouw verhaal ten goede komen.
Groet, Ingmar
Je hebt me al eerder beledigd, maar ik zal nog een keer reageren. Je hebt een stukje van een interview met mij gehoord en begint dan allerlei valse conclusies te trekken over mijn werk en visie. Als je mijn werk leest zal je zien dat ik wel 3000 jaar terugga, op de rol van de bijbel inga, etc. Nogmaals, shame on you!
Jouw lange tenen zijn niet mijn probleem Mees en dat lawaai maakt weinig indruk.
Ik beschrijf nauwkeurig waarom ik denk wat ik denk en bied jou daarmee ruim de gelegenheid om er iets tegen in te brengen voor zover je dat zou willen.
Met deze reactie laat je nogmaals zien dat jouw ego je parten speelt. Je bent daar op gewezen maar je lijkt het niet te registreren.
FWIW Tom Cowan's rebuttal to Mees' critique of no-virus theory:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bNpyU2azGsrI/?list=notifications&randomize=false
(From 3:48 time stamp)
this link was already in my rebuttal of Cowan!
My experience with the Mees Baaijens of the world is that they will never allow true, sincere scrutiny of their assumptions, premises, assertions, and logic. They will deny to their opponents an open exposition of the working of their minds and they will never submit themselves to the best tool for uncovering truth - cross examination. These facts alone tell you most of what you need to know about them and their musings
Yeah, I am indeed very glad to be a pot and not a kettle!
Quite a response that. To the contrary, I care only about the truth. If I’m wrong about something I would appreciate anyone who could disabuse me of my deluded thinking. And I gladly and fully put openly forth the working of my mind, and subject myself to any sincere cross examination as long as there is reciprocity. I follow the Golden Rule.
Sorry, I meant I am glad to be a kettle and not a pot!
I understood. Maybe you don’t understand me. This is not a put down - I speak, write and read only one language and have only admiration for those who are my better in that area - but is it possible in this overall discussion you are missing some of the subtleties of the English speakers?
To convince people they're smart when they're not is the crux of dumbing down.
Those who can’t get past the programmed voices in their own heads are able to act competently in transactional and mechanical ways. I don’t doubt Mees is able to perform the mechanics of veterinarian medicine with a certain intelligence. Of course, believing in non-truths can and does have deadly consequences that such practitioners will be completely unable to fully acknowledge. The US allopathic menace admits to killing 100s of thousands of people per year and yet our “good” doctors and their patients gone on blithely marching through the killing fields. Now, that’s an undisputed fact - only the numbers would be in question. Adding in the I acknowledged harms of vaccines and cancer treatments would probably double the tally of slaughter. But the very foundation that monstrosity is built upon should not be questioned? It’s so absurd.
Please do your homework before you disseminate falsities, and read my chapter on Pharmafia that I linked in the first article, or look under Book Preview
What falsity have I stated? Please quote my words directly.
Exactly. Most people are just like Mees though. They won't notice.
It's very difficult to distinguish between being honestly "full of sit" and maliciously taking people for a ride.
Mees is fiercely defending the "predators". Nice work Mees.
Lekker bezig.
Je moet je schamen, lees eerst mijn boek of de artikelen op mijn website
Dat zijn twee bevelen Mees. Rustig aan zou ik zeggen.
Yup. Don’t expect to waltz in to town…or post on social media… and bump into the intellectually honest.
The question of the existence of viruses is open, debate and research are necessary. Qualified, truth-seeking people come to different conclusions, with serious arguments. Such disagreements are essential to science. At present, both sides call the other side deluded or stupid. That is not helpful and not adequate. Also Hammond's wording 'Correcting Disinformation …' is condescending and thus not helpful, an attempt to debunk the opponents, instead of simply presenting an argument. I have seen too unfriendly attacks in the other direction too. The proponents of viruses want to defend the existence of viruses without observations of viruses and without Koch's postulates and without control experiments. The critics of viruses say that this is not valid. In my view, it can be attempted, but the proponents of viruses need to accept that there is a challenge, instead of making condescending remarks and comparing virus denial to flat earth.
One observation about Hammond's article https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/in-profile/in-profile-history/, which Baaijen recommends: It is partly a helpful contribution to the debate, but in some places journalistic, partisan rather than truth-seeking. For example, Hammond quotes 'Kaufman and Cowan’s “Statement on Virus Isolation” that the genetic makeup of particles can be “characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have been around for decades.”' Then Hammonds claims that this is 'a puzzling self-contradiction' to Kaufman's claim that genome sequencing is an invalid method because we have no reference genome. But there is of course no contradiction. Kaufman's and Cowan's view is that 'extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles …' would be the right method for discovering a reference genome, but that this has not been done. Hammond claims that it has been done. Very well, carry on discussing. Hammond's comment that 'their mutual argument in response to me is falsified by their own public declaration' is a journalistic device that raises the question whether Hammond is truth-seeking.
by the way, I did not delete any of your articles!
Yes, I saw that one hour later and deleted that sentence immediately! Sorry, was my error.
Why aren't you wearing your fruit? Do you think you know better than the experts? Put your fruit up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR_UAty1oBU