An excellent excoriation of the field. It’s extraordinarily frustrating that respiratory virus believers refuse point blank to deal in an adult way with the published record of dozens of attempts to demonstrate symptomatic transmission or contagion from a person sick with a cold to healthy recipients. Multiple attempts have been published from 1918 to the present day and none of them convincingly show this presumably trivial to show effect. After all, this is the heart of the matter. They refuse to cite a good quality paper proving transmission of acute respiratory illnesses. Not one is forthcoming. By the way, none even include adequate controls, which would include healthy people being “donors”, as well as sick ones, so you can see the spontaneous background rate of these illnesses (which is substantial, as colds are commonplace). When using gunk from a patient with which to attempt to demonstrate infection, a proper control will include gunk or washings from a healthy person, to test the effect of instillation itself. Furthermore, the experimentalist & the recipient should be blinded to the treatment they’re getting, so as to avoid biases. Again, these are all routinely missing.
I will apologise profusely and recant my position if anyone can cite a good quality paper demonstrating transmission of illness from someone with an acute respiratory illness to a healthy recipient.
Very good Mike! Let me substitute this comment for your request to have a phone meeting with me the other day.
So have you been making videos on all the big vid sharing platforms, did you implore Info Wars to revise your Covidland talks, did you implore your fellow Team Enigma 4IR and transhumanism pushers to come out as no-virus, and have you been plugging your new found no-virus position on all kinds of social media? If so can you send us a link list?? You know how much we all value your articulate honesty, you are the hero we want (Albert Pike even said, "The public needs heroes, we'll give them heroes!")
-Telling us well-sauced no-virus people ensconced in this lonely corner of substack is just preaching to the Choir.
👉You got millions of $ from your work at Pfizer and Sale of Ziarco Pharma, did you try to put ads or billboards up about no virus? If the church of Satan can make pro-abortion billboards can't you make a few no-virus billboards? C'mon, show us the stuff Pfizer employees are made of!
👉Mike, pls send a list of what you have done, not just comments of what you think. That could help me reply to some people who are now calling you a "mole" trying to infiltrate the no-virus camp.
The article has been removed but here's a blurb from it.
"Every 30 years or so there seem to be some sort of viral outbreak. Spanish flu in 1920, Polio (or rather DDT) in 1950, HIV outbreak in 1980 and now the big one the covid hoax. You are speaking out against covid but saying nothing about all the others… Do you think people will not find this strange?"
I certainly do which is why I posed the question. With all the talk about how dangerous the c-vax is, many seem to forget that all vaccines are witches' brew and contribute to much of today's dis-ease. A few of those medical marvels and their insert warnings here: https://postimg.cc/gallery/nCyH823
Helllloooo Mike! It's quite simple, stir up the media with your fame, good looks, and charm, and tell the world there is no virus, disavow your prior speeches on ADE, variants, bioweapons, and false positives. Then send me your address for flowers and that's it.
This is all much simpler than a drug development project, each day you wait more people fall into the "mass murder" you yourself mention and you yourself prodded along in 2020-21 with your anti-vax but pro virus exists speeches. Oh, and tell your PR co to keep the motorbike out of your no-virus speeches. We're waiting for you to enter stage left, drum roll...tat tat tatata, tat tattta...still waiting....still waiting.
Hi Latus, I asked all of the 33 members of Proton Magic core team to evaluate your proposal and the call was unanimous, 📣 "We need actions and deeds, not talk and discussion!"
Well said. And not only are colds already commonplace, but they become more so when unnatural modes of transmission are used, such as having random human fluids rubbed into one's nose -- from the irritation and from the placebo effect.
The problem with this article is that it makes multiple assumptions that WW1 somehow contributed to “Spanish Flu” without pointing out that a more deadly and devastating WW2 didn’t cause a worldwide pandemic.
So, what was so different about WW1 that WW2 didn’t have?
The answer should be simple since it was concluded that at least 92% of autopsies revealed bacterial pneumonias as the number 1 known cause of death of the “Spanish Flu”…
There was no pandemic in either case nor are there such things.
Those autopsies are nonsense- if you are familiar with the NIH study which suggested this.
"Bacterial pneumonia" as a clinical diagnosis is fraught with it's own problems.
The article doesn't make any assumptions- it makes a case. The conditions and weaponry used in those wars were quite different as was the medical industry during those eras.
The "answer" as to what was (mis)labeled and the wholly invented "Spanish Flu" is not simple at all- that's the last thing it is. And "bacterial pneumonia" is absolutely NOT even a part of that answer if you are looking for the fundamental causes of that mass death event.
As always, I agree, although the question of the lack of detectability of infection no longer needs to be asked as soon as the issue of the lack of virus detection has reached the public consciousness. There is then no need to think about the transmission of anything. After the failed proof of existence, it is already over.
Who would waste any more thought on analysing the footprints of gnomes as soon as one realises that there is no evidence for gnomes?
As we both agreed, science is often not about black and white and yes or no answers.
While this is true that many experiments have NOT shown, or proven, contagion, the “contagion” itself is really not well defined.
Let’s just say we both went to a concert and afterward we both begin to experience similar symptoms of upper respiratory infection. We both go to the same doctor but we give our own opinion what could have caused the infection. Let’s say you felt that the arena was too cold and that was the reason you became ill.
On the other had, I may have flet that the reason why I became ill was because the fat lady few rows ahead of me ignored the restrictions and smoked pot.
Which of the cases can fit the description of contagion? I’d say none. You?
It is a very good thing that Palmer and Bhakdi concede the obvious truth that the pure culture does not work. This means they accept the existence has never been proved in that way.
This forces the debate in an interesting direction: the totally impure cell cultures are the way to prove the existence of viruses, to let the proliferate and lyse healthy cells, repeating what it's supposed to happen in vivo. But there are many objections to this method. Lanka debunked it thoroughly. Why they never stopped this error back then? Or, what are the responses to the debunking of cell culture with controls?
No response?
Well, let's move to the next topic. Forget cell cultures. Is there any other way to prove that a virus infected a healthy person and caused him to become ill?
What about the lungs? What about the liver? What about the nerve cells, which are everywhere in the body, and the Herpes viruses are supposed to proliferate there?
You can get a painful and maybe fatal Herpes infection anywhere, from the skin, to the eyes, the nails, the spinal chord, the brain, the muscles. Anywhere there are nerves, there is a good living culture medium for Herpes viruses. Where are they?
Can anyone show directly the isolation of a piece of non-human "genome" from a sick person, and use that genome to cause the same disease in a healthy person?
In other words, if this has failed, and every other experiment fails, why do doctors and professors of medicine believe the viral hypothesis explains the transmission of disease?
Do they have any other way to show why they believe this is true?
If not, they should admit they are not there.
Then, they are free to start studying what really causes disease.
Because this business should be about knowledge, not about defending a profession, a business territory or the fame of anyone.
Nothing about this controversy should be personal.
Getting called a donkey is nothing. Saving the lives of the people who will be poisoned with terrible antiviral drugs is worth every insult. Focus on the human victims of this humongous error, not on the hurt feelings of the humans who keep defending it.
The brilliant Stefan Lanka found that organisms (mainly algae) containing an abundance of particles virologists call viruses, were thriving and healthy - as opposed to the barely surviving organisms that were free of these particles. Once he realised how shambolic the whole 'isolation' process was, he started questioning whether these contagious viruses even existed. This led to the infamous court case where the German Supreme Court was forced to make the historic ruling saying there is no evidence for the measles virus. What a turning point!
Several books have been written about the non-existence of the so-called HIV virus, while alternative explanations for the acquisition of AIDS-related diseases do have research behind them. Interestingly enough, I remember watching an interview with the article-mentioned Sucharit Bhakdi back in 2020/21, when I still wasn't sure whether viruses were pathogenic or not.
He claimed the HIV virus already exists within the human body, basically inert and not all that dangerous. Now I'm thinking it does exist, but rather as an 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, not as a pathogenic cell-infesting parasite. Or rather, what virologists claim are microscopic pictures of the virus, is actually pictures of said extracellular vesicles. Bhakdi's claim seems to have some truth in it, but also some lies. You wonder if these people do this on purpose, or if they're just to some degree aware of the lies within virology. For me, what you've just written about Bhakdi and his role in the 'isolation' ruse, adds to the mystery.
Corona, HIV and measles are not the only 'viruses' that have never actually been proven to exists by any genuine scientific method. The same is true for bacteria. Pfeiffer's bacillus, said to be the cause of the inappropriately named Spanish Flue, was never isolated at the time. As much as doctors tried to inject mucus from sick people into the bodies of healthy people, the healthy remained stubbornly disease-free. Moreover, Wikipedia articles tell us that Pfeiffer's bacillus related disease is confirmed by the 'highly specific' PCR test. Of course it is.
I could go on and on, but the question that needs to be asked is: Now that I have no doubt that virology is quackery and the concept of herd immunity likewise is pseudoscientific nonsense, is there even such a thing as contagion at this point? Either way, more and more veils are being lifted. Thanks for another thought-provoking post, Anthony!
This article is about the lack of valid evidence for "viruses". The fact that most people still trust the pseudoscientists is why articles like this need to be written. It will inspire more people to look at the virology literature for themselves instead of putting blind trust in fake experts.
I would classify Cowan as a pseudoscientist. Many of these people are paid controlled opposition and there's ample reason to believe he is part of that. It's common to put people out there who can easily be discredited -- like Cowan and Vollmer for these very dangerous health recommendations.
It's a bold claim that say that someone is "paid controlled opposition". Can you show me the evidence that this applies to Cowan? I'm not defending urine therapy, because it is not something I've looked into but where is your evidence that it is a "very dangerous health recommendation"?
Typical, throwing around slurs without any evidence.
I challenge you to demonstrate your knowledge of virology and the scientific method by citing valid scientific evidence showing that any "virus" is real. Identify the observed phenomenon that is under investigation, the independent and dependent variables, the hypothesis, the exposure route, etc. "SARS-COV-2" should be an easy one for you.
Why attack me for pointing out to readers that Cowan is pushing a disgusting treatment that discredits the very movement you believe in? Often people who do that are actually in it to take down those who question the narrative. Support and follow him all you want. No one is stopping you.
There are certainly pseudoscientists out there. We need to be discerning about who we listen to. What makes you say this is the case with Cowan, aside from the urine therapy thing?
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, imagine I am a noted health practitioner who routinely spent their career teaching my patients how to properly eliminate their own diseases, and thereafter how to properly care for themselves to remain healthy. I have developed a significant reputation and following for being truthful and firm in my commitment to patient care.
Then, one day, I write an article stating that my research into, and my application of Feces Therapy in my clinical practice is actually quite helpful as a treatment and cure for various diseases.
How does my article impact my credibility?
How does it impact my history of credibility and my reputation?
Does it matter?
If it does matter, why does it matter?
If you were a patient of mine, what would you think?
If you had heard that I was an excellent doctor, and you were seriously considering coming to see me about your own disease problems, and then you happened to read my Feces Therapy article, what thoughts would go through your mind?
What do you believe would be the view and opinion of most people in this same situation?
And you are somebody who twists a fact to fit your agenda and discredit someone like Cowan as if he were some rube with little knowledge or experience. Shame on you.
The fact that he had a podcast with Amanda Vollmer is far from “promoting”.
Eg:
Conversations with Dr. Cowan & Friends| Ep 46: Amandha Vollmer on Urine Therapy
Video Overview
In today’s podcast, Dr. Cowan engages in conversation with Amandha Vollmer, a renowned naturopathic physician from Canada. Amandha brings a wealth of knowledge on various natural medicine topics, yet this initial dialogue zeroes in on urine therapy—a practice both ancient and gaining contemporary interest. Amandha Vollmer delves into the science, history, and methodology of urine therapy, sharing insights from her patients’ experiences and her personal journey.
What fact did I twist? I listened to the interview and he was anxious to start drinking pee. That is something he shared with his viewers.
Why did you have to resort to name calling in order to defend this person? You want me to "beat it"? Well, I think it's important that people reading the thread understand the background of who is being promoted here. I will not let you intimidate me.
Urine is a waste product and I would not want to put it back in my body. However it does have uses in cleaning due to ammonia and can be used in soap making.
"HIV" is claimed to have a specific "genome" and proteins, yet such a particle has never been shown to exist at all. And virologists rarely ever even look in bodily fluid/tissue for what they insist are "viruses", but rather in their ridiculous cell cultures. The shapes they point at are only seen AFTER the cell line breaks down. Virology is completely idiotic on every single level.
(Another fine addition to the ever-expanding dictionary of Colpo-isms).
Being called a "denier" (of anything) should be read as a badge of honour.
All it means is that you're exercising your critical faculties and asking questions, instead of sheepishly amalgamating yourself into the pre-baked (and usually-fraudulent) "general consensus".
"Consensus" can always become "general" when you reward people for spouting it.
Agreed. And the "denier" epithet is a term of propaganda cooked up ruling-class psychological-warfare laboratories (for the only actual science in this whole scamdemic is the science of coercion). The term is designed to smear anyone not toeing the party line by associating him or her with Holocaust denial.
I've now seen it used with "virus denier", "statin denier", "Covid denier", etc. However, my favorite variant, so to speak, has to be "vaccine denier." There, the liars have put their blunter tools out front, who haven't realized that they are analogizing vaccines to the Holocaust! It's a comparison that doesn't bother me, but they wouldn't agree.
Virologists operate on the level of ancient superstitions. Snatching at imaginary dybbuk's that can only be seen through the lens of super techno-marvel machines that are pre-programmed to point towards motes and mites as evidence of the haunting.
perpetuating this primitive superstition that submicroscopic invisible particles floating through the air make people sick requires loads of jargon, increasingly obscure language to mystify the quackery. Not to mention a non-stop multi-billion dollar propaganda campaigns and legions of hired priests in white robes who claim the mantle of "science" to hoodwink the unsuspecting public. Pretty amazing to think people believe this voodoo garbage. Excellent means of social control.
And then they create magical elixirs (that in a sane world would be understood for what they are- industrial poisons) that allegedly exorcise these submicroscopic demons from the mortal body. Makes for a good show and big business, but has nothing to do with biological reality.
The biggest fraud in history might be the medical industrial complex itself though the high priests of the church of "modern science" are closing the gap.
Germ theory and gene theory are both reductionist, primitive superstitions that only remain viable due to massive propaganda and massive funding from the ruling interests that benefit from them at the expense of humanity.
To say that people outside the virological bubble don't understand 'modern virology' is the most embarrassing argument I can imagine.
'Modern virology' means the abandonment of all logical thinking and the use of absurdly sophisticated, bloated technology to somehow hide the logic gap. But natural real phenomena are not phenomena of a zeitgeist whose validity can be changed by the latest fashion.
In magic, deception was once practised at a very simple level. Until the audience was trained and clever enough to see through the tricks. With the development of technical possibilities, the level of deception has been raised so that the tricks are no longer so easy to see through. Nevertheless, they remain deceptions.
No matter how far technology develops, magic will always remain an illusion. The same applies to virology.
It does not take make up. Each step along the way to becoming a doctor who is highlighted filters out dissidents to the official story. It is a hardening process like damascus steel.
I had a big grin on my face when I saw you used Dr. Malone’s sci-fi story about how dead (or half dead) particles called viruses become alive and perform all those tasks requiring not only to become animated but more so having a mind on their own to make decisions, such as whether to kill the host or not they somehow infected, stolen its machinery to replicate and the fairytale goes on…
One of the most comical contradictions in virology (or evolutionary theory) is the belief that viruses infect the host to reproduce and spread, but their reproduction and spread is pointless, if they kill the host. There is more, but these just show virology is more sci-fi than science…
Quite a while back I challenged both Dr. Malone and Dr. Geert Veanden Bossche to explain their belief the whole virology is based on; how dead, or half-dead, viruses perform the tasks of the living or the animated.
I lost count how many contradictions Dr. Malone uttered in his description of viruses in the video, but just off the top of my head:
A virus is a self-replicating gene - Really?! If this were true, why would the self-replicating gene (s) need a host to replicate???
I'm new to all this, but yeah I'm well aware of how impotent facts and logic are to persuade. Just google Edward Bernays.
From search: "The cytopathic effect is a critical indicator of viral activity and can be used as evidence of viral infection. The type and severity of the CPE can vary depending on the type of virus and the host cell, and it is an important diagnostic criterion for viral infections."
This is the biggest revelation for me getting started. You're snarky and over the top about it, and that's fine, but really it is completely insane that cell death is "evidence." It's completely disturbing how fair your leprechaun analogy is.
I'm blown away by that, like what if I claimed I had a psychic death ray super power and glared at a dish of cells and said that because they died that's proof of my beams. Like, anything could have killed them. If this counts as evidence then the whole concept of evidence is undermined.
Virologists and the credentialed cohort in general, learned to please their teachers, learned credentialed linguistics, learned that a credential leads to a higher standard of living, learned that their credential leads to respect, learned that there is comfort and a need to spend time with other credentialed people. All this learning has made the credentialed cohort, especially prone to brainwashing. There are many pleasure and pain points that can be leveraged, by the brainwasher. Unfortunately there is no credential for morality, courage and common sense.
In this post Kirsch admits he has no paper to prove Sars-CoV-2 and loses debate to Proton Magic even before it starts, scroll down a little to see screen shots
An excellent excoriation of the field. It’s extraordinarily frustrating that respiratory virus believers refuse point blank to deal in an adult way with the published record of dozens of attempts to demonstrate symptomatic transmission or contagion from a person sick with a cold to healthy recipients. Multiple attempts have been published from 1918 to the present day and none of them convincingly show this presumably trivial to show effect. After all, this is the heart of the matter. They refuse to cite a good quality paper proving transmission of acute respiratory illnesses. Not one is forthcoming. By the way, none even include adequate controls, which would include healthy people being “donors”, as well as sick ones, so you can see the spontaneous background rate of these illnesses (which is substantial, as colds are commonplace). When using gunk from a patient with which to attempt to demonstrate infection, a proper control will include gunk or washings from a healthy person, to test the effect of instillation itself. Furthermore, the experimentalist & the recipient should be blinded to the treatment they’re getting, so as to avoid biases. Again, these are all routinely missing.
I will apologise profusely and recant my position if anyone can cite a good quality paper demonstrating transmission of illness from someone with an acute respiratory illness to a healthy recipient.
Very good Mike! Let me substitute this comment for your request to have a phone meeting with me the other day.
So have you been making videos on all the big vid sharing platforms, did you implore Info Wars to revise your Covidland talks, did you implore your fellow Team Enigma 4IR and transhumanism pushers to come out as no-virus, and have you been plugging your new found no-virus position on all kinds of social media? If so can you send us a link list?? You know how much we all value your articulate honesty, you are the hero we want (Albert Pike even said, "The public needs heroes, we'll give them heroes!")
-Telling us well-sauced no-virus people ensconced in this lonely corner of substack is just preaching to the Choir.
👉You got millions of $ from your work at Pfizer and Sale of Ziarco Pharma, did you try to put ads or billboards up about no virus? If the church of Satan can make pro-abortion billboards can't you make a few no-virus billboards? C'mon, show us the stuff Pfizer employees are made of!
👉Mike, pls send a list of what you have done, not just comments of what you think. That could help me reply to some people who are now calling you a "mole" trying to infiltrate the no-virus camp.
"A mole trying to infiltrate the no-virus camp."
If the shoe fits...
https://postimg.cc/G4X167L1
Thanks do you have a link to that thread even if deleted? It was this year right?
And what does check mirrors mean? Watch your back??
Mike Yeadon - Another Case of Lee Merritt? (2024)
https://dpl003.substack.com/mike-yeadon-another-case-of-lee-merrit
The article has been removed but here's a blurb from it.
"Every 30 years or so there seem to be some sort of viral outbreak. Spanish flu in 1920, Polio (or rather DDT) in 1950, HIV outbreak in 1980 and now the big one the covid hoax. You are speaking out against covid but saying nothing about all the others… Do you think people will not find this strange?"
I certainly do which is why I posed the question. With all the talk about how dangerous the c-vax is, many seem to forget that all vaccines are witches' brew and contribute to much of today's dis-ease. A few of those medical marvels and their insert warnings here: https://postimg.cc/gallery/nCyH823
Impressive info Wilde
I’ve no idea what you’re trying to accomplish.
You behave like a child while mass murder continues.
I’m out of patience with your antics and am no longer interested in speaking with you or conversing in any way.
I wish you continuing good fortune with whatever it is that would constitute success in your mind.
Helllloooo Mike! It's quite simple, stir up the media with your fame, good looks, and charm, and tell the world there is no virus, disavow your prior speeches on ADE, variants, bioweapons, and false positives. Then send me your address for flowers and that's it.
I gave you the ways to stir up the media here:
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/dear-virology-do-you-have-anything/comment/60505602
This is all much simpler than a drug development project, each day you wait more people fall into the "mass murder" you yourself mention and you yourself prodded along in 2020-21 with your anti-vax but pro virus exists speeches. Oh, and tell your PR co to keep the motorbike out of your no-virus speeches. We're waiting for you to enter stage left, drum roll...tat tat tatata, tat tattta...still waiting....still waiting.
Lolz
PM, why not have a phone meeting? Just sayin'
Hi Latus, I asked all of the 33 members of Proton Magic core team to evaluate your proposal and the call was unanimous, 📣 "We need actions and deeds, not talk and discussion!"
Recently published article on the "Spanish Flu" mythology which puts the lie to the whole story:
Exploding the Spanish Flu Myth
https://healthfreedomdefense.org/exploding-the-spanish-flu-myth/
Excellent website.
Well said. And not only are colds already commonplace, but they become more so when unnatural modes of transmission are used, such as having random human fluids rubbed into one's nose -- from the irritation and from the placebo effect.
Recently published article on the "Spanish Flu" mythology which puts the lie to the whole story:
Exploding the Spanish Flu Myth
https://healthfreedomdefense.org/exploding-the-spanish-flu-myth/
The problem with this article is that it makes multiple assumptions that WW1 somehow contributed to “Spanish Flu” without pointing out that a more deadly and devastating WW2 didn’t cause a worldwide pandemic.
So, what was so different about WW1 that WW2 didn’t have?
The answer should be simple since it was concluded that at least 92% of autopsies revealed bacterial pneumonias as the number 1 known cause of death of the “Spanish Flu”…
There was no pandemic in either case nor are there such things.
Those autopsies are nonsense- if you are familiar with the NIH study which suggested this.
"Bacterial pneumonia" as a clinical diagnosis is fraught with it's own problems.
The article doesn't make any assumptions- it makes a case. The conditions and weaponry used in those wars were quite different as was the medical industry during those eras.
The "answer" as to what was (mis)labeled and the wholly invented "Spanish Flu" is not simple at all- that's the last thing it is. And "bacterial pneumonia" is absolutely NOT even a part of that answer if you are looking for the fundamental causes of that mass death event.
So, what killed all those people with clear respiratory infections?
I guess I must first ask which people are you referring to?
As always, I agree, although the question of the lack of detectability of infection no longer needs to be asked as soon as the issue of the lack of virus detection has reached the public consciousness. There is then no need to think about the transmission of anything. After the failed proof of existence, it is already over.
Who would waste any more thought on analysing the footprints of gnomes as soon as one realises that there is no evidence for gnomes?
Hi Dr. Yeadon,
I’m glad you are well…
As we both agreed, science is often not about black and white and yes or no answers.
While this is true that many experiments have NOT shown, or proven, contagion, the “contagion” itself is really not well defined.
Let’s just say we both went to a concert and afterward we both begin to experience similar symptoms of upper respiratory infection. We both go to the same doctor but we give our own opinion what could have caused the infection. Let’s say you felt that the arena was too cold and that was the reason you became ill.
On the other had, I may have flet that the reason why I became ill was because the fat lady few rows ahead of me ignored the restrictions and smoked pot.
Which of the cases can fit the description of contagion? I’d say none. You?
I don't think the virologists are wrong about leprechauns. After all, these scientists are finding pots of gold...
...where the rainbow ends. Which could be the LGBTQi+ rainbow. Lots of gold in that too.
It is a very good thing that Palmer and Bhakdi concede the obvious truth that the pure culture does not work. This means they accept the existence has never been proved in that way.
This forces the debate in an interesting direction: the totally impure cell cultures are the way to prove the existence of viruses, to let the proliferate and lyse healthy cells, repeating what it's supposed to happen in vivo. But there are many objections to this method. Lanka debunked it thoroughly. Why they never stopped this error back then? Or, what are the responses to the debunking of cell culture with controls?
No response?
Well, let's move to the next topic. Forget cell cultures. Is there any other way to prove that a virus infected a healthy person and caused him to become ill?
What about the lungs? What about the liver? What about the nerve cells, which are everywhere in the body, and the Herpes viruses are supposed to proliferate there?
You can get a painful and maybe fatal Herpes infection anywhere, from the skin, to the eyes, the nails, the spinal chord, the brain, the muscles. Anywhere there are nerves, there is a good living culture medium for Herpes viruses. Where are they?
Can anyone show directly the isolation of a piece of non-human "genome" from a sick person, and use that genome to cause the same disease in a healthy person?
In other words, if this has failed, and every other experiment fails, why do doctors and professors of medicine believe the viral hypothesis explains the transmission of disease?
Do they have any other way to show why they believe this is true?
If not, they should admit they are not there.
Then, they are free to start studying what really causes disease.
Because this business should be about knowledge, not about defending a profession, a business territory or the fame of anyone.
Nothing about this controversy should be personal.
Getting called a donkey is nothing. Saving the lives of the people who will be poisoned with terrible antiviral drugs is worth every insult. Focus on the human victims of this humongous error, not on the hurt feelings of the humans who keep defending it.
The brilliant Stefan Lanka found that organisms (mainly algae) containing an abundance of particles virologists call viruses, were thriving and healthy - as opposed to the barely surviving organisms that were free of these particles. Once he realised how shambolic the whole 'isolation' process was, he started questioning whether these contagious viruses even existed. This led to the infamous court case where the German Supreme Court was forced to make the historic ruling saying there is no evidence for the measles virus. What a turning point!
Several books have been written about the non-existence of the so-called HIV virus, while alternative explanations for the acquisition of AIDS-related diseases do have research behind them. Interestingly enough, I remember watching an interview with the article-mentioned Sucharit Bhakdi back in 2020/21, when I still wasn't sure whether viruses were pathogenic or not.
He claimed the HIV virus already exists within the human body, basically inert and not all that dangerous. Now I'm thinking it does exist, but rather as an 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, not as a pathogenic cell-infesting parasite. Or rather, what virologists claim are microscopic pictures of the virus, is actually pictures of said extracellular vesicles. Bhakdi's claim seems to have some truth in it, but also some lies. You wonder if these people do this on purpose, or if they're just to some degree aware of the lies within virology. For me, what you've just written about Bhakdi and his role in the 'isolation' ruse, adds to the mystery.
Corona, HIV and measles are not the only 'viruses' that have never actually been proven to exists by any genuine scientific method. The same is true for bacteria. Pfeiffer's bacillus, said to be the cause of the inappropriately named Spanish Flue, was never isolated at the time. As much as doctors tried to inject mucus from sick people into the bodies of healthy people, the healthy remained stubbornly disease-free. Moreover, Wikipedia articles tell us that Pfeiffer's bacillus related disease is confirmed by the 'highly specific' PCR test. Of course it is.
I could go on and on, but the question that needs to be asked is: Now that I have no doubt that virology is quackery and the concept of herd immunity likewise is pseudoscientific nonsense, is there even such a thing as contagion at this point? Either way, more and more veils are being lifted. Thanks for another thought-provoking post, Anthony!
Contagion Is A Myth
by Dr Thomas S Cowan MD
Sally Fallon Morell
Cowan promotes urine "therapy." That is not someone I would trust for interpretation of anything.
This article is about the lack of valid evidence for "viruses". The fact that most people still trust the pseudoscientists is why articles like this need to be written. It will inspire more people to look at the virology literature for themselves instead of putting blind trust in fake experts.
I would classify Cowan as a pseudoscientist. Many of these people are paid controlled opposition and there's ample reason to believe he is part of that. It's common to put people out there who can easily be discredited -- like Cowan and Vollmer for these very dangerous health recommendations.
It's a bold claim that say that someone is "paid controlled opposition". Can you show me the evidence that this applies to Cowan? I'm not defending urine therapy, because it is not something I've looked into but where is your evidence that it is a "very dangerous health recommendation"?
Typical, throwing around slurs without any evidence.
I challenge you to demonstrate your knowledge of virology and the scientific method by citing valid scientific evidence showing that any "virus" is real. Identify the observed phenomenon that is under investigation, the independent and dependent variables, the hypothesis, the exposure route, etc. "SARS-COV-2" should be an easy one for you.
Why attack me for pointing out to readers that Cowan is pushing a disgusting treatment that discredits the very movement you believe in? Often people who do that are actually in it to take down those who question the narrative. Support and follow him all you want. No one is stopping you.
There are certainly pseudoscientists out there. We need to be discerning about who we listen to. What makes you say this is the case with Cowan, aside from the urine therapy thing?
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, imagine I am a noted health practitioner who routinely spent their career teaching my patients how to properly eliminate their own diseases, and thereafter how to properly care for themselves to remain healthy. I have developed a significant reputation and following for being truthful and firm in my commitment to patient care.
Then, one day, I write an article stating that my research into, and my application of Feces Therapy in my clinical practice is actually quite helpful as a treatment and cure for various diseases.
How does my article impact my credibility?
How does it impact my history of credibility and my reputation?
Does it matter?
If it does matter, why does it matter?
If you were a patient of mine, what would you think?
If you had heard that I was an excellent doctor, and you were seriously considering coming to see me about your own disease problems, and then you happened to read my Feces Therapy article, what thoughts would go through your mind?
What do you believe would be the view and opinion of most people in this same situation?
And you are somebody who twists a fact to fit your agenda and discredit someone like Cowan as if he were some rube with little knowledge or experience. Shame on you.
The fact that he had a podcast with Amanda Vollmer is far from “promoting”.
Eg:
Conversations with Dr. Cowan & Friends| Ep 46: Amandha Vollmer on Urine Therapy
Video Overview
In today’s podcast, Dr. Cowan engages in conversation with Amandha Vollmer, a renowned naturopathic physician from Canada. Amandha brings a wealth of knowledge on various natural medicine topics, yet this initial dialogue zeroes in on urine therapy—a practice both ancient and gaining contemporary interest. Amandha Vollmer delves into the science, history, and methodology of urine therapy, sharing insights from her patients’ experiences and her personal journey.
Beat it punk…
What fact did I twist? I listened to the interview and he was anxious to start drinking pee. That is something he shared with his viewers.
Why did you have to resort to name calling in order to defend this person? You want me to "beat it"? Well, I think it's important that people reading the thread understand the background of who is being promoted here. I will not let you intimidate me.
Urine is a waste product and I would not want to put it back in my body. However it does have uses in cleaning due to ammonia and can be used in soap making.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/from-gunpowder-to-teeth-whitener-the-science-behind-historic-uses-of-urine-442390/
"HIV" is claimed to have a specific "genome" and proteins, yet such a particle has never been shown to exist at all. And virologists rarely ever even look in bodily fluid/tissue for what they insist are "viruses", but rather in their ridiculous cell cultures. The shapes they point at are only seen AFTER the cell line breaks down. Virology is completely idiotic on every single level.
PCR test for what is the real question.
Testing people's ability to think as to whether the test is of any use at all and why they are submitting to the fraud.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/the-great-covid-retest?utm_source=publication-search
"The WooHoo virus". 😁
(Another fine addition to the ever-expanding dictionary of Colpo-isms).
Being called a "denier" (of anything) should be read as a badge of honour.
All it means is that you're exercising your critical faculties and asking questions, instead of sheepishly amalgamating yourself into the pre-baked (and usually-fraudulent) "general consensus".
"Consensus" can always become "general" when you reward people for spouting it.
Agreed. And the "denier" epithet is a term of propaganda cooked up ruling-class psychological-warfare laboratories (for the only actual science in this whole scamdemic is the science of coercion). The term is designed to smear anyone not toeing the party line by associating him or her with Holocaust denial.
I've now seen it used with "virus denier", "statin denier", "Covid denier", etc. However, my favorite variant, so to speak, has to be "vaccine denier." There, the liars have put their blunter tools out front, who haven't realized that they are analogizing vaccines to the Holocaust! It's a comparison that doesn't bother me, but they wouldn't agree.
Virologists operate on the level of ancient superstitions. Snatching at imaginary dybbuk's that can only be seen through the lens of super techno-marvel machines that are pre-programmed to point towards motes and mites as evidence of the haunting.
perpetuating this primitive superstition that submicroscopic invisible particles floating through the air make people sick requires loads of jargon, increasingly obscure language to mystify the quackery. Not to mention a non-stop multi-billion dollar propaganda campaigns and legions of hired priests in white robes who claim the mantle of "science" to hoodwink the unsuspecting public. Pretty amazing to think people believe this voodoo garbage. Excellent means of social control.
And then they create magical elixirs (that in a sane world would be understood for what they are- industrial poisons) that allegedly exorcise these submicroscopic demons from the mortal body. Makes for a good show and big business, but has nothing to do with biological reality.
The biggest fraud in history might be the medical industrial complex itself though the high priests of the church of "modern science" are closing the gap.
Germ theory and gene theory are both reductionist, primitive superstitions that only remain viable due to massive propaganda and massive funding from the ruling interests that benefit from them at the expense of humanity.
“It paves the way for development of toxic bioweapons that can be conducted under the guise of defending against bioterrorism.”
Spot on. Direct injection is the most efficacious way to distribute a bio weapons attack.
Great article.
What bioweapons are you talking about?
“Parasites operating on the boundary of living and non-living, huh?
Sounds more like a government department to me“
Absolutely brilliant, couldn’t agree more.
Zombies?
To say that people outside the virological bubble don't understand 'modern virology' is the most embarrassing argument I can imagine.
'Modern virology' means the abandonment of all logical thinking and the use of absurdly sophisticated, bloated technology to somehow hide the logic gap. But natural real phenomena are not phenomena of a zeitgeist whose validity can be changed by the latest fashion.
In magic, deception was once practised at a very simple level. Until the audience was trained and clever enough to see through the tricks. With the development of technical possibilities, the level of deception has been raised so that the tricks are no longer so easy to see through. Nevertheless, they remain deceptions.
No matter how far technology develops, magic will always remain an illusion. The same applies to virology.
The Covid Clown Show has shown us that if you put the right make-up on the doctors, they’re able to find each other.
Just as easily as we can spot the different acts from the cheap seats as we hurl our peanuts at them.
After intermission I am going to throw my whole fucking beer at ‘em.
Even the guy following the elephant and shoveling up the shit has their number.
It does not take make up. Each step along the way to becoming a doctor who is highlighted filters out dissidents to the official story. It is a hardening process like damascus steel.
I had a big grin on my face when I saw you used Dr. Malone’s sci-fi story about how dead (or half dead) particles called viruses become alive and perform all those tasks requiring not only to become animated but more so having a mind on their own to make decisions, such as whether to kill the host or not they somehow infected, stolen its machinery to replicate and the fairytale goes on…
One of the most comical contradictions in virology (or evolutionary theory) is the belief that viruses infect the host to reproduce and spread, but their reproduction and spread is pointless, if they kill the host. There is more, but these just show virology is more sci-fi than science…
Quite a while back I challenged both Dr. Malone and Dr. Geert Veanden Bossche to explain their belief the whole virology is based on; how dead, or half-dead, viruses perform the tasks of the living or the animated.
I lost count how many contradictions Dr. Malone uttered in his description of viruses in the video, but just off the top of my head:
A virus is a self-replicating gene - Really?! If this were true, why would the self-replicating gene (s) need a host to replicate???
I'm new to all this, but yeah I'm well aware of how impotent facts and logic are to persuade. Just google Edward Bernays.
From search: "The cytopathic effect is a critical indicator of viral activity and can be used as evidence of viral infection. The type and severity of the CPE can vary depending on the type of virus and the host cell, and it is an important diagnostic criterion for viral infections."
This is the biggest revelation for me getting started. You're snarky and over the top about it, and that's fine, but really it is completely insane that cell death is "evidence." It's completely disturbing how fair your leprechaun analogy is.
I'm blown away by that, like what if I claimed I had a psychic death ray super power and glared at a dish of cells and said that because they died that's proof of my beams. Like, anything could have killed them. If this counts as evidence then the whole concept of evidence is undermined.
Excellent article! sharing it widely👍🏻
Virologists and the credentialed cohort in general, learned to please their teachers, learned credentialed linguistics, learned that a credential leads to a higher standard of living, learned that their credential leads to respect, learned that there is comfort and a need to spend time with other credentialed people. All this learning has made the credentialed cohort, especially prone to brainwashing. There are many pleasure and pain points that can be leveraged, by the brainwasher. Unfortunately there is no credential for morality, courage and common sense.
Ehi Antonio - grazie tante ! I could actually take in an understand lots of this.
I would so love to see you and Malcolm Kendrick together, having a wonderfully effective time destroying the bullshit going down ...
In this post Kirsch admits he has no paper to prove Sars-CoV-2 and loses debate to Proton Magic even before it starts, scroll down a little to see screen shots
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-substack-banned-me-for
👉Steve's best talent is as an example for new CIA recruits on WHAT NOT TO DO to avoid blowing their cover.