There is an enormous amount of evidence for virus. Enormous. You’ve been duped. Strictly speaking there is no absolute “proof” of anything, according to Berkeley and Hume and Descartes and Kant Hegel Schelling et al. Everything has grey edges and unknown anomalous areas. It’s part of what makes life so awesome. 😃 There is nothing we fully know.
Im not going to pretend that I can wax lyrical on all things 'no virus', but I do believe that the intent behind Jamie Andrews work is to disprove everything help up as evidence for said virus. Like you say, you can't prove a negative. But you can prove fraud in the given evidence for a positive.
That is a braindead statement parroted by morons. Obviously you can prove a negative. If you disprove everything they say proves something then you've disproven it. Very simple.
I suggest you take your logic and separate yourself from the absolutist no-virus crowd and look again at the actual evidence and how much there is for virus. They ain’t hoofprints mistaken for unicorns. There is an enormous amount of evidence that no-virus claims does not exist. It exists. Virus has been purified for example. That’s one of their illogical trick words. Focus on the bigger lie, the real lie. That we need vaccines for every virus.
Viruses don't exist so we need no vaccines. I don't know how you miss that bigger lie. It's much easier than the nonsense you're trying to sell.
Also CPE is the footprints. You can't have any of the "enormous" amount of evidence you claim exist without first going through a cell culture. So there really is only 1 thing to disprove and that is that CPE is viral specific. Something that's been done in depth.
The nature of truth is very slippery and ultimately ungraspable according to Schelling and Kant. Science doesn’t literally ‘prove’ anything according to one theory. It can only disprove.
““What is Truth” said jesting Pilate, and he did not stay for an answer.” -Francis Bacon “on truth”
I had a long (probably years) debate with a "no such thing as a virus" person. She insisted that terrain theory was correct (and it likely is, to some extent) and that there are no pathogens. What most people don't get is that there is "truth", at least some, in every idea, except perhaps flat earth theorist and the like. I can identify N. gonorrhea on a gram stain and predict the effects of infection, and that's all there is to it. An open mind is a very healthy thing.
Are you claiming , like many a liberal, that there are multiple truths? An open mind , in my experience, is not a healthy thing. I have encountered many a Phd holder ( especially women) who, after exposing themselves to the current university system, have opened their minds so much that their brains have fallen out.
I covered all the bases with the virus disbelievers, from culture to plasmids to immunological testing. No luck. I was a clinical microbiologist for years before I left “healthcare”, it’s not like they just guess with diagnosis, not on that anyway. It is a horribly broken system, but some things are pretty well understood.
I don’t know about the entire field of antivirus people, but I think you misstate the position of the Baileys. Their claim is that no virus has been demonstrated to exist.
Also, the hoax is not too big. Believing in the hoax is not intentionally perpetuating it. Evolution is a hoax. Many believe in it with religious fervor. They are not intentionally perpetuating a hoax. They are missionaries for a religious faith that they actually believe in. It is the same with virus. I tend to believe the Baileys. But am willing to examine further evidence.
Oh, but it does affect our daily lives. People have been told for 70 years that they descended from monkeys and that matter is all that is. It has profoundly affected our society and does every day. We now live in a low trust society that is unrecognizable from even forty years ago.
I meant slightly differently in terms of public policy. Evolution claptrap doesn’t affect public policy. It garbage and should not be taught with such intensity. The theory lacks crucial evidence.
No. Variation is not new species. Darwin’s entire theory rests on evolution creating new species. That has NEVER been observed. Only variations of same species. Like humans and dogs and his bloody finches.
Impressive straw man arguments and misrepresentation of these Controlled Opposition figures like "former" Pfizer CEO Mike Yeadon don't negate the fact that contageon has NEVER been proven - ask the British Cold Institute who tried for over 10 years and never achieved it. All the operatives you mention are the David Ickes of the virus world their job is to take a dirty great turd into the Punch Bowl of Truth and then invite you to take a drink - just like your good self Mr. F.
Forgive my pettiness, but why so many typos and grammar errors? For some readers, a few in a relative length piece is overlooked. The irregular amount in this piece is an irritant.
Regardless of the debate regarding the existence of virus the question I ask what is the intent behind the j-b? Is it to help or harm? What’s in it? It’s a big money maker. If virus is real how is the vaccine engineered to counter its effect without all the secrecy. I can go on but I won’t.
To say with 100% certainty that something does not exist, but which makes perfect sense alongside all we’ve learned about microbiology, with 100,000 labs working on them world wide is idiotic. Where does it stop? Do we go back to we are composed of cells full of “protoplasm”.
I urge you again to look at the hard science, without a doubt no transmission has ever been proven, look a the experimental history. No virus has ever been isolated, look hard no doubt what they claim is isolation is an obvious joke.
When the global power structure pushes something relentlessly for many decades it’s most likely false on some level whether it’s viruses, round earth, moon landings, nukes… I don’t claim everything is a lie, it’s actually some truth mixed with lies. A glass of water with a drop of hemlock isn’t a glass of water anymore.
You didn’t address my problems with this kind of traumatized thinking. Not one of them. There is overwhelming evidence for virus. Take another look without Cowan et al up your ears. Overwhelming evidence.
My so called traumatized thinking is rooted in your podcast, I’ve been a listener from it’s inception. You know how deep the esoteric rabbit hole goes. You know full well what ‘they’ are capable of from Babylon to Bacon to Blavatsky and beyond. You say overwhelming evidence, I also see overwhelming evidence and the number is growing based on responses to your post. I concur with some of your assertions however you need to dig deeper.
Forgive me for troubling you, but I think that unsubscribing would deprive you of the good analysis Mr. Frederick provides us on the subjects he has dedicated himself to. One has to give him credit, he really is on a good trail with this Lord Bacon material. This virus article of his will serve to his benefit (and ours) in the long run. He has stepped out of his comfort zone, with revealing and hopefully constructive results, and we should all thank him for having the courage to do so. We all need the freedom that allows us to be open, even when we're mistaken . . . especially when we're mistaken. Otherwise, there can be no opportunity for change and development.
Mr. Frederick is really good at some things, but he is not reasoning well here. And he is misrepresenting the no virus people he names to a shocking degree. Mr. Cowan is the one person out of the crowd who does too often speculate freely and at times to an implausible degree. But everyone else there are precise thinkers and do not state their case in a sloppy manner. They all understand that the true state of the case is that viruses have not been proven to exist. If any of them takes the liberty of actually letting slip that viruses don't exist, it is only in the colloquial sense that one means this when one has exposed a sham. It is a truism that nothing can be proven to not exist, strictly speaking.
Mr. Frederick is lacking in objective analysis here. His arguments are almost entirely rule-of-thumb. Has he ever analyzed one of the foundational experiments that established how viruses actually get "isolated?" He's very good at literary analysis and finding openings for possible interpretation in literary texts, which is why I pay attention to his substack. But he's out of his depth here, it seems, in debunking what these no virus figures have properly exposed. Whether viruses exist or not, and what the methods are that are claimed for having discovered them, is an entirely objective, quantifiable process, entirely subject to strict logical and methodological analysis. So much so, that it doesn't really matter what Mr. Frederick thinks about the scale of the hoax, or whether any one of us thinks it's not possible to create one the size of the virus hoax. The fact that no virus has ever been satisfactorily proven to exist, yet alone cause illness, shifts the burden onto us instead to broaden our speculation on how the hoax at its scale is in fact possible.
Also, Mr. Frederick exaggerates the nature of the criticism these no virus figures direct at other members of the health freedom movement who retain their belief in viruses. They do not unreasonably, or like religious zealots, criticize those who hold the conventional view. They do not descend to ad hominem attacks, nor claim that all public figures retaining the conventional belief are in on the hoax. They do speculate that some of them might act as gatekeepers who are in the know that viruses have not been proven to exist. Even so, they do not attribute ill intention to all of these potential gatekeepers, often conceding that some of them do not profess what they know to be the case in order to avoid controversy and thus retain relevance and credibility among their audiences. I see nothing wrong with that tactic, that one would say one thing in public while privately adhering to a more controversial position. And the virus deniers are not trying to tell me that I'm bad because I think this is ok, though they do express their disagreement that such a tactic is the wisest course of action. So, the polemics that do take place are much more nuanced than Mr. Frederick is portraying them. All the virus deniers I know of seek to make common cause with anyone who prefers to emphasize raising the standards of freedom and informed consent. But there's nothing wrong with making the no virus claim that exposing the entire paradigm of virology as a hoax would solve many other related problems of health freedom in one fell swoop. That is a valid argument, as long as its underlying claim about no proof of viruses is true. If indeed viruses have never been proven to exist, that exposure would solve an array of other problems of medical tyranny pretty fast. And if you believe that viruses are a contrived fiction, how could you not feel the desire to take that straightest of pathways to all of the implications of that realization? I believe the best strategy is to have some trusted mainstream public figures playing it cautiously, and others laying out the full dimensions of the fraud according to the complete evidentiary record for those audiences who seem more willing or able to critically assess such arguments.
What is more, each one of these virus deniers Mr. Frederick names do believe there is partial evidence for contagion of some sort or other, though they all agree that how the contagion works - that we all to some degree observe - is a long way from having been conclusively demonstrated, yet alone explained. Terrain Theorists remain very open to other theories of causation for contagion, particularly models of resonance that resemble how laughing or affective moods, coughing or yawning, and menstrual cycles also appear to be contagious. It may very well be that when a body expresses symptoms of illness or detoxification, it signals this to other bodies who may respond similarly if they are also on some threshold of requiring detoxification or healing of some sort. Terrain Theorists generally interpret the symptoms of illness as the process of healing from the illness, not the direct manifestation of the illness itself. But even so, a lot of illness that might appear to originate as contagion can be hypothesized as - and may very well be due to - environmental exposures experienced in common. Causation is a tricky thing, sometimes even to a mind-bending degree, or in a way that pushes the limits of observation. So it is crucial to remain skeptical about what might seem obvious, and open to how uncannilly nuanced causation not infrequently turns out to be. Indeed, it is the very nuance and complexity of microbes and their causative role in tissue decomposition, that supply the vulnerability to manipulation required to pass off a medical scam at a scale that Mr. Frederick cannot yet wrap his mind around.
I have spent a tremendous amount of time listening to and reading every no virus name Mr. Frederick mentions, and I can say that he is wrong in how he is characterizing them, both in his portrayal of their arguments on the question of the existence of viruses, as well as of the nature of their critical rhetoric of others who maintain the conventional virus paradigm. This article serves rather more to showcase, unwittingly, some limits of Mr. Frederick's own reasoning capacities and his ability to fairly portray how other people frame and articulate their own arguments. I totally give him the benefit of the doubt, so I think his failure to portray these no virus figures accurately is due to not having considered closely enough the arguments they make. I do not at all say that he is a poor observer or intentionally distorting anything. Because he clearly understands other grand hoaxes like the moon landings, I'm sure there's plenty of hope for him to still come around to the virus hoax. But he has his niche, and his interests and talents are more literary, so maybe there's a limitation in that, but I hope not.
For anyone wishing to read something put out by one of these virus deniers, in this case Mr. Mark Bailey, here is the link to his most exhaustive presentation against the establishment of the existence of viruses and their pathogenicity:
Understanding viruses don’t exist comes from a methodical and logical approach to the reviewable objective scientific literature in existence. It does not involve speculation
Given the logical failure of virus proponents to justify their existence, any attempt to justify the existence of viruses must come with detailed explanations and logic trains from well-controlled experiments and evidence pertaining to these alleged microorganisms that can’t be seen through a light microscope that are obligate intracellular parasites consisting of a proteinaceous capsule surrounding some genetic material (or viruses)
Anything else is mist; hand-waving, and empty attempts at argumentation: the hallmark of sophists
There is an enormous amount of evidence that virus exist. That's the point of the essay. You and Cowan refuse to accept it. Your refusal to accept clear and obvious evidence has nothing "methodical and logical" about it. It's sheer sophistry, with a holier than thou, and hipper than thou religiosity about it. As for the ringleaders -I suspect they have great needs for attention. They certainly are not helping anyone.
I have only incidentally come across your Substack and thus, unlike others here, I am not familiar with your other work. This notwithstanding, I think you are not reasoning your position well in your article. But, I would rather not re-harsh the criticism levelled at the article — which it is entirely on point. Instead, I would like to make a side point, gentler I would hope.
Learning has often been described as a process of assimilation and accommodation (This is a view based on Jean Piaget’s work).
Assimilation involves integrating new information into existing mental frameworks (schemas), while accommodation requires modifying those frameworks when new information does not fit.
As children, we move between these complementary processes with relative ease. We have few fixed assumptions about what we know and have not yet tied our identities to the beliefs we hold. As a result, revising our understanding of the world comes naturally.
In adulthood, however, accommodation often becomes more difficult. New information that challenges established mental frameworks can feel threatening because our beliefs are no longer just ideas—they are often intertwined with our sense of self and our understanding of reality.
From a psychological perspective, this resistance may be related to belief perseverance. the tendency to maintain existing beliefs even when confronted with evidence that contradicts them. People may dismiss disconfirming evidence, reinterpret it to support their current views, or struggle to change their minds because doing so can be psychologically uncomfortable. Admitting error may threaten a valued self-image, making it easier to preserve existing beliefs than to accommodate new information.
Talking stock of belief perseverance, and the emergent problems in failing to accommodate information, I would suggest that you read the counter view — contradictory to your own — more carefully, being open to changing your perspective — if convinced of it.
I'm not sure where you fall. Do virus exist or not? If not, explain the existence of 100,000 (fake?) virology labs. How does that work? There is overwhelming evidence for virus. How they or any living thing operates, has agency, has consciosness will always be a great mystery until science can explain consciousness. To deny the existence of virus completely is sheer sophistry. To deny that "contagion' exists is something even beyond that.
“Science” so called is a philosophy, which leans towards Scientism of late. Anyone can observe, test, and calculate with their own senses. God’s Word in a King James Bible is reliable as true science. Not religion mind you.
Mr. Frederick: Sophistry works best when the fundamentals are obscured. So, for the question regarding whether viruses have been proven to exist, the fundamentals of inquiry must be uncovered and laid out straight. The first fundamental of inquiry is that the burden of proof lies upon whoever makes a claim that something exists. The claim that viruses exist has been made, not by me, but by others. In order to satsify the first fundamental, certain experiments were released by those others claiming to demonstrate the existence of viruses. The second fundamental is that I, or anyone so inclined, can go and examine these experiments to determine whether they succeed in establishing what they claim. These experiments must sufficiently follow scientifically valid methods, and these scientifically valid methods must sufficiently correspond to the underlying logical principles that they are grounded in. All scientific investigative methods must ultimately be reducible to fundamental logical relations. The third fundamental is that if the experiments do not satisfy the requirement of demonstrating what they claim to have demonstrated, either because they fail at the scientific method level or at the logical level or both, that is as far as I or anyone else is required to go in order to be justified in saying that the claim has not been demonstrated. If people still get sick, or 100,000 biolabs still exist, none of that has one iota of significance to the question at hand. I carry no responsibility to come up with an alternate explanation for any downchain effect that is claimed to be connected to the original claim. As long as I can demonstrate the inadequacy of the claim at its originating source, I don't even have to feel the slightest bit of need to hazard an alternate hypothesis, though I may like to at my own discretion.
If you will read Mr. Bailey's paper entitled "A Farewell to Virology" (a free download), I do not claim that what you will be reading requires your immediate revision of belief and adherence to what it claims. Rather, what you will be reading is an argument whose premises are entirely internally consistent. That is, they satisfy the requirements of valid reasoning. But validity is not the end of any argument. Validity is necessary but not sufficient for making a sound argument. Soundness is the end of any argument. Soundness consists of both validity and truth. The premises of the argument must also be true. So what Mr. Bailey accomplishes at the outset is that his argument is valid, which you can determine immediately upon reading his paper. This means that if his premises are also true, then he has stated his case soundly. If he has stated his case soundly, then at that point your change in conviction must follow. But you must first satisfy yourself that his premises are true, after recognizing that his argument is valid. But this truth verification is something Mr. Bailey cannot do for you. Nor can I or anyone else. He can give evidence for why he claims his premises are true, but if you want ultimate verification, you must go and check for yourself the evidence that Mr. Bailey provides, or any other evidence proper to the argument that disproves his evidence. I do not claim certainty that Mr. Bailey has made a sound argument. What I do claim is that if you do what I did, and go through the argument to verify its validity, then go and examine whether the premises that Mr. Bailey has stated be true, you will more likely than not come to the same or a similar conclusion I came to, which is that Mr. Bailey has made a sound argument.
If you reach that point - and I'm not guaranteeing you will - you will come back to review your rebuttal comments here on this thread and realize that you were bogged down in obscured fundamentals, just like all of us have been before, and will be again, and probably are right now in one thing or another. It's always a journey, but you have to do some of the work on these things if you want to be able to undertand what those of us are seeing who have made the effort to look closely into Mr. Bailey's argument, and others like it. It's no different than the way you must feel about your Lord Bacon revelations when you try to describe what you're seeing to people who won't read or consider anything you write. Except that in the case of Mr. Bailey's argument, there is, I think, a stricter parameter which allows one a greater assurance of the conclusions one reaches, being as they are either strictly formal or strictly quantitative determinations.
I thank you for sticking your neck out and posting where you stand on the question of viruses. It takes courage to put one's beliefs on the chopping block of public scrutiny.
I'm afraid I can't count myself a disciple of the Nazarene, but I share in your pleasure of knowing that microbes are not out to get us. The truth shall set us free.
Bailey has clearly scrambled your thinking. Virus exists, there is overwhelming evidence for it. There is still much mystery about how virus actually operates like everyting else biological. Wher even molecules seem to have agency. Bailey has simply redefined what the evidence is and refuses to consider ANY evidence at all. How convenient. He’s a very clever sophist, hypnotizing the traumatized. Please explain 100 thousand virology labs. That’s a scientific question.
I recall what the inventor of PCR, Kerry Mullis, claimed in the preface to Peter Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" (1996):
After searching for a specific reference to support the claim "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" and questioning numerous scientists, including HIV "discoverer" Luc Montagnier, Mullis concluded, "There weren't any [references]. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS." Mullis further wrote that he and Duesberg had "not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on Earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV."
No, he did not. But he would have had he gotten to the point where one realizes that the same method they use to falsify any virus is the same method they use to falsify the virus paradigm itself. It is merely the end-stage generalization that anyone misses out on if they don't follow the trail long enough
We are told by the scientific community that these images are of viruses, but how do we really know they aren't something else -- exosomes/cell debris ? I do not believe that these images are slam dunk proof of a virus . They are indeed something , and scientists want to and have to call them something so they settle on the word virus because it's easy and fits their world view but do they really know? It's become pretty convenient to name everything they see around a cell a virus.
I recall Canadian researcher, Christine Massey, reaching out to hundreds of agencies, governments, medical facilities, asking for proof of an isolated Covid virus. Not one entity could give it to her.
People can get sick from environmental toxins, food, air, water, and the knee jerk thing to blame it on is a virus . I think illness is more to do with detoxification than viruses . I just wish we had more honesty and bravery in the scientific domain.
But we probably all agree the Covid debacle and hysteria and the poisonous shot that was pushed and many times mandated on every human being from infant to the aged is in my mind the biggest crime against humanity ever.
I ran into Imani Oxam (Gaia TV) at an event in early 2023. A friend introduced us and she took a step back. She clearly knew who I was, probably because I refused to go along with the military health database psyop. Her best friend was the organizing lawyer, Scientologist Leigh Dundas.
I think she was momentarily mind boggled because she admitted to me organizing the No Virus group on message in 2020.
Huh.
Not long after, Jerm warfare guy attacks me in a chat group, out of nowhere, with a profanity laced tired, even attacking my wife, a biochemist who studies P53 cancer pathway, but sometimes viruses (basic work, not BSL4 or anything dedicated). But I was able to corner him. He claimed a guest of his was a biologist who did not believe in viruses. I listened to his podcast interview, but that isn't what the Ga Tech guy said. He just doubted the HIV theory. We connected by email, so I put the question to him directly. He did not respond.
Yeah, these people are playing a game to draw in people they can dupe and farm. Some of the shady MFM groups have investment cults with mediums who channel stock picks. Yes, really. That's the Arlington Institute crowd from what I hear.
The No Virus crowd IS likely building off a hoax, however. Look at stats for respiratory illness, like the flu. What does nearly everyone who dies of flu really for from? Pneumonia from secondary bacterial infection.
This is why it was criminal to withhold antibiotics and agents like hydroxychloroquine that have antibacterial properties.
The No Virus crowd uses a linguistic trick. They say "no viruses", but swap back and forth between saying the virus itself doesn't exist and that it isn't the cause of illness. In the meantime, actual scientists move forward working to understand how foreign genetic agents sever our defenses to bacteria.
Looks like your ‘No Virus’ crowd serves all the functions you give it —for you and your crowd!
But attribution of death to flu has long been artificially inflated for Fauci’s global flu vax agenda? That novel renaming trick worked a treat).
The ‘virus crowd’ don't need tricks - because they are right, every one knows viruses are - as defined, stated and sold— or else someone would have discovered that and told us!’.
What virus?
This won't get a crowd - as it doesn’t offer identity boosters.
Polarising narrative identities are used as an energy source by the ‘social engineering’ crowd.
If you choose to believe in ‘whatever’ - well go for it if it works for you.
But when curated definitions and models run as securitised dictates - there’s the sacrifice to the Idol.
I cringed at the polarised leveraged use of ‘no virus’ as I knew it would effectively set a like reaction that would deny its voice That is also a kind of contagion.
Sci-modelling frames what can be said, what gets funded, what performances are necessary for gaining social status. But such a crowd wont welcome anything that calls it into question.
Denis Rancourt supports your finding on endogenous bacterial pneumonia — but do the bacteria cause the loss of pneuma or are they a clean up crew that cannot cope with a systemic collapse?
If your career depends on giving a ‘correct’ answer, would you mask in the socially established normal rather than attract penalty? That - or similar is part of the human experience. Dumping blame out onto others is also part of the social masking order.
Its a sham. And its ‘normalised’ but it is not free to exercise responsibility in love and life.
The no virus crowd always seem to swarm just ahead of some announcement usually regarding bioweapons labs being exposed. They are swarming again at the moment.
Germ is a chaos agent meant to lead people down blind alleys. He does not like being called out, he gets nasty very quickly.
Excellent point!! Excellent. Touché. Jerm is sincere though. He got bullied by Cowan. Jerm is a good dude. I’ve never seen him nasty. I only think he has oppositional defiance disorder! 🤣🤣🤣 (satire)
This is particularly amazing since I have spoken with both friends of Tulsi and somebody at the Pentagon about this, and on numerous interviews and broadcasts about it for over three years.
Have an image search for “grass pollen”. Tiny little spikey balls. Spores too have that form. EM images are of dead matter. Dead spikey balls mostly. No live video footage is possible which would show Viruses having direction and purpose. Until then I'd say FUPO fake Until proven otherwise. I'm not saying impossible, but being scientific and logical Until then.
So you’ve moved the goalposts yet also admitted that they are not impossible. Interesting. Now we need electron microscopy video? And then you’ll be convinced? What did you expect pollen to look like, human sperm? Please tell me what you think the one hundred thousand or so Biosafety labs around the world are fiddling around with? Do you believe in bacteriophages? Macrophages? DNA? All of these things have massive grey areas and are far from totally understood, especially as to what gives them agency, but it’s clear that they do exist.
Talk about “sophistry” this Article relies on it in spades albeit at a middle school level. “100 of BSL labs exist, therefore, no way viruses don’t exist”. “look at all the people over hundred years studying viruses! “ “look at the electron microscope pictures”. how dare these “loud mouth deniers” proclaim no proof! “i know the soul exists without proof” so be it Viruses” no wonder they got away with scamdemic .. horrible logic
That was just a part of the argument. However, If virus do not exist what are all those labs doing? There is an enormous amount of evidence for virus. Bailey Cowan et al refuse to look at it. it doesn’t satisfy their “purity” criteria. You buy thier bullshit. They are being obtuse and ridiculous. Use some common sense.
They do look at it. example: look closely at failure of “human genome project” “genomics grift” all they do is just string nucleotides to together then call them “virus sequence” trillions spent not one “cure”. university labs all dependent on genomics which is layers of pseudo science. all pictures are computer generated all look essentially the same. it is a circle jerk. sequence- then rig PCR test— then get yourself a big grant. i was a tissue culture tech at UC San Diego. all of it waste of money
I don't believe viruses can possibly be naturally occuring. They aren't cellular in nature, and in a universe with entropy, how could such a thing possibly get going if it can't reproduce outside of a host cell?
I could easily be pursuaded that viruses are man-made, however.
My biggest problem with your article is the conflation of not believing in viruses with contagion itself. Bacteria are cellular and easily visible with normal microscopes.
The problem with separate claims is that they must be evaluated separately. I believe contagious diseases and bacteria exist. But supposedly highly contagious, airborne viruses, most useful for controlling people's behavior with medical terrorism, somehow just refuse to transmit themselves whenever they do a study?
Vaccines and their efficacies are a different thing, as you said. But from what we've all been through, the burden of proof is on the powers that be, not the skeptics. And even by their own rules, COVID policies never made sense.
It's not on us to restore the credibility of medical authorities. They destroyed that perfectly well themselves. I still wash my hands.
Cowan says there is no such thing as contagion. What a crock of BS click bait garbage. As for transmission of virus and disease we have a mystery don’t we? But virus exist. That’s my point. The traumatized will believe anything. Sad. We’ve all been traumatized by lies. We have to keep our discernment strong an always evaluate evidence.
I'm not going to respond to all your replies, but I'm not familiar or interested in whomever Cowan is.
I've had my doubts about viruses for years, even before covid, because they're not cellular, can't reproduce outside of a host cell, and (again) I believe entropy is a fundamental part of the universe. I make no further claims, but point out that scientists don't have a good explanation for the origin of viruses, and will admit that.
Lastly, judging from the overwhelming response you've gotten to your post, you might want to edit it or think about it versus trying to respond to every reply.
I'm only interested in good faith arguments; I believe scientists should both admit what they don't know and refuse to speculate. Mrs. Horsley shared you post, and I respect her thoughts on just about everything, even when we disagree.
But I'm not interested in further debating this issue with you, at this time. I still wash my hands and cover my mouth when I cough, but I'm not taking any further vaccines.
Haha! Good one. As for science not knowing how a virus originates, science has ZERO idea how the first cell began! One single cell is a thing almost infinitely complex! Scientists have simply stopped trying to explain it. The Scientific Method is useless for this question. It is beyond “Science”. DNA itself seems to exhibit agency. Have a look at the workings of cell. ALL of the molecules inside the cell seem to exhibit agency—it’s astonishing. Life is a miracle thru and thru down to the molecular level. it would have to be would it not, for life to exist at all?
I don’t think the universe is entropic BTW. That’s only part of the picture. Proteins seem to have agency. Molecules seem to have consciousness. How else could the body work?
That’s interesting. The nature of truth is elusive and ultimately, according to the Idealists, impossible to define. But of course Truth exists. A lie however, is an INTENTIONAL, not mistaken, INTENTIONAL misrepresentation of something one knows to be true. So a lie can always be defined but the “the truth” cannot. God only knows the whole truth, according to Berkeley and Schelling and me 😃. Schelling is the man. Another way of looking at it is the “Rashoman Effect”. We all have a different truth and no one of us is lying, making life so very beautiful and so very free and so very difficult at times. https://medium.com/@adhamalaaeldin/meaning-truth-in-rashomon-b66e6d389098
Roberrt!! Let's go around the barn ONE MORE TIME!!!:
Q: Who said "for those awake there is one cosmos, those asleep each turn aside into their own world"?
AI reply:
This statement is Fragment B89 by the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, which contrasts the common world (koinos kosmos) accessible to the awake with the private world (idios kosmos) of the sleeping.
Philosophical Meaning: Heraclitus used this fragment to distinguish between those with understanding (awake), who share a single, objective reality governed by universal reason (logos), and those without understanding (sleeping), who are trapped in subjective, private illusions.
Psychological Application: In the 1950s, existential and phenomenological psychologists like Ludwig Binswanger and Rollo May adopted the term idios kosmos to describe the delusional experiences of individuals with schizophrenia, who withdraw from shared reality into a private, subjective world.
Literary Influence: The concept significantly influenced novelist Philip K. Dick, who explored the tension between shared objective reality and private delusion in works like Lies, Inc. and his essays on schizophrenia.
Interesting! Based on my experience growing up in a certain religion I am no longer a part of, I would add that the idios kosmos is not the sole domain of individuals, but that even large groups of individuals can create and share an idios kosmos that is cut off from the koinos kosmos. At the same time, the purported koinos kosmos of our day is hideously reductionist, and the ancients who first designated the distinction of the two worlds would be horrified by our modern age's relegation of formal and final causes to non-existence, and the sole recognition of material and efficient causes as all that is real. In addition, just because something is subjective does not automatically mean it doesn't correspond to what is real. Subjective awareness can correspond very well to what is real when it is grounded in the same principles that the koinos kosmos is grounded in. In other words, "How could so many people be wrong?" is not the way we discover the koinos kosmos.
I get it now. Yes agreed. We live together in a wilderness of dreams. But there is a fundamental commonality to certain aspects of all the dreams that can be shared by language. As such an approximation of the shared communality of all dreams can be approached with data and reason…but never fully and never completely. “I’ll let ya be in my dream if I can be in yours.”
There is an enormous amount of evidence for virus. Enormous. You’ve been duped. Strictly speaking there is no absolute “proof” of anything, according to Berkeley and Hume and Descartes and Kant Hegel Schelling et al. Everything has grey edges and unknown anomalous areas. It’s part of what makes life so awesome. 😃 There is nothing we fully know.
You can’t prove a negative. That’s problem number one with this no-virus nonsense. He hasn’t proved anything.
Im not going to pretend that I can wax lyrical on all things 'no virus', but I do believe that the intent behind Jamie Andrews work is to disprove everything help up as evidence for said virus. Like you say, you can't prove a negative. But you can prove fraud in the given evidence for a positive.
Andrews is claiming that virus dies not exist.
That is a braindead statement parroted by morons. Obviously you can prove a negative. If you disprove everything they say proves something then you've disproven it. Very simple.
You’ve already made a moronic statement that would be difficult to top so there's really no use to continue this conversation.
he has proven nothing. You cannot prove a negative.
Moron: Unicorns exist and I have proof in the form of footprints.
Realist: Your footprints are nothing more than horse tracks and your so-called claim is falsified.
Proven the negative through elimination and one thing you seem to lack, which is logic.
I suggest you take your logic and separate yourself from the absolutist no-virus crowd and look again at the actual evidence and how much there is for virus. They ain’t hoofprints mistaken for unicorns. There is an enormous amount of evidence that no-virus claims does not exist. It exists. Virus has been purified for example. That’s one of their illogical trick words. Focus on the bigger lie, the real lie. That we need vaccines for every virus.
Viruses don't exist so we need no vaccines. I don't know how you miss that bigger lie. It's much easier than the nonsense you're trying to sell.
Also CPE is the footprints. You can't have any of the "enormous" amount of evidence you claim exist without first going through a cell culture. So there really is only 1 thing to disprove and that is that CPE is viral specific. Something that's been done in depth.
We can prove math theorems and know them to be True. Whether they apply to nature and the physical universe is a different matter.
I'm on your side. I don't believe that viruses can possibly be naturally occuring.
I didn’t say that. Virus is part of the great unity of all of life. Life is extraordinarily strange and mysterious.
Have a look at proteins. Check “protein” on wikipedia. These things are more preposterous than virus!
Because they refuse all evidence. That’s a sham contest. As Jive as an alchemist’s promise or a Yuval Noah Harari lecture.
That’s a fake contest. They define what is admissable as evidence
The nature of truth is very slippery and ultimately ungraspable according to Schelling and Kant. Science doesn’t literally ‘prove’ anything according to one theory. It can only disprove.
““What is Truth” said jesting Pilate, and he did not stay for an answer.” -Francis Bacon “on truth”
Francis didn't stay, either.
His willfullness had no interest in truth.
I had a long (probably years) debate with a "no such thing as a virus" person. She insisted that terrain theory was correct (and it likely is, to some extent) and that there are no pathogens. What most people don't get is that there is "truth", at least some, in every idea, except perhaps flat earth theorist and the like. I can identify N. gonorrhea on a gram stain and predict the effects of infection, and that's all there is to it. An open mind is a very healthy thing.
YES! Terrain is king absolutely. AND Virus exist. Thanks!
Are you claiming , like many a liberal, that there are multiple truths? An open mind , in my experience, is not a healthy thing. I have encountered many a Phd holder ( especially women) who, after exposing themselves to the current university system, have opened their minds so much that their brains have fallen out.
Keep your mind closed then. Seems a sad choice to me, but it is your choice to make. I've found wonders myself.
How is my mind closed? I’m accusing the no-virus crowd of closing their mind. You stole my line! 😃
I was attempting to reply to Adrian Conway, perhaps I didn’t do it right.
I covered all the bases with the virus disbelievers, from culture to plasmids to immunological testing. No luck. I was a clinical microbiologist for years before I left “healthcare”, it’s not like they just guess with diagnosis, not on that anyway. It is a horribly broken system, but some things are pretty well understood.
I don’t know about the entire field of antivirus people, but I think you misstate the position of the Baileys. Their claim is that no virus has been demonstrated to exist.
Also, the hoax is not too big. Believing in the hoax is not intentionally perpetuating it. Evolution is a hoax. Many believe in it with religious fervor. They are not intentionally perpetuating a hoax. They are missionaries for a religious faith that they actually believe in. It is the same with virus. I tend to believe the Baileys. But am willing to examine further evidence.
Well stated. Thanks!
My reply is to Mike
Evolution is a hoax or a misunderstanding or misreading of the evidence but it doesn’t impact our day to day lives. It’s not even really science imho
Oh, but it does affect our daily lives. People have been told for 70 years that they descended from monkeys and that matter is all that is. It has profoundly affected our society and does every day. We now live in a low trust society that is unrecognizable from even forty years ago.
I meant slightly differently in terms of public policy. Evolution claptrap doesn’t affect public policy. It garbage and should not be taught with such intensity. The theory lacks crucial evidence.
No evolution= no variant virus, no?
No. Variation is not new species. Darwin’s entire theory rests on evolution creating new species. That has NEVER been observed. Only variations of same species. Like humans and dogs and his bloody finches.
Impressive straw man arguments and misrepresentation of these Controlled Opposition figures like "former" Pfizer CEO Mike Yeadon don't negate the fact that contageon has NEVER been proven - ask the British Cold Institute who tried for over 10 years and never achieved it. All the operatives you mention are the David Ickes of the virus world their job is to take a dirty great turd into the Punch Bowl of Truth and then invite you to take a drink - just like your good self Mr. F.
Forgive my pettiness, but why so many typos and grammar errors? For some readers, a few in a relative length piece is overlooked. The irregular amount in this piece is an irritant.
I noticed them too and just figured it was an angrily written piece based on the tone.
Regardless of the debate regarding the existence of virus the question I ask what is the intent behind the j-b? Is it to help or harm? What’s in it? It’s a big money maker. If virus is real how is the vaccine engineered to counter its effect without all the secrecy. I can go on but I won’t.
Sorry I don’t follow. But vaccines are (mostly) another lie.
It’s easy to yell sophistry without looking at the hard science and history the no virus proponents present. It’s bloody rock solid. Stick to Shakey…
To say with 100% certainty that something does not exist, but which makes perfect sense alongside all we’ve learned about microbiology, with 100,000 labs working on them world wide is idiotic. Where does it stop? Do we go back to we are composed of cells full of “protoplasm”.
I urge you again to look at the hard science, without a doubt no transmission has ever been proven, look a the experimental history. No virus has ever been isolated, look hard no doubt what they claim is isolation is an obvious joke.
When the global power structure pushes something relentlessly for many decades it’s most likely false on some level whether it’s viruses, round earth, moon landings, nukes… I don’t claim everything is a lie, it’s actually some truth mixed with lies. A glass of water with a drop of hemlock isn’t a glass of water anymore.
You didn’t address my problems with this kind of traumatized thinking. Not one of them. There is overwhelming evidence for virus. Take another look without Cowan et al up your ears. Overwhelming evidence.
My so called traumatized thinking is rooted in your podcast, I’ve been a listener from it’s inception. You know how deep the esoteric rabbit hole goes. You know full well what ‘they’ are capable of from Babylon to Bacon to Blavatsky and beyond. You say overwhelming evidence, I also see overwhelming evidence and the number is growing based on responses to your post. I concur with some of your assertions however you need to dig deeper.
I’m unlikely to resubscribe after reading this biased post of Mr Frederick’s. Don’t understand why he is stepping out of his realm on this one.
Forgive me for troubling you, but I think that unsubscribing would deprive you of the good analysis Mr. Frederick provides us on the subjects he has dedicated himself to. One has to give him credit, he really is on a good trail with this Lord Bacon material. This virus article of his will serve to his benefit (and ours) in the long run. He has stepped out of his comfort zone, with revealing and hopefully constructive results, and we should all thank him for having the courage to do so. We all need the freedom that allows us to be open, even when we're mistaken . . . especially when we're mistaken. Otherwise, there can be no opportunity for change and development.
I was out in the hot, humid garden all morning and sat down to read drained and lacking good judgment. It would behoove me to reconsider. Many thanks.
Mr. Frederick is really good at some things, but he is not reasoning well here. And he is misrepresenting the no virus people he names to a shocking degree. Mr. Cowan is the one person out of the crowd who does too often speculate freely and at times to an implausible degree. But everyone else there are precise thinkers and do not state their case in a sloppy manner. They all understand that the true state of the case is that viruses have not been proven to exist. If any of them takes the liberty of actually letting slip that viruses don't exist, it is only in the colloquial sense that one means this when one has exposed a sham. It is a truism that nothing can be proven to not exist, strictly speaking.
Mr. Frederick is lacking in objective analysis here. His arguments are almost entirely rule-of-thumb. Has he ever analyzed one of the foundational experiments that established how viruses actually get "isolated?" He's very good at literary analysis and finding openings for possible interpretation in literary texts, which is why I pay attention to his substack. But he's out of his depth here, it seems, in debunking what these no virus figures have properly exposed. Whether viruses exist or not, and what the methods are that are claimed for having discovered them, is an entirely objective, quantifiable process, entirely subject to strict logical and methodological analysis. So much so, that it doesn't really matter what Mr. Frederick thinks about the scale of the hoax, or whether any one of us thinks it's not possible to create one the size of the virus hoax. The fact that no virus has ever been satisfactorily proven to exist, yet alone cause illness, shifts the burden onto us instead to broaden our speculation on how the hoax at its scale is in fact possible.
Also, Mr. Frederick exaggerates the nature of the criticism these no virus figures direct at other members of the health freedom movement who retain their belief in viruses. They do not unreasonably, or like religious zealots, criticize those who hold the conventional view. They do not descend to ad hominem attacks, nor claim that all public figures retaining the conventional belief are in on the hoax. They do speculate that some of them might act as gatekeepers who are in the know that viruses have not been proven to exist. Even so, they do not attribute ill intention to all of these potential gatekeepers, often conceding that some of them do not profess what they know to be the case in order to avoid controversy and thus retain relevance and credibility among their audiences. I see nothing wrong with that tactic, that one would say one thing in public while privately adhering to a more controversial position. And the virus deniers are not trying to tell me that I'm bad because I think this is ok, though they do express their disagreement that such a tactic is the wisest course of action. So, the polemics that do take place are much more nuanced than Mr. Frederick is portraying them. All the virus deniers I know of seek to make common cause with anyone who prefers to emphasize raising the standards of freedom and informed consent. But there's nothing wrong with making the no virus claim that exposing the entire paradigm of virology as a hoax would solve many other related problems of health freedom in one fell swoop. That is a valid argument, as long as its underlying claim about no proof of viruses is true. If indeed viruses have never been proven to exist, that exposure would solve an array of other problems of medical tyranny pretty fast. And if you believe that viruses are a contrived fiction, how could you not feel the desire to take that straightest of pathways to all of the implications of that realization? I believe the best strategy is to have some trusted mainstream public figures playing it cautiously, and others laying out the full dimensions of the fraud according to the complete evidentiary record for those audiences who seem more willing or able to critically assess such arguments.
What is more, each one of these virus deniers Mr. Frederick names do believe there is partial evidence for contagion of some sort or other, though they all agree that how the contagion works - that we all to some degree observe - is a long way from having been conclusively demonstrated, yet alone explained. Terrain Theorists remain very open to other theories of causation for contagion, particularly models of resonance that resemble how laughing or affective moods, coughing or yawning, and menstrual cycles also appear to be contagious. It may very well be that when a body expresses symptoms of illness or detoxification, it signals this to other bodies who may respond similarly if they are also on some threshold of requiring detoxification or healing of some sort. Terrain Theorists generally interpret the symptoms of illness as the process of healing from the illness, not the direct manifestation of the illness itself. But even so, a lot of illness that might appear to originate as contagion can be hypothesized as - and may very well be due to - environmental exposures experienced in common. Causation is a tricky thing, sometimes even to a mind-bending degree, or in a way that pushes the limits of observation. So it is crucial to remain skeptical about what might seem obvious, and open to how uncannilly nuanced causation not infrequently turns out to be. Indeed, it is the very nuance and complexity of microbes and their causative role in tissue decomposition, that supply the vulnerability to manipulation required to pass off a medical scam at a scale that Mr. Frederick cannot yet wrap his mind around.
I have spent a tremendous amount of time listening to and reading every no virus name Mr. Frederick mentions, and I can say that he is wrong in how he is characterizing them, both in his portrayal of their arguments on the question of the existence of viruses, as well as of the nature of their critical rhetoric of others who maintain the conventional virus paradigm. This article serves rather more to showcase, unwittingly, some limits of Mr. Frederick's own reasoning capacities and his ability to fairly portray how other people frame and articulate their own arguments. I totally give him the benefit of the doubt, so I think his failure to portray these no virus figures accurately is due to not having considered closely enough the arguments they make. I do not at all say that he is a poor observer or intentionally distorting anything. Because he clearly understands other grand hoaxes like the moon landings, I'm sure there's plenty of hope for him to still come around to the virus hoax. But he has his niche, and his interests and talents are more literary, so maybe there's a limitation in that, but I hope not.
For anyone wishing to read something put out by one of these virus deniers, in this case Mr. Mark Bailey, here is the link to his most exhaustive presentation against the establishment of the existence of viruses and their pathogenicity:
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition
Completely agree with you on the main points here
Understanding viruses don’t exist comes from a methodical and logical approach to the reviewable objective scientific literature in existence. It does not involve speculation
Given the logical failure of virus proponents to justify their existence, any attempt to justify the existence of viruses must come with detailed explanations and logic trains from well-controlled experiments and evidence pertaining to these alleged microorganisms that can’t be seen through a light microscope that are obligate intracellular parasites consisting of a proteinaceous capsule surrounding some genetic material (or viruses)
Anything else is mist; hand-waving, and empty attempts at argumentation: the hallmark of sophists
There is an enormous amount of evidence that virus exist. That's the point of the essay. You and Cowan refuse to accept it. Your refusal to accept clear and obvious evidence has nothing "methodical and logical" about it. It's sheer sophistry, with a holier than thou, and hipper than thou religiosity about it. As for the ringleaders -I suspect they have great needs for attention. They certainly are not helping anyone.
I have only incidentally come across your Substack and thus, unlike others here, I am not familiar with your other work. This notwithstanding, I think you are not reasoning your position well in your article. But, I would rather not re-harsh the criticism levelled at the article — which it is entirely on point. Instead, I would like to make a side point, gentler I would hope.
Learning has often been described as a process of assimilation and accommodation (This is a view based on Jean Piaget’s work).
Assimilation involves integrating new information into existing mental frameworks (schemas), while accommodation requires modifying those frameworks when new information does not fit.
As children, we move between these complementary processes with relative ease. We have few fixed assumptions about what we know and have not yet tied our identities to the beliefs we hold. As a result, revising our understanding of the world comes naturally.
In adulthood, however, accommodation often becomes more difficult. New information that challenges established mental frameworks can feel threatening because our beliefs are no longer just ideas—they are often intertwined with our sense of self and our understanding of reality.
From a psychological perspective, this resistance may be related to belief perseverance. the tendency to maintain existing beliefs even when confronted with evidence that contradicts them. People may dismiss disconfirming evidence, reinterpret it to support their current views, or struggle to change their minds because doing so can be psychologically uncomfortable. Admitting error may threaten a valued self-image, making it easier to preserve existing beliefs than to accommodate new information.
Talking stock of belief perseverance, and the emergent problems in failing to accommodate information, I would suggest that you read the counter view — contradictory to your own — more carefully, being open to changing your perspective — if convinced of it.
I'm not sure where you fall. Do virus exist or not? If not, explain the existence of 100,000 (fake?) virology labs. How does that work? There is overwhelming evidence for virus. How they or any living thing operates, has agency, has consciosness will always be a great mystery until science can explain consciousness. To deny the existence of virus completely is sheer sophistry. To deny that "contagion' exists is something even beyond that.
“Science” so called is a philosophy, which leans towards Scientism of late. Anyone can observe, test, and calculate with their own senses. God’s Word in a King James Bible is reliable as true science. Not religion mind you.
Mr. Frederick: Sophistry works best when the fundamentals are obscured. So, for the question regarding whether viruses have been proven to exist, the fundamentals of inquiry must be uncovered and laid out straight. The first fundamental of inquiry is that the burden of proof lies upon whoever makes a claim that something exists. The claim that viruses exist has been made, not by me, but by others. In order to satsify the first fundamental, certain experiments were released by those others claiming to demonstrate the existence of viruses. The second fundamental is that I, or anyone so inclined, can go and examine these experiments to determine whether they succeed in establishing what they claim. These experiments must sufficiently follow scientifically valid methods, and these scientifically valid methods must sufficiently correspond to the underlying logical principles that they are grounded in. All scientific investigative methods must ultimately be reducible to fundamental logical relations. The third fundamental is that if the experiments do not satisfy the requirement of demonstrating what they claim to have demonstrated, either because they fail at the scientific method level or at the logical level or both, that is as far as I or anyone else is required to go in order to be justified in saying that the claim has not been demonstrated. If people still get sick, or 100,000 biolabs still exist, none of that has one iota of significance to the question at hand. I carry no responsibility to come up with an alternate explanation for any downchain effect that is claimed to be connected to the original claim. As long as I can demonstrate the inadequacy of the claim at its originating source, I don't even have to feel the slightest bit of need to hazard an alternate hypothesis, though I may like to at my own discretion.
If you will read Mr. Bailey's paper entitled "A Farewell to Virology" (a free download), I do not claim that what you will be reading requires your immediate revision of belief and adherence to what it claims. Rather, what you will be reading is an argument whose premises are entirely internally consistent. That is, they satisfy the requirements of valid reasoning. But validity is not the end of any argument. Validity is necessary but not sufficient for making a sound argument. Soundness is the end of any argument. Soundness consists of both validity and truth. The premises of the argument must also be true. So what Mr. Bailey accomplishes at the outset is that his argument is valid, which you can determine immediately upon reading his paper. This means that if his premises are also true, then he has stated his case soundly. If he has stated his case soundly, then at that point your change in conviction must follow. But you must first satisfy yourself that his premises are true, after recognizing that his argument is valid. But this truth verification is something Mr. Bailey cannot do for you. Nor can I or anyone else. He can give evidence for why he claims his premises are true, but if you want ultimate verification, you must go and check for yourself the evidence that Mr. Bailey provides, or any other evidence proper to the argument that disproves his evidence. I do not claim certainty that Mr. Bailey has made a sound argument. What I do claim is that if you do what I did, and go through the argument to verify its validity, then go and examine whether the premises that Mr. Bailey has stated be true, you will more likely than not come to the same or a similar conclusion I came to, which is that Mr. Bailey has made a sound argument.
If you reach that point - and I'm not guaranteeing you will - you will come back to review your rebuttal comments here on this thread and realize that you were bogged down in obscured fundamentals, just like all of us have been before, and will be again, and probably are right now in one thing or another. It's always a journey, but you have to do some of the work on these things if you want to be able to undertand what those of us are seeing who have made the effort to look closely into Mr. Bailey's argument, and others like it. It's no different than the way you must feel about your Lord Bacon revelations when you try to describe what you're seeing to people who won't read or consider anything you write. Except that in the case of Mr. Bailey's argument, there is, I think, a stricter parameter which allows one a greater assurance of the conclusions one reaches, being as they are either strictly formal or strictly quantitative determinations.
I thank you for sticking your neck out and posting where you stand on the question of viruses. It takes courage to put one's beliefs on the chopping block of public scrutiny.
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition
In my experience there is no evidence of viral particles indistinguishable from cellular debris. But that's just me. I could be wrong.
Feels so great to not be in guard against invisible boogey men.
In my defencelessness my safety lies.
Jesus said that and I agree.
I'm afraid I can't count myself a disciple of the Nazarene, but I share in your pleasure of knowing that microbes are not out to get us. The truth shall set us free.
And doesn't it just feel nice to pull off those scary ghost sheets to just see humans with agendas being ridiculous.
Bailey has clearly scrambled your thinking. Virus exists, there is overwhelming evidence for it. There is still much mystery about how virus actually operates like everyting else biological. Wher even molecules seem to have agency. Bailey has simply redefined what the evidence is and refuses to consider ANY evidence at all. How convenient. He’s a very clever sophist, hypnotizing the traumatized. Please explain 100 thousand virology labs. That’s a scientific question.
I recall what the inventor of PCR, Kerry Mullis, claimed in the preface to Peter Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" (1996):
After searching for a specific reference to support the claim "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" and questioning numerous scientists, including HIV "discoverer" Luc Montagnier, Mullis concluded, "There weren't any [references]. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS." Mullis further wrote that he and Duesberg had "not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on Earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV."
Did Kerry Mullis deny the existence of virus?
No, he did not. But he would have had he gotten to the point where one realizes that the same method they use to falsify any virus is the same method they use to falsify the virus paradigm itself. It is merely the end-stage generalization that anyone misses out on if they don't follow the trail long enough
"They have electron microscopy images of virus"
We are told by the scientific community that these images are of viruses, but how do we really know they aren't something else -- exosomes/cell debris ? I do not believe that these images are slam dunk proof of a virus . They are indeed something , and scientists want to and have to call them something so they settle on the word virus because it's easy and fits their world view but do they really know? It's become pretty convenient to name everything they see around a cell a virus.
I recall Canadian researcher, Christine Massey, reaching out to hundreds of agencies, governments, medical facilities, asking for proof of an isolated Covid virus. Not one entity could give it to her.
People can get sick from environmental toxins, food, air, water, and the knee jerk thing to blame it on is a virus . I think illness is more to do with detoxification than viruses . I just wish we had more honesty and bravery in the scientific domain.
But we probably all agree the Covid debacle and hysteria and the poisonous shot that was pushed and many times mandated on every human being from infant to the aged is in my mind the biggest crime against humanity ever.
Electron microscopy is just one aspect of the evidence for virus.
Dear me. What a sap.
I ran into Imani Oxam (Gaia TV) at an event in early 2023. A friend introduced us and she took a step back. She clearly knew who I was, probably because I refused to go along with the military health database psyop. Her best friend was the organizing lawyer, Scientologist Leigh Dundas.
I think she was momentarily mind boggled because she admitted to me organizing the No Virus group on message in 2020.
Huh.
Not long after, Jerm warfare guy attacks me in a chat group, out of nowhere, with a profanity laced tired, even attacking my wife, a biochemist who studies P53 cancer pathway, but sometimes viruses (basic work, not BSL4 or anything dedicated). But I was able to corner him. He claimed a guest of his was a biologist who did not believe in viruses. I listened to his podcast interview, but that isn't what the Ga Tech guy said. He just doubted the HIV theory. We connected by email, so I put the question to him directly. He did not respond.
Yeah, these people are playing a game to draw in people they can dupe and farm. Some of the shady MFM groups have investment cults with mediums who channel stock picks. Yes, really. That's the Arlington Institute crowd from what I hear.
The No Virus crowd IS likely building off a hoax, however. Look at stats for respiratory illness, like the flu. What does nearly everyone who dies of flu really for from? Pneumonia from secondary bacterial infection.
This is why it was criminal to withhold antibiotics and agents like hydroxychloroquine that have antibacterial properties.
The No Virus crowd uses a linguistic trick. They say "no viruses", but swap back and forth between saying the virus itself doesn't exist and that it isn't the cause of illness. In the meantime, actual scientists move forward working to understand how foreign genetic agents sever our defenses to bacteria.
Looks like your ‘No Virus’ crowd serves all the functions you give it —for you and your crowd!
But attribution of death to flu has long been artificially inflated for Fauci’s global flu vax agenda? That novel renaming trick worked a treat).
The ‘virus crowd’ don't need tricks - because they are right, every one knows viruses are - as defined, stated and sold— or else someone would have discovered that and told us!’.
What virus?
This won't get a crowd - as it doesn’t offer identity boosters.
Polarising narrative identities are used as an energy source by the ‘social engineering’ crowd.
If you choose to believe in ‘whatever’ - well go for it if it works for you.
But when curated definitions and models run as securitised dictates - there’s the sacrifice to the Idol.
I cringed at the polarised leveraged use of ‘no virus’ as I knew it would effectively set a like reaction that would deny its voice That is also a kind of contagion.
Sci-modelling frames what can be said, what gets funded, what performances are necessary for gaining social status. But such a crowd wont welcome anything that calls it into question.
Denis Rancourt supports your finding on endogenous bacterial pneumonia — but do the bacteria cause the loss of pneuma or are they a clean up crew that cannot cope with a systemic collapse?
If your career depends on giving a ‘correct’ answer, would you mask in the socially established normal rather than attract penalty? That - or similar is part of the human experience. Dumping blame out onto others is also part of the social masking order.
Its a sham. And its ‘normalised’ but it is not free to exercise responsibility in love and life.
The no virus crowd always seem to swarm just ahead of some announcement usually regarding bioweapons labs being exposed. They are swarming again at the moment.
Germ is a chaos agent meant to lead people down blind alleys. He does not like being called out, he gets nasty very quickly.
Excellent point!! Excellent. Touché. Jerm is sincere though. He got bullied by Cowan. Jerm is a good dude. I’ve never seen him nasty. I only think he has oppositional defiance disorder! 🤣🤣🤣 (satire)
Right on time https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/dni-gabbard-reveals-evidence-of-us
Who is so stupid as to care? Dupes! It’s all fake! There’s no such thing as infectious disease. (Satire)
One of Jeffrey Epstein's associates admitted to me in 2023 that he funded one of these labs to create one of the mRNA vaccines. We should care.
This is particularly amazing since I have spoken with both friends of Tulsi and somebody at the Pentagon about this, and on numerous interviews and broadcasts about it for over three years.
Have an image search for “grass pollen”. Tiny little spikey balls. Spores too have that form. EM images are of dead matter. Dead spikey balls mostly. No live video footage is possible which would show Viruses having direction and purpose. Until then I'd say FUPO fake Until proven otherwise. I'm not saying impossible, but being scientific and logical Until then.
So you’ve moved the goalposts yet also admitted that they are not impossible. Interesting. Now we need electron microscopy video? And then you’ll be convinced? What did you expect pollen to look like, human sperm? Please tell me what you think the one hundred thousand or so Biosafety labs around the world are fiddling around with? Do you believe in bacteriophages? Macrophages? DNA? All of these things have massive grey areas and are far from totally understood, especially as to what gives them agency, but it’s clear that they do exist.
There's been a lot of lies about the efficacy of DNA for identification of suspects, to be sure. Bad example.
Me? I never said that.
Fair enough.
Stick to bible thumping, this is out of your depth.
Talk about “sophistry” this Article relies on it in spades albeit at a middle school level. “100 of BSL labs exist, therefore, no way viruses don’t exist”. “look at all the people over hundred years studying viruses! “ “look at the electron microscope pictures”. how dare these “loud mouth deniers” proclaim no proof! “i know the soul exists without proof” so be it Viruses” no wonder they got away with scamdemic .. horrible logic
That was just a part of the argument. However, If virus do not exist what are all those labs doing? There is an enormous amount of evidence for virus. Bailey Cowan et al refuse to look at it. it doesn’t satisfy their “purity” criteria. You buy thier bullshit. They are being obtuse and ridiculous. Use some common sense.
They do look at it. example: look closely at failure of “human genome project” “genomics grift” all they do is just string nucleotides to together then call them “virus sequence” trillions spent not one “cure”. university labs all dependent on genomics which is layers of pseudo science. all pictures are computer generated all look essentially the same. it is a circle jerk. sequence- then rig PCR test— then get yourself a big grant. i was a tissue culture tech at UC San Diego. all of it waste of money
I hate GMOs but genetic engineering is real. DNA is real. GMOS should be banned.
I don't believe viruses can possibly be naturally occuring. They aren't cellular in nature, and in a universe with entropy, how could such a thing possibly get going if it can't reproduce outside of a host cell?
I could easily be pursuaded that viruses are man-made, however.
My biggest problem with your article is the conflation of not believing in viruses with contagion itself. Bacteria are cellular and easily visible with normal microscopes.
The problem with separate claims is that they must be evaluated separately. I believe contagious diseases and bacteria exist. But supposedly highly contagious, airborne viruses, most useful for controlling people's behavior with medical terrorism, somehow just refuse to transmit themselves whenever they do a study?
Vaccines and their efficacies are a different thing, as you said. But from what we've all been through, the burden of proof is on the powers that be, not the skeptics. And even by their own rules, COVID policies never made sense.
It's not on us to restore the credibility of medical authorities. They destroyed that perfectly well themselves. I still wash my hands.
Cowan says there is no such thing as contagion. What a crock of BS click bait garbage. As for transmission of virus and disease we have a mystery don’t we? But virus exist. That’s my point. The traumatized will believe anything. Sad. We’ve all been traumatized by lies. We have to keep our discernment strong an always evaluate evidence.
I'm not going to respond to all your replies, but I'm not familiar or interested in whomever Cowan is.
I've had my doubts about viruses for years, even before covid, because they're not cellular, can't reproduce outside of a host cell, and (again) I believe entropy is a fundamental part of the universe. I make no further claims, but point out that scientists don't have a good explanation for the origin of viruses, and will admit that.
Lastly, judging from the overwhelming response you've gotten to your post, you might want to edit it or think about it versus trying to respond to every reply.
I'm only interested in good faith arguments; I believe scientists should both admit what they don't know and refuse to speculate. Mrs. Horsley shared you post, and I respect her thoughts on just about everything, even when we disagree.
But I'm not interested in further debating this issue with you, at this time. I still wash my hands and cover my mouth when I cough, but I'm not taking any further vaccines.
Have a good one.
Haha! Good one. As for science not knowing how a virus originates, science has ZERO idea how the first cell began! One single cell is a thing almost infinitely complex! Scientists have simply stopped trying to explain it. The Scientific Method is useless for this question. It is beyond “Science”. DNA itself seems to exhibit agency. Have a look at the workings of cell. ALL of the molecules inside the cell seem to exhibit agency—it’s astonishing. Life is a miracle thru and thru down to the molecular level. it would have to be would it not, for life to exist at all?
I don’t think the universe is entropic BTW. That’s only part of the picture. Proteins seem to have agency. Molecules seem to have consciousness. How else could the body work?
Well, that's getting into very interesting but speculative territory.
Are you familiar with the claim that the 1918 flu was actually some kind of military bioweapon gone wrong?
Yes. It appears that it was bacterial and began with a vaccine given at a US military base.
Robert:
"The truth is often very elusive.
Truth is variable. Truth changes.
But a lie is always a lie."
Not to be contrary, but that quote
seems scientistic and baconian...compared to:
• Clarity: Swahili tradition teaches that "A false story has seven endings.
A true story has one ending," meaning lies require complex, fragile variations,
while truth remains simple and singular.
That’s interesting. The nature of truth is elusive and ultimately, according to the Idealists, impossible to define. But of course Truth exists. A lie however, is an INTENTIONAL, not mistaken, INTENTIONAL misrepresentation of something one knows to be true. So a lie can always be defined but the “the truth” cannot. God only knows the whole truth, according to Berkeley and Schelling and me 😃. Schelling is the man. Another way of looking at it is the “Rashoman Effect”. We all have a different truth and no one of us is lying, making life so very beautiful and so very free and so very difficult at times. https://medium.com/@adhamalaaeldin/meaning-truth-in-rashomon-b66e6d389098
Roberrt!! Let's go around the barn ONE MORE TIME!!!:
Q: Who said "for those awake there is one cosmos, those asleep each turn aside into their own world"?
AI reply:
This statement is Fragment B89 by the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, which contrasts the common world (koinos kosmos) accessible to the awake with the private world (idios kosmos) of the sleeping.
Philosophical Meaning: Heraclitus used this fragment to distinguish between those with understanding (awake), who share a single, objective reality governed by universal reason (logos), and those without understanding (sleeping), who are trapped in subjective, private illusions.
Psychological Application: In the 1950s, existential and phenomenological psychologists like Ludwig Binswanger and Rollo May adopted the term idios kosmos to describe the delusional experiences of individuals with schizophrenia, who withdraw from shared reality into a private, subjective world.
Literary Influence: The concept significantly influenced novelist Philip K. Dick, who explored the tension between shared objective reality and private delusion in works like Lies, Inc. and his essays on schizophrenia.
AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.
Interesting! Based on my experience growing up in a certain religion I am no longer a part of, I would add that the idios kosmos is not the sole domain of individuals, but that even large groups of individuals can create and share an idios kosmos that is cut off from the koinos kosmos. At the same time, the purported koinos kosmos of our day is hideously reductionist, and the ancients who first designated the distinction of the two worlds would be horrified by our modern age's relegation of formal and final causes to non-existence, and the sole recognition of material and efficient causes as all that is real. In addition, just because something is subjective does not automatically mean it doesn't correspond to what is real. Subjective awareness can correspond very well to what is real when it is grounded in the same principles that the koinos kosmos is grounded in. In other words, "How could so many people be wrong?" is not the way we discover the koinos kosmos.
I get it now. Yes agreed. We live together in a wilderness of dreams. But there is a fundamental commonality to certain aspects of all the dreams that can be shared by language. As such an approximation of the shared communality of all dreams can be approached with data and reason…but never fully and never completely. “I’ll let ya be in my dream if I can be in yours.”
I have no idea what you mean