THIS JUST IN: POLLUTION CAUSES ILLNESS
Dang, maybe I should add some polysyllabic jargon to make that sound more scientific
Hey Folks!
As you know, we here at Nevermore Media cut our teeth as COVID skeptics. Along the way, we’ve had front-row seats to what appears to be a paradigm shift in epidemiology.
I cannot claim to have gotten as deep into the weeds as some on this issue, as I consider myself a generalist. In fact, I bear this banner proudly. Generalists don’t get the respect they deserve these days. Let me explain.
A specialist is someone who has highly specific knowledge of a certain subject matter. They have often spent years acquiring vast amounts of knowledge related to a specific theory. This is great if that theory happens to be correct. But what if it’s simply wrong? Their “knowledge” then isn’t knowledge at all. In fact, it may be an impediment to acquiring new knowledge.
When there are different camps of specialists, that means there is no scientific consensus on a given subject. The likely cause of such impasse is that a faulty model is being propped up by professionals who are loathe to admit that they might be wrong. This is often due to financial interests, but part of it is simply an ego thing. People don’t like to admit that they wasted years acquiring false knowledge.
Don’t underestimate the sunk cost fallacy, folks. Nothing will make smart people do dumb things faster than already having put their money down.
WHY GENERALISTS MUST ALWAYS BE THE SUPREME INTELLECTUAL AUTHORITIES, NOT SPECIALISTS
For the sake of illustration, let’s say there are two camps with two rival theories. Let’s say that both camps are convinced that they have data which supports their theory.
To make this more fun, let’s use the example of Round Earthers versus Flat Earthers. This is a good example because the two theories are mutually exclusive - it would be a logical impossibility for the Earth to be round and flat at the same time.
So who’s right? Well, there are four possibilities:
Possibility A: Round Earthers are right.
Possibility B: Flat Earthers are right.
Possibility C: Both are partly right and partly wrong.
Possibility D: Both camps are wrong.
So, let’s say that debate between these two camps has been ongoing for years with no signs of any possible resolution or synthesis. What is to be done?
Well, if you ask me, both camps must make their case to a neutral party. Due to the nature of scientific groupthink, which follows the general human pattern of tribalism, partisans of either camp may well simply refuse to acknowledge the flaws in their own side’s arguments. This situation may be worsened by career considerations and the desire for prestige, a foible which scientists seem especially prone to.
In making their respective cases to the third party, however, both Flat Earthers and Round Earthers must address themselves to a layperson, which is to say a generalist. This is because the available specialists have preconceived notions, and thus are unable to fulfil the criteria of objectivity.
But how can a generalist understand the arguments of specialists, who may have highly esoteric knowledge related to their areas of expertise? Simple. The specialists explain their arguments in detail to the generalist, and the generalist seeks additional information until he or she understands both theories. All you need is something smart, patient, and inquisitive enough to get to bottom of things. Usually, people who understand things are able to explain them, given sufficient time and a sufficiently interested party.
Remember, folks: If someone can’t explain something complicated to you, it may not be because you’re too dumb to understand. It’s also possible that they can’t explain it because they don’t understand it themselves.
(I suppose it must be stated that the generalist, who is basically acting as a judge, must be sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable to understand the specialists, who may present highly technical arguments.)
Ultimately, the generalist would then judge the relative merits of the two arguments by attempting to poke holes in both of them. Whichever theory stands up to scrutiny better should be preferred, but we should also have enough humility to admit that human understanding will always be a work in progress. We’ve been wrong about a hell of a lot in the past, and we’re for sure wrong about a lot nowadays as well.
My point is this: Specialists cannot and should not dictate what the public believes, because their arguments cannot be understood by laypeople. There is an important and necessary layer of interpretation which must bridge the gap between laypeople and specialists. This is normally the job of non-scientist writers (such as yours truly).
This is especially evident in virology. Due to the nature of microbiology, which involves dealing with organisms invisible to the naked eye, laypeople are not qualified to have an informed opinion on the work of specialists. And because most people have an instinctive deference to people who they believe possess superior knowledge, the Viral Hypothesis has proliferated for generations.
Now, however, a paradigm shift in underway. An increasing number of prominent researchers are challenging the “settled science of virology”, including Dan Roytas, Sam Bailey, Denis Rancourt, Mike Yeadon, Steph Lanka, Jon Rappaport, Celia Farber, Tobin Owl, and many others.
A book by Daniel Roytas called Can You Catch A Cold? seems to have had a particular impact. Will this be the sneeze that sends Yertle the Turtle hurtling? We can hope.
I have yet to get my hands on his book, but I refer the interested reader to this very interesting conversation between Dan Roytas and the inimitable Sam Bailey:
Basically, Dr. Roytas presents his finding that the idea that respiratory illnesses are caused by viruses is unsupported by ANY scientific evidence. He goes even further, stating that there is ZERO evidence that colds or flus are caused by contagion, period.
“Oh, c’mon,” you might be thinking. “I get that Big Pharma has corrupted science so much that experts are no longer reliable, but obviously colds are contagious! Give me a break!”
Many people, if not most, are convinced that they have gotten sick after being exposed to a sick person. The belief that illness jumps from one person supports the widespread belief that because disease is contagious, there must be a physically detectable mechanism by which contagion occurs.
Be that as it may, the scientific data to support contagion apparently doesn’t exist. To be honest, I’ll have the read Roytas’s book before I can opine on that, but suffice to say that Roytas seems to have had made a big impression on the right people.
When I caught wind of the news, I decided to declare that the anti-virus side has won the debate.
In doing so, I was making a point with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but at the same time I was making a real point.
My point is this: most people are laypeople, which is to say generalists, and we make our decisions based on what we believe that the smartest, best-informed people believe. This is simply part of human psychology. We can’t all be experts in everything, so we use shortcuts. Even the most devout anarchists do not deny the authority of experts. At the end of the day, you do have to choose what to believe, which is often a matter of deciding who to believe.
As Mikhail Bakunin famously put it:
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.
So where does that leave us? Well, hopefully we can be honest enough to admit that most of the time, we’re making guesses about the world. We believe theories which seem to explain what we experience in our own lives, but we also emulate (consciously or unconsciously) the beliefs of the people that we think are the relevant authorities.
And here we return to a domain in which the ordinary person is far more qualified to judge for themselves. Basically, one only needs to figure out who is more credible, and there are all kinds of circumstantial ways of doing that.
For one thing, I think that we should apply more stringent screening processes when determining the credibility of sources of information. Researchers with financial conflicts of interest are not credible, for instance. Researchers who are clearly driven by conscience, such as Dr. Mike Yeadon, are obviously more credible than someone like Peter Hotez, who is paid to parrot the narrative promoted by the vaccine industry.
For another, I think that we should assume that the specialists who are more interested in explaining things in terms that laypeople can understand should be considered more credible. Dishonest “experts” love to hide behind indecipherable jargon and technical terms, because it cannot be scrutinized except by their fellow “experts”.
It’s also evident that some fake scientists know that they’re full of shit. That’s the reason that RFK can’t get any pro-vaxxer in the world to debate him.
Anyway, back in April I wrote these words:
I’m calling it: the debate is over, and the anti-virus side has won.
Now we can move on to a much more important question: how should illnesses be treated?
I’ve got an idea that might be a little radical for some of you out there, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway. Maybe rising levels of illness are connected to the fact that modern humans live in toxic environments, constantly consuming chemicals that aren’t good for us.
What you are about to read was written by Tobin Owl and is about the link about pollution and disease. I don’t think that it will be controversial to posit that the two are connected - for instance in the case of heavy metal and endocrine-disrupting chemicals - but Tobin’s piece suggests that poor air quality may be a more important causative agent in respiratory illnesses than previously believed.
Whodathunkit, right?
I hope you enjoy this article! Please let us know what you think in the comments!
Also, if you haven’t signed up for our free newsletter yet, there’s never been a better time to turn from your errant ways. It’s free!
crow Qu’appelle
Pollution Leads to Colds and Flu
How atmospheric conditions can exacerbate harmful pollution and tip the boat toward a healing, cleansing crisis
by Tobin Owl - June 30, 2024
In Toxicological Flu, Cyanide and “Covid-19” I discussed how pollution is associated with epidemics of flu and pneumonia, including the “atypical” pneumonia tagged Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or SARS, and even measles and other flu-like illness. In this article, I will go more into mechanisms explaining how this can come about: both atmospheric conditions that can lead to an increased concentration of pollution on the ground; and the physical mechanisms explaining why the body produces or undergoes such symptoms as congestion, coughing, and malaise.
First of all, definitions are in order… or perhaps the paucity thereof. I was curious about how a cold is distinguished from the flu and found that nearly all the symptoms are the same but allegedly different in degrees and frequency.
The chart above appears on a CDC webpage about flu and is accompanied by the following curious statement:
Because colds and flu share many symptoms, it can be difficult (or even impossible) to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone. Special tests can tell if a person is sick with flu.
The emphasis is mine, and my reason for emphasising that is that I wish to suggest that what we have is not a case of two distinct, easily separable illnesses. Instead what we really have is symptoms that vary from case to case but can be seen as part of similar mechanisms of the body.
Of course, the CDC says you need to get a test to tell which one you have.
But wait. Let’s think about this a bit. How do we know those tests mean anything?
Well, if you think those tests are going to help, then maybe it would be good to look into how those tests are supposed to work and how they originated. For brevity’s sake, I won’t be going into that here. Instead, I will just state it bluntly:
The tests are meaningless. ALL OF THEM!
You can challenge me in the comments on that if you like, but please, please don’t go getting any tests done until you have thoroughly investigated them and know what you are getting into. Let’s not go supporting a meaningless, fraudulent industry. (Yes, testing is an industry, a highly lucrative one, a heavily promoted and unaccountable one.)1
So putting that behind, let’s get back to the topic. Colds and flu are manifestaions of similar mechanisms of the body. They could even be thought of as different stages or iterations of the same coping, cleansing or healing mechanisms. We will be seeing more about how this works as we move on.
Now, we should probably discuss the relationship of flu with pneumonia while we’re at it. They are both respiratory illnesses. Pneumonia is generally said to be more severe than the flu and comes on slower while flu comes on rapidly. At the same time, flu can lead to pneumonia:
Influenza is a common cause of pneumonia, especially among younger children, the elderly, pregnant women, or those with certain chronic health conditions or who live in a nursing home. [ALA]
So we see that there is a relationship between them. Could pneumonia then simply be what happens when the flu is unable to resolve the underlying issue it is attempting to resolve?
The picture I want to paint is that we have these various names for different respiratory illnesses, and though officialdom tells us they are different things, they are similar, overlap and can lead one into the other.
Why do we get colds or flu?
At the time I wrote Toxicological Flu, Cyanide and “Covid-19”, Jim West’s articles were my main source and inspiration. I didn’t know of anyone else who was thinking and writing quite along those lines. Recently though, I watched an interview with Daniel Roytas on the Terrain Theory Podcast and was impressed by the things he brought out. Roytas is the author of Can You Catch A Cold? and it’s obvious he’s done plenty of thinking iand research on the topic.
Ranking on Amazon, April 10, 2024
Look for the book to come out on Lulu
If you begin at 51:45 in the interview on Bitchute, you will hear Daniel talk about how a change in temperature or humidity is the trigger for colds and flu. “Very well documented,” he emphasizes. In fact, we all know this from experience, don’t we? In temperate climates, colds and flu tend to surge during the winter months. But there’s more to it than what we’ve been told.
Roytas points to two mechanisms that can come into play, often at the same time. The first is an atmospheric phenomenon known as thermal inversion and the second is what happens to our airway passages and lungs under cold, dry conditions.
Thermal Inversion
In Toxicological Flu, Cyanide and “Covid-19”, I talked about the Great London Smog of 1952 in which 6000 Londoners died in a short space of time. The government tried to pass it off as a flu epidemic… Well, in fact it was the flu! But it wasn’t caused by a bug, it happened because the dirty coal industry around the city was polluting the air and, when a mass of cold air sat over the city for days, it trapped the pollution, causing a dense smog to fill the streets… so dense one could hardly see in front of him.
This phenomenon, called thermal inversion is explained in the video below using the example a similar event that occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948.
Now the instances cited above are extreme examples… extremely high concentration of pollution causing severe, sudden epidemics. But let us imagine what would happen when things aren’t so extreme. Say, an average polluted small town without any big industry next door. When a thermal inversion occurs, as it invariably will, people would start getting cold or flu symptoms. They would say a “bug” is going around… a “virus.” An illusion of contagion comes about when people start getting sick around the same time.
Roytas uses the term “temperature inversion” but describes the same phenomenon as the video above, saying that a layer of cold air acts as a lid that traps pollution that would normally rise up away from the earth. And he points to this having happened in China around the end of 2019. (I haven’t been able to confirm that happened, but it seems quite plausible.) He emphasizes how this more than doubled the concentration of pollution in some parts of China which are already extremely polluted (again, see my previous article). While breathing the air in Beijing under normal conditions is the equivalent of smoking 50 cigarettes a day, Dan says, when there’s a temperature conversion it would be like smoking well over 100!
No wonder everyone wears a mask.
Pre-pandemic Beijing
KEVIN FRAYER/ GETTY. Reproduced from YaleEnvironment360 (2018)
At minute 58 in the interview, he says:
“Across China, when this temperature inversion happened, the levels of particulate matter went up to, in some areas, more than 700 parts per million, right? So people are literally walking around in this toxic atmosphere, breathing in all this stuff into their lungs which they can’t get rid of because their mucus ciliary clearance has been impaired because of the change in temperature! So you’re literally… your body is just inhaling all this gunk. So the body says, right, we’ve got to find another way to clear it out.
So you get this response we call a cold or a flu. This is a meteorological cause… Like no pathogen involved. Well established.”
That brings us to the second mechanism, what he refers to above as impairment of “mucus ciliary clearance” of the lungs.
The Mucociliary Apparatus
Our noses, sinus and lung tissue are lined by cells with minute hairlike things called cilia that move in waves in a thin layer of water. Above the water layer is a layer of mucus that captures foreign stuff like dust, pollen, pollution and microbes. The cilia then push the mucus along to where it can be expelled, taking the foreign matter with it. This is beautifully depicted in the vintage video below with real time, animated microscopy (8 min).
This brief simulation is also helpful (about 1 min).
Thus the action of the cilia under proper conditions is able to move the mucus along, thus removing things that would otherwise clog or damage the lungs.
But what happens when there is too much coming in for this mechanism to handle or when the action of the cilia and/or mucus is impaired? The video below shows one of the things that can impair this action which is a drop in humidity.
(It’s not clear to me why 100% humidity in this experiment is referred to as “normal humidity” and why 90% as “only 10% less than normal.” It may be that in the lungs high humidity (100%) is normal and that 90% is enough lower to dry things out. Normally, air is warmed and humidified on inhalation via the nostrils so that it is better conditioned upon reaching the lungs, but this is an in vitro experiment, thus requiring preconditioned air, so to speak.)
Cold winter air is often drier than summer air. Both the cold and the dryness tend to impair mucociliary action, meaning that the lungs do not get cleared as easily.
One interesting thing is how ventilation and especially intubation damages bronchial tissue and dries out the lungs since the air doesn’t get pre-warmed and humidified. No wonder it’s so deadly for people whose health is already compromised.
Another thing that can impair movement of the mucus is noxious fumes. The first 8 min video shows how exposure to a formaldehyde gas over a matter of minutes slowed the movement of the nasal mucociliary clearance in frogs, and within 15 minutes would bring it to a stop. Of course, formaldehyde is not the only VOC that can do this.
As an aside, I am reminded of growing up in trailer homes as a boy and becoming very sick and having waking nightmares and sleepless nights with high fever. The carpeting, paneling and pressboard cabinets in trailer homes are made with formaldehyde-based glues which outgas toxic fumes. I believe this was probably why I had this brand of illness which I didn’t have later as an adult. But I have chronic respiratory discomfort to this day.
Getting back to the mucociliary aparatus, when there is an accumulation of mucus and/or foreign matter that isn’t moving along and being efficiently expelled, the body resorts to other mechanisms of removal, such as sneezing or coughing. Also, congestion may happen. None of these mechanisms are bad and to be suppressed (though too much coughing can cause tissue damage and congestion makes it difficult to breathe). The mechanisms themselves are a natural part of the body’s effort to expel what is not wanted; they are a part of cleasing and healing.
A better way to think of it is that they are warning you that something is amiss. If you are smoking too much, you will be coughing. The solution is not simply to take a losenge. It’s to stop smoking. Same with pollution, pollen, etc. Remove yourself from the toxins and irritants. If the air is cold and dry, see what you can do to remedy your environment or the way you are taking in air. If your indoor environment is toxic… well that’s really something you need to look into. Give up harsh cleaners, pesticides, and synthetically scented products like air “fresheners”, scented detergents and fabric softener, etc. All of these things will irritate the mucus membrane and cause other problems as well.
Nasuea, vomitting and diarrhea
Sometimes colds or flu can be accompanied by nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. These symptoms are related to the digestive tract rather than being respiratory.
In a highly polluted environment, it’s plausible that the many toxins in the air make their way into the blood via the lungs. From the blood they enter the digestive tract as the body makes an effort to remove them from the blood. Once there is an accumulations of toxins in the digestive system, nausea occurs and if this goes on it may lead to vomitting or diarrhea. In my travels through highly polluted areas of Latin America, I’ve experienced this kind of sickness. The symptoms, which often also include fever, are very much like food poisoning.
You’ve probably had the experience of feeling a great deal of nausea and then eventually you vomitted. After vomitting, you suddenly felt much better. The body was successfully able to get rid of the toxins. Even though the process may be unpleasant, it is a helpful one.
Conclusion
Colds and flu are healing, cleansing crisis. They tell us when things are amiss in our environment and they help to cleanse and purge.
This is true even in more severe cases. The body is trying to manage something that has gotten out of hand and become unmanageable.
To hear more of what Dan Roytas has to say, here’s that link to that interview again.
Love your introduction, Crow. Beautifully done!
No, I don't think the debate about viruses is over. Dr. Michael Palmer, in conjunction with Dr Sucharit Bakdi, has written 2 articles defending germ theory and viruses in particular. Sandwiched between is a response by virus skeptic Torsten Engelbrecht. I think both sides brought forth important points.
http://mileswmathis.com/terrain.pdf
Terrain theory is a psyop, essentially. Miles Mathis explains it quite well, without having to use much science to respond to the anti-virology side's ridiculous assertions. It seems to also be linked to the flat earth psyop.
Interestingly I was doing a bit more medical science research today for an article, and have some ready questions for the anti-virus people.
Obviously pollution causes ill health. That can't be argued with. But here's the first question: Can you tell me how these pollutants trigger the body's release of Interferon?
Let's start there. Then later, if necessary, we can move on to the rest of the exceptionally complex human immune system, which is a product of millions of years of evolution in an environment replete with germs of various kinds (bacteria and viruses).
Oh - I should point out (which Mathis also points out), whilst you can't argue against the existence of bacteria, it is true that viruses don't satisfy Koch's postulates because they are an intra-cellular infection. That's something to remember.
There's also zero point in even engaging with these 'no virus' people given the existence of stuff like 'genome sequencing', which has been carried out on Sars-Cov-2, and even gotten as far as demonstrating which elements of the virus have which effects on which bits and functions of the human body, such as the interferon-suppression effect which many viruses have evolved to get around the human body's primary immune response (Interferon is signalling protein which triggers the immune response cascade, which involves dozens and dozens of downstream pathways).
And did you know, for example, that Ivermectin inhibits the ACE2 receptor binding ability of the infamous spike protein? No wonder they wanted to suppress that off-patent, cheap as chips, safe and effective treatment.
You mention 'specialists' and 'generalists' in which the generalist must be intelligent enough to understand the specialist. Well, I am somewhere in between when it comes to medical science, as I can understand all the specialist jargon.
And of course you have to examine the credentials and competency of the people who express opinions dressed up to look like science. I find it interesting that you can do this rational and common sense approach when it comes to some things, but not for others, like the trans thing, for example, where you seem to just take one view from very biased and somewhat fraudulent, pseudoscientific sources with a clearly fascist agenda. There seems to be a contradiction there, is all I'm saying. Yet when someone knowledgeable comes along, like me for example, that person is dismissed, possibly to avoid having to cast aside the confirmation bias (which is just a fancy term for 'prejudice').
Anyhow, let's start with Interferon, as I say, and go from there.
Oh - and the medieval plagues. How about them. And plagues in ancient times. And... and...