I personally am a believer in pathogens, that contagion must have some physical mechanism. I cite as evidence for my belief the clear correlation between poor sanitation and poor health. I remain quite agnostic about the causes of illnesses. The terrain theory people seem to think that there is such thing as contagion and I have been waiting to see how the virus debate played out before considering alternate theories.
My belief is that one should attempt to isolate variables whilst trying to figure things out. One debate ends opens up a much more important and interesting one... what really causes illness and what can be done to help sick people get better.
And if that's the question, I got the answer: Eliminate poverty, eat healthy, organic food, drink lots of water, get enough sleep, get enough exercise, maintain healthy relationships, and don't over-indulge in intoxicants. If we want people to be healthy that's what we should be promoting.
You might want to check out the chain above w Dollyboy and “Keep it Simple” Mindy … Bacteria are relatively large compared to the super tiny strands that some people call “viruses.” Bacteria as a mechanism of disease is not a theory; it’s proven. It’s replicable. But viruses are just a silly story to explain a complex series of what appear to be, based on the data, cellular signaling phenomenae.
contagion is a hypothesis that has never been proven to exist. Just as trees loose their leaves every year....our body experiences dead/dying cells and purging of toxins (too much alcohol or sugar or chemical foods or chemicals in our products - personal or household) and then there are weather changes (cold air/damp air) and stress. All those things bring on symptoms of colds or flu. It is natural.
Yeah but your answer totally dodges what Dollyboy here is asking. And he deserves a fucking answer. Not just your “it’s purging.” Come on with that. We - YOU - are NOT just all individual little bot people having totally individual little experiences of perfect health with intermittent purging. Shut the fuck up with that bullshit. I’m so tired of hearing that simpleton shit. You’re worse than the reductionist “virology” gang. We ALL know from our actual lived experience that there is a COMMUNICATION - a relationship in time and space - that DOES happen between mammals who live and work and play together and various physical expressions that we call “sickness”. So there is something like “transmission” that happens. That does NOT mean there are viruses. It means there is a relationship that deserves studying. If you are on earth, you are engaged in communication all the time and you are on the menu all the time. Period.
Sometimes we get sick when we’re living with or around others who are clearly noticeably sick. But not all the time. And it goes both ways. Sometimes the people we live and spend close time with don’t get sick with whatever we are sick with. So it’s not a given either way. But there is signaling that is sufficient sometimes to trigger the same signaling from the cells of animals in close proximity - mucous, fever, nausea or whatever it may be. We have told ourselves a virus story about this phenomenon for a long time. But there is simply no data supporting that story. So we need to look at the data. The data I think supports cellular signaling.
Or call it “messaging” or “learning” or “communication”. We know that at the scale of the mammals that experience these “sick” symptoms there are critically important brain and behavioral growth points that correspond w all the major illnesses, especially in younger years. We know that cells and networks of cells and organs and organisms are all messaging each other in myriad ways. Cells are impressive little factories of tiny messages. It’s all a messaging and learning system. The whole of the universe really. “Viruses” are just another expression of the Godhead experiencing and learning about itself. Again, we have just been following some crazy Nazis story about this phenomena for a long time now. So it seems “real” to some. It is really quite ludicrous when you stop and think about the fact that there is zero actual data supporting the story.
I'm guessing you haven't heard of Dr. Andrew Kaufman or Dr. Tom Cowan. If you had, you'd know they were calling "viruses" exosomes (which is what a virus is...nothing but dead/dying cells) not something you can "catch". I learned this in May 2020....well before Denis Rancourt was entertaining the idea that pathogenic viruses should be questioned. Pasteur was a bs artist. Time to look into terrain theory.
Ooh look at Mindy with the name-dropping signaling sophistication. Got it. You have very clearly identified your team and thus your markability. Well done. I’m team no team.
My apologies. I respond very poorly to dismissive intellectual laziness couched as sophistication. But I did not need to use coarse language and wish I hadn’t. I will aim to do better going forward.
I wouldn't say that it is the most important debate in the world today, no.
I would say that would likely be "Is money necessary for the functioning of human society?"... but I'm pretty partisan on that issue... as I'm one of the only people arguing against it!
Dude - this one made me laugh out loud. I love Doc Yeadon. One of the few true heroes. And Rancourt’s work on multiple fronts - Covid and climate and reparations and many more - is super solid. He’s a singular fella.
There is no "yawning" virus; I yawn in your presence; then you yawn. Coincidence? Contagion? Cooperation? Sympathy? Who knows? Why worry about it. Sleep peacefully. Good night.
Please explain what smallpox is if it's not a viral infection, and why the smallpox vaccine has worked pretty well for over 200 years. Serious question.
I was going to mention the same thing - especially given that the 'smallpox' vaccine was actually cowpox, which is a relative of smallpox but much less harmful. What this really means is far a more wonderful discovery than most people realise - it's about 'cross resistance' - which is the adaptive immune system's ability to generate immunity to multiple pathogens simultaneously (polyclonal antibodies, for example - which the no virus people conveniently ignore). This is why we get lots of cold-type infections in childhood but fewer and fewer as we get older - despite the sheer number and variants of, say, a bog-standard coronavirus, once we've had a few of them we are effectively immune to all of them, even ones we haven't encountered yet.
This kind of understanding, not to mention the mere existence of the immune system itself, is what I would say is the final nail in the coffin for 'terrain' theory, as well as 'no viruses' theory. Both of which are equally absurd and unscientific (or pseudoscientific, rather).
The only thing I would possibly agree with the no virus people on is just the name 'virus' - given that most viruses have a symbiotic benefit to humans, calling them 'poisons' and 'pathogens' (which is what the word virus means) is clearly wrong, and has led to all manner of misconceptions (like no virus theory, ironically). We do, I would argue, need a new word to describe these organisms. They are part of the symbiotic, interconnected whole that is nature. Remove them, and the entire global ecosystem would collapse, in the same way that if you remove the bacteria from your gut you will die.
Thank you. That makes sense to me. Maybe the problem some people are having with virology is due to the terminology the authorities have used, like calling something that does not prevent infection or transmission a vaccine, or, as you said, greatly exaggerating the dangers of common viruses.
We inhale thousands of viruses with every breath we take. They are literally everywhere, and most of them in our bodies right now are either symbiotic or harmless. The fact the "news" never mentions that inconvenient truth just goes to show how untrustworthy our media really is.
I think you are correct that much of the problem is with the words we have been trained to use. “Virus” is just not a good descriptor of the trillions of teeny strands that envelop us all the time. We live in a soup of tiny things and we and our mammalian-scale body ecosystems are really in their world. There is much to be fascinated about with all the “pox”-associated illnesses. And the pox “vaccines” do seem to have some real mechanism of effectiveness at stopping certain types of childhood transmission of the pox signal. But then it shows up in much more destructive ways as early-onset shingles (which of course they now have another shot for). Again, we have much that deserves proper study.
Shingles appears to be chicken pox partially suppressed from a full external expression and then showing up in a different form internally in the body instead of externally as bumps. If we are ecosystems for these small things, we need to let them grow and evolve the ways they are meant to - the ways we have co-evolved with them. All the shots seem to do is mess with or interrupt or suppress these natural processes.
I think one of the reasons the shots mess with these things is the addition of 'adjuvants'. These adjuvants, which they say are designed to 'stimulate the immune system' are yet another deceit. The adjuvants are poisons which stimulate the innate immune system (getting rid of toxins) not the adaptive immune system (immunity to pathogens) - thus, a proper vaccine doesn't require 'adjuvants' to stimulate because the pathogen itself does that.
When I got my childhood vaccinations (1970s) they didn't have adjuvants. Medical science knew perfectly well they were unnecessary. So no one got 'side effects'.
I think today they create 'side effects' in order to create a steady stream of 'customers' for their 'medicines'.
Again, they are playing on people's ignorance of medical science. This is why education is so important.
I may be wrong about this because I can't remember which way around the shingles thing goes, but it's either 'if you had chicken pox when you were young you won't get shingles (i.e. you have an immunity)' or 'you didn't have chicken pox when you were young therefore you don't have immunity so when you are older and your adaptive immune system has a vastly reduced ability you may get shingles if you encounter the virus'.
My grandmother had it, for example, but I don't know if she had chicken pox as a child. Likewise my other half's ex got shingles as a consequence of leukaemia (reduced white blood cells - i.e. the immune system).
What is true, though, is that the adaptive immune system is strongest in childhood (hence children not at risk of covid) but weakens as you get into old age. So this may lead to the reactivation of illnesses against which you were previously immune, perhaps.
Don't quote me on all that though! I'd have to refresh my knowledge and I'm feeling a bit lazy right now.
Historically, the data and lived experience show that chicken pox was and is a key contagious or transmissible childhood maturation-linked physical expression of very uncomfortable bumps. The varicella vaccine has interrupted or suppressed that full expression in many kids these days. But if you take a child who got that varicella shot to a chicken pox party some yrs later, in most cases the child will get a case of real good old fashioned chicken pox. Now, most parents are not taking their kids to pox parties so most kids these days are not getting a full expression of chicken pox. As a result, whereas in the past shingles was an expression of varicella that almost exclusively appeared in the aged and infirm, now shingles is popping up in folks even in their 20s in all kinds of virulent and dangerous ways. These are young folk who got the shots and never got real chicken pox. We evolved to get pox as kids and have a major health and brain boost as a result (reading really takes off for kids after they have pox) and then through getting re-exposed as adults (when our kids and grandkids got pox) we evolved to avoid shingles. The shots have totally fucked up that whole natural pattern.
And mentioning the 'vaccine' as well - I should've mentioned that aspect myself. What they called a 'vaccine' is nothing of the sort because it did not contain a 'pathogen' which the adaptive immune system would recognise as such, and thus develop immunity (memory B cells). The so-called spike protein is just a protein, meaning it's not a living organism. It is essentially just a 'toxin', which only triggers the innate immune system. So when they measured 'efficacy' by virtue of 'number of antibodies', they were deceitfully referring to 'innate immune system' antibodies, not memory B cells. So the existence of lots of antibodies to the spike protein was essentially the body desperately trying to clear up a toxin. That's not 'efficacy', that's 'illness'! Likewise, what they called 'side effects' was actually 'intended effects', because causing harm is what the substance does. This also means that anyone who took the jab but got no side effects must, by scientific definition, have been given a placebo.
One of the reasons they got away with it was yes, because the general public don't understand medical science (immunology), but also goes back to the HIV fraud - where they 'diagnosed' a condition as 'you have HIV-induced AIDS' by detecting the existence of antibodies to HIV. The ridiculousness of this, which was not unnoticed at the time (although those voices were suppressed and persecuted, like Peter Duisburg, for example), is that the existence of antibodies to HIV is a sign of immunity! But by playing on people's lack of understanding, they were able to get them to take toxic substances like AZT, which in fact caused or exacerbated AIDS by constantly overloading the immune system to the point of collapse. Repeated 'anti-covid vaccines' do exactly the same thing, because the 'vaccine' (i.e. the poison) is protected by a lipid sheath, so the body can't break it down. This is how they said 'the vaccine has a 6 month efficacy' - the true statement would be 'this poison lasts for 6 months' - followed by 'and then you need a booster' - it's the fact that the people who created this poison could only have done so by understanding this medical science which shows just how genocidally evil they are.
And if the likes of Rancourt and Yeadon are not simply stating these obvious medical science truths then I say they must be controlled opposition, because they are deliberately and wilfully misleading people.
I had totally forgotten about the HIV stuff. It never made sense to me at the time, and I'd only had basic immunology in college, plus what I learned from my dad and his physician friends.
What you say about mRNA vaccines acting as toxins makes a lot of sense, too. Is it a good thing, in a way? Meaning since my wife and I refused to take more than two jabs, that they are flushed out of our bodies years later? That would be nice.
That's a good point - if it was a toxin with a definite lifespan, so to speak, then you should both be fine.
If it had a genome altering element (using reverse transcriptase to insert the 'spike protein producing gene' into your cells' genomes) then, well, once your innate immune system destroys all those cells then you would also be ok.
I'm not sure I know enough to really answer the question because I don't know exactly what they put into those injections. But if you have had no symptoms since then I reckon you're ok.
Correction: There were and are zero covid placebo shots. None. Not one vial has been found to be saline. This is an intentionally messy delivery process (specifically ordered by the US DoD) designed to result in wide variability of toxic dosing and thus hide the kill signal - as folk respond in widely variable ways to toxins at different combinations and doses.
That's an interesting comment. I don't know about the variability of 'adverse events' in America compared to the rest of the world, but I do know there are people who didn't receive any adverse events. The only scientific explanation for that is they got a placebo/saline.
Maybe the whole 'experiment' was conducted differently in America (especially if that's where the shots were created - DoD/Detrick etc.)? You may know more than I do about that kind of thing. I'm really just going on my knowledge of medical science here (which is considerable, having translated cutting edge medical research stuff).
As far as I’m aware, of all the independent researchers across the world who’ve looked at the contents of covid shot vials of every brand, none have been found to be placebos.
I'm sorry but if these people, Yeadon, Rancourt et al. are going with the no virus lot then they are most likely controlled opposition and shouldn't be trusted. At best they are pseudoscientists, and we should be very wary of such types.
just my opinion. As someone who understands something called the immune system, you know.
Of course, if you can find me some genuine scientific evidence that explains the existence of the adaptive immune system without the evolutionary need for the existence of pathogens and viruses then I might be open to changing my studied medical scientific opinion. Until then, I'll keep taking my vitamin D thank you very much and looking after myself.
Do you have something short and simple by him I can read? It will need to be short and simple as I don't have time to trawl through long videos and stuff.
I’m formally confident that acute respiratory illnesses that we call colds and flu (“influenza like illnesses) are not caused by submicroscopic infectious particles called viruses & are not contagious.
For a number of other diseases which are attributed to viruses, such as “HIV/AIDS” & “Polio”, I’ve followed the trail of evidence far enough to also state that there is no evidence that they’re caused by such viruses. On the contrary, and like “Covid-19”, they are more correctly termed syndromes (since the claimed symptoms vary to an extraordinary extent) and are misattributions of a collection of other illnesses. In each case, people really are ill. It’s just that the diagnosis is wrong and not viral, either.
I’ve read of the failures ever to meet reasonable isolation expectations for any virus.
Speaking as a man on the Clapham omnibus, I have learned enough to say I think viroLIEgy is wholly fraudulent.
Speaking as Dr Mike Yeadon, PhD, I haven’t done enough personal, detailed research to be sure that viruses don’t exist, though I suspect that it’s true.
I make the distinction because I think people have a right to know whether I’m speaking as an experienced scientist or as a thoughtful but inexpert person. If I make a claim without qualification, it would be reasonable for a 3rd party to expect me to be able to produce chapter & verse on numerous important claims about allegedly viral illnesses and, in many cases, I couldn’t do that. I’d be relying on others testimony.
I do have the evidence & have read primary literature on respiratory illnesses and selected others. That’s why I’m sure about them.
I’m also securely of the opinion that global pandemics of severe illnesses are impossible.
There haven’t been any pandemics. The most famous example, Spanish Flu Pandemic, is a mixture of exaggeration and probable, deliberate poisoning. In recent years, they’re “PCR false positive pseudo epidemics”, a well-established, real thing, in which 100% of the claimed positive test results are false. There have been famous examples where this is entirely accidental, such as the whooping cough pseudo epidemic.
That we’re at risk at any moment of emergence of a pandemic or severe, highly infectious disease is a central lie which I now regard as an obvious untruth.
It’s been a strange and bumpy journey. The strangest thing is showing clever people the evidence underwriting my current position on acute respiratory illnesses & finding them unmoved by it.
There have been some who’ve travelled along similar roads to the same conclusions. I believe Dr Jonathan Engler is one. There are numerous other people who I believe are sincere, so I’m not going tomorrow pick on them, yet still speak as if the propaganda of a lifetime remains intact. It’s maddening & I am unable to account for that.
Interestingly, one person, years ago, confessed to me that they didn’t want to believe what I was telling them, because it was simply too frightening. It’s possible that psychological protection mechanisms prevents some of us from accepting new information. I think we are much more subconsciously active beings than we realise. We then rationalise consciously those things our subconscious has processed (or not).
This may be why many of us have found it impossible to persuade others, even those we love & have known for many years, that we’re being lied to & are under extraordinary attack. I’m not a psychologist either, so I’m unsure what’s really going on when I failed to convince my older sister, who has a PhD in a biological field, that the pandemic is a long planned fraud.
There are some people who act as if they believe that all we need to do is assert that viruses don’t exist and the scales will fall from humanity’s eyes and the battle will be over. My own empirical evidence is that this is among the least successful ways of approaching the undoubtedly thick layers of infectious diseases.
Thanks for that. It's insightful into his way of thinking.
I still think he's wrong, though. Or at least half-wrong, half-right.
Polio, for example. My other half got polio from the sugar lump (the live virus) as a child (1960s). Given the symptoms of polio (e.g. affecting the cartilage and skeletal system) if it's not a 'virus' that was in the sugar lump, then what, scientifically, was it that caused those effects? They didn't have genetic engineering at that time and no 'poison' administered only once can cause these long-lasting effects (for years).
Spanish flu: all the evidence I have seen suggests that this disease was in fact a bacterial disease, not a viral disease (possibly, again, originating at our old friend Detrick). This is why it affected young people (they didn't have a/b in those days, notably), which a flu virus wouldn't have done.
Respiratory viruses: whilst it is true that bacterial infections are the most common cause of respiratory illnesses (e.g. pneumoniae) there are other organisms which can colonise and obstruct alveoli/bronchi and so on and thus cause 'respiratory illnesses'. Perhaps the issue again is in the name 'viruses' and we should be giving these organisms a different name. I would also accept that these respiratory illnesses can and are exacerbated by environmental factors in the modern world (pollutants and so on, bad diet & nutrition, lack of vitamin D etc.) such that a usually harmless infection isn't taken care of by the body like it usually would be.
So I don't think these 'other exacerbating factors' disprove viruses. That's my point. I think this is the logical fallacy Yeadon is doing here - he is seeing the 'exacerbating factors' as the cause, and ignoring the fact that these illnesses existed way before these modern exacerbating factors existed. Plus we still have the undisputed fact of 'contagion'.
So far, then, I'm still on my side of the argument.
Naturally, however, that doesn't mean I don't perfectly understand the total evil that is the iatrogenic pharma industry! In this, we are definitely on the same side!
I tend to agree w your assessment here almost entirely. I just don’t see or understand these other super duper tiny single strands of genetic code sealed in a bit of fat floating all over the place including inside us all the time as “viruses.” That terminology and framing just makes no sense to me. This is their world. They are not viruses. They are part of the life web that helps create us and on which we depend and which then eats us. On polio, was your other half sprayed w DDT or dosed w any drugs containing arsenic? I’ve read about how DDT killed off the gut flora of a lot of folks who were sprayed with it so what used to be a fairly benign gut flu bug became very severe polio. And for many others, arsenic poisoning caused myelitis-like symptoms that were improperly ascribed to polio. So many (most?) polio cases may have been caused by DDT and arsenic poisoning?
From what I know about those substances, whilst I understand what you say, it would require repeated exposure.
In those detective novels, for example, the murderess has to keep on administering the arsenic in her husband's food for quite some time before he succumbs.
Also, to prove that polio doesn't exist and it's just DDT or Arsenic or some other toxic substance you'd have to match that substance with all the polio victims. Any anomalies there and that theory's done for.
I do agree though that the level of toxins in the atmosphere and the food chain and drinking water and so on has increased dramatically, such that it may well now be very difficult indeed to identify one particular cause of this or that illness.
If it's not a virus, what is the bug leading to influenza, common cold, and COVID-19?
Scientifically, something has to be transmitted from host to host, bypassing the immune system and making people sick.
Is it a combination of stress and/or bacteria? Or do bacteria not exist anymore?
If Bacteria don't exist, what are MRSA, Staph A, and Meningitis?
Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
After all, you can't see an oxygen molecule, but oxygen, nitrogen, arsenic, and other elements are part of our air.
Inquiring minds want to know with scientific data, not linguistic legerdemain.
I personally am a believer in pathogens, that contagion must have some physical mechanism. I cite as evidence for my belief the clear correlation between poor sanitation and poor health. I remain quite agnostic about the causes of illnesses. The terrain theory people seem to think that there is such thing as contagion and I have been waiting to see how the virus debate played out before considering alternate theories.
My belief is that one should attempt to isolate variables whilst trying to figure things out. One debate ends opens up a much more important and interesting one... what really causes illness and what can be done to help sick people get better.
And if that's the question, I got the answer: Eliminate poverty, eat healthy, organic food, drink lots of water, get enough sleep, get enough exercise, maintain healthy relationships, and don't over-indulge in intoxicants. If we want people to be healthy that's what we should be promoting.
Or read Evelyn’s comment below.
You might want to check out the chain above w Dollyboy and “Keep it Simple” Mindy … Bacteria are relatively large compared to the super tiny strands that some people call “viruses.” Bacteria as a mechanism of disease is not a theory; it’s proven. It’s replicable. But viruses are just a silly story to explain a complex series of what appear to be, based on the data, cellular signaling phenomenae.
I dig but what about catching colds? It does seem to be a thing that when one person in the household gets ill others follow.
contagion is a hypothesis that has never been proven to exist. Just as trees loose their leaves every year....our body experiences dead/dying cells and purging of toxins (too much alcohol or sugar or chemical foods or chemicals in our products - personal or household) and then there are weather changes (cold air/damp air) and stress. All those things bring on symptoms of colds or flu. It is natural.
Yeah but your answer totally dodges what Dollyboy here is asking. And he deserves a fucking answer. Not just your “it’s purging.” Come on with that. We - YOU - are NOT just all individual little bot people having totally individual little experiences of perfect health with intermittent purging. Shut the fuck up with that bullshit. I’m so tired of hearing that simpleton shit. You’re worse than the reductionist “virology” gang. We ALL know from our actual lived experience that there is a COMMUNICATION - a relationship in time and space - that DOES happen between mammals who live and work and play together and various physical expressions that we call “sickness”. So there is something like “transmission” that happens. That does NOT mean there are viruses. It means there is a relationship that deserves studying. If you are on earth, you are engaged in communication all the time and you are on the menu all the time. Period.
Go fuck your rude self. You must be one of those rabid vegans who hate simplicity because it interferes with your warped thinking.
Let's please have some decorum. This is Substack, not Twitter.
I am most definitely rude but not at all vegan. I just don’t like lazy thinking or pomposity, both of which you seem to specialize in.
Let's please have some decorum. This is Substack, not Twitter.
Sometimes we get sick when we’re living with or around others who are clearly noticeably sick. But not all the time. And it goes both ways. Sometimes the people we live and spend close time with don’t get sick with whatever we are sick with. So it’s not a given either way. But there is signaling that is sufficient sometimes to trigger the same signaling from the cells of animals in close proximity - mucous, fever, nausea or whatever it may be. We have told ourselves a virus story about this phenomenon for a long time. But there is simply no data supporting that story. So we need to look at the data. The data I think supports cellular signaling.
Or call it “messaging” or “learning” or “communication”. We know that at the scale of the mammals that experience these “sick” symptoms there are critically important brain and behavioral growth points that correspond w all the major illnesses, especially in younger years. We know that cells and networks of cells and organs and organisms are all messaging each other in myriad ways. Cells are impressive little factories of tiny messages. It’s all a messaging and learning system. The whole of the universe really. “Viruses” are just another expression of the Godhead experiencing and learning about itself. Again, we have just been following some crazy Nazis story about this phenomena for a long time now. So it seems “real” to some. It is really quite ludicrous when you stop and think about the fact that there is zero actual data supporting the story.
Cellular messaging. Sometimes stickier than other times.
I'm guessing you haven't heard of Dr. Andrew Kaufman or Dr. Tom Cowan. If you had, you'd know they were calling "viruses" exosomes (which is what a virus is...nothing but dead/dying cells) not something you can "catch". I learned this in May 2020....well before Denis Rancourt was entertaining the idea that pathogenic viruses should be questioned. Pasteur was a bs artist. Time to look into terrain theory.
Also links about terrain theory you'd like to recommend. Now that the virus debate is over I'm interested in considering alternate theories.
Hi. Yes. Thanks for being open-minded. Here are three people I find fascinating and credible.
Dr. Barre Lando https://www.alfavedic.com/dr-barre-lando/
Dr. Andrew Kaufman who helped write the 2022 film "Terrain" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt24407396/ free on Tubitv.com
Dr. Tom Cowan https://drtomcowan.com/
Happy reading/listening/learning.
Ooh look at Mindy with the name-dropping signaling sophistication. Got it. You have very clearly identified your team and thus your markability. Well done. I’m team no team.
Let's please have some decorum. This is Substack, not Twitter.
My apologies. I respond very poorly to dismissive intellectual laziness couched as sophistication. But I did not need to use coarse language and wish I hadn’t. I will aim to do better going forward.
and you first, identified what a crude person you are! Just speaking your language! Have the day you deserve.
Let's please have some decorum. This is Substack, not Twitter.
Regardless of who "won" or not, is that really THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT debate to have RIGHT NOW?
If so, why? (Genuine question. I really want to understand your perspective).
I wouldn't say that it is the most important debate in the world today, no.
I would say that would likely be "Is money necessary for the functioning of human society?"... but I'm pretty partisan on that issue... as I'm one of the only people arguing against it!
You've got it right there. Money! Once we understand it fully we'll abolish it.
Current bank business model [lending "credit"] is fraudulent accounting, concealed by practical magic.
We are the source of "credit", not the bank.
Nobody can lend their own Liability [Accounting 101]. But credit is ALWAYS a bank liability. QED
Dude - this one made me laugh out loud. I love Doc Yeadon. One of the few true heroes. And Rancourt’s work on multiple fronts - Covid and climate and reparations and many more - is super solid. He’s a singular fella.
There is no "yawning" virus; I yawn in your presence; then you yawn. Coincidence? Contagion? Cooperation? Sympathy? Who knows? Why worry about it. Sleep peacefully. Good night.
Lots and lots and lots of messaging and signaling going on all the time at every level of existence
Please explain what smallpox is if it's not a viral infection, and why the smallpox vaccine has worked pretty well for over 200 years. Serious question.
I was going to mention the same thing - especially given that the 'smallpox' vaccine was actually cowpox, which is a relative of smallpox but much less harmful. What this really means is far a more wonderful discovery than most people realise - it's about 'cross resistance' - which is the adaptive immune system's ability to generate immunity to multiple pathogens simultaneously (polyclonal antibodies, for example - which the no virus people conveniently ignore). This is why we get lots of cold-type infections in childhood but fewer and fewer as we get older - despite the sheer number and variants of, say, a bog-standard coronavirus, once we've had a few of them we are effectively immune to all of them, even ones we haven't encountered yet.
This kind of understanding, not to mention the mere existence of the immune system itself, is what I would say is the final nail in the coffin for 'terrain' theory, as well as 'no viruses' theory. Both of which are equally absurd and unscientific (or pseudoscientific, rather).
The only thing I would possibly agree with the no virus people on is just the name 'virus' - given that most viruses have a symbiotic benefit to humans, calling them 'poisons' and 'pathogens' (which is what the word virus means) is clearly wrong, and has led to all manner of misconceptions (like no virus theory, ironically). We do, I would argue, need a new word to describe these organisms. They are part of the symbiotic, interconnected whole that is nature. Remove them, and the entire global ecosystem would collapse, in the same way that if you remove the bacteria from your gut you will die.
Thank you. That makes sense to me. Maybe the problem some people are having with virology is due to the terminology the authorities have used, like calling something that does not prevent infection or transmission a vaccine, or, as you said, greatly exaggerating the dangers of common viruses.
We inhale thousands of viruses with every breath we take. They are literally everywhere, and most of them in our bodies right now are either symbiotic or harmless. The fact the "news" never mentions that inconvenient truth just goes to show how untrustworthy our media really is.
I think you are correct that much of the problem is with the words we have been trained to use. “Virus” is just not a good descriptor of the trillions of teeny strands that envelop us all the time. We live in a soup of tiny things and we and our mammalian-scale body ecosystems are really in their world. There is much to be fascinated about with all the “pox”-associated illnesses. And the pox “vaccines” do seem to have some real mechanism of effectiveness at stopping certain types of childhood transmission of the pox signal. But then it shows up in much more destructive ways as early-onset shingles (which of course they now have another shot for). Again, we have much that deserves proper study.
Good point about shingles. I know there's a connection to chicken pox, but just HOW it develops is beyond my ken.
Shingles appears to be chicken pox partially suppressed from a full external expression and then showing up in a different form internally in the body instead of externally as bumps. If we are ecosystems for these small things, we need to let them grow and evolve the ways they are meant to - the ways we have co-evolved with them. All the shots seem to do is mess with or interrupt or suppress these natural processes.
I think one of the reasons the shots mess with these things is the addition of 'adjuvants'. These adjuvants, which they say are designed to 'stimulate the immune system' are yet another deceit. The adjuvants are poisons which stimulate the innate immune system (getting rid of toxins) not the adaptive immune system (immunity to pathogens) - thus, a proper vaccine doesn't require 'adjuvants' to stimulate because the pathogen itself does that.
When I got my childhood vaccinations (1970s) they didn't have adjuvants. Medical science knew perfectly well they were unnecessary. So no one got 'side effects'.
I think today they create 'side effects' in order to create a steady stream of 'customers' for their 'medicines'.
Again, they are playing on people's ignorance of medical science. This is why education is so important.
I may be wrong about this because I can't remember which way around the shingles thing goes, but it's either 'if you had chicken pox when you were young you won't get shingles (i.e. you have an immunity)' or 'you didn't have chicken pox when you were young therefore you don't have immunity so when you are older and your adaptive immune system has a vastly reduced ability you may get shingles if you encounter the virus'.
My grandmother had it, for example, but I don't know if she had chicken pox as a child. Likewise my other half's ex got shingles as a consequence of leukaemia (reduced white blood cells - i.e. the immune system).
What is true, though, is that the adaptive immune system is strongest in childhood (hence children not at risk of covid) but weakens as you get into old age. So this may lead to the reactivation of illnesses against which you were previously immune, perhaps.
Don't quote me on all that though! I'd have to refresh my knowledge and I'm feeling a bit lazy right now.
Historically, the data and lived experience show that chicken pox was and is a key contagious or transmissible childhood maturation-linked physical expression of very uncomfortable bumps. The varicella vaccine has interrupted or suppressed that full expression in many kids these days. But if you take a child who got that varicella shot to a chicken pox party some yrs later, in most cases the child will get a case of real good old fashioned chicken pox. Now, most parents are not taking their kids to pox parties so most kids these days are not getting a full expression of chicken pox. As a result, whereas in the past shingles was an expression of varicella that almost exclusively appeared in the aged and infirm, now shingles is popping up in folks even in their 20s in all kinds of virulent and dangerous ways. These are young folk who got the shots and never got real chicken pox. We evolved to get pox as kids and have a major health and brain boost as a result (reading really takes off for kids after they have pox) and then through getting re-exposed as adults (when our kids and grandkids got pox) we evolved to avoid shingles. The shots have totally fucked up that whole natural pattern.
Spot on!
And mentioning the 'vaccine' as well - I should've mentioned that aspect myself. What they called a 'vaccine' is nothing of the sort because it did not contain a 'pathogen' which the adaptive immune system would recognise as such, and thus develop immunity (memory B cells). The so-called spike protein is just a protein, meaning it's not a living organism. It is essentially just a 'toxin', which only triggers the innate immune system. So when they measured 'efficacy' by virtue of 'number of antibodies', they were deceitfully referring to 'innate immune system' antibodies, not memory B cells. So the existence of lots of antibodies to the spike protein was essentially the body desperately trying to clear up a toxin. That's not 'efficacy', that's 'illness'! Likewise, what they called 'side effects' was actually 'intended effects', because causing harm is what the substance does. This also means that anyone who took the jab but got no side effects must, by scientific definition, have been given a placebo.
One of the reasons they got away with it was yes, because the general public don't understand medical science (immunology), but also goes back to the HIV fraud - where they 'diagnosed' a condition as 'you have HIV-induced AIDS' by detecting the existence of antibodies to HIV. The ridiculousness of this, which was not unnoticed at the time (although those voices were suppressed and persecuted, like Peter Duisburg, for example), is that the existence of antibodies to HIV is a sign of immunity! But by playing on people's lack of understanding, they were able to get them to take toxic substances like AZT, which in fact caused or exacerbated AIDS by constantly overloading the immune system to the point of collapse. Repeated 'anti-covid vaccines' do exactly the same thing, because the 'vaccine' (i.e. the poison) is protected by a lipid sheath, so the body can't break it down. This is how they said 'the vaccine has a 6 month efficacy' - the true statement would be 'this poison lasts for 6 months' - followed by 'and then you need a booster' - it's the fact that the people who created this poison could only have done so by understanding this medical science which shows just how genocidally evil they are.
And if the likes of Rancourt and Yeadon are not simply stating these obvious medical science truths then I say they must be controlled opposition, because they are deliberately and wilfully misleading people.
I had totally forgotten about the HIV stuff. It never made sense to me at the time, and I'd only had basic immunology in college, plus what I learned from my dad and his physician friends.
What you say about mRNA vaccines acting as toxins makes a lot of sense, too. Is it a good thing, in a way? Meaning since my wife and I refused to take more than two jabs, that they are flushed out of our bodies years later? That would be nice.
That's a good point - if it was a toxin with a definite lifespan, so to speak, then you should both be fine.
If it had a genome altering element (using reverse transcriptase to insert the 'spike protein producing gene' into your cells' genomes) then, well, once your innate immune system destroys all those cells then you would also be ok.
I'm not sure I know enough to really answer the question because I don't know exactly what they put into those injections. But if you have had no symptoms since then I reckon you're ok.
I hope so, anyhow - and wish you both well!
Correction: There were and are zero covid placebo shots. None. Not one vial has been found to be saline. This is an intentionally messy delivery process (specifically ordered by the US DoD) designed to result in wide variability of toxic dosing and thus hide the kill signal - as folk respond in widely variable ways to toxins at different combinations and doses.
That's an interesting comment. I don't know about the variability of 'adverse events' in America compared to the rest of the world, but I do know there are people who didn't receive any adverse events. The only scientific explanation for that is they got a placebo/saline.
Maybe the whole 'experiment' was conducted differently in America (especially if that's where the shots were created - DoD/Detrick etc.)? You may know more than I do about that kind of thing. I'm really just going on my knowledge of medical science here (which is considerable, having translated cutting edge medical research stuff).
As far as I’m aware, of all the independent researchers across the world who’ve looked at the contents of covid shot vials of every brand, none have been found to be placebos.
Have you or are you planning to cover the UNDRIP boondoggle? Kman, DIGILEAK News
Es gelinge.
I also have been on calls w Cowan and Kaufman and they are not to be trusted
I'm sorry but if these people, Yeadon, Rancourt et al. are going with the no virus lot then they are most likely controlled opposition and shouldn't be trusted. At best they are pseudoscientists, and we should be very wary of such types.
just my opinion. As someone who understands something called the immune system, you know.
Of course, if you can find me some genuine scientific evidence that explains the existence of the adaptive immune system without the evolutionary need for the existence of pathogens and viruses then I might be open to changing my studied medical scientific opinion. Until then, I'll keep taking my vitamin D thank you very much and looking after myself.
No Evelyn. I know Yeadon. He’s 100% solid. Read his take on this debate. I don’t think you and he disagree actually.
Do you have something short and simple by him I can read? It will need to be short and simple as I don't have time to trawl through long videos and stuff.
From Yeadon …
***********************
I’m formally confident that acute respiratory illnesses that we call colds and flu (“influenza like illnesses) are not caused by submicroscopic infectious particles called viruses & are not contagious.
For a number of other diseases which are attributed to viruses, such as “HIV/AIDS” & “Polio”, I’ve followed the trail of evidence far enough to also state that there is no evidence that they’re caused by such viruses. On the contrary, and like “Covid-19”, they are more correctly termed syndromes (since the claimed symptoms vary to an extraordinary extent) and are misattributions of a collection of other illnesses. In each case, people really are ill. It’s just that the diagnosis is wrong and not viral, either.
I’ve read of the failures ever to meet reasonable isolation expectations for any virus.
Speaking as a man on the Clapham omnibus, I have learned enough to say I think viroLIEgy is wholly fraudulent.
Speaking as Dr Mike Yeadon, PhD, I haven’t done enough personal, detailed research to be sure that viruses don’t exist, though I suspect that it’s true.
I make the distinction because I think people have a right to know whether I’m speaking as an experienced scientist or as a thoughtful but inexpert person. If I make a claim without qualification, it would be reasonable for a 3rd party to expect me to be able to produce chapter & verse on numerous important claims about allegedly viral illnesses and, in many cases, I couldn’t do that. I’d be relying on others testimony.
I do have the evidence & have read primary literature on respiratory illnesses and selected others. That’s why I’m sure about them.
I’m also securely of the opinion that global pandemics of severe illnesses are impossible.
There haven’t been any pandemics. The most famous example, Spanish Flu Pandemic, is a mixture of exaggeration and probable, deliberate poisoning. In recent years, they’re “PCR false positive pseudo epidemics”, a well-established, real thing, in which 100% of the claimed positive test results are false. There have been famous examples where this is entirely accidental, such as the whooping cough pseudo epidemic.
That we’re at risk at any moment of emergence of a pandemic or severe, highly infectious disease is a central lie which I now regard as an obvious untruth.
It’s been a strange and bumpy journey. The strangest thing is showing clever people the evidence underwriting my current position on acute respiratory illnesses & finding them unmoved by it.
There have been some who’ve travelled along similar roads to the same conclusions. I believe Dr Jonathan Engler is one. There are numerous other people who I believe are sincere, so I’m not going tomorrow pick on them, yet still speak as if the propaganda of a lifetime remains intact. It’s maddening & I am unable to account for that.
Interestingly, one person, years ago, confessed to me that they didn’t want to believe what I was telling them, because it was simply too frightening. It’s possible that psychological protection mechanisms prevents some of us from accepting new information. I think we are much more subconsciously active beings than we realise. We then rationalise consciously those things our subconscious has processed (or not).
This may be why many of us have found it impossible to persuade others, even those we love & have known for many years, that we’re being lied to & are under extraordinary attack. I’m not a psychologist either, so I’m unsure what’s really going on when I failed to convince my older sister, who has a PhD in a biological field, that the pandemic is a long planned fraud.
There are some people who act as if they believe that all we need to do is assert that viruses don’t exist and the scales will fall from humanity’s eyes and the battle will be over. My own empirical evidence is that this is among the least successful ways of approaching the undoubtedly thick layers of infectious diseases.
Thanks for that. It's insightful into his way of thinking.
I still think he's wrong, though. Or at least half-wrong, half-right.
Polio, for example. My other half got polio from the sugar lump (the live virus) as a child (1960s). Given the symptoms of polio (e.g. affecting the cartilage and skeletal system) if it's not a 'virus' that was in the sugar lump, then what, scientifically, was it that caused those effects? They didn't have genetic engineering at that time and no 'poison' administered only once can cause these long-lasting effects (for years).
Spanish flu: all the evidence I have seen suggests that this disease was in fact a bacterial disease, not a viral disease (possibly, again, originating at our old friend Detrick). This is why it affected young people (they didn't have a/b in those days, notably), which a flu virus wouldn't have done.
Respiratory viruses: whilst it is true that bacterial infections are the most common cause of respiratory illnesses (e.g. pneumoniae) there are other organisms which can colonise and obstruct alveoli/bronchi and so on and thus cause 'respiratory illnesses'. Perhaps the issue again is in the name 'viruses' and we should be giving these organisms a different name. I would also accept that these respiratory illnesses can and are exacerbated by environmental factors in the modern world (pollutants and so on, bad diet & nutrition, lack of vitamin D etc.) such that a usually harmless infection isn't taken care of by the body like it usually would be.
So I don't think these 'other exacerbating factors' disprove viruses. That's my point. I think this is the logical fallacy Yeadon is doing here - he is seeing the 'exacerbating factors' as the cause, and ignoring the fact that these illnesses existed way before these modern exacerbating factors existed. Plus we still have the undisputed fact of 'contagion'.
So far, then, I'm still on my side of the argument.
Naturally, however, that doesn't mean I don't perfectly understand the total evil that is the iatrogenic pharma industry! In this, we are definitely on the same side!
I tend to agree w your assessment here almost entirely. I just don’t see or understand these other super duper tiny single strands of genetic code sealed in a bit of fat floating all over the place including inside us all the time as “viruses.” That terminology and framing just makes no sense to me. This is their world. They are not viruses. They are part of the life web that helps create us and on which we depend and which then eats us. On polio, was your other half sprayed w DDT or dosed w any drugs containing arsenic? I’ve read about how DDT killed off the gut flora of a lot of folks who were sprayed with it so what used to be a fairly benign gut flu bug became very severe polio. And for many others, arsenic poisoning caused myelitis-like symptoms that were improperly ascribed to polio. So many (most?) polio cases may have been caused by DDT and arsenic poisoning?
No DDT or arsenic involved.
From what I know about those substances, whilst I understand what you say, it would require repeated exposure.
In those detective novels, for example, the murderess has to keep on administering the arsenic in her husband's food for quite some time before he succumbs.
Also, to prove that polio doesn't exist and it's just DDT or Arsenic or some other toxic substance you'd have to match that substance with all the polio victims. Any anomalies there and that theory's done for.
I do agree though that the level of toxins in the atmosphere and the food chain and drinking water and so on has increased dramatically, such that it may well now be very difficult indeed to identify one particular cause of this or that illness.
They’ll never stop, or they’ll find another way to keep us down.