Considering the level of economic exploitation and mass slaughter occurring daily it doesn't seem outlandish to be convinced the planet is controlled by an international crime syndicate.🤑🤑🤑
I'm not a scientist, but have observed that upper respiratory infections appear to be communicable. And they seem to spread quicker among the most vulnerable, or those with weaker immune systems. If you catch a cold, which is usually "not" a bacterial infection there's not much that can be done except resting and drinking warm fluids.
The bigger issue is why do so many have weak immune systems. What environmental factors attribute to chronic diseases, infections and cancerous tumors; especially within the US. Who's responsible for weakening the populations immune system, making most susceptible to disease. Is there a correlation between heightened levels of illness and predatory medical practices. 🤔
I personally believe COVID was a scamdemic, or to be more specific a military-style psyops.
It's unfortunate, that when you're governed by a "crime syndicate" who control all mainstream media news and most social media platforms no one is ever held accountable for crimes against humanity. We're like dumbasses who are told to look forward and not backward in order to be fooled not once, but numerous times. 😷🤑😁
Oh, I've slowly come around to the idea of "a single global mafia"... but to say that the same mafia has ruled the entire world for 500 years seems a little over-simplistic... I mean, wasn't the purpose of WWI to bring the U.S. back under globalist control?
Like every mafia there's always internecine quarrels over power and resources. Woodrow Wilson, who ran for president as a peacenik did a complete turn around once elected and arrested anyone who spoke against the war or resisted the draft.
Wars especially a world war is designed to reconfigure the status quo and create something slightly different like the League of Nations ushering in the New World Order. This was also accomplished by eliminating the Czar and his family. Books have been written about how Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution. Which I might add, only last three years before it became a Stalinist dictatorship, which interestingly enough did benefit Western industrialists and bankers. Old man Koch showed Stalin how to drill for oil while they sold the Fabergé Eggs to the Post family.🤑
In addition, the economic restraints and devastation placed on Germany laid the groundwork for nationalism/fascism. Which ultimately was funded by wealthy Western industrialists like Rockefeller, Ford, Bush, and an array of bankster gangsters who always fund both sides of every conflict, ensuring they're always winners.
In any event 500 years represents a period when great wealth and power were amassed by certain families and institutions and these voracious creatures have no interest in parting with any of it.
- definition of the scientific method (particularly when demonstrating causality)
- ontology and epistemology (!!) or what exists and is real and how do we know what exists and is real? (because how do you demonstrate causality in absence of an independent variable)
I love unicorns. I believe unicorns must exist because we have a pandemic of happiness. One person laughs, then another, then another. I’ve seen it happen in many countries, I’ve seen it for decades and decades. What else could it be? They’re too small to be seen of course. But they must exist because I say so. Proclamation runs the world. 🦄😊
Some interesting points Crow. I worked with Dr Shiv Chopra, a veterinarian and micro biologists with three degrees from three continents and the author of the book, "Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower" - $90 on Amazon - Here is the PDF for Free.
Like many others, Dr Chopra claimed that after WWII, with the advent of more clean water, better management of sewage and food distribution, there was no need for a vaccine industry whatsoever. He also claimed that not one of the vaccines produced up to 2017 was ever tested properly and contained harmful material such as antigens, stabilizers, adjuvants, and preservatives to name a few.
Dr Chopra was prominent for preventing the Bovine Growth Hormone in milk from being used in Canada in 1998-99. His testimony in front of the Forestry and Agriculture Committee in 1998-99
was the most succinct and revealing regarding the Health Canada administration. Chopra and others were promised protection but in 2004, several scientists were fired, including Dr. Chopra, after 35 years of service. His union took it to court and in 2017 after the government spent over $10 million dollars, he was found guilty of insubordination by 3 female judges. He died 3 months later from a rapid case of cancer throughout his major organs.
Chopra's paper on a particular antibiotic Bayatril, he wrote in 2003 was banned and is still banned to this day.
See a clip from his speech at the Monsanto Tribunal in the Hague on Oct 16th, 2016 stating Monsanto's Manifesto to take over the world and how.
It was strange because he had an organic garden for decades, a heat pump, solar energy and his father lived till his late 90's. The only thing I can think of as a natural factor would be stress. But it happened so fast that I suspect other factors but have no proof. Kman
Digileak - Thnx so much for sharing this info re: the good Dr Shiv Chopra on Nevermore’s article here: “What does the word “virus” mean”. Bless Dr Shiva. <3
"a [NATURALLY OCCURRING] submicroscopic infectious agent made of genetic material (DNA or RNA) encased in a protein coat (capsid), and sometimes surrounded by a lipid envelope. It can only replicate by infecting the cells of a host organism."
They making in the lab things that could be considered artificial virus; they call them “virus-like particle” or “pseudovirus”. Another name is “infectious clones”, but these artificial pseudovirus things are only active in vitro, under tightly-controlled, artificial conditions. The vrilogist thinks that these artificial virus-like things are a direct reflection of what happens in real life because the tests & drugs from in vitro research & development sometimes turn out to actually have clinical applications that seem to make sense.
For example, the vrilogist started out generating these influenza virus-like things in chicken eggs & then makes some some special immunoglobulin tests, but forgot that people eat chickens eggs 😂
Having both his and Mees' interview summary up, I will do a comparison:
Mees starts with five paragraphs stating his common ground, which goes much further than just the medical front into geopolitics, economics, revisionist history, inverted ideologies and methods of psychological control. No one can accuse him of falling for things he doesn't question, if they've read his work.
His point of contention is that "Virology, both medical and veterinary, has been developed over the last 130 years, and has developed an enormous body of knowledge" and "the no-virus theory ... throws the whole body of virology blindly out of the window, as the proverbial baby with the bathwater."
That isn't a personal attack and not contentious--the very point of the no-virus position is that not one study is valid and the entire field has always been a sham. Mees quotes Ron Unz on past instances of 'cognitive infiltration', what I call circles of psyops. That's also not controversial, it's a proven part of the playbook. Is it happening with Covid? We all know it is. We only differ on who and how.
On Crow's substack, he writes, "Mees Baaijen has unleashed a deluge of posts in which he attempts to convince his readers that people who deny the existence of viruses are a bunch of credulous dupes who have fallen for a psy op meant to divide the Truth Movement. Since March, he has published no less than seven articles in which he beats his dead pet horse like it owes him money. ... I think that he is quite convinced of his own Belief System (BS for short), and that he thinks that he thinks that he is doing the world a service by berating us dupes for our gullibility. Clearly we’ve all been brainwashed by the beguiling Baileys!"
Do I really need to point out why that's insulting and condescending? Because I'll be happy to, if you need it.
Crow then misstates Mees' evidence. Crow writes, "Mees has a background as a veterinarian, and is convinced that viruses are real because he has personally observed outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease when working with livestock." That wasn't his proof at all. It was that FMD could be intentionally spread manually by using a cloth contaminated from a sick animal.
Crow asks, "Is this all you've got?" But he misses the point. Intentionally spreading diseases that people might die of is a little bit unethical. Yes? So this experiment could never be done with humans.
No one is addressing this evidence. When I read the comments, I've yet to find one where Mees insults anyone. If you need me to, I'll do a point by point analysis showing how Mees is talking about why he disagrees with the theory and why the stridency of the movement is destructive. And I'll explain why Crow's statements are insulting and condescending, from words like 'unleashes', 'deluge' 'attempts' 'beats a dead horse.' I know that if I called Crow's Belief System BS for short, he would be justifiably offended. And much more so if I called his research and evidence a 'belief system.' And if it is indeed a dead horse, why does it evoke such a scathing and ridiculing reaction?
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have been so sarcastic. Fair enough. I guess I am adding to drama. But I could definitely tell from the comment sections on Mees's other articles that he is not interested in challenging his own assumptions.
I personally think the virus debate is a highly important one, because if the virology paradigm is not overturned, it will only be a matter of time before Big Pharma unleashes another AIDS or COVID onto the world. If people don't believe in virology, they won't fall for it.
As for hurting people's feelings, I really think that such concerns should take a back seat at this stage in the game. If this is the Truth Movement, we're supposed to be researching and disseminating the truth. The reason that the No Virus crowd gets so riled up is because we are convinced that we have discovered the truth - that virology is a massive fraud - and yet we can't convince people of what they don't want to see.
But it's all good. I think that we are all united against vaccines, so maybe we should just focus on the common ground that we have.
If we are all anti-vaxx, then what are we even arguing about?
"If we are all anti-vaxx, then what are we even arguing about?"
You tell me! Isn't this the crux of the issue? You say Mees isn't interested in challenging his own assumptions. Then you write, "The reason that the No Virus crowd gets so riled up is because we are convinced that we have discovered the truth." Exactly! You're convinced you've discovered the truth and aren't interested in challenging your assumptions.
When you're sarcastic, it doesn't hurt Mees' feelings. As he wrote, "Crow has copied the typical Cowan style, and probably thinks that's the way scientific discussions are held. Fortunately at 72 I have a well developed elephant skin and consider it his problem, not mine."
When Mathew Crawford did his parody of me, it didn't hurt my feelings. It let me know Mathew was emotional and not rational about BitCoin.
When Mike Yeadon writes, “It’s extremely wearying that frauds keep lying. Lying about submicroscopic infectious particles cause diseases which are contagious. Neither are true, not the infectious particle, not the contagion, It’s not a mistake. It’s not a difference in interpretation. It’s a lie.” That's not going to hurt Mees' feelings. Mike sounds like a petulant five-yr-old. He's a fraud! He's a liar! What exactly is Mees a fraud about? He's retired and raising chickens.
What's Mees' motivation to lie? It's illogical, he's got no skin in the game. Mike, on the other hand, is an ex-Big Pharma exec. People within the anti-vaxx community will listen to you, argue with you, but the rest of the world? They'll just laugh at you. And isn't that what Big Pharma wants? They don't want you taken seriously when you present the research on the childhood vaccine schedule or why they might be having heart problems or be getting sick more often. No, they want you to be a crackpot who's out there saying there's no such thing as a virus.
Okay, that actually seems like a sensible place to end (at least for now) - if we're all opposed to vaccines, then I'm not really sure what the point of this debate is.
I don't agree with you that Dr. Yeadon is controlled opposition. I think that he is courageously going where the evidence leads.
People like Malone were hyped by the Mainstream, went on Joe Rogan, etc... That never happened with Dr. Yeadon.
No, I'm not going to let you end it there, Crow. You're saying "if we're all opposed to vaccines, then I'm not really sure what the point of this debate is" as if you didn't start the debate on Mees' article, insult him, ridicule him, call him names, accuse him of intellectual dishonesty and tell him he should retract his article. I think you owe him an apology.
Mike is courageously leading you in a direction that will make sure no one ever takes you seriously, outside of anti-vaxx inner circles. I don't think he's controlled opposition, I think he's controlling the opposition.
He also posted that opposing digital ID was 'the hill to die on.' Not Palestine. Not the Rothschild banking dynasty. Digital ID. Gabe, who's done more work on cyber privacy than anyone I know, wrote in the comments that, for young people, that would make them unemployable, dependent on their families, unable to travel. We need to create the infrastructure to make that possible. He got so much hate in the comments--which Mike did nothing to moderate--that he wrote his own article, which led to an interview on the Corbett Report.
As a retired Pharma exec, I don't think Mike is as vulnerable as those he's advising to die on that hill. But the more that anti-vaxxers are disempowered, the more it serves Big Pharma. I don't think it takes courage to tell other people what to do and how to think, or to call them liars and frauds.
I don't think that sugar-coating the truth to make it more palatable will ultimately be beneficial.
You seem to be side-stepping the main issue - No one can provide convincing proof for the existence of viruses. Mees is quoting from a 1897 experiment which 1) didn't involve humans, 2) didn't have a control group, and 3) happened decades before virology even existed.
If this is the strongest argument you can make, that shows the weakness of the pro-virus position.
Maybe Mees will watch my link to The Viral Delusion I shared on his post for starters. Altho the actual history of sham virology seems so blindingly obvious to so many of us without a 7 hour documentary exposing it so thoroughly & convincingly.
Wonder if Mees knows the full history of the smallpox vaxx debacle & the English citizens' resistance to that jab? The Leicester anti-jab, anti-smallpox vaxx revolt? The stats then showed that unvaccinated English citizens fared much better against smallpox than the vaxxed.
The Leicester Method, Smallpox, and the Unvaccinated - Blogger
[clip] "In fact, in the 1893 smallpox outbreak, Leicester's mostly unvaccinated population fared much better than the highly vaccinated: "...Leicester, with a population under ten years of age practically unvaccinated, had a small-pox death-rate of 144 per million; whereas Mold [in Flintshire, England], with all the births vaccinated for eighteen years previous to the epidemic, had [death-rates] of 3,614 per million" (127-28).
That's a big difference! It was seen again during the 1891-94 small-pox outbreak: "...the highly vaccinated town of Birmingham had 63 smallpox cases and 5 deaths per 10,000 of population, compared with Leicester at 19 cases and 1 death per 10,000" (128).
The phenomenon repeated itself over and over again.
In his paper, "Leicester: Sanitation versus Vaccination", J.T. Biggs writes: "Leicester's small-pox history, and her successful vindication of sanitation as a small-pox prophylactic, will bear the closest scrutiny. Each successive epidemic since vaccination has decreased, with a larger proportion of unvaccinated population, furnishes a still lower death-rate" (Biggs 459-460)."
Maybe Mees will change his mind eventually after reviewing some of our shared links & reflecting on them? Hope springs eternal. ;-)
Who said anything about 'sugar-coating' the truth? Have you ever seen me 'sugar-coat' anything, including my critique of your arguments?
If we didn't know each other personally, Anton, I'd be wondering if you were a bot. You just wrote, "if we're all opposed to vaccines, then I'm not really sure what the point of this debate is." That conceded the point being made by Mees and myself. We don't care what you believe, and we're not calling you a liar. We don't agree.
Then you went straight back from conceding the point to attacking him. There's a name for the rhetorical device of nitpicking points irrelevant to the whole: nitpicking. That's why it's important to state the question, define the terms and say why it matters. Otherwise, some people keep changing the question when it suits them, leading you around in circles.
"Mike is courageously leading you in a direction that will make sure no one ever takes you seriously, outside of anti-vaxx inner circles. I don't think he's controlled opposition, I think he's controlling the opposition."
The fringe Team no-virus is stuck in their ABC arguments, while the discussions on the origin's of the covid VIRUS run deeper and deeper.
The research into the anti-VIRAL ivermectin (and other drugs) is becoming overwhelming. And there they stand, still parroting their ABC Gold standard, completely sidelined, with all their contradicitions, including making the wrong conclusions from the data they present, as Jeremy Hammond has demonstrated numerous times.
Mike was brought in to rescue them, but all he does is shouting "liars!" and "frauds"! A quote on the shocking level of stupidity of Team no-virus, from my last article:
"This isn’t just scientism, but unprecedented obscurantism - keeping people in the dark on purpose. A good part of Daniel Roytas’ seemingly sympathetic book Can you catch a cold is about this same “science trickery”, mendacity wrapped in subtle and persuasive wordings. Its main conclusion - the flu is not contagious - is even contradicted by the result of the contagion experiments they cite: the experimental group had 32% contagion, against 10% in the control group.
Those 32% is way more than I expected for an endemic respiratory syndrome associated with a highly varied virus mix (influenza, corona, rhino) which has been around for centuries, as 80 to 90 % are often immune. "
"A good part of Daniel Roytas’ seemingly sympathetic book Can you catch a cold is about this same “science trickery”, mendacity wrapped in subtle and persuasive wordings. Its main conclusion - the flu is not contagious - is even contradicted by the result of the contagion experiments they cite: the experimental group had 32% contagion, against 10% in the control group."
There were many experiments cited in that book, not one. Did you read the book?
CO2 is used by the powers that be as a bogeyman, to frighten the population and forge their domination plan on us. To paraphrase you:
"I personally think the CO2 debate is a highly important one, because if the CO2 paradigm is not overturned, it will only be a matter of time before Big Pharma unleashes another greenhouse gas onto the world. If people don't believe in CO2, they won't fall for it. "
Just responded to Mees Baajen's May 17 virology post - The proof for NO No-Virus - & saw he had restacked your article here so thought I'd re-post the links/arguments I shared there on his post.
My comment to Mees:
Every science proof of a virus you mention above can be shown to be long-term psuedoscientific hoaxes. Once you study the actual scientific history of the virus/germ theories, you'll see the truth.
There is overwhelming research/proof that no viruses have ever been isolated or purified using the strict scientific methods of actual laboratory controls, so phantoms can't & don’t cause any “viral” contagion. It’s just toxic drugs/chemicals & poisonous air/water/foods causing diseases. Toxicology.
How can anyone trust a medical profession & farma companies that are the 3rd leading cause of death? And that was even before the C19 scamdemic & its toxic "C19" poison jabs were coerced.
Read the Drs Bailey, Dr Kaufman, Dr Cowan, Mike Stone’s ViroLIEgy substack, Christine Massey’s FOIs substack showing NO C19/or other viruses were ever scientifically proven & watch Mike Wallach’s excellent 5-part “The Viral Delusion” documentary, w/the historical expose of the long psuedoscientific viruses/germs hoaxes carried out well over a hundred years.
The VIRAL DELUSION (EPISODE: 1 - 5): The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 - Full Documentary
Unless you learn the history of germ theory & virology (& how the Rockefeller Medicine Men pushed the germ/virus theories to take control of the medical profession away from naturopathic/herbal practitioners by outlawing them) you'll still be bamboozled by Big Med. The massive drug profits gained by Big Med over the past century & a half related to claimed viruses & germs have everything to do w/a warping of real health. Prevention is healthcare & modern medicine is sick care.
Rockefeller Medicine Men : Medicine and Capitalism in America by E. Richard Brown (1979)
Why do so many (esp Big Med) still fight over the “virus vs no-virus” & germ theory truth bombs? Because once people accept the actual history of the no viruses/germ theory hoaxes, Big Med falls.
As far as I can work out the definition of virus they are using is more or less the same as the definition of vaccine. Basically some body fluid from a host believed to be infected. The only evidence is that the host has "the disease". It goes back to the origin where variolation involved using puss from a smallpox patient. Puss was thus both the virus and the inoculation. The only change with vaccination was that the virus and the vaccine were cow puss believed to be milder virus than human puss. There was still the smallpox virus which was the human puss and so vaccine was distinguished from this but remained cowpox virus. In practice nothing much changed at the time:
"At the same time, it should not be forgotten that inoculation from arm to arm with "mild kinds of smallpox " was an existing practice, and there was little merit to speak of in Jenner doing the same thing with horse or cowpox."
The change in the long term resulted in "the virus" mutating further and becoming chickenpox, measles, hiv, sars-cov2 etc. They all happened in the minds after this mutation of smallpox virus into vaccine.
Maybe if enough people can get AI to see the light…lol then maybe the algorithms will change…
I looked at FMD this weekend and the long and short of it is that if I did an “experiment “ like that, I would get a fail in high school biology. In fact, to explain to Loeffler why his experiment and write up sucks, I would have to explain basic biology and stats concepts from my high school years. Like going back to REAL basics from tenth year science class onwards. And I have better things to do than teach a dead guy high school biology 😂
On Mees' article, Crow and I have been arguing this, which I define as a productive disagreement. If Crow had started by defining virus as an "invisible and unidentified disease-causing agent", we wouldn't disagree at all and, I think, neither would Mees. There wouldn't need to be these insults to Mees' intelligence and integrity. But I think Crow would be arguing with his no-virus camp, who don't believe disease-causing agents exist.
I don't think Virus vs No-Virus is the question. The question is whether we need to agree on this or be insulted. Crow wrote, "First, I know that the No Virus crowd has gotten a bad reputation for aggressive behaviour in comment sections... but I personally haven't seen that much of it. Could you help me understand where this perception comes from?" The following is my answer:
Okay, all I have to do is go to Mees' original interview on Kevin Barrett's stack. This is part of my response to Tim West:
"You've posted numerous notes to your true believers in which you call me a "pseudoscience pusher", engaging in "fear porn", "propping up tyranny" and "genuinely lazy and gullible." You then say, "The only question is if you will just ignore this or return with Ad Hominem or waffle."
"I think you're unclear about the definition of ad hominem, as is Graeme Bird, who tells me 'get it through your thick skull,' and 'there's no fucking agenda, airhead,' saying others are 'full of shit.' Is that what passes for argument in your circle?
"In those notes you also say Mees can't be trusted because he's not answering your Kirsch publicity stunt, that he has no integrity and is "helping the supranational psychopathic predator class."
"My contention is not that viruses exist or don't exist, but that making it a purity test of an anti-vaxxer's intelligence or integrity is counterproductive and "helping the supranational psychopathic predator class." All that your side has done to answer this contention is attack our intelligence and integrity. Please answer the argument instead of proving my point."
On the whole comment thread, toni jean responds to every comment with the same link and admonishment to print flyers. It's worth reading all the comments because some, like the top one, say viruses (germs) do exist but that terrain theory explains whether our bodies overreact. I think we could all agree on that one sentence and stop fighting among ourselves! https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/p/mees-baaijen-says-no-viruses-is-another/comments.
Even those who are respectful in tone don't answer the questions, but relentlessly push their position, and so aren't respecting the intelligence and integrity of those they're arguing with. It's a form of lecturing and superiority to just send links rather than answer the objections. Your turn.
Thanks Tereza. You say "If Crow had started by defining virus as an "invisible and unidentified disease-causing agent", we wouldn't disagree at all and, I think, neither would Mees."
Yes but I would tweak your definition a little: a virus is a biological agent which cannot be seen under optical microscopes, and which replicates in other organisms (plants, animals, peoples, and bacteria). Proof for pathogenic viruses (of which there are relatively few) is derived from applying Koch's postulates. The formulation of these postulates has been adapted to new insights (about agents, immunity and new diagnostic techniques), but always obey to pure logic.
I quickly read Crow's article but see no debunking of Loeffler's work on FMD, which is the most basic way to demonstrate the existence of viruses (there are many others).
By the way, Loeffler received various claims from neighbours, because during his experiments in relatively badly isolated stables, their cattle or swine became ill with .... FMD. That stopped when his lab was moved to an island.
So please Crow, where did Loeffler go wrong in concluding that a virus was causing FMD?
That wasn't my definition, Mees, that was Crow. I think he's providing an important service by applying my rules of argument, although he skips the first one with you of "Like the person you're arguing with." Should we ever belittle the intellect or impugn the character of those with whom we disagree? Does that ever serve the cause of 'truth' or a more important agenda? That's the question I keep going back to.
If we agree that challenging ideas among friends is our purpose, what question are we arguing? 'Do viruses exist?' And Crow, correctly, starts by stating a definition of virus that he believes does exist: an ""invisible and unidentified disease-causing agent". And then one that he doesn't: "a submicroscopic infectious agent made of genetic material (DNA or RNA) encased in a protein coat (capsid), and sometimes surrounded by a lipid envelope. It can only replicate by infecting the cells of a host organism." So the basis of Crow's argument is that the 'invisible, unidentifiable disease-causing agent' is not DNA or RNA or not coated with protein. Those are the only differences between his position and the one that he solidly denies and is willing to go to the mat against anyone who defines virus this way.
From my arguments with others in the no-virus camp, they're saying that there are no pathogens, no bacteria, no means of contagion other than psychological. It's not just 99% terrain (with which we might agree) but 100% with ALL illness caused by environmental stress on a vulnerable terrain. No illness ever passes from one body to another.
I will note here that Tim West now inverts his attacks on me into me attacking him ... "If @Tereza Coraggio attacks my offer of money for virus evidence publicly that only helps me and everyonre. The Virus Confirmation Fund will be impossible to ignore - hopefully. All publicity is good publicity. Censorship is the enemy."
But the next step in Have a Better Argument is to state why it matters. That's what I keep asking. Crow?
Why does the existence/non-existence of viruses matter?
Easy - because fear-mongering about pandemics is a proven way to trick people into going along with things that they never would otherwise.
The AIDS scam depended on the virology scam, as did COVID.
How long will it be before they pull this trick out of their back pocket again?
As long as people accept the premises of virology, they are susceptible to being manipulated with "Follow the Science" rhetoric again.
Plus, belief in virology is the reason why people take vaccines. Think of a game of Jenga with a whole bunch of scams resting on top of one block. That block is virology. Remove it and a whole bunch of scams will come tumbling down.
Um... Loeffler DIDN'T conclude that a virus was causing FMD. He also didn't use a control group.
Chat GPT:
Friedrich Loeffler’s 1897 experiment on foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), conducted with Paul Frosch, was groundbreaking—it was the first experiment to demonstrate that a disease could be caused by a filterable agent, now understood as a virus. However, by modern scientific standards, the experiment was not well controlled.
🧪 What Loeffler and Frosch Did:
They took infectious material from diseased animals (fluid from vesicles).
Passed it through a Chamberland filter, which blocked bacteria.
Injected the filtered material into healthy animals.
Those animals developed FMD symptoms.
This showed that the causative agent:
Could pass through a bacteria-blocking filter (i.e., smaller than bacteria)
Was still infectious
Was not a toxin, because it could be serially passed between animals
❌ Did they use a control group?
By today's standards of experimental design, no, they did not include a control group in the formal sense:
There’s no mention of a placebo (e.g., animals injected with sterile filtered fluid from healthy animals).
No blind testing, randomization, or statistical control.
The design was demonstrative, not comparative.
✅ However, what they did do was:
Compare filtered vs. unfiltered material.
Observe consistent symptoms following exposure to filtered infectious material.
Reproduce the disease across several animals, reinforcing reliability.
🧠 Historical Context:
This was before viruses were even named or understood.
The field of virology was just emerging, and Koch’s postulates (from bacteriology) were only partially applicable.
Their experiment paved the way for the field of virology, proving that submicroscopic agents could transmit disease.
As I said in my article, the defining claim of the No Virus position is that virology is a fraudulent pseudoscience predicated on false assumptions.
By placing your proof in the 19th century, before the invention of modern virology, you have placed yourself as a critic of the No Virus position without defending modern virology. But modern virology is what we have a problem with.
Take "gene sequencing" for instance. It is complete and utter garbage. SARS-CoV-2 has never been observed. It was "sequenced" using the impenetrable black box of "computer modelling". It's patently absurd, and I don't know why you would want to defend it.
I believe that you have your heart in the right place, but that your thinking is confused on this particular issue.
When Kory and colleagues discovered that ivermectin was a lifesaver on the covid battlefield, were you one of the Rockefeller team saying that they would only accept the proof with a control group (CRT) - which would have died in large numbers without the treatment? Were you the scientist and they the charlatans, for lack of a control group?
Well, I maybe expressed myself confusingly, but you know what I mean.
Please Read Kory's book on ivermectine, and then tell me if covid existed or not. It was Kory and associate doctors that convinced me (after a long period of doubt) that a new disease had arrived (with the big difference of a spike protein that blockred ACE receptors, which explained the inflammatory syndrom). The disease also disappeared were ivermectin was taken prophylactically - how to explain that with no virus theory? Are you going to say that the onus is not on you?
If covid virus didnot exist, how could Tess Lawrie publish a meta study in June 21 demonstrating that ivermectine was a lifesaver for covid?
See above. It was a grand fraud, no doubt, many of the statistics were falsified (Woodhouse 76), many people died unnecessarily (democide) for lack of treatment or wrong treatment, to increase the death rate!
The virus was made very contagious but with low IFR - so the real depopulation method could be introduced: mRNA jabs
Okay, that definition gives me something to work with: "a virus is a biological agent which cannot be seen under optical microscopes, and which replicates in other organisms (plants, animals, peoples, and bacteria".
I noticed that you avoided use of the terms "DNA", "RNA", "protein", and "lipid". Is this intentional?
DNA, RNA etc can be added, but are not essential. They were discovered 60 years later. The essence is that Loeffler proved that there was a new class of organisms, smaller than 200 nm (resolution optical microscope), that somehow replicated in the host and provoked disease symptoms. Later called viruses. Tell me where he went wrong? What would a control group have added? See also Larouche quote on scientific freedom and creativity, and the Rockefeller science trick (CRT) later copied by team novirus (it has to be via prescribed steps ABC, anything else is invalid!)
There is an enormous body of evidence for FMD and thousands of other viruses, if I had your email address I could send part of it to you.
Hi Tereza, thanks you for posting this and all your links to other conversations! I’ve had a read through and am trying to understand what the core issues are here. I hope I’m characterising them accurately:
1. Some people in No Virus camp have been dismissive, aggressive, belittling, hostile and contemptuous. This is especially hypocritical behaviour because 1) No Virus team itself is often upset about ad hominem attacks and would rather just focus on the science and 2) No Virus team deals with a lot of ad hominem itself. (I’m super sorry you’ve experienced this and am not feeling particularly warm fuzzies towards everyone who’s insulted you, that’s not ok!)
2. The No Virus position is so outrageous that even if it were true, we can’t / shouldn’t use it and ideally should talk about it a whole lot less because we are going to alienate people and look like crack pots and won’t achieve the goal we actually want (of getting more people to see vaccines are bad etc)
3. The facts don’t matter. Ethics is what ultimately matters. Even if there was no virus isolated and purified, debating this is irrelevant if our starting position is “no one should be able to dominate anyone else for any reason (/because of any fact / anything they hold to be true).” Mind/body/spirit sovereignty (love this idea!!). From that vantage point of freedom / anarchy / self-sovereignty, everything else follows, including finance reform, how we govern ourselves, new systems and more local communities etc. So if there is a virus that spreads, that doesn’t matter because I can’t force my neighbour / community / country to do anything differently because of it. If there isn’t one, ditto, doesn’t matter anyway if self-sovereignty is the ethical position we take regardless of facts. Sovereignty is preserved.
I agree that insulting people is really the worst way to attract more supporters to the cause.
I also can see your concern about making the movement look crazy and less appealing. Indeed, for me and most people, the entry point into this space is vaccine harm. I can see if our cause is a political one, one might want to be as appealing (/ as least unappealing) to the masses as possible.
I’m going to leave this one aside for a moment because 1) once newcomers meet us, they may well think we are crazy for a whole host of other reasons and beliefs we hold anyway lol and 2) it’s a bit hard to tackle an age-old debate in a small comment here around truth, how we know what’s true, who gets the define it, and if movements that want popular support should seek truth or find palatable compromises or be a bit more quiet about their internal disagreements or have a united front. All very good things to discuss!
The reason I want to leave it aside is also because I really like, and want to delve into, the third point that maybe starting from an ethical position is better and then you don’t have to debate facts so much - because no one can enslave you because of aforementioned facts anyway! I read your thread with Hewitt on sovereignty of mind, body and spirit, and how we don’t get tied up in this tangle if we start from there…and we address more interrelated issues like finance system, agriculture, etc. which are broader than virology.
But can there be freedom without truth? Will the truth “set you free”? What is truth anyway?
Thinking aloud here …can ethics be embodied without truth? Is freedom the highest virtue? Do we not sometimes temporarily relax the “no dominate” position because of facts? Was contemplating this after a Corbett interview you posted on freedom and would love to muse further with you on it.
To use some real life examples…to help myself think this through as I don’t know the answers to the questions I just posed (!):
1. An ex partner once flung his arm in front of me to stop me walking into an oncoming bus, saving my life. He clearly used force (though it didn’t hurt), and it was entirely reactive. In this case, I think I can safely say the facts do matter because if he restrained me for no reason from walking, that would clearly have been a painful relationship!
2. When someone is drunk, passed out, had a concussion or injury, we also “take control” to help them get to their beds or the hospital.
3. When being attacked, a mum might bodily push away her kid to avoid them being in the firing line - also use of force but justifiably so.
So we do suspend our ethical principle of freedom sometimes when the situation calls for it. When it’s to save a life or help someone in a vulnerable position.
I know this can lead to a slippery slope of “well temporary domination might be ok to SAVE LIVES” and “two weeks to flatten the curve” type of thinking that can usher in longer periods of control…
But a lot of our big debates tend to be about this. I.e. When is use of force / violence / murder justified:
4. Should abortion be allowed? Well, if a foetus is “alive” and can feel pain then some would say no, or at least not late term as that’s literally murdering someone. Others argue the opposite facts are true to support abortion. Taking a strict “no dominate” ethical position…if one shouldn’t interfere with the mother’s choices (because that’s domination) then I guess the facts don’t matter, even if it means murder (to some). But if there are two people involved (a mother and a child) then who should not be dominated? Does the child’s right to exist count more? Does it depend on stage of pregnancy? What do the facts say? And we are back to talking about facts.
5. Should we all become vegan? Well if animals can feel pain and are sentient and in equal plane as us…then yes. Vegans use those facts to back up their non-domination of animals. Omnivores aren’t bothered by the facts or state the opposite.
6. Should we use force to physically go into Israel and separate every person from every gun, missile, tank, fighter jet, drone, to save Palestinians, even if it means imposing our will on the Israelis? The facts do matter - people are dying, people have died. Were Israel not genociding Gaza, perhaps we might feel less inclined to go over and physically separate each person there from their weapons.
7. Should we use force / coercion to get everyone to bike or train and forego cars that save all humanity from climate change? Well, it depends on which facts you believe.
8. Should Christians be allowed to use force (or murder) to exterminate Satan / the devil anywhere they see him, including yoga studios, Buddhist meditation centres, crystal shops, astrology and Tarot card lovers, therapist offices, temples and mosques? You and I would say no but some Christians would say yes because that’s what the bible says and the bible is “The Truth.” And it’s saving us all from eternal damnation!
9. Should indigenous people of the country I now live in use force to claim back their stolen land even if it means asserting force over police etc? Well, we might say, depends on whether someone else is living there now, or how long ago it was stolen…I.e. depends on the facts of the case.
10. If my neighbour steals my watch, can I enter his house unannounced to take it back while he’s not there? Maybe…but what about if it was ten years ago? A few generations ago? Or does that not matter - stealing is wrong and I shouldn’t steal back the thing that was stolen from me, full stop, no matter the circumstances.
11. If our neighbouring community has weapons of mass destruction, should we surveil and search them just in case when they enter our village? For the children? It depends on the facts again…ie whether they actually have WMD/DEW…What if they did? We might not allow them to our village…depending on the level of confidence we had around it being true.
12. And similarly, if there was a deadly and contagious sub-microscopic particle killing millions of people, should we cease all functions of society requiring human contact till we have it under control? My leftist friends, because they care so deeply about people, would say yes, because prevention is better than cure, on the precautionary principle etc. I can see their point - if they truly believed those facts, then by their logic, lockdowns do make sense. If it’s to save lives…And if it isn’t true that it’s as deadly as they say, or as contagious as claimed, then perhaps none of the measure seem justified. So we are relying on facts here again to help us work through the ethics.
I’m musing aloud here as it’s been a very long time since I looked at philosophy. And I’m trying to use some real life examples to help myself think through what I think about this. And I’m hoping you can also enlighten me on this. I love what you write about Tereza, that ethics is about consistency. Consistency is an incredible virtue and I wish society valued it more!!
And I can totally understand that if we aren’t consistent…we risk undermining our ethics. What gets to be an exception to the rule? Who gets to decide? Whose assumptions are taken on faith? Whose interests does it serve? If the application of ethics depends on the facts of the case…who gets to decide what those facts are? Who holds power? It almost feels safer to just get a community to agree on its ethical principles and just stick to them regardless (of the facts) as otherwise it gets too murky.
So as someone who’s muddling through this ethics/truth question I’d love to hear what you think. 🙏🏾☀️
I just love you, LoWa. I have to lead with that. I was afraid I'd driven you away with a comment on another thread (which I'm reluctant to even mention, in case you didn't see it) at the same time that I thought Crow and Rozali might have stopped engaging with me from a different thread. I want to say to all three of you, please push back if you disagree! I know that Crow doesn't have a problem with that ;-) But I hope you never decide a disagreement over 'truth' or 'facts' is too fundamental to talk about.
Which leads into this juicy topic you've so nicely and thoroughly laid out! Here are some questions it brings up. Is freedom the same as sovereignty? Since you just came from that Corbett episode of mine, that's likely already in your mind. I would say that sovereignty is the right to do whatever doesn't take away an equal or greater right from someone else.
I woke up thinking of the term religio-ethics, which I define as an inversion of ethics that substitutes rituals and rules for morality, so that someone can feel like they're 'a good person' while doing harmful things to others by action or acquiescence.
"the Golden Rule is not only ridiculous but intentionally obfuscating, written to confuse and paralyze our innate understanding of right and wrong. Its exact opposite, which I’m calling the Rule of Reciprocity, was the basis of moral codes around the world for millennia. I give two examples and show how the Rule of Reciprocity cuts to the crux."
So let's cut that crux, shall we? The Rule of Reciprocity is that it's wrong for you to do to anyone else what would be wrong for them to do to you.
Fling an arm out to keep me from walking into traffic? Yes, please. I'm sure your friend would be fine with reversing that.
Would you want someone to take control of you, if you'd passed out, to get help? Sure.
As I say in that episode, "Morality is about violence, not sex, drugs or rock and roll." And this was written before I found out that was obvious to Goddess societies for 95 centuries before the Set cult inverted it. I just came on these two quotes in Ch. 17 of my book (which I haven't yet read into the stack):
The more immoral we become in big ways, the more puritanical we become in little ways.—FLORENCE KING
Right actions in the future are the best apology for bad actions in the past.
—TRYON EDWARDS
My principle is that the only legitimate use of power over others is to give them eventual power over themselves. This is primarily with a mother and children. If a mother doesn't use her power, she's harming them by keeping them dependent. And I think you saw my argument with the 'libertarian' Everything Voluntary Jack: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/is-parenting-an-abuse-of-power?
Under the Rule of Reciprocity, there's a hierarchy of what I'd see as more wrong. Given a choice between a slow death of torture or a quick death, I'd choose the latter. Given a choice between my children's death or mine, I'd choose the latter. There's no scenario where torture or killing children is justified. Killing is different. Is it wrong for me to kill someone who violently enters my home with weapons, or my community or my country? If no, then it's not wrong for others to kill me or mine under the same circumstances.
'Humanitarian military intervention' is a psyop unless it's actually a last resort as shown by consistent actions leading up to it. This means not giving or selling weapons, not funding or giving ideological support to any person who does to others what would be wrong for them to do to you. If we paid attention to this consistency, I don't think we--the empires--would ever be required to intervene militarily.
For past harms, it's trickier. But I think it's possible to write consistent rules, even in the case of 'Israel'. In my commonwealth, I would argue that no one can hold dual citizenship, except as a secondary citizen in their place of birth if it's part of the same ideological int'l federation. So 'Israelis' would need to choose--give up their citizenship elsewhere or give it up elsewhere.
I would also not allow someone to transfer dollars they earned in the military or for a military contractor into carets. So their money would go half as far when they returned.
But I'm very interested in recovering the indigenous languages of place. For 'Santa Cruz' (if it kept that name) I'd offer property tax reductions for people who learned the language spoken here before. That would give native speakers the ability to earn a living equal to the cost of housing, and be sought after!
To apply this to veganism, would it be wrong for an animal to kill me? I don't think that applies. I think it's wrong to intentionally cause pain to an animal but to say I shouldn't kill is to claim superiority, as if I'm not also animal. As an animal husbandry gal, a good life and a quick death are the deal made for domesticating animals--who would not otherwise have a life at all, yes? To adhere to sovereignty means that only wild animals would exist. As I say in this video (and I recognize I'm on dangerous ground, just when I'm being grateful for not having driven you away!): https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/animal-husbandry-is-the-new-vegetarian.
I do wonder if controlling the borders of a commonwealth or even hamlet is something I'd want to do. Imagine creating a safe space where kids could roam. Imagine that level of peace and security where there's no such thing as a petty crime.
And last, if someone wants to protect themselves from pathogens by masking or isolating, that's their choice. I'd even help them by using carets to pay young people to deliver their groceries, or having the first two hours of stores reserved for those wearing masks. It could have easily been done. I'd defer all mortgage payments for landlords who reduce by half their tenants' payments, and I'd freeze all business lease payments during the time they're closed.
I'd have reserved the open spaces for people who lived there--giving beach access here only to Santa Cruzans for the first time in our lives. It could have been the gov't helping, not mandating. But that wasn't their purpose.
Thanks for the fruitful questions! (I almost said meaty, but that's pushing my luck!)
Considering the level of economic exploitation and mass slaughter occurring daily it doesn't seem outlandish to be convinced the planet is controlled by an international crime syndicate.🤑🤑🤑
I'm not a scientist, but have observed that upper respiratory infections appear to be communicable. And they seem to spread quicker among the most vulnerable, or those with weaker immune systems. If you catch a cold, which is usually "not" a bacterial infection there's not much that can be done except resting and drinking warm fluids.
The bigger issue is why do so many have weak immune systems. What environmental factors attribute to chronic diseases, infections and cancerous tumors; especially within the US. Who's responsible for weakening the populations immune system, making most susceptible to disease. Is there a correlation between heightened levels of illness and predatory medical practices. 🤔
I personally believe COVID was a scamdemic, or to be more specific a military-style psyops.
It's unfortunate, that when you're governed by a "crime syndicate" who control all mainstream media news and most social media platforms no one is ever held accountable for crimes against humanity. We're like dumbasses who are told to look forward and not backward in order to be fooled not once, but numerous times. 😷🤑😁
Oh, I've slowly come around to the idea of "a single global mafia"... but to say that the same mafia has ruled the entire world for 500 years seems a little over-simplistic... I mean, wasn't the purpose of WWI to bring the U.S. back under globalist control?
Like every mafia there's always internecine quarrels over power and resources. Woodrow Wilson, who ran for president as a peacenik did a complete turn around once elected and arrested anyone who spoke against the war or resisted the draft.
Wars especially a world war is designed to reconfigure the status quo and create something slightly different like the League of Nations ushering in the New World Order. This was also accomplished by eliminating the Czar and his family. Books have been written about how Wall Street funded the Bolshevik Revolution. Which I might add, only last three years before it became a Stalinist dictatorship, which interestingly enough did benefit Western industrialists and bankers. Old man Koch showed Stalin how to drill for oil while they sold the Fabergé Eggs to the Post family.🤑
In addition, the economic restraints and devastation placed on Germany laid the groundwork for nationalism/fascism. Which ultimately was funded by wealthy Western industrialists like Rockefeller, Ford, Bush, and an array of bankster gangsters who always fund both sides of every conflict, ensuring they're always winners.
In any event 500 years represents a period when great wealth and power were amassed by certain families and institutions and these voracious creatures have no interest in parting with any of it.
There’s a few things to agree on:
- definition of a virus
- definition of the scientific method (particularly when demonstrating causality)
- ontology and epistemology (!!) or what exists and is real and how do we know what exists and is real? (because how do you demonstrate causality in absence of an independent variable)
I love unicorns. I believe unicorns must exist because we have a pandemic of happiness. One person laughs, then another, then another. I’ve seen it happen in many countries, I’ve seen it for decades and decades. What else could it be? They’re too small to be seen of course. But they must exist because I say so. Proclamation runs the world. 🦄😊
Some interesting points Crow. I worked with Dr Shiv Chopra, a veterinarian and micro biologists with three degrees from three continents and the author of the book, "Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower" - $90 on Amazon - Here is the PDF for Free.
Dr Shiv Chopra Bio, Book, audio and video:
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZvu3Q0Zd39AdT3jdNHnRI3xiWPjqQNoaiHV
Like many others, Dr Chopra claimed that after WWII, with the advent of more clean water, better management of sewage and food distribution, there was no need for a vaccine industry whatsoever. He also claimed that not one of the vaccines produced up to 2017 was ever tested properly and contained harmful material such as antigens, stabilizers, adjuvants, and preservatives to name a few.
Dr Chopra was prominent for preventing the Bovine Growth Hormone in milk from being used in Canada in 1998-99. His testimony in front of the Forestry and Agriculture Committee in 1998-99
was the most succinct and revealing regarding the Health Canada administration. Chopra and others were promised protection but in 2004, several scientists were fired, including Dr. Chopra, after 35 years of service. His union took it to court and in 2017 after the government spent over $10 million dollars, he was found guilty of insubordination by 3 female judges. He died 3 months later from a rapid case of cancer throughout his major organs.
Chopra's paper on a particular antibiotic Bayatril, he wrote in 2003 was banned and is still banned to this day.
See a clip from his speech at the Monsanto Tribunal in the Hague on Oct 16th, 2016 stating Monsanto's Manifesto to take over the world and how.
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZF5L67ZvYJLzs3NIlu1rdbEffoU7RDlaQmX
Here are the two Bayatril file References:
Bayatril File 1
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZN7eh5Z9yttT5awrBVFcLDSPHmaDQDO6eKX
Bayatril File 2
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZi7eh5Zz97tVqMQDh7x3opsavaXCHwNzVck
I know I have gone a little off topic but feel this is important information to share.
Peace, love and community,
Kman, DIGILEAK NEWS and DIGILEAK WORLD
That's really interesting about Shiv Chopra. I didn't know about how he died.
It was strange because he had an organic garden for decades, a heat pump, solar energy and his father lived till his late 90's. The only thing I can think of as a natural factor would be stress. But it happened so fast that I suspect other factors but have no proof. Kman
Digileak - Thnx so much for sharing this info re: the good Dr Shiv Chopra on Nevermore’s article here: “What does the word “virus” mean”. Bless Dr Shiva. <3
The many definitions of virus can be had on The Free Dictionary site at
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/virus
In simple terms: from Latin: slime, poisonous liquid; related to Old English wāse marsh, Greek ios poison]
The debate goes on: Are viruses alive? Do viruses exist?
Are viruses even a scientific theory? - Sample video from Dr Sam Bailey
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/are-viruses-even-a-scientific-theory:2
Cheers Lucinda,
Ken man, DIGILEAK
"a [NATURALLY OCCURRING] submicroscopic infectious agent made of genetic material (DNA or RNA) encased in a protein coat (capsid), and sometimes surrounded by a lipid envelope. It can only replicate by infecting the cells of a host organism."
Are you implying that viruses exist, but that they are man-made? I'm not sure I catch your drift...
They making in the lab things that could be considered artificial virus; they call them “virus-like particle” or “pseudovirus”. Another name is “infectious clones”, but these artificial pseudovirus things are only active in vitro, under tightly-controlled, artificial conditions. The vrilogist thinks that these artificial virus-like things are a direct reflection of what happens in real life because the tests & drugs from in vitro research & development sometimes turn out to actually have clinical applications that seem to make sense.
For example, the vrilogist started out generating these influenza virus-like things in chicken eggs & then makes some some special immunoglobulin tests, but forgot that people eat chickens eggs 😂
Since our comment thread went into the margins on Mees' article, I'll repost my reply to Crow here:
Elsewhere on this thread, I proved to Crow that the no-virus camp engages in insults and character attacks: https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/p/mees-baaijen-says-no-viruses-is-another/comment/118111816. Crow then stated "Okay, some anti-virus people can be insulting... I'll give you that. But are the pro-virus people any better? I definitely feel insulted by Mees's condescending attitude."
Having both his and Mees' interview summary up, I will do a comparison:
Mees starts with five paragraphs stating his common ground, which goes much further than just the medical front into geopolitics, economics, revisionist history, inverted ideologies and methods of psychological control. No one can accuse him of falling for things he doesn't question, if they've read his work.
His point of contention is that "Virology, both medical and veterinary, has been developed over the last 130 years, and has developed an enormous body of knowledge" and "the no-virus theory ... throws the whole body of virology blindly out of the window, as the proverbial baby with the bathwater."
That isn't a personal attack and not contentious--the very point of the no-virus position is that not one study is valid and the entire field has always been a sham. Mees quotes Ron Unz on past instances of 'cognitive infiltration', what I call circles of psyops. That's also not controversial, it's a proven part of the playbook. Is it happening with Covid? We all know it is. We only differ on who and how.
On Crow's substack, he writes, "Mees Baaijen has unleashed a deluge of posts in which he attempts to convince his readers that people who deny the existence of viruses are a bunch of credulous dupes who have fallen for a psy op meant to divide the Truth Movement. Since March, he has published no less than seven articles in which he beats his dead pet horse like it owes him money. ... I think that he is quite convinced of his own Belief System (BS for short), and that he thinks that he thinks that he is doing the world a service by berating us dupes for our gullibility. Clearly we’ve all been brainwashed by the beguiling Baileys!"
Do I really need to point out why that's insulting and condescending? Because I'll be happy to, if you need it.
Crow then misstates Mees' evidence. Crow writes, "Mees has a background as a veterinarian, and is convinced that viruses are real because he has personally observed outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease when working with livestock." That wasn't his proof at all. It was that FMD could be intentionally spread manually by using a cloth contaminated from a sick animal.
Crow asks, "Is this all you've got?" But he misses the point. Intentionally spreading diseases that people might die of is a little bit unethical. Yes? So this experiment could never be done with humans.
No one is addressing this evidence. When I read the comments, I've yet to find one where Mees insults anyone. If you need me to, I'll do a point by point analysis showing how Mees is talking about why he disagrees with the theory and why the stridency of the movement is destructive. And I'll explain why Crow's statements are insulting and condescending, from words like 'unleashes', 'deluge' 'attempts' 'beats a dead horse.' I know that if I called Crow's Belief System BS for short, he would be justifiably offended. And much more so if I called his research and evidence a 'belief system.' And if it is indeed a dead horse, why does it evoke such a scathing and ridiculing reaction?
Okay, maybe I shouldn't have been so sarcastic. Fair enough. I guess I am adding to drama. But I could definitely tell from the comment sections on Mees's other articles that he is not interested in challenging his own assumptions.
I personally think the virus debate is a highly important one, because if the virology paradigm is not overturned, it will only be a matter of time before Big Pharma unleashes another AIDS or COVID onto the world. If people don't believe in virology, they won't fall for it.
As for hurting people's feelings, I really think that such concerns should take a back seat at this stage in the game. If this is the Truth Movement, we're supposed to be researching and disseminating the truth. The reason that the No Virus crowd gets so riled up is because we are convinced that we have discovered the truth - that virology is a massive fraud - and yet we can't convince people of what they don't want to see.
But it's all good. I think that we are all united against vaccines, so maybe we should just focus on the common ground that we have.
If we are all anti-vaxx, then what are we even arguing about?
"If we are all anti-vaxx, then what are we even arguing about?"
You tell me! Isn't this the crux of the issue? You say Mees isn't interested in challenging his own assumptions. Then you write, "The reason that the No Virus crowd gets so riled up is because we are convinced that we have discovered the truth." Exactly! You're convinced you've discovered the truth and aren't interested in challenging your assumptions.
When you're sarcastic, it doesn't hurt Mees' feelings. As he wrote, "Crow has copied the typical Cowan style, and probably thinks that's the way scientific discussions are held. Fortunately at 72 I have a well developed elephant skin and consider it his problem, not mine."
When Mathew Crawford did his parody of me, it didn't hurt my feelings. It let me know Mathew was emotional and not rational about BitCoin.
When Mike Yeadon writes, “It’s extremely wearying that frauds keep lying. Lying about submicroscopic infectious particles cause diseases which are contagious. Neither are true, not the infectious particle, not the contagion, It’s not a mistake. It’s not a difference in interpretation. It’s a lie.” That's not going to hurt Mees' feelings. Mike sounds like a petulant five-yr-old. He's a fraud! He's a liar! What exactly is Mees a fraud about? He's retired and raising chickens.
What's Mees' motivation to lie? It's illogical, he's got no skin in the game. Mike, on the other hand, is an ex-Big Pharma exec. People within the anti-vaxx community will listen to you, argue with you, but the rest of the world? They'll just laugh at you. And isn't that what Big Pharma wants? They don't want you taken seriously when you present the research on the childhood vaccine schedule or why they might be having heart problems or be getting sick more often. No, they want you to be a crackpot who's out there saying there's no such thing as a virus.
This was Mike's mission from the very start. Gain everyone's trust by talking about the vaxx and then steer them by another route back to the slaughterhouse: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/malone-and-slaughterhouse-four.
Okay, that actually seems like a sensible place to end (at least for now) - if we're all opposed to vaccines, then I'm not really sure what the point of this debate is.
I don't agree with you that Dr. Yeadon is controlled opposition. I think that he is courageously going where the evidence leads.
People like Malone were hyped by the Mainstream, went on Joe Rogan, etc... That never happened with Dr. Yeadon.
No, I'm not going to let you end it there, Crow. You're saying "if we're all opposed to vaccines, then I'm not really sure what the point of this debate is" as if you didn't start the debate on Mees' article, insult him, ridicule him, call him names, accuse him of intellectual dishonesty and tell him he should retract his article. I think you owe him an apology.
Mike is courageously leading you in a direction that will make sure no one ever takes you seriously, outside of anti-vaxx inner circles. I don't think he's controlled opposition, I think he's controlling the opposition.
He also posted that opposing digital ID was 'the hill to die on.' Not Palestine. Not the Rothschild banking dynasty. Digital ID. Gabe, who's done more work on cyber privacy than anyone I know, wrote in the comments that, for young people, that would make them unemployable, dependent on their families, unable to travel. We need to create the infrastructure to make that possible. He got so much hate in the comments--which Mike did nothing to moderate--that he wrote his own article, which led to an interview on the Corbett Report.
As a retired Pharma exec, I don't think Mike is as vulnerable as those he's advising to die on that hill. But the more that anti-vaxxers are disempowered, the more it serves Big Pharma. I don't think it takes courage to tell other people what to do and how to think, or to call them liars and frauds.
I don't think that sugar-coating the truth to make it more palatable will ultimately be beneficial.
You seem to be side-stepping the main issue - No one can provide convincing proof for the existence of viruses. Mees is quoting from a 1897 experiment which 1) didn't involve humans, 2) didn't have a control group, and 3) happened decades before virology even existed.
If this is the strongest argument you can make, that shows the weakness of the pro-virus position.
Bingo!
Maybe Mees will watch my link to The Viral Delusion I shared on his post for starters. Altho the actual history of sham virology seems so blindingly obvious to so many of us without a 7 hour documentary exposing it so thoroughly & convincingly.
Wonder if Mees knows the full history of the smallpox vaxx debacle & the English citizens' resistance to that jab? The Leicester anti-jab, anti-smallpox vaxx revolt? The stats then showed that unvaccinated English citizens fared much better against smallpox than the vaxxed.
The Leicester Method, Smallpox, and the Unvaccinated - Blogger
https://healthandvaccines.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-leicester-method-smallpox-and.html
[clip] "In fact, in the 1893 smallpox outbreak, Leicester's mostly unvaccinated population fared much better than the highly vaccinated: "...Leicester, with a population under ten years of age practically unvaccinated, had a small-pox death-rate of 144 per million; whereas Mold [in Flintshire, England], with all the births vaccinated for eighteen years previous to the epidemic, had [death-rates] of 3,614 per million" (127-28).
That's a big difference! It was seen again during the 1891-94 small-pox outbreak: "...the highly vaccinated town of Birmingham had 63 smallpox cases and 5 deaths per 10,000 of population, compared with Leicester at 19 cases and 1 death per 10,000" (128).
The phenomenon repeated itself over and over again.
In his paper, "Leicester: Sanitation versus Vaccination", J.T. Biggs writes: "Leicester's small-pox history, and her successful vindication of sanitation as a small-pox prophylactic, will bear the closest scrutiny. Each successive epidemic since vaccination has decreased, with a larger proportion of unvaccinated population, furnishes a still lower death-rate" (Biggs 459-460)."
Maybe Mees will change his mind eventually after reviewing some of our shared links & reflecting on them? Hope springs eternal. ;-)
Who said anything about 'sugar-coating' the truth? Have you ever seen me 'sugar-coat' anything, including my critique of your arguments?
If we didn't know each other personally, Anton, I'd be wondering if you were a bot. You just wrote, "if we're all opposed to vaccines, then I'm not really sure what the point of this debate is." That conceded the point being made by Mees and myself. We don't care what you believe, and we're not calling you a liar. We don't agree.
Then you went straight back from conceding the point to attacking him. There's a name for the rhetorical device of nitpicking points irrelevant to the whole: nitpicking. That's why it's important to state the question, define the terms and say why it matters. Otherwise, some people keep changing the question when it suits them, leading you around in circles.
That's very well said Tereza!
"Mike is courageously leading you in a direction that will make sure no one ever takes you seriously, outside of anti-vaxx inner circles. I don't think he's controlled opposition, I think he's controlling the opposition."
The fringe Team no-virus is stuck in their ABC arguments, while the discussions on the origin's of the covid VIRUS run deeper and deeper.
The research into the anti-VIRAL ivermectin (and other drugs) is becoming overwhelming. And there they stand, still parroting their ABC Gold standard, completely sidelined, with all their contradicitions, including making the wrong conclusions from the data they present, as Jeremy Hammond has demonstrated numerous times.
Mike was brought in to rescue them, but all he does is shouting "liars!" and "frauds"! A quote on the shocking level of stupidity of Team no-virus, from my last article:
"This isn’t just scientism, but unprecedented obscurantism - keeping people in the dark on purpose. A good part of Daniel Roytas’ seemingly sympathetic book Can you catch a cold is about this same “science trickery”, mendacity wrapped in subtle and persuasive wordings. Its main conclusion - the flu is not contagious - is even contradicted by the result of the contagion experiments they cite: the experimental group had 32% contagion, against 10% in the control group.
Those 32% is way more than I expected for an endemic respiratory syndrome associated with a highly varied virus mix (influenza, corona, rhino) which has been around for centuries, as 80 to 90 % are often immune. "
This is misleading:
"A good part of Daniel Roytas’ seemingly sympathetic book Can you catch a cold is about this same “science trickery”, mendacity wrapped in subtle and persuasive wordings. Its main conclusion - the flu is not contagious - is even contradicted by the result of the contagion experiments they cite: the experimental group had 32% contagion, against 10% in the control group."
There were many experiments cited in that book, not one. Did you read the book?
Crow, I just wondered: are you also a CO2 denier?
CO2 is used by the powers that be as a bogeyman, to frighten the population and forge their domination plan on us. To paraphrase you:
"I personally think the CO2 debate is a highly important one, because if the CO2 paradigm is not overturned, it will only be a matter of time before Big Pharma unleashes another greenhouse gas onto the world. If people don't believe in CO2, they won't fall for it. "
Very clever. And you accuse other people of trickery?
Arguing with you is like arguing with a flat earther.
I am trickster because I paraphrase your argument?
https://open.substack.com/pub/mikestone/p/the-virus-concept?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4adbpr
Loeffler experiments.
Just responded to Mees Baajen's May 17 virology post - The proof for NO No-Virus - & saw he had restacked your article here so thought I'd re-post the links/arguments I shared there on his post.
My comment to Mees:
Every science proof of a virus you mention above can be shown to be long-term psuedoscientific hoaxes. Once you study the actual scientific history of the virus/germ theories, you'll see the truth.
There is overwhelming research/proof that no viruses have ever been isolated or purified using the strict scientific methods of actual laboratory controls, so phantoms can't & don’t cause any “viral” contagion. It’s just toxic drugs/chemicals & poisonous air/water/foods causing diseases. Toxicology.
How can anyone trust a medical profession & farma companies that are the 3rd leading cause of death? And that was even before the C19 scamdemic & its toxic "C19" poison jabs were coerced.
Read the Drs Bailey, Dr Kaufman, Dr Cowan, Mike Stone’s ViroLIEgy substack, Christine Massey’s FOIs substack showing NO C19/or other viruses were ever scientifically proven & watch Mike Wallach’s excellent 5-part “The Viral Delusion” documentary, w/the historical expose of the long psuedoscientific viruses/germs hoaxes carried out well over a hundred years.
The VIRAL DELUSION (EPISODE: 1 - 5): The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 - Full Documentary
mirrored by TheTrooper - 2 years ago - https://www.bitchute.com/video/kIL1QefWAZ8G
Unless you learn the history of germ theory & virology (& how the Rockefeller Medicine Men pushed the germ/virus theories to take control of the medical profession away from naturopathic/herbal practitioners by outlawing them) you'll still be bamboozled by Big Med. The massive drug profits gained by Big Med over the past century & a half related to claimed viruses & germs have everything to do w/a warping of real health. Prevention is healthcare & modern medicine is sick care.
Rockefeller Medicine Men : Medicine and Capitalism in America by E. Richard Brown (1979)
https://archive.org/details/rockefellermedic00browrich
Why do so many (esp Big Med) still fight over the “virus vs no-virus” & germ theory truth bombs? Because once people accept the actual history of the no viruses/germ theory hoaxes, Big Med falls.
As far as I can work out the definition of virus they are using is more or less the same as the definition of vaccine. Basically some body fluid from a host believed to be infected. The only evidence is that the host has "the disease". It goes back to the origin where variolation involved using puss from a smallpox patient. Puss was thus both the virus and the inoculation. The only change with vaccination was that the virus and the vaccine were cow puss believed to be milder virus than human puss. There was still the smallpox virus which was the human puss and so vaccine was distinguished from this but remained cowpox virus. In practice nothing much changed at the time:
"At the same time, it should not be forgotten that inoculation from arm to arm with "mild kinds of smallpox " was an existing practice, and there was little merit to speak of in Jenner doing the same thing with horse or cowpox."
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/white_b.html#THE%C2%A0_PRECURSOR%C2%A0_OF%C2%A0_VACCINATION._
The change in the long term resulted in "the virus" mutating further and becoming chickenpox, measles, hiv, sars-cov2 etc. They all happened in the minds after this mutation of smallpox virus into vaccine.
https://odysee.com/@dharmabear:2/The-Truth-About-Smallpox-Kate-Sugak-720-Eng:e
Hey Crow, have you seen this hilarious piece on viral isolation? https://open.substack.com/pub/turfseer/p/protocol-override?r=qdiky&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I thought you would get as many laughs out of it as I did.
You might also like Jon Rappoport’s convo with ChatGPT on virology recently
https://open.substack.com/pub/jonrappoport/p/chatgpt-exposes-the-whole-virus-hoax-an-explosive-bombshell?r=qdiky&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Maybe if enough people can get AI to see the light…lol then maybe the algorithms will change…
I looked at FMD this weekend and the long and short of it is that if I did an “experiment “ like that, I would get a fail in high school biology. In fact, to explain to Loeffler why his experiment and write up sucks, I would have to explain basic biology and stats concepts from my high school years. Like going back to REAL basics from tenth year science class onwards. And I have better things to do than teach a dead guy high school biology 😂
On Mees' article, Crow and I have been arguing this, which I define as a productive disagreement. If Crow had started by defining virus as an "invisible and unidentified disease-causing agent", we wouldn't disagree at all and, I think, neither would Mees. There wouldn't need to be these insults to Mees' intelligence and integrity. But I think Crow would be arguing with his no-virus camp, who don't believe disease-causing agents exist.
I don't think Virus vs No-Virus is the question. The question is whether we need to agree on this or be insulted. Crow wrote, "First, I know that the No Virus crowd has gotten a bad reputation for aggressive behaviour in comment sections... but I personally haven't seen that much of it. Could you help me understand where this perception comes from?" The following is my answer:
Okay, all I have to do is go to Mees' original interview on Kevin Barrett's stack. This is part of my response to Tim West:
"You've posted numerous notes to your true believers in which you call me a "pseudoscience pusher", engaging in "fear porn", "propping up tyranny" and "genuinely lazy and gullible." You then say, "The only question is if you will just ignore this or return with Ad Hominem or waffle."
"I think you're unclear about the definition of ad hominem, as is Graeme Bird, who tells me 'get it through your thick skull,' and 'there's no fucking agenda, airhead,' saying others are 'full of shit.' Is that what passes for argument in your circle?
"In those notes you also say Mees can't be trusted because he's not answering your Kirsch publicity stunt, that he has no integrity and is "helping the supranational psychopathic predator class."
"My contention is not that viruses exist or don't exist, but that making it a purity test of an anti-vaxxer's intelligence or integrity is counterproductive and "helping the supranational psychopathic predator class." All that your side has done to answer this contention is attack our intelligence and integrity. Please answer the argument instead of proving my point."
My comment thread is here: https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/p/mees-baaijen-says-no-viruses-is-another/comment/107463828
And here I draw Kevin's attention to Graeme Bird's insults to me, to which Graeme responds with more: https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/p/mees-baaijen-says-no-viruses-is-another/comment/107533264.
On the whole comment thread, toni jean responds to every comment with the same link and admonishment to print flyers. It's worth reading all the comments because some, like the top one, say viruses (germs) do exist but that terrain theory explains whether our bodies overreact. I think we could all agree on that one sentence and stop fighting among ourselves! https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/p/mees-baaijen-says-no-viruses-is-another/comments.
But I'll also link a respectful discussion with Andrew Hewitt, on his post that featured my Malone videos: https://hewettinsite.substack.com/p/how-does-dr-robert-malone-serve-beastly/comment/110953321.
Here's another respectful conversation with Franklin O'Kanu, where I raise similar questions. It includes someone on the thread who believes Covid killed 1.3M people in the US, so shows how I argue against that without needing to believe there are no viruses: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/how-truth-destroys-fake-intellectuals/comment/112816516
Even those who are respectful in tone don't answer the questions, but relentlessly push their position, and so aren't respecting the intelligence and integrity of those they're arguing with. It's a form of lecturing and superiority to just send links rather than answer the objections. Your turn.
Thanks Tereza. You say "If Crow had started by defining virus as an "invisible and unidentified disease-causing agent", we wouldn't disagree at all and, I think, neither would Mees."
Yes but I would tweak your definition a little: a virus is a biological agent which cannot be seen under optical microscopes, and which replicates in other organisms (plants, animals, peoples, and bacteria). Proof for pathogenic viruses (of which there are relatively few) is derived from applying Koch's postulates. The formulation of these postulates has been adapted to new insights (about agents, immunity and new diagnostic techniques), but always obey to pure logic.
I quickly read Crow's article but see no debunking of Loeffler's work on FMD, which is the most basic way to demonstrate the existence of viruses (there are many others).
By the way, Loeffler received various claims from neighbours, because during his experiments in relatively badly isolated stables, their cattle or swine became ill with .... FMD. That stopped when his lab was moved to an island.
So please Crow, where did Loeffler go wrong in concluding that a virus was causing FMD?
That wasn't my definition, Mees, that was Crow. I think he's providing an important service by applying my rules of argument, although he skips the first one with you of "Like the person you're arguing with." Should we ever belittle the intellect or impugn the character of those with whom we disagree? Does that ever serve the cause of 'truth' or a more important agenda? That's the question I keep going back to.
If we agree that challenging ideas among friends is our purpose, what question are we arguing? 'Do viruses exist?' And Crow, correctly, starts by stating a definition of virus that he believes does exist: an ""invisible and unidentified disease-causing agent". And then one that he doesn't: "a submicroscopic infectious agent made of genetic material (DNA or RNA) encased in a protein coat (capsid), and sometimes surrounded by a lipid envelope. It can only replicate by infecting the cells of a host organism." So the basis of Crow's argument is that the 'invisible, unidentifiable disease-causing agent' is not DNA or RNA or not coated with protein. Those are the only differences between his position and the one that he solidly denies and is willing to go to the mat against anyone who defines virus this way.
From my arguments with others in the no-virus camp, they're saying that there are no pathogens, no bacteria, no means of contagion other than psychological. It's not just 99% terrain (with which we might agree) but 100% with ALL illness caused by environmental stress on a vulnerable terrain. No illness ever passes from one body to another.
I will note here that Tim West now inverts his attacks on me into me attacking him ... "If @Tereza Coraggio attacks my offer of money for virus evidence publicly that only helps me and everyonre. The Virus Confirmation Fund will be impossible to ignore - hopefully. All publicity is good publicity. Censorship is the enemy."
But the next step in Have a Better Argument is to state why it matters. That's what I keep asking. Crow?
Why does the existence/non-existence of viruses matter?
Easy - because fear-mongering about pandemics is a proven way to trick people into going along with things that they never would otherwise.
The AIDS scam depended on the virology scam, as did COVID.
How long will it be before they pull this trick out of their back pocket again?
As long as people accept the premises of virology, they are susceptible to being manipulated with "Follow the Science" rhetoric again.
Plus, belief in virology is the reason why people take vaccines. Think of a game of Jenga with a whole bunch of scams resting on top of one block. That block is virology. Remove it and a whole bunch of scams will come tumbling down.
Um... Loeffler DIDN'T conclude that a virus was causing FMD. He also didn't use a control group.
Chat GPT:
Friedrich Loeffler’s 1897 experiment on foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), conducted with Paul Frosch, was groundbreaking—it was the first experiment to demonstrate that a disease could be caused by a filterable agent, now understood as a virus. However, by modern scientific standards, the experiment was not well controlled.
🧪 What Loeffler and Frosch Did:
They took infectious material from diseased animals (fluid from vesicles).
Passed it through a Chamberland filter, which blocked bacteria.
Injected the filtered material into healthy animals.
Those animals developed FMD symptoms.
This showed that the causative agent:
Could pass through a bacteria-blocking filter (i.e., smaller than bacteria)
Was still infectious
Was not a toxin, because it could be serially passed between animals
❌ Did they use a control group?
By today's standards of experimental design, no, they did not include a control group in the formal sense:
There’s no mention of a placebo (e.g., animals injected with sterile filtered fluid from healthy animals).
No blind testing, randomization, or statistical control.
The design was demonstrative, not comparative.
✅ However, what they did do was:
Compare filtered vs. unfiltered material.
Observe consistent symptoms following exposure to filtered infectious material.
Reproduce the disease across several animals, reinforcing reliability.
🧠 Historical Context:
This was before viruses were even named or understood.
The field of virology was just emerging, and Koch’s postulates (from bacteriology) were only partially applicable.
Their experiment paved the way for the field of virology, proving that submicroscopic agents could transmit disease.
As I said in my article, the defining claim of the No Virus position is that virology is a fraudulent pseudoscience predicated on false assumptions.
By placing your proof in the 19th century, before the invention of modern virology, you have placed yourself as a critic of the No Virus position without defending modern virology. But modern virology is what we have a problem with.
Take "gene sequencing" for instance. It is complete and utter garbage. SARS-CoV-2 has never been observed. It was "sequenced" using the impenetrable black box of "computer modelling". It's patently absurd, and I don't know why you would want to defend it.
I believe that you have your heart in the right place, but that your thinking is confused on this particular issue.
Wait, you are now saying that viruses do exist but that modern virology, i.e. gene sequencing, is a scam?
And how did Eckard Wimmer construct a functional polio virus?
no, I’m saying that gene sequencing is a scam whereby virologists pretend to discover viruses that don’t exist.
I'm also curious about how good optical microscopes were in 1897. Maybe there was something they missed.
Do you have any more recent examples of convincing experiments done proving the cause of FMD? One with a control group, for example?
When Kory and colleagues discovered that ivermectin was a lifesaver on the covid battlefield, were you one of the Rockefeller team saying that they would only accept the proof with a control group (CRT) - which would have died in large numbers without the treatment? Were you the scientist and they the charlatans, for lack of a control group?
Yup, I'm an agent of the Rockefellers sent to discredit ivermectin by insisting that medical studies follow the scientific method. How did you know?
Well, I maybe expressed myself confusingly, but you know what I mean.
Please Read Kory's book on ivermectine, and then tell me if covid existed or not. It was Kory and associate doctors that convinced me (after a long period of doubt) that a new disease had arrived (with the big difference of a spike protein that blockred ACE receptors, which explained the inflammatory syndrom). The disease also disappeared were ivermectin was taken prophylactically - how to explain that with no virus theory? Are you going to say that the onus is not on you?
If covid virus didnot exist, how could Tess Lawrie publish a meta study in June 21 demonstrating that ivermectine was a lifesaver for covid?
I believe that COVID was a pseudopandemic and that there never was a novel respiratory illness.
Have you followed the work of Denis Rancourt at all?
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/there-was-no-pandemic
See above. It was a grand fraud, no doubt, many of the statistics were falsified (Woodhouse 76), many people died unnecessarily (democide) for lack of treatment or wrong treatment, to increase the death rate!
The virus was made very contagious but with low IFR - so the real depopulation method could be introduced: mRNA jabs
Okay, that definition gives me something to work with: "a virus is a biological agent which cannot be seen under optical microscopes, and which replicates in other organisms (plants, animals, peoples, and bacteria".
I noticed that you avoided use of the terms "DNA", "RNA", "protein", and "lipid". Is this intentional?
DNA, RNA etc can be added, but are not essential. They were discovered 60 years later. The essence is that Loeffler proved that there was a new class of organisms, smaller than 200 nm (resolution optical microscope), that somehow replicated in the host and provoked disease symptoms. Later called viruses. Tell me where he went wrong? What would a control group have added? See also Larouche quote on scientific freedom and creativity, and the Rockefeller science trick (CRT) later copied by team novirus (it has to be via prescribed steps ABC, anything else is invalid!)
There is an enormous body of evidence for FMD and thousands of other viruses, if I had your email address I could send part of it to you.
Hi Tereza, thanks you for posting this and all your links to other conversations! I’ve had a read through and am trying to understand what the core issues are here. I hope I’m characterising them accurately:
1. Some people in No Virus camp have been dismissive, aggressive, belittling, hostile and contemptuous. This is especially hypocritical behaviour because 1) No Virus team itself is often upset about ad hominem attacks and would rather just focus on the science and 2) No Virus team deals with a lot of ad hominem itself. (I’m super sorry you’ve experienced this and am not feeling particularly warm fuzzies towards everyone who’s insulted you, that’s not ok!)
2. The No Virus position is so outrageous that even if it were true, we can’t / shouldn’t use it and ideally should talk about it a whole lot less because we are going to alienate people and look like crack pots and won’t achieve the goal we actually want (of getting more people to see vaccines are bad etc)
3. The facts don’t matter. Ethics is what ultimately matters. Even if there was no virus isolated and purified, debating this is irrelevant if our starting position is “no one should be able to dominate anyone else for any reason (/because of any fact / anything they hold to be true).” Mind/body/spirit sovereignty (love this idea!!). From that vantage point of freedom / anarchy / self-sovereignty, everything else follows, including finance reform, how we govern ourselves, new systems and more local communities etc. So if there is a virus that spreads, that doesn’t matter because I can’t force my neighbour / community / country to do anything differently because of it. If there isn’t one, ditto, doesn’t matter anyway if self-sovereignty is the ethical position we take regardless of facts. Sovereignty is preserved.
I agree that insulting people is really the worst way to attract more supporters to the cause.
I also can see your concern about making the movement look crazy and less appealing. Indeed, for me and most people, the entry point into this space is vaccine harm. I can see if our cause is a political one, one might want to be as appealing (/ as least unappealing) to the masses as possible.
I’m going to leave this one aside for a moment because 1) once newcomers meet us, they may well think we are crazy for a whole host of other reasons and beliefs we hold anyway lol and 2) it’s a bit hard to tackle an age-old debate in a small comment here around truth, how we know what’s true, who gets the define it, and if movements that want popular support should seek truth or find palatable compromises or be a bit more quiet about their internal disagreements or have a united front. All very good things to discuss!
The reason I want to leave it aside is also because I really like, and want to delve into, the third point that maybe starting from an ethical position is better and then you don’t have to debate facts so much - because no one can enslave you because of aforementioned facts anyway! I read your thread with Hewitt on sovereignty of mind, body and spirit, and how we don’t get tied up in this tangle if we start from there…and we address more interrelated issues like finance system, agriculture, etc. which are broader than virology.
But can there be freedom without truth? Will the truth “set you free”? What is truth anyway?
Thinking aloud here …can ethics be embodied without truth? Is freedom the highest virtue? Do we not sometimes temporarily relax the “no dominate” position because of facts? Was contemplating this after a Corbett interview you posted on freedom and would love to muse further with you on it.
To use some real life examples…to help myself think this through as I don’t know the answers to the questions I just posed (!):
1. An ex partner once flung his arm in front of me to stop me walking into an oncoming bus, saving my life. He clearly used force (though it didn’t hurt), and it was entirely reactive. In this case, I think I can safely say the facts do matter because if he restrained me for no reason from walking, that would clearly have been a painful relationship!
2. When someone is drunk, passed out, had a concussion or injury, we also “take control” to help them get to their beds or the hospital.
3. When being attacked, a mum might bodily push away her kid to avoid them being in the firing line - also use of force but justifiably so.
So we do suspend our ethical principle of freedom sometimes when the situation calls for it. When it’s to save a life or help someone in a vulnerable position.
I know this can lead to a slippery slope of “well temporary domination might be ok to SAVE LIVES” and “two weeks to flatten the curve” type of thinking that can usher in longer periods of control…
But a lot of our big debates tend to be about this. I.e. When is use of force / violence / murder justified:
4. Should abortion be allowed? Well, if a foetus is “alive” and can feel pain then some would say no, or at least not late term as that’s literally murdering someone. Others argue the opposite facts are true to support abortion. Taking a strict “no dominate” ethical position…if one shouldn’t interfere with the mother’s choices (because that’s domination) then I guess the facts don’t matter, even if it means murder (to some). But if there are two people involved (a mother and a child) then who should not be dominated? Does the child’s right to exist count more? Does it depend on stage of pregnancy? What do the facts say? And we are back to talking about facts.
5. Should we all become vegan? Well if animals can feel pain and are sentient and in equal plane as us…then yes. Vegans use those facts to back up their non-domination of animals. Omnivores aren’t bothered by the facts or state the opposite.
6. Should we use force to physically go into Israel and separate every person from every gun, missile, tank, fighter jet, drone, to save Palestinians, even if it means imposing our will on the Israelis? The facts do matter - people are dying, people have died. Were Israel not genociding Gaza, perhaps we might feel less inclined to go over and physically separate each person there from their weapons.
7. Should we use force / coercion to get everyone to bike or train and forego cars that save all humanity from climate change? Well, it depends on which facts you believe.
8. Should Christians be allowed to use force (or murder) to exterminate Satan / the devil anywhere they see him, including yoga studios, Buddhist meditation centres, crystal shops, astrology and Tarot card lovers, therapist offices, temples and mosques? You and I would say no but some Christians would say yes because that’s what the bible says and the bible is “The Truth.” And it’s saving us all from eternal damnation!
9. Should indigenous people of the country I now live in use force to claim back their stolen land even if it means asserting force over police etc? Well, we might say, depends on whether someone else is living there now, or how long ago it was stolen…I.e. depends on the facts of the case.
10. If my neighbour steals my watch, can I enter his house unannounced to take it back while he’s not there? Maybe…but what about if it was ten years ago? A few generations ago? Or does that not matter - stealing is wrong and I shouldn’t steal back the thing that was stolen from me, full stop, no matter the circumstances.
11. If our neighbouring community has weapons of mass destruction, should we surveil and search them just in case when they enter our village? For the children? It depends on the facts again…ie whether they actually have WMD/DEW…What if they did? We might not allow them to our village…depending on the level of confidence we had around it being true.
12. And similarly, if there was a deadly and contagious sub-microscopic particle killing millions of people, should we cease all functions of society requiring human contact till we have it under control? My leftist friends, because they care so deeply about people, would say yes, because prevention is better than cure, on the precautionary principle etc. I can see their point - if they truly believed those facts, then by their logic, lockdowns do make sense. If it’s to save lives…And if it isn’t true that it’s as deadly as they say, or as contagious as claimed, then perhaps none of the measure seem justified. So we are relying on facts here again to help us work through the ethics.
I’m musing aloud here as it’s been a very long time since I looked at philosophy. And I’m trying to use some real life examples to help myself think through what I think about this. And I’m hoping you can also enlighten me on this. I love what you write about Tereza, that ethics is about consistency. Consistency is an incredible virtue and I wish society valued it more!!
And I can totally understand that if we aren’t consistent…we risk undermining our ethics. What gets to be an exception to the rule? Who gets to decide? Whose assumptions are taken on faith? Whose interests does it serve? If the application of ethics depends on the facts of the case…who gets to decide what those facts are? Who holds power? It almost feels safer to just get a community to agree on its ethical principles and just stick to them regardless (of the facts) as otherwise it gets too murky.
So as someone who’s muddling through this ethics/truth question I’d love to hear what you think. 🙏🏾☀️
I just love you, LoWa. I have to lead with that. I was afraid I'd driven you away with a comment on another thread (which I'm reluctant to even mention, in case you didn't see it) at the same time that I thought Crow and Rozali might have stopped engaging with me from a different thread. I want to say to all three of you, please push back if you disagree! I know that Crow doesn't have a problem with that ;-) But I hope you never decide a disagreement over 'truth' or 'facts' is too fundamental to talk about.
Which leads into this juicy topic you've so nicely and thoroughly laid out! Here are some questions it brings up. Is freedom the same as sovereignty? Since you just came from that Corbett episode of mine, that's likely already in your mind. I would say that sovereignty is the right to do whatever doesn't take away an equal or greater right from someone else.
I woke up thinking of the term religio-ethics, which I define as an inversion of ethics that substitutes rituals and rules for morality, so that someone can feel like they're 'a good person' while doing harmful things to others by action or acquiescence.
I was just referring someone else to this post: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/golden-rule-rant. I write:
"the Golden Rule is not only ridiculous but intentionally obfuscating, written to confuse and paralyze our innate understanding of right and wrong. Its exact opposite, which I’m calling the Rule of Reciprocity, was the basis of moral codes around the world for millennia. I give two examples and show how the Rule of Reciprocity cuts to the crux."
So let's cut that crux, shall we? The Rule of Reciprocity is that it's wrong for you to do to anyone else what would be wrong for them to do to you.
Fling an arm out to keep me from walking into traffic? Yes, please. I'm sure your friend would be fine with reversing that.
Would you want someone to take control of you, if you'd passed out, to get help? Sure.
As I say in that episode, "Morality is about violence, not sex, drugs or rock and roll." And this was written before I found out that was obvious to Goddess societies for 95 centuries before the Set cult inverted it. I just came on these two quotes in Ch. 17 of my book (which I haven't yet read into the stack):
The more immoral we become in big ways, the more puritanical we become in little ways.—FLORENCE KING
Right actions in the future are the best apology for bad actions in the past.
—TRYON EDWARDS
My principle is that the only legitimate use of power over others is to give them eventual power over themselves. This is primarily with a mother and children. If a mother doesn't use her power, she's harming them by keeping them dependent. And I think you saw my argument with the 'libertarian' Everything Voluntary Jack: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/is-parenting-an-abuse-of-power?
Under the Rule of Reciprocity, there's a hierarchy of what I'd see as more wrong. Given a choice between a slow death of torture or a quick death, I'd choose the latter. Given a choice between my children's death or mine, I'd choose the latter. There's no scenario where torture or killing children is justified. Killing is different. Is it wrong for me to kill someone who violently enters my home with weapons, or my community or my country? If no, then it's not wrong for others to kill me or mine under the same circumstances.
'Humanitarian military intervention' is a psyop unless it's actually a last resort as shown by consistent actions leading up to it. This means not giving or selling weapons, not funding or giving ideological support to any person who does to others what would be wrong for them to do to you. If we paid attention to this consistency, I don't think we--the empires--would ever be required to intervene militarily.
For past harms, it's trickier. But I think it's possible to write consistent rules, even in the case of 'Israel'. In my commonwealth, I would argue that no one can hold dual citizenship, except as a secondary citizen in their place of birth if it's part of the same ideological int'l federation. So 'Israelis' would need to choose--give up their citizenship elsewhere or give it up elsewhere.
I would also not allow someone to transfer dollars they earned in the military or for a military contractor into carets. So their money would go half as far when they returned.
But I'm very interested in recovering the indigenous languages of place. For 'Santa Cruz' (if it kept that name) I'd offer property tax reductions for people who learned the language spoken here before. That would give native speakers the ability to earn a living equal to the cost of housing, and be sought after!
To apply this to veganism, would it be wrong for an animal to kill me? I don't think that applies. I think it's wrong to intentionally cause pain to an animal but to say I shouldn't kill is to claim superiority, as if I'm not also animal. As an animal husbandry gal, a good life and a quick death are the deal made for domesticating animals--who would not otherwise have a life at all, yes? To adhere to sovereignty means that only wild animals would exist. As I say in this video (and I recognize I'm on dangerous ground, just when I'm being grateful for not having driven you away!): https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/animal-husbandry-is-the-new-vegetarian.
I do wonder if controlling the borders of a commonwealth or even hamlet is something I'd want to do. Imagine creating a safe space where kids could roam. Imagine that level of peace and security where there's no such thing as a petty crime.
And last, if someone wants to protect themselves from pathogens by masking or isolating, that's their choice. I'd even help them by using carets to pay young people to deliver their groceries, or having the first two hours of stores reserved for those wearing masks. It could have easily been done. I'd defer all mortgage payments for landlords who reduce by half their tenants' payments, and I'd freeze all business lease payments during the time they're closed.
I'd have reserved the open spaces for people who lived there--giving beach access here only to Santa Cruzans for the first time in our lives. It could have been the gov't helping, not mandating. But that wasn't their purpose.
Thanks for the fruitful questions! (I almost said meaty, but that's pushing my luck!)