Many commenters are unclear about the question this article debates. Stating the question is step #2 in Have a Better Argument. I'm asking 'Is No-Virus a PsyOp?' Step #3 is define your terms. My definition of 'No-Virus' is the insistence that anti-vaxxers agree there's no such thing as a virus. My definition of a PsyOp is a sheepdog that rounds up the strays and leads them back to the slaughterhouse by a different route: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/malone-and-slaughterhouse-four. This answers Step #4 of why it matters if No-Virus is a PsyOp.
Anyone who ignores my question and pretends I'm arguing FOR the existence of viruses is missing my point, some intentionally. The CLAIM is that the No-Virus dogma among anti-vaxxers will prevent the next scamdemic. The REALITY is that it will make it inevitable because it will discredit anti-vaxxers as a whole.
I'm challenging the CLAIM of No-Virus for why it matters. As a Rumble commenter Johnny Morris wrote: "There is no argument to support locking people down or forcibly injecting people if there IS a virus. They suggest that our rights are conditional, and that we maintain our rights because there is no virus." Another commenter says, "Yeadon and others have stated that believing viruses is the problem, not forcing people to comply with medical dictatorship."
This is what we're accepting with the No-Virus dogma, that bodily sovereignty is only our right if viruses don't exist. I'm not willing to concede that point. Are you? Tell me in the comments. Preferably following Step #1 of liking the person you're arguing with.
Okay, I thought that's what you are doing. Because if the next plandemic rolled out, it would be easier to kill more people - regardless. It's like a reverse PsyOp. Spreading like a disease to the pro- vaccination bootlickers.
The certain truth of no-virus views is that there has never been found convincing proof of such viral 'entities' or catalysts to exist , while environmental factors have been found to provoke such viral' reactions.
However the 'movement' like all movements eventually will be navigated & channel for psychological manipulations & control- therefore becoming a psyop whatever truths are involved. It is most probable that it always was infiltrated otherwise it would never gain traction.
An overt psyop element in this is that fact that VIRUS EXIST AS IMAGE & SOUND & that is so obvious a fact that it subliminally undermines anti-virus arguments in many peoples minds. The fact that many anti-virus pundits never express, highlight or seem aware of makes many of them of questionable awareness & alliance.
Those busy saying there is no proof of the 'no-virus' claims are always either lazy smug useless researchers, liars & devious...or maybe even some sort of idiot?
Much of the argument between the different views is devised to waste time & fill up space.
There are certainly 'agents' among the no-virus commentators, as so many have a unearned arrogance & intolerance towards others not so hyper-aware of the topic. This is part of endless division agenda & you can guarantee that they will fraction further over things such as TRUMP, FLAT EARTH, ISRAEL & any other contentious media spectacle event.
Oh that’s a veeeeery important point around whether or not application of ethics (bodily sovereignty) needs to be contingent on facts (existence of viruses). We talked about this before!
I raised a number of ethical dilemmas where I noted that often how we resolved these depended on the facts of the case. So in effect, we did often tend to relax the “No Dominate” position where we felt it was justified by the facts of the situation eg *to save lives.* Whether that was on war, abortion, veganism, pandemic response etc.
And you noted that the Rule of Reciprocity was better than the Golden Rule…and I (somewhere in a different comment thread!) thanked you for your response and mentioned my takeaway from your reply was that the application of ethics *did* seem to be contingent on facts.
Although as I said in my original post, I do really like this idea of mind/body/spirit sovereignty as an inviolable principle regardless of facts!! I just don’t know how to get around the fact that my application of that principle depends on what I consider to be the facts of the case…and so it does for most of us.
Hmmm... the rule of reciprocity is that it would be wrong for me to do anything to you that I'd consider wrong for you to do to me. Elaborating from your example, flinging out an arm to hit me would violate my body sovereignty. Flinging out an arm to keep me from walking in front of a truck is a protection of my bodily sovereignty--about to be violated by a truck! It follows ethically within the rule.
The Medical Freedom Movement would be better named the Medical Responsibility Movement. What we're demanding is to take responsibility for our own health and to expect that others will do the same.
Let's imagine that No-Virus became the medical dogma. Everything else remains the same. All anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-pathogen drugs are not allowed. Schools and employers insist that you come in if you can get out of bed. Those who prepare food or deliver babies should not bother with that silly old handwashing. I'm sure the N-V people never do!
If our argument is "Mandatory vaccines and lockdowns are wrong because each person is born with sovereignty over their body, mind and soul," then it not only covers vaccines but compulsory education, funding militaries, censorship and a host of other things. If community sovereignty is the right to do anything that doesn't take away the same or greater right from anyone else, and to own the land, resources, buildings, infrastructure, labor and currency within your borders, that would put us in a better position than before the scamdemic.
I've thought, since our last conversation, about how you could enable people to care for each other, without forcing anyone else to support them. If young people wanted to bring groceries to the elderly or fearful, you could pay them in carets only valid within the commonwealth and only accepted by those who chose. There's no limit to the amount you can create because you don't need dollars to back them. It's a completely voluntary system.
There were many things about slowing down in the CovidCon that were lovely--having more time with family, less pressure, little traffic. Neighborhood health advocates would have been transformative. I'd rather use the crisis as an opportunity for change, rather than force a new dogma, even if we could--big IF!
Thanks for helping me think through the implications, LoWa.
Quick minor point- I don’t know any No Virus person who has said anything of the sort - i don’t think any “No Virus” advocate would suggest:
1. Not handwashing when delivering babies (Tom Cowan talks about this and why it’s important even if germs don’t cause disease);
2. That all antivirals/antibacterials be “banned” (on the contrary, all NV ppl argue for greater health freedom and less govt intervention- so no one is doing the banning - nor the mandating!);
3. That people should still get out of bed for work if sick (NV folk would say that possibly lack of sleep, stress etc is making one sick so it is better to rest up). Being “not forced to stay home” (I.e. you have a choice to go to work or not if sick) is not the same as being “forced to come to work” (no choice);
4. That we should keep everything else the same - on the contrary, every NV person is arguing for change in all domains of society! Including a saner world where we are not rushing around in traffic to jobs we don’t like and getting ourselves sick in the process from fast food, fast travel, lack of sun, not enough time with friends and family etc. Being all for terrain…that would mean literally every facet of our lives would have to change…
These are arguments that have not been made by NV (to my knowledge) but are being challenged to show how absurd the implications of No Virus are, so I think according to Doc Malik’s recent post, that meets the definition for strawman.
*But* I also hear within this strawman some fears that I think are valid and worth surfacing. *Just because* viruses may not be real, doesn’t mean we should go back to BAU before the pandemic because there was no virus! If anti-vaxxers worry that no virus folk would engage in authoritarian behaviours based on their beliefs…let’s talk about that. Because no virus folk worry the same - will team virus foist hydroxychloroquine on everyone? Will its belief in viruses and bioweapons lead to more lockdowns?
To make it more stark - will anyone’s beliefs *about anything* compel anyone else to do things differently even in the anti-vax community? Will some people’s beliefs around abortion force others to comply? Will some people’s beliefs around animal agriculture force others to comply? Will some people’s beliefs around the renewability of oil force others to see their native ecosystem subject to oil drilling? Will some people’s beliefs around satanism force yoga studios and tarot card shops to close down? Will some people’s beliefs around divorce comply others to do as they think?
What are a society’s non-negotiables? Where do people draw the line and say “absolutely not”? What is this based on? Which facts, whose science? Which ethics, whose ethics? What “mind, body, soul sovereignty” means to some people is different to what it means to others. How do we make decisions together collaboratively (not authoritatively!) in this context? How do we co-create a community where we can all live well together? If we hold “these xyz things to be true” then where do we draw the line and who enforces it and how?
I think these are some of the deeper issues that your comment brings up - and ones that we should discuss (and which I don’t have clear cut answers to).
I am wondering also if it’s a matter of emphasis. I had a friend on the anti-vax side who didn’t want to talk about covid. Her view was “it has always been bad, for a very long time, and talking about the latest circus is distracting us from the deeper issues”. My position was “I agree the root causes are important and I talk about them a lot - i have a lot of leftist friends who get it, but who completely missed the latest circus. And that’s astounding to me, so I want to talk about how the latest thing is a manifestation of the deeper, bigger forces.”
So we could say, “yes, to talk about virology, we have to put other topics on hold for a second - war, finance, religion, empire, patriarchy - so in a sense, virology is a distraction from those topics. But it is also a *window* into all those topics as it’s impossible to talk about virology without talking about war (good guys vs bad guys / virus vs antibodies), talking about finance (how science is funded), religion (how science has become a faith/ the new God), empire (how virology is used in service of empire) and patriarchy (daddy government knows best).”
And I get that people like Mike Stone are laser focused on virology without weaving in the other elements, but there are others who do, and that most people are smart enough to weave diverse threads together.
GERM-MANs were AXIS (AXES) power is a overt twisted joke on this,
While the enemy of the AXES (central shaft of the FASCIE ) was the ALL-LIES,
and this occur when all sociologists were acutely aware that image & sound acts like VIRUS in crowds, while non existent physical virus was superb bogeyman & phantom menace that could be pot of gold for funding!
Later NUKE FEAR had even bigger funding well spring for same old families of millennia ! & who do we see when we look at them = HIXOSS scum as always, now let us cut this short & link all the families involved because THEY are the reason there is so much mutilation & poisoned beings on the planet today & since the so called Renaissance...? & when we see the Pilgrim Society who run media it is same as arms trading bankers & real estate, merchants & pirates.
"Those who prepare food or deliver babies should not bother with that silly old handwashing": as far as I have come to understand, NV does not deny the existence of bacteria or poisons.
I don't think most people are washing their hands before preparing food because they think they've touched poisons. And yes, the NV dogma does include bacterium in their definition of what doesn't exist, along with pathogens. Virus is even defined as a bacterium in their arguments. Look it up for yourself. It's ALL terrain, according to them.
In the one I can't find, Ahmad does a very respectful interview of someone who represents no-virus, no-bacteria. As a conservative orthopedic surgeon, who didn't operate on 80% of the patients who came to him, Ahmad gives his experience of situations where anti-viral or antibiotic drugs saved a person's foot or life, including one personal story. He tries to get a compromise where it's 99% terrain, but no go.
So if you think 'germs' exist in any form, you're arguing with the wrong side.
Honestly in all my learning of NV I’ve never heard that about the denial of bacteria so this is news to me. Bacteria clearly exist, we can observe them. BTW, can’t see that Dr Ahmad link as it’s paywalled.
Sam Bailey is the only one claiming Bacteria has not been shown/proven to cause Disease. This is not everyone's position. Strep infections in throats occur, Bacterial pneumonia happens and also Staph infections occur on the epidermis. I'm sure there are more examples. Rancourt has also mentioned this, so if Tereza or anyone is not aware, they should be. And infiltrators are everywhere. Ask Rod Knoll re Aids dissident movement.
Germ Theory Fraud has to be mentioned as one of the biggest of all time, under the Rockefeller takeover of medicine.
Brief Edit: (2 day after) We can actually skip this important discourse in this thread and use Rancourt's Work of ACM, which details Pandemic Response + Iatrogenic Protocols is the culprit - where testing and Virus Particle yes or no is irrelevant. (for C19) https://correlationresearch.substack.com/p/correlation-report-disproves-paradigm
Edit (3 day after): Maybe I'd like to see a better introduction to the NV Position. It's not odd to want to understand someone's knowledge base on a complex topic. Also, maybe the title of the article could change to: Info Ops Teams Infiltrate the No-Virus Position to discredit it
But back to the crux of the issue which is whether “mind, body, soul sovereignty” is an inviolable principle. I noted that we sometimes violate this principle of the situation calls for it - eg if it is to “save lives.” You point out the same, in slightly different words - that the only justifiable use of power is to enable people to eventually have power over themselves - I.e. temporarily violating an “absolute” principle of body sovereignty for example by restricting someone from doing something that might otherwise kill or harm them (eg fling arm out to physically stop your friend walking into an oncoming truck). And you note that this allows the friend to have eventual power over themselves (therefore protects their sovereignty overall). I agree.
What I am muddling over is the fact that this is the exact justification for pandemic response policies - it’s “to save lives” and “two weeks to flatten the curve” - ie “we aren’t going to rule over you in this way forever, we are just doing it veeeeery temporarily so you don’t drop dead! We are ultimately protecting your mind/body sovereignty!”
And in each case (truck or virus), there is *judgment* involved. *Someone* has to make a judgment that:
1. X is unsafe
2. You aren’t aware of X or are at risk of X
3. You need help to avoid being harmed
4. I can make a temporary intervention (“justified use of force” [power]) to save you
5. That ultimately restores the power back to you as you’re still alive, yay!
This makes a lot of sense when the next door building is burning down and my neighbour can’t see how to get out. By all means, if the firefighter can see the way out, direct them over the loudspeaker and bodily remove them from the burning building if possible! Some say the whole planet is burning down (climate change)…and use that to justify certain things.
You note “Mandatory vaccines and lockdowns are wrong because each person is born with sovereignty over their body, mind and soul”. Thinking aloud here…and imagining we are already living in decentralised permaculture anarcho-paradises with no jackboot state …are lockdowns or staying home *never* justified? (Dangerous question I know! But I’m challenging my own thinking here…as I want the answer to be yes). Well, if the lion escaped from the local zoo, surely it’s ok to issue a warning and “strongly suggest” staying home till the situation is resolved. If someone goes out anyway and gets badly mauled…and winds up in hospital, is it then ok to use public funds to treat the person even though they went out when they shouldn’t have? Esp when the hospital was overflowing and another patient’s life could’ve been saved? If forced vaccination is wrong then also isn’t forced blue light and EMF exposure wrong given it also massively affects us on a cellular level ? Who gets to make that call - based on what? Are certain EMF frequencies ok, are certain artificial lights ok, how do we know…therefore what should our city’s emf profile be or street light system be? What are we comfortable subjecting everyone to?
All these questions of whether / how to violate body/mind/ soul sovereignty depend on facts and judgment - how dangerous is the lion? How sure are we that it escaped into the city and not into the nearby forest? How likely would this zoo-raised lion eat a human? If we haven’t found it in a few hours in certain locations, how likely is it that it’s definitely not there (rather than hiding!) therefore how okay is it to relax the guidance (/lockdown) to stay home? How easy will it be to find the lion if there no lockdown, and if cars and people running around all over town? How high can lions jump and how tall must fences be to block a lion getting into someone’s backyard - so which people can safely hang out in their backyard? All require evidence and judgment.
(As an ecologist I’m held to far higher standards of confidence than microbiologists. I must prove that the lion or unicorn in question exists; my cellular and microbiologist friends can get away with far more supposition and interpretation than I. So I couldn’t help myself but use this lion example!)
But lions, fires and EMF aside, I guess what I’m really saying is that it seems to me that there is *always* facts & judgment involved in decide whether to temporarily violate the mind/body/spirit sovereignty principle so as to give people eventual power over themselves - I.e. when we deem that self sovereignty would be more at risk *ultimately* - that very much depends on the facts of the case (I.e. evidence to show that there’s a demonstrable risk and to show that the restrictive action would work & wouldn’t cause undue harm) and the judgments we make based on those facts.
And who makes the judgment about what’s actually harmful or helpful, and who restricts what others do based on that judgment (“for their own good”)…shows who really has power in society.
So my answer to your question of whether we would want mind-body-soul sovereignty to be conditional on facts [e.g. existence of virus] is “I wish it weren’t, but can’t escape the fact that we always make decisions to restrict mind-body-soul sovereignty based on facts and judgment. It’s never based on ethical purity alone. So I’m *not sure* we can use mind-body-soul/ community sovereignty as a principle applied consistently regardless of facts…because we violate it ourselves all the time anyway! And I don’t know how to get around that.”
Hmmm ... let me clarify my original points, LoWa, because you're misrepresenting things I said. The points I make are:
1. it would be wrong for me to do anything to you that I'd consider wrong for you to do to me.
2. What we're demanding is to take responsibility for our own health and to expect that others will do the same.
3. each person is born with sovereignty over their body, mind and soul
4. community sovereignty is the right to do anything that doesn't take away the same or greater right from anyone else, and to own the land, resources, buildings, infrastructure, labor and currency within your borders
My example was preceded by "If NV became the new dogma." A dogma is a belief that can't be raised to question. Skimming these comments is absolute proof that there is a coordinated effort to make NV into a dogma among anti-vaxxers. It's NV as dogma that I'm arguing against. I could not care less what anyone believes if they're not insisting I do the same.
I don't speak for anyone else. I don't know how you can say "every NV person is arguing for change in all domains of society." My statement in #2 already assumes there's a 'we' that's arguing to take responsibility for ourselves but all I really know is that it's my desire. The entire so-called MFM may want entirely different things, with no unified goal.
My exception to the use of power over others is specific to a mother using power over her children so they learn to have power over themselves. In my point system, that means enabling kids to earn what they want rather than giving it to them--not violating their sovereignty.
As a community member, it means using our collective power over each other to protect against violations of these rules, including by other members. If that power over others isn't used to protect our sovereignty, then the community is itself violating its role. In the same way, a mother is violating her role if she uses her power to give her kids everything they want, making them dependent on her and expecting that as their right from others.
It's not a strawman to argue against dogma, when my whole point is arguing against dogma, iow 'the insistence that anti-vaxxers agree there's no such thing as a virus' as I reiterate in my pinned comment. But coming up with examples like an escaped lion and whether public healthcare would treat the injuries of someone who goes out anyway and gets mauled ... whew! THAT is one convoluted hypothetical to find an exception and argue that I'm ethically inconsistent in my views--or that my ethical system is wrong. A straw-lion?
🙄🤔 No, you are property of parents & state until legal age & since birth certificate you are considered dead commodity to be manipulated for commerce.
Long time abusers, mercenary exploiters & anti-human forces construct social reality for us & various nations enclosures- the biggest gangs run the show, circus & spectacle, they are the foundations of their puppets Kings & Emperors & high ranking servants like Don Trump, Bumboy Starmer,Dog sucker Merkle or WTF in the public eye.
You are lucky to be even able to question them, never mind criticise them & how they treat you!
Of course I hate such a situation & prefer to resist their invasions as much as possible, but I do not lie about the arena we inhabit & find most western commentators someway lost souls in regard to their expectations & the construct of information they are fighting against- the result being overt increase in frustration & feeling of impotency.
Straw-lion - I love it! I can always count on you for the good puns. I’ll try not to go too wild* with lion puns here…
Ok, I see where you’re coming from with thinking of NV as dogma and mostly everyone trying to get you to believe the science (in these comments) rather than make any solid case for why we need to agree (as you’ve asked). It’s always interesting to consider the “dark side” of taking any belief system to its extreme, so I really do appreciate you sharing these examples, even though I’m scratching my head thinking “how can these possibly be corollaries of NV as a dogma when this isn’t what NV people even say and would likely disagree with?!” (If they do say any of this, I’m happy to be corrected). And I know you said it’s about NV as a dogma not what anyone individually believes…but I would imagine that any musings around the corollaries of the dogma would at least be based on the sorts of things NV are repeatedly and collectively saying - rather than things they’d actively refute..??
Examples aside, your deeper concern around *anything* becoming dogmatic and then authoritarian in the anti-vax movement is wise - we should always be on the lookout for accidentally re-creating the same oppressive structures we are seeking to dismantle. Many a revolutionary movement has been plagued by this exact consequence once it’s overthrown the elites.
On the mind-body-soul sovereignty piece - firstly, I am sorry I didn’t realise the power over others exception was specific to children.
“As a community member, it means using our collective power over each other to protect against violations of these rules, including by other members. If that power over others isn't used to protect our sovereignty, then the community is itself violating its role.” - love this.
And where I’m at is still confused about how facts and judgment would *not* be used in every example I can think of where community members use power over others to protect our sovereignty. Someone has to assess the situation and go, “is there a danger? How much of a danger? How do I know? How effective will intervening be to protect sovereignty? What are unintended consequences of intervening?”
Most pro-vaxxers i know would agree about mind-body-soul sovereignty and that use of power is only justified if it’s to protect said sovereignty…which is why they support masking, lockdowns and mandatory vaccination - because they *do* think it’s justified (and they don’t think it’s wrong for them to do it to me because they’re ok with me doing to them)…based on the facts they know to be true…And this has played out in the courts (eg Bill of Rights Act “the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”) And there have been arguments to say these kinds of Acts themselves aren’t great because these should be “inalienable” rights that should not be subject to any ”justified limitations”…I rather like the idea of inalienable rights, though as you also point out, we have responsibilities too…(love the medical responsibility movement reframe).
And I don’t think your ethical system is wrong - I like it! As I’ve said many times. I just feel deflated every time I run any real life examples through it because I can’t think of any situation where the “facts of the case” wouldn’t matter and where judgment isn’t used to assess whether sovereignty is being - or is about to be - violated…but like you, I also don’t want bodily sovereignty to be contingent on facts! (And if facts do matter, I agree that “any facts” that convince ppl not to get jabbed or make others get jabbed will do - so facts around vaccines harm will do the job just fine, as you also point out, and more convincingly at that. To stop the immediate harm, we don’t need ppl to go all the way to virology).
At the end of your pinned post, you write, “This is what we're accepting with the No-Virus dogma, that bodily sovereignty is only our right if viruses don't exist.” So if I read our exchange accurately, you might reframe this to “bodily sovereignty is only our right if we are not violating - or about to be violating - someone else’s bodily sovereignty” (??) - in which case it’s ok for another community member to use power to temporarily restrain the person or maybe pop them in a safe place where they can’t harm anyone / till the drugs have worn off etc. And if they repeatedly exhibit that behaviour (hitting, threatening, shoving etc), then…? Of course they need help and support but I suppose they’d also need to be kept away from others till they could demonstrate they’re safe to be around (prison? Not a great place to rehabilitate…).
And this all depends on facts - how sure are we that they were about to violate someone else’s bodily sovereignty, what are the motives, extent of harm, consistency of behaviour, other factors, how likely will it happen again if we let them out..I.e. the facts & judgments!
(Or do you not consider these forms of restraining and “power over” others as a violation of an individual’s bodily sovereignty…[because it’s to protect another person’s bodily sovereignty] or does it depend on the facts of the case, I.e. was the person actually doing something violent or just suspected of doing so..? Was the truck actually approaching or did he gaslight her that it was to have an excuse to demonstrate his power over her?)
So I’m hoping you can help me understand here - are there any situations where use of power over others to protect mind/body/soul sovereignty isn’t contingent on facts and judgment? Do you think in most situations we can de-couple them? Or are you more saying that in *this* case (vaccine mandates), bodily sovereignty shouldn’t be contingent on *these* facts (virus non-existence) because *these other facts* (vaccine harm) are more than enough to indicate that bodily sovereignty is at risk? If the latter - I agree 🙏🏾
Viruses? I thought we were supposed to fight about nuclear weapons!
Due to the hot new war brewing, instead of discussing war profiteering and the military industrial complex, we should make sure all of the anti-war resistance is aligned on the lack of real nuclear weapons.
For those doubting the urgency of this mission, consider that if everyone accepts that nuclear weapons aren't real, we can't go to war over Iran's nuclear program! (*This presumes that the war IS actually about Iran's nuclear program...)
🥸 Sarcasm over
To psychoanalyze a bit, I definitely don't like the humiliation ritual around needing consensus. For many of us these things will always be quazi-abstract anyways. I have no desire to investigate or prove particulars of viruses or nuclear weapons. So when one is unable, or unwilling to give up the time to be aligned on these issues, they ultimately will take it on trust. I see those pushing for consensus using a particularly aggressive means to extort trust out of people. Regardless of the actual truth of these positions, I think you're entirely correct that this behavior is counter-productive and a mark of bad actors. The shaming rhetoric is clearly not about education.
I have similar issues with statements along the lines of "silence is consent", because I do NOT believe that tyranny fundamentally relies on consent, and recognize that in many situations that may be the only protest one feels safe with. I appreciate your efforts here to try to defend the "voiceless" on this particular issue. The fact of the matter is, that the public conversation is such a small fraction of the totality of the fight that worrying about it as if it is the fight feels somewhat contrived.
It is blatantly obvious to us all, that lies about viruses and nukes are very powerful tools for tyranny or oppression. But one of the things I like about your work and perspective is that you do a fantastic job at helping people realize we need to stop blaming the oppressed for the oppression. I don't believe that a repressed minority (the unvaccinated, especially here in Canada) have the capacity to change the status quo by drawing a hard line on theory but not practice. Case in point, the Freedom Convoy was principally about mandates and medical segregation, are we to say it was all for nothing because the focus wasn't a vigorous debate on virology?
Yet I have no love for establishment science as a whole. I recognize many of its limits and failings so I'm very open to the idea that much of what we understand is entirely false. The problem however, is that as you point out, it takes an inordinate amount of effort to bridge that understanding to the general public. Those of us who are less invested in these particular scientific inquiries may not be able to challenge them confidently in a confrontational situation. I agree that it is principally the responsibility of those who do feel strongly on these fronts to make that case, not your rank-and-file activist who is currently highly likely to be engaged on a wide variety of important fronts. I recognize that the independent capacity for research, education, outreach and many other important things is incredibly scarce, and we should use that capacity as efficiently as possible, ironically by letting each person choose how to focus their own efforts.
Damn! Brushed some dust from my keyboard and lost my reply just before hitting send. Trickster goddess!
To recreate, excellent analogy on nukes. I read Franklin O'Kanu, who is both no virus and flat earth, and his recent post was about false narratives in the news, including 'Israel and Iran at War.' Apparently it's all a psyops done with AI. I was too stunned to comment, and you know how rare that is for me.
Humiliation rituals and shaming rhetoric are great phrases. And the Freedom Convoy is a terrific example.
Before devoting time to any research issue, I always ask why it matters. I'm not a 'believer' in viruses, I'm agnostic because it wouldn't change how I live my life, and it wouldn't help the anti-mandate cause. However, it would be useful for no-virus folks to start posting in mainstream venues. It would make the rest of us into sensible moderates.
Tell me who is actually fighting who when they all link to same families & brokers ?
You have much to learn before maybe you should comment on the SPECTACLE you inhabit ? This does not mean you are not intelligent insightful person because I can tell you are, just HUBRIS has taken hold & you are not craftsperson familiar with tricks of illusionists & actors. Like you touch on before- TRIKSTER is most popular God in the world - & yet no-one mentions it unless confused with Satan or Lucifer.
None of them are the 'devil' but they suffice for so many there is no reasoning on such matters.
The difference between flat earth and no-virus is that one is silly, vulgar and childish and one is rational. The only thing in common is that they're non-mainstream beliefs. The belief in viruses relies on the appeal to authority and the appeal to consensus fallacies, and flat earth relies on people turning those fallacies on their heads to create two more non sequiturs to the effect that anything which people held up as authorities or which is popularly believed is incorrect by default.
Perhaps you're correct that most people are now too dumbed down to be capable of comprehending that the consensus can be correct in some cases, but incorrect in others.
Perhaps that's just too complex for them to comprehend and it would break their brains - but in *that* case, the 'elite' are right, they're childish idiots and who cares about them?
If that's not what you think, then stop begging the question and address the no-virus arguments instead of regurgitating obvious memes that everyone is already all too aware of as if you're saying something incredibly profound and interesting because you really aren't I'm afraid.
You are arrogant moron who has not considered the topic like adult , so why bother commenting - just to stir excrement for fun?
Earth behave as non-rotating level (ish) surface with plasma concentration about 30 -60 miles from the surface & 10 miles beneath sea level. Find me any continuous flight footage from GL to beyond the atmosphere & then reconsider your feeble stance on this.
I am betting you are just a troll doing the baiting time-vampire game & have no genuine substance.
Virus is real for image & sound. For health matters that is different 'matter' & is typically toxins or resonance issues of the 'cell', you are right to question or dismiss as phantom menace or bogeyman as far as I am aware.
Truth is a one-way process. It is a hard fact that viruses are 100% fictional.
It is a hard fact that growing numbers of people are pledging £1000 to pay for.
When the virus confirmation fund reaches many millions
Good luck with your pretending that Truth versus lie is a false dichotomy.
I relish every word everyone writes that might just possibly make people get off their posteriors, go in the room, do the work, see the elephant, and stop letting down the children.
If leaving up a critical comment is a sign of integrity, are you saying that Suavek and Mike have none? That seems to be your implication. You should tell them.
But I never censor people when they're proving my point, as the comment thread on Sasha amply shows.
Thumbnail is addressing the real question, which is whether we need to agree or be accused of not having integrity, "pushing of the pseudoscience" and "obfuscating the scandal."
But out of curiosity, Tim, why do people get sick?
If you read my article, you know exactly what I wrote that was deleted. And what you're saying now is that Suavek has no integrity, by your statement that I would have no integrity if I deleted your comment. Please tell him that because ethics is consistency. If you apply one standard to those 'on your side' and another to the other side, it's a lack of ethics, aka integrity.
Suavek’s publication, is nothing to with Mike. We are so pleased with the work he is doing that we tried to give him a good shout out and talk of him as the second source of Mike‘s views because he posts frequently quotes many of his posts from Telegram. We also pointed out that none of the other views expressed of which there are many unnecessarily anything that Mike or myself endorse.
I do know that we keep Mike’s channel in good faith. We maintain a warm respectful community.
This sometimes involves removing bad faith comments.
Particular ones that are floody with pseudoscience that refused to respond to the many people who pointed out the floors in what they say.
It’s a hard fact that no evidence exists for viruses. This is a hard fact you could discover very easily. A lot of of us are wondering why you are keeping your head in the sand?
£10,000 to you for a single piece of evidence any of these genome, built by creatively spicing millions of reeds, chopped up sequences of RNA and DNA, fit together in a creative Lego type way to see what can be made, thousands of options produced, one picked, then changed to fit old Gene Banks which are used to see the process anyway
Have ever existed as RNA or DNA fragments encased in a protein shell, with the same genome as the created ones in the computer miraculously, proven to be transmissible, replication competent and pathogenic.
Everything you write Tereza continually betrays the fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
All you use is rhetoric.
.
I don’t understand . Don’t you care about what’s actually true?
Virus is a fictional . This is an easily probable fact. Why do you not care?
The story, was used to attack your children and mine ?
It can be called a hard fact as in 200 years of trying there's still no evidence whatsoever that viruses exist nor that any disease is contagious. If they were real, we'd have found them by now.
Thank you for writing about this, because now I don't have to.
In the early days of the Scamdemic, I naively assumed that we lockdown sceptics and anti-vaxers were all on the same side. Since then I have learned that seeing how someone treats their critics is a useful guide for determining whether I should continue to listen to that person. This is an entirely different question from whether I agree with what that person is saying.
You're welcome! And yes, my litmus test is superiority. It's not that their position is more correct, according to them, it's that they are smarter, better, braver, more honest people. It's the same reason I reacted against the Mattais Desmet position--everyone else was a self-lobotomized dolt. Did you happen to see James Corbett's In Praise of Sheep? Very good: https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-sheep.
Thanks for the Corbett essay. I confess to have been in the "wake up, sheeple!" phase back around 2022-2023 when I was in my sarcasm mode. That essay is a good antidote.
I also was a fan of Desmet for a while, and didn't see the flaws in his position for a long time. I still think there were some good ideas there, the main one being that being a staunch Covidian gave some people a cause and a purpose that had been lacking. I saw that in action in the way the Covid Task Force in my little Vermont town (just ordinary people that I happened to know personally) made it their job to promote helpful government propaganda (and also censor dissenters) on Front Porch Forum. They seemed excited to be in this new role.
You touch on an important point, Mark. Covid gave people purpose, where it was otherwise lacking in their lives. It gave them a way to express caring about others. To some, it gave a self-important role that fed their ego. I certainly saw that. But for the majority, it was their love that was used against them. Don't blame the love, blame those who exploited it. That's my argument against Desmet.
"My litmus test is superiority. It's not that their position is more correct, according to them, it's that they are smarter, better, braver, more honest people..." Exactly!
I rather lean towards the «viruses are trash» camp, and that usually gets me some fire from both sides.
But. Most real-world events don't have one deterministic cause, they have multiple necessary conditions, none of which are sufficient in themselves. Even gravity, although necessary to cause an apple to fall, isn't in itself sufficient, it's also necessary that there is no table under the apple. :)
So. There's an apple on my table, and it stands still and doesn't fall. But this doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.
That's a fine example, Rat. What we're discussing here are words, and cause and effect. Why do people get sick? It seems to me the healthy person isn't the one who never gets sick, but the one who recovers quickly and bounces back stronger. I credit my kids rarely getting sick to daycare. Rather than being a germophobe, they might accuse me of being a germophile. So this isn't going to change my behavior one way or the other. But it is going back to the beginning of medicine, in any form, and figuring out why people get sick. I haven't figured out yet what their explanation is, other than blaming the individual for not keeping up their terrain.
I personally feel like it's a seasonal rain. Just like when all the leaves and animal poo and logs etc build up over summer the sky does a big violent flush and washes the obstruction away returning the rivers and creeks to flow. That's how I feel about my seasonal sickness and it helps me understand why 'vaccines' don't stop seasonal viruses. But I'm cool with the belief in viruses. I'm less stuck in belief these days because I think there is only one thing I actually know for sure with 100% certainty and that is that I EXIST.
The power of vagina bacteria is well known for millennia- without it child will be less robust. Same is true due to caesarean operation missing such thing & peculiar joyful trauma of birth! It also ties in with great mystery of holy grail.
The reasoning missed here is that it is ALL due to sympathetic resonance & what is magic also intricate with? Of course if you are technically minded then that alone is enough to spotlight how 5G tec is devised & will impinge.
I have UK friend who read Nursing magazine for hospitals (in the 1990s) they show me article that says after almost TWO DECADES of research 'scientists' think that mothers milk is better for babies than COW milk ... & these are the devious idiots so many people trust?
Gravity exist as stated in dictionary, but not as a FORCE. No convoluted gravity is needed for things to function as they do, you will gasp when you fully realise this fact.
Nobody is denying viruses exist, they are just pointing out that there is no scientific evidence of their existence. And all the science (from cell culture experiments to contagion studies) have DIS-proved the claim of viruses existing.
Sticking to science / truth cannot possibly be a 'psyop'.
I don't think that's true, Corona Studies, that 'Nobody is denying viruses exist.' I'm perfectly willing here and now to agree there's no scientific evidence of their existence if that means visible proof. You should be arguing with the others on this thread and asking them if they believe no viruses exist. If that wasn't their position, we wouldn't be arguing.
The point I was making was that 'viruses' have never been discovered, so it's not possible to 'deny' their existence. I doubt you consider yourself a 'unicorn denier', and to accuse you of 'denying unicorns' implies that the believing in unicorns is a valid or credible position to take.
But 'unicorns' and 'viruses' are just social constructs, interwoven into our culture, but completely lacking any scientific proof. And that is why it is disingenuous to refer to anyone as a 'denier' of 'unicorns' or 'viruses'.
In your video you talk about your intuitive knowledge of viral contagion because animals and people sometimes get sick together.
The same observations (by your own logic) support the idea of a scurvy virus. Many diseases or symptoms have been falsely attributed to 'viruses' over the years, based on the same observations that you have made. That is why it is so important to stick to SCIENCE and not FEELINGS.
Scurvy FEELS like a contagious disease, as does the flu (AKA 'covid') but over 200 contagion experiments have disproven this FEELING, and dozens of cell culture control experiments have exposed virology as absolute nonsense ('viruses' are just cellular debris and not the cause of anything).
You also claim the 'no virus' camp want to discredit vaccines or the covid narrative. This is also incorrect. They just want to follow the science (wherever it leads) rather than follow superstitions and fearmongering ...... because THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE POST ENLIGHTENMENT AGE AND NOT THE DARK AGES of superstition and hocus pocus nonsense.
The 'virus' issue IS divisive, as it should be. You either accept that 'viruses' have never been discovered and stop talking about them as if they are real, or you provide some credible scientific proof of their existence.
Okay, let's get into remedial logic. If I were to tell my neighbor that unicorns do exist, they would wonder what drugs I was on. If they say they caught a cold and I reply that viruses don't exist, they would wonder what drugs I was on.
You're comparing something that 99% of people believe to not exist to something that 99% of people believe does. You've been talking to your own echo chamber so long that you think denying viruses exist isn't denying the existence of viruses because they don't exist anyway.
You need to get out more and have some conversations outside the fishbowl, so you can tell when you're saying things that non-indoctrinated people would recognize as making no sense.
If you told your neighbour in 2019 that they would have to stay indoors for a year, put on mask and inject an experimental drug just to keep their job or fly internationally for a normal flu season they would think you were mad.
But most people embraced this new normal in a matter of weeks, despite NONE of it having any scientific basis or even common sense.
So I'm sure the average person can get to grips with the ACTUAL science which has been known for a century and a half already (even Florence Nightingale wrote about the lack of evidence for contagion).
The only thing keeping people ignorant and misguided is this stupid attitude of 'Oh they won't be able to understand' or 'we need to introduce them to the topic in baby steps'.
That attitude is all part of the psyop (trust the plan / MAHA etc).
But putting all that aside, the real issue is that the biggest crime in modern history has been committed. The lie of 'contagion' and 'viruses' has been used to murder millions of people and perhaps sterilise an entire generation.
So anyone who is aware of the crime, but who continues to promote the cover story (as more people continue to get jabbed), should be considered an active participant in the crime.
The very idea that you (or anyone) should feel free to choose to withhold the truth as a kind of 'strategy' or 'virtue' is a satanic twisting of reality.
If someone is being stabbed or mugged in an alley way you have a moral duty to intervene, or at least report it, and not help to block people's view of the crime because 'they might not be able to cope with it' or some other nonsensical excuse.
This is the same old moaning as far as I can tell- why did it happen?
because people are willing masochists.
Yet whenever the idea of petty sado masochism as social dynamic is mentioned here in the west everyone have prolapse & cry as if the devil is being invoked.
If you can not face your own masochism & petty sadism (that the internet is great catalyst for) then you will always remain in this trap of being moaning entitled brat nation of smug smarmy mental slaves.
Its a bot or non-human operator on a commission to cut & paste the sanctimonious dribble of the same old preaching.
While the no-virus perspective has much validity the points I noticed you mention here are equally important, maybe now even more so. Corona Clowns inability to recognise that & other psychological factors is more revealing than it realises or could ever recognise at this rate.
Good Comments CS. T is treating people as groups here instead of individuals. She admits to not understanding the science, so don't bother explaining it; even though Empire/Corporations/Industrial Complex have been lying for decades about almost everything (The Science™, The History™), employing tricks and wordsmithing to sell unnecessary products of all kinds. Social Media is full of emotional quick response-tribalism, which is more about human behavioral psychology, than deep discussion and discovery. There are exceptions, of course.
Ironically, Tereza is a very good at deep theological thinking.
Also, Sasha/Sassy has not always been N-V, as you can see in the comments of SuperChem article (Proton Magic Substack) or maybe it was an earlier article. She actively berated anyone disagreeing.
Everyone needs to evaluate the Information. Stop treating people as groups, everyone is an individual with discovery and understanding on a spectrum.
Where do I 'admit' to not understanding the science, Peter? I see that strategy being used again and again. If you don't agree, it's because you don't understand the science. I'm speaking to you as an individual, who happens to use the same deflection points as Matthew North.
The science of psychological manipulation and group control is the topic of this post. Please answer the question in my pinned comment. Is bodily sovereignty only a right if there's no such thing as a virus? If the N-V position will ensure the next scamdemic is met with no opposition, is that worth it to you--as an individual--so you can say you're right?
Is this the same Peter who lives in Santa Barbara and likes good coffee? I can't tell if your comment on theology is a compliment or sarcastic. From that Peter, who engaged with me with respect as a fellow human, it would have been a compliment.
You are not as clever as you think. How did the UNICORN (obvious ALLEGORICAL being) get caught?
If you knew that you would not keep missing so many important facets on this matter.
I travel the world many times & often & no find any instinctive , well read or emphatic person laughing at IDEA of Unicorns.
Only the childish use them as examples of mental instability as the most powerful families use them in their menagerie of creatures representing gods, & gods are aspects of NATURE THEY CONTROL.!
To demean & dismiss Unicorn as pathetic fantasy is overt psy-op from families that take such symbols very seriously & do not wish you to know what the hell you are really discussing, or to make you look like a laughing stock in their eyes I think.
Very poor analogy there. Some very crippled angles of view also!
The 'middle ages' is most impressive age of WRITTEN human history with many great inventions- it is called Dark for political reasons as well as sociological games- the Renaissance is when the worse horrors began & ushered in INDUSTRY & the mental sickness of Capitalism.
What connection does MEDICI have in this ? If you do not know you should.
UNICORNS certainly do exist as symbolic hybrid being, & the most powerful families use such symbol all over - so those laughing about Unicorns being silly imaginary creatures ALWAYS transpire to be a bit stupid & not even know what important resonance & HIDDEN SCIENCE of NATURE such myths contain.
Even 'I'm so brainy' KEN wheeler who knows much of magnetism is idiot when he discuss Unicorns like giggling infant soiling his own underpants.
The Dark Age occurred when some celestial object (comet or something) created a period of literal cold and dark (a nuclear winter, if you like). Crops failed, people starved, people reverted back to a more primitive state - as tends to happen when things get desperate.
This is also why the great cathedral building age happened during the medieval warm period where higher temperatures caused abundant crops and everyone was well fed and had the free time and energy to focus on cultural projects.
Unicorns and viruses exist as social/ cultural phenomena. Yes. They are not real in the literal sense.
You have swallowed the propaganda on the 'dark ages' when it was an age of illumination.
I suggest you revise what you 'believe' & stick with what you know or have experienced. When you study the period by people of the times you will find no reliable example the 4th -16th had any genuine 'dark period' that was (by standard academia) 13 thousand years ago & was all over the world as MYTHS will prove beyond doubt as MYTHS are allegorical SCIENCE of NATURE not just silly stories for children & perverts.
the allegory & symbolism of the VIRGO/SPICA CULTS UNI-CORN is over 14 thousand years old , while the self destructive capitalist machinery/system died after only a few hundred years (by the 1920s). The Unicorns capture is what is important to comprehend. You prove here you do not even know the tale fully, so why comment as if you KNOW?
It seems to my view that you are still trapped in consumer artefacts of thinking still, without even realising you live in a rapidly decomposing corpse?
You have poor use of British language I think,
do you mean ACTUAL instead of LITERAL- which also is connected to NOVEL like a Novel Virus = a fiction ?
psychologically your reply is more interesting for its stance (very flimsy) over its lack of genuine content.
Nushi said you were shallow & here I see you just regurgitate all the standard cut & paste ' in-the-club' responses- this is the real dilemma with the no-virus followers that makes real people suspicious & repulsed. You no-longer appear capable of decent human interactions Corona Clown.
The argument you persisted in over Unicorns is hilarious considering you use them as potent symbols yourself - to signify a fantasy /illusion.
Throughout the comments to Nushi you never once recognised how the myth of the Unicorn has incredible importance for the entire state of social control & espionage strategy.
Serge is correct that you are a controlled op here to cause antagonism & low-level thought... or you are just a drunk, smug & sanctimonious bore with serious mental health deterioration & anti-social arrogance.
🥱😂 I know biological viruses are fiction dumbo- WTF is your issue here? You keep missing the point like some damaged ChatBot or mental patient getting arsewnaked while you type.
Your time vampire tactics are so overtly from the CIA manual of social sabotage that you are proving the 'no-virus' fanatics (like yourself) are a controlled psy-op, even if they recognise that fact or not.
Lots of good points. Debatt/ discussion is not to agree but to learn. To black or white create walls. Anti virus is a 250 meter skijump. Jabb is dangerous and create sickness is only a 90 meter skijump.
Your argument is laid out pretty coherently with upmost calm even in the face of much derision. I commend you for keeping your cool and not losing the sane ground. I’m not looking into arguing whether or not viruses exist either- the common normie is missing too many inferential steps to jump to that argument. And the fact that those that believe they can strong arm the rest of us into that purity spiral have to resort to ad hominem and censorship (EL Oh the fuck EL) tells me a lot more about their position than any argument they have (even if I’m willing to entertain the concept.)
Well said, Tonika. I'm also willing to entertain the concept, were it not being shoved down my throat. And let's take it next level, while I'm listening to a witchcraft song collection.
As you know, I entertain the possibility that the world doesn't exist. There's no empirical proof for it, other than a consensus among supposedly separate observers. However, that's a circular argument, since our separateness is another observation. If we are One Mind, the world could be our dream, our collective delusion. It's an entirely logical hypothesis, and one of only three for how things came to 'be'--the other two being Creationism and Evolution.
Why does it matter? If it is the TRUTH, then we have nothing to fear. Ever. We can change everything, and we don't need to. We're already getting where we need to go, shitfuckery and all.
There isn't any TRUTH more practical to prove or disprove to ourselves. So the No-Virus agenda isn't going nearly far enough. Let's be willing to doubt the existence of the world.
I reserve the possibility that we’re living in a simulation. :)
But oh, some of these no virus folks got their panties in a bunch. Go out there and touch some grass, guys. Perhaps the hill you’re dying on offers a little green patch.
Does it ruddy matter? When did this stupid game of ‘if you don’t think the same as me you can’t be in my team’ start? Never featured when I was a kid (admittedly back in the post war bliss of bomb sites and food rationing. Gives my heritage away.)
Oooooooh tell me more. I’ve heard you say that before, Tereza, that either god doesn’t exist or the world doesn’t exist or (I’ve forgotten if there was a third option here, please do remind me!).
This is so mind blowing to think about that I feel like my brain might explode contemplating it…
What is the world?
What does “to exist” mean?
How do we know what exists?
Science and empiricism and physicalism have their answers to this. As do different religions and spiritualities. In some Hindu traditions, it’s all an illusion (“maya”). I asked my dad one day, “so - if it’s all an illusion, what’s the point?” He said, “just enjoy the ride. Experience.” I said, “you mean, as in, I’m a spiritual being having a human experience rather than a human being trying to have a spiritual experience?” He nodded, “yeah it’s all a show and you’re playing a part.” And I was like, “oh so it’s all fake and we are all just acting?!”
I don’t know if the world exists or not. It *feels like* it does but feelings are not facts lol. I’m willing to entertain the possibility it doesn’t (at the risk of going insane haha…or being seen as insane (“crackpot” to use your phrase)).
I feel like life would feel even more futile and pointless if I thought nothing existed including myself. If it’s all a dream then…maybe we should all stop caring about genocide in Gaza and bombing of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc because…it’s all an illusion anyway…? 😔 I have to clean the bathtub tomorrow but if my bathtub doesn’t exist - and nor do I - then….maybe I needn’t bother??
Or perhaps this is not what you mean at all when you say the world doesn’t exist - perhaps you mean something like “the world *as an entity separate to ourselves* doesn’t exist “ i.e. we are all interconnected/ all one?? I’m not familiar with ACIM but I have read quite a few of your posts where you talk about this, so I’m sorry if these are silly questions and/or I’ve missed or misunderstood somewhere.
What is it like for you, Tereza? How does your belief (can I call it that?) that the “world does not exist” materially change what you do, how you live? Would it change any of the systems based policies or practices of Terezania (my shorthand for the place you dream of in How to Dismantle an Empire)? What are the implications of “No World” (to use the same language as “no virus”)?
I have to ask you because my brain is stumped by the possibility the world doesn’t exist and I don’t know how to think any further sensible thoughts about anything lol
I recall Winston’s mind falls apart in 1984 as he tried to think about what’s real / true as he’s being tortured by O’Brien. O’Brien says, “metaphysics is not your strong suit”. I worry that a population that believes nothing is real would become a perfect “blank slate” for totalitarian forces to write their stories on. Or maybe not! Maybe they’d be too sceptical to believe anything at all…
I suppose you could counter “I have not seen any evidence for the existence of a virus” with “what evidence do you have to show the world exists?” You could do the flat earthers out of business 😂😂
Oh good! I get to respond to you here, LoWa. I have tabs open to respond to you elsewhere but this has been keeping me occupied between dance classes. And thanks for the clove oil recommendation before my pending root canal. It's calmed down but I'll pick some up as an alternative to washing down Advil with whiskey--although that's been working just fine.
My favorite topic, ultimate reality! You're naming a common objection and I'm happy for a chance to clarify. One of my early readers termed what I do as socio-spirituality: taking a hard look at the reality IN the world while questioning the reality OF the world. The second makes it easier to do the first because you're not weighed down by fear, guilt and blame, none of which are useful.
I don't 'believe' the world isn't real, but I entertain the possibility that it isn't. There are three explanations for the world of perception: One is God the Monster, who created death and pain and suffering because He loves His children SO much. Two is that we hoisted ourselves into existence through monkey genes and millennia of experimentation. I reject the first but hold the second as possible. The third is that we're OneMind Dreaming. This is the only scenario in which Goddess, who is at least as loving a mother as me, is possible.
Let's say that one of my daughters thought she had done something terrible, where I'd hate her for it. In her guilt, she puts herself into a deep coma where she's hiding from me but everything in her dream is out to get her. I can't go into her dream because that would make her dream reality. But I don't want her to suffer, nor do I want to be without her for a moment. So in the midst of eternity and infinity, I make a safe bubble of time and space.
And then I sing, sending my voice into the dream. My word reminds her that I love her, and nothing she could ever do would make me hate her. It lets her create the circumstances she needs, because I would never override her Will, but gently weaves the outcome to be the best--or least worst--for everyone.
These synchronicities are the miracles that scatter hints that this is her dream, and she can make it a good one. Spirit, my voice, is here to help. She's not in it alone. She doesn't need to figure out how it will all work out--she doesn't know enough to decide that. But my Voice knows how everything will effect everyone, including people that figure in the dream will never 'meet.'
So the question isn't why would you bother to change things if you know it's all a dream, but why wouldn't you if you know it's all a dream? Gaza, Lebanon, Iran are as possible to accomplish as cleaning your bathtub. Which reminds me, I need to do that too ...
Goodness me, I need to contemplate this more! So the Spirit / Voice here is like a benevolent force / motherly supra-entity, deep intelligence / connected consciousness…? Why is this Goddess mother letting Gaza happen..?
Sorry I’ve taken this way off topic!! Usual story with our chats haha.
PS on the tooth situation, you might like to check out Jerry Tenant’s work on “voltage is healing” too as he talks about teeth/bones as critical parts of the human electromagnetic circuit. May help with the healing process too 🙏🏾
Happy to go off-road. Spirit can't act in the dream or 'allow' or 'disallow' what we can dream. Spirit doesn't control us, or we would be the slave of Goddess, not her daughter. Spirit can only choreograph events so that what happens is in sync with something else, that makes it turn out for the best.
If it's a dream, Gaza isn't happening. No one is dying because these are all figures in the dream. But can you feel pain and fear in a dream? Absolutely. Every figure in the dream is you. So the 'prosperity consciousness' peeps, who think they can manifest their next rent payment, are missing the point. They think they can attract money but that world peace is too big an ask. What's impossible in a dream? All you have to do is figure out how to resolve it and it's solved. Better yet, trust that Spirit is already resolving it and you are doing your part perfectly.
On the tooth, I have a dead nerve that's part of a bridge where the other tooth just did the same. It calms down and then flares up. There's really nothing for it but a root canal because it will keep getting infected. But it's okay, not bothering me now. Thanks for thinking of it!
I sort of understand because I can already control my dreams as I usually know I’m dreaming and can make myself go invisible or fly or do other supernatural things (or just plain old gymnastics moves I’m too old to do now).
But I need to digest this more, maybe after my next god-like experience in the cold plunge 😂
I hope you don’t mind another comment from me! I’m a curious cat and keen to learn more about your perspective. I’ve been reading the comments and following along here, including your responses to the comments.
I’ve written a bit of a longwinded comment here, which is perhaps tangential to your original post (sorry!!) so I’ll give you the main question up front: “LoWa would love to know how things work in Terezania and on what basis decisions are made about how resources are used.” Again, I use the term Terezania in an affectionate way (I s’pose I could use Crone Island but there’s a lot of lads in this stack haha). So I’m stepping outside of “what is” for a moment and want to enter your vision of “what could be [and how it could be]”.
If I’ve read you correctly, you mentioned that you wouldn’t really change how you live life if you did/did not believe in viruses.
So I was puzzling over this reply to me on Nevermore’s comment thread, which I have taken to mean (please correct me if I’m wrong!) that you *would* change things in Terezania if *other* people believed in viruses. You noted:
“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.”
It’s quite tricky when some people believe very strongly that something will kill them but other people in the community don’t believe that thing even exists…so how do we live well together in this context?? I totes agree it’s not wise to force our beliefs down anyone’s throat so I imagine we will always have this kind of diversity of views in society about what is harmful (eg climate change), what exists (eg weapons of mass destruction), what should be done about it (eg digital currency).
I suppose one could say, “to each their own” (/“that’s their choice”) i.e. everyone takes personal responsibility and does what they feel is best. But it’s super hard because we are interdependent and what we do does affect others — e.g. In this case because the people who would want to mask and self-isolate would feel scared of the people who don’t and maybe not let them into their shops or homes. And no virus people would feel sad and maybe frustrated they can’t hang out with their lovely friends and family so easily because of fear of viruses or if their workplaces made them wear masks because of it. Socially distanced dinners only! And the no virus people might feel additionally frustrated that other causes of disease aren’t getting enough attention like EMF, pesticides, spraying from skies, light pollution…
And I know you aren’t actually saying “to each their own” anyway – i.e. you’re not saying it’s all an individual problem. You’re saying that in Terezania, there should be some kind of diversion of public resources (carets) and policies (store opening hours etc) to support people who are worried about pathogens causing disease.
I remembered a wonderful Christian family living out in the woods I met earlier this year. They were into permaculture and building gorgeous tiny homes. Very loving. They thought not enough attention was being paid to the devil. They said that everything that wasn’t Christian was satanic. (Very lovingly I might add!) They listed meditation, crystal shops, yoga, therapy, tarot, temples, all as places where the devil was lurking. [I was anxious about the hippie Indian pajama pants with Indian spiritual designs (lotus, elephants etc) I was wearing but relieved to see they were wearing hippie pants too, phew!!].
We had a blast weeding the sugarcane and I got to ask them a thousand questions about bible stories. The one I thought was most interesting was where God says that Christians can vanquish and take the lands of and enslave/subjugate any non-Christians anywhere on the planet because everyone and everything not-Christian is satanic and will destroy us all! It was ironic as I was travelling with my indigenous friends who were campaigning about…indigenous rights and loss of land that had been justified using these exact rationale.
If they genuinely believe these things are a threat, in Terezania, should we support them financially for being unable to work because the world is littered with these places and practices? Should we close those places down? Should Christian schools get more funding and funding removed from non-religious schools? Because some people believe there is a “real” threat?
I know I wouldn’t do it (not that I want that sort of power anyway lol) — but I’m sure many in MFM who believe everything except Christianity is satanic might consider these public policies sensible.
If I read your words properly (and I’m always happy to be corrected!), you note that the question of virus existence doesn’t matter (or perhaps shouldn’t matter) and you wouldn’t change anything about how things roll. But your proposed policies in Terezania suggest otherwise, as it sounds like you *would* be willing to change a fair bit from mortgage agreements to shop hours and rental payments and how people are provisioned with food and other essential supplies…So any further commentary on this most welcome as the two positions seem a bit contradictory to me. (I’m sure you’ll tell me about a third way – ‘third paradigm??’ – that reconciles them that I obviously can’t think of right now). :-)
And on an ethical note, in Terezania…I am scratching my head wondering…why should more resources from the commons be diverted to people who hold beliefs that cannot be substantiated? Especially when those resources could go to people who actually need help like the homeless, the elderly, the sick, the struggling. On what basis would it be justifiable for *any* communal resource to go towards a figment of imagination? We have real problems that need solving and the more we divert resources to real problems (instead of fake ones), the better off we will be…I hope!
It’s always a tricky thing of who gets to decide where resources (time, money, attention, practices) are diverted and based on what evidence or rationale…
I guess what I’m trying also to voice here is that I worry that if we believe in the imaginary, we will divert the real (time, resources) in service of the imaginary. As you can see on my other comment, I’m willing to entertain the possibility it’s all imaginary (!). And at the same time, none of us really want to force anyone to believe something against their will - so we will never have “consensus” on what’s real (and therefore what’s really a threat or really beneficial) and what’s imaginary anyway — I like pluralism of spiritual belief and don’t want us boxed into materialism / empiricism rigidly.
So how do we navigate this conundrum more broadly?? How do we make decisions together, live well together, pool our collective resources to achieve shared outcomes in community when we have this diversity of beliefs especially about what is real and what is harmful? How do we dialogue on these issues rather than jumping to extermination or alienation solutions (bombing places with WMD, culling animals, avoiding dangerous people (because germs), quarantine)…? Fear makes us act in crazy ways…So does assumed superiority or feelings of “rightness” as you say (Christian Doctrine of Discovery, great chain of being).
There’s a time and place for force or immediate action - when the threat is real and the solution is obvious. Eg the neighbours’ house is burning down – the fire brigade grabs people to get them out. That’s not the time for dialogue or debate lol. But when some people believe a threat is real and solution is obvious (therefore want to apply force and divert real resources to fighting or resolving the issue) but others don’t…that’s when it gets tangly!!
In Terezania, would you also financially support farmers with carets if they wanted to cull their chickens due to bird flu (therefore had lost $$ earnings), wanted to quarantine their pigs in individual plots due to swine flu, or lost their homes because they killed all their animals which they thought had a particular infectious disease and therefore no way of paying the mortgage anymore? How would you make a call on doing that if that money/carets could’ve gone to support farmers who are doing organic agriculture / permaculture and trialling innovative techniques?
I don’t have answers here, just a lot of questions around how we make agreements around how we want to organise life and do things out there in the public spaces together in these 200,000-person anarchic caret-based, goddess culture communities we are building hopefully very soon…
Funny, I was just thinking of something I'd meant to point out with my ultimate reality post, and how it applies also to my economic plan ... and now to this too. With my economic plan, I tell people it's not enough to critique it. What you have to compare it to is your plan--or the existing model, which someone without a plan is endorsing. You need to put your rooster in the ring.
With ultimate reality, the same is true. It's arguing your own theory for how things came about, whether that's creationism or evolution or something else.
And the management of the commonwealth is the same. I think we could even look at the hamlet of 2000 people and compare our proposals for how we'd solve different problems. But you do point out a discrepancy where I broke my own rule. In order to be anarchic, distribution of carets has to be equal for every member of the community. It can't be paid as salaries, only as subsidies. And, if I defer mortgage payments to bankers, it makes no difference. But if the mortgage payments are being distributed equally every month in advance, will it throw off the balance of money in to money out if I defer mortgage payments while businesses are shut down?
That's a good question for the simulation program. How would you handle it in LoWaLand if another pandemic was announced? It's bound to happen.
Quick thanks for these and the other thoughtful comments! Can’t wait to dig in. I’m just racing around for rest of my weekend but will reply next weekend, hopefully sooner. Hope the root canal goes well 🙏🏾🙏🏾
I'll respond to you here to catch both you and SF. I think your challenges of this will save me years of grief, if my plan did come to fruition. Because it does make me realize that it's a slippery slope into having all the problems and internal conflicts of the community laid at the feet of my caret system. I need to be clear at the outset about what it does, for who, in what order of priority, and make the mantra to everything else: 'not my problem.'
The first priority is to protect Social Security, since the trust fund is what capitalizes it. The second is to protect the community's assets in public funds and property. The third is to protect the private assets in bank accounts and property that are placed within its system. The fourth is to distribute the collective mortgages equally in advance to all commoners (as defined by the community but must include anyone raised there) to stimulate the exchange of services and locally produced goods.
Just working my way back around to our many comment threads!
Ok, I think I get it - so your plan is an economic / finance plan. So I’ll disregard the previous comments on mortgage relief, business closures, etc!
Do you have any thoughts on how decision-making occurs or is that outside the scope of your plans? Just thinking (viruses aside), there are loads of communal challenges we need to bang our heads together and agree upon how our collective resources will be used to achieve shared outcomes…and this is tricky to do even within groups of a few hundred people let alone 200,000!
Eg should we keep the local forest commons as native forest or use it for development to support the growing population or allow mountain bikes / quad bikes (but this will major it noisy) and hunting (may make it unsafe for local communities who just want to take their kids for a walk but may provide local source of wild game)?
Eg should we use our pooled resources to build more roads / wider roads since we have an awful congestion problem or more cycle lanes (but harder for people with kids or disabilities) or encourage working from home more or invest more in buses or trains?
Eg should we increase the size of the local swimming pool as it’s pretty cramped at the moment or build a separate pool in another location that a different neighbourhood can reach more easily or invest that money in using ozone rather than chlorine to keep pools clean?
Who would make these kinds of decisions in Terezania? How do they make them? On what basis? I appreciate if your plan doesn’t propose a mechanism or principles for decision-making as that is probably upto the community to decide??
In the environmental space there is a technique called “mediated modelling” which is modelling with people rather than for people - I.e. building a shared picture of reality together with people from different walks of life (environmental activists, developers, industry, government, farmers, etc). You get together in a room over a series of workshops and co-create the shared picture together. This isn’t a decision-making framework but more a collaborative process for doing some of the “homework” together before we start deciding anything.
So in my examples that’d mean getting on the same page about things like :
Forest problem:
- the evidence for the impacts of medium density housing on human wellbeing vs low density housing
- evidence for impact to ecosystems from quad bikes
- evidence for level of danger posed by hunters in areas where people go on hikes and evidence for effectiveness of strategies to mitigate this
- etc.
Road problem:
- evidence for impact of roads eg on stormwater overflow (compared to “sponge city” models), human health, pollution that ends up in streams or sea
- evidence for human behaviour and how it changes eg if new road built or wider road (Jevron’s paradox?? Do we use it more inefficiently which exacerbates the issue?) or bike lanes installed (do drivers ignore them)
- evidence for beneficial (reducing congestion) and harmful impact of electric buses and trains (EMF exposure, blue light toxicity, unreliability) and how effective mechanisms to mitigate these are
Swimming pool:
- evidence for damage to cells by chlorine vs ozone (depending on degree / frequency of exposure, or in skin type?) and if health benefits of swimming far outweigh harms of chlorine
- evidence for level of community demand over pool in different parts of town
Examples only! I know things like healthcare, food distribution, and probably everything else is not your problem…but everything requires “how do we make decisions about how resources are used” (some resources of which are being made available via your system…mortgages?), but surely even within the scope of your plan there are decisions to be made about how to protect social security, public funds and property, private assets, distribute collective mortgages…or are those things not up for debate? Who decides that and enforces it?
I’m assuming it’s Queen Tereza but happy to be corrected 😊
I meant it sincerely, LoWa, that you and SF had saved me from self-sabotaging my plan before it even got started. Back at the beginning of 'two weeks to flatten the curve,' when I believed there was something real happening, I had come up with various ways that we could 'shelter in place' and gradually expand, that wouldn't have violated anyone's sovereignty as individuals or as a community. It really could have been a lovely time, that started with families and households, then opened into blocks socializing, then neighborhoods, and kept community open spaces--like the beach for us--only for locals for that time, restricting tourists. Within 2-3 mos, we would have known that no outside virus could reach us and the 'pandemic' would be over.
But your objections reminded me that it's a slippery slope once the ironclad rule is broken that all caret dividends have to be distributed equally. The exception I've thought possible is that any private money contributed towards community projects would be matched--and there should likely be parameters put on that.
When I've joked about being Czarina of my fiefdom, let me explain what I mean. What's set in stone in my plan is the formula for the maximum carets you can distribute: Debt + Tax + X*Cash; that Social Security has to be distributed at the same or greater rate; that carets have to be distributed equally to all commoners; and that everyone needs to be a commoner of somewhere by your definition. And that all proposals for caret distribution be modeled in an on-line game where the 'winner' maximizes the exchanges of local goods and services within three years.
Every community is different. So the winning proposals wouldn't be the same. Variables include the rate of exchange you set for carets to the imperial currency--X in the formula above. And you'd set the tax on carets exchanged locally vs. dollars (or other imp curr) spent outside. You'd determine the interest rate you want to give the Soc Sec Fund or long term savings, and the maximum amount that can get that, maybe determined by age. They would set the maximum amount of imp curr per month that can be exchanged for carets at a 1:1 ratio. They'd set the maximum wages for earning carets.
The size at which these plans can differ is the hamlet, around 2000 people, not the commonwealth of 200,000. If there's a discrepancy in how many carets one community gets vs another--because the cost of housing is higher--they can decide if they'll accept those carets at the same rate or a lesser ratio.
The only decision-making I'm concerned with are the rules and tools: what needs to be consistent and what variables do the communities have to work with. The particulars would be left to them. Does that make sense?
Ok I think I understand what you’re saying about the decision-making. And I need to eat some food and work through your maths formula with some real numbers to get that to go into my brain! (If you’ve already done a sample calculation on your substack, would love to read). Maybe SF can help you make a cartoon video like this one?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N7oD5zrBnc 😊
Excellent reasoning and questioning here. 👏🏽 I particularly appreciate “On what basis would it be justifiable for *any* communal resource to go towards a figment of imagination?” And the point about all the animals being killed for these so-called flus.
Thank you for your thoughtful reflections on the ongoing “no-virus” controversy. While I fully agree that dogmatism, rhetorical aggression, and factionalism can fracture any movement, I believe your assertion that the “no-virus” position is—or must be—a psyop is both unsupported and unnecessarily inflammatory. More importantly, I believe the issue deserves to be reframed in its proper historical and epistemological context.
The foundational debate around contagion is not new, nor is it a phenomenon birthed from internet contrarianism. It dates back at least two centuries to the famous 19th-century dispute between Max von Pettenkofer and Robert Koch. Pettenkofer, a chemist and hygienist, advocated that disease arose primarily from environmental and constitutional factors—what we would now recognize as terrain theory. In contrast, Koch’s germ theory posited that specific microorganisms were the singular cause of specific diseases. This disagreement was not academic: Pettenkofer famously ingested a sample of cholera bacteria from Koch to demonstrate that the microbe alone was not sufficient to cause disease in a healthy individual.
This act, often mischaracterized as eccentric defiance, in fact highlighted a deeply rooted—and scientifically legitimate—dispute. That germ theory ultimately prevailed was not simply due to stronger empirical validation but rather because it aligned closely with emerging pharmaceutical, technocratic, and political interests. This is a pattern we continue to witness today.
And this is, I believe, the central problem we face: not merely whether viruses exist, but the vast institutional and economic systems constructed atop the assumption that they do, and that they operate according to the mechanisms germ theory describes. The dominance of this paradigm has been sustained not through transparent scientific discourse, but by systemic propaganda and suppression of dissent. Its role as a doctrinal pillar supports not only the vaccine industry but also the public health justifications for lockdowns, quarantines, and contact tracing—all predicated on the unproven notion of viral contagion.
You raise a fair concern that elements of the “no-virus” movement use inflammatory rhetoric or behave in bad faith. I do not deny that intentional disinformation agents may exist within that space. However, as I have stated directly to Mr. Mees Baaijen, not everyone engaging with this issue is on the same "team". Intellectual dissent must not be conflated with sabotage. Moreover, Mr. Baaijen has himself publicly conceded that he does not possess the depth of virological expertise necessary to debate this issue rigorously. That admission can be found here:
Given that, it is concerning that your article forwards the claim that “no-virus” is a psyop with no substantiated evidence. This kind of speculative labeling closely mirrors the tactics used by mainstream actors to delegitimize dissent—precisely the sort of intellectual shortcut that undermines the very credibility we are all striving to preserve. If we are to claim scientific and moral high ground, we must resist the urge to dismiss or stigmatize others based on theoretical disagreement alone.
You correctly point out that belief in viruses undergirds the vaccine industry, but I would emphasize that it also justifies the entire apparatus of pandemic response. Without belief in contagious viral spread, there is no rationale for lockdowns, mass testing, digital IDs, or behavioral surveillance. And yet, despite these profound societal implications, there is still no direct, peer-reviewed, methodologically sound evidence demonstrating natural viral transmission under real-world conditions.
This article documents a consistent pattern of failed transmission studies, including recent controlled experiments published in 2021, 2022, and 2024, that fail to support the central premise of natural viral contagion. If you maintain that viral contagion is a legitimate biological process, I respectfully challenge you to provide a single peer-reviewed study that demonstrates natural transmission while accounting for critical experimental controls and confounding variables as outlined in my work.
Moreover, if we are to assess the validity of the theory that viruses exist and cause disease, it is essential to evaluate its foundational hypotheses. In this regard, the entire field of virology rests primarily on two assumptions:
- Contagion – That disease is spread from person to person via infectious viral particles.
- Cytopathic Effect (CPE) Specificity – That visible cellular damage in culture (CPE) is uniquely indicative of a virus.
Both hypotheses have now been falsified, and thus the entire theoretical framework built upon them warrants reconsideration:
If you or your readers are in possession of experimental evidence that invalidates these findings, I am open—indeed eager—to examine it in detail.
In conclusion, the true threat to any truth-seeking movement is not internal disagreement but the refusal to allow honest challenges to foundational assumptions. Pettenkofer’s contributions were not dangerous to science—they were indispensable. Likewise, today’s dissenters should not be caricatured as saboteurs. If your goal is to raise the standard of discourse and improve public understanding, I invite you to help create a space where these questions can be debated openly, rigorously, and respectfully.
I look forward to any evidence or arguments you might bring to bear on this important discussion.
So snide, Matthew, "My response here was directed to Mr. Baaijen, with whom I’ve previously engaged in conversation. Our discussion has progressed beyond the points you’ve raised here." Translated: I've already browbeaten him into saying he doesn't have enough knowledge to debate virology, so I win. However your debate with Mr. Baaijen has NOT progressed beyond the points I raised. You're still berating him for saying that No-Virus is a psyop rather than engaging WITHIN the psyop like you want him and me to.
I repeat my questions here:
My article is not on the science of virology but on the motivations and conduct of “team no-virus." Address the issues I've raised and answer the question of my article. Why do anti-vaxxers need to agree that there are no viruses, in your view? Will this help their credibility with pro-vaxxers or hurt it? Have you tested this hypothesis with pro-vaxxers in your personal life? What were the results? If your experiments, like mine, show that it will hurt our credibility, those pushing for agreement want to discredit the opposition to vaccines. That would include you, as someone willing to use coercion on anti-vaxxers rather than test your arguments with those whose behavior you purport to want to change. Tell me why this matters to you, and don't give me the BS that 'truth' matters because I have 1000 other 'truths' in my blog that you likely care nothing about. Why is this issue the one you want to stake your reputation on? And how have you tested your theory for why we should all stake our reputations on it?
hola, tereza, one of your best articles. it really directs our attention to the nature of controlled opposition. (and your look at what soph, sasha's daughter, says of latypova is very important too.)
i paused here when the image of the bourne identity thesis came forward, the mk-ultra-ed super warriors. are some of the vitriolic and virulent narrative drivers a part of that grand design? hmmmm. programmed in some way to be destructive without awareness? expressing craziness in one place, and reasoned argument elsewhere?
less speculative to me was my own initial forays into the no-virus people. i quickly disregarded most of them because they were histrionically tribal in exactly the way the convid managers had used tribalism to manipulate. so, to me, i recognised that some of their arguments were sound and well argued and researched. which doesn't mean that the are the truth-speakers for all truth!
i began to write about this and to examine terrain theory. which is not adequate to explain everything, although it is critically important, of course. i spent some time with virus-truth people, and made some gentle-counter arguments and was, by at least one of them, attacked as not being one of the good guys.
so... is the near-hysterical tribalism of the no-virus group part of the carefully crafted controlled opposition? is it a manifestation of a psyche wedded to dogmatism in place of truth-seeking, a kind of downstream effect of a bullied culture that demands an absolute truth and the vilification of those evil truth-deniers? fascinating questions in fascinating times!
as i've argued elsewhere, the tribalism of the mfm in its various guises is actually a perfect mirror of the necromongers who know their dogmatic truth and the final solution: it is the other guys who are the problem and they need to be controlled at worst and killed at best. whenever a mfm group or even individual likewise knows their truth dogmatically, they like the necromongers look to control the truth deniers and with a similar energy look to their truth deniars to be killed, at least metaphorically most of time. to whatever extent the mfm hysterics separate the world into a deserving (smart) us and undeserving stupid them, they are energising the exact same energy-field of the necromongers who have done that exact same thing!
we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us!
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
Well written, Guy. Thanks for adding your own experience here, and for responding on the Sasha article, which I'll get to. It's a very nuanced observation you make, I would expect no less from you.
It can be really frustrating at times to get people to see they're being fooled. Just looking at my own journey it took nearly 5 years to go from "hmm something's fishy about this vaccine" to "wait a minute is this virus even real" to "no evidence for viruses exists, they didn't even manage to prove contagion" and the first half of the journey was reading mostly articles of what turned out to be controlled opposition, pretending to be vaccine-critical but still pushing the virus and vaccination narrative.
While some people can be very articulate and calm, not everybody has this quality, I get frustrated myself sometimes and when I notice I just stop typing and come back to it later when I formulated a better answer in my mind.
The most frustrating is that those who have the strongest opinions have often spent zero time learning about the subject, and refuse to watch any video or read any article on the subject, instantly dismissing them as conspiracy drivel, regardless of credentials or content.
By the way if you got this far reading, I see you've read up on terrain theory and found it inadequate to explain everything. I'd like to point you at German New Medicine and their Five Biological Laws, which is compatible with Béchamp's work, but provides a much more complete picture of disease and health.
yes, read to the bottom. i have come to the realisation that the lovely phrase 'strong opinion' often is a cover for 'i have *the* truth and everyone has to listen to me or are f*ng stupid undeserving morons*.' which is what much — not all — of the no-virus group have fallen into.
now the necromongers controlling the dissemination of 'knowledge' and its controlled opposition are well aware of this, so that becomes part of the babel-fication around 'truth'. the creation of absolute truthism is a poison far more pernicious than even perfectionism becomes it creates a deserving/undeserving divide that absolves us from the responsibility to converse with curiosity and respect.
in general, it seems to me that it is the preacher who doesn't *really* believe the truth of god who shouts god's truth the loudest. another way to phrase that is that when an actual truth is truly heard, it need be spoken only once. a lie, on the other hand, needs to be repeated often at increasing volumes. or, more subtlety, if someone is preaching a 'real' truth and yet doesn't actually believe that it is truth, omg! that will be shrill and cancel culture extraordinaire. or dead — that was carl jung's experience when he realised his father, a pastor(?) did not actually believe in god and the bible was a soulless job that fed the family and paid the bills.
so, wtf to do?
perhaps the best 'lie' to yell is the one the yeller doesn't know is a lie. so.... from a very general psychological perspective, my intuitive process and my gut and the basic psychology of cancellation and defamation by many no-virus 'ideologues' is that the no-virus shrill is coming from a place of insecurity, ie, not being calm in the truth of their truth. does that mean that the no-virus stand is absolutely false? certainly not. my current state of thought is that while terrain theory is not necessarily complete — not sure about that 'truth' yet — the argument against something virus-like is not off the table. i am convinced, and my intuition supports the position, that virus-truth as promulgated is a psyop that was done to make the human animal afraid of nature and to convince it that the human is weak and untrustworthy against evil nature. beautiful! so when we cannot trust our human nature and our human extreme resilience and strength and power, who are you going to call? yup the experts. none of them being narcissistic in any way, because they never gas-light let alone lie to their self aggrandisement or pecuniary gain! not at all!
and this nature thing is far far far more complex than even our most sophisticated-looking theories can account for. placebo/nocebo being a tiny bit of powerful evidence of the role of mind/psychology as part of the 'terrain'. what about the physical phenomena of 'spontaneous' physically changes that occur with bodies housing multiple personalities when cigarette burns disappear and re-appear as alternate personalities become dominant? what does it mean that we are resonant energy frequencies? that the materiality of atoms is that they aren't material? is there even the existence of a boundary separating the body from life? to what extent does a mind-'virus' kill the ability to feel emotion and how does that affect the terrain? what is the significance of quantum entanglement (aka gautama buddha's idea of dependent co-arising) in the terrain? even what might the relative nature (or even non-existence) of time at an energetic level mean for the terrain? why is it that morals are able to kill compassion and rationalise suffering as a good thing? and an infinite set of other questions beyond that for just this tiny part of our experience as expressions of life.
the necromongers sow confusion and the biggest one is to be confused with the need to know with absolute certainty the absolute 'truth'. what? how can that happen in a brain the size of nothing against just the *complexity* let alone material scope of the universe's expansive diversity. for me, the less humour and the more demanding and castigating the truth *teller*, the more i discount the information *source*. not necessarily the 'information' lest i toss baby out with the bathwater.
again, the necromongers controlling the conversation know this. so, does the level of shrillness mean that 'absolute' truth is in, in 'fact', the no-virus model and that the necromongers are actively supporting shrillifying that truth so people will be repulsed by the presentation? hmmmm. or that people who are absolutists have fallen into an absolute truth-trap and don't see that their railing against skeptics is the same energy that had schemelweis locked up in an insane asylum for suggesting hygienic practices? other?
i've come to a place with 'real' yama-grounded yoga and an interesting set of experiences to trust the truth of my body. it knows what is true for it in this moment. so, i now listen to my body about these kinds of things, relax, and kind of laugh at this staged mixed-medical-arts octagon while the organisers of it profit from the earnest combatants who don't see the theatre nor its owners lure of the lucre and immortality through vampiric death obsessions.
now, the question i pose to you, Muad'Dib, did you read to here? (and if curious, i have recently begun teaching this body-truth technique. in my 10 years of actively using and refining it, it hasn't failed to provide me with growth. and it was what kept me from taking the injection in 2021 despite a huge amount of social and financial pressure to do so and my complete ignorance about everything 'vaccine'. not knowing the truth then about that injection, i trusted the truth awareness of my body. with its relief i gave up my job and my life with mortgage and debt in canada to become a refugee from canada's medical tyranny and its active demands for the injection of a profoundly clever poison using a faked plandemic to 'convid' the population to roll up their collective sleeves against something that certainly doesn't exist in this theatre of death.)
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
Excellent reply, Guy. I certainly read to the end, with gusto! It's very well put that the psyop may be to reject virus skepticism along with the no-virus gang. As I've often said, propaganda is the truth interwoven with lies. If you recognize the truth and swallow the lies, they win. If you recognize the lies and reject the truth, they win. There's no shortcut to keeping your discernment in picking apart the arguments point by point.
Also, in Mees' response to Muad'Dib, he noted that he met the pattern for most of the no-virus gang (of the over 1000 comments he's had on his posts): a Substack less than 6 mos old with only reposts, sometimes 10 a day, but no original material. After seeing the response here, I have no doubt it's a psyop.
hola, tereza. thank you for you kind words and the lovely reminder of the psyop players on top of bots here in substack. i will take time to poke around the commentator's profiles a bit more. often i do a quick look, although this time i didn't — a particularly time constrained day, despite or in part because of, my fingers itching to elaborate on psyop. (i didn't mention how mk-ultra's nlp via project mockingbird has very likely really screwed all of our brains in some way! [smh. yikes. aren't even these thoughts my own?]
and even if 'just' a psyop muad'dib's response prompted me to work through in a more or less coherent way why it is important to distrust everything in this 'world' of humans without losing trust in this world within which we humans are housed.
it was a fun write for me, and to see how my ideas within this truth-octagon-theatre have been evolving. yes, are we able to step out of the stage into the theatre? and the, perhaps, out of the theatre itself while retaining our humanity by removal our moral need for singular absolute truths. omg! this world really does have a wicked sense of humour: the need for a multiplicity of singular truths. no wonder the ideologues, like woke silliness, get their underwear twisted in knots: not that truth this one, by not seeing that they are diametrically opposite and cannot co-exist with the highest levels of delusion.
You guys (Guy and Tereza) are deep thinkers and we appreciate your well thought-out responses. We all want clarity in this pile of info-BS we get fed and its hard to discern what is true, because of the complexity.
Guy, you make a good point. We should be okay with a little gray area in truth, or it will tilt toward fanaticism.
yes, peter. and i appreciate your kind words. (and laughed a little at 'deep thought' because it brings to mind the imagery of 'deep thought' in the hitchikers guide to the galaxy — a giant computer, earth, being managed by rats!)
surety of our truth at any given moment is a kind of hubris that can easily become fanaticism and the source of our own tragedies while using truth-morality to kill the non-believers. and that is what the practice of yama-yoga is to offset. 'real' yoga is not the postures, which are a subset of yoga and not sufficient within themselves for most people to find union with being calm in mind and body. yoga at its core is to rest comfortably and with equanimity in uncertain truth. or as gautama buddha put it, to walk with equanimity the middle path.
[smh] i've had so many absolute truths embarrass me for either naïveté or other failures of perception, that i now rest comfortably in truth as a hypothesis. lol! language is so troubling, because is *that* stand standing me in *absolute truth*? [rotfl.]
perhaps the test of resting in a 'real' truth outside of 'limited real' truths is a combination of humour and curiosity. those who have lost their senses of humour and curiosity, even if speaking a truth, have lost what might be some kind of real truth. when we fall into truth speak instead of truth seek, that is when cancel culture and death to the non-believers becomes de rigueur.
it is fascinating that 'the great apocalypse' means the great unveiling to that (truth) which has been hidden (by the necromongers(?)). hmmmm. when the lies are seen control of choice aligns with truth more easily. hmmmm.
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
It matters because there is no scientific evidence in the literature anywhere at all that demonstrates that virus exists. None. Nothing. Nada.
That's pretty significant.
It means that those that believe they do exist are simply that - believers. The belief in virus as an article of faith. Or more accurately a result of mind control.
Not only do I not 'believe' in viruses, but I don't believe in believing--which is making up your mind in advance of new facts and experience. I'm agnostic on the question because it wouldn't change how I live day to day (which is unafraid of other people when they're sick--ask my daughters) and it isn't something that I see as helpful for changing the power that a small group of people have over the rest of us in the world. Please explain to me how it would do the latter, unless you just see this as a way to score points with your buddies.
I like your use of the word agnostic here. I am agnostic on most things. But my research into 'viruses', 'germs' and disease over the last 5 years has freed me from a lifetime of conditioning, and it does indeed change the way I live. I am freer and feel more natural as a creature upon the earth, more true to who I am.
Hmmm ... are you saying, Tobin, that I should become a believer for my own good? Where have I heard that before?
I don't know if I had the same lifetime of conditioning that you did. I come from hardy German stock where my grandmother was often quoted as saying you have to eat a peck of dirt before you die. As my brother always replied, 'Why do I want to die?'
Also I read a meme that, due to inflation, food that falls on the floor for 8.3 seconds can now be eaten ;-)
If you feel freer, more natural and more true to who you are, good for you. I feel the same after 20 yrs of studying A Course in Miracles. I'd venture to say that Ultimate Reality--its topic--is the most important question we could be debating. Right? But I don't feel it's my place to tell other people what truths they should be questioning, much less accepting. Certainly not for their own good.
Always happy to find myself in your camp, Anne. I remember you were one of the first to 'like' my first article on Malone, back when he was promoting your cartoons. It was such an excellent refusal to be 'captured' even by someone on our side giving you an audience. I've always admired you for it.
I appreciate your saying this, Tereza! I like to be in your camp as well. Yesterday I was going through your posts trying to catch up with your take on things. I’m so impressed by the depth of your knowledge, and how far back in history you go. Normally, I like to print things out to read but that’s not possible with yours or I’d be running out of ink every other day. Will try to watch your videos. What you explore is fascinating and paradigm-shifting. Your posts about Germany between WWI and WWII were blowing my mind, and I only had to time skim them. I wish there was an eighth day in the week I could spend reading from sunup to far after sundown to explore various threads of history and weave something out of it all.
SO kind of you to say, Anne, and SO meaningful coming from you!
I share your love of real paper. I was chatting with my youngest daughter yesterday about wondering if Substack was a 'cull-de-Stack.' There are so many little disputes that seem to become big dramas, and then all the PsyOperators and argument bots and people who act like they are ...
It also feels like people are more immersed in their lives again, and the need for online community is less. That's okay with me, since it wasn't my intent and was a double-edged sword anyway, putting pressure to agree with the group.
She suggested maybe I do something different for awhile. I mentioned that I'd re-bought Scrivener, the writing tool I used to organize my book. And I was thinking to start putting my writing into book form. I have so many I want to write! To name a few: OMGdess, WW2ruth, A House for the Soul in the Land Beyond Faith, Dragon Dreaming (ACIM as a children's book), Revolutionary Mystics and How to Become ONE, and How to Build a Commonwealth (the 2nd book in A 2020 Vision series).
My alchemy cards were just giving me winter--just after summer solstice here in the US--and the ouroboros, silver and the new pearl. All about putting in time and going deep, being a hermit, polishing. So I'm thinking to devote myself to book writing again and still do the 'stack, but take time for me and not always reacting. I love that you appreciate how far back I go. Thank you for that encouragement!
Yes you should put your writing in book form! Please pretty please 🙏🏾So we sun-lovers can read it out on the grass in the sun. I got a printer for my birthday for this very purpose though sadly my laptop is too old to load substack (everything gets garbled) so I can’t easily print articles from here yet to save my eyeballs.
I think Cull-de-Stack is a great pun in more ways than one — I can’t help but think this platform is getting more social media-ish with Notes and things and dragging people into a dopamine spiral of endless scrolling…killing (culling) our brains with blue light. How do you come up with these endlessly brilliant puns?!
PS on the topic of paper and going analogue, have you seen the Daylight Computer? Made by an Indian guy Anjan Katta in the US, meant to be for helping people get off tech addiction and work outside more by removing all blue light, making the screen visible even in direct sunlight and possibly also reducing the EMFs too. Just been listening to Nick Pineault’s podcast with Anjan Katta on this.
So now we can all get the sun on our skin while doing non-addictive, non-draining feel thinking work using tech!
Ha, that is quite the contradiction! I haven't heard of the Katta Daylight Computer. I first read this reply however with an annoying glare on my screen, so I gave up and went inside. And didn't respond for another two days. Okay, I'm going to close the laptop and go doodle my working plan for OMGdess. Fie on both your houses, Microsoft and Apple!
Well I’ll applaud this article from the rooftops Tereza! I’ve long been suspicious of Yeadon and a happy band of travellers in UK I once thought were part of the ‘resistance’. I’ve called Yeadon out 2 or 3 times in the past year or so and he’s had the temerity so call me 77th (British Army brigade of internet sniffers). The insult alone does not sit well alongside a fighter for truth. Nor does his claim of spending a million quid of his own money over the preceding five years trying to wake people up. Well that’s about £550 a day which is pretty high living whichever way you look at it. (He took that post down pretty quick by the way). This happy band of travellers also includes Oliver, Delingpole, Miriaf, Malik plus a few more whose names I forget in my dotage. All comrades in arms once upon a time. All people you turned to from about 2020 to 2024 roughly. But now with things looking up (granted there’s a long way to go) they are turning the misery ratchet tighter and tighter and ramping up the fear because any psy-operative worth their salt knows fear is low energy vibration which renders people impotent. There’s a coincidence. Not an optimistic syllable between them. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts eh? Such a shame, particularly here in the UK where the weather is also celebrating its freedom with the most spectacular summer since 1976 ( which for a young man in his twenties was a wonderful time for making hay. I can reminisce at least.) Don’t trust these people unless they tell you ‘yes we can, because that is what we came to do. Raise the vibration.’ Not bloody well depress it: alway a clue. Thanks for this post, really welcomed it. As for virus /no virus who cares? What matters is your truth and integrity, not what team you support.
What I have learned after answering hundreds of often aggressive and insulting comments on my "NO no-virus" articles can be summarized in two conclusions:
1. The leaders of team no-virus are clearly acting in bad faith: all their publications are misleading and riddled with contradictions, falsifications, omissions, etc (see below). These errors can’t be random and the only explanation that I can give is that they are part of a psy-op, set up and financed by The Powers That Be. That is nothing new: it has been seen in all opposition movements, i.e., cognitive infiltration as described by Cass Sunstein: "… agents should join those online communities and promote a wide range of additional theories, often rather absurd ones, thereby stirring up internal conflicts, diverting the members into theoretical dead-ends, and heavily discrediting them with the broader public."
2. The followers of team no-virus often make ad hominem attacks, probably because they learned it from Tom Cowan, and because their backgrounds in medicine and virological science are – with rare exceptions – insufficient for an academic discussion. Yet their attitude is rarely humble. For the same reason they are also unable to spot the enormous deceit by the leaders. Most of these rude attackers have a quite recent substack account without original posts, but with a facade of restacks. Some have even offered me money, or cooperation with their leaders in research projects. Again, all of this smells psy-op.
And of course, nobody has taken the Loeffler challenge. Please tell me what else can explain his results with foot and mouth disease in 1897, if not a virus (a submicroscopic agent replicating in the host)?
On the misleading publications:
After a quick screening I spotted 3 mayor deceptions in Can you catch a cold, see my post The proof of NO no-virus.
I am not saying that Covid was not a hoax or a scam (it was), or that vaccines are good (they are dangerous and largely unnecessary), or that viruses are a mayor health risk for humans (that was long ago), or that the pharmaceutical industry is benevolent: in my book I call them Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death. I am just saying that viruses do exist (including Covid19), that they can be modified into bioweapons, and that anti-viral drugs can be lifesaving.
I hope that others, who are keeping a skeptical mind, will read the Contagion Myth Comments by Craig Holdrege & Jon McAlice. It's very methodical and clear, looking at methodology and argumentation. I agree with Sally Fallon Morell on many issues in nutrition and particularly that healthy milk from healthy animals doesn't need to be pasteurized. I suspect you agree with that too.
Holdrege and McAlice lay out the fallacies of the arguments against Koch's postulates, starting with the reality that we all have bacteria that may not express as dis-ease unless the conditions of the host or environment are weakened. They seem to use virus, bacterium and pathogen interchangeably.
Jeremy Hammond also has an easy-to-follow style, if that can be said for scientific technical papers. I recommend this one to everyone who keeps linking ViroLIEgy: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/12/15/mike-stone-proves-my-point-about-the-dogma-of-virus-denialism/. Using someone's own words to show their contradictions is one of my favorite techniques, and Jeremy does it well. And, of course, his focus on Palestine endears him to me further.
What is evident to me is that we're all in agreement on 99% of the points. We would be a force to be reckoned with, as more people are connecting the vaccine as cause to their effects. There are PsyOperators who've been preparing for this moment, to make sure that doesn't happen. I agree with you fully that this is planned and coordinated.
Your article, Mees, makes excellent points about how the bio-terrorism labs, as I term them, have made naturally occurring viruses more deadly. The No-Virus camp gives bioweapons a get-out-of-jail-free card. No virus, no bioweapons! And the anti-viral drugs like ivermectin, with no patents, will again be discredited from our own side.
Thanks for adding your research and insights to psychological manipulation here, Mees.
Thank you for continuing to engage with this complex and often contentious topic. Since you've referred again to the motivations and conduct of “team no-virus,” I’d like to offer a response—one that builds on our earlier exchange in the comment section of your article on this topic, in which you yourself acknowledged not having the technical depth to debate virology comprehensively.
It’s disappointing to see you now generalizing that the “leaders of team no-virus” are engaged in a psy-op, and that their followers are largely incapable or acting in bad faith. These kinds of sweeping accusations—particularly when accompanied by no specific rebuttals of the arguments presented—risk doing exactly what you criticize: reducing discourse to tribalism and ad hominem character attacks.
For example, you repeatedly cite Loeffler’s 1897 experiment as decisive evidence for viral contagion, yet you have not directly addressed the methodological limitations of that study, or engaged with the controlled experiments outlined in my paper:
This includes more than 150 peer-reviewed transmission studies that failed to produce infection under natural conditions, despite deliberate exposure. I ask again: if viral contagion is scientifically settled, why has it proven so difficult to demonstrate under controlled conditions?
Your reference to Jeremy Hammond’s work is noted, but again, unless you engage directly with the core falsifications being presented—particularly around contagion and the non-specificity of cytopathic effects (CPE)—you’re not rebutting the argument. You're sidestepping it. Here is the corresponding analysis on CPE, which forms the other leg of the virology model:
If you believe these findings are incorrect, I would respectfully ask you to demonstrate where the analysis fails—on methodological, logical, or empirical grounds. Simply attributing the authorship or citation of such work to a psy-op does not qualify as a refutation.
Finally, I must repeat what I stated before: not everyone discussing this topic is aligned in method or motive or on the same "team". I am not here to defend rhetoric, personalities, or publishing style. I am here to interrogate assumptions using data and logic. That’s the only way to move this discussion forward.
You and I agree on several fundamental concerns: that COVID-19 was exploited as a political and economic tool, that the pharmaceutical industry cannot be trusted, and that censorship of dissent is unacceptable. But if we truly value intellectual honesty, then we must allow serious challenges to the core assumptions of modern virology—not just critiques of its abuses.
I remain open to any concrete, peer-reviewed evidence you wish to present demonstrating natural viral transmission or the virus-specificity of CPE.
Hi Matthew. My article is not on the science of virology but on the motivations and conduct of “team no-virus." Address the issues I've raised and answer the question of my article. Why do anti-vaxxers need to agree that there are no viruses, in your view? Will this help their credibility with pro-vaxxers or hurt it? Have you tested this hypothesis with pro-vaxxers in your personal life? What were the results? If your experiments, like mine, show that it will hurt our credibility, those pushing for agreement want to discredit the opposition to vaccines. That would include you, as someone willing to use coercion on anti-vaxxers rather than test your arguments with those whose behavior you purport to want to change. Tell me why this matters to you, and don't give me the BS that 'truth' matters because I have 1000 other 'truths' in my blog that you likely care nothing about. Why is this issue the one you want to stake your reputation on? And how have you tested your theory for why we should all stake our repurations on it?
My response here was directed to Mr. Baaijen, with whom I’ve previously engaged in conversation. Our discussion has progressed beyond the points you’ve raised here.
At best there's a group of (medical) truth-seekers who have independently come to the same conclusion and found themselves united, are sharing each others findings and even funding lab research to do the control experiments the industry should have done themselves before putting even a single vaccine on the market.
We are united in the fact that there's no scientific proof for viruses, germ theory, or contagion, but at the same time many of us are in different parts of their journey, and share different opinions as to the motives of those pushing provably poisonous shots for which there is zero regulation as to how much contamination with any substance is allowed to be in there or how much the ingredients may differ from the label.
My main (and heavy) topic of research is the development of criminal power structures in history and how it influences the present and future of humanity. The virus discussion was a side step. I have a general overview of the field, but I am not competent in specific items, and I think I have referred you to Dr. Aldo Dekker earlier on for these matters.
Loeffler had indeed many limitations, but his results were confirmed by later technologies, including genome sequencing and electron microscopic imagining. And I don't see you as part of team no-virus!
Both genome sequencing (which is it itself already bunk) and electron microscopic imaging rely on the disproven cell culture method. You can find literally any supposed virus particle in uninoculated ("virus"-free) cultures as well, as the result is caused by the methodology, not a supposed independent variable (the virus).
Because any transmission study using natural pathways failed to show any contagion, they switched to circular reasoning, by using the cell culture method to "prove" the disease was transmitted to other participants. To account for false positives, they invented the "asymptomatic carrier" concept.
By the way, your substack profile is the same as the other attackers: started 6 months ago, no posts of your own only restacks for window dressing, a handful of subscribers, and just parroting the dogma's and cliche's endlessly, sometimes ten times per day in the same post, without any engagement in the points brought up in the post. Highly suspicious, and I have little doubt that you are part of some campaign to infiltrate substack so people critical on no-virus can be attacked easily.
Glad that you're paying attention to the patterns, Mees. That ability of pattern recognition, as ordinary a skill as it might seem, is what makes you so formidable in putting together all the dots of the centuries (and millennia) old plan for global domination. It's certainly a skill we should be teaching the youth.
This whole comment thread has gotten quite amusing. I know you have plenty of your own evidence you've waded through, but if you have the time and can stomach it, I think you'd be entertained by glancing through.
On my site around a thousand comments were posted on no-virus, my own included (20%?). I haven't been keeping count and statistics (and I banned almost all of them), but probably 20 commenters fitted the above pattern. That can't be a coincidence.
Most of them started their substack account a few months before my first substack post (early March) so it was probably a preventive measure by the cognitive infiltration team.
Many of them disappeared rapidly after I told them that they were part of a pattern (or even worth a Guinness World Record), and did not debate my conclusion, which is also suspicious.
You ignored the commenter's arguments and skipped straight to foundationless accusations. That's what bothers me most about your framing others as part of a psyop. You sidestep the arguments themselves.
Ad hominem is attacking the character of the arguer, Tobin. What Mees does here is list the behaviors and profile that 'Muad' has in common with many of the perhaps 800 comments on his post (not counting his 200 replies).
That's a fairly comprehensive sample group! I know that Mees has deleted most of these but it would have made an interesting scientific inquiry as to how many fit this pattern and how often they posted.
For instance, the three 'people' on the two comment threads you added to have 10 subs and one follower between them, zero posts and restacks of nearly all n0-virus sites. You, on the other hand, have 323 subs, two blogs, many posts, and multiple interests--just like real people do!
The question I'm raising isn't about viruses but whether this is a psyop. So knowing whether Mees is arguing with a bot is more to the point than arguing back. Yes?
Also, in looking at those other profiles, I saw a restacked article by Sam called Narcissists Who Hate the Baileys. Now that's a fine example of ad hominem--if you hate us, you must be a narcissist! Talk about sidestepping the argument. And I hear that Sam also doesn't believe in bacteria ...
When I tried out saying viruses don't exist to a herbalist friend, she responded "some people don't believe in evolution". Well evolution maybe BS, or not. The implication being she thought it was a tad woo woo. Thus it was harder to talk to her about vaccines from then on... my anecdotal experience supports Teresa's point...
I appreciate you taking that nuanced view, john. I'm also an evolution skeptic. And how could I 'believe' in viruses when I'm willing to entertain the possibility the world doesn't exist? As I say in my reply to Visceral Adventures, speaking of woo woo.
Many commenters are unclear about the question this article debates. Stating the question is step #2 in Have a Better Argument. I'm asking 'Is No-Virus a PsyOp?' Step #3 is define your terms. My definition of 'No-Virus' is the insistence that anti-vaxxers agree there's no such thing as a virus. My definition of a PsyOp is a sheepdog that rounds up the strays and leads them back to the slaughterhouse by a different route: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/malone-and-slaughterhouse-four. This answers Step #4 of why it matters if No-Virus is a PsyOp.
Anyone who ignores my question and pretends I'm arguing FOR the existence of viruses is missing my point, some intentionally. The CLAIM is that the No-Virus dogma among anti-vaxxers will prevent the next scamdemic. The REALITY is that it will make it inevitable because it will discredit anti-vaxxers as a whole.
I'm challenging the CLAIM of No-Virus for why it matters. As a Rumble commenter Johnny Morris wrote: "There is no argument to support locking people down or forcibly injecting people if there IS a virus. They suggest that our rights are conditional, and that we maintain our rights because there is no virus." Another commenter says, "Yeadon and others have stated that believing viruses is the problem, not forcing people to comply with medical dictatorship."
This is what we're accepting with the No-Virus dogma, that bodily sovereignty is only our right if viruses don't exist. I'm not willing to concede that point. Are you? Tell me in the comments. Preferably following Step #1 of liking the person you're arguing with.
Okay, I thought that's what you are doing. Because if the next plandemic rolled out, it would be easier to kill more people - regardless. It's like a reverse PsyOp. Spreading like a disease to the pro- vaccination bootlickers.
The certain truth of no-virus views is that there has never been found convincing proof of such viral 'entities' or catalysts to exist , while environmental factors have been found to provoke such viral' reactions.
However the 'movement' like all movements eventually will be navigated & channel for psychological manipulations & control- therefore becoming a psyop whatever truths are involved. It is most probable that it always was infiltrated otherwise it would never gain traction.
An overt psyop element in this is that fact that VIRUS EXIST AS IMAGE & SOUND & that is so obvious a fact that it subliminally undermines anti-virus arguments in many peoples minds. The fact that many anti-virus pundits never express, highlight or seem aware of makes many of them of questionable awareness & alliance.
Those busy saying there is no proof of the 'no-virus' claims are always either lazy smug useless researchers, liars & devious...or maybe even some sort of idiot?
Much of the argument between the different views is devised to waste time & fill up space.
There are certainly 'agents' among the no-virus commentators, as so many have a unearned arrogance & intolerance towards others not so hyper-aware of the topic. This is part of endless division agenda & you can guarantee that they will fraction further over things such as TRUMP, FLAT EARTH, ISRAEL & any other contentious media spectacle event.
Oh that’s a veeeeery important point around whether or not application of ethics (bodily sovereignty) needs to be contingent on facts (existence of viruses). We talked about this before!
https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/what-does-the-word-virus-mean/comment/118336717?r=qdiky&utm_medium=ios
I raised a number of ethical dilemmas where I noted that often how we resolved these depended on the facts of the case. So in effect, we did often tend to relax the “No Dominate” position where we felt it was justified by the facts of the situation eg *to save lives.* Whether that was on war, abortion, veganism, pandemic response etc.
And you noted that the Rule of Reciprocity was better than the Golden Rule…and I (somewhere in a different comment thread!) thanked you for your response and mentioned my takeaway from your reply was that the application of ethics *did* seem to be contingent on facts.
Although as I said in my original post, I do really like this idea of mind/body/spirit sovereignty as an inviolable principle regardless of facts!! I just don’t know how to get around the fact that my application of that principle depends on what I consider to be the facts of the case…and so it does for most of us.
Hmmm... the rule of reciprocity is that it would be wrong for me to do anything to you that I'd consider wrong for you to do to me. Elaborating from your example, flinging out an arm to hit me would violate my body sovereignty. Flinging out an arm to keep me from walking in front of a truck is a protection of my bodily sovereignty--about to be violated by a truck! It follows ethically within the rule.
The Medical Freedom Movement would be better named the Medical Responsibility Movement. What we're demanding is to take responsibility for our own health and to expect that others will do the same.
Let's imagine that No-Virus became the medical dogma. Everything else remains the same. All anti-viral, anti-bacterial, anti-pathogen drugs are not allowed. Schools and employers insist that you come in if you can get out of bed. Those who prepare food or deliver babies should not bother with that silly old handwashing. I'm sure the N-V people never do!
If our argument is "Mandatory vaccines and lockdowns are wrong because each person is born with sovereignty over their body, mind and soul," then it not only covers vaccines but compulsory education, funding militaries, censorship and a host of other things. If community sovereignty is the right to do anything that doesn't take away the same or greater right from anyone else, and to own the land, resources, buildings, infrastructure, labor and currency within your borders, that would put us in a better position than before the scamdemic.
I've thought, since our last conversation, about how you could enable people to care for each other, without forcing anyone else to support them. If young people wanted to bring groceries to the elderly or fearful, you could pay them in carets only valid within the commonwealth and only accepted by those who chose. There's no limit to the amount you can create because you don't need dollars to back them. It's a completely voluntary system.
There were many things about slowing down in the CovidCon that were lovely--having more time with family, less pressure, little traffic. Neighborhood health advocates would have been transformative. I'd rather use the crisis as an opportunity for change, rather than force a new dogma, even if we could--big IF!
Thanks for helping me think through the implications, LoWa.
Quick minor point- I don’t know any No Virus person who has said anything of the sort - i don’t think any “No Virus” advocate would suggest:
1. Not handwashing when delivering babies (Tom Cowan talks about this and why it’s important even if germs don’t cause disease);
2. That all antivirals/antibacterials be “banned” (on the contrary, all NV ppl argue for greater health freedom and less govt intervention- so no one is doing the banning - nor the mandating!);
3. That people should still get out of bed for work if sick (NV folk would say that possibly lack of sleep, stress etc is making one sick so it is better to rest up). Being “not forced to stay home” (I.e. you have a choice to go to work or not if sick) is not the same as being “forced to come to work” (no choice);
4. That we should keep everything else the same - on the contrary, every NV person is arguing for change in all domains of society! Including a saner world where we are not rushing around in traffic to jobs we don’t like and getting ourselves sick in the process from fast food, fast travel, lack of sun, not enough time with friends and family etc. Being all for terrain…that would mean literally every facet of our lives would have to change…
These are arguments that have not been made by NV (to my knowledge) but are being challenged to show how absurd the implications of No Virus are, so I think according to Doc Malik’s recent post, that meets the definition for strawman.
*But* I also hear within this strawman some fears that I think are valid and worth surfacing. *Just because* viruses may not be real, doesn’t mean we should go back to BAU before the pandemic because there was no virus! If anti-vaxxers worry that no virus folk would engage in authoritarian behaviours based on their beliefs…let’s talk about that. Because no virus folk worry the same - will team virus foist hydroxychloroquine on everyone? Will its belief in viruses and bioweapons lead to more lockdowns?
To make it more stark - will anyone’s beliefs *about anything* compel anyone else to do things differently even in the anti-vax community? Will some people’s beliefs around abortion force others to comply? Will some people’s beliefs around animal agriculture force others to comply? Will some people’s beliefs around the renewability of oil force others to see their native ecosystem subject to oil drilling? Will some people’s beliefs around satanism force yoga studios and tarot card shops to close down? Will some people’s beliefs around divorce comply others to do as they think?
What are a society’s non-negotiables? Where do people draw the line and say “absolutely not”? What is this based on? Which facts, whose science? Which ethics, whose ethics? What “mind, body, soul sovereignty” means to some people is different to what it means to others. How do we make decisions together collaboratively (not authoritatively!) in this context? How do we co-create a community where we can all live well together? If we hold “these xyz things to be true” then where do we draw the line and who enforces it and how?
I think these are some of the deeper issues that your comment brings up - and ones that we should discuss (and which I don’t have clear cut answers to).
I am wondering also if it’s a matter of emphasis. I had a friend on the anti-vax side who didn’t want to talk about covid. Her view was “it has always been bad, for a very long time, and talking about the latest circus is distracting us from the deeper issues”. My position was “I agree the root causes are important and I talk about them a lot - i have a lot of leftist friends who get it, but who completely missed the latest circus. And that’s astounding to me, so I want to talk about how the latest thing is a manifestation of the deeper, bigger forces.”
So we could say, “yes, to talk about virology, we have to put other topics on hold for a second - war, finance, religion, empire, patriarchy - so in a sense, virology is a distraction from those topics. But it is also a *window* into all those topics as it’s impossible to talk about virology without talking about war (good guys vs bad guys / virus vs antibodies), talking about finance (how science is funded), religion (how science has become a faith/ the new God), empire (how virology is used in service of empire) and patriarchy (daddy government knows best).”
And I get that people like Mike Stone are laser focused on virology without weaving in the other elements, but there are others who do, and that most people are smart enough to weave diverse threads together.
Yes I agree with your perspective!
GERM-MANs were AXIS (AXES) power is a overt twisted joke on this,
While the enemy of the AXES (central shaft of the FASCIE ) was the ALL-LIES,
and this occur when all sociologists were acutely aware that image & sound acts like VIRUS in crowds, while non existent physical virus was superb bogeyman & phantom menace that could be pot of gold for funding!
Later NUKE FEAR had even bigger funding well spring for same old families of millennia ! & who do we see when we look at them = HIXOSS scum as always, now let us cut this short & link all the families involved because THEY are the reason there is so much mutilation & poisoned beings on the planet today & since the so called Renaissance...? & when we see the Pilgrim Society who run media it is same as arms trading bankers & real estate, merchants & pirates.
"Those who prepare food or deliver babies should not bother with that silly old handwashing": as far as I have come to understand, NV does not deny the existence of bacteria or poisons.
I don't think most people are washing their hands before preparing food because they think they've touched poisons. And yes, the NV dogma does include bacterium in their definition of what doesn't exist, along with pathogens. Virus is even defined as a bacterium in their arguments. Look it up for yourself. It's ALL terrain, according to them.
Doc Malik interviewed someone in the no-virus camp. While looking for that, I came across this exchange he had with Sam Bailey, which everyone who thinks this isn't an agenda should read: https://docmalik.substack.com/p/my-exchanges-with-sam-bailey-judge.
In the one I can't find, Ahmad does a very respectful interview of someone who represents no-virus, no-bacteria. As a conservative orthopedic surgeon, who didn't operate on 80% of the patients who came to him, Ahmad gives his experience of situations where anti-viral or antibiotic drugs saved a person's foot or life, including one personal story. He tries to get a compromise where it's 99% terrain, but no go.
So if you think 'germs' exist in any form, you're arguing with the wrong side.
Honestly in all my learning of NV I’ve never heard that about the denial of bacteria so this is news to me. Bacteria clearly exist, we can observe them. BTW, can’t see that Dr Ahmad link as it’s paywalled.
Sam Bailey is the only one claiming Bacteria has not been shown/proven to cause Disease. This is not everyone's position. Strep infections in throats occur, Bacterial pneumonia happens and also Staph infections occur on the epidermis. I'm sure there are more examples. Rancourt has also mentioned this, so if Tereza or anyone is not aware, they should be. And infiltrators are everywhere. Ask Rod Knoll re Aids dissident movement.
Germ Theory Fraud has to be mentioned as one of the biggest of all time, under the Rockefeller takeover of medicine.
Brief Edit: (2 day after) We can actually skip this important discourse in this thread and use Rancourt's Work of ACM, which details Pandemic Response + Iatrogenic Protocols is the culprit - where testing and Virus Particle yes or no is irrelevant. (for C19) https://correlationresearch.substack.com/p/correlation-report-disproves-paradigm
Edit (3 day after): Maybe I'd like to see a better introduction to the NV Position. It's not odd to want to understand someone's knowledge base on a complex topic. Also, maybe the title of the article could change to: Info Ops Teams Infiltrate the No-Virus Position to discredit it
But back to the crux of the issue which is whether “mind, body, soul sovereignty” is an inviolable principle. I noted that we sometimes violate this principle of the situation calls for it - eg if it is to “save lives.” You point out the same, in slightly different words - that the only justifiable use of power is to enable people to eventually have power over themselves - I.e. temporarily violating an “absolute” principle of body sovereignty for example by restricting someone from doing something that might otherwise kill or harm them (eg fling arm out to physically stop your friend walking into an oncoming truck). And you note that this allows the friend to have eventual power over themselves (therefore protects their sovereignty overall). I agree.
(This was the comment thread, for those reading for first time: https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/what-does-the-word-virus-mean/comment/118336717?r=qdiky&utm_medium=ios)
What I am muddling over is the fact that this is the exact justification for pandemic response policies - it’s “to save lives” and “two weeks to flatten the curve” - ie “we aren’t going to rule over you in this way forever, we are just doing it veeeeery temporarily so you don’t drop dead! We are ultimately protecting your mind/body sovereignty!”
And in each case (truck or virus), there is *judgment* involved. *Someone* has to make a judgment that:
1. X is unsafe
2. You aren’t aware of X or are at risk of X
3. You need help to avoid being harmed
4. I can make a temporary intervention (“justified use of force” [power]) to save you
5. That ultimately restores the power back to you as you’re still alive, yay!
This makes a lot of sense when the next door building is burning down and my neighbour can’t see how to get out. By all means, if the firefighter can see the way out, direct them over the loudspeaker and bodily remove them from the burning building if possible! Some say the whole planet is burning down (climate change)…and use that to justify certain things.
You note “Mandatory vaccines and lockdowns are wrong because each person is born with sovereignty over their body, mind and soul”. Thinking aloud here…and imagining we are already living in decentralised permaculture anarcho-paradises with no jackboot state …are lockdowns or staying home *never* justified? (Dangerous question I know! But I’m challenging my own thinking here…as I want the answer to be yes). Well, if the lion escaped from the local zoo, surely it’s ok to issue a warning and “strongly suggest” staying home till the situation is resolved. If someone goes out anyway and gets badly mauled…and winds up in hospital, is it then ok to use public funds to treat the person even though they went out when they shouldn’t have? Esp when the hospital was overflowing and another patient’s life could’ve been saved? If forced vaccination is wrong then also isn’t forced blue light and EMF exposure wrong given it also massively affects us on a cellular level ? Who gets to make that call - based on what? Are certain EMF frequencies ok, are certain artificial lights ok, how do we know…therefore what should our city’s emf profile be or street light system be? What are we comfortable subjecting everyone to?
All these questions of whether / how to violate body/mind/ soul sovereignty depend on facts and judgment - how dangerous is the lion? How sure are we that it escaped into the city and not into the nearby forest? How likely would this zoo-raised lion eat a human? If we haven’t found it in a few hours in certain locations, how likely is it that it’s definitely not there (rather than hiding!) therefore how okay is it to relax the guidance (/lockdown) to stay home? How easy will it be to find the lion if there no lockdown, and if cars and people running around all over town? How high can lions jump and how tall must fences be to block a lion getting into someone’s backyard - so which people can safely hang out in their backyard? All require evidence and judgment.
(As an ecologist I’m held to far higher standards of confidence than microbiologists. I must prove that the lion or unicorn in question exists; my cellular and microbiologist friends can get away with far more supposition and interpretation than I. So I couldn’t help myself but use this lion example!)
But lions, fires and EMF aside, I guess what I’m really saying is that it seems to me that there is *always* facts & judgment involved in decide whether to temporarily violate the mind/body/spirit sovereignty principle so as to give people eventual power over themselves - I.e. when we deem that self sovereignty would be more at risk *ultimately* - that very much depends on the facts of the case (I.e. evidence to show that there’s a demonstrable risk and to show that the restrictive action would work & wouldn’t cause undue harm) and the judgments we make based on those facts.
And who makes the judgment about what’s actually harmful or helpful, and who restricts what others do based on that judgment (“for their own good”)…shows who really has power in society.
So my answer to your question of whether we would want mind-body-soul sovereignty to be conditional on facts [e.g. existence of virus] is “I wish it weren’t, but can’t escape the fact that we always make decisions to restrict mind-body-soul sovereignty based on facts and judgment. It’s never based on ethical purity alone. So I’m *not sure* we can use mind-body-soul/ community sovereignty as a principle applied consistently regardless of facts…because we violate it ourselves all the time anyway! And I don’t know how to get around that.”
Hmmm ... let me clarify my original points, LoWa, because you're misrepresenting things I said. The points I make are:
1. it would be wrong for me to do anything to you that I'd consider wrong for you to do to me.
2. What we're demanding is to take responsibility for our own health and to expect that others will do the same.
3. each person is born with sovereignty over their body, mind and soul
4. community sovereignty is the right to do anything that doesn't take away the same or greater right from anyone else, and to own the land, resources, buildings, infrastructure, labor and currency within your borders
My example was preceded by "If NV became the new dogma." A dogma is a belief that can't be raised to question. Skimming these comments is absolute proof that there is a coordinated effort to make NV into a dogma among anti-vaxxers. It's NV as dogma that I'm arguing against. I could not care less what anyone believes if they're not insisting I do the same.
I don't speak for anyone else. I don't know how you can say "every NV person is arguing for change in all domains of society." My statement in #2 already assumes there's a 'we' that's arguing to take responsibility for ourselves but all I really know is that it's my desire. The entire so-called MFM may want entirely different things, with no unified goal.
My exception to the use of power over others is specific to a mother using power over her children so they learn to have power over themselves. In my point system, that means enabling kids to earn what they want rather than giving it to them--not violating their sovereignty.
As a community member, it means using our collective power over each other to protect against violations of these rules, including by other members. If that power over others isn't used to protect our sovereignty, then the community is itself violating its role. In the same way, a mother is violating her role if she uses her power to give her kids everything they want, making them dependent on her and expecting that as their right from others.
It's not a strawman to argue against dogma, when my whole point is arguing against dogma, iow 'the insistence that anti-vaxxers agree there's no such thing as a virus' as I reiterate in my pinned comment. But coming up with examples like an escaped lion and whether public healthcare would treat the injuries of someone who goes out anyway and gets mauled ... whew! THAT is one convoluted hypothetical to find an exception and argue that I'm ethically inconsistent in my views--or that my ethical system is wrong. A straw-lion?
🙄🤔 No, you are property of parents & state until legal age & since birth certificate you are considered dead commodity to be manipulated for commerce.
Long time abusers, mercenary exploiters & anti-human forces construct social reality for us & various nations enclosures- the biggest gangs run the show, circus & spectacle, they are the foundations of their puppets Kings & Emperors & high ranking servants like Don Trump, Bumboy Starmer,Dog sucker Merkle or WTF in the public eye.
You are lucky to be even able to question them, never mind criticise them & how they treat you!
Of course I hate such a situation & prefer to resist their invasions as much as possible, but I do not lie about the arena we inhabit & find most western commentators someway lost souls in regard to their expectations & the construct of information they are fighting against- the result being overt increase in frustration & feeling of impotency.
When the truth of a situation is impossible to perceive clearly, the only escape is often into dreams.
Straw-lion - I love it! I can always count on you for the good puns. I’ll try not to go too wild* with lion puns here…
Ok, I see where you’re coming from with thinking of NV as dogma and mostly everyone trying to get you to believe the science (in these comments) rather than make any solid case for why we need to agree (as you’ve asked). It’s always interesting to consider the “dark side” of taking any belief system to its extreme, so I really do appreciate you sharing these examples, even though I’m scratching my head thinking “how can these possibly be corollaries of NV as a dogma when this isn’t what NV people even say and would likely disagree with?!” (If they do say any of this, I’m happy to be corrected). And I know you said it’s about NV as a dogma not what anyone individually believes…but I would imagine that any musings around the corollaries of the dogma would at least be based on the sorts of things NV are repeatedly and collectively saying - rather than things they’d actively refute..??
Examples aside, your deeper concern around *anything* becoming dogmatic and then authoritarian in the anti-vax movement is wise - we should always be on the lookout for accidentally re-creating the same oppressive structures we are seeking to dismantle. Many a revolutionary movement has been plagued by this exact consequence once it’s overthrown the elites.
On the mind-body-soul sovereignty piece - firstly, I am sorry I didn’t realise the power over others exception was specific to children.
“As a community member, it means using our collective power over each other to protect against violations of these rules, including by other members. If that power over others isn't used to protect our sovereignty, then the community is itself violating its role.” - love this.
And where I’m at is still confused about how facts and judgment would *not* be used in every example I can think of where community members use power over others to protect our sovereignty. Someone has to assess the situation and go, “is there a danger? How much of a danger? How do I know? How effective will intervening be to protect sovereignty? What are unintended consequences of intervening?”
Most pro-vaxxers i know would agree about mind-body-soul sovereignty and that use of power is only justified if it’s to protect said sovereignty…which is why they support masking, lockdowns and mandatory vaccination - because they *do* think it’s justified (and they don’t think it’s wrong for them to do it to me because they’re ok with me doing to them)…based on the facts they know to be true…And this has played out in the courts (eg Bill of Rights Act “the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”) And there have been arguments to say these kinds of Acts themselves aren’t great because these should be “inalienable” rights that should not be subject to any ”justified limitations”…I rather like the idea of inalienable rights, though as you also point out, we have responsibilities too…(love the medical responsibility movement reframe).
And I don’t think your ethical system is wrong - I like it! As I’ve said many times. I just feel deflated every time I run any real life examples through it because I can’t think of any situation where the “facts of the case” wouldn’t matter and where judgment isn’t used to assess whether sovereignty is being - or is about to be - violated…but like you, I also don’t want bodily sovereignty to be contingent on facts! (And if facts do matter, I agree that “any facts” that convince ppl not to get jabbed or make others get jabbed will do - so facts around vaccines harm will do the job just fine, as you also point out, and more convincingly at that. To stop the immediate harm, we don’t need ppl to go all the way to virology).
At the end of your pinned post, you write, “This is what we're accepting with the No-Virus dogma, that bodily sovereignty is only our right if viruses don't exist.” So if I read our exchange accurately, you might reframe this to “bodily sovereignty is only our right if we are not violating - or about to be violating - someone else’s bodily sovereignty” (??) - in which case it’s ok for another community member to use power to temporarily restrain the person or maybe pop them in a safe place where they can’t harm anyone / till the drugs have worn off etc. And if they repeatedly exhibit that behaviour (hitting, threatening, shoving etc), then…? Of course they need help and support but I suppose they’d also need to be kept away from others till they could demonstrate they’re safe to be around (prison? Not a great place to rehabilitate…).
And this all depends on facts - how sure are we that they were about to violate someone else’s bodily sovereignty, what are the motives, extent of harm, consistency of behaviour, other factors, how likely will it happen again if we let them out..I.e. the facts & judgments!
(Or do you not consider these forms of restraining and “power over” others as a violation of an individual’s bodily sovereignty…[because it’s to protect another person’s bodily sovereignty] or does it depend on the facts of the case, I.e. was the person actually doing something violent or just suspected of doing so..? Was the truck actually approaching or did he gaslight her that it was to have an excuse to demonstrate his power over her?)
So I’m hoping you can help me understand here - are there any situations where use of power over others to protect mind/body/soul sovereignty isn’t contingent on facts and judgment? Do you think in most situations we can de-couple them? Or are you more saying that in *this* case (vaccine mandates), bodily sovereignty shouldn’t be contingent on *these* facts (virus non-existence) because *these other facts* (vaccine harm) are more than enough to indicate that bodily sovereignty is at risk? If the latter - I agree 🙏🏾
These are all questions for you to answer about what you'd recommend in your community, LoWa.
Viruses? I thought we were supposed to fight about nuclear weapons!
Due to the hot new war brewing, instead of discussing war profiteering and the military industrial complex, we should make sure all of the anti-war resistance is aligned on the lack of real nuclear weapons.
For those doubting the urgency of this mission, consider that if everyone accepts that nuclear weapons aren't real, we can't go to war over Iran's nuclear program! (*This presumes that the war IS actually about Iran's nuclear program...)
🥸 Sarcasm over
To psychoanalyze a bit, I definitely don't like the humiliation ritual around needing consensus. For many of us these things will always be quazi-abstract anyways. I have no desire to investigate or prove particulars of viruses or nuclear weapons. So when one is unable, or unwilling to give up the time to be aligned on these issues, they ultimately will take it on trust. I see those pushing for consensus using a particularly aggressive means to extort trust out of people. Regardless of the actual truth of these positions, I think you're entirely correct that this behavior is counter-productive and a mark of bad actors. The shaming rhetoric is clearly not about education.
I have similar issues with statements along the lines of "silence is consent", because I do NOT believe that tyranny fundamentally relies on consent, and recognize that in many situations that may be the only protest one feels safe with. I appreciate your efforts here to try to defend the "voiceless" on this particular issue. The fact of the matter is, that the public conversation is such a small fraction of the totality of the fight that worrying about it as if it is the fight feels somewhat contrived.
It is blatantly obvious to us all, that lies about viruses and nukes are very powerful tools for tyranny or oppression. But one of the things I like about your work and perspective is that you do a fantastic job at helping people realize we need to stop blaming the oppressed for the oppression. I don't believe that a repressed minority (the unvaccinated, especially here in Canada) have the capacity to change the status quo by drawing a hard line on theory but not practice. Case in point, the Freedom Convoy was principally about mandates and medical segregation, are we to say it was all for nothing because the focus wasn't a vigorous debate on virology?
Yet I have no love for establishment science as a whole. I recognize many of its limits and failings so I'm very open to the idea that much of what we understand is entirely false. The problem however, is that as you point out, it takes an inordinate amount of effort to bridge that understanding to the general public. Those of us who are less invested in these particular scientific inquiries may not be able to challenge them confidently in a confrontational situation. I agree that it is principally the responsibility of those who do feel strongly on these fronts to make that case, not your rank-and-file activist who is currently highly likely to be engaged on a wide variety of important fronts. I recognize that the independent capacity for research, education, outreach and many other important things is incredibly scarce, and we should use that capacity as efficiently as possible, ironically by letting each person choose how to focus their own efforts.
Damn! Brushed some dust from my keyboard and lost my reply just before hitting send. Trickster goddess!
To recreate, excellent analogy on nukes. I read Franklin O'Kanu, who is both no virus and flat earth, and his recent post was about false narratives in the news, including 'Israel and Iran at War.' Apparently it's all a psyops done with AI. I was too stunned to comment, and you know how rare that is for me.
Humiliation rituals and shaming rhetoric are great phrases. And the Freedom Convoy is a terrific example.
Before devoting time to any research issue, I always ask why it matters. I'm not a 'believer' in viruses, I'm agnostic because it wouldn't change how I live my life, and it wouldn't help the anti-mandate cause. However, it would be useful for no-virus folks to start posting in mainstream venues. It would make the rest of us into sensible moderates.
Who would live in war zone for more than a day ?
It is ALMOST ALL CONSTRUCTED.
Tell me who is actually fighting who when they all link to same families & brokers ?
You have much to learn before maybe you should comment on the SPECTACLE you inhabit ? This does not mean you are not intelligent insightful person because I can tell you are, just HUBRIS has taken hold & you are not craftsperson familiar with tricks of illusionists & actors. Like you touch on before- TRIKSTER is most popular God in the world - & yet no-one mentions it unless confused with Satan or Lucifer.
None of them are the 'devil' but they suffice for so many there is no reasoning on such matters.
The difference between flat earth and no-virus is that one is silly, vulgar and childish and one is rational. The only thing in common is that they're non-mainstream beliefs. The belief in viruses relies on the appeal to authority and the appeal to consensus fallacies, and flat earth relies on people turning those fallacies on their heads to create two more non sequiturs to the effect that anything which people held up as authorities or which is popularly believed is incorrect by default.
Perhaps you're correct that most people are now too dumbed down to be capable of comprehending that the consensus can be correct in some cases, but incorrect in others.
Perhaps that's just too complex for them to comprehend and it would break their brains - but in *that* case, the 'elite' are right, they're childish idiots and who cares about them?
If that's not what you think, then stop begging the question and address the no-virus arguments instead of regurgitating obvious memes that everyone is already all too aware of as if you're saying something incredibly profound and interesting because you really aren't I'm afraid.
You are arrogant moron who has not considered the topic like adult , so why bother commenting - just to stir excrement for fun?
Earth behave as non-rotating level (ish) surface with plasma concentration about 30 -60 miles from the surface & 10 miles beneath sea level. Find me any continuous flight footage from GL to beyond the atmosphere & then reconsider your feeble stance on this.
I am betting you are just a troll doing the baiting time-vampire game & have no genuine substance.
This is spot on!! lol. No nukes crowd=no virus crowd.
Because both aren't real. Nukes are as pseudo-scientific as viruses and contagion are.
Virus is real for image & sound. For health matters that is different 'matter' & is typically toxins or resonance issues of the 'cell', you are right to question or dismiss as phantom menace or bogeyman as far as I am aware.
Nuclear weapons are another bogeyman phantom for funding & fear tactics.
See NUKE LIES site or go via BIGLIES site for endless proof.
Keep going
Everyone is watching
Shine that spotlight
Make people start to look at the evidence
Do your worst pushing of the pseudoscience
Do your worst obfuscation of the scandal.
Truth is a one-way process. It is a hard fact that viruses are 100% fictional.
It is a hard fact that growing numbers of people are pledging £1000 to pay for.
When the virus confirmation fund reaches many millions
Good luck with your pretending that Truth versus lie is a false dichotomy.
I relish every word everyone writes that might just possibly make people get off their posteriors, go in the room, do the work, see the elephant, and stop letting down the children.
Thank you.
How much integrity has she got? Will she leave this comment up? Is she simply unaware or something else? We shall see.
If leaving up a critical comment is a sign of integrity, are you saying that Suavek and Mike have none? That seems to be your implication. You should tell them.
But I never censor people when they're proving my point, as the comment thread on Sasha amply shows.
Thumbnail is addressing the real question, which is whether we need to agree or be accused of not having integrity, "pushing of the pseudoscience" and "obfuscating the scandal."
But out of curiosity, Tim, why do people get sick?
Mike has no control over what Suavek does. Suavek is a very hard working independent fellow.
I don’t know the circumstances of the deletion but you push the Cabal pseudoscience so vociferously and have such zero regard for reality, evidence…
it would not surprise me if you wrote something better deleted.
What is your game? Are you paid to do this?
£10,000 to you for a single piece of evidence any of these in silico assembled genomes have ever had anything to do with actual physical reality,
This will be continually shoved in the face of those supporting the fictions used to fuck up my AND YOUR children.
If you read my article, you know exactly what I wrote that was deleted. And what you're saying now is that Suavek has no integrity, by your statement that I would have no integrity if I deleted your comment. Please tell him that because ethics is consistency. If you apply one standard to those 'on your side' and another to the other side, it's a lack of ethics, aka integrity.
I’m sorry I don’t know anything about it.
Suavek’s publication, is nothing to with Mike. We are so pleased with the work he is doing that we tried to give him a good shout out and talk of him as the second source of Mike‘s views because he posts frequently quotes many of his posts from Telegram. We also pointed out that none of the other views expressed of which there are many unnecessarily anything that Mike or myself endorse.
I do know that we keep Mike’s channel in good faith. We maintain a warm respectful community.
This sometimes involves removing bad faith comments.
Particular ones that are floody with pseudoscience that refused to respond to the many people who pointed out the floors in what they say.
It’s a hard fact that no evidence exists for viruses. This is a hard fact you could discover very easily. A lot of of us are wondering why you are keeping your head in the sand?
£10,000 to you for a single piece of evidence any of these genome, built by creatively spicing millions of reeds, chopped up sequences of RNA and DNA, fit together in a creative Lego type way to see what can be made, thousands of options produced, one picked, then changed to fit old Gene Banks which are used to see the process anyway
Have ever existed as RNA or DNA fragments encased in a protein shell, with the same genome as the created ones in the computer miraculously, proven to be transmissible, replication competent and pathogenic.
Everything you write Tereza continually betrays the fact that no such evidence has ever existed.
All you use is rhetoric.
.
I don’t understand . Don’t you care about what’s actually true?
Virus is a fictional . This is an easily probable fact. Why do you not care?
The story, was used to attack your children and mine ?
They may run it again and probably will .
Don’t you care?
Tim, I reckon Teresa, even though I disagree with her is ok to see it how she sees it. It's kind of fine to have this diversity in my mind.
But I don’t know how she sees it.
I only know the knock on effects of her vociferous pushing of the pseudoscience.
At this stage? To be pushing the lies with such fervour?
Yes, she could be just lazy and gullible .
But there are other possibilities .
It can be called a hard fact as in 200 years of trying there's still no evidence whatsoever that viruses exist nor that any disease is contagious. If they were real, we'd have found them by now.
Thank you for writing about this, because now I don't have to.
In the early days of the Scamdemic, I naively assumed that we lockdown sceptics and anti-vaxers were all on the same side. Since then I have learned that seeing how someone treats their critics is a useful guide for determining whether I should continue to listen to that person. This is an entirely different question from whether I agree with what that person is saying.
You're welcome! And yes, my litmus test is superiority. It's not that their position is more correct, according to them, it's that they are smarter, better, braver, more honest people. It's the same reason I reacted against the Mattais Desmet position--everyone else was a self-lobotomized dolt. Did you happen to see James Corbett's In Praise of Sheep? Very good: https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/in-praise-of-sheep.
Thanks for the Corbett essay. I confess to have been in the "wake up, sheeple!" phase back around 2022-2023 when I was in my sarcasm mode. That essay is a good antidote.
I also was a fan of Desmet for a while, and didn't see the flaws in his position for a long time. I still think there were some good ideas there, the main one being that being a staunch Covidian gave some people a cause and a purpose that had been lacking. I saw that in action in the way the Covid Task Force in my little Vermont town (just ordinary people that I happened to know personally) made it their job to promote helpful government propaganda (and also censor dissenters) on Front Porch Forum. They seemed excited to be in this new role.
You touch on an important point, Mark. Covid gave people purpose, where it was otherwise lacking in their lives. It gave them a way to express caring about others. To some, it gave a self-important role that fed their ego. I certainly saw that. But for the majority, it was their love that was used against them. Don't blame the love, blame those who exploited it. That's my argument against Desmet.
"My litmus test is superiority. It's not that their position is more correct, according to them, it's that they are smarter, better, braver, more honest people..." Exactly!
Similar experience to you Mark. I was very naive about that too. I'm turned off by anger and vitriol for simply disagreeing.
I rather lean towards the «viruses are trash» camp, and that usually gets me some fire from both sides.
But. Most real-world events don't have one deterministic cause, they have multiple necessary conditions, none of which are sufficient in themselves. Even gravity, although necessary to cause an apple to fall, isn't in itself sufficient, it's also necessary that there is no table under the apple. :)
So. There's an apple on my table, and it stands still and doesn't fall. But this doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.
I too am an equal opportunity offender ;-)
That's a fine example, Rat. What we're discussing here are words, and cause and effect. Why do people get sick? It seems to me the healthy person isn't the one who never gets sick, but the one who recovers quickly and bounces back stronger. I credit my kids rarely getting sick to daycare. Rather than being a germophobe, they might accuse me of being a germophile. So this isn't going to change my behavior one way or the other. But it is going back to the beginning of medicine, in any form, and figuring out why people get sick. I haven't figured out yet what their explanation is, other than blaming the individual for not keeping up their terrain.
I personally feel like it's a seasonal rain. Just like when all the leaves and animal poo and logs etc build up over summer the sky does a big violent flush and washes the obstruction away returning the rivers and creeks to flow. That's how I feel about my seasonal sickness and it helps me understand why 'vaccines' don't stop seasonal viruses. But I'm cool with the belief in viruses. I'm less stuck in belief these days because I think there is only one thing I actually know for sure with 100% certainty and that is that I EXIST.
God bless
And Goddess bless you too, Thumbnail!
Poop does not disappear like that !
😂🤣😂
you make me laugh with funny vision! thank you for such joy.
Creeks need to poo too! 😂
The power of vagina bacteria is well known for millennia- without it child will be less robust. Same is true due to caesarean operation missing such thing & peculiar joyful trauma of birth! It also ties in with great mystery of holy grail.
The reasoning missed here is that it is ALL due to sympathetic resonance & what is magic also intricate with? Of course if you are technically minded then that alone is enough to spotlight how 5G tec is devised & will impinge.
I have UK friend who read Nursing magazine for hospitals (in the 1990s) they show me article that says after almost TWO DECADES of research 'scientists' think that mothers milk is better for babies than COW milk ... & these are the devious idiots so many people trust?
some reassuringly balanced comments on here :) . This is great.
Gravity exist as stated in dictionary, but not as a FORCE. No convoluted gravity is needed for things to function as they do, you will gasp when you fully realise this fact.
Nobody is denying viruses exist, they are just pointing out that there is no scientific evidence of their existence. And all the science (from cell culture experiments to contagion studies) have DIS-proved the claim of viruses existing.
Sticking to science / truth cannot possibly be a 'psyop'.
I don't think that's true, Corona Studies, that 'Nobody is denying viruses exist.' I'm perfectly willing here and now to agree there's no scientific evidence of their existence if that means visible proof. You should be arguing with the others on this thread and asking them if they believe no viruses exist. If that wasn't their position, we wouldn't be arguing.
The point I was making was that 'viruses' have never been discovered, so it's not possible to 'deny' their existence. I doubt you consider yourself a 'unicorn denier', and to accuse you of 'denying unicorns' implies that the believing in unicorns is a valid or credible position to take.
But 'unicorns' and 'viruses' are just social constructs, interwoven into our culture, but completely lacking any scientific proof. And that is why it is disingenuous to refer to anyone as a 'denier' of 'unicorns' or 'viruses'.
In your video you talk about your intuitive knowledge of viral contagion because animals and people sometimes get sick together.
The same observations (by your own logic) support the idea of a scurvy virus. Many diseases or symptoms have been falsely attributed to 'viruses' over the years, based on the same observations that you have made. That is why it is so important to stick to SCIENCE and not FEELINGS.
Scurvy FEELS like a contagious disease, as does the flu (AKA 'covid') but over 200 contagion experiments have disproven this FEELING, and dozens of cell culture control experiments have exposed virology as absolute nonsense ('viruses' are just cellular debris and not the cause of anything).
You also claim the 'no virus' camp want to discredit vaccines or the covid narrative. This is also incorrect. They just want to follow the science (wherever it leads) rather than follow superstitions and fearmongering ...... because THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE POST ENLIGHTENMENT AGE AND NOT THE DARK AGES of superstition and hocus pocus nonsense.
The 'virus' issue IS divisive, as it should be. You either accept that 'viruses' have never been discovered and stop talking about them as if they are real, or you provide some credible scientific proof of their existence.
Do you have any proof of their existence?
If so what?
If not, why do you claim such things exist?
Do you think 'unicorns' exist too?
Okay, let's get into remedial logic. If I were to tell my neighbor that unicorns do exist, they would wonder what drugs I was on. If they say they caught a cold and I reply that viruses don't exist, they would wonder what drugs I was on.
You're comparing something that 99% of people believe to not exist to something that 99% of people believe does. You've been talking to your own echo chamber so long that you think denying viruses exist isn't denying the existence of viruses because they don't exist anyway.
You need to get out more and have some conversations outside the fishbowl, so you can tell when you're saying things that non-indoctrinated people would recognize as making no sense.
If you told your neighbour in 2019 that they would have to stay indoors for a year, put on mask and inject an experimental drug just to keep their job or fly internationally for a normal flu season they would think you were mad.
But most people embraced this new normal in a matter of weeks, despite NONE of it having any scientific basis or even common sense.
So I'm sure the average person can get to grips with the ACTUAL science which has been known for a century and a half already (even Florence Nightingale wrote about the lack of evidence for contagion).
The only thing keeping people ignorant and misguided is this stupid attitude of 'Oh they won't be able to understand' or 'we need to introduce them to the topic in baby steps'.
That attitude is all part of the psyop (trust the plan / MAHA etc).
But putting all that aside, the real issue is that the biggest crime in modern history has been committed. The lie of 'contagion' and 'viruses' has been used to murder millions of people and perhaps sterilise an entire generation.
So anyone who is aware of the crime, but who continues to promote the cover story (as more people continue to get jabbed), should be considered an active participant in the crime.
The very idea that you (or anyone) should feel free to choose to withhold the truth as a kind of 'strategy' or 'virtue' is a satanic twisting of reality.
If someone is being stabbed or mugged in an alley way you have a moral duty to intervene, or at least report it, and not help to block people's view of the crime because 'they might not be able to cope with it' or some other nonsensical excuse.
This is the same old moaning as far as I can tell- why did it happen?
because people are willing masochists.
Yet whenever the idea of petty sado masochism as social dynamic is mentioned here in the west everyone have prolapse & cry as if the devil is being invoked.
If you can not face your own masochism & petty sadism (that the internet is great catalyst for) then you will always remain in this trap of being moaning entitled brat nation of smug smarmy mental slaves.
Its a bot or non-human operator on a commission to cut & paste the sanctimonious dribble of the same old preaching.
While the no-virus perspective has much validity the points I noticed you mention here are equally important, maybe now even more so. Corona Clowns inability to recognise that & other psychological factors is more revealing than it realises or could ever recognise at this rate.
Good Comments CS. T is treating people as groups here instead of individuals. She admits to not understanding the science, so don't bother explaining it; even though Empire/Corporations/Industrial Complex have been lying for decades about almost everything (The Science™, The History™), employing tricks and wordsmithing to sell unnecessary products of all kinds. Social Media is full of emotional quick response-tribalism, which is more about human behavioral psychology, than deep discussion and discovery. There are exceptions, of course.
Ironically, Tereza is a very good at deep theological thinking.
Also, Sasha/Sassy has not always been N-V, as you can see in the comments of SuperChem article (Proton Magic Substack) or maybe it was an earlier article. She actively berated anyone disagreeing.
Everyone needs to evaluate the Information. Stop treating people as groups, everyone is an individual with discovery and understanding on a spectrum.
Where do I 'admit' to not understanding the science, Peter? I see that strategy being used again and again. If you don't agree, it's because you don't understand the science. I'm speaking to you as an individual, who happens to use the same deflection points as Matthew North.
The science of psychological manipulation and group control is the topic of this post. Please answer the question in my pinned comment. Is bodily sovereignty only a right if there's no such thing as a virus? If the N-V position will ensure the next scamdemic is met with no opposition, is that worth it to you--as an individual--so you can say you're right?
Is this the same Peter who lives in Santa Barbara and likes good coffee? I can't tell if your comment on theology is a compliment or sarcastic. From that Peter, who engaged with me with respect as a fellow human, it would have been a compliment.
You are not as clever as you think. How did the UNICORN (obvious ALLEGORICAL being) get caught?
If you knew that you would not keep missing so many important facets on this matter.
I travel the world many times & often & no find any instinctive , well read or emphatic person laughing at IDEA of Unicorns.
Only the childish use them as examples of mental instability as the most powerful families use them in their menagerie of creatures representing gods, & gods are aspects of NATURE THEY CONTROL.!
To demean & dismiss Unicorn as pathetic fantasy is overt psy-op from families that take such symbols very seriously & do not wish you to know what the hell you are really discussing, or to make you look like a laughing stock in their eyes I think.
Very poor analogy there. Some very crippled angles of view also!
The 'middle ages' is most impressive age of WRITTEN human history with many great inventions- it is called Dark for political reasons as well as sociological games- the Renaissance is when the worse horrors began & ushered in INDUSTRY & the mental sickness of Capitalism.
What connection does MEDICI have in this ? If you do not know you should.
UNICORNS certainly do exist as symbolic hybrid being, & the most powerful families use such symbol all over - so those laughing about Unicorns being silly imaginary creatures ALWAYS transpire to be a bit stupid & not even know what important resonance & HIDDEN SCIENCE of NATURE such myths contain.
Even 'I'm so brainy' KEN wheeler who knows much of magnetism is idiot when he discuss Unicorns like giggling infant soiling his own underpants.
The Dark Age occurred when some celestial object (comet or something) created a period of literal cold and dark (a nuclear winter, if you like). Crops failed, people starved, people reverted back to a more primitive state - as tends to happen when things get desperate.
This is also why the great cathedral building age happened during the medieval warm period where higher temperatures caused abundant crops and everyone was well fed and had the free time and energy to focus on cultural projects.
Unicorns and viruses exist as social/ cultural phenomena. Yes. They are not real in the literal sense.
You have swallowed the propaganda on the 'dark ages' when it was an age of illumination.
I suggest you revise what you 'believe' & stick with what you know or have experienced. When you study the period by people of the times you will find no reliable example the 4th -16th had any genuine 'dark period' that was (by standard academia) 13 thousand years ago & was all over the world as MYTHS will prove beyond doubt as MYTHS are allegorical SCIENCE of NATURE not just silly stories for children & perverts.
the allegory & symbolism of the VIRGO/SPICA CULTS UNI-CORN is over 14 thousand years old , while the self destructive capitalist machinery/system died after only a few hundred years (by the 1920s). The Unicorns capture is what is important to comprehend. You prove here you do not even know the tale fully, so why comment as if you KNOW?
It seems to my view that you are still trapped in consumer artefacts of thinking still, without even realising you live in a rapidly decomposing corpse?
You have poor use of British language I think,
do you mean ACTUAL instead of LITERAL- which also is connected to NOVEL like a Novel Virus = a fiction ?
psychologically your reply is more interesting for its stance (very flimsy) over its lack of genuine content.
The dark age was literally a period of dark and cold, hence 'the dark ages'.
Unicorns and viruses literally do not exist. Anyone claiming they do exist must produce a specimen. Nobody ever has.
Corona Clown, what part of 'obvious allegorical being' do you not comprehend?
You really are behaving just like a standard troll. Is being a time vampire a rewarding vocation?
Viruses and unicorns are social constructs.
Nobody has ever produced a specimen.
They only exist in artwork, culture, imagination.
Nushi said you were shallow & here I see you just regurgitate all the standard cut & paste ' in-the-club' responses- this is the real dilemma with the no-virus followers that makes real people suspicious & repulsed. You no-longer appear capable of decent human interactions Corona Clown.
The argument you persisted in over Unicorns is hilarious considering you use them as potent symbols yourself - to signify a fantasy /illusion.
Throughout the comments to Nushi you never once recognised how the myth of the Unicorn has incredible importance for the entire state of social control & espionage strategy.
Serge is correct that you are a controlled op here to cause antagonism & low-level thought... or you are just a drunk, smug & sanctimonious bore with serious mental health deterioration & anti-social arrogance.
Yes unicorns are symbolic, as are viruses.
Do you have any scientific proof of 'viruses' existing as something more than a social construct?
Yes or no?
🥱😂 I know biological viruses are fiction dumbo- WTF is your issue here? You keep missing the point like some damaged ChatBot or mental patient getting arsewnaked while you type.
Your time vampire tactics are so overtly from the CIA manual of social sabotage that you are proving the 'no-virus' fanatics (like yourself) are a controlled psy-op, even if they recognise that fact or not.
Lots of good points. Debatt/ discussion is not to agree but to learn. To black or white create walls. Anti virus is a 250 meter skijump. Jabb is dangerous and create sickness is only a 90 meter skijump.
Txs
Well put, svartberg.
Your argument is laid out pretty coherently with upmost calm even in the face of much derision. I commend you for keeping your cool and not losing the sane ground. I’m not looking into arguing whether or not viruses exist either- the common normie is missing too many inferential steps to jump to that argument. And the fact that those that believe they can strong arm the rest of us into that purity spiral have to resort to ad hominem and censorship (EL Oh the fuck EL) tells me a lot more about their position than any argument they have (even if I’m willing to entertain the concept.)
Well said, Tonika. I'm also willing to entertain the concept, were it not being shoved down my throat. And let's take it next level, while I'm listening to a witchcraft song collection.
As you know, I entertain the possibility that the world doesn't exist. There's no empirical proof for it, other than a consensus among supposedly separate observers. However, that's a circular argument, since our separateness is another observation. If we are One Mind, the world could be our dream, our collective delusion. It's an entirely logical hypothesis, and one of only three for how things came to 'be'--the other two being Creationism and Evolution.
Why does it matter? If it is the TRUTH, then we have nothing to fear. Ever. We can change everything, and we don't need to. We're already getting where we need to go, shitfuckery and all.
There isn't any TRUTH more practical to prove or disprove to ourselves. So the No-Virus agenda isn't going nearly far enough. Let's be willing to doubt the existence of the world.
I reserve the possibility that we’re living in a simulation. :)
But oh, some of these no virus folks got their panties in a bunch. Go out there and touch some grass, guys. Perhaps the hill you’re dying on offers a little green patch.
HAhaha!
Does it ruddy matter? When did this stupid game of ‘if you don’t think the same as me you can’t be in my team’ start? Never featured when I was a kid (admittedly back in the post war bliss of bomb sites and food rationing. Gives my heritage away.)
😂🤣
Oooooooh tell me more. I’ve heard you say that before, Tereza, that either god doesn’t exist or the world doesn’t exist or (I’ve forgotten if there was a third option here, please do remind me!).
This is so mind blowing to think about that I feel like my brain might explode contemplating it…
What is the world?
What does “to exist” mean?
How do we know what exists?
Science and empiricism and physicalism have their answers to this. As do different religions and spiritualities. In some Hindu traditions, it’s all an illusion (“maya”). I asked my dad one day, “so - if it’s all an illusion, what’s the point?” He said, “just enjoy the ride. Experience.” I said, “you mean, as in, I’m a spiritual being having a human experience rather than a human being trying to have a spiritual experience?” He nodded, “yeah it’s all a show and you’re playing a part.” And I was like, “oh so it’s all fake and we are all just acting?!”
I don’t know if the world exists or not. It *feels like* it does but feelings are not facts lol. I’m willing to entertain the possibility it doesn’t (at the risk of going insane haha…or being seen as insane (“crackpot” to use your phrase)).
I feel like life would feel even more futile and pointless if I thought nothing existed including myself. If it’s all a dream then…maybe we should all stop caring about genocide in Gaza and bombing of Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc because…it’s all an illusion anyway…? 😔 I have to clean the bathtub tomorrow but if my bathtub doesn’t exist - and nor do I - then….maybe I needn’t bother??
Or perhaps this is not what you mean at all when you say the world doesn’t exist - perhaps you mean something like “the world *as an entity separate to ourselves* doesn’t exist “ i.e. we are all interconnected/ all one?? I’m not familiar with ACIM but I have read quite a few of your posts where you talk about this, so I’m sorry if these are silly questions and/or I’ve missed or misunderstood somewhere.
What is it like for you, Tereza? How does your belief (can I call it that?) that the “world does not exist” materially change what you do, how you live? Would it change any of the systems based policies or practices of Terezania (my shorthand for the place you dream of in How to Dismantle an Empire)? What are the implications of “No World” (to use the same language as “no virus”)?
I have to ask you because my brain is stumped by the possibility the world doesn’t exist and I don’t know how to think any further sensible thoughts about anything lol
I recall Winston’s mind falls apart in 1984 as he tried to think about what’s real / true as he’s being tortured by O’Brien. O’Brien says, “metaphysics is not your strong suit”. I worry that a population that believes nothing is real would become a perfect “blank slate” for totalitarian forces to write their stories on. Or maybe not! Maybe they’d be too sceptical to believe anything at all…
I suppose you could counter “I have not seen any evidence for the existence of a virus” with “what evidence do you have to show the world exists?” You could do the flat earthers out of business 😂😂
Oh good! I get to respond to you here, LoWa. I have tabs open to respond to you elsewhere but this has been keeping me occupied between dance classes. And thanks for the clove oil recommendation before my pending root canal. It's calmed down but I'll pick some up as an alternative to washing down Advil with whiskey--although that's been working just fine.
My favorite topic, ultimate reality! You're naming a common objection and I'm happy for a chance to clarify. One of my early readers termed what I do as socio-spirituality: taking a hard look at the reality IN the world while questioning the reality OF the world. The second makes it easier to do the first because you're not weighed down by fear, guilt and blame, none of which are useful.
I don't 'believe' the world isn't real, but I entertain the possibility that it isn't. There are three explanations for the world of perception: One is God the Monster, who created death and pain and suffering because He loves His children SO much. Two is that we hoisted ourselves into existence through monkey genes and millennia of experimentation. I reject the first but hold the second as possible. The third is that we're OneMind Dreaming. This is the only scenario in which Goddess, who is at least as loving a mother as me, is possible.
Let's say that one of my daughters thought she had done something terrible, where I'd hate her for it. In her guilt, she puts herself into a deep coma where she's hiding from me but everything in her dream is out to get her. I can't go into her dream because that would make her dream reality. But I don't want her to suffer, nor do I want to be without her for a moment. So in the midst of eternity and infinity, I make a safe bubble of time and space.
And then I sing, sending my voice into the dream. My word reminds her that I love her, and nothing she could ever do would make me hate her. It lets her create the circumstances she needs, because I would never override her Will, but gently weaves the outcome to be the best--or least worst--for everyone.
These synchronicities are the miracles that scatter hints that this is her dream, and she can make it a good one. Spirit, my voice, is here to help. She's not in it alone. She doesn't need to figure out how it will all work out--she doesn't know enough to decide that. But my Voice knows how everything will effect everyone, including people that figure in the dream will never 'meet.'
So the question isn't why would you bother to change things if you know it's all a dream, but why wouldn't you if you know it's all a dream? Gaza, Lebanon, Iran are as possible to accomplish as cleaning your bathtub. Which reminds me, I need to do that too ...
Goodness me, I need to contemplate this more! So the Spirit / Voice here is like a benevolent force / motherly supra-entity, deep intelligence / connected consciousness…? Why is this Goddess mother letting Gaza happen..?
Sorry I’ve taken this way off topic!! Usual story with our chats haha.
PS on the tooth situation, you might like to check out Jerry Tenant’s work on “voltage is healing” too as he talks about teeth/bones as critical parts of the human electromagnetic circuit. May help with the healing process too 🙏🏾
Happy to go off-road. Spirit can't act in the dream or 'allow' or 'disallow' what we can dream. Spirit doesn't control us, or we would be the slave of Goddess, not her daughter. Spirit can only choreograph events so that what happens is in sync with something else, that makes it turn out for the best.
If it's a dream, Gaza isn't happening. No one is dying because these are all figures in the dream. But can you feel pain and fear in a dream? Absolutely. Every figure in the dream is you. So the 'prosperity consciousness' peeps, who think they can manifest their next rent payment, are missing the point. They think they can attract money but that world peace is too big an ask. What's impossible in a dream? All you have to do is figure out how to resolve it and it's solved. Better yet, trust that Spirit is already resolving it and you are doing your part perfectly.
On the tooth, I have a dead nerve that's part of a bridge where the other tooth just did the same. It calms down and then flares up. There's really nothing for it but a root canal because it will keep getting infected. But it's okay, not bothering me now. Thanks for thinking of it!
I sort of understand because I can already control my dreams as I usually know I’m dreaming and can make myself go invisible or fly or do other supernatural things (or just plain old gymnastics moves I’m too old to do now).
But I need to digest this more, maybe after my next god-like experience in the cold plunge 😂
Count me in!
Hi Tereza,
I hope you don’t mind another comment from me! I’m a curious cat and keen to learn more about your perspective. I’ve been reading the comments and following along here, including your responses to the comments.
I’ve written a bit of a longwinded comment here, which is perhaps tangential to your original post (sorry!!) so I’ll give you the main question up front: “LoWa would love to know how things work in Terezania and on what basis decisions are made about how resources are used.” Again, I use the term Terezania in an affectionate way (I s’pose I could use Crone Island but there’s a lot of lads in this stack haha). So I’m stepping outside of “what is” for a moment and want to enter your vision of “what could be [and how it could be]”.
If I’ve read you correctly, you mentioned that you wouldn’t really change how you live life if you did/did not believe in viruses.
So I was puzzling over this reply to me on Nevermore’s comment thread, which I have taken to mean (please correct me if I’m wrong!) that you *would* change things in Terezania if *other* people believed in viruses. You noted:
“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.”
It’s quite tricky when some people believe very strongly that something will kill them but other people in the community don’t believe that thing even exists…so how do we live well together in this context?? I totes agree it’s not wise to force our beliefs down anyone’s throat so I imagine we will always have this kind of diversity of views in society about what is harmful (eg climate change), what exists (eg weapons of mass destruction), what should be done about it (eg digital currency).
I suppose one could say, “to each their own” (/“that’s their choice”) i.e. everyone takes personal responsibility and does what they feel is best. But it’s super hard because we are interdependent and what we do does affect others — e.g. In this case because the people who would want to mask and self-isolate would feel scared of the people who don’t and maybe not let them into their shops or homes. And no virus people would feel sad and maybe frustrated they can’t hang out with their lovely friends and family so easily because of fear of viruses or if their workplaces made them wear masks because of it. Socially distanced dinners only! And the no virus people might feel additionally frustrated that other causes of disease aren’t getting enough attention like EMF, pesticides, spraying from skies, light pollution…
And I know you aren’t actually saying “to each their own” anyway – i.e. you’re not saying it’s all an individual problem. You’re saying that in Terezania, there should be some kind of diversion of public resources (carets) and policies (store opening hours etc) to support people who are worried about pathogens causing disease.
I remembered a wonderful Christian family living out in the woods I met earlier this year. They were into permaculture and building gorgeous tiny homes. Very loving. They thought not enough attention was being paid to the devil. They said that everything that wasn’t Christian was satanic. (Very lovingly I might add!) They listed meditation, crystal shops, yoga, therapy, tarot, temples, all as places where the devil was lurking. [I was anxious about the hippie Indian pajama pants with Indian spiritual designs (lotus, elephants etc) I was wearing but relieved to see they were wearing hippie pants too, phew!!].
We had a blast weeding the sugarcane and I got to ask them a thousand questions about bible stories. The one I thought was most interesting was where God says that Christians can vanquish and take the lands of and enslave/subjugate any non-Christians anywhere on the planet because everyone and everything not-Christian is satanic and will destroy us all! It was ironic as I was travelling with my indigenous friends who were campaigning about…indigenous rights and loss of land that had been justified using these exact rationale.
If they genuinely believe these things are a threat, in Terezania, should we support them financially for being unable to work because the world is littered with these places and practices? Should we close those places down? Should Christian schools get more funding and funding removed from non-religious schools? Because some people believe there is a “real” threat?
I know I wouldn’t do it (not that I want that sort of power anyway lol) — but I’m sure many in MFM who believe everything except Christianity is satanic might consider these public policies sensible.
If I read your words properly (and I’m always happy to be corrected!), you note that the question of virus existence doesn’t matter (or perhaps shouldn’t matter) and you wouldn’t change anything about how things roll. But your proposed policies in Terezania suggest otherwise, as it sounds like you *would* be willing to change a fair bit from mortgage agreements to shop hours and rental payments and how people are provisioned with food and other essential supplies…So any further commentary on this most welcome as the two positions seem a bit contradictory to me. (I’m sure you’ll tell me about a third way – ‘third paradigm??’ – that reconciles them that I obviously can’t think of right now). :-)
And on an ethical note, in Terezania…I am scratching my head wondering…why should more resources from the commons be diverted to people who hold beliefs that cannot be substantiated? Especially when those resources could go to people who actually need help like the homeless, the elderly, the sick, the struggling. On what basis would it be justifiable for *any* communal resource to go towards a figment of imagination? We have real problems that need solving and the more we divert resources to real problems (instead of fake ones), the better off we will be…I hope!
It’s always a tricky thing of who gets to decide where resources (time, money, attention, practices) are diverted and based on what evidence or rationale…
I guess what I’m trying also to voice here is that I worry that if we believe in the imaginary, we will divert the real (time, resources) in service of the imaginary. As you can see on my other comment, I’m willing to entertain the possibility it’s all imaginary (!). And at the same time, none of us really want to force anyone to believe something against their will - so we will never have “consensus” on what’s real (and therefore what’s really a threat or really beneficial) and what’s imaginary anyway — I like pluralism of spiritual belief and don’t want us boxed into materialism / empiricism rigidly.
So how do we navigate this conundrum more broadly?? How do we make decisions together, live well together, pool our collective resources to achieve shared outcomes in community when we have this diversity of beliefs especially about what is real and what is harmful? How do we dialogue on these issues rather than jumping to extermination or alienation solutions (bombing places with WMD, culling animals, avoiding dangerous people (because germs), quarantine)…? Fear makes us act in crazy ways…So does assumed superiority or feelings of “rightness” as you say (Christian Doctrine of Discovery, great chain of being).
There’s a time and place for force or immediate action - when the threat is real and the solution is obvious. Eg the neighbours’ house is burning down – the fire brigade grabs people to get them out. That’s not the time for dialogue or debate lol. But when some people believe a threat is real and solution is obvious (therefore want to apply force and divert real resources to fighting or resolving the issue) but others don’t…that’s when it gets tangly!!
In Terezania, would you also financially support farmers with carets if they wanted to cull their chickens due to bird flu (therefore had lost $$ earnings), wanted to quarantine their pigs in individual plots due to swine flu, or lost their homes because they killed all their animals which they thought had a particular infectious disease and therefore no way of paying the mortgage anymore? How would you make a call on doing that if that money/carets could’ve gone to support farmers who are doing organic agriculture / permaculture and trialling innovative techniques?
I don’t have answers here, just a lot of questions around how we make agreements around how we want to organise life and do things out there in the public spaces together in these 200,000-person anarchic caret-based, goddess culture communities we are building hopefully very soon…
Look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Funny, I was just thinking of something I'd meant to point out with my ultimate reality post, and how it applies also to my economic plan ... and now to this too. With my economic plan, I tell people it's not enough to critique it. What you have to compare it to is your plan--or the existing model, which someone without a plan is endorsing. You need to put your rooster in the ring.
With ultimate reality, the same is true. It's arguing your own theory for how things came about, whether that's creationism or evolution or something else.
And the management of the commonwealth is the same. I think we could even look at the hamlet of 2000 people and compare our proposals for how we'd solve different problems. But you do point out a discrepancy where I broke my own rule. In order to be anarchic, distribution of carets has to be equal for every member of the community. It can't be paid as salaries, only as subsidies. And, if I defer mortgage payments to bankers, it makes no difference. But if the mortgage payments are being distributed equally every month in advance, will it throw off the balance of money in to money out if I defer mortgage payments while businesses are shut down?
That's a good question for the simulation program. How would you handle it in LoWaLand if another pandemic was announced? It's bound to happen.
Quick thanks for these and the other thoughtful comments! Can’t wait to dig in. I’m just racing around for rest of my weekend but will reply next weekend, hopefully sooner. Hope the root canal goes well 🙏🏾🙏🏾
I'll respond to you here to catch both you and SF. I think your challenges of this will save me years of grief, if my plan did come to fruition. Because it does make me realize that it's a slippery slope into having all the problems and internal conflicts of the community laid at the feet of my caret system. I need to be clear at the outset about what it does, for who, in what order of priority, and make the mantra to everything else: 'not my problem.'
The first priority is to protect Social Security, since the trust fund is what capitalizes it. The second is to protect the community's assets in public funds and property. The third is to protect the private assets in bank accounts and property that are placed within its system. The fourth is to distribute the collective mortgages equally in advance to all commoners (as defined by the community but must include anyone raised there) to stimulate the exchange of services and locally produced goods.
That's it.
Swine flu? Not my problem.
Pandemics? Not my problem.
Business closures? Not my problem.
Rent or mortgage relief? Not my problem.
Healthcare? Not my problem.
Food distribution? Not my problem.
Thank you for saving me from this!
Just working my way back around to our many comment threads!
Ok, I think I get it - so your plan is an economic / finance plan. So I’ll disregard the previous comments on mortgage relief, business closures, etc!
Do you have any thoughts on how decision-making occurs or is that outside the scope of your plans? Just thinking (viruses aside), there are loads of communal challenges we need to bang our heads together and agree upon how our collective resources will be used to achieve shared outcomes…and this is tricky to do even within groups of a few hundred people let alone 200,000!
Eg should we keep the local forest commons as native forest or use it for development to support the growing population or allow mountain bikes / quad bikes (but this will major it noisy) and hunting (may make it unsafe for local communities who just want to take their kids for a walk but may provide local source of wild game)?
Eg should we use our pooled resources to build more roads / wider roads since we have an awful congestion problem or more cycle lanes (but harder for people with kids or disabilities) or encourage working from home more or invest more in buses or trains?
Eg should we increase the size of the local swimming pool as it’s pretty cramped at the moment or build a separate pool in another location that a different neighbourhood can reach more easily or invest that money in using ozone rather than chlorine to keep pools clean?
Who would make these kinds of decisions in Terezania? How do they make them? On what basis? I appreciate if your plan doesn’t propose a mechanism or principles for decision-making as that is probably upto the community to decide??
In the environmental space there is a technique called “mediated modelling” which is modelling with people rather than for people - I.e. building a shared picture of reality together with people from different walks of life (environmental activists, developers, industry, government, farmers, etc). You get together in a room over a series of workshops and co-create the shared picture together. This isn’t a decision-making framework but more a collaborative process for doing some of the “homework” together before we start deciding anything.
So in my examples that’d mean getting on the same page about things like :
Forest problem:
- the evidence for the impacts of medium density housing on human wellbeing vs low density housing
- evidence for impact to ecosystems from quad bikes
- evidence for level of danger posed by hunters in areas where people go on hikes and evidence for effectiveness of strategies to mitigate this
- etc.
Road problem:
- evidence for impact of roads eg on stormwater overflow (compared to “sponge city” models), human health, pollution that ends up in streams or sea
- evidence for human behaviour and how it changes eg if new road built or wider road (Jevron’s paradox?? Do we use it more inefficiently which exacerbates the issue?) or bike lanes installed (do drivers ignore them)
- evidence for beneficial (reducing congestion) and harmful impact of electric buses and trains (EMF exposure, blue light toxicity, unreliability) and how effective mechanisms to mitigate these are
Swimming pool:
- evidence for damage to cells by chlorine vs ozone (depending on degree / frequency of exposure, or in skin type?) and if health benefits of swimming far outweigh harms of chlorine
- evidence for level of community demand over pool in different parts of town
Examples only! I know things like healthcare, food distribution, and probably everything else is not your problem…but everything requires “how do we make decisions about how resources are used” (some resources of which are being made available via your system…mortgages?), but surely even within the scope of your plan there are decisions to be made about how to protect social security, public funds and property, private assets, distribute collective mortgages…or are those things not up for debate? Who decides that and enforces it?
I’m assuming it’s Queen Tereza but happy to be corrected 😊
I meant it sincerely, LoWa, that you and SF had saved me from self-sabotaging my plan before it even got started. Back at the beginning of 'two weeks to flatten the curve,' when I believed there was something real happening, I had come up with various ways that we could 'shelter in place' and gradually expand, that wouldn't have violated anyone's sovereignty as individuals or as a community. It really could have been a lovely time, that started with families and households, then opened into blocks socializing, then neighborhoods, and kept community open spaces--like the beach for us--only for locals for that time, restricting tourists. Within 2-3 mos, we would have known that no outside virus could reach us and the 'pandemic' would be over.
But your objections reminded me that it's a slippery slope once the ironclad rule is broken that all caret dividends have to be distributed equally. The exception I've thought possible is that any private money contributed towards community projects would be matched--and there should likely be parameters put on that.
When I've joked about being Czarina of my fiefdom, let me explain what I mean. What's set in stone in my plan is the formula for the maximum carets you can distribute: Debt + Tax + X*Cash; that Social Security has to be distributed at the same or greater rate; that carets have to be distributed equally to all commoners; and that everyone needs to be a commoner of somewhere by your definition. And that all proposals for caret distribution be modeled in an on-line game where the 'winner' maximizes the exchanges of local goods and services within three years.
Every community is different. So the winning proposals wouldn't be the same. Variables include the rate of exchange you set for carets to the imperial currency--X in the formula above. And you'd set the tax on carets exchanged locally vs. dollars (or other imp curr) spent outside. You'd determine the interest rate you want to give the Soc Sec Fund or long term savings, and the maximum amount that can get that, maybe determined by age. They would set the maximum amount of imp curr per month that can be exchanged for carets at a 1:1 ratio. They'd set the maximum wages for earning carets.
The size at which these plans can differ is the hamlet, around 2000 people, not the commonwealth of 200,000. If there's a discrepancy in how many carets one community gets vs another--because the cost of housing is higher--they can decide if they'll accept those carets at the same rate or a lesser ratio.
The only decision-making I'm concerned with are the rules and tools: what needs to be consistent and what variables do the communities have to work with. The particulars would be left to them. Does that make sense?
Ok I think I understand what you’re saying about the decision-making. And I need to eat some food and work through your maths formula with some real numbers to get that to go into my brain! (If you’ve already done a sample calculation on your substack, would love to read). Maybe SF can help you make a cartoon video like this one?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N7oD5zrBnc 😊
Excellent reasoning and questioning here. 👏🏽 I particularly appreciate “On what basis would it be justifiable for *any* communal resource to go towards a figment of imagination?” And the point about all the animals being killed for these so-called flus.
Hi Tereza
Thank you for your thoughtful reflections on the ongoing “no-virus” controversy. While I fully agree that dogmatism, rhetorical aggression, and factionalism can fracture any movement, I believe your assertion that the “no-virus” position is—or must be—a psyop is both unsupported and unnecessarily inflammatory. More importantly, I believe the issue deserves to be reframed in its proper historical and epistemological context.
The foundational debate around contagion is not new, nor is it a phenomenon birthed from internet contrarianism. It dates back at least two centuries to the famous 19th-century dispute between Max von Pettenkofer and Robert Koch. Pettenkofer, a chemist and hygienist, advocated that disease arose primarily from environmental and constitutional factors—what we would now recognize as terrain theory. In contrast, Koch’s germ theory posited that specific microorganisms were the singular cause of specific diseases. This disagreement was not academic: Pettenkofer famously ingested a sample of cholera bacteria from Koch to demonstrate that the microbe alone was not sufficient to cause disease in a healthy individual.
This act, often mischaracterized as eccentric defiance, in fact highlighted a deeply rooted—and scientifically legitimate—dispute. That germ theory ultimately prevailed was not simply due to stronger empirical validation but rather because it aligned closely with emerging pharmaceutical, technocratic, and political interests. This is a pattern we continue to witness today.
And this is, I believe, the central problem we face: not merely whether viruses exist, but the vast institutional and economic systems constructed atop the assumption that they do, and that they operate according to the mechanisms germ theory describes. The dominance of this paradigm has been sustained not through transparent scientific discourse, but by systemic propaganda and suppression of dissent. Its role as a doctrinal pillar supports not only the vaccine industry but also the public health justifications for lockdowns, quarantines, and contact tracing—all predicated on the unproven notion of viral contagion.
You raise a fair concern that elements of the “no-virus” movement use inflammatory rhetoric or behave in bad faith. I do not deny that intentional disinformation agents may exist within that space. However, as I have stated directly to Mr. Mees Baaijen, not everyone engaging with this issue is on the same "team". Intellectual dissent must not be conflated with sabotage. Moreover, Mr. Baaijen has himself publicly conceded that he does not possess the depth of virological expertise necessary to debate this issue rigorously. That admission can be found here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thepredatorsversusthepeople/p/the-proof-for-no-no-virus?r=55g38d&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=121689738
Given that, it is concerning that your article forwards the claim that “no-virus” is a psyop with no substantiated evidence. This kind of speculative labeling closely mirrors the tactics used by mainstream actors to delegitimize dissent—precisely the sort of intellectual shortcut that undermines the very credibility we are all striving to preserve. If we are to claim scientific and moral high ground, we must resist the urge to dismiss or stigmatize others based on theoretical disagreement alone.
You correctly point out that belief in viruses undergirds the vaccine industry, but I would emphasize that it also justifies the entire apparatus of pandemic response. Without belief in contagious viral spread, there is no rationale for lockdowns, mass testing, digital IDs, or behavioral surveillance. And yet, despite these profound societal implications, there is still no direct, peer-reviewed, methodologically sound evidence demonstrating natural viral transmission under real-world conditions.
To that end, I invite you to review my paper:
Reevaluating Viral Transmission: A Critical Review - https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a
This article documents a consistent pattern of failed transmission studies, including recent controlled experiments published in 2021, 2022, and 2024, that fail to support the central premise of natural viral contagion. If you maintain that viral contagion is a legitimate biological process, I respectfully challenge you to provide a single peer-reviewed study that demonstrates natural transmission while accounting for critical experimental controls and confounding variables as outlined in my work.
Moreover, if we are to assess the validity of the theory that viruses exist and cause disease, it is essential to evaluate its foundational hypotheses. In this regard, the entire field of virology rests primarily on two assumptions:
- Contagion – That disease is spread from person to person via infectious viral particles.
- Cytopathic Effect (CPE) Specificity – That visible cellular damage in culture (CPE) is uniquely indicative of a virus.
Both hypotheses have now been falsified, and thus the entire theoretical framework built upon them warrants reconsideration:
- Contagion and Its Discontents: https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a
- The Non-Specificity of Cytopathic Effects: https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-non-specificity-of-cytopathic
If you or your readers are in possession of experimental evidence that invalidates these findings, I am open—indeed eager—to examine it in detail.
In conclusion, the true threat to any truth-seeking movement is not internal disagreement but the refusal to allow honest challenges to foundational assumptions. Pettenkofer’s contributions were not dangerous to science—they were indispensable. Likewise, today’s dissenters should not be caricatured as saboteurs. If your goal is to raise the standard of discourse and improve public understanding, I invite you to help create a space where these questions can be debated openly, rigorously, and respectfully.
I look forward to any evidence or arguments you might bring to bear on this important discussion.
So snide, Matthew, "My response here was directed to Mr. Baaijen, with whom I’ve previously engaged in conversation. Our discussion has progressed beyond the points you’ve raised here." Translated: I've already browbeaten him into saying he doesn't have enough knowledge to debate virology, so I win. However your debate with Mr. Baaijen has NOT progressed beyond the points I raised. You're still berating him for saying that No-Virus is a psyop rather than engaging WITHIN the psyop like you want him and me to.
I repeat my questions here:
My article is not on the science of virology but on the motivations and conduct of “team no-virus." Address the issues I've raised and answer the question of my article. Why do anti-vaxxers need to agree that there are no viruses, in your view? Will this help their credibility with pro-vaxxers or hurt it? Have you tested this hypothesis with pro-vaxxers in your personal life? What were the results? If your experiments, like mine, show that it will hurt our credibility, those pushing for agreement want to discredit the opposition to vaccines. That would include you, as someone willing to use coercion on anti-vaxxers rather than test your arguments with those whose behavior you purport to want to change. Tell me why this matters to you, and don't give me the BS that 'truth' matters because I have 1000 other 'truths' in my blog that you likely care nothing about. Why is this issue the one you want to stake your reputation on? And how have you tested your theory for why we should all stake our reputations on it?
hola, tereza, one of your best articles. it really directs our attention to the nature of controlled opposition. (and your look at what soph, sasha's daughter, says of latypova is very important too.)
i paused here when the image of the bourne identity thesis came forward, the mk-ultra-ed super warriors. are some of the vitriolic and virulent narrative drivers a part of that grand design? hmmmm. programmed in some way to be destructive without awareness? expressing craziness in one place, and reasoned argument elsewhere?
less speculative to me was my own initial forays into the no-virus people. i quickly disregarded most of them because they were histrionically tribal in exactly the way the convid managers had used tribalism to manipulate. so, to me, i recognised that some of their arguments were sound and well argued and researched. which doesn't mean that the are the truth-speakers for all truth!
i began to write about this and to examine terrain theory. which is not adequate to explain everything, although it is critically important, of course. i spent some time with virus-truth people, and made some gentle-counter arguments and was, by at least one of them, attacked as not being one of the good guys.
so... is the near-hysterical tribalism of the no-virus group part of the carefully crafted controlled opposition? is it a manifestation of a psyche wedded to dogmatism in place of truth-seeking, a kind of downstream effect of a bullied culture that demands an absolute truth and the vilification of those evil truth-deniers? fascinating questions in fascinating times!
as i've argued elsewhere, the tribalism of the mfm in its various guises is actually a perfect mirror of the necromongers who know their dogmatic truth and the final solution: it is the other guys who are the problem and they need to be controlled at worst and killed at best. whenever a mfm group or even individual likewise knows their truth dogmatically, they like the necromongers look to control the truth deniers and with a similar energy look to their truth deniars to be killed, at least metaphorically most of time. to whatever extent the mfm hysterics separate the world into a deserving (smart) us and undeserving stupid them, they are energising the exact same energy-field of the necromongers who have done that exact same thing!
we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us!
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
🙏❤️🧘♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘♂️❤️🙏
Well written, Guy. Thanks for adding your own experience here, and for responding on the Sasha article, which I'll get to. It's a very nuanced observation you make, I would expect no less from you.
It can be really frustrating at times to get people to see they're being fooled. Just looking at my own journey it took nearly 5 years to go from "hmm something's fishy about this vaccine" to "wait a minute is this virus even real" to "no evidence for viruses exists, they didn't even manage to prove contagion" and the first half of the journey was reading mostly articles of what turned out to be controlled opposition, pretending to be vaccine-critical but still pushing the virus and vaccination narrative.
While some people can be very articulate and calm, not everybody has this quality, I get frustrated myself sometimes and when I notice I just stop typing and come back to it later when I formulated a better answer in my mind.
The most frustrating is that those who have the strongest opinions have often spent zero time learning about the subject, and refuse to watch any video or read any article on the subject, instantly dismissing them as conspiracy drivel, regardless of credentials or content.
By the way if you got this far reading, I see you've read up on terrain theory and found it inadequate to explain everything. I'd like to point you at German New Medicine and their Five Biological Laws, which is compatible with Béchamp's work, but provides a much more complete picture of disease and health.
hola, maud'dib:
yes, read to the bottom. i have come to the realisation that the lovely phrase 'strong opinion' often is a cover for 'i have *the* truth and everyone has to listen to me or are f*ng stupid undeserving morons*.' which is what much — not all — of the no-virus group have fallen into.
now the necromongers controlling the dissemination of 'knowledge' and its controlled opposition are well aware of this, so that becomes part of the babel-fication around 'truth'. the creation of absolute truthism is a poison far more pernicious than even perfectionism becomes it creates a deserving/undeserving divide that absolves us from the responsibility to converse with curiosity and respect.
in general, it seems to me that it is the preacher who doesn't *really* believe the truth of god who shouts god's truth the loudest. another way to phrase that is that when an actual truth is truly heard, it need be spoken only once. a lie, on the other hand, needs to be repeated often at increasing volumes. or, more subtlety, if someone is preaching a 'real' truth and yet doesn't actually believe that it is truth, omg! that will be shrill and cancel culture extraordinaire. or dead — that was carl jung's experience when he realised his father, a pastor(?) did not actually believe in god and the bible was a soulless job that fed the family and paid the bills.
so, wtf to do?
perhaps the best 'lie' to yell is the one the yeller doesn't know is a lie. so.... from a very general psychological perspective, my intuitive process and my gut and the basic psychology of cancellation and defamation by many no-virus 'ideologues' is that the no-virus shrill is coming from a place of insecurity, ie, not being calm in the truth of their truth. does that mean that the no-virus stand is absolutely false? certainly not. my current state of thought is that while terrain theory is not necessarily complete — not sure about that 'truth' yet — the argument against something virus-like is not off the table. i am convinced, and my intuition supports the position, that virus-truth as promulgated is a psyop that was done to make the human animal afraid of nature and to convince it that the human is weak and untrustworthy against evil nature. beautiful! so when we cannot trust our human nature and our human extreme resilience and strength and power, who are you going to call? yup the experts. none of them being narcissistic in any way, because they never gas-light let alone lie to their self aggrandisement or pecuniary gain! not at all!
and this nature thing is far far far more complex than even our most sophisticated-looking theories can account for. placebo/nocebo being a tiny bit of powerful evidence of the role of mind/psychology as part of the 'terrain'. what about the physical phenomena of 'spontaneous' physically changes that occur with bodies housing multiple personalities when cigarette burns disappear and re-appear as alternate personalities become dominant? what does it mean that we are resonant energy frequencies? that the materiality of atoms is that they aren't material? is there even the existence of a boundary separating the body from life? to what extent does a mind-'virus' kill the ability to feel emotion and how does that affect the terrain? what is the significance of quantum entanglement (aka gautama buddha's idea of dependent co-arising) in the terrain? even what might the relative nature (or even non-existence) of time at an energetic level mean for the terrain? why is it that morals are able to kill compassion and rationalise suffering as a good thing? and an infinite set of other questions beyond that for just this tiny part of our experience as expressions of life.
the necromongers sow confusion and the biggest one is to be confused with the need to know with absolute certainty the absolute 'truth'. what? how can that happen in a brain the size of nothing against just the *complexity* let alone material scope of the universe's expansive diversity. for me, the less humour and the more demanding and castigating the truth *teller*, the more i discount the information *source*. not necessarily the 'information' lest i toss baby out with the bathwater.
again, the necromongers controlling the conversation know this. so, does the level of shrillness mean that 'absolute' truth is in, in 'fact', the no-virus model and that the necromongers are actively supporting shrillifying that truth so people will be repulsed by the presentation? hmmmm. or that people who are absolutists have fallen into an absolute truth-trap and don't see that their railing against skeptics is the same energy that had schemelweis locked up in an insane asylum for suggesting hygienic practices? other?
i've come to a place with 'real' yama-grounded yoga and an interesting set of experiences to trust the truth of my body. it knows what is true for it in this moment. so, i now listen to my body about these kinds of things, relax, and kind of laugh at this staged mixed-medical-arts octagon while the organisers of it profit from the earnest combatants who don't see the theatre nor its owners lure of the lucre and immortality through vampiric death obsessions.
now, the question i pose to you, Muad'Dib, did you read to here? (and if curious, i have recently begun teaching this body-truth technique. in my 10 years of actively using and refining it, it hasn't failed to provide me with growth. and it was what kept me from taking the injection in 2021 despite a huge amount of social and financial pressure to do so and my complete ignorance about everything 'vaccine'. not knowing the truth then about that injection, i trusted the truth awareness of my body. with its relief i gave up my job and my life with mortgage and debt in canada to become a refugee from canada's medical tyranny and its active demands for the injection of a profoundly clever poison using a faked plandemic to 'convid' the population to roll up their collective sleeves against something that certainly doesn't exist in this theatre of death.)
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
🙏❤️🧘♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘♂️❤️🙏
Excellent reply, Guy. I certainly read to the end, with gusto! It's very well put that the psyop may be to reject virus skepticism along with the no-virus gang. As I've often said, propaganda is the truth interwoven with lies. If you recognize the truth and swallow the lies, they win. If you recognize the lies and reject the truth, they win. There's no shortcut to keeping your discernment in picking apart the arguments point by point.
Also, in Mees' response to Muad'Dib, he noted that he met the pattern for most of the no-virus gang (of the over 1000 comments he's had on his posts): a Substack less than 6 mos old with only reposts, sometimes 10 a day, but no original material. After seeing the response here, I have no doubt it's a psyop.
hola, tereza. thank you for you kind words and the lovely reminder of the psyop players on top of bots here in substack. i will take time to poke around the commentator's profiles a bit more. often i do a quick look, although this time i didn't — a particularly time constrained day, despite or in part because of, my fingers itching to elaborate on psyop. (i didn't mention how mk-ultra's nlp via project mockingbird has very likely really screwed all of our brains in some way! [smh. yikes. aren't even these thoughts my own?]
and even if 'just' a psyop muad'dib's response prompted me to work through in a more or less coherent way why it is important to distrust everything in this 'world' of humans without losing trust in this world within which we humans are housed.
it was a fun write for me, and to see how my ideas within this truth-octagon-theatre have been evolving. yes, are we able to step out of the stage into the theatre? and the, perhaps, out of the theatre itself while retaining our humanity by removal our moral need for singular absolute truths. omg! this world really does have a wicked sense of humour: the need for a multiplicity of singular truths. no wonder the ideologues, like woke silliness, get their underwear twisted in knots: not that truth this one, by not seeing that they are diametrically opposite and cannot co-exist with the highest levels of delusion.
hasta luego.
You guys (Guy and Tereza) are deep thinkers and we appreciate your well thought-out responses. We all want clarity in this pile of info-BS we get fed and its hard to discern what is true, because of the complexity.
Guy, you make a good point. We should be okay with a little gray area in truth, or it will tilt toward fanaticism.
yes, peter. and i appreciate your kind words. (and laughed a little at 'deep thought' because it brings to mind the imagery of 'deep thought' in the hitchikers guide to the galaxy — a giant computer, earth, being managed by rats!)
surety of our truth at any given moment is a kind of hubris that can easily become fanaticism and the source of our own tragedies while using truth-morality to kill the non-believers. and that is what the practice of yama-yoga is to offset. 'real' yoga is not the postures, which are a subset of yoga and not sufficient within themselves for most people to find union with being calm in mind and body. yoga at its core is to rest comfortably and with equanimity in uncertain truth. or as gautama buddha put it, to walk with equanimity the middle path.
[smh] i've had so many absolute truths embarrass me for either naïveté or other failures of perception, that i now rest comfortably in truth as a hypothesis. lol! language is so troubling, because is *that* stand standing me in *absolute truth*? [rotfl.]
perhaps the test of resting in a 'real' truth outside of 'limited real' truths is a combination of humour and curiosity. those who have lost their senses of humour and curiosity, even if speaking a truth, have lost what might be some kind of real truth. when we fall into truth speak instead of truth seek, that is when cancel culture and death to the non-believers becomes de rigueur.
it is fascinating that 'the great apocalypse' means the great unveiling to that (truth) which has been hidden (by the necromongers(?)). hmmmm. when the lies are seen control of choice aligns with truth more easily. hmmmm.
we are living the bhagavad-gita wedded to the great apocalypse! all the best with what is changing. everything changes! with peace, respect, love and equanimous enthusiasm.
🙏❤️🧘♂️🙌☯️🙌🧘♂️❤️🙏
It matters because there is no scientific evidence in the literature anywhere at all that demonstrates that virus exists. None. Nothing. Nada.
That's pretty significant.
It means that those that believe they do exist are simply that - believers. The belief in virus as an article of faith. Or more accurately a result of mind control.
Break free.
Not only do I not 'believe' in viruses, but I don't believe in believing--which is making up your mind in advance of new facts and experience. I'm agnostic on the question because it wouldn't change how I live day to day (which is unafraid of other people when they're sick--ask my daughters) and it isn't something that I see as helpful for changing the power that a small group of people have over the rest of us in the world. Please explain to me how it would do the latter, unless you just see this as a way to score points with your buddies.
I like your use of the word agnostic here. I am agnostic on most things. But my research into 'viruses', 'germs' and disease over the last 5 years has freed me from a lifetime of conditioning, and it does indeed change the way I live. I am freer and feel more natural as a creature upon the earth, more true to who I am.
Seems to me thats what it is all about.
Hmmm ... are you saying, Tobin, that I should become a believer for my own good? Where have I heard that before?
I don't know if I had the same lifetime of conditioning that you did. I come from hardy German stock where my grandmother was often quoted as saying you have to eat a peck of dirt before you die. As my brother always replied, 'Why do I want to die?'
Also I read a meme that, due to inflation, food that falls on the floor for 8.3 seconds can now be eaten ;-)
If you feel freer, more natural and more true to who you are, good for you. I feel the same after 20 yrs of studying A Course in Miracles. I'd venture to say that Ultimate Reality--its topic--is the most important question we could be debating. Right? But I don't feel it's my place to tell other people what truths they should be questioning, much less accepting. Certainly not for their own good.
100%
Brilliantly stated
Tereza, thank you for taking on this contentious issue, and for being so coherent, logical and reasonable. I'm with you 100%.
Always happy to find myself in your camp, Anne. I remember you were one of the first to 'like' my first article on Malone, back when he was promoting your cartoons. It was such an excellent refusal to be 'captured' even by someone on our side giving you an audience. I've always admired you for it.
I appreciate your saying this, Tereza! I like to be in your camp as well. Yesterday I was going through your posts trying to catch up with your take on things. I’m so impressed by the depth of your knowledge, and how far back in history you go. Normally, I like to print things out to read but that’s not possible with yours or I’d be running out of ink every other day. Will try to watch your videos. What you explore is fascinating and paradigm-shifting. Your posts about Germany between WWI and WWII were blowing my mind, and I only had to time skim them. I wish there was an eighth day in the week I could spend reading from sunup to far after sundown to explore various threads of history and weave something out of it all.
In other words, I’m in awe of what you do!
SO kind of you to say, Anne, and SO meaningful coming from you!
I share your love of real paper. I was chatting with my youngest daughter yesterday about wondering if Substack was a 'cull-de-Stack.' There are so many little disputes that seem to become big dramas, and then all the PsyOperators and argument bots and people who act like they are ...
It also feels like people are more immersed in their lives again, and the need for online community is less. That's okay with me, since it wasn't my intent and was a double-edged sword anyway, putting pressure to agree with the group.
She suggested maybe I do something different for awhile. I mentioned that I'd re-bought Scrivener, the writing tool I used to organize my book. And I was thinking to start putting my writing into book form. I have so many I want to write! To name a few: OMGdess, WW2ruth, A House for the Soul in the Land Beyond Faith, Dragon Dreaming (ACIM as a children's book), Revolutionary Mystics and How to Become ONE, and How to Build a Commonwealth (the 2nd book in A 2020 Vision series).
My alchemy cards were just giving me winter--just after summer solstice here in the US--and the ouroboros, silver and the new pearl. All about putting in time and going deep, being a hermit, polishing. So I'm thinking to devote myself to book writing again and still do the 'stack, but take time for me and not always reacting. I love that you appreciate how far back I go. Thank you for that encouragement!
Yes you should put your writing in book form! Please pretty please 🙏🏾So we sun-lovers can read it out on the grass in the sun. I got a printer for my birthday for this very purpose though sadly my laptop is too old to load substack (everything gets garbled) so I can’t easily print articles from here yet to save my eyeballs.
I think Cull-de-Stack is a great pun in more ways than one — I can’t help but think this platform is getting more social media-ish with Notes and things and dragging people into a dopamine spiral of endless scrolling…killing (culling) our brains with blue light. How do you come up with these endlessly brilliant puns?!
PS on the topic of paper and going analogue, have you seen the Daylight Computer? Made by an Indian guy Anjan Katta in the US, meant to be for helping people get off tech addiction and work outside more by removing all blue light, making the screen visible even in direct sunlight and possibly also reducing the EMFs too. Just been listening to Nick Pineault’s podcast with Anjan Katta on this.
So now we can all get the sun on our skin while doing non-addictive, non-draining feel thinking work using tech!
Ha, that is quite the contradiction! I haven't heard of the Katta Daylight Computer. I first read this reply however with an annoying glare on my screen, so I gave up and went inside. And didn't respond for another two days. Okay, I'm going to close the laptop and go doodle my working plan for OMGdess. Fie on both your houses, Microsoft and Apple!
Well I’ll applaud this article from the rooftops Tereza! I’ve long been suspicious of Yeadon and a happy band of travellers in UK I once thought were part of the ‘resistance’. I’ve called Yeadon out 2 or 3 times in the past year or so and he’s had the temerity so call me 77th (British Army brigade of internet sniffers). The insult alone does not sit well alongside a fighter for truth. Nor does his claim of spending a million quid of his own money over the preceding five years trying to wake people up. Well that’s about £550 a day which is pretty high living whichever way you look at it. (He took that post down pretty quick by the way). This happy band of travellers also includes Oliver, Delingpole, Miriaf, Malik plus a few more whose names I forget in my dotage. All comrades in arms once upon a time. All people you turned to from about 2020 to 2024 roughly. But now with things looking up (granted there’s a long way to go) they are turning the misery ratchet tighter and tighter and ramping up the fear because any psy-operative worth their salt knows fear is low energy vibration which renders people impotent. There’s a coincidence. Not an optimistic syllable between them. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts eh? Such a shame, particularly here in the UK where the weather is also celebrating its freedom with the most spectacular summer since 1976 ( which for a young man in his twenties was a wonderful time for making hay. I can reminisce at least.) Don’t trust these people unless they tell you ‘yes we can, because that is what we came to do. Raise the vibration.’ Not bloody well depress it: alway a clue. Thanks for this post, really welcomed it. As for virus /no virus who cares? What matters is your truth and integrity, not what team you support.
What I have learned after answering hundreds of often aggressive and insulting comments on my "NO no-virus" articles can be summarized in two conclusions:
1. The leaders of team no-virus are clearly acting in bad faith: all their publications are misleading and riddled with contradictions, falsifications, omissions, etc (see below). These errors can’t be random and the only explanation that I can give is that they are part of a psy-op, set up and financed by The Powers That Be. That is nothing new: it has been seen in all opposition movements, i.e., cognitive infiltration as described by Cass Sunstein: "… agents should join those online communities and promote a wide range of additional theories, often rather absurd ones, thereby stirring up internal conflicts, diverting the members into theoretical dead-ends, and heavily discrediting them with the broader public."
2. The followers of team no-virus often make ad hominem attacks, probably because they learned it from Tom Cowan, and because their backgrounds in medicine and virological science are – with rare exceptions – insufficient for an academic discussion. Yet their attitude is rarely humble. For the same reason they are also unable to spot the enormous deceit by the leaders. Most of these rude attackers have a quite recent substack account without original posts, but with a facade of restacks. Some have even offered me money, or cooperation with their leaders in research projects. Again, all of this smells psy-op.
And of course, nobody has taken the Loeffler challenge. Please tell me what else can explain his results with foot and mouth disease in 1897, if not a virus (a submicroscopic agent replicating in the host)?
On the misleading publications:
After a quick screening I spotted 3 mayor deceptions in Can you catch a cold, see my post The proof of NO no-virus.
On The Contagion Myth, see this polite but devastating critique https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/craig-holdrege-and-jon-mcalice/some-comments-on-the-contagion-myth
Then there are the hundreds of pages of polite and patient, and very detailed and rational refutations of no-virus theory by Jeremy Hammond,
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/articles/collections/virus/
I am not saying that Covid was not a hoax or a scam (it was), or that vaccines are good (they are dangerous and largely unnecessary), or that viruses are a mayor health risk for humans (that was long ago), or that the pharmaceutical industry is benevolent: in my book I call them Pharmafia: the New Merchants of Death. I am just saying that viruses do exist (including Covid19), that they can be modified into bioweapons, and that anti-viral drugs can be lifesaving.
I'll link your article here, Mees, although I think I'd be optimistic to think it's the last 8 min I'll spend on this 'debate': https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/p/the-proof-for-no-no-virus.
I hope that others, who are keeping a skeptical mind, will read the Contagion Myth Comments by Craig Holdrege & Jon McAlice. It's very methodical and clear, looking at methodology and argumentation. I agree with Sally Fallon Morell on many issues in nutrition and particularly that healthy milk from healthy animals doesn't need to be pasteurized. I suspect you agree with that too.
Holdrege and McAlice lay out the fallacies of the arguments against Koch's postulates, starting with the reality that we all have bacteria that may not express as dis-ease unless the conditions of the host or environment are weakened. They seem to use virus, bacterium and pathogen interchangeably.
Jeremy Hammond also has an easy-to-follow style, if that can be said for scientific technical papers. I recommend this one to everyone who keeps linking ViroLIEgy: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/12/15/mike-stone-proves-my-point-about-the-dogma-of-virus-denialism/. Using someone's own words to show their contradictions is one of my favorite techniques, and Jeremy does it well. And, of course, his focus on Palestine endears him to me further.
What is evident to me is that we're all in agreement on 99% of the points. We would be a force to be reckoned with, as more people are connecting the vaccine as cause to their effects. There are PsyOperators who've been preparing for this moment, to make sure that doesn't happen. I agree with you fully that this is planned and coordinated.
Your article, Mees, makes excellent points about how the bio-terrorism labs, as I term them, have made naturally occurring viruses more deadly. The No-Virus camp gives bioweapons a get-out-of-jail-free card. No virus, no bioweapons! And the anti-viral drugs like ivermectin, with no patents, will again be discredited from our own side.
Thanks for adding your research and insights to psychological manipulation here, Mees.
Bacteria never cause disease. They are the ones cleaning up. You find them at a diseased site for that reason, not as the cause, but as the healers.
Mr Baaijen
Thank you for continuing to engage with this complex and often contentious topic. Since you've referred again to the motivations and conduct of “team no-virus,” I’d like to offer a response—one that builds on our earlier exchange in the comment section of your article on this topic, in which you yourself acknowledged not having the technical depth to debate virology comprehensively.
It’s disappointing to see you now generalizing that the “leaders of team no-virus” are engaged in a psy-op, and that their followers are largely incapable or acting in bad faith. These kinds of sweeping accusations—particularly when accompanied by no specific rebuttals of the arguments presented—risk doing exactly what you criticize: reducing discourse to tribalism and ad hominem character attacks.
For example, you repeatedly cite Loeffler’s 1897 experiment as decisive evidence for viral contagion, yet you have not directly addressed the methodological limitations of that study, or engaged with the controlled experiments outlined in my paper:
Reevaluating Viral Transmission: https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/reevaluating-viral-transmission-a
This includes more than 150 peer-reviewed transmission studies that failed to produce infection under natural conditions, despite deliberate exposure. I ask again: if viral contagion is scientifically settled, why has it proven so difficult to demonstrate under controlled conditions?
Your reference to Jeremy Hammond’s work is noted, but again, unless you engage directly with the core falsifications being presented—particularly around contagion and the non-specificity of cytopathic effects (CPE)—you’re not rebutting the argument. You're sidestepping it. Here is the corresponding analysis on CPE, which forms the other leg of the virology model:
The Non-Specificity of Cytopathic Effects: - https://mathewnorth.substack.com/p/the-non-specificity-of-cytopathic
If you believe these findings are incorrect, I would respectfully ask you to demonstrate where the analysis fails—on methodological, logical, or empirical grounds. Simply attributing the authorship or citation of such work to a psy-op does not qualify as a refutation.
Finally, I must repeat what I stated before: not everyone discussing this topic is aligned in method or motive or on the same "team". I am not here to defend rhetoric, personalities, or publishing style. I am here to interrogate assumptions using data and logic. That’s the only way to move this discussion forward.
You and I agree on several fundamental concerns: that COVID-19 was exploited as a political and economic tool, that the pharmaceutical industry cannot be trusted, and that censorship of dissent is unacceptable. But if we truly value intellectual honesty, then we must allow serious challenges to the core assumptions of modern virology—not just critiques of its abuses.
I remain open to any concrete, peer-reviewed evidence you wish to present demonstrating natural viral transmission or the virus-specificity of CPE.
Hi Matthew. My article is not on the science of virology but on the motivations and conduct of “team no-virus." Address the issues I've raised and answer the question of my article. Why do anti-vaxxers need to agree that there are no viruses, in your view? Will this help their credibility with pro-vaxxers or hurt it? Have you tested this hypothesis with pro-vaxxers in your personal life? What were the results? If your experiments, like mine, show that it will hurt our credibility, those pushing for agreement want to discredit the opposition to vaccines. That would include you, as someone willing to use coercion on anti-vaxxers rather than test your arguments with those whose behavior you purport to want to change. Tell me why this matters to you, and don't give me the BS that 'truth' matters because I have 1000 other 'truths' in my blog that you likely care nothing about. Why is this issue the one you want to stake your reputation on? And how have you tested your theory for why we should all stake our repurations on it?
Hi Tereza,
My response here was directed to Mr. Baaijen, with whom I’ve previously engaged in conversation. Our discussion has progressed beyond the points you’ve raised here.
For a detailed reply to your article, you’re welcome to read my full response here: https://substack.com/@matthewnorth/note/c-127625809
There is no "Team No-Virus"
At best there's a group of (medical) truth-seekers who have independently come to the same conclusion and found themselves united, are sharing each others findings and even funding lab research to do the control experiments the industry should have done themselves before putting even a single vaccine on the market.
We are united in the fact that there's no scientific proof for viruses, germ theory, or contagion, but at the same time many of us are in different parts of their journey, and share different opinions as to the motives of those pushing provably poisonous shots for which there is zero regulation as to how much contamination with any substance is allowed to be in there or how much the ingredients may differ from the label.
Dear Matthew
My main (and heavy) topic of research is the development of criminal power structures in history and how it influences the present and future of humanity. The virus discussion was a side step. I have a general overview of the field, but I am not competent in specific items, and I think I have referred you to Dr. Aldo Dekker earlier on for these matters.
Loeffler had indeed many limitations, but his results were confirmed by later technologies, including genome sequencing and electron microscopic imagining. And I don't see you as part of team no-virus!
Both genome sequencing (which is it itself already bunk) and electron microscopic imaging rely on the disproven cell culture method. You can find literally any supposed virus particle in uninoculated ("virus"-free) cultures as well, as the result is caused by the methodology, not a supposed independent variable (the virus).
Because any transmission study using natural pathways failed to show any contagion, they switched to circular reasoning, by using the cell culture method to "prove" the disease was transmitted to other participants. To account for false positives, they invented the "asymptomatic carrier" concept.
By the way, your substack profile is the same as the other attackers: started 6 months ago, no posts of your own only restacks for window dressing, a handful of subscribers, and just parroting the dogma's and cliche's endlessly, sometimes ten times per day in the same post, without any engagement in the points brought up in the post. Highly suspicious, and I have little doubt that you are part of some campaign to infiltrate substack so people critical on no-virus can be attacked easily.
Glad that you're paying attention to the patterns, Mees. That ability of pattern recognition, as ordinary a skill as it might seem, is what makes you so formidable in putting together all the dots of the centuries (and millennia) old plan for global domination. It's certainly a skill we should be teaching the youth.
This whole comment thread has gotten quite amusing. I know you have plenty of your own evidence you've waded through, but if you have the time and can stomach it, I think you'd be entertained by glancing through.
Thanks Tereza.
On my site around a thousand comments were posted on no-virus, my own included (20%?). I haven't been keeping count and statistics (and I banned almost all of them), but probably 20 commenters fitted the above pattern. That can't be a coincidence.
Most of them started their substack account a few months before my first substack post (early March) so it was probably a preventive measure by the cognitive infiltration team.
Many of them disappeared rapidly after I told them that they were part of a pattern (or even worth a Guinness World Record), and did not debate my conclusion, which is also suspicious.
Ad hominem, Mees.
You ignored the commenter's arguments and skipped straight to foundationless accusations. That's what bothers me most about your framing others as part of a psyop. You sidestep the arguments themselves.
Ad hominem is attacking the character of the arguer, Tobin. What Mees does here is list the behaviors and profile that 'Muad' has in common with many of the perhaps 800 comments on his post (not counting his 200 replies).
That's a fairly comprehensive sample group! I know that Mees has deleted most of these but it would have made an interesting scientific inquiry as to how many fit this pattern and how often they posted.
For instance, the three 'people' on the two comment threads you added to have 10 subs and one follower between them, zero posts and restacks of nearly all n0-virus sites. You, on the other hand, have 323 subs, two blogs, many posts, and multiple interests--just like real people do!
The question I'm raising isn't about viruses but whether this is a psyop. So knowing whether Mees is arguing with a bot is more to the point than arguing back. Yes?
Also, in looking at those other profiles, I saw a restacked article by Sam called Narcissists Who Hate the Baileys. Now that's a fine example of ad hominem--if you hate us, you must be a narcissist! Talk about sidestepping the argument. And I hear that Sam also doesn't believe in bacteria ...
After so many discussions my patience has run out Tobin, this Muad also says that bacteria never cause disease, so I can't take him seriously anymore.
When I tried out saying viruses don't exist to a herbalist friend, she responded "some people don't believe in evolution". Well evolution maybe BS, or not. The implication being she thought it was a tad woo woo. Thus it was harder to talk to her about vaccines from then on... my anecdotal experience supports Teresa's point...
I appreciate you taking that nuanced view, john. I'm also an evolution skeptic. And how could I 'believe' in viruses when I'm willing to entertain the possibility the world doesn't exist? As I say in my reply to Visceral Adventures, speaking of woo woo.