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.
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.
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!
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 😂
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.
She's a fruitcake grabbing your attention. I used to take the bait too. It's good if you want to sharpen your persuasion but after all they have no point but that they know nothing about what they babble about. That's what they babble about.
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 is a hard fact that viruses are 100% fictional’
Sums up their attitude pretty well. This is a closed loop in their brain, dogma.
Ironic that it’s a psyop narrative.
They will also tell you that every protest is an operation by ‘the cabal’ so when they see people doing something to fight the power they sit at a keyboard and tell you to despair and focus on the 3000 year operation to pretend the earth is round. Sorry, you got psyoped and you live in a fairy tail
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I don't even bother with the "No-Virus" theory some are so married to. The absolutism of the group is off-putting.
I have trusted Mike Yeadon for a long time, but learning that he bans your unwelcome comments is not a good look for me. Unless the person is a genuine troll (you aren't one, by golly!), banning is not called for.
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.
This is spot on!! lol. No nukes crowd=no virus crowd.
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!
some reassuringly balanced comments on here :) . This is great.
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.
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 😂
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.
She's a fruitcake grabbing your attention. I used to take the bait too. It's good if you want to sharpen your persuasion but after all they have no point but that they know nothing about what they babble about. That's what they babble about.
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 .
From a comment below
‘ It is a hard fact that viruses are 100% fictional’
Sums up their attitude pretty well. This is a closed loop in their brain, dogma.
Ironic that it’s a psyop narrative.
They will also tell you that every protest is an operation by ‘the cabal’ so when they see people doing something to fight the power they sit at a keyboard and tell you to despair and focus on the 3000 year operation to pretend the earth is round. Sorry, you got psyoped and you live in a fairy tail
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I don't even bother with the "No-Virus" theory some are so married to. The absolutism of the group is off-putting.
I have trusted Mike Yeadon for a long time, but learning that he bans your unwelcome comments is not a good look for me. Unless the person is a genuine troll (you aren't one, by golly!), banning is not called for.
Thanks for writing about this.
Thank you for saying that, Teresa, and venturing into these shark-infested waters. The no-troll Tereszas have to stick together ;-)