From 1900 to 1949, there were two main competing theories attempting to explain antibody production and formation as they had never been purified nor isolated directly from the fluids and proven to exist. Antibodies were still unseen fictional creations assumed to be within the blood acting as defenders against invading pathogens, thus researchers needed to take unrelated experimental results produced by different researchers over the years and cram them together in order to fit into a cohesive narrative. The first of these was the Side-Chain theory formulated by Paul Ehrlich in 1900. It is considered part of the Selection theories of antibody production which believes that antigens react to antibodies already existing within the body. It was the main theory explaining what antibodies are and how they form and function for the better part of three decades. However, in 1930 the Direct Template theory was proposed by Fritz Breinl and Felix Haurowitz and later revised by Linus Pauling in 1940. This was considered an Instruction theory as antigens were thought to play a prominent role by serving as a genetic template used to create specific antibodies. These two theories created a bit of a divide between biologically-trained and chemically-trained immunologists as they attempted to explain, according to their backgrounds, how antibodies and the immune system worked.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, Austrailian virologist Frank MacFarlane Burnet determined in 1949 that a third interpretation was warranted in order to rectify some of the loopholes in the earlier theories. His view of the sea of indirect evidence, hypotheses, and theories produced over the decades led him to be in lockstep with Breinl, Haurowitz, and Pauling’s instructionist view. However, there were some key differences which led MacFarlane to propose what became known as the Indirect Template theory in the second edition of his book fittingly titled “The Production of Antibodies.” The book itself is 142 pages long so, needless to say, I will not be posting the entirety of it here. However, we can find a few sources which paraphrase the theory directly from the book to give us an idea of what MacFarlane proposed.
From Immounopedia.org:
The Indirect Template Theory
“(i) To account for the non-antigenicity of body components these were assumed to carry ‘self-markers;” at some point in the antibody-producing sequence a ‘recognition unit’ was postulated to act as a means of detecting material carrying self-markers and deflecting it from the possibility of immune response;
(ii) To account for the persistence of antibody-producing capacity it was postulated that a ‘genocopy’ of the antigenic determinant was incorporated in the genome of the Stem cell concerned, so allowing the indefinite production of descendant antibody-producing cells;
(iii) This incorporation of pattern determinants into the genetic structure of antibody-producing cells provided some basis for the changes in antibody character that may result from secondary antigenic stimuli or simple lapse of time.”
Burnet, F.M & Fenner, F. The Production of Antibodies. Monograph of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, 2nd Edition, 1953
https://www.immunopaedia.org.za/timeline/the-indirect-template-theory/
From this short excerpt, we can see that MacFarlane was attempting to explain how antibodies persist in the blood to provide immunity after the antigen has been cleared out of the body. As he believed that antibodies continued to circulate in the body long after the antigen was gone, this meant that the antigen could not be the template continuing to produce the antibodies one by one by direct contact. This was in opposition to Breinl, Haurowitz, and Pauling’s Direct Template theory which proposed that the antigen goes into the cell and stamps its code onto each antibody after it is produced. Thus, MacFarlane alternately proposed the Indirect Template theory which stated that the antigen incorporates itself into the genetics of the cell in order to produce an endless supply of antibodies.
In 1950, Nature wrote an article which provides us with further insight into Burnet’s Indirect Template theoty. There are some rather interesting admissions made regarding his work:
PRODUCTION OF ANTIBODIES
“The first edition of this essay, published in 1941, has long been rather hard to come by, and the appearance of a second is therefore proportionately more welcome. Since the publication of the first edition, and to a large extent because of it, antibodies have been interesting biologists more and more, in spite of the inroads of antibiotics into their therapeutic uses.
Dr. F. M. Burnet has not changed his ground. Antibody formation is thought to be the consequence of an inherited change in the pattern of synthesis of serum globulin in mesenchymal cells; that is, a change which endures through repeated fissions long after the physical disappearance of the agent which in the first place brought it about. (It makes no important difference to the theory what sort of cell actually makes antibodies, and the authors now give due weight to recent evidence incriminating the plasma cell and the lymphocyte, or its precursor.) According to Burnet’s theory, therefore, antibody-formation is the outcome of an inherited cellular transformation. The ‘chemical’ theory, which in one form or another the authors couple with the names of Mudd, Haurowitz and Pauling, requires the continued presence of antigen during the entire term of antibody formation, the antigen being (crudely) a mould or template for distorting normal into antibody globulin. It is clearly a matter of the utmost technical difficulty to decide whether antibody formation outlives its stimulus or not, and the evidence one way or the other is at present quite inconclusive.
The incompatibility between the chemical and biological’ theories turns solely on the question of whether or not a cellular transformation is entailed. As the authors point out, the mechanism envisaged by the chemical theory may well prove to be correct in principle, though it may not take place at such a late stage in the assembly line of globulin synthesis as is commonly thought. It is essential for Burnet’s theory that the formation of antibodies is subsidized by a cytoplasmic self-reproducing system. Extracellular proteins like serum globulins are the reproductively inert by-products of the synthetic activity of an enzyme system which is undergoing continual replication in the cytoplasm. Antibody is serum globulin formed as the by-product of an enzyme system which, under the impress of antigen, has submitted to a slight inherited change that is in some important ways analogous to that responsible or the formation of adaptive enzymes in bacteria an analogy supported since the publication of the first edition by Hinshelwood’s interpretation for the adaptive process. The sort of molecular distortion envisaged by the chemical theory might be supposed to occur in the Burnet enzyme system itself rather than in the texture of its finished product-an idea which fits easily into the pattern of modern speculation about the nature of self-reproducing systems.
However, the authors would be the first to admit that much of the evidence they bring forward in support of their views is no more than suggestive. The existence of a short phase of exponential expansion of circulating antibody is poor evidence for the existence of a multiplicative antibody-forming system, though it is certainly consistent with such a possibility; and as evidence that antibody formation outlives its antigenic stimulus, the very long-drawn-out immunity that follows infection by some viruses is admittedly clouded by the possibility that a trace infection by virus does indeed persist. But to say this is to say the worst: this is a book which will stimulate or goad every immunologist into thinking afresh about old problems and coming to terms with new ones. Among the matter new to this edition is an ingenious and most stimulating commentary on the important and disturbing fact that embryos do not form antibodies, worked in with a theory of how antibody-forming cells come to distinguish native from foreign organic molecules. Another is the chapter on transplantation immunity, containing the suggestion that the response to the grafting of foreign homologous cells has something in common with the type of sensitivity provoked by tuberculin.
In summary, the immunologist needs no special inducement to read this essay, for he will do so anyway; but it is important that every biologist interested in the problems of cellular heredity and transformation should be aware of the rather direct bearing of antibody formation upon them.”
https://doi.org/10.1038/166204a0
As can be seen from the Nature article, Burnet believed that antibody formation was “thought to be the consequence of an inherited change in the pattern of synthesis of serum globulin in mesenchymal cells.” Oddly enough, it didn’t really matter to his theory which cells actually produced antibodies as it seemed any old cell would do. It was also admitted that the evidence presented for his theory was only suggestive. In other words, as with the theories before it, there was no conclusive evidence proving Burnet’s theory as the correct one. Perhaps this had to do with the continued lack of direct evidence in the form of purified and isolated particles assumed to be antibodies for which the researchers could study and learn from rather than throwing out guesses as to how these unseen entities look and function based on indirect chemistry experiments?
In the abstract for the book by The Journal of Immunology, it is stated that Burnet’s theory is based on the assumption of a self-producing enzyme. The assumption itself comes from logarithmic curves showing an increase in antibody titer. Because of this, it was assumed that “there must be something, somewhere proliferating” which is just another way of saying “we can not observe the antibodies directly so we must assume their presence indirectly:”
“In this second edition of Burnet’s well-known book on the production of antibodies the authors have clarified and extended the views advanced previously. They believe that the first injection of an antigen causes the modification of intracellular enzymes, so that these become adapted to the antigen. Subsequent antigen injections stimulate the replication of the adapted enzyme units formed. The circulating antibodies are considered as partial replicas of the enzyme units, devoid of enzymic activity.
The assumption of self-producing enzyme units is based chiefly on the initial logarithmic increase of the antibody titer. The logarithmic shape of the curve leads the authors to believe that “there must be something, somewhere proliferating”. They assume that the enzymes which are normally involved in the disposal of expendable body cells, become adapted to antigens which are similar to the normal substrates of the same enzymes.”
https://www.jimmunol.org/content/66/4/485
While it should be a red flag that there needed to be not one but various theories for how antibodies supposedly look, form, and function, there were a few issues related to Burnet’s theory that eventually led to it being disregarded. In a 1994 article by American immunologist Melvin Cohn, it is stated that Burnet’s rejection of the Direct Template theory was weak and that his evidence supporting his argument for antibody production long after the antigen was cleared was controversial and unconvincing. Cohn also pointed out that the argument rested on whether one could measure residual antibody secretion by end cells (plasmacytes) after induction had ceased which was beyond the experimental capabilities:
THE WISDOM OF HINDSIGHT
“As the vast majority of immunologists were “laissez-faire” instructionists, Burnet & Fenner’s rejection of Pauling’s direct template theory might have been important, but their argument was weak. They argued that if antigen were a template, then antibody synthesis would cease when antigen was ridded. They then cited evidence that antibody synthesis continued long after any antigen could possibly be present in the animal, but this remained controversial and unconvincing for a simple reason. All theories, on a priori grounds, require that induction of antibody cease when antigen is eliminated. Consequently, their argument rested on whether one could measure residual antibody secretion by end cells (plasmacytes) after induction had ceased, and this had to be beyond the experimental methodology of the time, thereby leaving in its wake a useless polemic.”
doi: 10.1146/annurev.iy.12.040194.000245.
Another strike against Burnet’s theory was that it was later determined that there were antibodies of different specificities with different amino acid sequences:
“This explained specificity and the secondary response but it was abandoned when it was known that antibodies of different specificities had different amino acid sequence in their combining sites.”
http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=61813
It was also stated that in nature, there was no need for the antigen to enter the B cell in order to produce antibodies so this apparently also disproved his theory:
“Burnet and Fenner proposed this instructive theory to explain the synthesis of antibody as an adaptive protein. According to this theory, antigen enters into B cell and it binds to its DNA and modifies it and forms this modified DNA, antibodies are produced against antigen and it also specific for it. But in nature, there is no need for an antigen to enter into B cell and modify DNA for antibody production because soluble antigen can activate B cell by binding to its cell surface receptor BCR. Because of this reason, this theory also disproved.”
http://biosiva.50webs.org/plasmacell.htm
In the end, after championing it for nearly a decade, Burnet abandoned his Indirect Template theory and eventually proposed what became the “definitive” antibody explanation known as the Clonal Selection theory in 1957.
In Summary:
- At some point in the antibody-producing sequence, a ‘recognition unit’ was postulated to act as a means of detecting material carrying self-markers and deflecting it from the possibility of immune response
- It was postulated that a ‘genocopy’ of the antigenic determinant was incorporated in the genome of the Stem cell concerned, so allowing the indefinite production of descendant antibody-producing cells
- This incorporation of pattern determinants into the genetic structure of antibody-producing cells provided some basis for the changes in antibody character that may result from secondary antigenic stimuli or simple lapse of time
- In other words, this theory was used to explain how antibodies could remain in the blood to provide “immunity” after the antigen was dealt with
- Antibody formation was thought to be the consequence of an inherited change in the pattern of synthesis of serum globulin in mesenchymal cells; that is, a change which endures through repeated fissions long after the physical disappearance of the agent which in the first place brought it about (i.e. antibodies exist long after the antigen disappears)
- According to Burnet’s theory, therefore, antibody-formation is the outcome of an inherited cellular transformation
- It makes no important difference to the theory what sort of cell actually makes antibodies
- It was a matter of the utmost technical difficulty to decide whether antibody formation outlives its stimulus or not, and the evidence one way or the other was quite inconclusive
- The incompatibility between the chemical and biological’ theories turns solely on the question of whether or not a cellular transformation is entailed
- It is essential for Burnet’s theory that the formation of antibodies is subsidized by a cytoplasmic self-reproducing system
- The sort of molecular distortion envisaged by the chemical theory might be supposed to occur in the Burnet enzyme system itself rather than in the texture of its finished product-an idea which fits easily into the pattern of modern speculation about the nature of self-reproducing systems
- The authors would be the first to admit that much of the evidence they bring forward in support of their views is no more than suggestive
- The existence of a short phase of exponential expansion of circulating antibody is poor evidence for the existence of a multiplicative antibody-forming system, though it is certainly consistent with such a possibility
- Burnet also worked in a theory of how antibody-forming cells come to distinguish native from foreign organic molecules
- The assumption of self-producing enzyme units is based chiefly on the initial logarithmic increase of the antibody titer
- The logarithmic shape of the curve led Burnet to believe that “there must be something, somewhere proliferating”
- Burnet assumed that the enzymes which are normally involved in the disposal of expendable body cells, become adapted to antigens which are similar to the normal substrates of the same enzymes
- Burnet & Fenner’s rejection of Pauling’s direct template theory might have been important, but their argument was weak
- They argued that if antigen were a template, then antibody synthesis would cease when antigen was ridded
- They then cited evidence that antibody synthesis continued long after any antigen could possibly be present in the animal, but this remained controversial and unconvincing for a simple reason
- All theories, on a priori grounds, require that induction of antibody cease when antigen is eliminated
- Consequently, their argument rested on whether one could measure residual antibody secretion by end cells (plasmacytes) after induction had ceased, and this had to be beyond the experimental methodology of the time, thereby leaving in its wake a useless polemic
Frank MacFarlane Burnet’s Indirect Template theory was a short-lived explanation for the production and formation of antibodies that never really got off the ground. It joined two other attempts at taking unrelated indirect experimental findings and forcing them together into a cohesive description for unobserved phenomena. As with the Side-Chain and Direct Template theories before it, Burnet’s Indirect Template theory had its own view and interpretation of the experimental evidence accumulated over the decades. He was able to furnish his own findings as well as those of others in order to support his overall hypothesis. Much like Linus Pauling’s work with the Direct Template theory, Burnet’s proposal was considered a legitimate theory initially. Other researchers built off of his theory with their own work and experimentations. However, Burnet’s original theory eventually fell out of favor which means much time and effort was wasted on a false theory which produced research which could only lead to results which would be considered false and erroneous. The theory led researchers in the wrong direction.
Burnet’s Indirect Template theory is a shining example as to why definitive conclusions should not be made about the assumed existence, form, and function of invisible entities. It is only a matter of time before someone else comes along and interprets the indirect experimental evidence in a different light and proposes another theory which may be accepted by the consensus majority instead. This leads to a revolving door of theories for something which can not be seen nor explained as antibodies started off as an idea rather than an observed phenomena in nature. A theory is supposed to be born out of the observation of natural phenoma, not built from an idea of something invisible assumed to exist within the blood. A theory is supposed to be assembled from facts and results aquired from the implementation of the scientific method. The scientific method requires a valid independent variable in order to determine cause and effect. As antibodies have never been purified and isolated directly from the fluids, there is no independent variable in order to complete the scientific method. Thus the antibody theories are not scientific.
What this means is that there was a massive amount of wasted time and literature that was spent on unscientific and disproven theories such as the Direct and Indirect Template theories. In many cases, this would be fine as this is how science is supposed to work. Theories are made to be disproven and replaced. However, this becomes a problem when unproven theories are used as a means of implementing health measures. Antibodies are presented as if they exist and that the current theory is considered to be the stone cold truth. Medical decisions, treatments, vaccinations, therapies, etc. are made based on the latest favorable theory which may some day soon fall out of favor for something “better.” Decisions are determined during supposed pandemics based on whether or not antibodies exist and function in the way that the theory proposes that they do. However, the evidence is contradictory and the theory remains unproven.
What happens when the antibody theory is ultimately disproven? Where does that leave the person who was vaccinated and believed a theoretical rise in antibodies was a good thing yet ended up injured due to the toxic side effects? How does this help the person suffering serum sickness after taking experimental monoclonal antibody therapy as a cure for a “virus?” What does this mean for the research promising medical marvels and insights which is ultimately unreproducible and irreplicable due to the non-specific reactions of the theoretical antibodies? Where does it leave us when antibodies are used as a means to determine one is “protected” or not in order to give or take away our rights?
Unproven theories are being presented as the unbridled truth and are used to impact our health and our freedoms. Antibodies are the perfect scapegoat to keep us blind to the “virus” lie and believing in the power of vaccination. They are the opposite side of the viroLIEgy coin and the lack of evidence for these theoretical entities must be scrutinized to the same extent.
ViroLIEgy 
Is there at least one direct piece of evidence, which does not require any interpretation, from which there can be no doubt that there are antibodies without specificities or with different specificities, with different amino acid sequences? Has anyone ever isolated, purified and visualized an antibody of any kind? Has anyone ever isolated, purified, and visualized any amino acid, nucleotide, protein molecule, DNA molecule, or any of the countless and hypothetical submicroscopic particles?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have seen no such direct evidence. “Viruses,” antibodies, DNA, etc. start from an idea rather than from observable phenomena in nature. Researchers can only assume these things exist but can never prove them using the scientific method. They will never be able to obtain these fictional entities in a purified/isolated state. They will always be the result of the heavy alterations, unnatural concoctions, and toxic mixtures that are conjured up in a lab.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you!♥️
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are most welcome! 🙂
LikeLike
This theory, that theory, conjured up in a lab…sounds like you are describing the Fed. Strange that anyone questioning economic or medical theories is instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist or a quack.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, how strange… 🤔 😉
LikeLike
Awesome Mike. Yes, if virology is pseudoscience, so must be vaccinology and immunology. They are all interconnected and you cannot have one without the other two. All are based on germ theory, another unproven concept. I often wonder, how did this entire way of thinking start? Why, and when? I think before Pasteur / Béchamp in the late 1800’s. I remember in my internet travels in 2020 reading about the historical use of lockdowns / quarantines over the centuries. In various places they were employed in an attempt to halt the spread of what was thought to be “contagion.” To my surprise, there always seemed to be two diverse camps – those who thought they were useless and those claiming they were essential to stop the spread and save humanity. Almost like in today’s world. Debates, disagreements always erupted when a government or king restricted movement, isolated those thought to be infected and able to transmit disease. Same with vaccination, a contentious practice since the very beginning. I bet many people today think this is something new, the rise of so called “anti-vaxxers”. No, this push back is as old as vaccination itself. In my mind, the entirety of germ theory, for milennia, has been created and perpetrated by elites. Those in government, business, academia and medicine who directly benefit from people believing in this theory. Wielded for profit, for control, or simply to inflate and satisfy their own ego. Think psychopaths and narcissists. Bullies. A great way to enslave entire populations, control trade, punish some and reward others.Those in charge, our elected rulers, close some businesses while others are allowed to remain open and prosper with no reasonable explanation given for their decisions. Subjugate, enslave. So much can change when germ theory is finally exposed and falls into obscurity. Like the theory of humors in human health. And I hope it falls in my lifetime. A monumental task as we have all been so indoctrinated into believing we can make each other sick simply by touching or breathing upon each other. I cannot thank-you enough Mike for your massive amount of time and energy to expose and bring an end this charade. (Whoa, was that a rant?)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Lynn! I believe you are spot on. Those who are in control seem to have had at least some version of this same infectious concept (whether from plagues, rats, spirits, bacteria, “viruses,” etc) that they have used to push for control and power throughout recorded time. It has been a tool they have refined throughout the centuries. There does seem to be a period where the concept shifts/changes to meet the thinking of the time but it always involves some form of outside infectiousness/contagiousness causing disease rather than having to do with the physical/mental state of the individual within. Hopefully we can end this infectious/contagious myth and put responsibility back on to the individual for controlling their own health. We need to take away the fear and give power and responsibility back to the people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One major issue: people need to step up and take responsibility. In today’s world it seems there’s only blame and excuses and reasons for why life isn’t the way people think it should be. I was very fortunate to have a father who never let me forget who was responsible for myself, my life, my health – me and me alone. As a kid I often thought he was such a hard ass, so unforgiving at times, even though I always felt his love for me. Now not a day goes by I don’t thank him, in my heart, for how he raised me. It is almost like he knew and prepared me for the challenges I would face. it is uncanny. Freedom requires responsibility. Unless people are willing to take this responsibility, it will be difficult to completely rid humanity of germ theory, of the infectious myth. It is too handy a crutch. an excuse to be used by the weak, the cowardly, the lazy, the sheeple for a life they are not satisfied with and will take little resposibility for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, sadly it is difficult to imagine that many will take responsibility for their own health and wellness. It is too easy to blame someone or something else for the bad choices one makes. It take a lot of courage to admit that changes may need to be made that don’t come in a pill or an injection. It is not an easy task to try and convince people, however it is a necessary one. I will do my best to keep trying to reach them!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, parasite stress theory https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/rise-authoritarianism-from-parasite-stress-theory-lockstep/
And all of these antibody explanations just remind me of how none of these mf’ers follow Occam’s razor. If you need complicated things to explain an invisible thing, you’re no different than a religion that has faith in some higher order lol!
LikeLiked by 1 person
(Way past any personal reply – so not to your person Rob).
Without faith in that which supports constancy for support of life – no life.
I get the point that those who mask their lack or rather conflicted faith behind professed beliefs are fooling themselves – regardless whether framed in machine terms or poetic symbol.
Workability trumps theory. The unworkable can only be pretended real by sacrifice of reality (in our own mind). Outsourcing true cause onto fake solution ‘works’ as a temporary defence against being undone to reality as the basis for true relationship instead of boiler plate identity based on old belief or conditioning.
Focusing in on a selective perception can blind us to context. What is the true guide for selection? Actual terrain (relational honesty) or invested and defended identity running as masking fliters – by which to think we see what is not there, but only in our mind’s projective model – seeking and fining social reinforcement.
Germ = seed. We are talking genesis theory – or cause and source nature of life theory.
The fear of attack is set at the root of a mindset of masking defence.
The masking of attack can smile and affect a paramount care and concern for your safety, or your soul or your health or your vibrational state.
But the nature of attack is always to split the mind such as to know not what it does.
I write this because I see the pathogenic agent is hidden in our own masking thought. This is so easy to see in others that we laugh at the emperor without clothes. But unless we laugh at the release of the false thinking, we take it on as a superiority of judgement over the error set as blame and shame of illegitimacy or invalidity seen and attacked (perhaps secretly) in the Other.
Even without germ theory you have its successor – gene theory as broken genes in need of repair and now irrevocably modified genes in need of management in perpetuity.
This replicates the original sin idea of an error at such a fundamental level – that everything that then follows can only persist or reiterate the error, not as a poor choice waiting correction, but as a self-damning reality to mask over, hide in and divert away to others or world so as to evade disclosure. Fear generates false evidences appearing real.
Giving faith to defences, reinforces the fear that raised them.
Misdirected faith can be released to naturally align in all that supports a felt quality of life and living, in stead of a modelling given power to run our mind as protection from overwhelm.
I see pain at all levels will serve a greater willingness to question false assumptions, despite attempts to worship pain and loss as sacrifice gaining virtue.
Selfishness loses relational context, to become self-destructive, in our name. Real communication threatens its defences as a contagion of false thinking – for love is seen as weak, rather than integrative, in a mindset of attack as salvation. (denial, distancing & masking).
LikeLike
Exactly. I have a feeling they overly complicate the story by design. It keeps people from researching this stuff as they get overwhelmed, confused, and frustrated. They will just assume the “experts” know what they are talking about and accept it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your dedication and research on viroLIEgy and GT etc is outstanding.👏🏻
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Anne! I really appreciate the kind words. 🙂
LikeLike
Thunderbolts latest vid with Michael Clarage on biophotons within an electrically self organising plasma ended with Montagnieur et al’s experimental evidence of DNA being energetically transferred or recreated via water that received its energetic imprint.
This realm of ‘quantum domain’-structured water is part of why water is predisposed to serve as a matrix for life as a translation of qualities to quanta, and to matter.
Living water is more my sense of a basis for the morphogenesis and regeneration of organic chemistry and bilogy than our object modelling of a deterministic model of linear causation.
This recognition will restore us to the nature of living thought v the mindset of filters and rules of conditioned limitation.
The pathological interpretation of a state of imbalance as an attack is the result of an unawareness and or denial of thoughts that constitute the basis for loss of unified focus or conflicting purposes. My sense of the body is as a process of balanced dis-equilibrium, that is maintained by highly organised conservations of energy to maintain functions over entropy. -as Mae Wan Ho and others work demonstrates.
The body holds the means to regulate homeostasis in all its ‘systems’ or functions of balancing. It also holds imblances as encapsulated domains with a whole as protective against traums or toxic shock. And the means to reintegrate or release such conflict-burdens to heal or restored function as a whole rather than as split off parts.
I see the fear of contagion as fear of the power of our own creative function, when outsourced by fear and denial to ‘Other’. This effectively protects a lie set in hiding from a greater life veiled in or framed by, fear. In other words a lesser evil seem to protect against a greater fear. A self set within a threatening & hostile context or terrain. Restoring resonant communion with ‘terrain’ is release of attack mode, which is our triggered ‘defence’ against full communication, feared as loss of self, of control, & of face. Breaking communication is then the function assigned the mind, whose true function is the receiving and expression of life to all levels of our being, or heart and mind as one. The experience of which is wholeness of being or health that supports function as a living one, not merely in machine terms. Joy is our true function, however we may each align to live it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for continuing, brian. And for the leads.
LikeLike
For someone who is not thoroughly confined by the limitations his/her belief systems and societal backgrounds have set up, it’s needless to say it’s not that hard for him/her to peek through the veils our world is shrouded with. The moment you realize that fact, the sooner it looks as though our world along with its greatest events are nothing more than just a drama where a bunch of imperialists, emperors, kings and queens along with their corresponding princes and princesses showing themselves in bare outfits only to mesmerize us as if they all have themselves dressed up with such marvelous outlook. But how many of us would likely appear to ponder on the absurdity and ridiculousness of the whole drama and feel couragous to step up standing against all odds? Your guess is as good as mine…
LikeLiked by 2 people
“an idea of something invisible assumed to exist within the blood.”
I wonder what they measure in these blood tests for antibodies IGg and IGa?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As antibody tests were never validated/calibrated to purified/isolated antibodies and the tests are regularly non-specific, cross reactive, and prone to false results, it’s hard to imagine that they measure anything meaningful at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Mike, I was very happy to find your website. Such a great and concise layout. I have been all around on this issue for over a year now, and yours is the best I have found thus far. Wish I had found it earlier. Dr. Cowen and Kaufman have done a great job, but just not as concise as you have.
I am sorry to bother you with this, but I have a question please. Do you by any chance know of anyone (or group) that is fighting a local GOVERNMENT employer mandate and/or testing solely based on there is no virus (specifically COVID)? AND succeeded. Maybe they tried to fight it other ways first and then went the rout of YOU (employer) need to prove to me this exists before I agree to “X”. I have seen a few documents to that effect, but I don’t know the outcome OR even what to do when the documents are ignored.
I ask because, my husband works for a city and they passed an ordinance to mandate the vaccine, he submitted a religious exemption, which was accepted, but now they mandated testing for all unvaxxed. He would consider the saliva test, but does not want the poison swabs, but of course that is all the city wants to offer. I do not work, this is not just a JOB for him. This is not a situation where he could easily just get something else. We would consider fighting the whole thing on the no virus issue, but we feel very ill prepared, despite the through understanding I have. I have tried to find help, I have asked several folks in this “circle of no virus understanding” and I have yet to find any answers that really help.
Have you heard anything? Do you know of anyone who would be interested in helping us? Or at least willing to give guidance?
Please note, I grasped the whole “no virus” thing in about 48 hours. I had been on the side of all natural life/health for years and was keenly aware of the corruption in the health care system (and awake to pretty much all other corruption as well).
If you have some time to respond or send me an email, I would apricate it greatly.
Many Blessings to you!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your kind words, support, and for reaching out. I do not know of anyone myself who has fought mandates in court with the “no virus” angle. I have heard of successful cases arguing against the PCR test such as in Portugal and Hague:
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-27/covid-pcr-test-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/12/coronavirus-sceptic-wins-court-case-about-mandatory-pcr-testing/
It is frustrating that you both have to go through this. I wouldn’t wish that “test” upon anyone. Early in the “pandemic,” my wife was forced to undergo it for work. It was a painful experience and they only did one side as she was too congested on the other.
In any case, I will reach out to some people I know and some groups I’m in to see if they may have some ideas, leads or know of anyone who may be able to help. I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer at the moment but I will write you again if I hear anything back.
LikeLike
Very nice of you to reach out to others!! That is a start and better than what I have. I will check out your links and see if anything can be of use. Luckily the tests they picked are the “home kits” they will just do in his office, so it is just a light rub rub in the nose and it is done. I am very sorry to hear about your wife’s experience. I am guessing she knows what your know, so testing was even more difficult. To test for something that is a scam. My husband and I certainly feel that pain very much. It has been a big dilemma for us. How far do we concede to participate in the lie? But, “they” (his work and coworkers) don’t even know about the lie. Sooo Crazy!! Thanks again!!
And PS: I watched your excellent re-buttle video with the 4 others in “Addressing Dr. McCullough, Dr. Malone, and Dr. Cole’s “SARS-COV-2” Claims: Where’s the Evidence?”. AND if I may, I came up with a question that I have not yet seen anyone ask them (maybe just did not see it), that should be asked of every Dr/Virologist/researcher/covid believer, when they say the virus has been isolated (bla bla bla) and that you can only find them via a cell culture, and there are not enough of them directly from a human, bla bla bla. Ask them this: How do you KNOW what the virus looks like at the end of the cell culture if you DO NOT have ANY idea what the virus looks like before you put it in the cell culture? IF the scientist don’t know what “Covid” looks like directly from a human, how do they know that what they are finding at the end of the cell culture really IS “thee” covid virus and not some other particle that is in humans but is not causing disease or whatever? I read several of the covid isolation papers and here is a direct quote that actually backs me up, “The presence of CPE alone does not indicate successful isolation of a coronavirus. Mid-turbinate samples from adults with acute respiratory distress may often
contain other microbes, including viruses (23).” Bam!! Maybe I am wrong, but this seems the most logical question to ask, and I currently have not seen anyone ask the “believers” in viruses this point and see what they say. For example if someone gave me a pile of sand and asked me to find quartz sand in it, I would certainly have to know what quartz sand looked like before I can find it in a pile of sand comprised of many types of particles. Just some thoughts and I hope they help.
Many Blessings!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spot on! They can not and will not be able to answer that. If one has never seen the “virus” in nature nor directly in the fluids of a human, they will have no idea what the “virus” would look like. Virologists just point and declare at random unpurified particles in EM and claim they are the culprit when the particles are a creation of the process.
LikeLike
Are you located in the US? One of my friends has people he could potentially connect you to if you are.
LikeLike
Thank you!! Yes in communist California. Can you see my email address from your end? If you can, you can pass it on to your person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I sent my friend your email. His name is Mike Donio. He is a former scientist who worked with “viruses” and realized the truth that they do not exist. He also works with Dr. Tom Cowan. If you have Telegram, Mike has two channels there:
Scientists for Health Freedom
https://t.me/scientistsforhealthfreedom
S4HF Chat
Scientists for Health Freedom Chat Group
https://t.me/S4HFchat
Another friend sent me this:
“That sucks.
I don’t know if she has gotten into this specifically but they can check out Peggy Hall – The Healthy American.
She has done a lot to fight “legally” and she’s now in the no virus camp, which was a nice surprise.”
https://www.thehealthyamerican.org
I hope it this info helps and it works out! I will update you if I hear from anyone else.
LikeLike
A few other suggestions from commenters:
“I might recommend seeking out Lena Pu… she has been producing NOLs (Notices of Liability) rooted in common law to turn the contract enforcement back towards the authorities and/or employers (counter contract). She has a website and a patreon (that does have a nominal membership paywall but may be well worth it). I’ll cut and paste a snippet from a notice to employers below. The language is well-crafted. I’ll share links too in another comment.
Agency of Employment
Street Address
City, State & Zip
Subject: Communication, Terms of Conditions and Request for Action Regarding this Letter and the “Notice of Liability for Sanctioning Biomedical, Biotechnology, & Biosynthetic Instruments”
Dear Owner, Principal, CEO, CFO, Director of Human Resources:
You have been served two documents, this cover letter and the “Notice of Liability for Sanctioning Biomedical, Biotechnology & Biosynthetic Instruments”, henceforth shall be referred to as the “Notice of Liability” in this letter. Please read and understand this cover letter and initial claim for contract first before proceeding to review the rest of the documents.
The main objective of this letter is to communicate with you my first and foremost desire and intent is to work cooperatively with you and your agency where I am employed. I wish to remain employed with your agency but do not and cannot submit to unfounded obligations that are not within your legal, lawful and jurisdictional rights to demand or control, nor are your demands a condition found within our contract agreement. The conflicts of interests involve my accepting your so-called “medical” treatments as a condition for my continued employment. These demands are unacceptable conditions not based on any laws, codes, or ethics. Therefore, your request that I release the control of my domain, my body, my property, to accepting an unknown, untested, foreign substance, product or device into my body against my will, my medical choice, and will place you in a role of being an accomplice to innumerous counts of crimes of coercion, assault, trespass, transgressions, and more, without limits.
Conditions of my employment being dependent on accepting unsafe, untested, unethical, unfounded, unsupported, non-peer reviewed, unscientific, so-called “medical” treatments of any and all kinds are in violation of my unalienable rights to determine what shall, or shall not, be done to my own body. Refusal of accepting any so-called “medical” treatments should not limit my ability to hold onto my job, nor have access to jobs. My medical choice and decisions are a private matter. My employment opportunities should not depend on anyone outside of myself and my attending physician from having any access to my private medical records. Medicine and employment are exclusive to each other. You have no legal nor lawful rights to mandate any so-called “medical” treatments onto me…..
(it concludes)…. But if you still choose to decide to enforce the so-called “medical” mandates, requirements, enforcements onto me and withhold my claim for cooperative agreement under the terms of conditions that I have stated above and within the ‘Notice of Liability’ contract attached herein, then you are formally served this “Notice of Liability for Sanctioning Biomedical, Biotechnology, Biosynthetic Instruments” contract for breach of trust and good will between us, our employment contract, and commercial contracts and agreements.
This “Notice of Liability for Sanctioning Biomedical, Biotechnology, Biosynthetic Instruments” contract contains therein my claim, statement of facts, terms of conditions to offers of contract, exhibits, and the affidavit of truth. All of my terms of “Conditions to Offers of Contract” as stated herein this letter and in the “Notice of Liability” contract will be enforceable unless you are able to successfully rebut all points accurately and thoroughly in the section entitled, “Affidavit of Truth”. You must review, answer and respond with a point-by-point rebuttal within the twenty-eight (28) days”
https://www.patreon.com/user/posts?u=31828925
Our Notice of Liability serves as a counter contract
Our Notice of Liability makes claims and sets conditions
Our Notice of Liability holds the man responsible and not the dead entity
Our Notice of Liability is a declaration of the truth
Our Notice of Liability holds court in the highest jurisdiction
Our Notice of Liability is a severance to the world of sin and enslavement
. Our Notice of Liability is our battle-cry
https://lenasfabulousfrequencies.com/
LikeLike
And one more:
“Learn and understand Equity Law.
This is about offers of contract. Counter offer and with conditional acceptance. Do not go through lawyers. The following explains. You can also learn much through Common Law Court or CLC News on YouTube.”
See also http://www.solutionsempowerment.com
LikeLike
A friend of mine named Joe Brinsky put together a Google doc that has a ton of info on mandates. I don’t have time to go through it right now but you may be able to find something of value in there.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTtG2HYLU4nZw2qDPELxtdBNYO05clJF7sTEfyilptKdPgeTDOiH4ldlQHwFRDxFFlGpeEOY_jweUpF/pub
LikeLike
Another friend supplied quite a bit of info:
“Since I have been falsely arrested over the mask issue in feb 2021….I have been learning about law to get myself out of this situation. I’ve learned a LOT OF MYTHS about our “legal” system and “government” and they are nothing like what we’re taught.
In short….government (which they admit is “quasi-government” (public/private)..this is the exact statement by the “Judge” (really an administrator, not a real judge) in the second failed trial against me on 1/20/22…(my transcript)
The Court: “the City of Eugene is both a corporation and part of government.”
So, the two are not compatible since WE THE PEOPLE are human beings and corporations are fictions. You can’t be both a man or woman and a fiction.
This is true for any county or state and certainly the United States. Anytime you see the word “of” in a name (City of…County of….State of…..United States of) then you are dealing with a corporation. Look up the Dun & Bradstreet numbers on all those entities…. this matters. Because of this…we cannot continue to pretend that we are voting in our leaders. We’re not. We’re voting for corporate board members who are accountable to the charters of the corporations (not any constitution).
continued below
Because of this fact….one needs to re-examine the idea of government. Because of this fact…one needs to re-examine courts. How does this relate to the “vaccine” or “testing” mandate? It means that we cannot beg board members and corporate members for our freedom.
We can’t even use lawyers because their first obligation is NOT to their client but to the COURT! If they are a BAR member (which in more than 45 states is in lieu of being “licensed” to “practice” law). This alone is a violation of the anti-monopoly laws.
So avoid lawyers like MOST doctors. You can manage your own affairs. 🙂
So how does one seek remedy? This is one way….Conditional Acceptance contracts. I have filed 7 of them around my false arrests (I have two now). I’m not off the hook, but it scares the shit out of those who get one and their lawyers and is a possible way to make money and stop the fraud “mandates”….and the circus around the shots. I learned this from Chris Hauser who has a youtube channel which goes over this process. It is one way to seek “right rule” and stop the unlawful demands on those who write and use them.
anyone who wants to know more can watch Chris Hauser’s videos or ask me…I’m happy to share more about this process and have given talks on the subject.
I actually have a “Conditional Acceptance” document dedicated to the shots and testing….one of the requirements to accept the demand on any man or woman who submits this particular CA states: “12) Evidence that the PCR test and the method how it is used to allegedly identify what is commonly claimed to be corona virus or COVID-19 is at least 99% accurate when diagnosing and reporting a COVID-19 virus.”
So not only the shots but any testing cannot be required under this contract you’re making w/ whomever receives the CA.”
LikeLike
Thank you much again!!! I have seen Mike speak twice now. It is great to have someone like him in our Camp. I do know of Peggy and have read much of her stuff and seen her videos, but we have had a hard time figuring out how to apply her info to us. I saw that she is in our camp now, I certainly need to revisit her information. It seems to me that those she is working with are not usually NOT in the government sector, which seems a lot harder to fight. I know her followers got a sort of win with Wells Fargo, but not really, because they just backed down. The bank could bring things back, especially when they make up the next virus or new scary-ant.
Soooo much stuff! But, I am not one to give up easily.
Thank you again!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome. Glad to hear you won’t give up easily. And yes, Mike is a great asset on out side! He is extremely knowledgeable and does a great job explaining the technical aspects. There are not many people in the field willing to speak out so I was ecstatic when I heard about him. I will keep my fingers crossed that things work out! 🤞
LikeLike