Monkeypox Mania!

Last Wednesday, I had the amazing honor of speaking with many people whom I have come to greatly admire and respect regarding the current insanity involving a certain monkey “virus” everyone may have already heard about. The conference was expertly moderated by Alec Zeck, a writer, speaker, activist, and executive director of Health Freedom For Humanity. The panel included many brilliant health professionals who have been speaking out about the “viral” fraud since the beginning of this current “pandemic.” In an effort to get ahead of this new monkey-pox fear-campaign, we each spoke upon different aspects that have influenced this false narrative in order to dispell the lies and stamp out the panic before it begins. The topics discussed were broken up as such:

  • Dr. Tom Cowan: the distinction between believing and knowing
  • Dr. Sam Bailey: Virus Mania and the pandemic playbook
  • Mike Stone: eradication of smallpox and how it relates to monkeypox and other pox illnesses
  • Dr. Andrew Kaufman: original MPXV “isolation” studies, no “viral” particles proven as usual
  • Christine Massey: FOIA requests
  • Dr. Mark Bailey: PCR and how the sequences did not come from any “virus” & were not clinically-validated for diagnosis
  • Dr. Kevin Corbett: cooking up cases through up-scaled testing and phony epidemiological clustering
  • Eric Coppolino: “COVID” as a digital phenomenon
  • Dr. Saeed Qureshi: vaccine development
  • Dr. Amandha Vollmer: closing comments & summary

It was a privilege to be able to present this information along with these great people. I hope that you find this conference beneficial and that we have collectively been able to put to bed another of virology’s numerous deceptions.

79 comments

    1. Thanks Jo! Yes, Yeadom is trying to throw a burden of proof reversal. The burden is on anyone claiming a “virus” exists to prove the existence. We can easily point out the flaws in said evidence. The other thing they love to do is claim that our argument is invalid if we do not have an alternative explanation which is also fallacious. We can critique the evidence regarding the current dogma without replacing it. These are avoidance tactics one engages in when one can not defend one’s position. 😉

      Like

      1. Yes, you’re right, and it’s so helpful to discuss these things. I think we have completely explained SAR2!- it doesn’t seem to be transmitted and if there was any excess ‘disease’ it occurred only in polluted places. Numbers shot up the UK when they locked the vulnerable in cares homes, barred their families from interfering and gave the elderly a ‘good’= very bad death. So people in denial bring up the common cold like that’s the crux of everything. I’m very happy for there to be signals between humans that we don’t understand. We hardly understand anything about anything https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/a-tiny-water-flea-has-31000-genes?s=w Yes I think we all know that feeling we could be completely wrong about everything, but ignore and evade until we’re ready to admit it. Many thanks Mike, people are waking up, Jo

        Liked by 1 person

    2. He totally misstates what we say as “The virus doesn’t exist,” so then he can make that assertion about how it’s impossible to prove the negative. In fact, it’s been said explicitly (e.g. Andy Kaufman, to the Corona “investigating” Committee that what’s being said is “there is no scientific proof for the existence of the virus.” He is entitled to his opinions, but this deliberate misrepresentation is reprehensible. It’s the kind of stuff which enforcers of the Operation are doing. Good for you for confronting him.

      Like

      1. Oh come on Jeffrey gimme a break. None of us believe the virus exists because we know based on elementary Reasoning that nature doesn’t do submicroscopic terrorists without boxcutters that can’t structurally DO anything except hold themselves together for a while. Kaufman included.

        Like

  1. I really enjoyed the entire program, Mike. Wanted to give a mention to the Q&A session which followed, i particularly liked the discussion you, Mark, Saeed, Eric and Kevin had regarding the bio-weapon lab leak narrative, how as Eric said it gives the virus street creds (credibility) and keeps it alive in the resistance, and the total lack of scientific credibility of the narrative. You all took the bullshit by the horns.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hippies at Woodstock rolling around in the mud and having sex were not susceptible to the illness or the alleged Hong Kong flu at the time (apparently killed 100,000 in the US). But ungrounded people transformed by overexposure to a digital environment are very susceptible to an entirely digital virus, transmitted entirely by digital media – the incomparable Eric Coppolino

      Liked by 2 people

      1. had to look that up! May be some aged hippies fallen for this scam- but young people are growing up in a virtually entirely virtual world of Microsofts creation! Jo

        Like

      2. Yep! I saw a great documentary on Woodstock a few years ago. What really stood out was how slender every single person was.

        Like

      3. Right. I was in HS and college in the 90s and it wasn’t too bad then as I recall, where I was in northern California anyway.

        Like

    2. There’s only “a total lack of scientific credibility” if you’re into straw-manning complex subjects, Jeffrey. Even though you believe particle-based intercellular communication doesn’t exist, you don’t actually *know* that it doesn’t. And the *fact* is that this form of unconscious communication is perfectly scientifically credible even if it’s unproven by the scientific method. We can’t prove why yawning is catching but we all agree that it is. There’s nothing incredible about horizontal gene transfer. The ‘bioweapon’ suspicion might wrongly be referred to as GOF viruses but that doesn’t mean that it’s incredible that they might be manufacturing and deploying mass unconscious disinformation if exogenous exosomes are indeed part of the terrain.

      Does that make me like Mike Yeadon?

      Like

      1. Reante, i was trained as a scientist, or rather, an engineer, but basic similarities. I’m not from Missouri, was there only for one day or so over 50 years ago, but i still say when people make such claims “Show me.” You also tried snowing me on the WTC towers, not knowing i have a degree in engineering. 🙂

        Like

      2. There’s a big difference Jeffrey between saying show me and saying there’s a total lack of scientific credibility, so I appreciate you walking it back.

        Your degree in engineering doesn’t automatically entitle you to superior argumentation regarding 9/11 or biology.

        Like

  2. I love Kaufman’s attention to detail but in the 42nd minute he talks about how monkeypix virus was found in the cell cultures of both symptomatic and asymptomatic samples and concludes that this is a violation of Koch’s Postulates. I don’t see how. Koch’s Postulates doesn’t say that the presence of virions must always cause symptomologies, just that they are *a* cause of symptomologies, which is why virology has the (recently more flexible shall we say) internal logic of ‘viral load.’

    Like

    1. Actually, the first postulate specifically said the pathogen must not be found in healthy (i.e. asymptomatic) subjects:

      1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.

      https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Book%3A_Microbiology_(Boundless)/10%3A_Epidemiology/10.1%3A_Principles_of_Epidemiology/10.1D%3A__Kochs_Postulates#:~:text=Koch's%20postulates%20are%20the%20following,be%20found%20in%20healthy%20organisms.

      Granted, Koch himself tried to wiggle around this logical conclusion upon finding cholera and salmonella typhi bacteria in healthy subjects. However, this just rightfully proved that the bacteria were not the true cause of disease.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. But that’s regarding microbes. We’re talking viruses here. Which makes Andy’s statement a non sequitur, doesn’t it?

        Like

      2. While the Postulates were designed for bacteria, the logical premises behind them remain for “viruses.” In order for a microbe or “virus” to be the true cause of disease, it must create the disease and not be found in healthy subjects. Finding the supposed pathogen in healthy subjects means that the supposed pathogen is not pathogenic at all. This would logically point to some other cause other than the bacteria or assumed “virus.”

        Like

      3. That’s not true, Mike. Virology modifies the premise of Koch’s first postulate. The word asymptomatic wouldn’t exist if that wasn’t the case.

        It’s another strawman argument to say that GT holds that any germ must cause cause disease 100% of the time. It’s the same as Jeffrey saying dustification didn’t happen because it wasn’t 100%.

        It’s okay for leaders to make mistakes, and it’s important for followers to recognize them, lest leaders turn into false idols and, furthermore, leaders fail to learn from their mistakes. Leaders failing to learn from their mistakes, however, small they may seem, can cumulatively result in their fall from leadership. Greatness is a daily operation.

        Like

      4. The asymptomatic carrier came about due to Koch’s finding of bacteria in healthy people. This was before virology. It is a convenient way to explain away contradictory findings such as the same particle/bacteria being found in healthy samples. As I said, Koch’s Postulates are logic based. Logically, if a microbe is found in healthy subjects and does not cause them disease, it is not the cause of the disease. It is a giant leap in logic to assume that the microbe is being held at bay by an imaginary immune system.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Right, Koch’s use of the word “abundance” in the first postulate. Thank you. But that just brings us back to my original point regarding Andy’s incorrect claim that KP were violated.

        Like

      6. Abundance is only relevant to those who are sick. Postulate 1 states that the microorganism should NOT be found in those who are healthy.

        Like

      7. But you just said asymptomatic came about because Koch found the microbe in healthy people. What am I not getting here?

        Like

      8. Yes, he found the microbe in healthy people thus violating his own first postulate for proving microbes cause disease as they are not supposed to be found in healthy subjects. Koch proved his own Postulates work by showing bacteria are not a cause of disease as they are regularly found in those who are healthy.

        Like

      9. If Koch abandoned his postulates in light of asymptomatic hosting then there’s no point in Andy hammering on them is all I’m saying, yet I feel like it’s a taboo thing to say. When did constructive criticism become a bad thing? Gen X and above aren’t snowflake generations. We grew up before peak gentrification.

        Like

      10. The reason Dr. Kaufman brought it up is, as I stated before, they are still considered necessary to fulfill in order to prove a microbe causes disease.

        From the WHO:

        “Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called “Koch’s postulate.” The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.” -WHO 2003

        https://web.archive.org/web/20210105005624/https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_03_27b/en/

        There are even virologists who also admit to needing to fulfill these Postulates. From Ron Fouchier:

        “For starters, we’ll find out whether animals get sick from this virus. You can isolate a virus from a patient, but that does not mean they died from it; to show that it causes disease you need to fulfill Koch’s postulates.”

        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/ron-fouchier-new-coronavirus-we-need-fulfill-kochs-postulates

        From the Zaki MERS paper:

        “It will be equally important to test whether HCoV-EMC fulfills Koch’s postulates as the causative agent of severe respiratory disease.”

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1211721

        From the Zhu “SARS-COV-2” paper:

        “Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.”

        https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017

        From the Zhou “SARS-COV-2 ” paper:

        “The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#ref-CR13

        Finding the same assumed “virus” in healthy monkeys violates Koch’s first Postulate thus disproving it as a cause of disease.

        Like

      11. Conflating the heavily-modified (watered-down)
        use of ‘Koch’s Postulates’ in these papers with Koch’s original first Postulate is analogous to virologists conflating virus ‘isolation’ with actual isolation.

        Like

      12. Besides the 2003 “SARS1” paper specifically stating they were attempting to fulfill Rivers Postulates, none of the rest make any such distinction. For all intents and purposes, they are discussing the fulfillment of Koch’s (not Rivers) Postulates.

        Like

      13. I understand that virologists have attempted to modify them. However, there are only Koch’s original Postulates as laid out in 1890. If they are modified, they are no longer Koch’s Postulates, they are someone else’s. The Postulates mentioned in all of the sources I shared stated Koch’s Postulates, not Rivers nor Hills nor anyone else’s. Unless it is specifically claimed otherwise, as was done in the 2003 “SARS1” paper where they admitted to using Rivers revised Postulates, it must be taken to mean Koch’s original Postulates.

        Like

      14. Taking something to mean something that it isn’t intended to mean is never a constructive undertaking. It’s the definition of a political undertaking. Hammering on the ‘isolation’ issue is legit because isolation is the first fundamental of identification but nobody believes that ‘germs’ always cause disease so Andy’s hammering on it — to the point of repeating it twice and basically making it the thesis of his presentation — isn’t constructive. It’s distracting to the point of being unconstructive because it’s going to cause people to think it an important point when it’s not.

        We have to be careful about identifying with a ‘resistance’ to the point being political just because in civilization politics are how power is leveraged. Dunbar’s Number imposes a low bar of corruptibility on us. We need to be honoring that all times. Like Tom said below, the truth is all that matters now.

        Like

      15. The idea that nobody believes germs always cause disease is because the germs/”viruses” were found not to cause disease. Again, this was proven by Koch. The way that Germ Theory and virology wiggled around this was through the creation of the theories behind antibodies and the immune system. So if we are judging things logically, if a microbe is supposed to cause disease, as stated by Koch, it should only be found in sick but not healthy humans. That was the logical understanding at the time the Postulates were developed and as it should be understood today. The idea that germs/”viruses” do not always cause disease is the cover story created after the fact to keep the lie going in the face of contradictory evidence. We need to hold virology to their own standards. They can not fulfill Koch’s Postulates just as they can not adhere to the scientific method.

        Like

      16. You are correct. The scientific method is more applicable. I only bring up Koch’s Postulates due to the fact that even though virologists want to claim they are not to be used, many (including the WHO) still claim they must be satisfied. As usual, virology loves to contradict itself.

        Like

      17. I had a great time looking for River’s Postulates, kept getting directed to articles about Koch’s Postulates and why SARS and HIV “satisfy” them. 🙂 Finally got this.
        RIVER’S POSTULATES
        These postulates were proposed by Thomas M. River in 1937 to establish the role of a specific virus as the cause of a specific disease. These postulates are the modifications of Koch’s postulates.
        ⇒ The viral agent must be found either in the host’s (animal or plant) body fluids at the time of disease or in cells showing lesions specific to that disease.
        ⇒ The host material with the viral agent used to inoculate the healthy host (test organism) must be free of any other microorganism.
        ⇒ The viral agent obtained from the infected host must –
        Produce the specific disease in a suitable healthy host,
        And/or
        Provide evidence of infection by inducing the formation of antibodies specific to that agent.
        ⇒ Similar material (viral particle) from the newly infected host (test organism) must be isolated and capable of transmitting the specific disease to other healthy hosts.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. If a germ theorist does not insist that a pathogen must cause a disease in every person in whom it is found, they water their claim down to, at most, “The presence of the pathogen is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the disease.”

      Typically this turns into a statement like, “The virus will attack people with weakened immune systems,” which if taken seriously leads to alternative health views that aim to either push supplements like echinacea and oregano oil to “support the immune system” or, less reductionistly, to improve one’s overall health to, again, “ensure a healthy immune system.”

      The reasoning leads to a view like, “I take great care of my overall health so I don’t need to fear germs, but most people don’t take care of themselves so they do need to fear germs,” which even though it doesn’t do all that much to fight the generalized masking and social distancing and vaccinating agenda, it does weaken it somewhat by placing the emphasis on healthy eating, etc. rather than medical care, and thus the establishment cannot countenance this reasoning when taken to its logical end.

      So what do they do? Well, they can’t drop the idea of an “immune system” or else they run face-first into Koch’s Postulates again, but they also can’t really take it seriously.

      So they simply equivocate; they don’t stick to one story long enough to have it reach its logical endpoint. They usually would also use plenty of actual semantic equivocation, playing with definitions (such as what counts as a patient with the “disease”). Basically the same story as in all the other broken sciences.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Exactly! They have numerous escape clauses in place to cover up the contradictions and inconsistencies. “If not this, then that.”

        This article is a great example of the numerous escape clauses:

        https://www.yahoo.com/news/family-got-covid-why-did-122222260.html

        You will see:
        1. The immune system kicks in faster if vaccinated vs unvaccinated which causes the “virus” to spread less and be undetectable by testimg
        2. Even though negative test with symptoms and exposure to “Covid” positive family, there was not enough “viral” load to test positive as vaccine primed immune system to keep the load low.
        3. Even if one is vaccinated, they can still have powerful “Covid” symptoms as this is due to the immune system reaction to the “virus” and not the “virus” itself.
        4. High levels of vaccine antibodies or immune cells called T cells that were able to kill the invading “virus” before it had a chance to alert the parts of the immune system that would incite symptoms

        Lots of fictional fun! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Basically it seems like if you’re a scientist or even a journalist, you’re allowed to make up any “just so” story you want as long as it defends the paradigm. No one will ever question it, and they may well add it to the rescue device repertoire.

        What Kaufman was doing was trying to close off one side of that equivocation, quelling further attempts to dance around the issue. If Koch’s Postulates can never be invoked, it undercuts the basis for calling virology a science, so they need to pay lip service to them even while avoiding them. Cutting off the option of paying that lip service gracefully is a bit of progress.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Absolutely. They can throw out any such excuse and see which one sticks by judging how the gullible masses eat them up.

        And yes, I believe Dr. Kaufman was attempting to hold them to the very criteria that they claim need to be satisfied even though they dance around them. The Postulates themselves can only be fulfilled by adhering to the scientific method. It is painfully clear that virologists can not adhere to the scientific method nor satisfy the Postulates and thus can not prove by either means that “viruses” exist and cause disease.

        Like

      4. Nice encapsulation of the more progressive movement within the dominant culture. It’s like a ‘soft’ terrain theory in function but with a brittle, traumatized psychology that believes no matter how healthy you try and live, unforseeable disease may always be lurking around the corner. I believe if these people weren’t living in industrial environments, and doing so at the tail-end of industrialism wherein they’ve inherited entrenched family disease patterns, they could easily reaccept terrain theory as an extension of becoming grounded again to the ecology, out in the countryside.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Clarifire, I agree that that’s what Kaufman was trying to do but it came out both ineffective and disingenuous because it was centered solely on the idea that some monkeys had the particle but no symptoms. That’s effectively irrelevant and a strawman argument because nobody anywhere believes that germs always cause disease. It was poorly conceived imo. We all have off-days. “The Rooster and the River of Rats” and his body of work otherwise has been hugely important. Kaufman’s a graceful and gifted man. FWIW I do think he is flirting with a little too much power and that can throw you off. Straw-manning is the province of political demagoguery. Bedding down with Alex Jones to the degree of guest hosting his show is an obvious warning sign. In order to break into the big leagues you have to start thinking about how to best appeal to a broad audience in as short an amount of time as possible, which always comes at a cost to truth. And that’s what his super simplistic, irrelevant monkeypox analysis smells of. In the grand scheme of things it’s not a big deal by any means, but it’s real. When parents talk in bed before going to sleep, about something their kid said that seemed a little off – it’s like that. Notable, and to be filed away for future patterning.

        Like

      6. The belief that “not all germs cause disease at all times” came after Koch’s Postulates. So in essence, Dr. Kaufman is holding virology to the logical standards for which germ theory was founded upon. The original belief was that the germ causes disease in all cases which is why Koch stated they should not be found in healthy subjects. They created escape clauses after the fact to explain any contradictory evidence away.

        Like

      7. I get what you’ve been saying but if that’s the case then Andy needs to explicitly provide the context for that approach and why he thinks that’s important, otherwise to anyone ‘in the know’ it just comes across as a fake gotcha moment. Which looks to me a lot like MSM demagoguery. Cozying up to Alex Jones is a step away to cozying up with Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the reigning global king of controlled opposition demagoguery. Just saying dude. If people wanna be part of a so-called ‘resistance’ and work their way up in it then they need to understand that they’re walking a fine line. Terrain is already getting co-opted which will only get moreso as the healthcare system collapses and drastic cost savings are required.

        But I’m just a little pipsqueak gen x animist so I’m hypersensitive to selling out.

        Like

      8. I don’t see how holding them to their own standards is a fake “gotcha” moment. It is calling them out for being unable to fulfill the required logical criteria to prove microbes cause disease. To me, it is vital to hold virology’s feet to the fire through both the failures to adhere to the scientific method as well as fulfilling Koch’s Postulates.

        Like

      9. Because nobody in the world believes that germs always cause disease. Koch’s first Postulate is irrelevant. Koch’s first Postulate isn’t the standard, Mike. It’s nobody’s standard. It’s a red herring as well as a strawman, if that helps. Gotcha moments are defined by taking something out of context and turning it against your opponent. It’s a cheap shot. A low blow.

        Like

      10. “Because nobody in the world believes that germs always cause disease.”

        That’s a bold statement. Before germ theory came about, no one believed germs caused disease either. However, at it’s creation, a set of logical criteria was established by Koch which must be upheld. Logically, if a pathogen is supposed to cause disease, it should cause disease. If it is found in healthy people, it is not causing disease. We can thus eliminate it as a cause of disease. Any attempts to claim that an “immune system” is holding the pathogen at bay is an invention after the fact that the microbes were shown not to cause disease. The original belief behind Koch’s Postulates remain that these microbes, if found in healthy subjects, are disproven as pathogenic.

        Like

      11. It’s not a bold statement. I challenge you to find anybody who will go on record saying that if so much as one microbe or virion from any of the listed ‘pathogens’ so much as enters the body it will surely cause disease. I challenge you.

        “Logically, if a pathogen is supposed to cause disease, it should cause disease.”

        No, Mike. This is a tautology as you are presenting it. A tautological fallacy. And not logic. Just because something supposedly causes something doesn’t necessarily mean that it necessarily *always* causes that something. It’s the same mistake that Koch originally made and eventually realized. More likely someone pointed it out to him.

        As to the ‘immune system,’ in a very real sense we *can* say the our aerobic bodies are holding anaerobes at bay, right? We occupy opposing ecological niches. So long as we’re fully aerated the anaerobes must remain dormant. That’s not immunity but it is a barrier function.

        This is why I say it’s a fear-based cultural problem. When you dig into the details it’s a fine line between between the two. A Thin Blue Line.

        Like

      12. You are viewing things about how these fictional entities supposedly work that were established after the fact. Let’s look at this again. Koch’s original Postulate:

        (1) The microorganism must be found in diseased but not healthy individuals;

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3775492/

        There is no wiggle room in this Postulate stating that it may be sometimes found in healthy subjects. If a microbe is found in healthy subjects, it is not the cause of disease.

        Everything you claim after the fact is based on fictional narratives for how fictional entities supposedly work developed long after Koch. Dr. Kaufman is using Koch’s Postulates as his basis to claim that since the same “virus” was found in healthy monkeys, it fails the first postulate and therefore is not the true cause of disease. The researchers made up stories, as you are doing now, that the “virus” was not activated and/or that the monkeys were asymptomatic. This is a false fictional narrative used to cover up finding the same “virus” in healthy subjects. You are using their imaginary immune system logic to try and discredit Dr. Kaufman. There is nothing to be immune from nor are there latent pathogens hiding within us waiting to be activated.

        Like

      13. I’m not using their immune system logic. I’m explaining natural law and how GT does pattern with it. We don’t need to feel threatened by that. The better we can pattern them to each other the more people we can help towards the truth, ourselves included. Presumably that’s the point of this blog.

        Even if they pay it some kind of abstract lip service, Koch’s Postulates is not the Constitution of Virology and they are not Constitutionalists (Literalists). They much prefer their virology to be a living document as they do their American Constitution because it gives them wiggle room as you call it.

        I think we’ve hit another dead-end if you agree. If so then thanks for another worthwhile conversation, friend.

        Like

      14. It is clear that virology attempts to wiggle around Koch’s Postulates but to claim that they are not the “Constitution of Virology” is disingenuous. As I have already pointed out, the WHO and many prominent virologists repeatedly refer to the need to fulfill the Postulates in order to prove a microbe causes disease. It is not myself nor Dr. Kaufman claiming this, it is virology itself. While it can be argued that ignoring Koch’s Postulates and sticking with the scientific method is a better approach, I think it is best to hammer them on both fronts. Thus, Dr. Kaufman’s argument that the monkeypox researchers failed to fulfill the very first postulate is strong evidence against their claim that they discovered a new pathogenic “virus.”

        Like

      15. It’s circumstantial evidence based on a small sample size with no controls. Even though I agree that monkeypox doesn’t exist, I don’t consider that remotely strong evidence.

        Like

      16. Yes, it is absolutely circumstantial evidence and it shows that no “virus” was found. The controls were the healthy monkeys. It absolutely proves that the monkeypox “virus” does not exist as the claim of its existence is built upon a fraudulent foundation.

        Like

      17. I’m actually also a big fan of circumstantial evidence myself. The controls would be the free monkeys back home wherever that was. The only true proof that any virus doesn’t exist is the ontological understanding that structurally what it is that they are claimed to be does afford them the ability to DO anything.

        Like

      18. Free monkeys would be a control. Healthy caged monkeys would also be a control. Free sick monkeys would be another control.

        The control that these researchers had (the healthy caged monkeys) showed that the same particles assumed to be a “virus” were found in those without disease. Again, this disproves the microbe as a cause of disease as per Koch’s first postulate which is what Dr. Kaufman was arguing.

        Like

      19. No virologist will state that the presence of “virions” in someone will always make them sick, yet they implicitly rely on that as the bailey in their motte-and-bailey argument when they issue (or more often refuse to correct) statements to the effect that X virus is the cause of Y disease, especially when stated flatly as “settled science.”

        Even if this motte-and-bailey game were never played to completion by any one person or group, this is the effective structure of the argument as it comes across both to the general public and to the scientific/”scientific” community, so it makes sense to refuse them the motte.

        Kaufman on Alex Jones… well, I won’t judge but of course whatever the case it’s possible you’re right for the wrong reasons. Arguments can be perfect but people cannot.

        Liked by 1 person

      20. Sure they’re playing games. Sure it makes sense to not give them an inch, but it needs to be done honestly because the truth both comes from and leads to the terrain, the ecology. A strand of nucleic acids in an informational format surrounded by a capsid in a structural format surrounded by a lipid membrane preservative doesn’t have any physiological functions and therefore can’t hijack a cell that does have intelligent physiological functions including detoxification mechanisms; that’s not giving the first inch. Going after Koch’s retarded and aborted first postulate just because some monkeys are ‘asymptomatic’ doesn’t even make it onto the 25ft tape measure because it’s just more game playing. Anaerobes (functional and true) don’t have any physiological functions in normally oxygenated cells therefore they can’t cause disease. That’s the second inch they can’t have.

        Like

      21. This happens within the (dominant) parts of the resistance which still accept virology and germ/virus theory. I know of one couple who do performance art who have told me they support whatever analysis seems to win the most points with their audience, and “lack of proof of virus” doesn’t win enough points for them to endorse it whereas “protecting yourself against the virus without jabs” does.

        Liked by 1 person

      22. That’s exactly what politicians do to gain power. No way to win that way, just to continue feeding the machine while feeling like they’re helping.

        Like

  3. Self-correction: Jeffrey didn’t say that dustification didn’t happen because it wasn’t hundred percent. He said that dustification couldn’t throw big beams long distances. My bad. Easily done, right?

    Like

  4. Jo KP are definitely irrelevant to the terrain (the holistic logic) but we’re presently discussing the merits of Andy’s particular criticism here of the internal logic of GT (false) logic.

    Water’s nice and warm don’t you think? 🙂

    Like

  5. “Logically, if a microbe is found in healthy subjects and does not cause them disease, it is not the cause of the disease. It is a giant leap in logic to assume that the microbe is being held at bay by an imaginary immune system.”

    This is an interesting subject. Firstly, I’m highly sceptical of pleomorphism. I’d like to see good evidence for it. I originally come at biology from soil science, where it is held that microbial dormancy is the state from which microbes reanimate. The cross-species reanimation held by pleomorphic theory strikes me as almost as gross a violation of natural law as the idea that ‘viruses’/exosomes can DO anything other than hold themselves together, being the theoretical mineral consciousnesses in an informational format that they are. But that’s another subject than ‘pathogen’-body dynamics.

    Almost all ‘pathogens’ (saprophytes) are anaerobes or functional anaerobes. That’s why they are the clean up crews in aerobic organisms like ourselves. (The exceptions are the aerobic saprophytes that live on the surfaces of oxygenated airways and feed on dead surface organic matter. In healthy aerobic tissues they must go dormant by ‘curling up’ into a protective shell (cyst) or die from oxygen poisoning. In dying tissues the transitional, functional anaerobes wake up first and start eating the low-oxygen, dying cells and the true anaerobes pile on when the oxygen is all gone.

    Life is a dynamical phenomenon. Momentum is part of the dynamic. One such form of momentum we refer to as a positive feedback loop. We know that anaerobes bioremediation of dead tissues is itself a toxic process, which comes at no fault of the microbes. It’s a dirty job but someone’s gotta do it. Like cleaning toilets for a living. In mass apoptosis we can easily visualize the positive feedback loop of concentrated anaerobic alcohol metabolites spilling over into healthy surrounding tissues and tipping them into low-oxygen conditions that the cutting-edge functional anaerobes can then begin to eat. This ‘runaway’ dynamic of acute disease/major trauma — which is by no means a necessarily fatal one –under natural law is what I presume on which GT is ultimately basing its fear of microbes and, as a consequence, its monstrous over-reliance on the antibiotics that stop this positive feedback loop dead in its tracks. Fear is always black-and-white so the fear of the feedback loop becomes a generalized fear.

    Like

  6. As one leaves the germ theory mumbo jumbo and then transitions to terrain theory, it requires quite an exercise in attentive mindfulness. I expect most people are fully entrenched in the idea that viruses are floating around waiting to grab hold to them. Yet, we really do not get any concrete methodology that explains or proves how this works. So I imagine that the average person will find it very difficult to make a 180 degree turn and embrace ideas that will seem quite radical. All I want is the truth. Thanks for presenting a down to earth case that refutes germ theory.

    My girlfriend said she was bitten by a monkey back in 1955, or at age 9. Nothing much happened and I told her it was because the monkey pox wasn’t discovered until 1958. We had a good laugh.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Thanks Tom. My wife tolerates me washing dishes with just a warm water rinse. She still says she believes in germs and to her mild annoyance I mischievously tell her that she doesn’t really. Since we have milk goats and used to have a cow we’d sometimes milk by machine which meant keeping the lines spick and span, she’s got an eagle eye for the white film that can build up on the glassware. Now Clarifire’s got me eating raw meat she insists on freezing it for two weeks first like Sally Fallon says to do, for parasites. I’m trying to remind her that one of the reasons we’re only running sheep and goats now is so we can eat it fresh not frozen. And the dogs are just fine.

    What’s your view on parasites and raw meat, Clarifire, or anyone?

    Like

    1. Where I live, eating raw and never-frozen meat is commonplace, and I’ve never felt an issue with parasites after a decade of eating raw liver, raw chicken, etc. From an evolutionary (or even creationist) perspective I tend to think everything that the body allows to make a home in the body, including parasites, are helpful.

      Aajonus Vonderplanitz went on a quest to get a parasite by eating as much rotten meat as he could, and apparently succeeded. He said this cured him of a health problem he had had since childhood and he felt way better. That’s about all I have on parasites.

      Seems to fit with the terrain model, though being larger may affect timescales and momentum.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks. That makes perfect sense. The microbiome folks do talk about the benefits of parasites though I suspect that they are generally talking about aerobic ones; I realize now that the anaerobic (and facultative) worms and nematodes and protozoa are obviously the ones that GT calls parasites. The mainstream may well lump in a number of the aerobic ones too, I wouldn’t be surprised.

        In soil biology the anaerobic soil foodweb functions just like the aerobic web, and complements it, and vice versa. Yin and yang to a tee. In the soil foodweb these intermediate nematodes and protozoa and worms are the great nutrient cyclers of the soil. They are how the mineral component (rock) of the soil — the sand, silt, and clay — are made bioavailable to the plants. Bacteria and fungi eat the rock by chemical means and then the nutrient cyclers eat the bacteria and fungi and metabolize a water-soluble form of the mineral that the plants can absorb. This is why the making of a sime protozoa soup is such a powerful tool of the biological gardener.

        I realize now that the same goes for the anaerobic community of life. Though I’ve never read this, the anaerobic worms, nematodes, and protozoa (parasites!) are obviously the nutrient cyclers of their ‘yin’ ecology, too. When a herd of cows get put on a sacrifice-zone and fed hay in winter they walk all the air out of the ground and all the aerobic life in it gets compressed and killed. In a human this trauma would be the equivalent of a crush injury. In springtime when the ground warms up and microbes are warm enough to operate, the anaerobes that had been lying dormant in the formerly aerobic soil — including the nutrient cyclers, in cystic and larval form — wake up and go to town on the anaerobic mash of organic matter which produces alcohols like I mentioned yesterday but I realize now that the anaerobic activity first produces esters, which are mostly fat-soluble. Anaerobic bacteria and fungi, the base of the anaerobic foodweb metabolize esters which are mostly fat-soluble solvents which dissolve fats. Bacteria and fungi on both sides of Life are the amazingly powerful creatures responsible for getting the ball rolling by a powerful chemical means. Chipping away at rocks. And dissolving the
        rancid fats of dead organisms with esters in order to eat them. A famous ester these days (infamous to we of the Terrain) is that which is produced by an obscenely-farmed fungus in your kneck of the woods, Clarifire and Dude. The ester we call ivermectin. It’s a broad-spectrum antibiotic (misnomered as an anti-parasitic) whose mechanism of action is to partially dissolve, if the dose is right, the fatty membranes of microscopic organisms with lipid membranes, and by doing so killing them. Of course, each of our cells is made of the same materials.

        What I realize now is that of course it’s the anaerobic ‘parasites’ that come along and ferment these esters as an energy source, and in doing so they convert the fat-soluble esters into water-soluble alcohols. Just as with the aerobic nematodes and protozoa, they are the great nutrient cyclers that enable the aerobic life that survived the cows’ trampling by going dormant in time, to wake up when enough oxygen comes back, brought on the backside of slowly-infiltrating rainwater molecules. Aerobic life can handle water-soluble alcohols in survivable concentrations.

        And that’s what these ‘pathogenic parasites’ do for us: they are the part of the cleanup crew of trauma that makes the inhospitable, local death inside of us now bioavailable (water-soluble) to the bloodstream, so that it can be sent to our organs for further processing.

        These anaerobic ecologies are nascent, ephemeral, microscopic versions of fossil fuel reservoirs.

        Like

      2. That sounds plausible. I wouldn’t be surprised if parasites are just extreme garbage disposal units that thrive where radical biome work is needed.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: