The No “Virus” Challenge

Over the past few weeks, I have had the privilege of working with some brilliant people on establishing a challenge to virology in order to finally put their (pseudo)scientific methods to the test. Stemming from the mind of Dr. Tom Cowan and meticulously crafted by Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Kevin Corbett, the No “Virus” Challenge is designed to meet virology halfway. We want virology to show us, using their own methods, that they can actually independently reproduce and replicate the exact same results while blinded to the different samples that they will be working with.

I will leave the exact details of the challenge to be explained by the document linked below, but we are offering a first step to finally settle this debate once and for all. Whether the virology community (and those who back them) will accept this challenge (which Dr. Cowan has already received financial backing for) remains to be seen. However, if the virologists are truly interested in science and performing the proper control experiments that should have been carried out from the very beginning, there is absolutely no reason for them not to accept.

Source Document:

Dr. Tom Cowan discussed in detail the No “Virus” Challenge with Dr. Mark Bailey on his YouTube channel which you can watch below.



  1. So-called electron microscopy is a scam that must be completely and permanently removed from so-called molecular biology. Also, the so-called biochemical characterization of hypothetical proteins and nucleotides is a pseudo-scientific farce, completely devoid of any real value.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Interesting. I’ve seen many ‘so called’ electron microscope pictures. What have I been looking at? You mean they were not such? Or are you saying that in the context of molecular biology somewhere there’s a falsity?


      1. Hi Arthur, what is seen in these images are random particles created through a highly toxic cell culture process. The particles seen are most likely cellular debris and/or artefacts stemming from the cell after being poisoned with numerous chemicals and foreign substances/genetic materials. The particles are sometimes broken into smaller ones through “purification” methods such as ultracentrifugation. They are then further altered through the fixing, dehydrating, staining, and embedding processes that they are subjected to for EM preparations. In other words, the images of these particles are entirely useless as the sample has travelled so far from reality as to render any images meaningless. You can find more on EM here:


    2. If you don’t factor in the prevailing satanism, you won’t understand the reason why they always lie. if you have a glimpse of god’s adversary, then you must ask yourself why should he omit any area of ​​science, religion, politics, etc. and not use it to destroy what god created. it’s everywhere, practically everything is a lie, yes it’s ridiculously obvious and people are purposely scared so they can’t ask the normal questions. the example of a very big lie is the globe. just calculate the peripheral speed at the so-called equator and think about the result. OK.! it’s so easy.


      1. Volboe

        Feel free to do that calculation yourself for us and also give us your thoughts on the results, so that you can attempt to advocate for your belief in a flat earth since that’s clearly something you’d like to do.

        I’ll be waiting to shoot it down with Reason if you’ll have me.


      2. Prediction: as soon as the major players in The Club catch wind of Grant’s, KK’s, and Stone’s (Mike shrewdly keeps his cards close to his chest but it’s as plain as the nose on his face) flath earth beliefs, they will begin to distance themselves from the lunatic fringe within their ranks because if they don’t it will cost them their reputations, as it should.

        You reap what you sow boys.

        (Did we just hit peak psychological warfare lol.)

        Liked by 1 person

      3. @reante

        Obviously you are unable to substantiate your claims. Thus you can only cry.


      4. @reante like i said it’s very simple… they tell us that the circumference of the globe is 40,000 km, they also tell us that the globe rotates once every 24 hours… right..? well, 40,000 ÷ 24 = 1,666.66666 km/h (great number..!) now just think a little bit and a little light will shine, which is getting bigger and bigger… it’s just an example, there are thousands. ..


      5. @reante
        like i said it’s very simple… they tell us that the circumference of the globe is 40,000 km, they also tell us that the globe rotates once every 24 hours… right..? well, 40,000 ÷ 24 = 1,666.66666 km/h (great number..!) now just think a little bit and a little light will shine, which is getting bigger and bigger… it’s just an example, there are thousands. ..


      6. If God is all-powerful, how can he have an adversary on the level of “Satan?” These people aren’t spiritually possessed by some “evil god,” they’re just evil people who hate God, no “Satan” required.


      1. Hi Kevin,

        Per your statement:

        “I have seen your video asking for laboratories TO TEST THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS regarding virology.

        I have, available to me, all the laboratory facilities and animal facilities REQUIRED TO PERFORM THESE EXPERIMENTS.”

        “I believe that you will not accept the offer of lab facilities or put forward the money TO FUND SUCH STUDIES. I have PUBLICLY sent this email so people will know if you are lying about your intentions TO ENGAGE IN A PROPER SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.”

        Are you admitting that the proper scientific investigation testing the underlying assumptions of virology have never been carried out? It seems you are offering to now do the proper scientific investigation thus admitting that the investigations up to this point have not been proper nor scientific. This is exactly our point as none of the virology studies adhere to the scientific method and are by definition pseudoscience.

        Per the challenge:

        “STEP ONE
        5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and NONE WOULD KNOW THE IDENTITIES OF THE OTHER PARTICIPATING LABS”

        By announcing your accepted participation publicly rather than privately, you disqualified yourself from being able to be a participant.


      2. Show me validation of SEM/EDX microscopy for visualization of bio matter.
        How do you make sure that bio matter samples are in intact form when they are visualized?
        How is SEM/EDX used for direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes?
        How are you supposed to “do viral infection of non-human primates”?
        How are you going to acquire intact alleged bio viruses which are separated from everything else?

        BTW I still offer you 50K USD for undeniable evidence of bio viruses.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I am not a scientist. But I have studied the history of science. As far as I am aware the concept of asymptomatic carrier and transmission is completely new since covid. I cannot help but feel that the idea that I am being forced to take synthetic toxins while being perfectly healthy is the elephant in the room which the majority of paid medics are conveniently ignoring.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Actually, that term has been around for a while. I most often heard it in relation to pertussis vaccines – stating that those who received the vaccine, when later exposed to pertussis, would not get sick but would silently carry the virus in their bodies and infect others, particularly babies. Meanwhile, an unvaxxed person, if exposed, would get sick and thereby know to stay away from a baby.


      1. Pertusis is not a contagious disease. In fact, there are no infectious diseases. You have a lot of reading ahead of you, Rebecca.


      2. Robert

        I don’t see that Rebecca is necessarily saying that she believes in contagion. I do see that she’s responding constructively to bbbnorth’s comment.


  3. Isolation should be done only in ways that do not affect the particles and visualization should be done only in 3D and only through optical microscopy methods that are not harmful. What cannot be highlighted by optical means cannot be characterized. The so-called indirect methods used by so-called molecular biologists are pure scams as long as they only make assumptions that are impossible to prove to be true.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m not sure if you saw but Dr. Cowan and Dr. Bailey did end up addressing Dr. Lanka’s absence in their broadcast. It’s not that Dr. Lanka isn’t supportive, it is just that he feels he has already disproven virology with his control experiments and the 7 steps he laid out previously. Dr. Lanka feels that this challenge is redundant which is why he did not want to sign on.


      1. That’s Lanka being nice imo. If I was him I too would feel like the ‘challenge’ was a disrespect to my work. It’s taking a step backwards and acting like his work didn’t mean anything.

        Lanka’s work is true work because it was Parallel System work. True peoples create parallel systems that are true, and in that truth falsehood is annihilated. False peoples try to overthrow the dominant system so that they can determine the dominant system themselves. When the time is right, the jettisoning of germ theory will become a cost-saving, adaptive trait of a post-profit, post-growth civilization under a Degrowth management plan. The Club is angling for a piece of that action whether they realize it or not.


      2. Where can we read Dr Lanka’s paper in full? All I have seen are cropped images of it. Thats not really a good look


      3. Are you referring to his latest control experiments? If so, there is no paper yet as his data will not be published by any journal. I do believe he is going to self publish his results in his magazine. However, I do not know for certain when this will happen. Here is one of the better sources explaining phase one but you will need to use Google Translate:

        Here is a link to Dr. Lanka’s site:

        And this is a link to a group working with Dr. Lanka:


      4. “Where can we read Dr Lanka’s paper in full? All I have seen are cropped images of it. _ Thats not really a good look_ ”

        I do agree.

        Stefan appears completely genuine and a rare human being IMHO… however it is quite frustrating that more than a year after he ‘debunked virology’ there is still no proper write up of his experiment. Not even of phase 1, and isn’t he complete with phase 3 already?

        Mike, now that you appear to be on the inner circle, any chance of getting a message to Dr Lanka asking if he can please self publish his experiment in a scientific format?

        As one of the (albeit minor) funders of his lab work and an active promoter of his findings ever since, it’s getting embarrassing to have to send querents to watch a young Russian girl’s rumble video, or any other web page with a few micrographs and a synopsis, rather than being able to present a professionally written pdf.

        Screw the Journals 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      5. As far as I have heard, he was going to publish in his journal. I also heard that some of the people involved in one of the phases didn’t want the work published. I’m not sure why that would be the case nor why it is taking so long to publish any of it. It is a bit frustrating.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Neither Stefan’s personal website nor Projekt Emmanuel have published much of anything about the control experiments since at least a year or more ago.

        Strange, given this is arguably Dr Lanka’s most important work to date.

        Frustrating indeed.


    2. To my understanding, Lanka is focused on advancing German New Medicine. He is creating a handheld device that scans the brain and tell you the Biological Conflicts that caused the Biological Adaptions(wrongly called diseases). Look up German New Medicine. Here is a free booklet download


      1. “Lanka is focused on advancing German New Medicine.”

        That is certainly a worthy endeavour IMO. GNM is indeed curious, if not a little difficult to find readily accessible and thorough public information about, beyond the introductory videos of the lady with the shrill voice of course 😉

        However, to have invested all that time, energy and resource into ‘debunking virology’ by conducting the missing control experiments, and to have garnered so much attention and well meaning support, to then NOT publish a paper about it seems remiss and quite counter productive at best, suspicious at worst.

        It certainly provides fodder for the McCairns of the world to cast aspersion and create doubt about Stefan’s work… and integrity.

        Again, anyone who may have Stefan’s ear could perhaps bring this up with him (fairly urgently) and get a response from the source, rather than speculation from well-wishers (who begin to sound like apologists).

        None of the Bailey/Cowan/Kauffman etc. team are addressing it seriously in public, AFAIK. Shouldn’t this be a major priority, if Stefan’s work truly is ‘The Final Refutation of Virology’?

        I am kicking myself for not bringing this up on the funders private call with Stefan and Tom when I had the chance, and hoping now that since Mike is becoming one of the celebs of the ‘movement’ (rightly so due to the extra-ordinary resource he’s created here), he will find an opportunity to address this with the team at some point.

        Thanks in advance Mike 😉


  4. I don’t really know all the details of electron microscopy, but I agree with Nike, the scientists should make sure that the tools that are using are giving them authentic answers.
    I look forward to see what the challege yeilds. It is a great idea.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I read a good article going back to the roots of “virology” and how there was absolutely no scientific method behind it’s creation. Doctors working for Rockefeller just determined out of thin air that viruses had been seen and they were the problem for causing afflictions like polio. The AMA determined what doctors could believe and practice and all others who did not agree were left out of the good-old-boys club or excoriated out of existence.

    The modern stone age medical system is never going back on this because they have been in the driver’s seat for over 100 years. Their corruption is etched in granite and its deep roots run all the way to China. They now have billions of potential patients hoodwinked into believing that some nasty death causing virus is floating around just waiting to grab hold of them. Good luck to Mr. Cowan, but he isn’t going to get any takers from the medical establishment…they are mostly cowards and making to much money to ever give up this charade.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Because the options are to be an obedient participant in the fiat money system or be homeless, in prison, or dead, fiat money works whether the masses believe in it or not.


  6. That’s so awesome that you get to be involved in this historic challenge!  Yay!  I am excited about this.  Glad he got the funding, too.  You are a great leader in this movement, which basically requires a very high standard of clear thinking and ethics and hard work, which you are very gifted with.  😊😁😎🥰

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Step Two is problematic for anybody who cares about honesty.

    Saying that the corona genome should not be found in subclinical samples is an incorrect, unscientific view of diagnostics; even according to Terrain Theory, presence of toxins do not always cause diagnosable disease. For a Terrain theorist to wield a double-standard against a germ theorist is hypocritical.

    Saying that genetic sequencings of the corona genomes from the samples should all be identical is also unscientific/unreasonable in the corona context because of the ‘mutations.’ There could be more than one ‘strain’ present.

    Lastly, any of the signatories — Mike is one to be sure — who do not believe in genomics is being dishonest, opportunistic, and is exhibiting poor character by signing-on to this document, because ‘the challenge ‘ explicitly legitimizes genomics.

    An honest person can’t have their cake and eat it too.


    1. “Saying that the corona genome should not be found in subclinical samples is an incorrect”

      They should not find the “coronavirus” genome in samples without the assumed “coronavirus” present. If they do, this shows that their diagnostic tests and genomic sequencing methods are inaccurate.

      “Saying that genetic sequencings of the corona genomes from the samples should all be identical is also unscientific/unreasonable in the corona context because of the ‘mutations.’ There could be more than one ‘strain’ present.”

      No, you are using one lie (i.e. mutation) to cover up another lie (i.e. “viruses”). Anyone looking at this logically can see that the mutation/variant game is a rescue device for being unable to sequence the same genome twice.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Mike

        I’m trying to help here by wielding constructive criticism.

        Your rebuttals to my comment are born of your reactionary views on germ theory. Those in-group reactionary views cannot be used to justify the content in question that is in-group in nature yet is addressing to an out-group, ie virologists. Virologists are what would be called mixed-company, and all well socialized adults know that there’s no real shared truth to be had in mixed company. So by you defending the forcing of your in-group argumentation on an out-group you are engaging in self-defeating behavior, assuming the goal actually is to encourage virologists to accept the challenge.

        My point is you need to speak to them in their language while not compromising the truth. That’s what Reason is for. I’m making a case that a couple small edits are required. If you guys don’t want to hear that and make the edits however post facto that those edits may be coming — and in the process come off looking unprofessional to those in the know — then that’s your business but know that it would just be the another example of the excessive pride born of organizational stupidity. Unless you guys can successfully reason otherwise.


      2. You are missing logic and focusing solely on reason.

        “The primary difference between logic and reason is that REASON IS SUBJECT TO PERSONAL OPINION, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning.”,sound%20thought%20process%20by%20reasoning.


      3. I find it funny Mike that you would use a relativist MSM rescue device when you find yourself backed into a corner.

        The true definition of Reason, as I’ve stated many times one way or another, is the metaconscious truth faculty based on the *accurate* patterning of cumulative observations of cause and effect in the ecology. Reason is objectivist.

        Logic is but the Socratic method by which we deconstruct Reason as it pertains to any given subject.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Even if you were right, reante, then still everyone should find all the exact same strands in the sample. And more importantly, the results should be reproducible.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Robert

        The primordial soup (the subclinical sample), even post-processing, isn’t analogous to homogenized milk; the strands aren’t going to be evenly distributed among all samples and the fewer the strands there are (assuming there are any), as by definition would be the case in the subclinical samples, the greater than chance that one or more samples may not contain any strands.

        Reproducibility is a nested experiment sitting inside of the PCR experiment. Achieving maximum reproducibility would require further subdividing each lab’s sample (which themselves are subdivisions of the original sample) before the first run of amplifications, and subdividing the sample exactly as many times as the number of reproducibility runs that have been decided upon.

        You can only do one PCR run per sample because with PCR ‘testing’ they are literally — and I mean literally — farming more target strands into existence as seeded by the native population; the second run would be a second experiment and not an experiment for reproducibility of the first run. This fact of farming — which if you’ve been lurking here for a week or more you will know what I’m talking about — is why I referred to the sample as a primordial soup. The sample is a living ecology of biochemicals (of mineral/elemental consciousness) and if you inject a bunch of higher-order prokaryotic polymerase into it, it goes nuts like pouring blood around your corn plants, and grows more target strands on the ends of the primers, from the self-organizing free nucleic acids that exist in all primordial soups and this is what they call amplification, but a native population must be there first in order to achieve any growth (something cannot come from nothing); the number of a cycles required for a positive result more or less corresponds to the number of target strands in the native population.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. No matter what eristics and mental gymnastics you use, the fact is that a scientific method and shared human experience through 5 senses are the best cognitive methods we have. So far your germ theory is unproven.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. KK

        If by “mental gymnastics” you mean strong and agile argumentation then I appreciate the recognition. If on the other hand you mean it derogatorily then it’s your responsibility to justify that assignation.

        Five-sense patterning, which includes but is far from limited to the square, civilized scientific method, is indeed how we become high-functioning people.

        I don’t believe in germ theory so you need to rework your final statement for accuracy.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. @reante

      By “mental gymnastics”, I mean that you try to win an argument with a flood of nonsense.
      I do not know what you believe but you behave like a typical germ theorist.
      The bottom line is that you do not have valid arguments.
      Then again:
      1. If according to you the corona genome should be allowed to be found in subclinical samples, then the whole PCR testing method is useless.
      Also you should define what a toxin is. Is it a presence of useless and harmful substance, overload of useless substance or overload of useful substance?
      And define what a disease is. Is it a negative disruption of physiological processes or a neutral disruption of physiological processes?
      2. The challenge does not legitimize genomics at all. It just uses virologists’ methods to debunk them.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. KK

        1. No shit Sherlock. PCR is not a diagnostic tool. So it’s stupidly disingenuous of “The Club” here to legitimize it by incorporating it into the challenge. You call that legitimizing “debunking” and I call it what it is: machiavellian.

        I don’t need to parse what a toxin is in the context of my analogizing it to a ‘pathogen’ because a toxin is the fundamental Terrain analog of a ‘pathogen,’ and I used the analogy so as to illuminate the hypocrisy that The Club (plus Yeadon and minus Lanka) is engaging in, in Step 2. Your making a irrelevant show of parsing toxins (and disease) is a red herring. (Disease is, simply, an experienced symptomology and a symptomology, all things considered, is a suboptimal functioning.)

        2. I already addressed this. It’s a ‘heads I win tails you lose’ scam for the denier of genomics. That’s fighting dirty. Any person of character who does not believe in genomics would abstain from this ‘challenge’ because were the viroligists to defeat the challenge the denier would still not ‘lose’ because he would just say to himself, “well, genes don’t exist anyway so it’s all null and void.”

        Presenting an impossible ‘challenge’ to a ‘scientific’ field that regards the details of that ‘challenge’ (Koch’s Postulates) as anachronistic is nothing more than a multicultural exercise in chest-puffing self-gratification. And it’s an exercise with its own biases and flaws in internal logic. Tower of Babel stuff. Low frequency attention seeking power grab behavior which successfully avoids the hard work of building up –coming alongside — the terrain.


      2. @reante

        1. I don’t legitimize anything. And it is not my problem that you are newbie in these subjects.
        If you do not, I and many other people were dealing with virologists and their supporters on social media platforms by pointing out all issues for over two years. They ignore valid arguments. Thus they will debunk themselves with their own antiscientific methods in this challenge.

        There is no hypocrisy at all. It is just an opportunity given to virologists so they can prove their claims.
        Also you do not know what toxin and disease are.
        FYI again mental gymnastics and eristics do not work on me.

        2. LOL. I have beaten all your arguments. Genomics is a pseudoscience which is used by virologists. Just another way where they will debunk themselves in this challenge.
        And I do not use beliefs. No need for this with a scientific method. It is the burden of initial claimants and their supporters to substantiate their claims.

        3. LOL at Koch’s Postulates. Koch did not create anything special as a scientific method was already there. An independent variable and dependent variable.
        Again your mental gymnastics and eristics are laughable.

        Try harder next time.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Get your fallacies straight, man. If you use the nomenclature in this entire thread, you show some evidence. If ever, you factually mentioning the existence of a primordial soup is condescending af.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. You dost protest too much. Don’t be phony. Your appeal to authority lay in the tone that you used (“you fancy so much”). Had you asked without the condescension I would say that my ‘divinations’ on the nature of reality are my own insofar as they are the product of dedicated daily patterning of reality but that theoretical corroboration of the primordial soup can presumably best be investigated — at a glance, anyway — by exploring evolutionary biochemistry. I haven’t done it myself because I don’t feel the need for external validation on this matter.

        You’re welcome.


      3. No it’s not Mike. It’s saying if you want to be able to handle the deepest truths you’re gonna have to put the work in. I know that you’re not going to put the work in because I know that you don’t know how. Is Robert going to put the work in? Probably not but I don’t know him from Adam so he gets the benefit of the doubt.


      4. Saying you have shown your work and actually doing so are two entirely different things. I’ll give you another chance. It should be easy peazy:

        Please share ONE study which adheres to the scientific method and proves your primordial soup.

        I’ll even accept a study on DNA, exosomes, etc. Just ONE that adheres to the scientific method, requiring a valid isolated independent variable and proof of cause and effect.

        Do you have one?

        If not, then how did you ever come to your conclusion that these things exist and function as you claim?


      5. You can’t square this circle, friend. Ain’t gonna happen. You go on now and do whatever bulldogging you gotta do in order to save face.


  8. I suggest this challenge must be directly submitted to all virology and microbiology journals. As well, it should be directly sent to a wide range of virologists and microbiologists. A list should be published of all those who received this challenge along with their response to this challenge. I would call this the “Shame List” because we should expect, few, if any, will take up the challenge.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But since virology is more like a religion I can only offer the following analogy.

    Seventh Day Adventists (a fringe Christian religion) believe that death is an unconscious sleep or soul death. Catholics (the largest Christian religion) believe in the immortality of the soul or that the soul never dies. Yet they both claim that the Bible supports their view and does not contradict itself. It has been this way for a long time. What would happened if the leaders of the Seventh-Day Adventists proposed a debate with the leaders of the Catholic religion to resolve this issue? Would the Catholic leaders debate them or ignore them? I think the answer to that is obvious.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I highly doubt they will go anywhere near this challenge and they will just rest on the mountain of indirect fraudulent evidence they have amassed over the decades. These people are not interested in science and they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. But we can at least show that they are unwilling to engage in the scientific process. 😉


  10. Scientist have created this Frankenstein science so they will need to undo it before it devours its own children as Erwin Chargaff predicted.
    “ The Torch of Erwin Chargaff and the Fire of Heraklitus Devour Their Children”


    In silico ( computer generated ) virus that does not exist in reality.
    Dr Kevin Corbett
    2 min.

    Video description

    In Silico” Science = “science” modelled in a computer (but not seen in reality = Scientism
    The old virology, until 1952, considered a virus to be a toxic protein with the capability of self-replication, so the proteins themselves were considered to be the “genetic material”.
    In 1952 there were some experiments which showed a protein can only be replicated when there is a nucleic acid as a catalysator.
    From this experiment onwards, Virologists believed the nucleic acid was the genetic material.
    Science relies on the Watch Maker Analogy Scientists, whether they realise it or not, rely on the idea that there is a Map of Life.
    The Watchmaker analogy is a teleological argument. In simple terms, it states that because there is a design, there must be a designer.
    Genetics Geneticists, who intrinsically rely on watchmaker analogy, when they could NOT sequence the whole strand, invented one!
    Craig Venter is known for leading the first draft sequence of the human genome and assembled the first team to transfect a cell with a synthetic chromosome.
    Shotgun Cloning – if we can not sequence entire strand, lets cut it into very short pieces of nucleic acid, dump it in a model and let that assemble it for him. MAGIC! Is COVID-19 A Construct?
    A Complete Mental Construct! And its easy to see!
    2 min.

    A relevant takeaway, rough translation and link
    Summer interview with Dr Lanka German -

    Disproven genetics ( known since 2000 when they came up with epigenetic to keep the theory going and 2008 even published an article in main stream media .
    Genome in dissolution.

    Each time they read it is something different as every nucleus has a different nucleic acid.

    Craig Venter, builds a private company , gets billions of taxpayers money.
    Says listen, we blast the chromosomes as cannot read the large parts, blast them into mini parts that we can read. Called shot gun cloning and sequencing.
    They read the small parts , they say we multiply so much so and if take the average that is reality.

    An example.
    They multiply with PCR a large and diverse amount . They use a very dirty PCR in a test tube which introduces a lot of errors which get magnified at every stage.
    There is such a high sequences variability and error using todays computer capacity that it is impossible to calculate it with computers in 10 years time.
    They choose and organise fragments into a thought model , pure mathematics .

    Shotgun sequencing -( See also -disadvantages ; presented as reality. Unbelievable , they are given billions and get away with selling a method of cheating as ‘science’ )

    “The sequenced fragments are then assembled together by computer programs that find where fragments overlap.”
    You can imagine shotgun sequencing as being a bit like shredding multiple copies
    of a book (which in this case is a genome), mixing up all the fragments and then
    reassembling the original text (genome) by finding fragments with text that overlap
    and piecing the book back together again”

    Dr Lanka did the control experiments with measles in the measles process.

    Dr Lanka ‘s team recent control experiments.
    They use normal human tissues and with 14 cycles they can get Sars Cov -2, Ebola, HIV.
    They have proven, what the Americans say : ‘ You get what you pay for’.

    The bioinformaticians/ virologists do 2 dirty PCRs to try to calculate something and they use over 30 cycles which ,biochemically is perverse, antiscientific.
    And what they describe in their data is that they found nothing .

    So they do a dirty PCR and cannot get the virus .They do a second dirty PCR.
    That would mean , in practice, one would need to take 2 PCRs on a person to claim there is a virus.
    But in the lab they do 2 PCR combination , one after the other .
    That means that they have contradicted themselves . They describe in details that they have nothing after the first PCR.

    The virus was calculated in Shanghai and not in Wuhan.
    The first one that comes up with the genome is the master. The rest just repeat the steps as told.
    Professor Chang is world master of the genome.

    We can prove they have cheated.
    From their data , they say they took 56, 000 million fragments out of 6 trillion
    molecules with which they worked. Out of those 56,000 million, half were blanked out. He told them we want the blanked out data and heard nothing .
    With the 26,000 million that were not blanked out Lanka’s team could not reproduce one single step described in the Chinese paper.

    The Chinese claimed the sequences are not human as could not find them in the human data base.
    Thankfully , he knows a mathematician who does not want to be named and worked out that they are human sequences.
    Out of the not blanked sequences he figured out how the Chinese manipulated the data to hide that it was of human origin.

    Why did they blanked some out? So people cannot figure out they are human sequences. There is no calculation capacity to work out which sequence the PCR produces, the calculations stop at around 20 cycles..
    The Chinese do 35-40 cycles. They produce a multitude of molecules that cannot even be calculated and choose those they need that fit into their model .

    As a method it is cheating.

    It is fraud.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Can’t wait for the juror-, I mean lab, selection process. That’s always a neutral process isn’t it?

      Anybody see where the truth went? Must be around here somewhere amongst all the organizational stupidity.


      1. Do you have a better idea on how to force virology to validate and attempt to prove that their fraudulent methods work? You are quick with criticism yet offer nothing in return.


      2. I offer plenty in return, brother. I offer necessities but you want wants instead. What else is new among civilized men?

        There are no good ways to push on a string and expect it to stay true to form. Wake up.


      3. @reante

        I laugh at your butthurtness here.
        FYI I offer 50K USD since 2020 for undeniable evidence of biological viruses.
        So far none of them wants it and I offered it directly to them too.
        “Of course it’s not possible to manufacture an infectious virus because ‘viruses’ can’t DO anything. It does look likely though that the the lab leak scare is the grassy knoll misdirection play that sets up the trojan horse which is a manufactured, exosomal malware dump in the form of the mRNA vaxxxes that also can’t DO anything beyond being the collective tsunami of highly amplified fake news that they are, washing over the primordial soup biogenetic (the adjective of biogenesis) heart of the intelligent body.”
        -primordial soup biogenetic,
        Soon we will find out who is who here.


      4. It’s Mr Moneybags himself, huh? And dumb as a rock. And they say correlation doesn’t equal causation. There’s an exception to every rule.


      5. Yes, you are dumb as rock because you do not know what direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes and experimentation on independent variable are.
        Try harder next time, newbie, because you picked a fight you can’t win.
        You really think that you are going to teach me about correlations, associations and causations.


  11. Recently on telegram.

    USA (Department of Biological Sciences) – Does SARS-CoV-2 exist or has it never been detected⁉️

    In a detailed peer-reviewed meta-analysis on the current state of knowledge of SARS-CoV-2, lead author Yasin Ali Muhammad of the Department of Biological Sciences, explores the question of whether SARS-CoV-2 exists at all.

    This study trumps big names in the field of virology, both on the virus-believing side and the now many well-known critics such as Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Dr. Tom Cowan, etc.

    Three theories are analysed 🔬

    1️⃣ SARS-CoV-2 of natural origin?

    2️⃣ SARS-CoV-2 an origin from the laboratory?

    3️⃣ SARS-CoV-2 does not exist and has never been detected.

    Conclusion of the study❗️

    There is insufficient evidence either for the claim of a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, or for its emergence in a laboratory, even after 2 years. The strongest evidence is on the side of those who pointed out that there is no SARS-CoV-2!

    deepL translate:



    At the time of this writing, SARS-CoV-2 has reportedly claimed the lives of millions of people worldwide. However, there is still disagreement concerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2, its true nature, and the extent of its pathogenicity. Thus, the purpose of this manuscript is to highlight and critically analyze these differences so that research efforts can be geared toward addressing these concerns.

    Main Body
    For this purpose, the author studied the perspectives of both conventional and non-conventional scientists, physicians, and researchers in an attempt to understand the points of contention and the reasons for the vast gulf in perspective.

    After reviewing the varying but divergent perspective pertaining to the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and the premises used to justify them, it has become clear that if the scientific community is to put a halt to the spread of misinformation pertaining to the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, the predominant scientific community (particularly the microbiologist/immunologist) must carry out the requisite scientific procedures and encourage governmental/academic transparency.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I completely agree, that there is no proof for the virology theory – still I wonder, what makes people sick. Just got the “flu” from my daughter – there must be something infectious…


    1. Detoxification caused by similar environmental exposures. We tend to come down with similar ailments as family members at similar times due to eating similar foods, drinking similar drinks, breathing the same unclean air, dealing with similar emotional stressors, living within the same environment, etc.

      Some also believe that this detox process can be kicked into gear by being around someone also going through it, similar to how a yawn is “contagious” or how women can sync up periods. I have not seen much in the way of evidence for this but there definitely could be a psychological aspect to it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I take it you all still believe in bacteria causing disease? I don’t know about viruses…. but a big block to me is contagion. Have you ever gone thru chicken pox outbreak in your kids or school? They are definitely catching something, and it’s not just emvironmental exposure. If it’s just a detox process then why is it only a one time event? We would continue to be exposed to toxins and should detox the same way for the same toxin.


      2. Hi Claty, I do not believe bacteria cause disease. In most cases, the bacteria is found in entirely healthy people:


        “MOST INFECTIONS SHOW NO SYMPTOMS, in which case it is known as latent tuberculosis.[1] ABOUT 10% OF LATENT INFECTIONS PROGRESS TO ACTIVE DISEASE which, if left untreated, kills about half of those affected”

        “ABOUT 90% OF THOSE INFECTED WITH M. TUBERCULOSIS HAVE ASYMPTOMATIC, LATENT TB INFECTIONS (sometimes called LTBI),[55] with only a 10% lifetime chance that the latent infection will progress to overt, active tuberculous disease.”

        “Persons with latent TB infection do not feel sick and do not have any symptoms. They are infected with M. TUBERCULOSIS, BUT DO NOT HAVE TB DISEASE. The only sign of TB infection is a positive reaction to the tuberculin skin test or TB blood test. PERSONS WITH LATENT TB INFECTION ARE NOT INFECTIOUS AND CANNOT SPREAD TB INFECTION TO OTHERS.”


        “As typhoid fever-causing Salmonella have no known environmental reservoir, the chronic, ASYMPTOMATIC CARRIER STATE IS THOUGHT TO BE A KEY FEATURE OF CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF THE BACTERIUM WITHIN HUMAN POPULATIONS.”

        “CHRONIC CARRIERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE TRANSMISSION of the organism. WHILE ASYMPTOMATIC, they may continue to shed bacteria in their stool for decades.”

        H. PYLORI:

        “ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE WORLD’D POPULATION IS INFECTED, but it is more common in developing countries.”

        “USUALLY ASYMPTOMATIC, but H. pylori is the major cause of peptic ulcer disease and gastritis worldwide, which often present as gnawing or burning epigastric pain.”

        “Helicobacter pylori infection is PRESENT IN MORE THAN 50% OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION. The estimated life time risk of peptic ulcer disease is 20 percent and of gastric cancer is 1–2 percent.”

        “In this study, the prevalence of H. pylori infection in ASYMPTOMATIC POPULATIONS WAS 67.7%, WHICH IS COMPARABLE WITH DATA FROM OTHER STUDIES.”


        “MOST INFECTIONS ARE ASYMPTOMATIC (i.e. do not cause any illness).”

        “Cholera infection IS MOST OFTEN ASYMPTOMATIC or results in mild gastroenteritis. Approximately one in 20 people will have severe disease, with profuse painless, watery diarrhoea described as ‘rice water stools’ and vomiting leading to rapid volume depletion.”

        As for chickenpox, I have written a few articles on that here:

        This one in particular addresses the claims of transmission:


      3. Claty

        Chickenpox is a one-time deal because it’s a developmental detox, which is why allopathic culture calls it a childhood disease. Measles is the same. Childhood is a combination of explosive growth and physiological immaturity that generally relies on acute detoxification cycles more than young adulthood. The detoxification may be from a buildup of exogenous (fat soluble) toxins, endogenous toxins (distributed mass apoptotis of skin tissues from malnutrition (vit A, etc) during growth spurts), or most likely a combination of the two.

        The ‘contagion’ is neither microbial nor ‘viral’ but due to the fact that same-age child cohorts in a homogenized society are largely subject to the same environmental factors plus the hard reality that we are a highly social tribally evolved species that is always communicating with each other both consciously and unconsciously, and group sicknesses evolved as a way to alert the tribe to a problem, by enhancing the message in the same way that stereo audio enhances mono. Or better yet it’s like surround sound.

        In traditional cultures, if children are getting sick in surround sound then the parents know that there’s a major structural problem with the health of their local ecology, and the cultural soul searching begins. Today we have compulsory vaccination, which is a clever technique they developed that has the ability, more or less — it’s hard to tell how much — to suppress future detox pathways by forcibly and falsely teaching (lying to) immature bodies that that detox pathway is self-harming, so the innocent babes naturally avoid it which is not good for them either. That’s what the regular vaxxxes do, create a catch-22.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Claty

        Bacteria and fungi absolutely cannot cause disease because of the fundamental natural law (ecological reason) that we are aerobic organisms and 99% of the so-called ‘pathogenic’ microbes are anaerobes (either facultative or true) that cannot function near properly oxygenated tissues because the oxygen levels are deadly to them.

        These are the simple, first-fundamental, microbiological facts why microbes cannot be the cause of disease. Their presence at disease sights is always an effect and not the cause.

        The remaining 1% of so-called ‘pathogenic’ microbes are aerobes that live on the surfaces of our airways and metabolize the oxygen in the airways but and eat the dead and toxic organic matter on the surfaces.

        Both the 1% and the 99% are classed as saprophytes, which are microbes that eat deoxygenated dead and near-dead organic matter.

        Hope that helps you to own your leaving of false germ theory behind. 🙂


      5. Self-correction: the regular vaxxxes themselves don’t create a catch-22 because they just force the body to associate the chickenpox intercellular signaling that regulates the chickenpox symptomology with trauma by using the ‘attenuated viruses’ to mimic the ‘class’ of exosomes related to chickenpox signaling. The allopathic culture that mandates them is what creates the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ catch-22; damned if you don’t get the vaxxxes cuz you don’t get to go to school (good thing really but most families can’t afford it) and damned if you do cuz they fuck with your shit.


  13. Post on Corona_ Fakten

    The “No Virus” Challenge – 5 virology laboratories worldwide are taking part in this experiment, and none knows the identity of the other participating laboratories❗️


    After we published the control experiments of Dr. Stefan Lanka, which unfortunately did not arouse any interest among the Corona critics in the DACH region, but rather suppressed its serious explosive power, our colleagues from many countries started a very extensive control experiment.

    This action was signed by renowned scientists 🧑🔬👩🔬✍️

    Thomas Cowan, MD Mark Bailey, MD Samantha Bailey, MD ,Jitendra Banjara, MSc Kelly Brogan, MD Kevin Corbett, PhD Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS Michael Donio, MS Jordan Grant, MD Andrew Kaufman, MD Valentina Kiseleva, MD Christine Massey, MSc
    Paul McSheehy, PhD Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD Sachin Pethkar, BAMS Saeed Qureshi, PhD Stefano Scoglio, PhD Mike Stone, BEXSc, Amandha Vollmer, NDoc,

    and also Michael Yeadon, PhD

    We are grateful🙏🏻 that all these colleagues have studied, reviewed and understood our many years of preliminary work, and with this action, once again and fully refute the virus existence claim.


    deepL translate

    Liked by 1 person

    1. While I appreciate their enthusiasm for the effort, what they wrote is misleading. I, and others on there, are in no way renowned scientists. This challenge has yet to be accepted nor even have any set guidelines in place yet. This is strictly a proposal for what could occur if the virology community accepts. Details would need to be worked out at a later time.


      1. Thanks for clarifying and a commendable effort.👏

        Not sure if I would even put much trust in the so called ‘renowned ‘scientists. .
        (with a few exceptions,)
        The only advantage some have is the laboratories where they claim only they can do the science. It is interesting the gaslighting from some of these ‘renowned ‘ scientist that still tells us they believe there is a virus. They start the interview throwing around their titles, credentials ,’expertise’ and presnt disproven theories and forget to back -up their statements with sound scientific proof..

        It was good to see Poornima Wagh, 2 PhDs in Virology and Immunology, 20 yr career as a Lab researcher and scientist video
        And with a phd in immunologist she even mentions that there are no antibodies and immune system as told..And recommend some reliable sources to follow when it comes to science and one is virolielogy.👏.



        Poornima Wagh, 2 PhDs in Virology and Immunology, 20 yr career as a Lab researcher and scientist, destroys the Covid scam with proof in language even a layman like me can understand. Who benefits? Big Pharma and its owners (not shareholders), Gates, Fauci whom she calls criminals, using words like “fraudulent,” “deliberate,” “planned and premeditated.”

        Someone put out a summary of the video in the comment section easy to refer back to or for those with lack of time.

        deep L translate.

        P.W. says:

        – 2 PhDs in virology and immunology, 20 years practical experience in the lab.

        – Kary Mulli’s death in 2019 came as a surprise because he was physically fit and died in the summer (but not surprising in that he was fundamentally critical of Fauci)

        – She reports on the 201 plan game

        – Criticism of the media coverage

        – a woman (edit: a lab director = principal investigator) who had been paid $1.5 million in 2020 to isolate the virus from samples of sick people had asked her if she wanted to do the research.

        – P.W. says that at first she did not want to cooperate, but then agreed if she could do the isolation/purification/characterisation on her terms

        – Her condition: no cultivation and pre-treatment with antibiotics, nutrient solution etc., but direct filtration.

        – But she found nothing except “decomposing human cellular debris”.

        – Her supervisor then asked her to repeat her examinations. A total of three runs (April to Sept 2020), but she found nothing in any of the runs

        – She injected these cell debris into 100 ferrets: they showed no respiratory symptoms, fever, etc. However, one tenth would have reacted with hair loss on the tail and increased appetite/weight gain. This means that Koch’s 3rd postulate was not fulfilled.

        – They would have sent their results to about 100 Universities, only six replied and verified their studies by using their form of isolation/purification/characterisation: same result = only human cell debris, no pathogen/no virus.

        – Then they sent their results to the CDC. Robert Redfield of the CDC told her to call it Sars-Cov-2 anyway and threatened her that she would lose her job and that he would make sure that she would never work in a lab again: I’ll make sure you’ll never work in a lab again.”

        – She still wanted to publish her results, but many publications did not want to publish them, including Nature and Science. A Danish publication first wanted to publish, but then backed out – she suspects because of pressure from the government.

        – Then she wrote to the CDC that she would like to have the isolated virus from the CDC, but the CDC first replied with “we don’t have it” and then did not reply to further requests.

        – In April 2021, the FBI came and raided her house. However, P.W. had copies of the results of their investigation.

        – P.W.’s conclusion: there is no virus, no mutations, monkeypox is rather the result of so-called vaccines.

        – She recommends eating a balanced diet, getting good sleep, keeping one’s body fit and not getting vaccinated/boosted.

        – She says it is not possible to develop a deadly virus in the lab, that is pure scaremongering

        Liked by 1 person

      2. PC

        makes perfect sense that she would only find decomposing organic matter by the time the tissues had been extracted, the ‘glue’ between the cells dissolved, and cells filtered and spun and looked at.

        One ring to rule them all.

        Of course it’s not possible to manufacture an infectious virus because ‘viruses’ can’t DO anything. It does look likely though that the the lab leak scare is the grassy knoll misdirection play that sets up the trojan horse which is a manufactured, exosomal malware dump in the form of the mRNA vaxxxes that also can’t DO anything beyond being the collective tsunami of highly amplified fake news that they are, washing over the primordial soup biogenetic (the adjective of biogenesis) heart of the intelligent body.


      3. I was moved by your comment about ‘not doing anything’ to google around in order to find exactly what the mode of action is that viruses use to make us ill.
        To my surprise four hits in a row failed to find any explanation.
        Supposed explanations simply say they ‘make cells die’ or injure cells. But they don’t say how.
        And they do say the cells are merely making more copies of the virus.
        So are we to suppose that making copies of the virus kills the cell? Is that it? Kinda like a runaway cancer?
        A couple point to the immune system. So is it that the immune system comes along and kills those cells that are showing viral particles?
        I have read that the most severe effects of covid were because of over response of the immune system.
        All just questions and conjecture of mine.
        To get back to the point: Yes, there seems to be (on this four hit sample) no suggestion of the virus actually ‘doing’ anything. It merely automatically gets replicated by the cell.
        I kinda thought I’d find that somehow it made toxic proteins or the cell made them in the process of replicating it but I find no such suggestion.
        I think discussions such as this one need to clear up that ‘background’ before going any further.
        Here are my four google ‘hits’, read for yourself how the fudge the question and provide no answer beyond the vague ‘kill the cell’ which is vague indeed when claiming the cell is performing well enough to produce many copies: it’s either dead or its producing to my mind.
        What You Need to Know About Infectious Disease.

        How do viruses make us ill?

        another non-explanation of how viruses make us sick (‘kills cells’)
        How Pathogens Make Us Sick

        pfizer’s non-explanation of how a virus makes you sick
        How do Viruses Make us Sick?

        Novel 2019 coronavirus structure, mechanism of action, antiviral drug promises and rule out against its treatment
        Subramanian Boopathi,a Adolfo B. Poma,b and Ponmalai Kolandaivelc


      4. Thanks arthur. I only just received notification of your comment.

        ‘Viruses’ are mineral consciousness. They have no metabolism to power any function at all. This is the simple, physiological refutation of virology. It’s a testament to the sheepleness of humanity that almost nobody else here in the terrain talks about this simple physical refutation.

        The microbial analog of this refutation that I also described is the other physical refutation that completes the undoing of germ theory in its entirety.

        ‘Viruses’ are in truth exosomes, which are vehicles of horizontal gene transfer which itself is a major aspect of evolution. Exosomes are the packaged (for preservation) genetic messages of intercellular communication. They cannot do anything but cells give them entry in order to read their messages ‘from the outside world.’ If the cell deems the message relevant enough and important enough then it will duplicate the message (what virology calls ‘viral replication’) and send it out. Many of these messages relate to homeostasis and disease which is why germ theory exploits them by saying that they cause disease when in fact that’s physiologically impossible.


  14. I’ll bet you didn’t know . . .
    “Viruses frequently spread among cells or hosts in groups, with multiple viral genomes inside the same infectious unit. These collective infectious units can consist of multiple viral genomes inside the same virion, or multiple virions inside a larger structure such as a vesicle. Collective infectious units deliver multiple viral genomes to the same cell simultaneously, which can have important implications for viral pathogenesis, antiviral resistance, and social evolution.”,structure%20such%20as%20a%20vesicle.
    They’ve even thrown in a few equations to convince you of the truthfulness of their claim. Only one minor problem – no single virion has ever been defined. In order to define a virion as an infectious agent the first step would be to put it in isolation. The CDC knows what it means to put something in isolation because they recommend it for people who test positive for Covid.
    “People who are confirmed to have COVID-19 or are showing symptoms of COVID-19 need to isolate regardless of their vaccination status.”
    They recommend that you are by yourself, which is defined as being away from others.
    “Isolation is used to separate people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 from those without COVID-19. People who are in isolation should stay home until it’s safe for them to be around others.”,or%20not%20they%20have%20symptoms.
    So there you have it. They know what isolation means. But they have a short memory when it comes to a virus because they change the meaning of the word isolate when they claim to isolate viruses because they don’t ever produce a single virion or even a group of virions.
    Nevertheless, get ready for this!
    “Scientists isolate, hold, photograph individual Rubidium 85 atom
    ( — In a major physics breakthrough, University of Otago scientists have developed a technique to consistently isolate and capture a fast-moving neutral atom – and have also seen and photographed this atom for the first time.
    The entrapment of the Rubidium 85 atom is the result of a three-year research project funded by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, and has already prompted world-wide interest in the new science which will flow from the breakthrough.
    A team of four researchers from Otago’s Physics Department, led by Dr Mikkel F. Andersen, used laser cooling technology to dramatically slow a group of rubidium 85 atoms. A laser-beam, or “optical tweezers”, was then deployed to isolate and hold one atom – at which point it could be photographed through a microscope.”
    Did you catch that? “. . . to isolate and hold one single atom . . .”
    Now a single atom is much much smaller than a virion. So where are the headlines that say virologists isolate and hold one virion? Why is it that when virologists use the word isolate it has a totally different meaning from when scientists use the word? Shouldn’t the virologists be correcting the scientists and telling them that what they did was not isolation?
    How about that word “entrapment,” what does that mean? Here’s one definition:
    “the state of being caught in or as in a trap.”
    Let’s consider an example of the use of the word entrap. Suppose you find these little brown pellets in the corner of your bedroom on the floor. Now after you’ve seen these little pellets you suspect that there is a mouse in your house. Next you want to prove if your theory is correct so you go out and buy a mousetrap. You know the rest of the story.
    Now when virologists see a diseased condition in human cells they theorize that there is a virus in the body. But they don’t go out and buy a virion trap to entrap a viral particle. If they did that it would prove the virus caused the disease in the same way the mousetrap proved the mouse left the pellets in the corner of your bedroom. Therefore entrapment proves isolation.
    So the logical question is, when have virologists ever entrapped a virus? And the answer is, never. They are all liars.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @George

      They only declared that they isolated an atom.
      But it is not supported by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes nor experimentation on alleged atom-independent variable.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Point and declare is not a proof of atom. To categorize something as such, you either observe all vital processes with specific independent variable or experiment on independent variable. And none of these has been done. Just like with alleged bio viruses.


      2. KK

        You have a specific mental formula that you hit upon that has become a little crutch of a religion to you. It’s purpose is to suppress your intellectual agoraphobia. In all likelihood it’s the intended result of your childhood edumacation.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Hahaha. More eristics and mental gymnastics from you.
        You do not seem to be an intellectual powerhouse.


    2. On the intellectual level they’re liars to be sure but if we look around us we see that most people are, because of the separation trauma. When your operational life is one big structural lie with respect to natural law, the intellectual lies follow.

      Civilization is the atomized entrapment of the forcefed peoples. The longer the civilization runs the more atomized becomes the entrapment, to the point where now atoms themselves can be entrapped. The isolation from the do-or-die self-determination state of freedom under natural law leads to self-limiting behaviors, like the child living in the cupboard that won’t come out when the police show up, for fear of the separation trauma that will come from the loss of separation trauma.

      Virology itself is just born of fear and the loathing that fear multiplies into. Urban elitists above all fear natural law the most because their life goals are farthest removed from natural law. Their overarching life goal is to control and manipulate their material surroundings as much as they can and the reason for the goal is the existential powerlessness wrought by the separation trauma of the entrapped isolation. The life goal is shadow play and the subconscious challenge presented is like limbo: “how low can you go?” Look at mister moneybags’ deluded, impotent attempts to control what exactly (?) with a pretty paltry hoarded sum, really.


  15. Obviously something like a virus exists or else the mRNA shots would not be able to do the damage they do!


    1. How so? They are filled with known and unknown toxic ingredients. Just the process of injecting anything into the body is harmful. Even injecting water or a saline solution can cause serious harm. There is no reason to conclude a “virus” caused the injuries when the toxic ingredients and the injection method is enough to explain the damages.


    2. Alexander

      I understand why you would think that: if the mRNA vaxxxes do do, more or less, what is claimed then the synthetic mRNA bodies are metaphoric submicroscopic terrorists without boxcutters, which are exactly what ‘viruses’ are advertised as being.

      Nevertheless you are falling prey to a tautological fallacy Think on it some more and get back to us. 🙂


  16. If you don’t factor in the prevailing satanism, you won’t understand the reason why they always lie. if you have a glimpse of god’s adversary, then you must ask yourself why should he omit any area of ​​science, religion, politics, etc. and not use it to destroy what god created. it’s everywhere, practically everything is a lie, yes it’s ridiculously obvious and people are purposely scared so they can’t ask the normal questions. the example of a very big lie is the globe. just calculate the peripheral speed at the so-called equator and think about the result. OK.! it’s so easy.


    1. Hi Kevin,

      Per your statement:

      “I have seen your video asking for laboratories TO TEST THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS regarding virology.

      I have, available to me, all the laboratory facilities and animal facilities REQUIRED TO PERFORM THESE EXPERIMENTS.”

      “I believe that you will not accept the offer of lab facilities or put forward the money TO FUND SUCH STUDIES. I have PUBLICLY sent this email so people will know if you are lying about your intentions TO ENGAGE IN A PROPER SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.”

      Are you admitting that the proper scientific investigation testing the underlying assumptions of virology have never been carried out? It seems you are offering to now do the proper scientific investigation thus admitting that the investigations up to this point have not been proper nor scientific. This is exactly our point as none of the virology studies adhere to the scientific method and are by definition pseudoscience.

      Per the challenge:

      “STEP ONE
      5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and NONE WOULD KNOW THE IDENTITIES OF THE OTHER PARTICIPATING LABS”

      By announcing your accepted participation publicly rather than privately, you disqualified yourself from being able to be a participant.


    2. Mike

      Since Mr Moneybags will be paying for independent monitors at each lab as part of his general funding of the “challenge,” the stipulation calling for anonymity is redundant anyhow wouldn’t you say, assuming there was any rationale for it in the first place?


      1. No, it is not redundant as the labs being blinded is meant to keep them honest. They will not know who is doing what and will not be able to communicate with each other in order to try and compare results.


      2. How could them comparing results change anything? They’re tasked with looking for influenza virus in one sample and a coronavirus in an another, out of four samples. What good would comparing results do? Either they find and identify the viruses or they don’t, and it’s all being filmed and monitored.

        Another thing, how are the electron microscopists supposed to prove the absence of viruses in non-viral samples that he’s blinded to? Sounds downright Sisyphean doesn’t it?


      3. If the researchers were not blinded to each other and were to compare genomes, they could make sure each one matches up. The methods each lab uses are also supposed to be blinded so that they do not all do the same thing.

        As for EM, if there are no “virus” particles found in the healthy and lung cancer samples, then that would be consistent with their claims. However, if they find “viral” particles in the healthy sample or are unable to find them in the Influenza/”SARS-COV-2″ samples, this would obviously not be consistent with what they say.

        Your opposition to blinding the researchers to the presence of the other researchers does not seem REASONable.


      4. If they fraudulently made sure that the the genomes matched up then that would be caught by the independent monitors.

        Why shouldn’t the labs all do the same thing if they want to. You, as Mr Scientific Method, should have a general appreciate for standardization. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of something you don’t understand? That The Club wants to hypercontrol the terms of the experiment is not consistent with coming from a position of strength. I understand the lack of trust on each side but being unnecessarily controlling will only hurt the chances that the challenge takes place.

        Regarding EM. If there is no virus in the isolated sample then there is no sample, and no EM needs doing because there is no EM-ing of thin air.


      5. “If they fraudulently made sure that the the genomes matched up then that would be caught by the independent monitors”

        As the samples would all be from the same patients given to the different labs, whatever genomes that would be aquired should be identical to the “virus” coming from the same patient.

        This requirement was outlined in this section of the challenge:

        “It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same
        sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged
        SARS-CoV-2 genome.”

        If the researchers from different labs communicate with each other when independent monitors are not around using whatever channels available to them, it would be easy to coordinate results. Thus, keeping the labs unaware of who is participating, when they are participating, and what the results are is absolutely essential.

        “Why shouldn’t the labs all do the same thing if they want to.”

        How many virology papers have you read? How many perform the exact same “isolation” methods as each other? This is a problem for virology as there are no standardized methods. Part of the challenge is to allow them to utilize the purification and isolation methods that they choose. This is to see if they get the same results as each other. As the labs are blinded, none should know what the others are doing. In the future, doing a challenge where they all do the exact same method may be wise, but we would need to see the results from these experiments first.

        “What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of something you don’t understand? That The Club wants to hypercontrol the terms of the experiment is not consistent with coming from a position of strength.”

        There is no need to be condescending. If you want to draw up your own challenge with your own rules, feel free to do so.

        “If there is no virus in the isolated sample then there is no sample, and no EM needs doing because there is no EM-ing of thin air.”

        The researchers would be treating all samples the same exact way as they would not know which would have the assumed “virus.” They would have to culture every sample as if it were “SARS-COV-2.” Those that show CPE would need to be chosen for EM imaging. If they see CPE in the cultures from healthy and lung cancer patients, they would need to be imaged. If they find the same “viral” particles in these samples, this would show it is the culture process itself creating the “viral” particles and that the assumed “viral” particles were never “viruses” but were instead most likely cellular debris.


    3. I can guarantee you that you are unable to prove existence of alleged bio viruses by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them or by acquirement of alleged bio viruses as an independent variable and verification of them as such in a series of experiments.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. Kevin

      It’s important to your reputation here that you please answer this most earnest of questions:

      How exactly do you conceive of a virus, even a GOF virus, which has no metabolic functions to power any structural (mechanical) functions, as having the ability to dictate the terms of existence
      to a metabolic cell many times its size?

      Appreciate the response my intelligent brother.


  17. This Microscope (the instrument) can see (image something using electrons instead of photons) down to Individual atoms (the basic unit of a chemical element).

    When light (photon energy) hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals. These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see.

    You cannot see atoms because the instrument you use to imagine with is not designed to create imagines from electrons. In the future they might redesign the eye to do this and then you will be able to image atoms. In the meantime you will have to rely on the election microscope instrument to create imagines of atoms.


    1. @George

      Those are your speculations only.
      Otherwise prove:
      -what light is,
      -electrical signals.


  18. Proof: “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”

    The evidence available to support the reality of the items you’ve listed is in sufficient abundance to establish proof. It is also there for you to examine and come to your own conclusions.


    1. @George

      You have not presented any evidence which is scientific or shared human experience.
      Thus you failed to substantiate your claims and the burden of proof is still on you.


  19. The elite criminals, those euphemistically referred to as the “global elite”, are waging a global war against us. We, the little people from the street, are under attack. It is only our side that is being injured, killed and murdered. The only way we, the little people, will win this war is to set aside our differences, come together as one and fight with a common vision and direction.

    It seems all of those posting here are natural allies in this war. Instead of this petty infighting, how about recognizing our enemy are all those ramming this tyranny of Technocracy and Transhumanism down our throats. Let’s come together and win this war first. We can get back to our petty bickering once we have accomplished that and then have nothing better to do with our time.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I know my enemy by their deeds. And you do not even need to know all details about them. If they support degenerative principles and systems based on slavery, then they are usurpers-parasites.
      Also yes, only united we can defeat them but slaves are too much indoctrinated and brainwashed.


    2. Ian

      If only it were that simple. The first complication is that almost all of the “little people” would become “big people” given the opportunity aka “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” This here “challenge” by The Club is ample evidence of that.

      The problem is structural. Civilization doesn’t exist without one kind of totalitarianism or another. Just because you have lived your life, until now, during the golden age of oil when billions get to live, materially speaking, like princes and princesses — and ONLY because that is what maximized the personal power of the elites — doesn’t mean totalitarianism ever went away. Obviously. Look at the money system. Look at the tax system. Look at the land use regulations.

      Freedom begins with mental freedom. This is not bickering here. It’s a battle over what is mental freedom. That’s the first step and in reality you can’t skip steps and expect good, durable outcomes.


      1. @reante

        This here “challenge” by The Club is ample evidence of that.”

        Those are your speculations only. And you still do not have an idea who shills are.


      2. By definition The Club is making an appeal to authority. Only someone deep in this pear (despair) would deny that. Appeals to authority, by both extension and definition, are made because authority is appealing. And there’s nothing wrong with that insofar as true authorities do exist under natural law.

        But the authority that The Club is making an appeal to is the hierarchy itself, which isn’t just a true authority but an authoritarian organization. Therefore The Club is making an appeal to authoritarianism because it (subconsciously) finds authoritarianism appealing.

        Like I said, almost all “little people” would become “big people” given the opportunity. The System does its damnedest to imprint that on us as soon as, and as much as, it can. And it does.

        What is a “vote” other than the opportunity to pretend for just a minute like your a tiny little piece of a “big person.” And people jump at that ‘opportunity.’ People kill each other over that ‘opportunity.’ Talk about brokenness!


      3. LOL
        People from this challenge do not appeal to authority.
        Also lol at natural law and true authorities.
        There is no club nor authority. LOL again.
        I had opportunities to exploit slaves but I have chosen not to. And the system was indoctrinating and brainwashing me too. It is a matter of principles.
        Yes, there is something wrong with you. Perhaps you try to use this site to become famous but so far you have not provided anything significant.


  20. The Doctrine of the Assumption

    “Assumption, in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology, the notion or (in Roman Catholicism) the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was taken (assumed) into heaven, body and soul, following the end of her life on Earth. There is no mention of the Assumption in the New Testament, although various texts are frequently adduced to demonstrate the appropriateness of the doctrine, the imagery of which is related to the Ascension of Jesus into heaven. Theologically, the doctrine means that Mary’s redemption involved a glorification of her complete personality and anticipated the state promised to the rest of humankind.”

    There is no record in the sacred texts to support this teaching. It is a theological theory. Its proponents simply accept that it happened based on their reasoning. Again, there is no written testimony of any witness to this alleged event having ever occurred. Thus, some theologians accept it without evidence and teach it as doctrine.

    It is dogma, and “all Dogmas are Doctrine, but not all Doctrine is Dogma. Examples of Dogmas: Papal Infallibility, the divinity of Christ, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary and the real Presence of the Eucharist.”

    Definition of dogma:

    “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.”

    So dogma is validated by authority. All that is required is for authority to put the stamp of approval on the teaching and that makes it incontrovertibly true. No evidence is necessary, simply the proclamation by the authority is sufficient to make it unable to be denied or disputed – end of conversation. Anyone who opposes any religious doctrine is simply a heretic and will be shown the instruments. If the heretic does not repent then he will be subjected to the use of the instruments in an attempt to convince him of his error.

    Let us consider a doctrine from another religion.

    Germ Theory of Disease

    “The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases. It states that microorganisms known as pathogens or “germs” can lead to disease.” – Wikipedia.

    Germ theory is the accepted scientific theory or doctrine in the religion of virology. And in scrutinizing religious activity we find it usually centers around temples. Within the temples of religion you will find the teachers of those doctrines unique to that particular religion for which the temple was constructed and serves as the place of worship for its devotees.

    The following is a list of the major temples currently providing services for the religion of virology:

    Harvard University

    Baylor College of Medicine

    Case Western Reserve University

    Stanford University

    University of Cambridge

    Cornell University

    University of Zurich

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    University of Texas, Health Science Center

    Quinnipiac University

    University of California

    University of Florida

    Clemson University

    Johns Hopkins University

    All of these holy houses teach their doctrine on the basis of an assumption and they are supported by governments, most of whom have been elected by the people. This means that the people themselves bear a responsibility for the consequences of believing what they are taught.

    The germ theory of disease has been disproved in a variety of ways, but this has never been officially accepted. The priests of virology will not hear of it. Their official position is that it is not subject to dispute and cannot be denied. They have even aligned themselves with the sorcerers, otherwise known as the pharmaceutical companies, and the false prophets, otherwise known as the mainstream media corporations, so they can altogether decieve the masses and profit from their ignorance while causing death and injury.

    “For they that lead this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.” – Isaiah:9:16.


  21. Kevin, who posted upthread about accepting the challenge, livestreamed his visit to this blog post yesterday and provided commentary while watching the video of Cowan and Bailey starting at 56:30. I found it worthwhile.


    1. I could only make it through to the 1:09:04 mark and couldn’t take this pretentious prick any longer. I wasted a hole fucking hour waiting for him to say something credible. I’ve never heard of this guy before but I will admit he definitely has a long winded way of saying absolutely nothing. I stopped watching. Is the full 3 hours of his video like the first hour?


      1. Ian

        I didn’t mind Kevin’s bad-boy lab rat personality. He’s obviously a bit melodramatic in his responses to what Cowan was saying but I was interested in the content of what he was saying about neuronal structure and the experiments they do that he used as examples to counter Cowan’s Hillman-derived claims that synapses don’t exist in part because structurally they would slow down electrical transfer too much.

        I didn’t watch much at all of the first hour and probably watched about a half-hour or so beyond the beginning of the Cowan and Bailey video and that was it – so far anyway.

        Kevin’s point that if synapses didn’t exist then intelligent electrical transfer couldn’t happen because “everything would depolarize” — the brain couldn’t pattern the electrical energy into meaningful information by routing the energy this way or that through synapses — gets to the root of some of the conversations here about ‘object modeling,’ right? When brian and I debated object modeling it was the classic materialism vs post-materialism affair. My (third way?) counter to brian’s post-materialist viewpoint was that we have to remember that the biological ‘holograms’ that animist Reason dictates we are are themselves, as (only) seemingly paradoxical ‘energy bodies,’ a post-materialist ‘object modeling’ and therefore the materialist school is not wrong in and of itself in its metaconscious meta- ‘object modeling’ of the brain in this case. After all, that’s exactly what metaconsciousness evolved for, to recognize how root consciousness models energy into holographic ‘objects’ such that organisms can evolve increasing densities of metaconsciousness; the true eyes that evolved out of primitive or proto-eyes were obviously a monster breakthrough for metaconsciousness.

        I believe brian’s contention is that there is a “field” consciousness that doesn’t require the ‘object modeling’ of the energy field in order to perform all the intelligent functions that biology performs; that from ‘behind a curtain’ there is an unseen field that patterns our bodies into what we see and feel on the macro-level. As far as I can tell, the reason for concluding that consciousness is an unseen, separate field from the body hologram is the idea that ‘chemicals’ don’t seem like they have consciousness, so therefore a separate something, an useen field of consciousness must be ‘controlling’ the chemicals.

        Reason tells me that the proof — consciousness — is in the pudding, and that the pudding is unitary: the synapses are the result of conscious ‘chemicals.’ Animist reality-wisdom is the key to understanding, as abstract as it may at first seem, that ‘chemicals’ can only be reactive because they themselves have an endogenous, individualized, autonomous consciousness in the same way that ‘human’ reactivity is a conscious manifestation. Indeed the ‘human’ reactivity is the mind-blowing culmination of 4 billion years or whatever of chemical consciousness growing in Reason. The biogenesis of carbon-based lifeforms emerges from a chemical soup. We call that soup ‘primordial’ because it’s the First Ordering (patterning) function that first enabled and continually enables biology. Whenever our cells divide we rely on the primordial soup in our nucleolus to perform the biogenesis that brings forth the beginnings of a new cell. The first thing that happens is that the hyperreactive free nucleic acids in the nucleolus mix with the polymerase ‘catalyst’ and discrete pre-made segments of the cell’s genome called transferRNA, which are also known as template’s, primes or – primers; we’re talking about natural PCR test here, in vivo, which is why the industrial PCR test is the farming of disembodied biogenesis.

        Cellular biogenesis is a polymerase (-catalyzed) chain reaction of free-nucleic acids consciously organizing onto the ends of the templates/primers, as facilitated by the polymerase which is a ‘water protein,’ a liquid protein molecule, a soup in which the attachment end of the primer and the free nucleic acids pass through in order to pattern genetic material for the new cell that’s being born.

        A polymerase specific to the fertilization of the mammalian egg is the first chemical measure of conception. The egg cytoplasm itself is a hyperconcentrated soup of polymerase because it has been chemically analysed to have 5orders of magnitude more polymerase by volume than the nucleolus of a normal cell. Polymerase is liquid consciousness. Reason dictates that polymerase is so reactive that it can react with the dark matter field that is the ‘Source Consciousness’ that runs through everything, the dark matter that in its customary separatism does not otherwise interact with energy. But since polymerase is by far the ‘most conscious’ (reactive) chemical in ‘liquid’ form, it can be ‘object modeled’ as having ‘solutes of consciousness’ suspended in it. The industry characterizes this soup medium as a ‘reversible’ Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation:

        So we can see that the specific function of the thermodynamic energy aspect of polymerase is that of a condenser – of solutes of consciousness. The “reversibility” is the two-way function that interconnects Source Consciousness and holographic consciousness so that biological holograms may source the consciousness required for metabolic growth.

        Natural PCR is the tapping into consciousness of biological life.

        The separatist dark energy field of Source Energy must ‘simultaneously’ be tapped-into here in the ‘condenser’ because, as symbionts in Life, consciousness and energy are mutually inclusive. As we know, nucleic acids are highly electrically conductive molecules, and lengths of RNA and DNA even more so. As the RNA and DNA lengths are grown in the natural PCR process of biogenesis the conductivity in the condenser grows, and grows in resonance with the otherwise separatist E/M field — the dark energy field that also, like the dark matter field, suffused everything — thereby sourcing that energy for thermodynamic conversion into holographic growth in concert with the simultaneously sourced consciousness.


      2. @reante

        I challenged Kevin on his research subjects too. But he is afraid of me too much.


      3. Well sometimes the chemistry just isn’t there. 🙂 I obviously have more in common with him than you do and I’m hoping he won’t tuck tail and slink on out of here before answering my recent question to him. Viral theory is a gross violation of natural as I see it to be, and as I detailed to him. The inert nature of ‘viruses’ is a First Truth that virology cannot Reason with as far as I can tell. I want to know if Kevin has a Reason that I’m not aware of because I like to learn important, true new ideas. If if can’t state a Reason then the default assumption is that the paycheck is the Reason. And the student loans are the reason for reason. Giving up on himself is the Reason. But let’s wait and see what he has to say first, until the silence begins to speak volumes.


      4. To Reante:

        There was not reply button to your comment “I didn’t mind Kevin’s bad-boy lab rat personality” so I will post by replying to my own comment.

        As far as I am aware, Cowan has only mentioned synapses a few times. On the other hand, Cowan, Kaufman, Lanka, Bailey, etcs have provided extensive reviews about the fraudulent core tenets of virology. This what I was expecting Kevin to counter, especially since this is what the “No Virus Challenge” is about. From what you wrote, it appears Kevin was fixated on synapses and not viruses.

        I watched the first hour of Kevin’s video. His introduction alone is over 10 minutes long. He has nothing credible to say in the first 69 minutes I watched. Indeed, my personal opinion is these 69 minutes constitute what I refer to as visual and verbal diarrhea. You are being extremely polite in referring to this as “bad-boy lab rat personality”.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. I find it incredibly upside down for Dr. Kevin to suggest that these people, Dr Cowan, Dr Bailey etc are untrustworthy because they are trying to protect a business model (their small business) when on the other hand virology, viruses and the result of treating so-called virus diseases is a multi-BILLION dollar industry. Straight away this guy Dr. Kevin reached for ad hominems. I don’t like him, nor him. Just stick to the science and prove or disprove. Jeez

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Agreed 1000%. From every interaction I have seen, McCairn has shown he is petty, disrespectful, and deceiving. He does not come across as an honest person but rather someone showboating and grandstanding to gain an audience. I do not have the time nor the patience for people like that.


      2. DH (and Mike)

        Nevertheless it’s important to not use Kevin’s personality as an excuse to not fully anything of import that he might be saying. I myself often intentionally choose to deliver true ideas with an unlikable (to some or most) personality exactly in order to filter out the people who are just looking for any excuse to not want to know the truth, and to test those that do want the truth despite themselves, and to remind the highest-functioning among us, who think from within a state of ego death, that personality has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. Personality is a cultural phenomenon; we are largely products of our diverse environments. Then there’s the politico-cultural overlay onto personality that most people fall prey to. Reality itself is an objective phenomenon but personality is absolutely relativistic. Cultural anthropology’s studies on the intersection of ‘material’ (ecological) circumstances and the ‘cultural’ personality of the tribe makes that very clear, as does surveying the diversity of subcultural personalities of civilization; all we have to do is hit the scan button on the radio to be reminded of that.

        Two years ago Kevin was red-pilled into a dystopian world of global GOF terrorism. And he felt like he got to be an authority on the matter due to his qualifications as a dissident expert. And he’s obviously rough around the edges, like myself, because he’s from a gen-X, urban, working class background or at the very least grew up in that ‘street’ milieu, like myself.

        He’s also obviously trying to have his cake and eat it, too. You don’t get to have working class ‘authenticity’ as a PhD working on disgraceful animal tests and drawing large paychecks from, as you said, from Big Pharma essentially. You don’t get to have human ‘authenticity’ if you think that synthetic chemistry has a place in the world. City people generally don’t have human ‘authenticity’ because their relationship to, and therefore understanding of, the ecology is extremely tenuous.

        I’ve quite heavily criticized Cowan’s rank commercialism at this blog myself. As a sellout for Big Pharma, Kevin doesn’t get to do that without being hypocritical but I do get to do that because I clean toilets and such at a little country school between chopping wood and carrying water, in order to make ends meet and pay my bare-minimum respects to mammon. And I use Dr Bronners don’t tell the boss.

        Tom Cowan sells vegetable powders (branded “Tom Cowan’s Garden”) explicitly labeled as being from his garden and while I don’t know the volume of his sales, my feeling is that on the couple acres that they own, he (his son probably) would have to be one of the best high-density market gardeners around to make selling dried vegetable concentrates worthwhile. So it’s quite clear to me that Kevin’s ‘Conman Cowan’ epithet is not entirely untrue. This is an example of me not only filtering out the personality noise in order to get to the truth but it is also me HARNESSING Kevin’s noise to illuminate Cowan’s unfortunate capacity for participating in a major commercial deception. That makes Cowan a culturally -semitic, lying sack of shit in my book. (True antisemitism is a cultural criticism and not a strictly ethnic criticism, though natural law obviously tells us that, say, Ashkenazis have more ‘cultural usury’ (commercial using and abusing of people) in their ‘blood memories’ than other ethnicities.)

        Still, coming full circle, we can see Cowan’s deep personality flaw as mere noise, and useful noise at that; in the hierarchical societies of civilization, people went from voluntarily following people of merit under tribal natural law to be forced into idol worship of one sort or another. These guys and gals — Cowan, Kaufman, and according to Kevin, Mark Bailey is a flat-earther, too, so we can likely add Sam to that growing lunatic list, too — are FAR from the types of human beings I would think to look up to. The people I look up to are the top-dog rednecks around here who haven’t needed to purchase meat in decades and redistribute, to the down and out yokels around here, probably 50pc of their RESPONSIBLE beef, bear, deer, and elk harvests by weight.

        The people to look up to are the humans that are still living ‘Big Man’ (and woman)-type lives based on the local ecology, because that’s the pinnacle of human existence under natural law. Competition becomes about who can work in harmony with the ecology the hardest, in order to be the most generous. The highest-functioning animist cultures consistently maintained their population below Dunbar’s Number, and these small bands of people’s persisted continuously in the same bioregion for hundreds of generations.

        Marvin Harris and Robin Dunbar are the two greatest cultural antropologists of all time, in the most important academic field and one that has been virtually destroyed over the past two decades by semitic machinations.

        Here’s a brief essay by Harris on the Big Man:

        Kevin trashes Cowan, you trash Kevin, I trash them both – we do this because civilization sets every little person against every other little person, all the way back to immediate family. Nothing is sacred anymore because nothing is sacred anymore. Because everything and everyone is politicized.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Kevin has consistently shown that he is rude, disrespectful, and dishonest. Whether he occasionally tells the truth or not is irrelevant. McCairn has shown his true colors time and time again and I have no interest in listening to or dealing with people like that. We can have rational discussions without put-downs, ad hominem attacks, and misrepresenting others positions. McCairn seems to believe otherwise.

        As for Dr. Cowan, he presents himself professionally, listens to others, and is respectful. Whatever business dealings he is involved in do not detract from my listening to him as he is the kind of person I prefer to associate with over McCairn.

        That is the difference.


      4. DH

        “Dr. Kevin reached for ad hominems. I don’t like him, nor him. Just stick to the science and prove or disprove.”

        In direct response to your statement here I just want to add that character matters a great deal. The reason we humans are so willing to risk looking hypocritical in order to defame others is that trustworthiness is the foundation of truth. The truth is our rock and our sun, which themselves are the pillars of holographic reality. From the weathered rock came the nucleic acids. From the sun came the weathering.

        If we don’t believe that we can know the truth for ourselves, then we inevitably become mere process-of-elimination deconstructionists that say ‘no’ to falsehoods in place of saying yes to the truth. So the game becomes one of looking for guiltinesses by association. So ‘Kevin’s’ embattled, subconscious thinking goes thusly: “Cowan’s a conman in such and such a respect therefore he can’t know the whole truth therefore YOU can’t trust him on this issue.” And obviously there’s plenty of truth to that because any man so unwise as to be a commercial conman — a confidence man — in one area is liable to be so in another. And indeed, given the evidence that Kevin laid out, one-man-show Harold Hillman’s outlier content, while intriguing, doesn’t justify Cowan’s publicly defending the idea that ‘synapic’ object modeling is illegitimate. That’s more evidence that Cowan is confidence-manning us. I would be happy to go toe-to-toe with Cowan on the matter in this here comment section.

        Excessive power corrupts. And no man or woman is immune from that. And Cowan’s way past the threshold. When you put ideas in service of a paycheck, you’ve become a liar. That’s an objective truth right there. I lie in order to get paid to clean toilets. Everybody lies in order to make money.

        Believe that.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. I created an account to congratulate reante on his comments in this thread, particularly regarding Kevin and his ascerbic presentation.

        I too was almost triggered to close the browser window after a few minutes of watching his presentation and ‘take down’ of Cowan and Bailey, but after persisting I was glad I did.

        I was tested again when he showed the images of his experimentation on animals. No wonder the guy is so petulant and puerile, having to live with what he appears to do for a living must induce some serious cog. dis.

        Kevin obviously wants to agree with some of what was presented in the video, just can’t bring himself to get past his offended identity and verbalise his agreement.

        What a shame he allowed himself to sabotage his own desire to participate in this experiment, in his own way, by not bothering to read the rules of engagement… unless of course that was deliberate 😉

        As an aside I too have become tired of receiving Tom’s continuous marketing emails… I didn’t follow him to be sold vegetable powders and water healing wands, rather to better understand the virology issue (which is why I enjoy very much Mike’s website here and have slowly become a lurker, until now).

        If Tom would practice the same due diligence with his favourite subjects as much as he appears to try to do with the subject of virology, I would have even greater respect.

        Yes, attitude is important in human interactions, simply because we are so attached to and blinded by our identifications that we cannot see things for what they are, IMHO.

        Kevin, via Reante, taught me a valuable lesson today.


      6. @Reante

        “Reality itself is an objective phenomenon”

        Interesting. Wouldn’t one need to exit the personality to experience an objective appreciation of Reality, rather than a perceived reality, which is obviously as relativistic as personality (or simply a mirror of the same)?


  22. Now, after so-called scientists have claimed to be able to see even atoms with a certain type of “electron microscope” and 99, (9)% of people have believed, unconditionally, in this deception, a challenge related to isolating and describing an “electron” would be really interesting. You will see that it will not take long and so-called scientists will claim to have developed a special type of “electron microscope” with which they can even see electrons and, unfortunately, 99, (9)% of people will believe immediately.


    1. Is light the only way to produce an image? How can you produce an image with electrons if electrons don’t exist? Are photons real?


  23. @reante
    like i said it’s very simple… they tell us that the circumference of the globe is 40,000 km, they also tell us that the globe rotates once every 24 hours… right..? well, 40,000 ÷ 24 = 1,666.66666 km/h (great number..!) now just think a little bit and a little light will shine, which is getting bigger and bigger… it’s just an example, there are thousands. ..


  24. Thanks Ian

    Yeah I didn’t get past the brain topic but I assume Kevin’s Livestream continued on into virology, I’ll have a gander later. The brain topic serves more broadly as a good terrain topic.

    Yeah his first hour is just Kevin’s gratuitous bedroom ode to himself: dissident art and some viral video rubbernecking accompanied by his questionable political commentary. Whatever. That’s what the animated scroll bar is for.

    I can be a pretty unlikable personality myself so it’s only fair that I don’t really mind it in others unless it’s outright destructive.


  25. I learn a lot your posts Mike and prefer articles.
    People put out too many videos and one can only listen to so many.

    A very informative video I came across .

    It is important for people to understand what science is.
    Gave me an understanding why people I thought as clever and critical thinkers fell for the covid scam .


    Science , Pseudoscience and the Germ Theory of Disease- Dr Jordan Grant
    ( 2022 Conference)

    Part 1 – Science and Pseudoscience
    Compilation, Notes, Links
    99.9…% of people do not know what science is . Including scientists.
    Definitions matter
    If people do not know what the terms mean they will accept anything ,that someone else says , as science.
    “These bureaucrats think that they are the science” *
    If the media is pushing it, you already know it is garbage.

    Knowledge is not necessary science.
    Science is not belief or superstition.
    Science is a method and only deals with cause and effect ie. relationships in natural world.
    One can claim something as scientific if it has gone through the scientific method.
    Beliefs and practices that are not based on the scientific method but are claimed to ‘follow’ science are pseudoscience.
    What science is not.
    The fallacies of science and pseudoscience
    A good scientist is one who always asks the question, ‘How can I show myself wrong?*1ecpkui*_ga*MTIzMTkzOTQ4OC4xNjI1NzM1OTcw*_ga_T49FMYQ9FZ*MTY1ODE4MzM0Ni4xMTI3LjEuMTY1ODE4MzM2MC4w

    Liked by 2 people

    1. PC

      “A good scientist is one who always asks the question, ‘How can I show myself wrong?”

      Maybe so, but a great ‘scientist’ follows his ‘unscientific’ nose and is all about proving that nose right.


      1. Of course imagination and courage is important , thinking outside the dogmas and especially not being stuck in the cultural paradigm of materialism .

        But it comes down to falsification ie prove yourself wrong and not just make up a new story.
        Too many people who claim to be scientists are just great at marketing and selling their stories as ‘science’.

        To be able to think differently one needs to step outside the system and have general knowledge as opposed to specialising in BS-ology.
        There is also a lack of basic comprehensive general knowledge to be able to put things into context. And unfortunately many people have been conditioned not to think but to just trust those with titles and credentials.

        It is all too compartmentalised and specialised and true independent thinkers are suppressed and ostracised or they are ignored because they do not have the scientism indoctrination credentials.

        Ivan Illich said everything that is institutionalised directs itself against the people. He saw it in medicine, in education.
        If one is stuck in the system , one does not look left or right, cannot think or dare to think differently.

        And too many alternatives are just offer more bad science.

        “It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine — conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments.
        Alternative Medicine — The Risks of Untested and Unregulated Remedies”
        ― Marcia Angell


        Erwin Chargaff was spot on in one of his last interviews in 1989

        I was a born amateur, an amateur of natural science. He loves amateurs , they do things out of love. One who is dedicated just does something very well. Even though they are synonyms there is a difference.

        He enjoyed a lot of different activities , learned languages, wrote a lot and tried to oscillate at the edge of both cultures as described by Lord Snow in his book
        He did not think of the book as clever as it is not true, there is actually only one culture that has split because of professionalism.,
        “ “The Two Cultures” is the first part of an influential 1959 Rede Lecture by British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow which were published in book form as The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution the same year.[1][2] Its thesis was that science and the humanities which represented “the intellectual life of the whole of western society” had become split into “two cultures” and that this division was a major handicap to both in solving the world’s problems.”

        When the term professionals started , it was laughable .
        (Book mentioned :Der Kampf mit dem Fachmann
        – The fight with the specialist – the realisation that from being specialist to becoming a specialist -idiot is a very small leap, and that it happens often.

        We are living in times of professionalism – it causes people not to be able to communicate as they talk about different specialists with their own jargon, shortcuts.
        We now just talk to each other eg .Is a fan of French literature and would like to discussed with a French professor literature who would just tell him things that he has absolute no interest in, and cannot even make it clear to the professor what he liked about a book.

        But In Natural Science , the professional idiot is more dangerous than in literature


  26. What I was wondering do you know whether Robert Kennedy Jr. was asked to sign? And if so, what was his response?


    1. Hi Ivan, RFK Jr. was asked to sign but he declined. I do not know the exact reason as Dr. Cowan reached out to him but I believe it was similar to his response to Eric Coppolino in that he has not really looked at the science and wished to stay out of the debate.


      1. In addition to what David said, I’d like to add that I see little sponsorship partnerships between JLW’s IPAK and various people in the alternative media space. It may not involve much money (?) but it’s certain to have a cooling effect on the debate in spaces that would otherwise be more open minded. Mike – thanks for the endless, patient and thorough work. You keep knocking down assumptions I wasn’t even aware I had made. Very grateful.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I wrote to CHD a couple of years ago asking if they’d looked at the virus isolation problem, and suggesting that exposing the real science in the courtroom (and hence the century of deception of virology) could be a legal strategy worth looking at.
      I received no reply, which speaks volumes.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. A Religion and a Science are not in open ideological conflict with the System only when it is the creation of the System as a tool for manipulating and oppressing people. Unfortunately, far more treacherous and dangerous than a Science and a Religion that is in full agreement with the System, it is Religion and Science that just seems to disagree with the System.


  28. „Toxic people will not be changed by the alchemy of your kindness. Yes, be kind, but move on swiftly and let life be their educator.”
    – Brendon Burchard


  29. Mike, I have so much respect for all of the work you are doing to expose the biggest and most dangerous fraud of all time. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I know there are other things you would much rather be doing. We are called for such a time as this. I am bracing and praying for what the near future holds for all of us. But I do not fear. Thank you for exposing the lies.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you so much for the kind words and support Julie! It really means a lot to me and it helps to motivate me to keep going…not that I had any intention of quitting. 😉 I really appreciate it!


  30. I believe you are over the target. Dr Kevin McCairn was on Ground Zero Clyde Lewis radio show tonight and he was on the attack talking about the challenge. They are pushing the virus narrative hard and trying to discredit Dr Cowan and Dr Bailey.


  31. Hi,

    Steve Kirsch has written on his substack saying that he’s offering to bet on the side of arguments existing.

    Does he know of this challenge?


  32. Maybe someone you want to reach out to is Jordan Peterson. He seems to be a fairly open minded guy. Getting him on the list would really shake things up.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

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

You are commenting using your 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: