Keeping the Truth Movement True with Patrick Gunnels and Eric Coppolino

Yesterday, Eric Coppolino and I were invited to the “Reading Epic Threads” show with Patrick Gunnels to discuss unity and disunity in the truth movement and where to draw the line. We also focused on whom to trust in the medical freedom movement as well as how to decide how far to go when trying to awaken people. It was definitely a fun conversation to take part in. Hopefully this can help in the understanding of why we need to always verify where and from whom we are getting our information from.

https://rumble.com/v1jy3p5-keeping-the-truth-movement-true-coppolino-and-stone-join.html

You may also remember Patrick from his recent debate with Steve Kirsch, which definitely did not go too well for Steve. I highly recommend watching as I feel Patrick did a masterful job keeping Steve on topic and exposing the flaws in his “logic:”

52 comments

  1. It’s always good to get back to basics.

    A virus is defined as an “ultramicroscopic infectious agent that replicates itself only within cells of living hosts; many are pathogenic; a piece of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) wrapped in a thin coat of protein;”

    There is no proof of the existence of a virus; the concept is confined to theory and speculation. It has never been demonstrated to exist in reality. Any claim made otherwise is purely idealistic or a notional idea.

    No virologist has ever detected, discovered, or identified the presence or existence of a virus.

    When they claim to have isolated a virus, they have departed from science. They observe results from their procedures, the cause of which is never proven to meet the definition of a virus. What they claim to be virus isolation is simply an effect. They never produce a causative agent that satisfies the definition of a virus.

    One can follow their procedures from beginning to end and observe that they never truly isolate anything that meets the definition of a virus. To call any of their procedures virus isolation is a misnomer.

    The assembly of fragments obtained from cell breakdown in cultures cannot be compared to an unassembled, fully intact entity obtained prior to the breakdown process to verify that it ever existed. It is impossible to create a model of something without first having it. Assembling something from fragments in a computer is no different from creating a portrait out of one’s imagination. And just as the fragments can be assembled in numerous ways, so too can an artist produce numerous portraits of imaginary people.

    To claim that viruses are contagious is also confined to theory because viruses have not been proven to exist. What appears to be contagion can be explained without resorting to theoretical viral causes.

    Virology is not a science. It is an art said to identify something alleged to be real but never produced.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Well-said, indeed. Viruses, to exist, would have to be the only entity capable of replication at all for which “isolation” means “clumping together with other substances in a mix,” a mix whose *effects* are then observed and a determination made that this entity exists. No independent variable in sight.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Mike,

    Massive thank you for all your work! I had been researching this very topic, or rather more specifically virus isolation and have only recently stumbled upon the treasure trove of information you have collated. This was an important moment as not only did it provide validation to a majority of my discoveries it also enabled me to fast track further research. Truly thank you – I would make the argument that this up there with the some of most important collation of material in history and I hope that your efforts in this are globally praised, even if not in our lifetimes.

    I would like to note, from my perspective, there is one key virus missing ‘Yellow Fever’ / arbovirus. This due to the fact that many adults alive today were “vaccinated” and have referred to the arbovirus and sars-cov-2 during the last few years. Whilst also, a previous and very large vaccination push especially for those that travel. Potentially a slightly more complex topic due to the method of delivery but why I also believe this is important to cover and one that many will be asking as awareness grows. Sorry, I’m not sure it is really appropriate to ask this but I would hope, at least, a useful comment to make.

    Now, I’m fully in agreement that viruses (at minimum pathogenic viruses) have not been proven to exist and that the disease we experience is likely due to poor health and stress (particularly) or numerous other factors. Though, I would continue: where a disease causing bacteria, fungi or otherwise (relevant to the disease expressed) is not found.

    I’m very concerned as many in this movement are very quickly jumping to the fact germ theory does not exist which would entail that whilst bacteria, fungi and others do exists only the non pathogenic versions exists (e.g. no germ (bacteria, fungi, etc..) causes diseases). Whilst, I am “newbie” to this movement I’ve yet to see any of the logic that justifies because pathogenic viruses very likely do not exist and therefore can not cause disease that germ theory is simply wrong across the board.

    Now, I was a regular sufferer of tonsillitis and had many courses of antibiotics that cured my infection, one where I ended up in hospital (emergency room) “Quinsy” and was given IV antibiotics which cleared my throat within a matter of minutes to hours – my point to come round is there is no doubt that this was stress induced every time. I have never had tonsillitis where I have not been run down prior to infection and usually extremely stressed.

    Koch and Osler stated: “all who mix with tuberculosis patients got infected, but remained well so long as they took care of themselves and kept the soil in a condition unfavourable for the growth of the seed”. Just because those who are healthy do not get ill this still proves germ theory to be true e.g. TB (in this case) is spread between people, is the disease causing agent and as far as I am aware we can accurately test for these microorganism so the statement above is true. Maybe I am wrong on this? TB moves from person to person but only when said person become “unfavourable” in health TB takes hold. Ultimately, if you kill TB in a person with use of antibiotics then the patience becomes “unfavourable” ill they will not suffer from TB? Surely, this proves both germ and terrain to be true in that you must first have the pathogenic bacteria present and your bodies health must become “unfavourable”. Whilst keeping our general health “favourable” is something we all (okay maybe most) strive for this is not a realistic reality for everyday of ones life from birth to death.

    Granted terrain theory ignores any aspects and simply focus on the fact that if you can keep yourself in “favourable” health you will never suffer but still ignores the fact that TB can be passed and if your terrain is not “favourable” you will get TB if present. I guess what I am asking is there really any strong evidence that suggests that you can get TB or other pathogenic bacteria without it first being present?

    Then of course the obvious ones; what about pathogen bacteria in STDs e.g. chlamydia and gonorrhoea? These clearly do pass (?) and between young people who’s terrain you would argue, in the majority, is “favourable”?

    It’s just so much good work has been done in regards to this virus movement and I really have not, in the last 30 days, seen any evidence that truly supports the notion that germ theory is wrong or disproven by your or others efforts. Quite the contrary in fact, it solidified my understanding the bacteria do pass between people just that in a healthy individual this bacteria doesn’t cause harm but is waiting for the moment they lack in health; also perhaps having this bacteria present puts pressure on ones internal system (terrain) and that this could still be a causative agent for disease via this pressure, even if the diseases only occurs one this pressure become too much for the body.

    Another thing that’s not massively clear is the human genomics and endogenous retroviruses. Do these exist? Or are just called virus but could be anything? Why do they “scientist” call them viruses? I think this is important as numerous other I believe not part of your no virus campaign such as Mikovits suggest viruses (pathogenic) don’t exist but that we get ill due to these retroviruses (is she talking terrain theory here)? This sure is another hugely complex topic but in my view if one understands it, it can be made simplistic for others.

    I work in STEM (mostly technology and science) and have had to deeply cover many avenues though biology, in general, is not my strength and understanding virology more has bought with it more troubles. Everything I have written here is a question as I simply do not know the answers. My concern here is, I have been following this movement and what I believe are key points have not been made clear even after numerous weeks. As somebody who is a fast learner, this worries me as by now many others will already be bored of this topic and will still have large holes in their knowledge and contradictory thoughts. This is by no means a dig I only hope this will help the movement become better in making clear the points that we (the public and non “experts”) need to hear. Granted, in this time I have not been able to go through every article on your website (I still have a life to live – well I like to think that) and maybe some of this is answered there in more depth but that is not really what I am trying to purvey; rather I feel I should already have clarity on these points. Almost every debate, interview, podcast, substack should cover all these points in minimal details but with clear definition so one can truly get an understanding. Without this I think this movement is dead in the water before it is really out the gates. Whilst also causing reasonable anxiety to a person due to conflicting thoughts and data or over inflation of points. I really wish in some ways, I could have done this over voice because I’m not sure I’ve really done this justice in text.

    I’m not expecting you to answer my questions directly (although feel free), I have spent the time writing this to hopefully help improve this vitally important movement.

    Also, not that I have ever seen you / Mike comment on 5G others in your band have and do so without any evidence. Right now, 5G in the UK is rolled out at 3.4GHz 3.6-4GHz and 700MHz bands. None of these are anywhere near ionising radiations, or anywhere near the frequencies regularly stated by the 5G-ers and when dealing with EMF the power input is also significantly relevant. Nor are these anywhere close to the high level mm waves used for example at 90GHz for crowd control by US military nor does this “weapon” have evidence that it causes health problems (vibrating cells) whilst unpleasant sure and potentially sustained vibration could eventually cause you to die from raised temperate. EMF can excite cells (how a microwave works) but cause damaging to cells at these lower non ionising is not proven. Yet, much research has been carried out regarding EMF over the years. People making statements like this significantly damage the movement. Whilst, I’m not denying the possibility that all this low level (& lower power) EMF is potentially having an effect on health; evidence is required and I’ve yet to see any provided that would make such comments justified in this movement. Anyone you associate with will become part of the movement and the message can be easily lost. Due to the nature of the beast being tackled here, I believe there can be no deviation from what can be directly proven and anything else will only serve to damage the most important message of all, which is that pathogenic viruses do not exist.

    Apologies for my ignorance as I have not had years to digest this field that is well out of my area of expertise. Ultimately and however this will be the case for almost everybody that comes across this topic.

    Again – thank you for everything!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Josh,

      Thanks so much for the very kind words and support! I greatly appreciate it. 🙂

      In regards to Yellow fever, it is definitely on my list of “viruses” to tackle. I’m currently working on a few things but I hope to get to it in the near future. So many “viruses,” so little time. 😉

      In regards to bacteria and Terrain/Germ theory, it is just a matter of differing paradigms. Whereas Germ Theory will argue that bacteria are outside invaders that cause disease (but not in all i.e. asymptomatic carrier excuse), Terrain Theory argues that the bacteria are always present within us and are the clean-up crew that are put into action when the environment is unhealthy. Therefore, bacteria are not the cause but are in fact the cure. This goes into pleomorphism and how the microzyma can transform into different bacteria/fungi based on the needs of the body. This is one of my favorite resources breaking this down:

      http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/05/louis_pasteur_vs_antoine_bchamp_and_the_germ_theory_of_disease_causation_1.html

      As you stated yourself, it wasn’t necessary for the bacteria to cause your tonsillitis but the stress and conditions you were under. The bacteria was the healing response. While the antibiotics may have caused the appearance of healing, what they do is interrupt the healing process which is often why the symptoms tend to come back worse until the actual root cause is dealt with. If the outside factors such as stress are resolved, there is no need for the bacteria to clean up the terrain.

      On a personal note, if bacteria were truly passed between individuals, my wife, son, and I would have easily been infected as we lived with someone with undiagnosed tuberculosis for months without infection. Others had lived with this person as well for a month prior and visitors came and went during this time. No one was infected. The idea of the asymptomatic carrier was created to explain away finding bacteria in healthy patients. While I have not done any articles on this yet (it is among my long list of topics to write about), I did do a post on FB that may help which I will copy here:

      One of the main arguments against Koch’s Postulates, the logic-based rules needed to be met in order to prove a particular pathogen causes disease, is that Koch disproved his own Postulates by finding asymptomatic carriers of Cholera.

      Specifically, they state Postulates 1 and 3 were disproven by Koch’s experiments with Cholera as it did not fit his criteria. These are the two Postulates:

      1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, BUT SHOULD NOT BE FOUND IN HEALTHY ORGANISMS.

      3. The cultured microorganism SHOULD CAUSE DISEASE WHEN INTRODUCED INTO A HEALTHY ORGANISM.

      If one were to look at this issue LOGICALLY, one would find Koch proved his Postulates work by disproving the notion that bacteria are the cause of disease. The vast amount of asymptomatic carriers of these 4 common bacteria help to prove this point.

      TUBERCULOSIS:

      “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.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

      “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.”

      https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/general/ltbiandactivetb.htm

      SALMONELLA:

      “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.”

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252485/

      “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.”

      https://www.medscape.com/answers/231135-10572/how-long-does-salmonella-typhi-s-typhi-survive-in-asymptomatic-carriers

      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.”

      https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2020/travel-related-infectious-diseases/helicobacter-pylori

      “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.”

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174827/

      CHOLERA:

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

      https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/cho/en/

      “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.”

      https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/infectious-diseases/disease-information-advice/cholera

      Bacteria do not cause disease. We have them in abundance inside of us:

      “No matter how well you wash, NEARLY EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY OF YOUR BODY IS COVERED IN MICROSCOPIC CREATURES.

      THIS INCLUDES BACTERIA, VIRUSES, FUNGI AND ARCHEAS (organisms originally misclassified as bacteria). The greatest concentration of this microscopic life is in the dark murky depths of our oxygen-deprived bowels.”

      “Originally it was thought our cells were outnumbered 10 to one.

      “That’s been refined much closer to one-to-one, so the CURRENT ESTIMATE IS YOU’RE ABOUT 43% HUMAN if you’re counting up all the cells,” he says.”

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-43674270

      Once you realize that bacteria are the fireman at the scene fighting the fire and are not the cause of the fire, you will begin to see the Germ Theory scam for all that it is.

      Like

    2. Josh, welcome.

      First of all, once one understands what the ecological terrain actually is, germ and terrain theories are mutually exclusive – no ifs ands or buts.

      The simplest way to know that microbes cannot cause disease in human body tissues is to understand that humans are aerobic organisms and 99pc of microbial ‘germs’ are anaerobes (either facultative or strict/true). In health, human tissues and ‘germs’ occupy mutually exclusive ecological niches. The oxygen levels in healthy human tissues are deadly toxic to anaerobes. Feel free to corroborate this simple fact for yourself.

      The (roughly) one-percent of ‘germs’ that are aerobic live on the surfaces of our respiratory system and breathe the free oxygen in those airways while eating dead human cells and other dead organic matter.

      All ‘germs’ are scavengers that eat dead organic matter. The term for that is saprophyte. All ‘germs’ are saprophytes.

      Why isn’t anybody else in the ‘terrain’ community but reante making this foundational point? Because this community exhibits herding behavior like any other community.

      If you really care about the truth you’ll learn to refrain from saying biased things like debunking ‘viruses’ is the single-most important concern. The truth itself, wherever it leads, and whatever its given focus, is always the most important concern. The truth has nothing to do with political movements because political movements’ care for the truth is secondary to the movements’ insatiable lust for power.

      Like

    3. Thank you for your response(s), I highly appreciate you taking the time to respond.

      Whilst I agree the discoveries of the microbiome are and will greatly increase our understanding of the human body, disease and general health I’m concerned that as always, we, as humans will over simplify and miss the complexities of the natural world we are surrounded in.

      I believe there are very few in the world who do not see the “healthiest” among us suffer with less disease and generally, the healthiest also have access to clean drink water and decent quality of food, in turn, knowingly or not, being somewhat in the terrain theory camp.

      The problem I have with this as part of the movement is germ and terrain theory are just that. Is it not a logical fallacy, the appeal to ignorance to be precise, to pretend that we 100% are certain there is no “germs” that can be passed from human to human or that terrain theory is all there is when we simply do not know.

      Take my STD example then: a has gonorrhoea, b and c do not. a has sex with b and c. b develops gonorrhoea c does not. does that mean b did not get infected just because c didn’t? In terrain theory what happened to b? he had bad sex, he fell into a slump and so his body decided to punish him with gonorrhoea? c had great sex so he was okay? It is also seen as unlikely for gonorrhoea to heal on its own so what is the bodies goal here because it does not sound like much of a cure? Again we see this among generally health young people who would seemingly have “healthy” terrain. I think without being able to answer the bacterial STD question due to the young and healthy nature of many and clear disease occurring after sexual intercourse (where the same disease was present in one prior) you will never be able to convince someone that germ theory in entirety is wrong.

      Or your TB example: perhaps a with LTB can not give b LTB but c with ActiveTB (diseases causing tb) can give b LTB? Did the person you were living with have Active TB or LTB; sounds like they had LTB. Though, if they did have active TB are you certain you or any of the others now do not have LTB? And where before you didn’t have LTB?

      Now to your point: Therefore, bacteria are not the cause but are in fact the cure. If this was the case why does killing an active TB infection almost always result in a non dead person where not doing so 50% of the time will result in a dead person. We know we are only killing bacteria in this case so surely the disease has to be formed from the thing we killed otherwise the patients would die at the same rate?

      Or a quick one on my throat, my quinsy was bad and likely would have resulted in my death via asphyxiation if left untreated. The antibiotics cleared my throat allowing me to breathe again. Why would your body create bacteria if, even after killing the bacteria (via antibiotics) my body was able to recover so it didn’t need the bacteria “cure” in the first place to make recovery and in this case the “cure” could have resulted in my death (as would be the same in TB)? I was not sick with anything for around 2 years after quinsy after what was clearly the most intense use of antibiotics in my life. I know in some people infections rebound after antibiotic but this is not the norm in most cases, stating this is down to the root cause being dealt with would seem unlikely and again would require some serious evidence to back that statement up.

      The problem is I do not think either of these old theories (“germ” or “terrain”) are accurate in entirety nor will stand the test of time. My personal theory is they both contain partial truths and there is a lot yet to be found out. But ultimately these are all theories and not science and in my view have no place in what you are trying to accomplish and in fact will only hinder this movements progress.

      I was also under the impression bacteria has been moved between hosts (diseased to healthy), sure in a lab and this not a natural pathway but the disease seen in the first host is now seen in the second host? Surely this proves at least the introduction of bacteria can cause disease or at least the disease actually comes from the bacteria regardless of the first cause? Or perhaps both bacteria is made as a cure by the body and also some bacteria is pathogenic I don’t see why it would have to be black and white considering the logarithmic style of nature.

      And on Koch’s postulate they are not perfect science (nor did Koch’s himself state so) the reality is though bacteria exist and we can see them. If the statement above about diseased to healthy is true at least some of the time, then it is just that; true some of the time. Why it doesn’t happen every time is what we are working out and as far as I am aware we still do not know this with certainty.

      We then have to contend with the black death (long before any collective actions could be taken by an entity or entities) where Yersinia pestis is the assumed cause of death. Are you implying that such a large area of people, over 4 years, were poisoned or damaged in some way that their own body produced Yersinia pestis to “cure” them at survival rate less than 30-50%, it just seems highly unlikely for this period of humanity.

      I hope you can see the clear problem here! The research you have done unequivocally proves that viruses do not exists (or at least have not been proven to exist) – this is one of if not the most important realisations the human race could make in today’s time – why complicate it with things you can not actually prove? By going down this route, are you not falling into the same logically fallacy trap that are you are stating the virologist are doing.

      And “reante” power is built on the “known truths” of the people at the time, they are not allowed to know “real truth” that is how power is held not oppression and the lust of power; this is temporary in time whilst not temporary in human nature. “Powerful” governments seek to control the mind because force never works in the long term mostly due to the fact it does not build productivity and therefore economies fail – not necessarily the oppressed rise up and fight an all powerful force. Although this does happen sometimes though usually only if day-to-day living becomes more unbearable than death for a reasonably large percentage or the regime is close to falling anyway. Science if real science by nature will not be dis-proven at a later date, only improved. Right now the entire globe has been held hostage over a single truth that viruses exists among of course, many other pseudoscientific areas being marketed as science. This is because nobody can question “science”. This is the control you speak of, not force. The force is applied because most people genuinely believe what is being said or at least believe our current system is based on “science” so force used against the dissenters is approved by the rest of the population e.g. lockdowns (at least at that time – I’m not so sure as many people would tolerate it again and so by very nature is less likely to be used). By opening up this truth the current structure will fall and would do so with the least violence unlike the reality that our economic models are leading to economic collapse and this the most violent outcome. Based on the fact I do not believe that large number of humans should needlessly die; awakening them to this singular and indeed poignant fact on mass would create likely the largest change of human behaviour, governance and structure in history and would do so mostly peacefully. This is why I still with your comment believe this to be single-most important truth in today’s time (timeframe is important in this statement here) as I do not currently posses nor am aware of any other truth that can be scientifically won and can be used to win over the minds and hearts of the populace at large whilst also exposing the deep rooted problems.

      And on you point: ‘the truth itself, wherever it leads, and whatever its given focus, is always the most important concern’ If you mean science (by truth), yes agreed but only for those that can handle it and and those who think independently but not to create power structures and governments and unfortunately not for most of the public as they simply do not care for truth but instead an easy life. This is where most “truthers” fall down because they can not understand that many people simply do not care for the truth, in fact, many actively avoid truth on a extremely regularly basis; even many times a day, minute or second. So the truth you use to awaken the public is vitally important e.g. not focusing on the damage the vaccine is causing just the fact virus are not proven to exist – the vaccinated in most part simply do not want to know that regardless of the statistical evidence – would you if you had.

      The simple truth with virology is that based of all the trillions this industry has had and almost 100 years they have not progressed any further in their ability to without doubt (“scientifically”) prove the existence of these so called pathogenic viruses.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Josh,

        I just explained to you the fundamental biological (ecological, scientific) reason why microbes, as saprophytes cannot cause disease in healthy human tissues yet you responded with an indirect and unsupported argument that I’m oversimplifying which then apparently gave you license to make an argument in favor of germ theory with regard to STDs.

        How about before going back to your habitual germ curiosities you make the effort to confirm or deny my claim? Because your not doing so is evidence that you don’t actually, actively care for the truth one way or the other right?

        Is it an oversimplification to say that we are aerobic organisms? No it’s not. Is it an oversimplification to say that oxygen levels in healthy human tissue cells are deadly toxic to anaerobes? No, that’s a fact. And 2+2=4.

        It’s called striking at the root.

        We similarly strike at the root of ‘viruses’ by simply seeing that structurally thet don’t have any metabolic mechanisms to DO anything untoward to cells because they don’t have metabolisms and they don’t have any active functions at all beyond their nucleic acids, by definition, having the ability to react enzymatically in an informational format.

        Like

      2. You are very welcome. I will highlight a few points from your response:

        “to pretend that we 100% are certain there is no “germs” that can be passed from human to human or that terrain theory is all there is when we simply do not know.”

        I don’t think anyone is pretending we are 100% certain germs do not cause disease. We are 100% certain there is no evidence that germs cause disease that adheres to the scientific method and, especially in the case of bacteria, fulfills Koch’s Postulates.

        “Take my STD example then: a has gonorrhoea, b and c do not. a has sex with b and c. b develops gonorrhoea c does not. does that mean b did not get infected just because c didn’t?”

        Gonorrhea shares similar symptomology to other STD’s which can be explained due to other factors such as friction during sex and/or reactions to lubes/condoms/objects used. As with other diseases blamed on bacteria, the Gonorrhea bacteria is mostly found in healthy people:

        “MANY MEN WITH GONORRHEA ARE ASYMPTOMATIC  3, 4. When present, signs and symptoms of urethral infection in men include dysuria or a white, yellow, or green urethral discharge that usually appears one to fourteen days after infection 5. In cases where urethral infection is complicated by epididymitis, men with gonorrhea may also complain of testicular or scrotal pain.

        MOST WOMEN WITH GONORRHEA ARE ASYMPTOMATIC  6, 7. Even when a woman has symptoms, they are often so mild and NONSPECIFIC that they are MISTAKEN FOR A BLADDER OR VAGINAL INFECTION  8, 9. The initial symptoms and signs in women include dysuria, increased vaginal discharge, or vaginal bleeding between periods. Women with gonorrhea are at risk of developing serious complications from the infection, regardless of the presence or severity of symptoms.”

        https://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/stdfact-gonorrhea-detailed.htm

        “Did the person you were living with have Active TB or LTB; sounds like they had LTB. Though, if they did have active TB are you certain you or any of the others now do not have LTB? And where before you didn’t have LTB?”

        The problem with the use of “active” vs “latent” TB is that this is an imaginary concept dreamt up to keep the myth of the bacterial cause alive. It is associated with the asymptomatic (i.e. healthy) carrier of disease. It goes against Koch’s first Postulates which states the microorganism must only be found in diseased and not healthy hosts. And yes, the person was considered to have “active” TB and none of us had “latent” TB.

        “If this was the case why does killing an active TB infection almost always result in a non dead person where not doing so 50% of the time will result in a dead person.”

        I’m curious where you get this 50% statistic. Is there a source which states this? Antibiotics are symptom suppressors. They stop the healing process. In many cases, the disease comes back worse.

        “Or a quick one on my throat, my quinsy was bad and likely would have resulted in my death via asphyxiation if left untreated.”

        Are you positive that it would have resulted in asphyxiation? Were you doing any treatments before the antibiotics that may have exacerbated your symptoms? It may be possible in some targeted cases, antibiotic use is warranted to calm down severe symptoms. However, that does not mean that the bacteria were the cause.

        “I know in some people infections rebound after antibiotic but this is not the norm in most cases,”

        How do you know that this is not the norm? What long-term studies have examined this?

        “I was also under the impression bacteria has been moved between hosts (diseased to healthy), sure in a lab and this not a natural pathway but the disease seen in the first host is now seen in the second host?”

        I would need to see the specific study as well as whether proper controls were performed in order to comment further on this.

        “And on Koch’s postulate they are not perfect science (nor did Koch’s himself state so) the reality is though bacteria exist and we can see them.”

        The Postulates are logic-based. In reality, they should be applied only alongside adherence to the scientific method.

        “We then have to contend with the black death (long before any collective actions could be taken by an entity or entities) where Yersinia pestis is the assumed cause of death.”

        I have not looked into the black death but as you state, yersinia pestis is an ASSUMED cause, i.e. not a scientifically proven one.

        “By going down this route, are you not falling into the same logically fallacy trap that are you are stating the virologist are doing.”

        While i have not looked at bacteria as heavily as “viruses,” I have yet to see any study which adheres to the scientific method showing bacteria causes disease. I’d be happy to look at any.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. First of all, there are some massive holes in your assumptions listed as fact (2+2=4) in that all bacteria or germs in general are saprophyte. This is not shown to be true with many bacteria getting their energy source from both dead and living cells and matter. Please provide your source that would suggest otherwise? As I understand it, terrain theory assumes bacteria only exists due to decaying material (?). The microbiome in itself disproves this argument: a simple one among many, is that human body creates other bacteria to destroy the first bacteria, the first bacteria is living, not dead. Generally pathogenic bacteria are considered to eat living tissue and cell and produce toxins which is what makes you sick.

        You then also go on to suggest the anaerobic organisms can not live in the human body, this is completely untrue, there are multiple place in the body that are anaerobic and where anaerobic bacteria thrive. Particularly, tissue layers in the skin, the intestinal track, muscle tissue, blood etc.. You disprove yourself in the statement that oxygen is deadly to all anaerobic (including non strict), where many anaerobic bacteria (non strict) can adapt to either aerobic on anaerobic conditions. I assume your view is that anaerobic (strict or not) die immediately on contact with oxygen? Again, this is not true. Not even true for strict anaerobic bacteria that can survive for up-to 40 minutes out of a host (though by this time heavily reduced).

        PS. making statements like 99% without a source is always going to make people generally ignore your statement. This is like saying 99% of the world are stupid – could be true, unlikely to be true; source required. Reason being is I can find no paper that suggests your distribution of 99% is true. Though you would be correct in saying there are more anaerobic bacteria the aerobic (at least that are considered pathogenic). Though my points above disprove your points around anaerobic bacteria and the human body.

        Remember I am not the one stating germ theory is wrong and terrain is right, or that current consensus in bacteria and other germs is wrong. As I say I believe both of these to be wrong based on the fact there are flaws in both approaches.

        Also just on transmissibility, bacteria trasnimisability is never over played by political leaders mostly on the basis of antibiotics. If we can kill it easily then high levels of transmission make no sense in trying to shape peoples behaviour or political factions which in turn is therefore unlikely to play a role in studies and funding looking at infection of pathogenic bacteria. Studies on TB suggest an infection rate of ~22% from an ActiveTB infection (e.g. the person is sick), this is low and nothing like “germ theory in viruses”, obviously there is no germ theory with regards to viruses because there is no virus not that there is nothing in our world that can infect us. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis “People with prolonged, frequent, or close contact with people with TB are at particularly high risk of becoming infected, with an estimated 22% infection rate.[43]”

        Sorry Mike, does your whole argument rest on the fact that there are asymptomatic cases of bacteria found in the body? This is an incredibly weak argument. If a pathogenic bacteria does it exists (I’ve yet to see evidence that is not the case from anyone here) of course your body, if healthy, will make an attempt to prevent replication and when the general body health deteriorates the body may no longer put up a fight against pathogenic bacteria and in this case bacteria would multiply at significantly higher rates to become infectious / pathogenic.

        This can easily be seen in active TB cases to answer you questions: Here is the source that 50% of those with active TB will die without treatment: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tuberculosis. Technically, this shows 45% + nearly 100% of those with “HIV” (yes, this is just the presence of certain protein/antibody) with many other papers show 50% or even higher die when left untreated. These shows a relapse rate of https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1247218/ or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210909914001234).

        I really hope you are not suggesting that antibiotics have not saved countless lives over the years. Biology does not hide from the fact that antibiotics significantly mess the microbiome and kill good bacteria which we are all open to may cause damage to you body further down the line as well as other illness. Nowadays steps are taken to help quickly rebuild the microbiome after a course of antibiotics for this very reason. On top there is nobody I am aware of that suggests antibiotic do not have any effect on your microbiome or potentially cause other disease further down the line.

        What is clear is that ~50% of those that develop active TB die without antibiotics. Yet, within 5 years only https://www.england.nhs.uk/tuberculosis-programme/area-for-action-8-national-latent-tb-infection-testing-and-treatment-programme/

        This also comes down to my original point why would the “cure” in so many of these bacterial organisms if left untreated lead to death. It seems heavily against evolutionary theory, unless perhaps the bodies of “weak” kill themselves for the benefit of the herd (again this just seems like a stretch but not impossible). For those, reading evolution theory is about the survival of the herd not an individual as commonly believed.

        Your response to STDs is easily disproven; if this was the case many if not all teenagers / young adults would get STDs prior to losing their virginity; from the use of toys, condoms or friction. As far as I am aware, there is no study showing infection of an STD without first having had sex with another person. Or if your point was the case, why are STDs rarely found among monogamous partners. Why do many exhibit symptoms shortly after contact with an infected individual? Or what about statistical studies that show a small percentage of people still have not had intercourse by the time they are 30 (~2-3%) this is a significant control group that would disprove this theory if they developed STDs. I would need you to provide papers that show numerous people have gained an STD without having sexual intercourse, as you do not have to have sexual intercourse for the causes listed by you to occur, friction, toys, condoms, etc..

        It sounds to me Mike, the reality is you don’t actually know much about bacteria and therefore, you are falling into the logically fallacy trap by making assumptions. You are also assuming that the only two options are terrain or germ theory another logically fallacy. Again, I am not stating one or the other to be true; and therefore the burden of “truth” is not on me. What I am saying is you nor any of the core no-virus crew have actually researched bacteria and other germs to a degree that would suggest out right that there is no basis at all to germ theory. Not at least that is published and accessible by us the public. Where is your evidence that takes terrain theory from a theory to science or unequivocally proves germ theory is wrong. If you do not have it do not say it! Truly, right now you and others are doing more damage to this movement than Poornima Wagh ever could.

        How does asymptomatic presence of bacteria prove that it is not diseases causing in another? Are we just going to ignore every other health factor that comes into play here. Right now, the only thing is see the no virus camp completely destroying all the work they have done by going back to pseudoscience and theories. I’m not saying either that our body in some cases may produce certain bacteria to “cure” damaged tissue this could be true, I think it probably is but this does not also prove there is no such thing as an infection.

        Koch is just a person who’s logic is flawed by today’s understanding, just like his postulates. I do not see it as basic logic that a substance in one person causing disease must always cause said disease in another, quite the contrary. Whilst I also state that logically that if diseases is eventually caused by said substance that the disease should be the same in both hosts (which is the case) ActiveTB = TB disease which is largely the same symptoms across hosts. Whilst we are similar in ways every human being has its own microbiome and health factors that play a role here. Human health is incredibly complex and our theories today will be laughed at by those in the future for how primitive and stupid our understand is.

        Mike, please you have only done one thing – prove viruses do not exists. And this is by no means a small thing as I have made clear in my previous posts. Please stick to what you can prove and ensure others around you do the same. Right now, I can not use you as a data source as you go from 100% reliable and based in science to germ theory is a lie and even worse terrain theory is true. If you can actually prove that terrain theory is true or germ theory is lie scientifically (on the basis of more than asymptomatic patients) please send this over as I truly am open to the idea. I just haven’t seen this from any of the no-virus and for that reason I can not use you as a source. I have to wonder have you been threatened by government(s) and now are actively trying to undermine the no-virus movement by making statements about unprovable theories? Can you at least understand my point here? I’m very much on side here but this has to be a science led movement not a theory led movement.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. It might be easier if you reply to Reante and I separately as I almost skipped over this comment.

        “Sorry Mike, does your whole argument rest on the fact that there are asymptomatic cases of bacteria found in the body?”

        No, my argument rests on the fact that there are no studies adhering to the scientific method which show that bacteria cause disease. Asymptomatic cases are the excuse created to cover up the fact that bacteria do not cause disease and are mostly found in healthy people. As you yourself stated, your stress levels instigated your own illness, thus it was not the bacteria that were the cause of your unhealthy terrain.

        “Technically, this shows 45% + nearly 100% of those with “HIV” (yes, this is just the presence of certain protein/antibody) with many other papers show 50% or even higher die when left untreated.”

        Thanks for providing a source. However, the WHO do not provide any citation for where that 45%-50% figure comes from. I would need to see actual studies demonstrating this, not figures the WHO seemingly pulled out of thin air.

        As for “active” vs “latent” TB, do people with “latent” TB who never go on to experience Tuberculosis have a healthy terrain for the rest of their lives keeping the bacteria at bay? Do they never get sick? That is illogical as people regularly get sick but do not experience TB. Also, why would the bacteria just hang out inside a healthy body for no reason? Is the bacteria just waiting for the right moment to strike? Why does it not strike in the vast majority of cases? Why is the body unable to eliminate the “latent” bacteria if it is a foreign invader?

        “I really hope you are not suggesting that antibiotics have not saved countless lives over the years.”

        I never said that antibiotics are never beneficial. They may be in certain circumstances. However,
        you are disregarding the numerous instances where antibiotics lead to death. Of course they claim the bacteria become “antibiotic resistant,” however is that really the case or was the antibiotic unsuccessful and instead led to the patients death? The CDC stated there is one antibiotic resistant death every 15 minutes. That means antibiotic treatment failed and the patient died:

        “According to newly updated estimates published by the CDC, more than 2.8 million infections are caused by antibiotic-resistant pathogens annually in the United Sates, resulting in at least 35,000 deaths.

        That is one infection every 11 seconds and ONE DEATH EVERY 15 MINUTES.”

        https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20191113/cdc-antibiotic-resistance-causes-1-death-every-15-minutes-in-us

        You are also discounting that antibiotics themselves can cause the exact same symptoms they are said to cure. For a list of common (not all) side effects:

        https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/antibiotics/side-effects/

        This recent 2020 NIH review pointed out that the harm of antibiotics are not well studied:

        “It is difficult to identify and ascribe exact probabilities of most harms. However, ALL COMMON ANTIMICROBIALS CREATE HARMS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED when choosing whether to prescribe. MANY ADVERSE EFFECTS GO UNRECOGNIZED BY PRESCRIBERS. As side effects are INEVITABLE, antimicrobials must be prescribed for as short a course as possible, only when the probability of benefit IS GREATER THAN THE RISK OF HARM.

        Antibiotics are among our most commonly used drugs. They are valuable in treating severe and potentially fatal infections. Conversely, their use can lead to increasing bacterial resistance and adverse effects. Most of the research on antibiotics focuses on their benefits, and MUCH LESS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON THEIR HARMS.”

        “Other harms or adverse effects from antibiotics are being identified with INCREASING FREQUENCY. Adverse effects can be common or rare, can range in severity, and might be dose or duration dependent or entirely idiosyncratic. Unfortunately, DIRECT HARMS OF ANTIBIOTICS ARE SELDOM IDENTIFIED by either the patient or the prescriber, partly because many COMMON SIDE EFFECTS ARE MASKED BY THE EFFECTS OF THE ILLNESS OR INFECTION ITSELF (eg, nausea, vomiting) and patients might not report them. Some adverse events OCCUR AFTER TREATMENT IS COMPLETE, so if patients are not followed longitudinally, the physician who initiated antibiotic therapy might be unaware of them. Because many adverse events can occur at relatively low rates (and are only identified in large trials or with post-market long-term follow-up), IT CAN BE CHALLENGING TO RECOGNIZE THEM OR ATTRIBUTE THEM DIRECTLY TO A DRUG. Recently, severe harms were reported for quinolones, antibiotics that have been commonly used in practice for many years.”

        “The expression that “less is more” applies to the use of antibiotics, both in terms of whether to prescribe them and, once prescribed, how long the course should be. AS THE GREATEST RISK FACTOR FOR ADVERSE EFFECTS IS SIMPLY THE USE OF THE DRUG, we should prescribe them as infrequently as possible—only when needed and only for short courses.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7491661/

        “Your response to STDs is easily disproven; if this was the case many if not all teenagers / young adults would get STDs prior to losing their virginity; from the use of toys, condoms or friction.”

        They are not called STD’s in these cases. They are referred to as STI’s and numerous STD’s are said to be acquired by virgins as STI’s such as HPV, herpes, hepatitis B and C, and HIV:

        “Of course there are always exceptions: the virus that causes genital warts (HPV; Human Papilloma Virus) can also be transmitted via fingers or towels and pubic lice can be transmitted via towel or bedding or directly from person to person. SO YOU CAN HAVE AN STI IF YOU ARE STILL A VIRGIN.”

        “YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE SEX TO GET HERPES. The virus that causes a cold sore also causes herpes. How do you get a cold sore or herpes? By coming into contact with someone who has a cold sore, you get the virus.”

        “Some STDs (hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV) are also transmittable through blood, SO YOU CAN  CONTRACT THEM WITHOUT HAVING SEX.”

        https://onedayclinic.nl/en/kan-je-een-soa-hebben-als-je-nog-maagd-bent/

        Even using sex toys puts one at risk:

        “In short, sexual gratification that includes SKIN-TO-SKIN CONTACT PUTS YOU AT RISK for an STD or STI. USING A SEX TOY? That also puts you at risk, especially if you’re sharing with others.”

        https://www.stdcheck.com/blog/can-you-get-an-std-if-youre-both-a-virgin/

        In cases where one is a virgin and they have symptoms of an STD, it is usually diagnosed as a urinary tract infection. They do not test for STD’s in people if the patient claims that they are a virgin.

        “It sounds to me Mike, the reality is you don’t actually know much about bacteria and therefore, you are falling into the logically fallacy trap by making assumptions.”

        Again, the idea that bacteria cause disease and that there are “latent” and “active” infections are assumptions. You assume this to be true yet there is no evidence which adheres to the scientific method which shows this to be true.

        “What I am saying is you nor any of the core no-virus crew have actually researched bacteria and other germs to a degree that would suggest out right that there is no basis at all to germ theory.”

        Maybe you should read Dawn Lester and David Parkers “What Really Makes You Ill” if you feel no one has looked into bacteria thoroughly:

        https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/book-preview/

        You can find a great article on STD’s that they wrote here:

        https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-sexually-transmitted-disease-2-2/

        “Truly, right now you and others are doing more damage to this movement than Poornima Wagh ever could.”

        I’m sorry you feel this way. I think many others would disagree.

        “Right now, I can not use you as a data source as you go from 100% reliable and based in science to germ theory is a lie and even worse terrain theory is true.”

        You are free to use whomever you feel is a legitimate source. I never claimed to have 100% of the answers. No one does. However, everything you state about bacteria was built upon fraudulent research from Koch, Pasteur, and others. All of the concepts you believe to be true have never been scientifically proven. They are just ideas which you have taken as the truth. I would highly recommend that, instead of waiting for me to research the early bacteria studies, look at them yourself and see if they adhere to the scientific method and utilize proper controls. If they do nor, rest assured it is as much pseudoscience as virology.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Hi Mike,

        Apologies, I should had indeed separated the comments. The start probably made no sense to you.

        I appreciate I still have a lot to learn and based of your prior work I feel your views are likely correct but of course, we can’t just be expected to take ones word for it. So thank you very much for that book suggestion that looks exactly like what I am after and I have not come across it thus far. Whilst, I wouldn’t say your comments have convinced me I am hopeful this book has what I am looking for.

        I’m just concerned that the easy to digest data for all the new people coming to the movement, who can’t or would struggle (basically all of us) to digest such information surrounding the more bacterial, fungi topics and that support the position germ theory is false in entirety, may have a negative impact. There are lots on new people coming across this as we speak and this movement is definitely growing fast.

        Also, we have to take into account the limits of human psychology and what the “average” mind can handle. My points still stands: the movement would achieve the ultimate end goal just by exposing the single virus fraud and I believe by attacking every avenue at once you will push away vital supporters. Regardless, of whether they are true or not. Even just on the principle it requires much more investment (time) for those who follow to validate the points made by the movement.

        The reality is germ theory, is still only a theory, because its not proven or science but “a best guess” so really this is more getting people in the biology community to take that on board, be more open to what is going around and not solidified in their view of germ theory. This is also part of the battle as you say many “assume or excuse” areas due to the fact it doesn’t quite fit the model but rely on the root still holding validity.

        I do not want to take up much more of your valuable time due to my lack of knowledge and I’m wishing you the best of luck in the battle head!

        So I would like to end it on this for mine and everybody else benefit who comes across this:

        Are you / “the movement” stating: (yes / no or of course any points you’d like to add)

        1) terrain theory is science and provable following the scientific method (e.g. no longer a theory)

        2) terrain theory is the likely avenue and our best guess at this stage (though not directly provable at this time)

        3) there is perhaps an entirely new theory outside of terrain and germ that we are yet to discover

        4) there is perhaps something between terrain and germ theory which allow for the potential of infectious agent

        5) germ theory has not proven the existence of an infectious agent

        6) germ theory is fully disproven and it would never be possible for an infectious agent to ever exist

        Thank you!

        Like

      6. Are you / “the movement” stating: (yes / no or of course any points you’d like to add)

        1) terrain theory is science and provable following the scientific method (e.g. no longer a theory)

        I don’t speak for everyone and I would never claim to but I have not seen anyone claim that Terrain theory is settled science, hence it is still referred to as a theory. None of us know 100% truth. We can only interpret the evidence presented before us.

        2) terrain theory is the likely avenue and our best guess at this stage (though not directly provable at this time)

        In my opinion, the truth is much closer to terrain theory. I also feel that, based upon the collective evidence I have seen, germ theory has disproven itself multiple times.

        3) there is perhaps an entirely new theory outside of terrain and germ that we are yet to discover

        This is always a possibility. We should always be open to new evidence. However, we must evaluate them with the same critical eye, logic, and discernment skills we use for all theories.

        4) there is perhaps something between terrain and germ theory which allow for the potential of infectious agent

        While possible, I have not seen any evidence adhering to the scientific method that any microbe can cause disease. I would need to see valid scientific evidence with proper controls which is ultimately reproducible and replicable.

        5) germ theory has not proven the existence of an infectious agent

        Germ theory has repeatedly disproven the existence of infectious agents.

        6) germ theory is fully disproven and it would never be possible for an infectious agent to ever exist

        While I feel germ theory has been sufficiently disproven, I can never say anything with 100% absolute certainty. While the evidence against the existence of “viruses” in my mind is certain, we can never prove the non-existence of something as that is a logical fallacy. I can say for certain that, to my knowledge, the evidence which adheres to the scientific method proving an infectious agent does not exist. If someone does find a study, I am more than happy to look at it and change my stance, but so far this has never been the case.

        Like

    4. Read Dr. Thomas Cowan’s book – The Contagion Myth. This may answer some questions and certainly help you understand that not all is still understood. Particularly when we see ourselves as energetic beings that are influenced by so many sources. As a nurse for my entire adult life, understanding Terrain theory has been the biggest ah ha moment in this whole Covid hoax. It will be the collapse of the house of cards when it catches on….and I’m sure it will as the truth reveals are monumental at this point in history. Question everything – and indeed we are.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Excellent discussion between the three of you! Especially loved the part about placebo/nocebo/mass psychogenisis (sociogenesis). Another term comes to mind: psychosomatic illness. Mind-to-matter was a HUGE factor in making the plan$camdemic successful. I don’t doubt that TPTB have known how to use this from the time civilization began. Fear propaganda is their best method of control.

    As for people who say they’ve never heard of anyone losing their taste or smell before C00TlES-l9, they’re either lying, have dementia, or have been living under a rock their whole lives. Personally, I’ve never experienced cold- or flu-like symptoms in all of my life without not losing my taste or smell, even when it was just mild cold-like symptoms. They were completely normal symptoms for me. My family members and many other people I know would also lose their taste and smell every time they had cold/flu-like symptoms before C0NVlD came to town.

    So, the mainstream news did a great job implanting that lie into people’s minds overriding their memories. Those symptoms have been around forever. When people bring up in conversation that they lost their taste/smell with C00TlES-l9, I immediately tell them how I, along with everyone I know, have had those symptoms every time we were detoxing. Shuts them down right away.

    Patrick was fabulous in the other video, where Steve grills him. He was a perfect example of what ‘cool, calm and collected’ means.

    Keep up the great work, gentlemen!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thanks so much Udon! It was definitely a fun conversation and I enjoyed speaking about areas I’m normally not asked about such as the role of fear and the psychological aspect of disease. I hope to do more work on that in the future. 🙂

      Like

      1. Contained In the postscript of the book, The Living Cell, are the following statements:

        “If one accepts that the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, the cristae of the mitochondria and the nuclear pores, do not exist in living cells, one is driven to the conclusion that all research workers studying these artifacts in health or disease – in healthy human beings, patients, animals, or plants – would be more profitably engaged on research in other areas, to which their present massive resources should be diverted.

        We forecast that our views will be widely accepted by the time two more generations of research workers have matured. -H. Hillman and P. Sartory, 1980.

        Unfortunately, the authors’ prediction was incorrect. All of what they claimed could not exist in living cells is found in the current cell model. They are not recognized as artifacts but as functional components of the cell.

        The authors’ conclusions were never given serious consideration. Harold Hillman engaged in considerable dialogue with his peers, asking questions about their cell models that they could not answer. There was no serious public debate. It was too late for that, because what was presented as “the” science was said to be accepted and had entered into all the textbooks of the time. The artifacts generated by the electron microscope were not interpreted as such; rather, they were considered to be on par with images obtained from optical microscopy and just as reliable.

        The institutional model of the cell was used to construct more theories and served as the foundation for cell biology. Once the institutions incorporated it into their curriculums, the credentials they certified, through the issuance of their degrees, became dependent upon it. It served as the basis for the application of the medical procedures that developed from it. No certified physician could practice medicine without adherence to it. The situation was tantamount to the birth of a new religion. Anyone, such as Hillman, who spoke out against it was deemed a heretic or consigned to obscurity.

        Anyone studying Hillman’s work will come to the conclusion that he was well ahead of his time and posed a serious threat to the central doctrine of the new religion. None of his peers could contend with him because they were not at the same intellectual level, and they knew it. None of them could refute his arguments. They also knew that their livelihoods and certifications were dependent on the institutional doctrine, so none dared publicly confirm any of Hillman’s views.

        Modern virology is inextricably connected to the current cell model, which the authors of “The Living Cell” recognized as seriously flawed. Virology is dependent upon the existence and function of cellular ribosomes, which function is claimed to be taken over by invading virus particles to cause replication and subsequent disease.

        Yet Hillman was unable to confirm the existence of ribosomes as anything other than artifacts, and neither could he verify what was claimed to be their function. Any admission that the institutional model did not function the way its proponents claimed it did would certainly be fatal to the virus dogma and completely undermine the necessity for vaccination. This would also discredit the entire medical complex, all of its practitioners, educators, and pharmaceutical companies and their medical products, such as vaccines.

        Therefore, the concept of viruses and the institutional cell model are concomitants, the relationship of which cannot be undermined by revision of the institutional cell model without a complete collapse of virology and the entire industry dependent upon it.

        Not only would a complete industry collapse, but a central mechanism of control over entire populations would instantly disintegrate. It is for this reason that the authors of “The Living Cell” came to the wrong conclusion about what would happen within two generations of the publication of their work.

        They did not recognize the true nature of humanity. They took a purely secular view of the situation at the time. Since they did not claim to be psychologists, sociologists, or theologians, they can be forgiven for their error. But this is a lesson that should not be ignored in present-day reality.

        New medical technologies, such as mRNA vaccines and other medical procedures and medications, are also dependent upon the institutional cell model. The continuation of the virus concept must also be maintained in order to create the necessity for the use of these new medical technologies. Incredible sums of money, entire segments of economies, international institutions, political power, and control mechanisms are totally dependent upon the doctrines of cell biology and virology.

        There have always been those opposed to vaccination, but not on the basis of the flawed institutional cell model and the virus concept, but rather of the dangers posed by vaccines. In times past, such objections have been countered by the use of information control and political influence, as they are today by those with selfish interests intent on using medical deception as a means of control and other nefarious purposes.

        Today, as in the past (when Hillman and Sartory published their objections to the institutional cell model), there are those with greater intellectual power than their institutional detractors, and the latter can by no means oppose the former without being publicly discredited. For this reason, the possibility of the same error (as that made by Hillman and Sartory) being repeated must be given serious consideration.

        Liked by 4 people

  4. Bit of a shame that Patrick didn’t push back on Steve’s comments about Stefan Lanka ‘losing’ his court case. Is Patrick not aware Stefan won the appeal?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. With regard to the question of the divide between the diverse views of the “truth” movement, I feel this rests, as Eric implied, on the sense that one leaves a gap by merely refuting germ theory. It is important therefore to realise the reactionary status of being merely ‘anti-virology’. This can have the opposite effect. Personally what gives greater clarity to this division in world views is exactly that: the ability to locate either theory within a comprehensive worldview. As such, the entire basis of scientific materialism can be seen to lack the essential human requirement for meaning and truth for the very same reason of failing to consider the human context and presenting human endeavour as an amoral and mechanistic enterprise. On that score, my method is to look at the macrobiotic concept of a cultural paradigm which conditions the expectation and methods of science. There are numerous perspectives on what constitutes the current paradigm and what are the possible alternatives; but on the political front one could argue the paradigm of monocultural capitalism describes both the disregard of the essential function of biodiversity and also the localised and culturally specific qualities of belonging to particular communities. Effectively this is what I call a digital monoculture because it attempts to commodify and rationalise all of life for the spurious aim of the benefit of the few while ignoring the wellbeing of the masses and the vitality of the ground of nature on which it depends.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. bbbnorth

      fine comment, thanks. terrain theory is just
      a field within deep ecology. deep ecology is an (patterned) art and a science. The art is primary because without the patterning the science could never take place.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Josh

    Just so you know, plenty of us were able to pick up on your true colors in your first comment. I didn’t take you long to go from some phony-ass fawning over Mike to shitting all over him, now did it?

    And Lol to your weak-ass, vague-ass cursorily-googled rebuttal to my true math.

    You said two things in your first comment. That you don’t know jack shit about biology and that you’re a quick learner. Subsequently, you have missed two opportunities to learn something very significant about biology from someone who knows a great deal more about true biology than yourself. But then again, I will admit from experience that your being a fearless bonehead is one way to fast-track learning, so long as you don’t let your bonehead ego get in the way.

    “First of all, there are some massive holes in your assumptions listed as fact (2+2=4) in that all bacteria or germs in general are saprophyte. This is not shown to be true with many bacteria getting their energy source from both dead and living cells and matter. Please provide your source that would suggest otherwise? As I understand it, terrain theory assumes bacteria only exists due to decaying material (?). The microbiome in itself disproves this argument: a simple one among many, is that human body creates other bacteria to destroy the first bacteria, the first bacteria is living, not dead. Generally pathogenic bacteria are considered to eat living tissue and cell and produce toxins which is what makes you sick.

    You then also go on to suggest the anaerobic organisms can not live in the human body, this is completely untrue, there are multiple place in the body that are anaerobic and where anaerobic bacteria thrive. Particularly, tissue layers in the skin, the intestinal track, muscle tissue, blood etc.. You disprove yourself in the statement that oxygen is deadly to all anaerobic (including non strict), where many anaerobic bacteria (non strict) can adapt to either aerobic on anaerobic conditions. I assume your view is that anaerobic (strict or not) die immediately on contact with oxygen? Again, this is not true. Not even true for strict anaerobic bacteria that can survive for up-to 40 minutes out of a host (though by this time heavily reduced).

    PS. making statements like 99% without a source is always going to make people generally ignore your statement. ”

    WRT to aerobic humans, which is the context in which I have been teaching you, both functional and true anaerobes are always saprophytic; they only eat dead and dying human tissue. By the time the oxygen levels get low enough in a human tissue cell for functional anaerobes to eat it and it not be deadly toxic to them, that human cell is not coming back to full oxygenation because apoptotic signaling — ‘programmatic’ cell death signaling — has already taken place. So the refinement in my statement that you might have been looking for and asking is that saprophytes technically eat dead AND DYING organic matter, because the life-death cycle is a seamless continuum with hard boundaries. Functional anaerobes are the ‘smoothing mechanism’ (the crossover species) for the continuum. They don’t sit around in the 3pc or 4pc or 5pc or 6pc low-oxygen concentration levels of the interstitial fluids (which is basically blood plasma) between the tissues while drumming their fingers, waiting for the apoptotic human cells to finally reach 0pc oxygen, because wouldn’t make any sense would it, Josh?

    In and of themselves, however — as in, not in the context of them eating dead and dying human tissues for food, which is what I was expressly talking about — many anaerobes do eat other living anaerobes, because the anaerobic microbial ecology has, of course, an anaerobic foodweb just as the aerobic microbial ecology has its own foodweb, and they mirror each other in form: the single-celled prokaryotes at the base of the foodweb are only ever saprophytic but as we move up in the anaerobic evolutionary foodweb we find there are predatory anaerobes evolved to eat living anaerobes. And when that happens inside us, that’s a gift to us, because the predators are further processing the toxins produced by rotting human (meat and animal fat) cells into water-soluble forms that can then enter the bloodstream (generally, but these now-water solubles can also be sweat-out) and head for our filter system. So in and of themselves, anaerobes are not necessarily only saprophytic. Now you know an exact something that you didn’t know before, but not that vague something that you thought you knew that didn’t really mean a thing.

    “You disprove yourself in the statement that oxygen is deadly to all anaerobic (including non strict), where many anaerobic bacteria (non strict) can adapt to either aerobic on anaerobic conditions.”

    This was a truly foolish thing to say, Josh. I expressly said that the oxygen levels of healthy human tissues was deadly toxic to even the functional anaerobes. These would be tissue oxygen levels of approximately 8pc+; the in vivo testing of intracellular oxygen levels is not possible so levels are deduced from anaerobic activity levels in hydroponic lab testing, probably mostly in soil science labs.

    “Not even true for strict anaerobic bacteria that can survive for up-to 40 minutes out of a host (though by this time heavily reduced).”

    Lol. No shit Sherlock. Just because oxygen doesn’t instantaneously blow-up an anaerobe to smithereens doesn’t mean an anaerobe is going to choose to eat something that will kill it in 40mins or whatever, instead of go dormant until the conditions for eating are right – that’s what dormancy is for.

    Aerobic microbes similarly go dormant when anaerobic conditions occur.

    As to the 99pc criticism of yours, ’99pc’ is the colloquialism used when at least 99pc of any given population obviously resides in a shared category of the total population.

    Question: would you say the total surface area of all the surfaces of the respiratory system where the aerobic saprophytes (eaters of dead AND DYING human cells) live (in alternating activity and dormancy) is more or less than 1pc of the total surface area of all the interstitial fluid in the whole volume of the rest of the body plus all the surface areas in our large intestine and colon where anaerobes digest our plant foods for us? I would say the airway surface area is FAR LESS than 1pc, which is why I used the 99pc colloquialism. What do YOU think, Josh?

    Like

    1. Does it really sound like I am the one with the ego problem? Anyways, I am not into name calling I came here to learn and you are just making blanket statements without evidence. Of course, making statements of current understanding and putting that to the world to gauge the response is how we as a species learn. I’ve never implied I was right in the statements I made, in fact I made very clear my statements are from this place of learning. Though, you came to me with quite a clear a direct statement but failed to provide a source. Why should I believe your statement? And if you know this for fact why not just provide a source?

      What were you expecting? I told you I have little knowledge in this area.

      Your attitude to being right is very off putting: maybe you are, maybe you are not. I would not know because I am yet to see you back up your claim. Did you really think I would just magically know where to find this data since and paraphrasing your words, this alone would bring down the whole “lie”. Actually, scrap that I’m sure it will be the first link on Google.

      Maybe in future provide a source for your statements, as and when you declare them fact or truth, so we can all learn and engage in a more friendly way. I know “knowing” things that others do not especially things that are based in reality and which can be considered extremely significant (as this movement is regardless of which side is true) can create detachment and resentment.

      If name calling is your go to remember you are damaging this movement not me. I was simply asking and putting thoughts and questions out there for others to read and help me gain understanding. And I was clearly making the point there is not a clear evidence trail for us (the learners and enquirers) to follow surrounding bacteria and fungi but these statements were being made by this movement. I was concerned by this because others must be thinking the same thing. Anyway, mike has kindly provided a link to a book that will likely answer these questions which for me is great as I will read this over-time but the reality is most other will not (n.b. book can be found here: https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/book-preview/ and see thread above for more)

      If you would like to provide a source for each of your statements, I believe all here, myself included, would appreciate that so we can then go through the evidence you have provided and come to our own conclusions.

      Like

      1. Josh

        I appreciate you toning down the horseshit.

        The truth can only be earned. My job, in paying forward what patterned truths I have earned — and which i pay forward out of debt/gratitude to those who paid forward their debts for my benefit — and your job as a noob, if you choose to accept it, is to ask questions as necessary and earn the truth by living for it, really living for it, and chasing-down the breadcrumbs for yourself. That’s life. If you see me say anything that doesn’t ring true then feel free to respectfully call me/us on it. And if you have something to teach me/us, then so much the better.

        Just because there’s a true nature of reality out there that you’ve never heard of before doesn’t mean it’s not true, and we all have to more or less be born again in order to live in it.

        End of story.

        Like

      2. You are really doing wonders for this thread. Well done for being part of the problem.

        Anyway, when you decide to become a man by growing out of your flatulent child-like behaviour mixed with a dash of messiah complex; I’ll be waiting on your source.

        Thanks!

        Like

  7. Josh, BTW,

    “The microbiome in itself disproves this argument: a simple one among many, is that human body creates other bacteria to destroy the first bacteria, the first bacteria is living, not dead.”

    How exactly does the human body “create” bacteria? Would you like to choose another word?

    Again, WRT human cells, bacteria are for all intents and purposes saprophytic only, in that they only eat post-apoptotic cells.

    Like

  8. Thank you very much Mike ! I think this very important for new comers so though I’d reply on a fresh thread and put it here for others:

    Comment from Mike below (see above thread)

    Are you / “the movement” stating: (yes / no or of course any points you’d like to add)

    1) terrain theory is science and provable following the scientific method (e.g. no longer a theory)

    I don’t speak for everyone and I would never claim to but I have not seen anyone claim that Terrain theory is settled science, hence it is still referred to as a theory. None of us know 100% truth. We can only interpret the evidence presented before us.

    2) terrain theory is the likely avenue and our best guess at this stage (though not directly provable at this time)

    In my opinion, the truth is much closer to terrain theory. I also feel that, based upon the collective evidence I have seen, germ theory has disproven itself multiple times.

    3) there is perhaps an entirely new theory outside of terrain and germ that we are yet to discover

    This is always a possibility. We should always be open to new evidence. However, we must evaluate them with the same critical eye, logic, and discernment skills we use for all theories.

    4) there is perhaps something between terrain and germ theory which allow for the potential of infectious agent

    While possible, I have not seen any evidence adhering to the scientific method that any microbe can cause disease. I would need to see valid scientific evidence with proper controls which is ultimately reproducible and replicable.

    5) germ theory has not proven the existence of an infectious agent

    Germ theory has repeatedly disproven the existence of infectious agents.

    6) germ theory is fully disproven and it would never be possible for an infectious agent to ever exist

    While I feel germ theory has been sufficiently disproven, I can never say anything with 100% absolute certainty. While the evidence against the existence of “viruses” in my mind is certain, we can never prove the non-existence of something as that is a logical fallacy. I can say for certain that, to my knowledge, the evidence which adheres to the scientific method proving an infectious agent does not exist. If someone does find a study, I am more than happy to look at it and change my stance, but so far this has never been the case.

    Like

    1. “While I feel germ theory has been sufficiently disproven, I can never say anything with 100% absolute certainty.”

      Lol, yet you believe that bacteria cause disease. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

      Which is it, Josh?

      Like

      1. Seriously man calm down. These were questions I posed to mike (see thread above) as this is what I believe many of us new comers need to understand e.g. the real underlying principle of the movement.

        I think mike has done a good job at responding to those questions and allows room because quite frankly anyone that declares terrain theory fact in my book is equal to germ theorist declaring they are right or vice versa, unless one does this with adherence to the scientific method.

        I also like the clarification that mike makes on the fact he personally has never come across scientific evidence of infection of a microbe, this give those that want to dispute a good place to start.

        Mike has also done this without making the blanket statement that germ theory is not true which is the same logically fallacy as saying viruses do not exists. Simply the evidence but forward does not satisfy that germ theory is true or that viruses exist.

        This is important for new comers to read so they know they are dealing with those who respect they may not always be right and are adhering to ethics code in this case the scientific method. Which I believe is an important distinction to make if those movement is to keep itself rooted in truth.

        Like

  9. “None of us know 100% [of the] truth.”

    Omniscience isn’t a prerequisite for holism which the (animist) ontology of unitary wholeness. Accurate patterning is the prerequisite. 100% of the available pattern(s) can be known, and that’s what matters. Patterning enables the possibility of knowing 100% of the truth about available reality. The more patterning is made available, the more detailed is the holism. A big part of this process is recognizing and then learning from our mistakes.

    Like

  10. Josh

    Regarding me calming down, your first job is to think clearly. You won’t get anywhere without clarity of mind (which BTW starts with diet). When you say germ theory is sufficiently debunked yet you say bacteria cause disease, it is analogous to an adult saying 2+2=5 and meaning it. So that should be a wake-up call to you as to where your thinking abilities are at. And it’s not the only mistake in thinking that you’ve made.

    You might even consider acknowledging the mistake lest you become perceived as untrustworthy.

    Like

    1. “While I feel germ theory has been sufficiently disproven, I can never say anything with 100% absolute certainty.”

      These were my words. Josh was reposting my answers to his questions.

      Like

    2. Now that you have seen you were not thinking clearly like you suggested – would you like to call a truce and maybe provide the sources to your points so we can all learn? I am actually interested in your points but only if you can provide a source, this is the minimum I would ask of anybody. Otherwise, its just words on a page. Even more so, of a person that has not filled me with optimism that you respect the scientific method but rather your point of view is the ultimate truth.

      Like

      1. Thanks for the correction, Mike. Sometimes I get confused without quotes, especially when I have an axe to grind.

        Josh, I apologize for the misattribution. You’re making an appeal to established authority by asking for links. Much of my work is original discovery based on reason -based systems theory (patterning). Everybody here knows that already, and views it according to their perspective. You are free to research with the intent to falsify any claims I’ve made to your heart’s content, if deconstructionism is a path towards the truth that you choose to take. You falsify anything I’ve said, we both will benefit, just as I benefitted just now from being corrected by Mike. Wasn’t the first time, won’t be the last time.

        Like

      2. Josh

        The truth is always ultimate. The truth only offers ultimatums. Therefore it’s only natural and reasonable that if I believe something to be true then that something is ultimately true. Anything else is relativistic and self-conscious, and truth is by definition not relativistic.

        In other words, if I believe something to be true I’m man enough (or woman enough were it the case) to own it. And if it turns out I was wrong, I’m so much the better for the new ultimatum, the humbling, and the excercising of my flexibility.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Reante

        I agree I probably should have quoted the text to make it more obvious, rather than only writing in the body.

        In all honesty, I would not care where the link sent me I am more interested in the quality of the content e.g. even if this was to a paper of yours. I do not fully doubt the essence of what you are saying but of course just on word there is not much I can do with it. Nor can I personally, at least at this stage, carry out an experiment to confirm this hypothesis. Is this something you have thought about setting out to prove? If proven, I agree that this would be pivotal piece of the puzzle. As you know, I do not share your experience so what might be reason based logic to you, is not to me; as I do not have the same experiences to come to that conclusion. Which leaves us stuck at a cross roads unfortunately. Whilst, you may view this as deconstructionism, I see this as constructionism because I need the paper, regardless of who from, to explain how they came to said conclusions, therefore enlightening myself and in turn those around me.

        In terms of your view on what is truth, this is where you and I differ in our approaches. I am in the belief there are no truths, other than truth found by the scientific method, even, or, rather especially from ones own self and on the basis that these are the only to withstand the test of time. And my own self is simply emotion, wants and needs. Regardless, I also can not blindly discredit the current consensus without myself being able to determine and lets say in a court of law back those positions. I feel confident in doing this for virology but not yet for germ theory as whole. I have spent the last couple days reading on these resources and certain elements are becoming more clear but there are still many questions. I have always had concerns generally about many “pseudo”-sciences but I am sure everybody here can appreciate that this is mental undertaking that even for myself who regularly finds myself at the end of unprovable truth, difficult. The questions raised are many and answers few. I have the concern that without being able to fully prove another theory e.g. terrain this would never be able to be processed by the public at large and this is unlikely to become science anytime soon.

        I have only been able to give myself a couple days on this and I most now focus on other elements in my life. I look forward to reading “What Really Makes You Ill” and hope it will have the answer I seek.. And perhaps, I will be closer to making the logical step you made with you statements around oxygen level and anaerobes.

        Apologies, for my lack of candor and assumptions made. Emotions were clearly a little high at that point. I will say as a new comer, I do not know your work or anything else you have done being my first comment. Whilst, I have read comments in the past I have not until now focused on who was posting. In my view its important you can always backup you points especially to new comers, even if by your own work clearly laid out with the logic attached, where you share these components or steps, so we can all gain understanding.

        Until, I have deeper understanding generally, I will watch from afar once more and I hope my points on the reality surrounding psychology of populations at least brings some thought to the idea a partial win, to start, is better than a flat out loss.

        Ultimately, if you can win over the scientists and medical practitioners in this field and in large quantity you have a chance with all avenues. Question is will they back science or the people who pay their cheques? If the approach is convincing the people however, I think virology is already a hurdle so large that for many anything more is simply to much.

        Until next time 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Hi Josh, welcome to the comments section of Mike’s excellent repository of ‘no-virus’ articles.

        “I am in the belief there are no truths, other than truth found by the scientific method”

        A group of the most brilliant scientists meet up with god. They tell god “we don’t need you anymore, we have understood how everything works and we are even able now to create life.”

        “oh that is interesting” replies god, “please show me”

        The scientists then take a bucket of soil and using their instruments and techniques, sure enough, they create a living creature.

        “wow” says god, “that’s pretty impressive. Now, please show me again, but this time use your own soil”

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Josh

    I really appreciate that fine offering. 🙂

    I searched for “human tissue oxygen concentration,” and came across a link to an evidentiary breadcrumb central to my argument above. I guess I misremembered (I was wrong), and apparently they can measure oxygen in vivo.

    After you hit the link you’ll have to scroll down to “Systems Cell Biology,” but here’s the relevant excerpt:

    “Hypoxic Induction of Angiogenesis
    Angiogenesis is a primary compensatory response to decreased tissue oxygenation. Normal tissue oxygen levels vary within and among organs but typically fall in a range of 3–9%, substantially less than the 21% present in air. Within cells this is even lower, ranging from 1.3 to 2.5%. In vitro, extracellular pO2 levels of 2% or less are commonly considered to be hypoxic. Below approximately 1% cellular ATP levels fall and apoptosis can be triggered (Carreau et al., 2011).”

    The reason I became aware of this ignored human biological fundamental is because I practice permaculture and read all the free Elaine Ingham content I could get my hands on. She is the foremost English language expert on soil biology. My former farming partner took an online course with her on soil microbiology and the making of high-grade actively aerated compost teas (AACT)

    For cross-referencing purposes, here are a couple links to AACT pages mentioning oxygen levels. Note the germ theory language used with the appearance of the misnomer “pathogens.” Even though anybody making high-grade AACT knows and will tell you that anaerobes bioremediate traumatized soil (by compaction generally) by eating the dead aerobic microbes that were killed by the compaction that stopped oxygen flows, thereby relieving some of the compaction and further beginning the process of restructuring the soil again by virtue of the fact that anaerobes require open pathways for mobile grazing just as much as aerobes do; this boring of pathways is largely done by anaerobic fungi which have absolutely astonishing mechanical boring capabilities as has been measured in experiments by calculating fungal tip surface area to specific physical resistances.

    Cheers.

    Like

    1. https://www.rockymountainorganicsupply.com/actively-aerated-compost-teas-and-compost-extracts/actively-aerated-compost-tea-aact/

      https://soilfoodweb.com.au/about-our-organisation/actively-aerated-compost-tea-information

      The second link is from the institute that Ingham started. Note the germ theory in it. It’s the product of overspecialization. They know that there can be no anaerobes in healthy oxygen levels yet they don’t make the simple connection that if that’s the case then anaerobes must be the EFFECT of unhealthy (diseased) oxygen levels rather than whatever the trauma was that caused the hypoxia. Do you see?

      “Aerobic organisms are the most beneficial as they promote the processes that a plant needs in order to grow without stress and with a greater resistance to disease. To enhance this community of beneficial’s, the compost tea must remain aerobic (greater than 5.5ppm oxygen). Anaerobic conditions (below 2 to 4 mg oxygen per L for example) during brewing can result in the growth of some quite detrimental microbes and also produce some very detrimental metabolites. It is best to avoid extremely low oxygen concentrations during brewing. If low oxygen concentrations occur, brewing must continue until the organisms stop growing on the added foods, so that oxygen will diffuse back into the brew. The bacteria that cause human diseases almost invariably require anaerobic or reduced oxygen conditions in order to survive in competition with aerobic organisms. Only in reduced oxygen, or anaerobic conditions, can human disease-causing organisms out-compete the normal set of beneficial bacteria or fungi growing in soil, compost or compost tea. If you’ve done a good job choosing or making your compost, the compost will not contain any human disease organisms. The tea will not contain human pathogens if there were none in the compost.”

      Like

  12. This was a transformative interview. EVERYONE needs to see this. It should be posted on every platform and then reposted again and again. Flood the system with the Truth!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: