A Conversation With the Terrain Theory Podcast About ViroLIEgy

Last month, I had the great pleasure of speaking with both Ben Hardy and Mike Merenda, creators and hosts of the Terrain Theory Podcast. If anyone is unfamiliar, this is an excellent podcast that has had many wonderful guests on, such as Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Amandha Vollmer, Dr’s. Sam and Mark Bailey, Dawn Lester and David Parker, Alec Zeck, Steve Falconer, Jacob Diaz, Michael Wallach, and Eric Coppolino. I feel extremely honored and privileged to be a part of the Terrain Theory Podcast’s list of guests. I had an amazing time doing the show, and I hope that you enjoy this conversation. 🙂

Terrain Theory is hosted by Ben Hardy and Mike Merenda, two childhood friends on a journey to tear down the old fear-based germ theory paradigm and usher in a better, brighter approach to health and wellness. Discover interviews with guests from the alternative medicine space and find inspiration in real-life stories of Terrain Transformations. Reclaim agency and discover methods both old and new to improve and optimize your health and your terrain. You are your primary healthcare provider.

Episode 60: Mike Stone on Viroliegy.com, reading the method section of a virus isolation paper, and the rabies myth

Mike Stone is the founder of Viroliegy.com, a veritable database of articles and research exposing the lies of virology and Germ Theory – using their own sources. In this conversation with Mike we discuss:

  • How exploring the HIV/AIDS fraud led to viroliegy.com
  • “But what about rabies?”
  • Reading the method section of a virus isolation paper
  • The myth of “gain of function”
  • Lack of evidence for nanotech in the jabs
  • Patents don’t equal proof
  • “So what causes COVID?”






  1. Disease – as a condition characterized by a multitude of changes and symptoms of the body – represents the efforts of our being to cope with the disruptive and degenerative effects that harmful factors have on our body.

    There are not many diseases but only one disease state.

    There are only:

    – tissues that adapt proliferatively so that our being can face the siege of certain harmful factors…

    – proliferative tissues that the body no longer needs, which is why it encapsulates them or breaks them down and eliminates them…

    – tissues that are damaged/degraded by certain harmful factors and that are in the necessary and specific processes of their restoration/regeneration…

    Our being is attacked and damaged, permanently, by an accumulation of harmful factors:

    – toxins: chemical, metallic, mineral, biological

    – artificial radiations that are unnatural and incompatible with life

    – negative emotional experiences, in all forms and from all causes: fears, sadness, hatred, envy, etc.

    – exhaustion of the body caused by excessive physical effort and excessive intellectual effort, exposure to bad weather, exposure to thermal shocks, quantitative undernutrition and qualitative undernutrition

    – iatrogenics, which consists of harm to the body caused by drugs, vaccines and toxic remedies and harmful medical procedures

    In order to cope with the harmful effect of the harmful factors listed above… the body enters a special state known as disease.

    During the condition called disease our being adapts the flows of vital energy that run through it and animate its tissues in order to counteract the toxic and harmful influences of the harmful factors listed above.

    In this context, the body reacts in several ways:

    – It proliferatively modifies some of its tissues to increase the efficiency of their functions to adapt them to deal with specific types of harmful factors. For example, it generates proliferations of tissues that have a high yield of functions to be able to cope with all kinds of fear, all kinds of toxins with a harmful effect similar to the emotions of fear, and all kinds of artificial radiation with an effect similar to the emotions of fear .

    – Breaks down and eliminates those tissue proliferations that it no longer needs because those harmful factors that forced the body to adapt by generating tissue proliferations to deal with them have disappeared or been significantly diminished.

    – Restores the natural structure of tissues that have been degraded by physical, thermal, chemical or radiation factors.

    – It regenerates the tissues that have been degraded as a result of the decrease in the intensity with which the flows of vital energy circulate through the tissues due to feelings of sadness but also due to toxins and artificial radiation with a harmful effect similar to feelings of sadness.


  2. Effect and cause.

    First the effect:

    CDC: Autism rates in the U.S. are skyrocketing, especially in California

    ” . . .The latest analysis shows that 1 in 36 American 8-year-olds (2.8%) have been diagnosed with autism. This is notably higher than the reported 1 in 44 (2.3%) of children from December 2021. The figure looks even steeper when you compare it to the CDC’s first autism prevalence report from 2007, which showed only 1 in 150 children (0.7%) were. . .”


    Then the cause:


    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mike: you have made a bunch of fine media appearances. But in my humble opinion, this was the BEST! I think starting with your own health story, about injuring your back and the choices you faced (never heard about this aspect of your life before),, about jabbing your child, putting a nebulizer mask on him,…. put a certain edge on the whole thing, made it so real.

    Great discussion about rabies and RSV! Taking a break after an hour, but will for sure tune in soon. Thank you, for this and for everything else as well.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks so much, Jeffrey! I had a great time on the show and felt rather relaxed, which I think helped me to be able to open up a bit more. I have been hesitant to get too personal in the past, just because I know it is still hard for some of my family to hear me discuss things that have happened. However, I do feel it can help others who may find themselves in similar situations.

      My back injury is something I just forget to even talk about as it has been a part of my life for the past 16 years. It is hard to think what life was like before it. All of these moments in my life have led me to where I am today, so I do feel it is important to share them. I’m sure I will discuss it more in the future. Thanks for the feedback! 🙂


      1. Absolutely important to talk about, Mike. It’s usually our experiences which wake us up to scams we had been accepting up to that point.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Thank Mike , such an honest and heartfelt interview.

    Two short videos on how we still have such delusional critics.

    What about the early treatment protocol?

    12 min 30 sec


    Takeaways from the video
    How ‘they’ convinced doctors and , then,the doctors convinced the population that this alternative protocols or early treatment protocols actually work.
    It turned out if you did nothing or little you also had similar outcome, ie you were not going to die as had nothing to do with a virus.
    The people who promoted the ‘ miracle ‘ alternative protocols , they just seem  to work as less toxic and harmful than the official protocols ie. Midazolam, remdesivir, ventilators, high doses of hydroxychloroquine, a standard of care that harmed and killed many.
    (Drugs were key in about 200,000 extra death in Europe and USA , October 2020a detailed article that could not be a new virus .

    Even if one believed in viruses at the time the contradictions were to obvious eg. In Switzerland a virus that speaks several languages and different mortality depending on the German,Italian or French region)


    They are promoting a theory and a model that has no scientific basis. These doctors have no clue about the science, they  have openly admitted that they never read the science.
    The scary part these are at the forefront of the so called freedom community.
    Same with cancer treatments, alternative are often just less toxic . Somehow they convinced the doctors and people. The outcome is not because the alternative help but they are not killing the patient as with toxic conventional cancer treatments.
    To help people one needs to understand how these situation develop to actually do something about them.
    ( same with AIDS and alternative treatments, with vaccines)
    If you just compare alternative treatments to toxic treatments and claim to work better you do not help the patient, same with covid.
    One needs to understand how disease comes on. That is actually the main job of a physician which they do not see as part of their job( as follow protocols).
    One has to question the doctors scientific integrity and if they want to go to a doctor or not.


    Many critics talk about unproven theories as opposed to observable empirical evidence that used to be science.
    Nowadays empirical has been categorised as anecdotal, what you see with your own eyes is dismissed.

    Dr. Barre Paul Lando’s (Alfa Vedic) message to Del Bigtree
    ( 1 min 47 sec)


    Liked by 1 person

  5. Vaccine makers prep bird flu shot for humans ‘just in case’; rich nations lock in supplies

    LONDON (Reuters) – Some of the world’s leading makers of flu vaccines say they could make hundreds of millions of bird flu shots for humans within months if a new strain of avian influenza ever jumps across the species divide.


    Liked by 1 person

  6. 2 min.

    Dr. Mike Yeadon Shows No Mercy for Those Involved in the Greatest Offense Against Humanity

    Dr. Yeadon’s Judgement:

    • Central planners – take a listen.
    • Politicians involved – life imprisonment.
    • Doctors who ordered injections – life imprisonment.

    “Previously, I was against capital punishment. So this shows the magnitude of the offenses against humanity. That’s why they cannot be allowed to roam free and do it again.”


    Liked by 1 person

  7. SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Clinical Signs in Cats and Dogs from Confirmed Positive Households in Germany

    The antibody status of 115 cats and 170 dogs, originating from 177 German households known to have been SARS-CoV-2 positive, was determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the results were combined with information gathered from a questionnaire that was completed by the owner(s) of the animals.



  8. What is the indisputable evidence that shows that the so-called microorganisms in the so-called pleomorphic cycle possess the ability to ingest, digest, excrete and secrete, which is why they can be said to be alive because they have their own metabolism?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I’ve asked before, but it’s still unclear to me: (I’m sick right now)
    Many times when I get sick, my mother will get sick at the same time, even if we didn’t do much similar activities.
    How is this explained with Terrain Theory or whatever other theory?


  10. Hi Mike,
    I can’t find an email address for you, so I am writing to you here.
    Here is a letter I just sent to Christine Massey, and please tell me if you find any flaws in my assertions:

    Dear Christine,
    I don’t know if you will get this email. I could only find 2 email addresses for you from Google. I’ve been banned & blocked by Facebook, Twitter and Telegram and so I can’t reach you at those places.

    I am writing with regards to your conversation with Dan Wilson:
    It was very brave of you to “converse” with him about viruses.

    I’ve interacted with you in the comments section at his channel, and did my best to inform you on how to debate the subject.

    You should not have tried to argue about sequencing.

    The subject, Christine, begins and ends with demanding that he submits a published study that shows the scientists attempted to mimic so-called Natural Transmission and succeeded in their efforts. Afterall, they say that illnesses & diseases are transmitted from the sick to the healthy by means that do NOT include injection, anesthesia, or intubation. And yet, all of the published studies include one or more of those means. If Dan cannot produce such a study absent of those means, then there is no need to argue about cell cultures or sequencing. The conversation is finished. He either accepts defeat or he buries his head into the sand and tries to play the Ethics Card by saying it would be illegal or unethical to try to make anyone sick.

    My argument against that card is the fact that it is considered ethical and legal for humans to volunteer to work in bomb disposal, transport highly flammable or extremely toxic materials, work as stuntmen in movies, and volunteer for clinical drug trials where they have to sign a waiver acknowledging the drug may cause irreversible damage or even death.

    Unfortunately, our current heroes in the No Virus Camp do not emphasize this point about attempting to mimic so-called Natural Transmission. I agree with their analysis of cell cultures & sequencing and the faults they find in those methods, but their efforts are 2 steps beyond the threshold of common sense with regards to proving any illness or disease is contagious.

    The reason they invented cell cultures and sequencing was because they could not make anyone ill or diseased by mimicking the way those illnesses are supposedly transmitted naturally. Our most famous study is the Rosenau Study of 1918, and it not only tried to make 62 healthy men sick with the FLU by having them exposed closely to men sick with the flu, but they had the sick men cough into the faces of the healthy men, and had the sick men talk up close to the mouths of the healthy men, and none of the 62 men became sick. They then went to extraordinary and unnatural lengths by swabbing the noses of the sick men and immediately placing those swabs into the noses of the healthy men, and none of the healthy men became sick. They went even further by removing bodily fluid from the sick men and injecting 10 of the healthy men, and none of them became sick.

    And then there are the animal diseases such as Rabies and Kennel Cough. You would think there would be published papers showing how a rabid animal was placed into a cage with healthy animals who then became afflicted with rabies, but I can’t find any such papers. Ditto for Kennel Cough.

    If illnesses are transmitted by exhalation or coughing or sneezing or touching or sexual activity, then wouldn’t you conduct experiments with a robust number of healthy people and expose them to sick people by having the sick people cough at & exhale upon & sneeze at & touch the healthy people? And wouldn’t you have healthy people engage in sexual activity with persons diagnosed with a so-called sexually transmitted disease?

    Those types of experiments have indeed been conducted but their results did not convince the scientists that any illness or disease was transmitted by those attempts. Some of the experiments regarding so-called sexual diseases appeared to make some of the volunteers “infected” but not enough of them appeared to be infected for the scientists to consider their efforts successful.

    And the bugaboo with regards to all of the attempts at so-called natural transmission is the fact that the experiments did not contain any control/placebo groups, including the 1918 Rosenau Study, and that is highly unfortunate, but it does not nullify the results, it just renders them less than perfect and shows that they did not adhere to the standards of what is known as the Scientific Method.

    Those of us who are interested in the subject of health & illness and did not go to college have an advantage over those who did. College educated doctors & scientists have been miseducated about health & the causes of illness & disease for over 100 years. They have been indoctrinated with a million fictional details, but we have not. So we can approach the subjects from a primitive, common sense, naïve perspective that was buried in the miseducated college graduates.

    If you believe an illness or disease is contagious, then you must list how it is contagious.
    You must list how it is transmitted from person to person.
    And then you must conduct a study involving people who have a specific illness and people who do not have that specific illness, and you must attempt to make the healthy people sick in the ways that you claimed occur naturally. You should use a robust number of people for the study.
    You should attempt to make 100 healthy people sick by the means you claim happen naturally.
    You also need a group of 100 healthy people who merely THINK they are being exposed to sick people but aren’t.
    And that’s it.

    If you happen to make over 50% of the healthy people sick with the same sickness as the group of sick people used for the study, then you can attempt the impossible task of studying the bodily fluids of the sick people and going through the laborious process of isolating every particle you find, purifying it and giving it solely on its own to 100 healthy people to see if that particle causes the expected illness or disease. You would also need a group of 100 healthy people who merely THINK they are receiving a purified agent of illness or disease.

    The college educated doctors & scientists take for granted that all visible microbes in bodily fluids have been named & characterized — but is that realistic? Can you imagine how laborious it would be to name & find out the purpose for every microbe, every wiggly-squiggly thing seen under a microscope? And, keep in mind, those microbes are no longer in their natural environment and cannot receive instructions from the brain. Do you disagree that everything in and of the body is governed by the brain? Is the brain not the supercomputer in charge of the body? So naturally the microscopic stuff inside our bodies is managed & controlled by the brain.

    If we put bodily fluid in a petri dish and add an ingredient to observe how those microscopic contents of the bodily fluid will react, do you realize that those microbes cannot receive instructions from the brain on how to behave or react? And the brain cannot send any microbes to the rescue of those microbes in the petri dish. So whatever we observe in the petri dish is explicitly not natural. No brain to tell the microbes what to do, and no way for the body to help those microbes with other microbes.

    Think of the monkey kidney cells and how they are naked and cannot receive any instructions from the brain nor receive any assistance when they are assaulted with bovine serum or antibiotics or foreign bodily fluids.

    Cell culture experiments are fundamentally flawed from the get-go. They are unnatural. They do not and cannot demonstrate anyone becoming ill. They do not and cannot prove anything meaningful. They are pure science fiction.

    So, the next time someone invites you to a debate or conversation about viruses, challenge them to produce published studies that attempted to mimic so-called Natural Transmission and succeeded in such attempts. Those studies must NOT include injection, anesthesia, or intubation. The studies MUST resemble “Natural Transmission” because that’s how they say illnesses & diseases are spread from sick humans & animals to healthy humans & animals.

    Can you find any flaws in what I’ve just written to you? Can you offer any Devil’s Advocate questions or comments?

    All the Best,
    Philosopher Alexander T. Newport

    Liked by 1 person

    1. This is an interesting matter to contemplate. Here’s my opinion for what it’s worth.

      When you undertake any experiment to prove transmissibility, you assume there is something transmissible and then attempt to prove it. If you fail to prove transmissibility, that doesn’t prove there are no viruses. It only proves that whoever you think has a virus is unable to transmit it to someone you think doesn’t have it.

      Let’s say acne is thought to be caused by a virus. If you put one person in a room with twenty others and only one starts to break out with acne, then can you say it only infects a very small percentage of people? You could come to that conclusion based solely on an observation, but you would still have to find the real cause of acne in order to claim it isn’t caused by a virus.

      You can’t prove there is no virus by claiming there is no transmission. You can only prove that a person with certain symptoms can’t cause others to develop the same symptoms. You can’t prove there is no virus any more than you can prove there are no unicorns. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim.

      So far, no one has provided proof for the existence of any virus. You can claim that you don’t believe viruses are real and then demand proof. Proof can only be demonstrated by entering a casual agent into evidence. You can’t enter the idea of a thing into evidence and then claim the thing is real.

      They claim that viral particles are too small to be seen, but that doesn’t hold water anymore because things the same size as what they claim are viral particles can be detected, and yet no particles detected have been proven to be viral. 

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you, George.
        You said >> “but you would still have to find the real cause of acne in order to claim it isn’t caused by a virus.”

        I strongly disagree with that line of reasoning. If you have stated specifically what the cause is, and yet cannot adequately prove that cause exists, then I am not logically required to prove what the cause is. YOU are the one who claimed what the cause was and yet were unable to adequately prove it. The burden of proof that a virus was the cause still rests with you.

        You are making the same argument touted by the Pro Virus Camp, and it is fallacious. Their argument is that if a virus is not the cause of an illness, then in order to support that argument I need to prove what the non-virus cause is, and that is illogical.

        If you say a house fire was caused by the ignition of gasoline, and yet no trace of gasoline could be found forensically, I am not required to support my forensic findings by stating or proving what the cause of the fire was.


        Liked by 1 person

    2. Hi Alexander, I think you bring up many excellent points that I completely agree with. There really is no reason to debate them on genomics, proteomics, cell cultures, antibodies, etc. as these are all forms of indirect evidence and are meaningless without first showing that these assumed “viral” particles can be purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal. They must confirm that only the “viral” particles remain and then attempt to prove that these particles are pathogenic via a natural route of infection in accordance with the scientific method. This evidence must come first before anything else would be relevant to the conversation. Obviously, they do not have this evidence, hence the attempts to argue meaningless indirect evidence that do not reflect nature or reality whatsoever. If we argue with them on their grounds, it is easy to get lost in the weeds. We need to keep the argument on our terms and show that no scientific evidence exists supporting germ theory. Thanks for the excellent response. 🙂


      1. Many thanks for your quick reply, Mike.
        Not to be a pest, but here is another email I sent Christine this morning in reply to her reply of last night. I would appreciate any criticism that occurs to you as it can help me hone my arguments. I realize it is pretty long and don’t expect a quick reply as you may not even feel like reading it. But, since we are seemingly both on the same page (so to speak), I value your assessment & opinion.

        Hello Christine,
        Thanking you again for your quick reply to last night’s email.

        I watch every virus debate I can find and have done so since 2020. The 1st was Kaufman’s challenge with Mikovitz on some Canadian’s “web-show”, and then Mark Bailey vs Kevin McCairn, and the next was between Vollmer and Paul Cottrell, another one was between Lanka and some jerk associated with Fuellmich, another discussion between Kaufman and Mikovitz, and then more recently Dan’s buddy Baldwin vs. Qureshi, and yours with Dan, and Malone’s response to some dude called the Street Doctor or some such name. The specifics aren’t important here, what is important, however, is what it has shown me:

        These people are not seeking to be enlightened. THEY are NOT our target audience. So, when one of us has an opportunity to debate or discuss this subject with one of THEM, our goal should not be to enlighten them but to instead simply make our case in front of our target audience (the non-scientists, the moms & dads & farmers & pet owners). To put it bluntly, fuck the intransigent doctors & scientists. They clearly don’t want to know. They have too much at stake to drop their resistance and allow logic & reason to change their minds & evil ways.

        So don’t play into their traps, Christine. Do not give any ground or quarter. Don’t fall for their bullshit regarding the ethics of using human volunteers for studies that attempt to mimic so-called Natural Transmission. “They” have no right whatsoever to tell other humans what they can and cannot volunteer to subject themselves to. And did you not get my point about Bomb Disposal Personnel and Volunteers for Clinical Drug Trials? Or, barring that, what about volunteering to be an infantryman who runs the risk of being shot at or shot down or blown up by a military bomb?

        The ethics card is a fallacious argument. It exists, not because “they” care about the welfare of humans, but to simply protect their fraudulent cell culture experiments. But again, it’s not necessary to argue about it to any great extent because: We are NOT gonna change the science, Christine. We are not gonna change or destroy Big Pharma. We are NOT gonna eliminate the Germ Theory. We are NOT gonna change the practice of vaccination. Look at our numbers >> The No Virus Camp is a fraction of a fraction of the population. The majority of the population are sheeple — I know that’s an unkind term, but that’s what they are.

        Idealism is not realism. Idealists associated with the No Virus Camp severely underestimate how the masses are mostly sheeple >> people controlled by fear, people who are not rebels, and people incapable of critical thinking. They seem to have no innate allegiance to truth & facts >> their allegiance is to the bottom line: Feeding themselves and their family, and not going against the herd.

        The Germ Theory has been taught in all English speaking colleges that offer a medical degree since around 1910. Generations of doctors & health-related scientists have grown up with the LIE and have had to regurgitate it in order to obtain their degrees which are used to secure their incomes. Most of them, too, are sheeple who only care about the bottom line and that is keeping their jobs & income so they can support themselves & their families & their social status (golf on Wednesdays).

        There is a political awakening at the moment, but it is not an educational or scientific one, and it is only transitory — a mere flash in the pan of history. What the idealists fail to grasp is how powerful and nearly-omnipotent greed and the use of fear is within the human race. We are not living in A Fairy Tale where the white-hats will come to the rescue and life on planet earth will forevermore be a cooperative paradise of innocent, happy people. We are in a type of Hell. A non-biblical one to be sure, but a hell nonetheless.

        Now, while I am 100% pessimistic about destroying the largest profit-making industry in the world known as Big Pharma and their religion of Germ Theory, I am 100% optimistic & positive about us enlightening a fraction of the population of farmers & moms & dads & pet owners. As the old saying goes, if we can help even ONE person to understand that illnesses & diseases are not infectious or contagious, and thus avoid vaccinations & dependence on pharmaceuticals, then it is worth it. And we ARE enlightening people, Christine. We ARE changing lives for the better.

        So, the argument is this >> A valid scientific study or experiment about viruses or bacteria as contagions MUST attempt to mimic so-called Natural Transmission. It MUST NOT include injection, intubation, or anesthesia.

        As far as cell cultures >> Killing naked cells who do not have the protection of the body they came from and the brain that governs that body and its contents, are totally UNNATURAL and meaningless.

        As far as sequencing >> Its basis stems from cell culturing in the first instance. They have to have at least what they call a virus or bacterial contagion they obtained from a cell culture with which they have characterized, and since cell culturing is unnatural & meaningless, so too is sequencing.

        Remember, our task is to merely show the audience watching our debates or “discussions” what is logically & reasonably necessary to prove a microscopic or submicroscopic particle to be a cause of illness or disease. Our task is NOT to enlighten the Pro Virus Campers nor change their minds nor overturn and eliminate Big Pharma and their religion known as the Germ Theory.

        Do you understand how it is unnecessary to propose how the studies & experiments should be conducted from now on? “They” are not gonna listen and they are not gonna obey our directives. They have a voice as loud as a volcano and we have the voice of a flea. “They” own ALL of the mainstream media, all of the major radio & tv & newspapers & magazines & online video platforms & social media & Hollywood & government agencies, and most of the world’s politicians.

        As for your comment about debating those assholes >> “If you think you can do a better job, by all means go ahead, please.” >> There are probably various reasons why no one in the No Virus Camp bothers to take notice of me, and ditto for why no one in the Pro Virus Camp ever challenges me to a debate or invites me for a discussion. God knows I have been a noticeable pain in both of their asses with my ubiquitous comments underneath their videos for the past 3 years. Perhaps I frighten people with my stubbornness & arrogance, or, maybe they simply think I am a vulgar fool or a nutty pothead. As I said in my last email, I consider my lack of formal indoctrinated education to be a virtue rather than a flaw. But both the No Virus Campers and Pro Virus Campers tend to look down their noses at anyone who dropped out of high school. They both fail to grasp how any subject can be studied and thought about in a logical & reasonable way without the need of formal training or certified indoctrination.

        I don’t expect nor require a response from you since I imagine you must think I am a longwinded, opinionated asshole. I just wanted to plant some seeds with you. I’ve tried to reach out to the other No Virus Campers with comments such as the ones I’ve expressed here, but I either receive no replies from them or cannot find an email address for them. As I stated in my last email, I cannot access Twitter or Facebook or Telegram. My policy since 1994 with regards to being kicked out of any forum or platform is that I do not attempt to go back to where I am not wanted. Other people beg to be let back in or they attempt to sneak back in with a different name and email address, but not me.

        Thank you so much for all the hard work you have done with regards to the FOI requests. I really do believe your efforts have been valuable for the Cause. You have definitely been a major voice who has pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes on.

        All the Best,
        Philosopher Newport

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Argh! I just wrote a much longer response and accidentally deleted it. Sorry, this will be shorter. I think you raise very valid points, and I think we definitely need to keep our argument simple. I simply ask them two questions.

        1. Do you have evidence of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick host without culturing that are then confirmed via EM?

        2. Do you have evidence that these purified and isolated particles were proven pathogenic naturally via adherence to the scientific method?

        This is simple logic kids can understand. We need to keep the focus on the lack of scientific evidence rather than getting lost in the weeds arguing against unnatural indirect evidence.


      3. Thank you for replying, Mike.
        I agree with your 2 questions. You would indeed think that the viruses are in the bodily fluids and could be isolated through centrifugation rather than needing to “grow them” in a cell culture. As Tom Cowan said, if it’s a respiratory virus, then the lung fluid is already a culture in and of itself and you should be able to isolate the viruses directly from that fluid.

        I suppose then, given that “they” are not allowed to give those isolated particles to a human to see if they come down with a cough, they would then add those isolates to a cell culture, and if the cells die, then that’s proof of pathogenicity? But why must the isolates be deadly? Is that what they supposedly do in the body? Kill living cells? And does that not suppose that the cell or the body does not have a defense against such isolates?

        This just back ups my point how the cell culture method is dishonest by using “naked” cells that do not have the protection of the body they came from.

        I just finished reading your substack article about Debunk the Funk, and wow! That was exhausting. That must’ve taken a tremendous amount of time to assemble & edit, nevermind how much patience & restraint it took to engage in! You did a truly stellar job, Mike, both in the engagement and your presentation of its unraveling.

        I was shocked by how ballsy and assholish Dan was in writing. He sure doesn’t show that kind of rudeness, condescension or balls in his webcasts. He’s all calm and soft spoken. Talk about a two-faced piece of shit! I’d like to walk up to him and spit into his face and challenge him to a fight for the way he treated you. I am positive that he would back down and call the police. In fact, I’d take on both him and Baldwin at the same time with one arm tied behind my back. I really would! The nerve of those jerks insulting you when they are supposed to be professional so-called scientists. You were right to take the high road which truly made them look like insecure little flunkies. Outta sight!

        In conclusion, do you have any plans on shining a light on animal vaccines? And pharmaceuticals for animals? I really do think you will reach a wider audience with farmers & pet owners if you adequately address the animal vaccine issue. Included in that issue should be the obvious benefits of RAW DIETS for pets & farm animals.

        I think the penny will drop for more people if you address the animal tragedy rather than limit yourself to just addressing the human tragedy. Also, as I stated before, I think you’ll reach more people after you move on from trying to enlighten scientists & doctors. I think you’ve accomplished that in spades addressing them on their own level.

        Thanks for your tenacity, dedication and hard, hard work, and tons of time you have invested. I can’t find any other website that even comes close to what you’ve accomplished and presented. Simply stunning. If I can help you with editing, proofreading or anything else, please let me know. You have my email.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Sorry, i somehow missed this comment. I do plan on doing animal “viruses” and drugs in the future. I’m a little behind on my articles here on this site as Substack has taken up a lot of time.

        The conversation with Dan was very aggravating, but I’m glad that people took some good away from it. Thanks for the very nice compliments! I definitely appreciate it! 🙂


  11. The youtube version of this interview was deleted before I could get it, and I can’t access apple or spotify.
    Can someone reupload the video (or audio-only) somewhere?
    YT usually doesn’t care about HIV or virolology skepticism so I wonder — what is different here?


  12. 1) Electron microscopy is a colossal scam, a terrible deception. Any discussion of any subject based on so-called electron microscopy is useless, it is meaningless, because it only debates lying fabrications, never proven to exist. And it’s not just that so-called electron microscopy claims that what it “sees” on the glass slide (in vitro) corresponds to what exists inside living beings (in vivo), a fact never proven even in the case of microscopy optics. The claim that what is seen under the microscope corresponds to what exists in the living organism is impossible to prove and, above all, completely illogical, taking into account the fact that the tissues subjected to microscopy are dead or in the process of death, because they are deprived of vital energy of the being from which they were collected, are decomposed and, in addition, are also dramatically distorted by the preparatory procedures for microscopic examination. As for the so-called electron microscopy, its working mechanisms are documented only at a theoretical level, through drawings and diagrams. The claim that so-called scientists manage to use a so-called electron with which they can scan an infinitesimally small surface has never been proven in fact, only theoretically, through drawings and animations. In reality, before they can prove that they are able to use an electron like a pickup needle to scan surfaces, so-called scientists would have to produce evidence that electrons, neutrons, protons, atoms, and molecules really exist and are not only theoretical concepts. Not to mention the fact that in order to be subjected to the so-called electron microscope, fragments of biological matter are extremely mechanically, thermally and chemically denatured and impregnated with metals. So, on what logical basis (on what sense of reality) can you claim that what is “seen” through so-called electron microscopy corresponds to what exists in living organisms?

    2) The utility of optical microscopy in the field of so-called microbiology is zero for health.

    3) The so-called optical microscopes in the field of microsurgery are just stronger pairs of magnifying glasses.

    4) Except for the cases in which it is recommended to use microsurgical techniques to stop life-threatening hemorrhages and speed up the self-healing processes of vascular, nerve and muscle tissues that are injured, true medicine, as an art of healing, has no need for optical microscopy, because the health restoration processes belong exclusively to the body and are dependent only on the elimination / limitation of harmful factors and harmful conditions, together with increasing the body’s vital energy level and ensuring the necessary nutrients with a plastic role, these being the conditions necessary for the body to efficiently run the processes of neutralizing toxins, eliminating residues and rebuilding damaged tissues.


  13. Pesticide found to contain ‘forever chemicals’

    Anvil 10+10 is a pesticide that has been used for mosquito control in Massachusetts and throughout the U.S. The product purportedly contains only Sumithrin and Piperonyl butoxide. . .

    . . . In December of 2020, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reported finding that a sample jug of Anvil 10+10 they analyzed was contaminated with PFAS.

    Known as “forever chemicals” PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) do not break down in the environment. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS persists in the human body for long periods of time and can affect infant birth weights and the immune system, elevate cholesterol levels, and cause thyroid and hormone disruption as well as cancer.


    Liked by 1 person

  14. The remarkable genius and discipline of Harold Hillman are seen in the elements of his philosophy of research as revealed in one of his publications.

    1. In biology, truth is a description of structures, events and relationships in intact living organisms in their natural environments, unaffected by the procedures used to examine them. It follows that findings made under the latter conditions are prima facie more valid than those made in dead organisms, or in fixed, frozen, dehydrated, embedded, sectioned, centrifuged or homogenized tissues, or in those to which have been added powerful unnatural chemicals or natural chemicals in unphysiological concentrations.

    2. All true findings must obey the natural laws, for example, of geometry, thermodynamics and physical chemistry.

    3. Theories and hypotheses must be provable and disprovable to be of value.

    4. Findings must be repeatable, but repeatability alone is not a criterion for validity.

    5. A hypothesis or theory derives its value from the accuracy with which it forecasts the results of future experiments.

    6. In evaluating opposing views, evidence should only be adduced if it is crucial to the belief in, or the denial of, either view.

    7. Whenever a procedure changes a tissue significantly, control experiments must be carried out to exclude possible effects of the procedure in masking or exaggerating the results of the experiments.

    8. One should not adopt an agnostic view about a hypothesis or a theory central to one’s belief. Either one is satisfied that the evidence is sufficient and cogent enough to accept it, or one should not accept it.

    9. Protagonists of particular views take upon themselves not only the responsibility for the validity of their own findings, but also that of all other findings which they quote in support of their announced views.

    10. The idea that a simple hypothesis is more likely to be true than a complicated one (Occam’s Razor) is a useful device.

    11. Research workers have an unlimited duty to discuss any findings. theories or hypotheses, which they have already published or seek to publish, with any interested parties, unless and until the authors have retracted their views publicly.

    12. Tht desire to approach the truth is the main motive driving the scholar.

    13. Any published evidence is the property of the whole community, and may be quoted by any interested party.

    We do well to ask the question, “Do any modern medical researchers adhere to these principles today?” The answer is a resounding no, because their priorities are to maintain the status quo and profit from it. Their top priority is to make money, and that comes at the expense of the health and well-being of those whom they claim to serve. Additionally, none of these principles mean anything to those dedicated to inflicting evil upon humanity.

    Hillman is discredited, not because his publications are unfounded, but because they totally disprove today’s model of cell biology, which is the standard used in research conducted in silico for the purpose of manufacturing drugs and vaccines. Modern biology is just as much of a fraud as is virology.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Awesome.
      Thank you for that.
      Hillman studied the subject for far longer than I ever have or ever will, but those principles voice my intuitive suspicions about microbiology, molecular biology, and any science-related study about health that involves microscopes.

      Back in February, someone calling himself a microbiologist disputed my argument against the existence of gain of function and the modification of viruses, and I replied:

      >> Whatta load of gatekeeper diarrhea. I’m sure you’re already aware of Kaufman, Lanka, et al,, and now it’s time to face an even further blatant truth staring in our faces all along >>> Microbes are invisible to the naked eye. They are so small that some people reckon they are ONE MILLION times smaller than humans, and some say they are one BILLION times smaller than a human. The “viruses” are so teeny-weeny tiny that you need an electron microscope to see them.

      FIRST OFF — When you remove bodily fluid from a biological body, you have removed the microbes from their natural context & environment — They can no longer receive instructions from the brain and therefore cannot behave or react to anything naturally — What you are looking at is a piece from a very large & complex puzzle — and it is simply meaningless to study something totally out of its original context AND ESPECIALLY outside of its natural symbiotic environment. You don’t have a clue how it functions inside the organism you removed it from. Capiche? Its behavior in a test tube is not to be confused with its behavior in the body it came from — but that’s exactly what you heinous anti-scientific idiots do >> You pretend that what you are looking at is a meaningful representation of what actually goes on inside a biological body (that you had NO hand in engineering or designing).

      SECOND OFF — Given how incredibly teensy-weensy viruses & bacteria and other microbes are, it is 100% absolutely ludicrous for anyone to believe that mankind can modify or splice or graft or otherwise magic-up a way to alter the form or function of microbes and turn them into bioweapons on a mass scale (or even a tiny scale).

      USE YOUR COMMON SENSE AND START LISTENING TO YOUR GUTS & INSTNCTS & INTUITION — Microbiology is mostly, if not completely, a total load of pseudoscience bullshit. I use to say virology was a pseudoscientific parasite on the arm of honorable microbiology, but now I seriously doubt microbiology itself.

      To hell with you and what you think you’ve seen in your labs and under your microscopes. To hell with you and your blind allegiance to heinous, horrible, fraudulent institutions & agencies & journals & people like the CDC, WHO, NIH, Scientific America, BMJ, AMA, The LANCET, Fauci, Gallo, Drosten, Whitty, and all the rest.

      You guys are worse than pedophiles & child traffickers because your crime affects billions of more victims by tricking them into believing The Germ Theory, and tricking them into consuming toxic chemicals disguised as “medicine” which cause many people chronic illnesses and cause many people to die horrible deaths blamed on fictitious microbes.

      Suicide is your only honorable way out. Forgiveness is NOT an option.


      1. You and I are of a kindred spirit on this matter. Essentially, you reject their straw-man arguments, wherein they put forth a substitute that has the appearance of reality but lacks the substance thereof. And then they proceed to demonstrate from the appearance or the image as to exactly how the internal mechanisms of reality function. In a spiritual sense, this is actually a form of idolatry. The representations of their gods, which are their idols, are merely conceptions of their minds—objectification fallacies, to be more exact. Some call it a reification fallacy.

        When you castigate them for their crimes, they take offense and hide behind their credentials. Last year, I was so thoroughly annoyed with these people that I dedicated a website to their folly from both a spiritual and a scientific perspective. I made an effort to connect the spiritual aspect with the true scientific aspect. In this way, I attempted to remove the shroud of scientism and expose it for what it is. I don’t know if you’ve read it, but you might see what I mean by the term “kindred spirit” against the biologists and virologists of our time.



      2. Well, George, I appreciate that your line of reasoning resembles mine, but I can’t reconcile mixing religion with science. I checked out your link and it quotes the Bible, which is a religion and not what I would call spirituality per se >> it is an organized religion’s view of spirituality and it fails in a spectacular way regarding logic & reason. I know spirituality cannot meet any true scientific criteria, and it can only be theoretical and a game of best-guesses based on logic & reason (which are not exclusive to science).

        My kind of science is called Empirical Science. It’s what I call “The Show Me Science”. Its basis rests on demonstrating something to be true rather than theorizing or hypothesizing. Something has to be demonstrated and the way it is demonstrated has to be reproducible by anyone. There must also be a demonstration that robust attempts have been made to obtain the results in a different way — that is, the demonstrator must show he has attempted to falsify his results by other means. He must also demonstrate that the means themselves have not caused or skewed the results.

        Spirituality is my specialty, and though I do my best to not mention it when discussing science, it sometimes seeps in as an overall explanation for anything & everything about this mortal world.

        Objectively speaking, and with a sincere desire to not shit on your religion, I will credit what you’ve quoted from the Bible as being HISTORICALLY significant. That is to say, those quotes are from words written thousands of years ago, and whilst I do not believe they are holy nor from some sort of god, they do reflect humankind during those times thousands of years ago. They reflect that even back then there were CIA types of malevolent power-hungry, greedy bastards willing to deceive people for a profit or for control or even for reasons to do with genocide or depopulation agendas. Even back then there were poisons passed off as medicines, and there were people who understood the value of not treating bodies with poisons but instead treating them with non-toxic solutions including lifestyle changes, and dietary changes.

        I strongly suggest you post your link at the various so-called religious-truther channels at Bitchute & Rumble who have not yet realized that their God never created contagious illnesses or diseases, and who have no idea how bad and un-god-like are the modern day pharmaceuticals & vaccines. I think you’ve chosen same damn good quotes, and that’s not an easy thing to do from a book that contains 783,137 words.


  15. Any kind of harmful factors of a material nature (toxic chemicals, toxic minerals and metals, poisonous drugs and vaccines, etc.), of an energetic nature (artificial radiation) and of a soul nature (fear, sadness, hatred, envy), any kind of improper conditions (weather, thermal shocks, food shortages), any kind of excessive habits (physical and intellectual overwork, sleep and relaxation deprivation) result in the disruption and depletion of vital energy flows that traverse and set the body’s tissues in motion, the consequence being the slowing or blocking of the self-healing processes through which the body detoxifies by neutralizing poisons, cleanses itself of residues and regenerates its damaged tissues.

    Stop giving credence to so-called diseases diagnosed on the basis of fraudulent so-called laboratory tests, such as, for example, so-called diabetes, which is claimed to be a consequence of the so-called increase in blood sugar. The processes by which the body increases the intensity of the circulation of energy flows that pass through and animate the tissues to proliferate them with the aim of increasing the efficiency of their functions, are not disease states in which the tissues undergo degenerative changes, but are adaptation processes, necessary for the body to be able to cope with the siege of over-stimulating harmful factors, such as those of a soul nature (fear), those of a material nature (industrial and agricultural chemicals, pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines), and those of an energetic nature (some of the artificial radiations).


    1. I have a little dog who is 10 years old. I rescued her from unfortunate circumstances. Her tear ducts do not function. I don’t know why. Periodically, a crusty substance forms over her eyes. I would not call this a disease, but rather a condition. Over the years, it has not corrected itself. In order to give her a better quality of life, I put drops in her eyes from time to time, and this seems to help her see better and reduce the frequency of the formation of the crusty substance. Is it possible that some organs of the body can cease to function while the rest of the body remains functional? If this is the case, then an artificial or synthetic means may compensate for the loss of function. Although it is possible that if this is done, there may be side effects from the artificial means employed. 


      1. What is the difference between ARTIFICIAL & SYNTHETIC? Can there be artificial means that are natural and chemical-free? For me, the word SYNTHETIC means un-natural and chemical-based. NATURAL means, to me, something derived from Nature like something from a plant (such as Aloe Vera or CBD).

        I think it is kind of you to give her drops that help her see. As long as they don’t contain any chemicals and are absolutely non-toxic, then all you can do is observe her and see if she develops any bad-effects (I almost said “side-effects” but we know that is an evil pharma-term to neutralize the perception of BAD effects).

        I’ve been voraciously studying health regarding humans & animals for the past 3 years. I have thankfully not been indoctrinated by any colleges. I have been studying the subject via alternative so-called health experts. I certainly grew up with allopathic points of view through our MSM which is saturated with it, and I have learned to reject it outright.

        My conclusion is and will remain extremely unpopular because I am convinced that health is a predetermined tricky subject both for allopathic-minded and naturopathic-minded perspectives & disciplines. I have concluded that every biological body and its health system is as unique as the personality wearing it. Each and every malady must be looked at on a case-by-case basis. The remedy that works today may not work in the future, and the remedy that did not work today may work sometime in the future. The remedy that worked for you may not work for me, and vice versa.

        Big Pharma has sold us on the lie that all bodies are the same as one body. If it helped one dog, it will help all dogs. If it caused cancer in one man, it will cause cancer in all men.

        But we can see clearly how chemotherapy kills many people and yet plenty of people survive it. We can see people who are vegan appear unhealthy and die young from apparent malnutrition, whilst others like Harold Hillman live healthily until 85. We can see Cicely Tyson lived a vegan lifestyle with apparently no problems and die at 96 whilst the good doctor Herbert Shelton lived a vegan life but suffered from Parkinson’s for the last 15 years of his life.

        There is no one-size-fits-all solutions for any malady. There are no guaranteed ways to end up with cancer or any other serious illnesses & diseases.

        Each biological life is uniquely tricky & mysterious & confusing. And, spiritually speaking, this was intentional & predetermined by each spirit playing the part of a biological creature in this temporary, physical world.

        There will be times when you will not be able to figure out the cause of a malady. There will be times when no treatment will help a symptom to disappear. There will be times when a malady or symptom will disappear if you do nothing at all about it.

        It’s only profit-driven & ego-driven people who insist there are one-size-fits-all solutions and causes regarding psychological & physical health. Robert O. Young is an example, but so are most so-called doctors & scientists & so-called health experts (even some of those in the no-virus camp with the possible exception of Tom Cowan who impresses me with his practice of interviewing a patient and their history & lifestyle & diet and who is not afraid to admit when he doesn’t know something).

        Best of luck to your dog. I feed both of mine a RAW diet and give my 16 year old .04ml of CBD oil each day, which, without it, she can’t jump on the sofa or bed.


  16. Almost all substances obtained artificially, through chemical synthesis – regardless of whether we are talking about those used in industry, agriculture, food or pharmaceuticals – are toxic and harmful to any form of life due to the fact that they do not exist in Nature, which is why they do not can be compatible with life. The fact that a chemical substance, obtained by artificial synthesis, is called a “drug” does not make it compatible with life, as are most of the natural substances, without which we die. In reality, almost all pharma-chemicals called drugs and vaccines are at least as toxic as synthetic chemicals that are used in industry, agriculture, household, cosmetics, etc. In fact, pharmaceutical chemicals are so toxic that in order not to kill patients, they must be administered in extremely small amounts, on the order of micrograms per pill or injection. But even the administration of pharma-chemical substances at the level of micrograms per dose is dangerous, if the patient does not have vital energy in sufficient quantity to be able to neutralize and eliminate them in a timely manner. In addition, in the case of people with low vitality, the toxicity of pharma-chemical drugs and vaccines accumulates and acts synergistically with the toxicity of industrial, agricultural, food chemicals, from personal hygiene products, from cleaning products, from cosmetics, from perfumes, from products of textiles and leather, of plastic products, of construction materials, of furniture and carpets, of electrical and electronic, etc.


    1. I don’t know much about the specific eye drops I give her. I give them sparingly. I haven’t observed any undesirable effects. I can’t manufacturer anything myself so I’m at a disadvantage and have to select what comes highly recommended from the experience of others.

      My father took all kinds of medication. He had many health problems until the time of his death. What he came in contact with during his lifetime I cannot be certain of. I suspect some of his problems were due to asbestos exposure, poor diet, and side effects from his medications.

      My mother died at an age much younger than those of her parents and grandparents. She fell victim to the drugs given to her from a psychiatrist, and possibly suffered damage from electroshock therapy. She also had numerous medications given to her by her general practitioner.

      I don’t take anything. I can die just as well without their help.


  17. I want to know if what Viroliegy think about genital and oral herpes and HPV. Are those not viruses and not contagious? What are they? I’m thinking you guys are going to say you don’t know what they are, but they aren’t viruses. That doesn’t help much. If those two things are contagious and aren’t an organism or chemical, then we might as well call that a virus.


      1. Mike, thanks so much for that article. Do you have anything for HSV 1 & 2 and why anti-virals appear to work for some viruses?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I do not have anything as of yet on HSV 1 & 2. Anti-virals most likely work like antibiotics in that they suppress the healing process. Symptoms of disease are detoxification symptoms. If you add more toxicity to a body attempting to flush the toxins out, it will suppress the healing response. This can create problems in the future when the body is more toxic and needs to find other avenues to rid itself of the toxins.

        Here is a great article from Dawn Lester on STD’s that may be of interest:



      3. In addition to the HSV 1 & 2 and anti-viral question, why would a person keep getting outbreaks if there is no abrasion? A lot of people seem to be suffering from these conditions? Have you ever talked with one of these people or read a story to try to see if it matches your thinking? I have been afraid of things like viral STD’s and if these things don’t exist that would be great. Why not focus on this? It would be a great breakthrough and I think it is something that would more greatly interest people and benefit people.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. “I have been afraid of things like viral STD’s and if these things don’t exist that would be great. Why not focus on this? It would be a great breakthrough and I think it is something that would more greatly interest people and benefit people.”

        To debunk something means to analyze a statement or study or declaration claiming something to be true and then presenting an argument that disputes the claim. Mike is a debunker and makes no claims to be an expert about health.

        You are searching for an expert about health when you would do well to consider that no man can be such a thing. Man did not create biological bodies. The biological body was designed by someone with an infinite intelligence and no man possesses that.

        Now if your question related to plumbing or automobiles, those are created by men who understand the parts, the ingredients, and the engineering used to put them together. They understand the forms they created and how & why they function.

        The keyword in your question is “afraid”. Why are you afraid of STD’s? Is it because they may cause you pain and/or embarrassment? Are you spending your life trying to avoid pain? Do you honestly believe you can figure out a way to get through this life without pain, illness, embarrassment, misfortune, worries and disappointments?

        Instead of living your life trying to avoid its pitfalls, would it not serve you better to simply acknowledge all that is going right here & now and learning how to deal with the pitfalls when you encounter them rather than trying to avoid them?

        Mike appears to be a proponent of Terrain Theory. This means that you address the body as a whole rather than focus on its parts. It means rather than try to get rid of a symptom, you recognize that the symptom is a result of the whole not operating at peak efficiency. The symptom is evidence of the body detoxifying and attempting to rebalance itself.

        The symptom is the cure.

        The cause of the symptom can be the result of many different factors, but Mike has demonstrated with his arguments that germs & viruses do not cause symptoms, That is all he has set out to do >> show what has not caused symptoms rather than tackle the absurd mission of trying to figure out what all the possible causes of them could be.

        You asked Mike >> “Do you have anything for HSV 1 & 2 and why anti-virals appear to work for some viruses?”

        The fact that you are still using the word “viruses” instead of “symptoms” shows that you haven’t yet really grasped how & why “viruses” have not been proven to exist.

        As for why some things appear to help make symptoms disappear:
        Have you not considered that the symptoms would have disappeared if you had done nothing at all and waited long enough? But we live in an era of instant gratification and short-attention spans and thus we are impatient and ridiculously intolerant of any kind of pain or irritation, and so we seek to suppress symptoms as soon as possible. We seek to interfere with the body’s detoxification processes.

        I am not saying it is wrong to seek relief from pain & irritation, but Big Pharma has tricked us into consuming symptom relievers that are synthetic and toxic.

        You mentioned LYSINE >> and here is what Big Pharma has to say about it >> “Lysine, or L-lysine, is an essential amino acid, meaning it is necessary for human health, but the body cannot make it” >> Do you see how absurd that statement is ? If it was truly essential to human health, then why wouldn’t the body make it? The body makes everything it needs if it is not compromised by some sort of poisoning or malnutrition.

        The bugaboo in your life is FEAR, and rather than face that head on, you seek to prevent bad things happening, and that’s like trying to plug up all the holes in a dyke whilst new holes are occurring. You’ll never get it done. This life in this dreamworld was designed with innumerable challenges & misfortunes. No one succeeds in living a problem-free life here. No one. So rather than try to prevent problems, learn how to cope with them with as much grace & patience & common sense available to you.

        There are, unfortunately, many people who present themselves as experts about health & illness & disease when clearly they are not. No man can be because no man created the incredibly complex machine known as the biological body and the super-computer brain that governs it.

        This life was not meant to be a problem-free existence. It was meant to be exactly as we find it >> an adventurous challenge full of mystery & intrigue. And for most of us, despite our best efforts to live in a sane & healthy & safe way, it all ends in tears. Most doctors & scientists & so-called “health experts” die from an illness or disease.

        And whilst that sounds existentially tragic, and would be if this was the only conscious existence we were to ever know, please consider the idea that this “life” is merely a dream created by the infinitely intelligent eternal spirits we really are when we are not immersed in such a dream. Death is but waking up from this dream and returning to our never-changing, eternal reality of spiritual sanity & sobriety.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. I do plan to delve into STD’s more. I have only really done a deep-dive into HPV, HIV, and syphilis so far. I hope to tackle more in the near future. 🙂


      6. MIke, another question is what about the Argenine to Lysine ratio and HSV? What is going on there if people are taking too much argenine and getting breakouts and taking lysine and stopping them?


  18. In 99.9% of cases, people who are in a state of illness and who, for this reason, turn to the doctors of the System, end up dying precisely because of the fact that they believe in the diagnoses and prognoses that poison their souls, horrifying- and grieving them, but also because they allow their bodies to be poisoned with drugs and pharma-chemical vaccines that are toxic, and at the same time, their tissues and organs to be damaged by investigative medical procedures, by therapeutic procedures or procedures for the substitution of functions.

    Yes it is true !

    The price people pay for making System Science their source of material well-being, comfort, pleasure, and physical health is terrible.

    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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: