Examining The End of “Covid” and Germ Theory with Patrick Timpone

I recently had the pleasure of being back on the Partick Timpone show to discuss the fraud of virology and germ theory once again. We covered many topics such as how symptoms of disease are the signs of detoxification and a necessary healing process as well as the fairy tales of “viral” outbreaks such as the Spanish flu, polio, and HIV/AIDS. We touched on those who are in the health freedom community who continue to push the existence of “viruses” and the gain of fiction fear porn. We discussed why they are unwilling to engage in a dialogue with those of us who are challenging the “viral” narrative. We even focused a bit on how other areas of the medical system, such as dentistry and optometry, are just as corrupted with bad information as the infectious disease units are. There was plenty more that we covered as well, so I hope you enjoy our latest conversation.

One other area that we discussed is an upcoming project that I am very excited to be a part of. It is a virtual summit called “The End of Covid” that will be launching on June 20th, 2023. It is an 88-part series from the brilliant mind of Alec Zeck of The Way Forward, touching upon numerous topics within the germ theory and virology narrative. We are aiming to take apart the fiction piece by piece with topics such as:

  • The history of virology
  • The scientific method and logical fallacies
  • The lack of contagion
  • The fallacies of peer review
  • What antibodies are and whether they exist
  • Virology’s improper control experiments
  • Electron microscopy images as “proof of viruses”
  • The gain of fiction narrative
  • The issues with genomics
  • The fear of the germ in pop culture and media

And so much more! It is a really rewarding experience, and I can not wait for everyone to be able to see this. It’s time to cancel this show once and for all! For more information, please visit theendofcovid.com and check out the excellent trailer below!



  1. Prominent nanoscientist retracts paper after PhD students flagged error

    (You can’t believe the published results of “scientific” studies just because they are published.)

    “The authors retract this article (DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.8b00763) as the fluorescence method by which the transfection efficiency was determined is unreliable and incorrect and led to greatly overestimated values of efficiency. The original data are also no longer available and cannot be verified.”


    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mike, I think you need to show how there is some toxin causing the disease we think is caused by herpesvirus, papalomavirus and gonorea (germ model), and cure these conditions. The way people are suffering with herpesvirus and papalomavirus should be investigated to test your hypothesis. If these STD’s don’t exist then that is great news, but I think you need to test what you are saying and find evidence of these toxins or a cure. Also, what do you think an apoptosis drug like Dr. Todd Rider’s DRACO / VTose which auto-destructs cells infected with viruses does? That looks promising and should have been funded by governments all around the world decades ago, but they don’t seem to care about results. But, if there are no viruses, then it is useless.


    1. Why do you think it can be reduced to ONE cause? That is so Rockefeller medicine.
      “….which auto-destructs cells infected with viruses does? ” What’s your proof that these viruses exist?

      Will for sure check out the interview, Mike. Too bad some of your readers just don’t seem to get the point (or don’t want to?)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi Jeff, I’m having trouble analyzing all the information on the virus topic, and related germ topic. It seems like some good points are made, but it is very incomplete and ultimately not persuasive. There is also the terrain model retreat which OK, sure, if the terrain is perfect then you get no disease, but how?

        I found the climate issue much easier to analyze and discovered the greenhouse gas model was incorrect and inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Ned NIkolov explains it is the atmospheric pressure and albedo which influence climate change, no so called “greenhouse gasses” which do not exist.

        I found the HPV article interesting, though hard to read in the format it was presented. For me I’m somewhat most interested in things like HPV and HSV since these are long lasting and may not be prevented with vitamin D.

        If these viruses don’t exist then that would change life for a lot of people. I know Mike said they are just expelling toxins, but this is all too lose to go on and I think requires further testing and research.

        Also, there are giant viruses aparently, and viruses used to imortalize cells, and anti-virals like DRACO and VTose. I know if can be difficult for a person to answer every thing that exists out there, but this is a complex topic.


    2. I don’t believe that there is any one cause. Disease is multi-factoral and can vary from person to person. Also, just because a drug appears to work does not mean that it was due to a specific cause. We can not look at effects in order to claim a cause. Suppressing symptoms may be seen as healing, but in many cases, it can lead to worsening symptoms later on in life.


      1. Suppressing symptoms is entirely about …suppressing symptoms. 🙂 Making yourself SEEM like you’re feeling better, as if the ailment can be reduced to its symptoms, an approach which ignores the root causes.

        How exactly can the toxins which one individual is exposed to be fully known, without knowing what they were exposed to every second, and every level? This demand for “research” is frankly ridiculous. And this, “, if the terrain is perfect then you get no disease, but how?” is totally meaningless. Insert a person with a perfect internal terrain into a highly toxic environment, and he/she may well become very ill.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. Can I give you a example such as the so-called “Syphilis”:

      If you read through the Brief History of syphilis up to the 15th century, you also know that it was only a so-called disease of the then poor hygiene, polluted water, like many others etc.,


      but the doctors in Berlin allegedly proved it by giving Calomel to a child,

      https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ueber-das-Vorkommen-von-Spiroch%C3%A4ten-in-inneren-Buschke-Fischer/c56b29b7f35eb1ad075f63a761f9162d0ffb9860 (you must download)

      which, of course, had the most severe effects.


      and then they started to somehow “prove” it by experimental “studies” with chemistry and cultures – only that this was also a fraud from the beginning!!



      Click to access 223.pdf



      Click to access brjvendis00117-0063.pdf


      Click to access 199.full.pdf


      Click to access jbacter00037-0220.pdf



      The same History with HSV


      ….and first of all, there is no “papaloma virus” :-), you mean the so-called “papillomavirus/HPV” – okay, HPV is stated as a “risk” for cervical cancer, but cervical cancer has absolutely nothing to do with a so-called “virus” -. risks for cervical cancer include smoking – long-term use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) – women who have had 3 or more full-term pregnancies could have an increased risk of developing cervical cancer – women who were younger than 20 years when they had their first full-term pregnancy could are more likely to get cervical cancer later in life than women who waited to get pregnant until they were 25 years or older – and of course every woman should have an annual gynecological examination – it’s also assumed that women whose diets don’t include enough fruits and vegetables(important antioxidants for the health of the whole organism) may be at increased risk for cervical cancer – but also women who wear an intrauterine device (IUD) for a longer period of time or who take hormone supplements for a longer period of time(e.g.: daughters of mothers who took the hormone drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy between 1938 and 1971 had a risk, because it was not until 1971 that the FDA withdrew this drug from the market (actually no one should be surprised anymore)) – but for sure it has 1. nothing to do with an active sex life and 2. NOTHING with a so-called “fictitious virus” that is always used to administer harmful substances to women!!

      The so-called “HPV” is searched for, of course in vitro and in prepared cell lines – and of course dead cell debris is searched for again

      https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&BLAST_SPEC=OGP__9606__9558&LINK_LOC=blasthome – enter the letter groups one by one at Enter Query Sequence, scroll down to the blue box on the left, click on it and wait for the result

      – and of course there are the necessary poisonous substances for this in the form of so-called “vaccinations” – and THAT was already in the year 1998


      or also in the year 1997 the same nonsense!

      Click to access 351304.pdf

      and if you read here on page 33 under G,

      Click to access 5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

      then you will find !!Genital herpes; Genital herpes
      simplex; Genital herpes zoster!!! and thus you also know that this is triggered by toxic substances!!!


  3. Greetings Mike,
    I’m looking forward to watching this on June 20th.
    You mentioned the ‘fairy tale’ of the 1918 Influenza epidemic. Here’s a
    link that will provide more factual information verifying that it was
    indeed a ‘fairy tale’.


    Or you can go straight to the government source for this page which also
    verifies what you are saying. Their ‘banner’ image on the first page of
    their report pretty much says it all.

    Click to access 2020sum.pdf

    Shameless plug: 🙂
    I have both these links and more on my website at:


    Best wishes to you and please keep up the good work.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I didn’t know where to ask this, so I thought I’d try here. Does anyone know why Dr Stefan Lanka PUBLICALLY STATED that he was able to produce the genomes for SARS-Cov-2, HIV, Ebola and measles just using a human epithelial cell culture and yeast RNA. i.e. With no so called ‘infectious’ material present anywhere. THEN HE DIDN’T PUBLISH THE RESULTS. This is absolutely ridiculous. It would have created enormous interest and had the potential to blow the ‘virus’ scam wide open. But, instead of that, it’s given the ‘virus pushers’ a massive opportunity to say that Dr Stefan Lanka is a FRAUDSTER and a LIAR. I think Dr Lanka is great and I do NOT believe that viruses exist. But I think Dr Lanka has definitely let the side down here. Does anyone have any idea what the hell happened?


    1. Hi Joe,

      Sadly, while I admire the work that Dr. Lanka did, he seemed to over-promise, and he ultimately underdelivered. That is why I try not to rely on the claims of others or put all of my eggs in one basket. I was afraid something like that would happen. From my understanding, people involved in that part of the research didn’t want the results published for some reason. It definitely provides ammo for germ theorists to try and discredit Dr. Lanka’s work. Fortunately, his control experiments are on a much more solid ground over the genome results.


      1. Hi Mike. Thank you for replying. I appreciate it. So it looks like maybe people were ‘scared’ to be partly responsible for what Dr. Lanka’s genome results showed. But really, who knows? I definitely agree about Dr. Lanka’s control experiments. I always keep a copy on my google drive. hXXps://drive.google.com/file/d/1xyxnN0yyTJmfGhZXefuhYQYbDokVBeP9/view?usp=sharing

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Clarification regarding Lanka’s control experiments


        (One might be able to draw some conclusions from Lanka’s third control. Note that the mathematician wanted to remain anonymous.)

        “The third control experiment was the paper written by the anonymous mathematician where he performed reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. To make it even more clear, he did NOT use yeast RNA for this as I pointed out earlier.”

        Click to access structural_analysis_of_sequence_data_in_virology.pdf

        Liked by 1 person

      3. This was a post on John Blaid’s substack, and it also corresponds with exactly how I feel and what I would love to know. So I thought I would just repost it here, if anyone would like to have a crack at it. “Hello everyone. I’d just like to thank all you guys (and gals) for the great work you are doing to help expose the ‘virus’ scam. Personally, I am still learning, and I am not quite up to speed with a lot of the details yet. I still need a bit of help to understand. So, if it’s OK, could someone please explain to me, in simple terms, what exactly Dr Lanka DID manage to prove, and what he did NOT manage to prove, with his control experiments that we can actually look at and read for ourselves. I’m not really interested in what Dr Lanka SAID he did, and then didn’t publish anywhere. To be honest, I find it to be a bit odd that he said certain things, and did not follow through with the proof. So I’m not going to worry about those things too much. Thanks everyone.”


      4. Lanka needs to get his shit together and remember to provide proper sources for his claims, like he used to.

        About genome controls you might want to get into contact with Marvin Haberland (Tom Cowan did an interview with him).
        It’s the guy from Germany who recently got cleared of his mask mandate violation fine by asking for proof of virus existence.
        In one interview Marvin mentioned that a french virolologist, who published a paper about some new SARS-CoV-2 “mutation”, replied to Marvin that AFTER publishing the paper he DID do a control experiment and he was able to construct the same genome (close enough) from an “uninfected” culture.
        He didn’t retract his paper because fuck science, but if he shares his data, that might be something to start with?


  5. The virus topic is quite simple to comprehend if you understand that it is easier to refute a claim than to prove one.

    The claim is that there is a biological entity that causes illness or symptoms. Along with the claim is the hypothesis about how that biological entity is naturally transmitted from sick people to healthy people. Common sense dictates that the scientist makes a robust attempt to mimic the natural transmission. If you say the entity spreads through exhalation or coughing or sneezing, then you must attempt to make healthy people sick by exposing them to the exhalation, coughing, and sneezing of sick people. If you cannot make anyone sick by doing that, then your hypothesis is wrong.

    Same rules apply to so-called sexually transmitted diseases. If you say they are spread by sexual activity, then you must have healthy people engage sexually with so-called infected people. If the healthy people do not become infected, then you were wrong.

    Any attempt to mimic natural transmission must NOT include any unnatural means such as injection or intubation.

    There were various experiments in the first half of the 20th century whereby scientists attempted to mimic natural transmission for colds, flu and STDs, and they ALL failed. Big Pharma did not like that fact because it was obvious that vaccines were unnecessary & ineffective if symptoms were not created by viruses or pathogenic bacteria. So they stopped using human volunteers and stopped attempting to make anyone ill. They started using petri dishes & test tubes for their experiments, and by doing so, they did not show anyone becoming ill from what they claimed to have found in the petri dishes. They merely observed the death of some living kidney cells and claimed they died from the bodily fluid from a sick person, but never bothered to isolate the virus or bacterium supposedly within the bodily fluid. Had they done so, they would have been required to give that virus or bacterium in the most natural way possible to a healthy person to see if they got sick. But they never bothered to do so because they knew from their previous human-based experiments that illness is not transmitted by any biological entity.

    Big Pharma has tricked you into believing health is NOT tricky or mysterious, but it has always been tricky & mysterious. The best you can do for yourself is to drink clean water, eat clean wholesome & nutritious foods, get plenty of good sleep each night, get fresh air & sunshine & mobility each day, and try not to get overwhelmed psychologically. If you get stuck with a health problem, look into water-fasting.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. The parasite question is interesting, I hadn’t considered that before.
    But it IS weird that only very few children get worms even though most people occasionally put dirty fingers in their mouths or gnaw on dirty finger nails.
    Same with malaria, everyone gets bitten by mosquitos and it sure as hell isn’t any kind of vaccine that protects us from parasites, lol.

    I wonder about those awful African worms that can enter through bruises in your skin and grow in your veins, though.
    Can they grow in healthy people? Is there any kind of evidence?

    Guess I’ll have to check out that site you mentioned (it’s https://www.humanley.com/ ).

    Liked by 1 person

  7. My grandmother apparently PCR-“tested” “covid” positive. Then I got sick and now I “tested” “positive.”
    How is this explained without germ theory?


    1. Germ theory doesn’t have anything to do with this. The PCR is primed to amplify small sequences (probably three separate sequences of short length) that are said to be in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Remember, the virus was created in a computer. It was never taken from a particle. So there is no proof it exists in nature. The fact that PCR will test positive tells you that you have all of the short sequences of molecules in your body. But this does not mean that you have the whole “virus” sequence. I think the whole “virus” sequence is about 32,000 base pairs long. If you find out the length of the short sequences that PCR is primed for, then you will know what percentage of the “virus” PCR is actually “testing” for. When they cycle the PCR enough times, everyone will “test” positive. This tells you that it has found and amplified all of the molecules necessary to meet the threshold for a “positive” result. When the cycles are set at a lower level, not enough molecules are multiplied to meet the threshold for a “positive” result. So, as you can see, this is not a test at all. It doesn’t test for anything. It just amplifies what it is primed to find.

      This is the way I understand it anyway, but maybe someone else can explain it more accurately or better.


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: