Catte’s Corner: Covid, virus theory & the painted goat
Catte Black
Imagine…A man has sold you what he claims is a black goat.
You take it home and discover it’s not a black goat at all, it’s a white goat painted in Dulux black emulsion.
You have two options to show the man deceived you so you can get your money back.
1. Prove THIS goat isn’t black, the man who sold it to you just painted it in order to defraud you.
2. Prove the longstanding theory there are actually NO black goats at all anywhere, just a lot of white goats painted black.
Which option would you choose for your day in court?
If you pick the first your task is simple, just show the court your painted goat and the confiscated tin of Dulux black emulsion from the fraudster’s shed. No contest. You have made your case.
If you choose the second option you have to prove all the allegedly black goats in the entire world are really white.
Of course if you can successfully prove this you will still win your case and get your money, but it’s going to be much much harder for you than if you simply set out to prove the fraudster painted this particular goat.
Plus you are now up against a firm belief system in your society that black goats do exist.
Your little fraudster, meanwhile, will love you if you take this route, because while originally he was just a cheap huckster who painted a goat, now he gets to hide his paltry mean little crime in these much grander questions.
Suddenly he’s not just a goat-painter, he’s a champion of tradition and ‘science’, with a whole culture of belief in black goats supporting him.
Suddenly you’re not the victim of a con artist, you’re the “crazy” person who doesn’t believe in black goats.
“No black goats? What, anywhere? – That’s just insane”.
And now all the fraudster needs to do is rely on black-goat culture bias, produce ONE single allegedly black goat that you can’t prove was really white, or even just fuzzy pictures of things he claims are genuine black goats, and, however correct you might be, he will probably win.
Common sense, prudence suggest you take your relatively easy win, prove your fraudster knowingly painted your goat and leave the rest of them for another day.
This doesn’t mean the big question mark over the reality of black goats is irrelevant. On the contrary, it’s important and needs to be resolved.
Just don’t hand your fraudster what amounts to a free pass by bringing every alleged black goat into the court room with you and trying to prove none of them exist.
There’s considerable evidence that, at very least, it’s an inadequate model, riddled with confirmation bias and “convenience science”.
Germ theory versus terrain theory is also a valid debate, if more nuanced than some reductionists on both sides claim.
I encourage everyone to look into all of this.
However using this interrogation as the main channel for proving the covid fraud is, in my opinion, not very useful & potentially counter-productive.
The two things should not be conflated.
However bogus virus theory may be, the fact is we don’t need to disprove it in order to show covid was a fraud, any more than you needed to prove there are no black goats in order to prove your goat had been painted.
Covid is a fraud – even if virus theory were to magically end up proven a hundred ways.
We can prove, using government data, that covid is a fraud on its own terms, from its own mouth. We have them already over a barrel. We don’t need to widen the question into the existence of viruses or “germ theory”, and if we do we only give ourselves a bigger and unnecessary task.
And I think it serves the interests of the binary-creators and the scam artists to blur and widen the debate at this time. Just like the goat-painter, they get to hide their specific, easily proved ongoing crimes behind general “principles” and deeply embedded cultural belief systems. They get to use loaded terms like “virus-denier” and sneer dismissively without even having to address their own well-documented, blatant fraud.
It also serves to construct yet another binary where unnecessary division proliferates and nuance gets lost.
They benefit. We don’t. It’s as simple as that.
Let’s unite around the fact that covid is a proven fraud. It’s a big truth. It’s enough. It brings us together. Makes us more effective and more likely to win this struggle.
I know inevitably some people will react to this by playing on the very divisions I’m trying to help heal. Some will call me a “virus-believer”, and others will call me a “virus-denier”, all based on the same words in this article.
You know the ones – they have just picked their preference on a coin toss or by watching five minutes of some YT video and now use the few factoids they digested as weapons to beat anyone they think of as “the enemy”.
Because splitting the resistance movement into a thousand shards based on any nuance or perceived disagreement seems to be a thriving pastime these days.
What can I say to them? Nothing. Waste of time. They won’t be listening.
For the rest of my readers, hopefully the majority, whatever their views on the “virus question” might be, I hope they take my point as intended, agree or disagree with what I actually say, and don’t see something else that isn’t there and react to that with noisy and distracting indignation.
It’s up to you.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Okay, but what if you have all the proof you need to prove that there are no black goats? Are you still just going to focus on proving that your goat is the only fake goat and leave the huckster to move on a continue painting goats not just black but other colors as well and keep defrauding unsuspecting buyers? Taking the easy road of only proving that your goat is white will only prolong the fraud, whereas proving that all the goats are white will stop the huckster from being able to continue to keep defrauding people. It’s pretty simple, really. But you do you. Take the easy road while the rest of us end the fraud entirely.
Division… There always has been division, it’s unavoidable, mostly because of ignorance and beliefs (I include scientific ignorance and dogmatism).
Until recently, I had “anti-vax” literature dating back to the early 1800s. I just found another book with references in the 1700s, and another one from the mid 1600s. My point here is that there has been conflicts between the Authorities (including the masses) and the “Quack” Doctors (and followers) for the last 300+ years (that I can read about).
You might want to limit your actions to the covid fraud, that’s your right. What about all the previous frauds (& there are many)? What about the future frauds? All medical frauds succeed through the ignorance & obedience of the Majority.
How many people have & will suffer from vaccination before they realize the scam? And yet, are oblivion of its scale.
If all the arguments are limited to name-calling (conspirationist, anti-vax, virus deniers), or the fear of division, so be it. Why should I care? I’ve done my research, which I will not deny. My own conclusions: virus, as per the definition, have never been proven, neither contagion. The mainstream medicine, in regard to sickness, is base of false assumptions on unproven hypothesis, and has been for centuries. Vaccines have NEVER solved ANY epidemics/pandemics, in all history.
If the term “Medical Industry” does not raise a red flag, so be it.
If you think that the next vax will be better because people fought against the covid fraud, so be it, get the next vax.
See you all at the next false pandemic.
There seems to be a lot of animosity against team no virus. Ive looked through some of the counter points in here and none of them are valid as I see it. First of all , this is not theoretical physics. This is biology. The natural phenomena we are trying to explain here is what makes us sick. In order to explain that you have to offer up some evidence based in science. This is where virology fails. Which means we actually dont know for sure what makes us sick. Im not under any intellectual obligation to offer up an alternative explanation for this.
That said , team no virus does point out a bunch of circumstantial factors that might play a part in what makes us sick. But doing clinical research takes money and finance.
Virology needs to do one thing , establish causality between a singular , specific genetic particle and a progression of symptoms , or disease if you will. I would argue that at first virology actually was scientific in its approach. Koch , Pasteur and the others had at least the honesty to design a gold standard for nature to fulfill and thus verify their hypothesis. These would be Kochs postulates.
Problem was that nature could not fulfill these criteria. But it still did its job , it falsified the hypothesis and that should have been the end of it. But ego and powerful private interests saw fit to kick this can down the road by lowering the bar not once but twice until they came up with Enders cell culture solution.
Its dangerous to cling to wrong conclusions just because we struggle to deal with the fact that we actually dont know. I dont know what it is that makes us sick , but I got a pretty good idea of what it isnt.
You don’t know what makes us sick ?
How about toxic air, toxic water, toxic soil, toxic food, toxic radiations… toxic thoughts, toxic lifestyle, toxic city life ??
Just to name a few.
But don’t get me wrong, I share your view.
Cheers.
Reasonable point. This admin has no doubt that the driving mechanics of disease and observable contagion are hard to pin down. The mistake might be our binary approach – assuming A can be proved false, and B can be proved true, and vice versa. However, if we haven’t identified the root cause of observable contagion, all existing theories might be equally true and equally false, for all we know. All of them dancing around the same central unknown, all describing with mixed success different facets of the same problem.
If we open our minds to the true implications of things like Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance we see that observable contagion might be controlled by a vast, quantum, incalculable and unknowable realm of hidden forces that influence every tiny detail of the universe in ways hitherto inconceivable to modern science.
Many feel the most important thing is pragmatism, therefore.
How much power do we hand to those who seek to oppress us by attempting to unseat virology at this time?
We have to bear in mind the cost of fracturing the Covid resistance versus the gains. We must anticipate what dogma might rush in to replace virology, were we to prove successful and banish virology forever. If, indeed, anything would fill this vacuum or any victory be registered. Orthodoxies have a tendency to ignore inconvenient truths and steer around evidence vacuums and carry on regardless (as is currently the case with virology and many areas of science, btw).
Many argue the case for taking on virology, purely on pragmatic terms, just hasn’t been made.
In a world of cognitive dissonance on the scale witnessed in 2020 and onwards, appealing to people’s innate common sense and deductive reasoning is not guaranteed. Wave as much evidence under people’s noses as we like, will they even acknowledge it? We can’t know.
Therefore many people urge a more tactical approach, taking human psychology and realistic chances of success into consideration.
It’s a fascinating subject, the nature of disease. If it’s true that we can’t successfully test for contagion this renders the whole concept of disease preternatural. And this is the problem. We must all be aware that the root of mankind’s fear is the unknown. Mankind needs certainties. Known quantities. Firm beliefs. Predictability. A static world and a static universe.
If we challenge mankind’s pathologies we risk invoking a trauma response. In fact, I think we’re seeing these trauma responses all around us, all the time. This is the reason most existing scientific orthodoxies ignore huge swathes of uncomfortable, conflicting information, and why those who seek to challenge orthodoxies are swiftly dealt with (blacklisted, despised with a passion, ridiculed and discredited, even at the cost of the integrity of those defending that orthodoxy). A2
Well , I dont see it like we have to take on virology directly. There wont be a court in this world who would accept such a case. I can however on a personal level understand the fraud , liberate myself from this notion of dangerous bugs and turn my back on it.
Everything that exists in the physical world also exists as a mental construct in the “minds of men”. This polar resonance is needed to maintain the physical construct. If it falls in our minds it will eventually fall away from physical reality. I will never take a vaccine ever again and I will never give any of my pets another shot. Dont have kids. If I did they would not be given a single shot. Imagination and reality arent two different things , they are opposite sides of the same coin.
Im not sure we will get to see justice done sadly. I think our systems here in the west in particular are too far gone and too corrupt at this point. I would like to see it happen though , and I support efforts in this regard but they have circled the wagons on “vaccines” a long time ago and even with the horrific side effects and deaths we have seen they will simply claim that this was a calculated risk worth taking. Lets say the shots have now killed 60 million people thus far. That is an absurd number for something that is labeled “medicine”. They will claim that 6 billion people have been injected and this percentage of deaths is acceptable “under the circumstances”. Or “it would have been way worse without the shots”
They will say the same about throwing compliance with good manufacturing processes out the window. It was an emergency , we did our best , there was no time , bla bla.
Without a virus there never was any emergency. Giving credence to the idea that there was a virus in the first place actually serves them more than us. It gives them the backdrop to justify all the other bullshit. And it also lays the foundation for plandemics to come. With more so called vaccines.
They cant show us an isolated culture of a virus. Therefore they cant sequence it , what they are doing is genomic assembly based on an assumption of what a virus is supposed to look like and be made of. That is circular reasoning based on nothing but an imaginary construct. They cant test it in any kind of meaningful way to prove it actually does anything. They use the word “isolate” and even admit themselves they have their own interpretation of the word. That is academic fraud and tweaking language to fit their experiments. The sample base in these studies are a joke. None of it complies with the scientific method.
The only view we have to be unified on is the one where we realize we are getting played. I will support anybody that goes against this from whatever angle. We all have a common enemy here.
The biggest lie we need to get over is the one we tell ourselves, the one that we will live forever. We will all die, the sooner we accept that, then we can really enjoy our lives. We would all like to live forever, it is simply not going to happen. Be true to yourself .
Better call this affair the lockdown scam. It was in effect a declaration of war against citizens of the post-democratic nation-states by the globalists’ paid servants in the mainstream media, International high finance, overt and covert political operatives, academics and cohorts of others on that payroll.
Except you can’t wake anyone up if they’re not ready. Non existence of viruses is not necessarily a tool to show that “covid is a lie”.
It’s important to understand the lie of germ theory for your own health and wellbeing.
Understanding the truth about the causes of disease is far more important than trying to wake some unwilling numpty from their slumber.
The discontent with the status quo comes from very diverse positions within it, with diverse messages and appeals and with degrees of radicality ranging from reforming a small part of the system to flat out refusing its foundations. IMO the system is moved impersonally by its own inertia and the kind of dissent emanating from each of these foci reflects the state brought about by that mouvement at that point and is therefore congruent with the kind of activity being performed there: the discontent which comes from a community of scientists in a particular branch, would likely be of a scientific nature within that branch and would naturally consider that message as an important contribution against the established science; people who evolved as independent economic actors, would emphasise independence, the abolition of the State, etc, and see it as the greatest achievement; those who are more inclined to philosophy would philosophise against the system, emphasise understanding; those who are activists would rather be found on the streets; and so on. Everyone has evolved to interact with a particular dimension of the system, more or less encompassing, more less important, more or less impactful, but all equivalent; everyone matured in close contact with a particular side of the system and shall mostly emphasises that side in their critique, and it is comprehensible that those facing and interacting with one side of the system might be blind to or dismissive of other sides.
And as I write this, something comes to mind: it is almost an unachievable feat to bring someone to act in abstraction from their own past life experiences, afresh; that was one of Krishnamurti’s topics in his speeches: to think and act really anew, as if born yesterday; in reality however, one’s history shapes one’s views and makes one inclined to certain things, away from others. More generally, “[t]he mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their conscious-ness,” as Marx would have said. And therefore, all those appeals and critiques as diverse as they are reflect the diversity of the system itself as it appears to us, and they all are legitimate and shall, in time, be fusing together as consciousness increases and gets more encompassing as the crisis of the system deepens. And therefore to try and consider a particular critique under which the system be viewed more worthy than others is to dismiss the mouvement, heavy of historical content, that brought these other critiques, equivalent in every sense with the critique considered.
Jon Rappoport goes one step further and says that even the centrifuge process in virology cant prove existence of any “virus”.
In his latest newletter mail he says “I’m going to go over the 2 lab procedures which supposedly discover new viruses…
But don’t.
And never have.
The first one I call “the soup in the dish.” It never isolates a virus.
And even if it indirectly proved a virus is in the soup—which it doesn’t—researchers would never be able to say which virus it is.
The second lab procedure is “the spinner.” It involves a centrifuge, which spins a tissue sample from a patient and then supposedly produces a way to find and analyze “the virus.”
Wrong again…”
Received today.
It seem relevant to the discussion here. The science of disease, germ theory and vaccination has become accepted consensus. Accepted without question.
May 31 · Mattias Desmet
Dear Substack Friends,
Below you can find a new media project launched by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Rav Arora that I warmly recommend. Their noble goal is to break the illusion of so-called scientific consensus through podcasts and articles. Since true science has degenerated into ideology, belief and prejudice in our society, we must do everything we can to restore its true characteristics: open-mindedness and a willingness to continuously question itself.
The Dangerous Illusion of Scientific ConsensusJoin Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Rav Arora in their new independent media project.
The introductory article begins:
RAV ARORA AND JAY BHATTACHARYA
MAY 31
Science is the process by which we learn about the workings of material reality. Though modern innovations – built on the fruits of science – would look like magic to people living only decades ago, they result from the time-tested scientific method. Contrary perhaps to media portrayals of science, the scientific method depends not on the existence of a mythical consensus but rather on structured scientific debates. If there is a consensus, science challenges it with new hypotheses, experiments, logic, and critical thinking. Ironically, science advances because it believes it has never arrived; consensus is the hallmark of dead science.
Freeing science from ideological bias or from being hijacked for nefarious purposes outright is one thing, but how about taking a step back and reflecting on whether making science and progress in general the main raison d’etre is the way to go?
Some of the shit gizmos shoved down people’s throat today might look like magic to people living only decades ago, but were people living decades, or centuries, ago less or more happy than people today?
How about being content about simple being? Isn’t science, the incessant poking into shit and the consequent application of what the various mad professors of the world discover into everyday life, the problem that is driving this civilization toward such monstrous shite as transhumanism, technocratic totalitarianism, so on so forth?
People are too obsessed with subjugating the world instead of learning to control their own selves.
Me says that we’ve had enough science, we have enough gadgets, we don’t need more technologies for quite a while. Let’s stop all that shit and worry about our fucked up heads.
And then this latest sick move by the government:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/new-york-democrats-vote-give-state-free-rein/
Consider this, insofar as it matters (it matters not in regard to the attempt to foist technocratic totalitarianism on humanity).
People haven’t generally stopped believing in God because the fat fuckers in the funny buildings with a cross failed to provide an isolated, purified sample of him or a scientifically substantiated explanation of how exactly he fucked Mary to produce Jesus through immaculate conception, but because scientists produced substantiated explanations for phenomena formerly ascribed to the bearded fella up in the sky.
It would work pretty much the same way with the virus.
If you don’t have a viable alternative, you’ll accomplish nothing. On the contrary, you’ll put people off as the negativist naysayer you are. Nobody likes people who do shit and only criticize others for their endeavors.
Nice to have you back Catte. Your writing is why I decided to stay. Some iffy content here, debatable curation, yet to each there own. The editorial guidance, and Negra el Gatto, is why I stay/pay. And a once troll uncontaminated btl was most amazing. Didn’t quite feel at home, but the most aligned viewpoints to be found, for me anyway, pretty much anywhere. Not perfect, but the best I’ve found. Keep it up, though I really think you should up your game a bit. I’ll be here
So, you want a proof, eh?
Here is what you need to prove (spoiler: the non-existence of the virus ain’t it).
You need to prove that none of the totalitarian dystopian medical tyrannical horseshit is necessary. And to that end, let them have their virus. It will make it easier. For you don’t have to prove anything. They provide the proof themselves.
Masks/respirators. It’s an inherently proven fact that there is NO FUCKING need for a respirator to prevent viral transmission. Fucking Fauci says so himself. You wear a mask, it will protect you. What do you care if somebody else doesn’t? Wear two of those fucking things or three, and you’ll be okay. NO NEED FOR A MANDATE, for restricting people’s rights and freedoms.
Quarantine. There is no need for an isolation mandate. Those who are scared shitless can stay at home, ideally in a hermetically sealed washroom just in case they shit themselves, while others can do as they please. Those who quarantine themselves are safe.
Fuckccination. You wanna protect yourself by getting fukccinated? Right on! You’ll be safe. What is it to you if a non-fuckccinated fella drops dead? Nothing. You’re safe. No need for a mandate.
Every single of the countermeasures can be turned against the motherfuckers very easily, and it’s actually much easier to do if you play the virus game. You can beat them using their own arguments. Or you can simply tell them to fuck off and shove the bullshit up their ass.
STOP NAIVELY THINKING THAT “PROVING” THAT THE VIRUS DOESN’T EXIST WILL ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING. IT WILL NOT. It might be useful in medical research, but it will have absolute zero consequence for the tyrannical aspirations of the powers that be.
Wake up, for fucks sakes and stop regurgitating this no-virus manure!
Any point you might have been trying to make was lost on my when I saw your intent was to dominate this discussion. You have your opinion and your posting it non-stop does not make it right. For the record, I strongly disagree with you. But I choose not to pollute this comment section with incessant posts.
Translation:
“I have blinders on and I refuse to acknowledge that the dogma I adhere to is a bunch of crock and I’ll use any idiocy, such as alleged intent to dominate discussion, to discount my interlocutor and prevent him from putting a dent in my orthodoxy.”
Ain’t it ridiculous that you demand of virologists to reevaluate their science, their methodology, to admit that it might be fallacious, yet you conduct yourself in exactly the same manner.
For the record, I pretty much agree with the no-virus claims, they do have a certain point. At the same time, a) they don’t really prove anything, b) they provide no viable alternative, and c) their efforts are most stupid as a strategy against medical totalitarianism.
In other words, fuck you too.
No-virus is the 2023 equivalent of no-planes – may be true but impossible to prove and colonized by trolls trying to divide the movement.
No one can prove a negative. Those who propose a theory have the obligation to prove it by the scientific method. If they cannot do so the the theory must be rejected until it is shown to be true. The SARS-CoV-2 has never been shown, by scientific method, to exist. It has not been isolated, it has not been shown to cause disease. For another example of virus fraud and vaccine propaganda, watch this new video about Meningitis: https://drsambailey.substack.com/p/the-meningitis-mystery?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#play
No one wishes to divide any ‘movement’. I presume we all want the truth, and the truth will out, eventually no matter what we want individually. Yes, the Covid pandemic is an elaborate fraud, but so is Meningitis, AIDS,Rabies,Polio, etc. Big Pharma wants us all to be inoculated at birth and throughout life against microbes that have never been demonstrated either to exist, or to cause disease. The World Order wants us all to be very afraid of invisible particles floating on the air, and everywhere else. The World Order wants us to be afraid of each other. That is the great fraud.
For those who wish to show that the Covid pandemic was/is a world-wide fraud, great, go ahead and good luck, but by doing so you will not prevent the next fraud, or the fear factor, so necessary to tame and control the world population.
I fully understand how difficult, even threatening it is contemplate a world without the virus, since we all have been brainwashed from birth to accept that paradigm, and to fear contagion. It also opens up a myriad of questions about illness and disease. It is a life changing and society changing notion. But it leads to a new found freedom from fear and enslavement by governments and their corporate partners.
Your (faulty) reasoning is based on the (faulty) assumption that if it’s somehow proved that diseases are not transmitted by virus (beats where this proof will be presented, the case heard, and a verdict delivered – you got any ideas), paradise will ensue and the motherfuckers that be will never bother people again, and everybody will (individually) live happily ever after.
None of that will happen. This is hallucinatory delusion.
First, the virus vs. no-virus debate is an imbecilic red herring, for neither side can definitively prove anything. It would be interesting if the no-virus side conducted their own research and its, presumably different, theory were pitted against virology, but that’s not the case. Virophobes do shit apart from trying put a dent in what virologists are doing (oftentimes in a patently stupid way, cretin Massey and her FOI requests being a case in point) – and kindly don’t bore me with the burden-of-proof horseshit; we’re not in court.
Second, the motherfucker powers that be can use anything else, any concept that can serve as a vehicle for imposing collectivist totalitarianism. As I indicated elsewhere, viral contagion is relatively innocuous – if this “synchronization” takes off, it will be much, much worse. Hence, the virus, contagion, and all the horseshit that people that vehemently fight over is inconsequential.
Thirdly, what matters is individual rights, personal autonomy, responsibility for oneself and oneself only.
The underlying issue is that the powers that be are trying to make people responsible for the well-being of others (nowadays through health/disease (clever!); the former incarnation of totalitarian collectivism was based on economics). That’s what needs to be rejected. Individual rights and freedoms are what must be fought for, not some bullshit virus.
Wrap your head around it once and for all and focus your energy on what matters!
Thanks for your comment!
THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE (pdf)
This link talks about using an ‘inductive argument’ or ‘inferring’… this is what building an alt. hypothesis would achieve. This is what all hypotheses seek to do.
You can’t prove god didn’t create the world in 6 days, but you can strongly infer, using the theory of evolution, that this wasn’t the case,
Simply stating viruses can’t be isolated, while all around us people are becoming sick with what appear to be contagious illnesses that aren’t bacterial, is no more conclusive than stating light particles/waves can’t be isolated, while all around us we see visible light.
Just playing devil’s advocate here. Good luck in your ‘no viruses’ quest. A2
I didn’t say I wanted to prove viru*** didn’t exist. The document simply proves that it is false you can’t prove negative statements from a logical point view, meaning some negative statements may be proven.
Because I read commenters throwing “you can’t prove negatives” at you as if it was an absolute truth, which it isn’t, because some negatives may be proven.
Notice that the statement: “no one can prove a negative” is itself a negative, and if was true, it would exist a negative at least which is is proven true contradicting the statement “no one can prove a negative”.
Nothing to do with viru*** here, merely logic.
You can’t prove negatives, all your link says is that inductive arguments can infer things… this is what a competing hypothesis to challenge virology would do.
This is really simple stuff.
The pandemic was a blatant, self contradictory fraud purely in its own terms. Stop over explaining things. This is turning into some sort or trauma response.
Find some competing science and by all means chip away at the huge monolith that is orthodox virology. By all means. Do it. Do it now. But stop pretending it’s relevant to the situation here and now.
Let’s reject the pandemic. Let’s learn to spot propaganda. Let’s proceed methodically and maybe that’ll lead to challenging viruses or germs or 9\11 planes or whatever…
Please, enough of this ‘no virus’ acrobatic logic. It’s verging on spamming. Thanks.
Sam, I’m sure we’re communicating at cross purposes, or by “negative” we mean different things. What I’ve said doesn’t imply in the least that you can prove “viru***, or God, or pink elephants non-existent.
That was my last on the subject. Good night.
Theory of evolution is just that a theory and a pretty shocking 1 at that, which doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Just curious where all the half man half apes are running about?
You are entitled to your opinion about evolution, but that wasn’t the point I was making.
Great article.
but, WE ARE NOT PROVING A NEGATIVE!
We are told something exists, and they point to papers to back-up their statement. We only say that those papers are flawed. So they have to come up with better research techniques or what ever to prove their statement, because what their showing is not proving anything.
That may be your intention, but is simply asking them going to work? The whole of virology is a massive and powerful lobby, a founding pillar orthodoxy of modern western medicine with billions and billions invested in it. It is fully industrialised, corporatised and legalised. It has its own priesthood in the medical profession and the entire world believes in viruses. At this point, its entire raison d’etre is an assumed truth, making it entirely self perpetuating.
”Viruses must exist because people are catching illnesses, and since people are catching illnesses viruses must exist.”
Just playing devils’s advocate here, but what is your projected outcome and timeline for asking virology to provide more evidence or surrender?
It’s still entirely irrelevant to Catte’s point in the article above, btw. A2
Right.
Even if virology were completely wrong, they will simply not budge, certainly not because of what the no-virus people are claiming, i.e. that the virology methodology is questionable and might be wrong. They don’t prove it wrong, they only “prove” that it’s not proven according to selectively picked methodology. That’s essentially meaningless. If you use the analogy with litigation, as per the incessant calls for a ‘proof’, virology would be foolish to give up in light of such scant evidence.
Virology would only give up if a crystal-clear substantiated, viable alternative hypothesis were presented and proved beyond doubt, but even then, they’d probably somehow make it their own and morphed virology to absorb it.
This is a complete non-issue vis-a-vis the societal aspect of using science as a pretext for totalitarianism. By their own admission, none of the countermeasures made any sense in terms of being mandatory for everybody.
This is a collectivist/individualist issue and people must insist on individual rights.
The biggest problem with the convid hoax was that people allowed themselves to be fooled into accepting responsibility for somebody else’s well-being by sacrificing their rights, freedoms, well-being. It was very cleverly concocted and maliciously exploited people’s good intentions. People have to realize how they’ve been had and realize that their job is to look after number one, not being coerced to give up their lives for somebody else (this being only the pretext, of course, not the actual objective).
Also, consider that the no-virusers might be shills whose purpose is to introduce another angle into the incessant blathering about the virus.
BTW, I appreciate your sensible and objective stance toward this subject.
Thanks! And you too. Although tbf I should add you can get a little spicy in your responses sometimes. Lol But it’s been good fun and thanks for your insights. A2
There is no need to take this establishment on directly and hold them to account. Sadly our systems are so corrupt by now that no court in this world would take it on and the perpetrators of this lie would never admit to it. However , if I understand the “science” behind it and realize that this is , well, lets say shaky science at best I can ditch this paradigm and make other choices for myself concerning my own health.
If the mental construct created in the minds of men fall , the physical construct that is virology will soon follow. It will simply go away as nobody in their right mind will ever take a vaccine ever again , nor give it to their children or pets. We can simply choose to walk away from it.
Actually negatives are proven all the time.
For example, it’s easy to prove that 4 isn’t an odd number. Or that the square root of 2 isn’t rational. Fermat’s Last Theorem was eventually proven.
In terms of logic, if p and q are statements and p => q (p implies q), then necessarily
~q => ~p
Which is proof of a negative (~p).
Of course, there are different types of negatives. The non-existence of something is less easy to prove
So unless you’re trying to divide opinion here, outside of formal logic it appears you agree. ‘No viruses’ can’t be proved simply by asserting a negative. Just like no planes.
As Catte says, it’s actually irrelevant when it comes to the fake pandemic.
Bullshit.
I would like to advise all idiots who are fanatically intent on finding something to substitute viruses with to be careful, for they might get more than they bargain for.
Consider this.
What we have on our hands is an effort to impose totalitarian control on humanity through the allegation that people carrying pathogens are threat to others and therefore must be brought under control and their rights and freedoms be restricted. The medium on which this process hinges is the virus.
Now, virus is, allegedly, some microscopic piece of shit that is transmitted from a person to person. It’s allegedly a separately existing entity, despite Massey’s idiotic FOI requests, and it can be neutralized (not killed since it’s not alive in the first place) with disinfectant. It can also be, allegedly, prevented from being transmitted by respirators, face masks, shields, etc. That’s all total bullshit, but that’s not the point. The point is that the virus is something that is relatively under control.
Now, replace the virus with “synchronization”, i.e. people get sick because you synchronize your pneumonia with somebody else’s pneumonia (beats me why such a highly efficient organism as the human body, or that of any living creature, would do something that stupid, but the no-virus synchronizers probably have an answer to that). Hence, this concept presupposes that there is no external element, that people are somehow linked, are somehow part of a collective organism.
This is a monstrous idea because it provides infinitely greater possibilities and pretext for truly totalitarian control. If people are inherently “synchronized”, they’re in effect a single collective entity, which means goodbye individual rights and freedoms.
In other words, be thankful for the virus and don’t give the motherfuckers any ideas, FFS!
The only thing you need to do is show the evidence of a virus, and show the evidence that that paricular particle causes disseas.
Who exactly you’re gonna show this to? Nobody gives a fuck.
People have believed that there is a bearded motherfucker behind the nearest cloud, or in the nearest tree, who controls everything, and have been going to a funny building with a spire and a dimwit who let himself be nailed on a cross to get their weekly dose of fuckccination for eons. They don’t care that nobody has provided an isolated, purified sample of the said bearded guy.
Get a life already. Stop yapping about virus.
Assert your individual rights instead.
Yes, that’s all…but people are very reluctant to give up the virus, even though it has never been shown to exist. It is an ingrained idea, like that of Earth being at the centre of the universe, an idea which was clung to for millennia: https://jwdann.substack.com/p/breaking-news-nicolaus-copernicus
We do not want to give up the virus, because to do so opens up new uncertainty, which many fear, like “what causes disease?”, or “how do we get sick and how do we stay healthy without Big Pharma?” This is ‘the devil we know’ syndrome and it is based of fear. I find it quite exhilarating and liberating, as it puts the individual in charge of personal health, not the medical/vaccination tyranny we live under now.
1) You don’t have a proof that the viral theory is wrong. You’re only demonstrating that virologists have not quite proved their theory based on a certain methodology, which might or might not be pertinent. The possibility that virology basically got it right, or right in part, has not been disproved.
2) People might not want to give up the virus, probably because it’s the best explanation for contagious diseases to date. Instead of engaging in endless negativity, try to conduct research into what IS the cause of, say, the cold. If you propose a viable alternative hypothesis, people will listen. If you don’t, they’ll think that your killjoy asshole, and they won’t be too far from the truth.
Maybe that is what everybody is scared of, personal responsibility.
Still weird that not a single paper is metnioned to disprove our statement. Should be easy after 100 years of research.
There is an interview with Kary Mullis where he says he was writing a paper on AIDS. The first sentence was “HIV is the apparent cause of AIDS”. As a good scientist he tried to find a solid scientific reference for this statement, but he couldn’t, nor could he find anyone else who could.
Yes, after 100 years it ought to be evident that there is no evidence of a pathogenic virus. But it is hard to fight dogma. God still sits in heaven for many people, even though they have to change his location and definition periodically. You will never convince them he is not there.
Ironic you compare virology to a belief in the divine, whereas I haven’t seen so much flaky new age spiritual wank thrown about when discussing contagion alternatives since I attended a faith healing festival.
Cowan’s water bio resonance spiel? An utter tree hugging wankathon.
This is me playing devil’s advocate. Good luck in your ‘no-viruses’ quest out in the real world. A2
Arrrrrghhhhh!!!!!! Fuck!!!!! Will you stop this shit already!!!!!
Who gives a damn if viruses do or don’t exist! That’s got NOTHING to do with the issue in question – the imposition of medical tyranny during covid.
The issue in question is that NOBODY CAN BE MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANOTHER’S HEALTH. Period. End of story. Case closed.
Viruses, germs, exosomes, synchronization, and whatever other phantasmagoria somebody comes up with does not enter into the above.
Simply insist that one’s health is one’s responsibility, not yours. Drowning yourself in a Catch XXII dispute about some microscopic particles that we all know big shit about is a total waste of energy.
Time to move on. Assert your rights, don’t fall for the red-herring trap of arguing about bullshit. Klaus Anal Schwab must be rolling over the floor pissing himself laughing watching all them idiots down there arguing whether viruses exist.
Actually , the one thing Klaus and his buddies are worried about is the penny drop on this issue across the board. One thing that seems to elude you is the fact that if viruses are indeed unicorns they cant use this bullshit in the future to lock us down, force masks upon people , force vaccinations on people etc. Its the whole foundation for all of their evil shit and its the one false narrative that gives them license to throw “rights” out the window once they ring that “pandemic” bell , which will ring again in the near future.
And then what..? You gonna stay at home? Do as they say? Due to some gain of function unicorn that does not even exist? Yeah , that sounds like a great strategy going forwards.
Without germ theory this all falls away , all of it. And all we have to do is realize it logically. If they havent found a unicorn in over a century of searching for them we should at least entertain the thought that we can find them because they arent real.
The glaring association between the COVID-19 vaccines and sudden cardiac death in healthy adults (e.g., athletes) who would never die otherwise has made at least half of the public believe these unsafe injections are causing sudden adult death syndrome (SADS).
SADS emerged from a related condition, SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), which many likewise associated with vaccination. For example, there have been countless cases of a parent taking their child in for a routine vaccination, being told the infant is completely well, and then their child dying suddenly for no explicable reason later that night.
Seemingly people have been so brainwashed to believe in the effectiveness of vaccines and to believe in the contagion of the imaginary virus, that they do not mind if many thousands of healthy people die. There is little discussion of it and zero curiosity to determine why so many are dying as a result of the vax. Such is the power of fear of the imaginary invisible monster.
See:https://denisrancourt.ca/uploads_entries/1675971116775_Rancourt%20et%20al%202023%20-%20vDFR%20by%20age%20ISRAEL-AUSTRALIA%20-%20article—-9d.pdf
I recall when my nephew died of SIDS some 50 years ago, no one was curious then, it just happened, it was all OK, no need to understand it. It had a name, ‘SIDS’, that’s all it needed. Now we have SADS, case closed.
“Seemingly people have been so brainwashed to believe in the effectiveness of vaccines and to believe in the contagion of the imaginary virus, that they do not mind if many thousands of healthy people die. There is little discussion of it and zero curiosity to determine why so many are dying as a result of the vax”
Well said, John.
In the covid hoax, for the very first time adults came under heavy coercion (the flu shots were all voluntary and not heavily pushed) to take harmful covid vaccines. The fatalities and severe injuries, and the scale at which it took place, that followed exposed adults to the reality for the very first time. The pain felt by adults opened eyes of many.
The cries of babies and little children from the equally-toxic traditional vaccines had largely gone unheard till adults were forced to get injected during the covid operation.
The “virus” is the excuse oligarchy and their thousands of agents have used to carry out their attempted genocide on humanity, particularly little children.
Narrowing the focus only on sars-cov-2 “virus” and covid vaccine won’t stop the ongoing genocide of little children.
There needs to be a natural curiousity among people to undertake thorough scrunity of all claims of “viruses” and if they find the claims bogus then only will they stop vaccinating children with toxic sludge.
Yes ultimately, this is about stopping the vaccination tyranny, particularly against children who are now vaccinated at birth and throughout childhood with as many as 70 vaccines. This is what Big Pharma wants to keep going, fear of viruses and the unlimited profits they provide. You are right that virtually mandatory Covid vaccination and the subsequent death and adverse events have startled some, yet those who did get the vax are, naturally, still reluctant to admit being duped.
One sense a shift in perception, but it is gradual.
not spam, please fix
Thinking about the black vs. white goat, it is not even a good analogy. They do not even sell you the painted goat. They give you a piece of hair and tell you that it is from a black Rabgoat. Tell you it looks like a goat, but has bunny ears and tail. They only show you an image, en never show you a live Rabgoat in real life, hopping around in the forrest.
And now we have to prove that the Rabgoat does nog exist?
The information required to answer this all important question of whether viruses exist or not is available, all one has to do is look for it, and be willing to accept their findings.
The solution is to consistently deconstruct the edifices upon which the narratives are built, so the participation rates dwindle to nothing.
In other words…
It’s not a matter of getting even with those that fooled so many, it’s providing the protection so that people can’t be fooled again.
Can’t this backfire in quite a serious way, if alt POVs start looking so confused and nutty that people reject them, preferring the devil they know, the mainstream? This will actually enforce/increase compliance. This is why controlled oppositions and agent provocateurs are powerful weapons. A2
You do not need any media to prove virusses do not exist. It is quite simple, no virus has ever been isolated (if you use the common used definition of isolation), no control experiments where done, and the experiments cannot be repeated to get the exact same result.
Luckily the german law states you need to do your research according to certain scientific measures. That’s why during two trials (one on the measles and one on SARS-COV-2) no evidence was given on the existance of those viruses.
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
Yes we can apply spin and seek to reframe the issue this way, but good luck.
I personally feel you have as much chance of declaring visible light a fraud until they can pin down whether it’s a particle or a wave.
Remember, germ theory and virology grew out of a need to explain observable contagion, not the other way round.
At least start with something easy… reframe Dark matter arguing from burden of proof. Do it 😉
Once your mind is open to doubting contagion, the rest will follow by itself. It is not hard to see. Humans are well equipped to find truth.
Observable contagion can become weaponised against humanity in whatever form it’s described – via germ theory or ‘terrain theory’ or whatever. If humanity is gullible, without laws to protect bodily autonomy and human rights, it’ll be vulnerable to exploitation via whatever process you propose should replace germs.
Observable contagion does not mean contagion, let alone contagion by a small paricle. As Thinking-turtle says, if you doubt contagion it aint that hard to see that there are no virusses.
You’re talking about a distinction without a difference in that case. Observable contagion can be weaponised, no matter if you call it viruses or nocebo.
What do you mean by observable contagion?
He means the fact that people in close proximity will get the same illnesses. People have observed this fact for centuries. Whether you call it contagion or something else, it’s still a fact and can be weaponized
That are 2 different subjects.
1. Weaponisation of something observed, and
2.say that a small particle is the cause of the observation
I’m discussing point 2.
You’re getting distracted down a cul de sac. Figuratively and literally lol
Funny how much is writen about propaganda, beliefsystems, etc, but no one responds to the scientifis errors pointed out by Dr. Cowan, Bailey or Lanka!
Funny indeed! When not even the admins here understand what “contagion does not exist” means, and counter with “observable contagion”. Which they don’t substantiate, because they know it exists, and so it must be observable.
The lie is so big, even willing people can’t imagine it is false.
This is deteriorating into spamming. Enough, thanks.
It’s all been addressed above. You just ignore it and spam. Enough. Thanks. A2.
That only happens with flu. Flu is not an illness but a periodic body cleanup, which we do in the winter, and synchronize between friends.
Flu will not spread between people who do not live together as family. Many experiments have tried.
An easy way to see this is with physicians or nurses, who follow their family timing for flu, even if they examine flu patients every week.
Your assertions about body cleanup are your assertions only. Go do some substantive research and formalise your ideas into a hypothesis with isolated/proven evidence, and it’ll still be missing the point. In the meantime stop spamming. Thanks.
This is complete bullshit, phantasm drawn out of thin air.
There are mathematical/statistical analyses showing nearly complete correlation between the cold, as in diseases, and the cold, as in weather.
There is ZERO, I repeat FUCKING ZERO, substantiation for the cleanup hallucination. So, kindly shut the fuck up about this craze and don’t invoke synchronization either, lest I piss myself laughing.
Yes, as I mentioned above… As Richard Feynman said, “I’d rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questions.”
It is the questions that are fascinating, not the dogma.
above should read: “…cannot be questioned.”
Have you ever looked into the matter? The flaws of virology? A video of Dr Sam Bailey, Tom Cowan or Stefan Lanka?
Well start here: http://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
I think Stefan wouldn’t mind if you place them on Off-Guardian.
Open the discussion.
Yes I have and that isn’t the point I’m making. The scientific community, or court of public opinion, will not respond to a pseudoscientific approach to arguing from the burden of proof. You can’t prove a negative, therefore if we wish to overturn virology we need to research the alternatives and ‘isolate’ those alternatives or argue them evidentially somehow and offer up an alternative explanation.
Let me ask you this, have you been to Lanka’s lecture? Have you seen him try to explain anything?
I have.
The guy is a standup comedian. Totally charismatic, fun to watch, fun to listen to his jokes. Fun to have a beer with. But science? Give me a break. The guy is all over the place.
A strong Stalinist personality cult has developed toward the no-virus gurus, where their disciples worship every word that comes out of their mouths, no matter how unsubstantiated, outrageous, stupid, whatever.
The no-virus belief is exactly the same orthodoxy as belief in viruses. No-virusers are even more obdurately dogmatic than most moderates (who mostly don’t give a shit). Check out that cretin Massey to get a taste of that. Talk about a fanatic (exhibiting a severe case of the Dunning-Krueger effect).
The explanations that Dr Tom Cowan, Dr Sam and Mark Bailey, or Stefan Lanka give are clear and straightforward. They stay on topic and read the first scientific papers published about the virus disscused. And then point out the inconsistencies in those articles. No beliefsystems needed.
Are you shitting me … ?
I’ve met Lanka and been to his standup comedy show. Funny as hell, but clear, straightforward, and staying on topic? Don’t be ridiculous.
Point out the flaws in his articles written:
http://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
My time is too precious to do that. I couldn’t give zillion shits about some flaws in some (pseudo)scientific text. I don’t give a fuck about virology, virophiles and virophobes can have a fistfight to settle this, and I still wouldn’t care one iota.
Makes no difference in my life whether the flu I sometimes get is due to virus or something else, like me synchronizing with somebody else who’s sick (this is so fucking hilariously stupid that I can’t stop laughing).
What interests me is that NOBODY uses any (pseudo)collectivist bullshit PRETEXT to infringe MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
Wrap your fanatical skull around this. Virus is RED HERRING. It ABSOLUTELY DOESN’T MATTER.
I’m not going to disprove dark matter, prove or disprove/prove germ or any other theory. The point of discussion is, do virusses exist. To prove they exist, and assign properties to virons, you need to isolate them.
First lets agree on what isolation means, and second you need to isolate the virons zo you can show they exist and assign properties to them and research what they are made of.
That is a faulty assumption. You can demonstrate things exist many ways without isolating them.
But without isolation, how can you be sure, that the thing you are describing, causes certain effects or is made up of certain particles?
How can you be sure terrain theory causes disease? How can you be sure synchronised detoxing is a real thing?
Your correct, I can’t and do not know that. But that is not what I’m saying. Some diseases are said to be caused by a tiny parasitic particle called a viron. I state that there is no evidence for the existence of a viron, let alone that it is contagious and causes disseas.
And good luck with that. You’re having a hard time convincing anyone here it’s relevant to this discussion, let alone anyone else. Good luck in your quest. Enough of this pointless back and forth now.
“Observable contagion” Is that like scurvy was observed in groups and presumed to be a virus? Do you take contagion as a given then? If it is observable, then why can it never be observed in a scientific setting? Why is there no evidence of person to person transmission? Of note is the attempt to make prisoners ill with Spanish Flu by exposing them in many ways directly with seriously ill patients’s coughs, breath, excretions, etc.
Here is an excellent look at the scientific papers about flu contagion: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/secrets-of-influenza/
Just because germ theory ‘appears’ to fit, does not make it correct, as with scurvy and many so called viral diseases.
As Richard Feynman said, “I’d rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questions.”
Discarding the convenience of germ theory brings to the fore many questions. That is not a bad thing. It is exciting and will lead to greater knowledge about disease and what causes it.
Interesting questions. Who knows. It’s fine to question, quite another to attempt to reframe contagion on the back of said questions alone.
One thought re. Flu contagion studies, a phenomenon which terrain theory is fond of discussing, actually: psychosomatic forces might be at play. If someone is knowingly observed attempting to become ‘infected’ perhaps this switches their immune system into hyperdrive… This psychosomatic force wouldn’t be something in western medicine’s vocabulary, therefore, stands to reason, it may not have been anticipated in the various contagion studies.
Like pregnancy, just because the sperm don’t always fertilise the egg and there’s an element of biological chance involved, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s all a ‘fraud’.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, understand.
Good luck with your quest though. A2
Possibly, but by shying away from the risk guaranties that future generations will be in harms way.
It’s easy to expose the incongruities of the past few years, it’s as if they opened the door, now it’s just a matter of stepping in and examining all the contents of the room.
I would suggest laying out the arguments and let people decide. Nowhere have I seen where someone has succinctly described why the “no virus” people have drawn their conclusions.
I’m sure they’d say it isn’t an argument. It’s rejecting virology’s evidence, placing the onus firmly on them to prove their case and stepping back with arms folded.
The shortcomings of this approach are obvious. It’s akin to standing outside a heavily fortified keep, rejecting the occupiers’ right to inhabit said keep, placing the onus firmly on them to prove their right to occupy said keep, and stepping back with arms folded…
A2
People however are definitely arguing about it, and you’re correct, it’s a well fortified keep.
It’s not anything new though, the control of the masses by the perpetuation of belief systems predicated upon myths has been a tool of those inside for a very long time.
It is a black and white issue though, either these little things exist, or they do not.
Which is it?
Someone very famous once said..”they have conscripted science”.
Quantum theory brings everything into question at a subatomic level, with particles that seem to move backwards through time, light which behaves like a wave and a particle. Who’s to say the mechanism of pathogens isn’t far more complicated than we realise… that doesn’t mean viruses don’t exist anymore than light doesn’t reach our eyes…
That’s why rejecting observable contagion based on some legalese technicality to do with burden of proof is never going to catch on, many argue, whether or not we assume the scientific community is ethical or corrupt.
Disclaimer: yes, I’m aware, viruses aren’t subatomic. I was making a comparison, suggesting that things are often more complicated and inscrutable than we want them to be, especially to the layman
A2
All the no virus crowd did was become suspicious enough to look into the methodology used by virologists where they claim to have identified a virus, and upon close examination they realized it appeared to be based upon a flawed logic. Consequently they ended up checking to see if the same lab result could be achieved in the absence of any biological material from a sick person, and after replicating the exact same procedure they found the results were indistinguishable. Therefore they proved that the causal agent that resulted in the death of the vero cells was the procedure, not the biological material from a sick person. They also attempted to find where any other procedures might have been used to identify a virus and came up empty. So, at a minimum it can be concluded that what is claimed to be a virus from a sick person using the standard procedure is something other than that.
It’s simply impossible to identify something from something when the second something is not there.
I took the time to research the method sections of numerous research papers where it is claimed a virus has been isolated, they were all the same, they follow the same script.
I also took the time to go to the archives of JAMA and downloaded the research paper where it was attempted to prove contagion during the 1918 mass casualty event.
It’s an interesting read.
I understand that it’s difficult to get people to achieve a major paradigm shift, and I’m sure you are aware this doesn’t just apply to this topic.
Good luck, wish you and everyone else at this site good fortune.
Bravo, yes, not to be fooled again. That is the goal. Unfortunately those behind the virus hoax do not want that inquiry,
Here is a statement attempting to close the debate, signed by twenty doctors and scientists: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
No offense meant, and I’m sure a lot of the disbelievers in viruses are totally sincere, but looking at the comments here I’d say it’s pretty clear the idea’s been weaponised by a rich little seam of trolls.
Let’s keep it clean and simple lads. Get the bastards for lying about a fake pandemic.
Second option is undefendable 🙂
If you know there are no black goats, how come you’ve bought one?
Anyway, did somebody see this: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1661698114917646336
Dr. David Martin, in European Parliament, on weaponization of coronaviruses for well more than half a century.
Wonder why that’s not on the news anywhere…
I watched this last night and it made me think of this whole virus/no virus topic. Did these people just patent “nothing” and commit fraud so as to perpetuate this whole viral story? I have no idea but the patent records are there for everyone to check themselves.
Catte, washing the goat thoroughly will reveal the fact that she was in fact a zebra, not all the black sections were painted on. There reality is never that simple, black or white. There is more to this story than meetsthe eye. You have to go beyond the surface.
Just think about how many decades we’ve been pushed into having a ‘flu’ shot & no MSM coverage of deaths, no fear tactics from govts. It wasn’t part of the Big Agenda, yet for Control of our lives & tons of surveillance mechanisms! I posted on Fakebook yrs. ago an article where the 1st Vax Creator was interviewd. He said he’d Never allow his family to have 1 as, Big Pharma was Created ONLY To Make Money!
I suggest searching your favorite news feed for “virus”. It seems goats of all kinds and colors are running rampant, scarier than ever before to be sure. And the goat that got lost whilst the spikey goat was around is back with a vengeance in aussieland. But ya, good point, probably best to not bother with the 666 lb gorilla in the room.
There is no doubt that contagion per se does exist, as a minimum in the sense that people’s actions or state synchronize with others. If a person in a room coughs, so will others. If a person laughs so will others. If a person radiates a good mood, he will infect others who will follow suit. These expressions of contagion are certainly psychosomatic, at least insofar as state-of-the-art scientific knowledge goes. Who knows, maybe there are some physical phenomena, some waves via which communication takes place, that we know big shit about, as is the case with, for instance, gravitation.
Here is what I think about the causes diseases:
1) The cold is a cold – it’s caused by cold weather, coldness that puts extra stress on people, and makes them sick. There are mathematical/statistical analyses showing nearly perfect correlation between cold temperatures and sickness/death. So, that takes care of the flu, convid, and anything along those lines.
2) Bacterial diseases are caused by some conditions that weakens the body and allows the bacteria to start eating it away. Bacteria are not the primary cause, but they are a bigger problem that the original cause because, contrary to the idiotic assertion of germ-theory deniers that bacteria devour dead tissue and are good for you, the reality is that bacteria won’t stop devouring dead tissue, but will happily keep eating all of you until you’re dead. Hence, first get rid of the bacteria and then deal with the primary cause, which can be all sorts of things, such as open wound, exhaustion, the aforementioned cold, etc.
3) So-called viral diseases are a tough cookie. Is, say, chicken pox psychosomatic? Like you see a person with sores and it scares you shitless to the point of developing the same symptoms? Don’t think so, but who knows.
Frankly, germs or toxins make the best sense. The world is one big bad place with creatures intent on eating one another and there is no reason why microscopic ones would be any different. A healthy person meets a sick bastard infested with germs, the germs jump on the healthy guy and make him sick too. Why not? Sounds very plausible, especially if the symptoms are the same. It would be the same with toxins, but how do you explain that some motherfucker got sick after being poisoned by some substance and another persons gets the same disease after meeting him, certifiably not having been exposed to the same alleged toxins? No, pathogens make more sense.
Bottom line – there is no definitive theory. Despite all sorts of 21st century blah blah blah and the general perception of scientific progress, the truth is that humanity simply doesn’t know. A lot of things. And may never know. Scientific discovery might have its limits.
As to what is the best strategy against the attempt to foist medical totalitarianism on humanity – which might, at least to some extent, be being done in good faith, at least on the part of some (highly deluded) people – the short-term one is to tell them to fuck off and shove the crap up their ass; the long-term strategy is reviving such endeavors as philosophy or, as a minimum, some basic thinking that goes somewhat further than pondering what useless piece of shit one will buy next.
Ok, agreed. Bottom line we don’t have a definite certainty about the causes of genesis and spread of much of humain diseases and Science uses a theory (their denomination) which maybe inadequate but is the best for now that can be done; I don’t subscribe to the “psychopathic elite” theory so I believe that scientists do the best they can in good faith and they are constrained economically (which spoils everything, unfortunately). I have to add that medicine looks for pathogenic entities in infectious diseases, that is, potencial direct causes. It doesn’t go beyond that, it wouldn’t concern itself with the question of what brought the situation into existence. Their concern is to identify the causal pathogen and discover the chemical compounds that might bind with it to modify it in a way that its action is terminated, or they expose the organism with same pathogen to boost immunity. Ok, I know it’s much complicated than that but it’s roughly the procedure.
They look for direct agents. My point is this: though there is not a definite certainty of why and how people get these diseases and infect each other; we do know what lifestyles are more likely to produce them. Doctors used to recommend fresh air, rest, walking, diet, trips to tropical climates, etc; now, they just give you a pill or a vacc*** because everybody is in a hurry because the kind of life we lead as a whole is sick. And this is what I reproach to contemporary medicine: its empiricism. The inability to consider going beyond finding fixes. I understand doctors and virologists must earn a living, that drug production is one commodity production just like TV production or bullet production and is subject to the same economic constraints. So we know where the problem is…
We’re basically right on the same page. Neither do I subscribe to the paranoid idea that everybody is a satanic psychopath intent on destroying humanity (this kind of psychotic thinking is probably the result of religious upbringing of which I was luckily spared).
The rest, I agree.
Humanity, especially the global Northwest, is facing a serious predicament of having exhausted its civilizational purpose. Things are still kinda drifting along by the force of inertia, but most things are perverted or inverted in one way or another. Not intentionally – they’ve become corrupted like that.
Can people find a new raison d’etre? Make it so that things start making sense again, which would include genuine research, genuine debate, etc.?
Good question.
This is by far the most reasonable and informative discussion in the entire thread. Thank you both.
That’s what science is for. Your hypothesis says that if you bring a healthy person in contact with a sick person, the healthy person has a chance to become sick. As of yet, no experiment has shown that to be the case.
My lifelong experience shows that a healthy person indeed does become sick, sometimes as a fucking dog, upon contact with a person suffering from the same sickness. I’d venture to say that it’s everybody’s experience too.
How does it work, I have no idea and I don’t give a flying fuck either.
I have conducted experiments to the aforementioned effect when I was a kid. I vividly remember one occasion when my best kiddie friend was evidently sick, which meant that he wouldn’t be going to school for a week or so, and I was trying to get infected by the same disease so I wouldn’t have to go either. I had him puff on me, spit on me, stuff like that. It didn’t work. Does God have an office overseeing would-be school skippers so as to prevent their malevolent deeds? Who knows. Maybe God is a funny guy and fucks the same way with scientists to keep them on your toes and to give people like you something to yap about. I hope so, I hope that God, whoever the fuck he is, has a sense of humor.
Anyway, obviously, the stuff is not exact science and there are many factors at play. Is the pathogen vs. immunity concept valid, or is it something completely different? I don’t know and I don’t care. Makes no difference in my life, in the way I keep myself (reasonably) healthy. If somebody else wants to spend their life in the lab trying to get to the bottom of this, their prerogative. If somebody thinks they’ll get to the bottom of this by perusing horseshit on the Internet, I’m scratching my head, but thinking that somebody has to do such a tough job.
As to the powers that be trying to use any of the above or anything else to restrict my freedom, the principal rule of the Universe applies – LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE.
Every parent of a sick child who two days later has another sick child, then a sick husband, best friend, class of kids, all with identical symptoms, knows this statement of yours to be untrue.
I don’t claim to know contagion as currently defined in the literature, is a fact, but some form of sickness through contact is established through centuries of observation.
The sickness you are referring to is the flu. Rather than a disease, the flu is your body doing a periodical cleanup. A family or a class of children synchronize their cleanups and that’s what you experience as contagion. Coughs or yawns spread the same way.
Another example of this process is that groups of women who sleep together synchronize their menstruation cycle.
For more clarity, you can ask a physician or nurse if they ever picked up an illness from their hospital or practice.
Me says that this is total bullshit. A woefully laborious way to substitute pathogenic contagion with something else.
Anyway, let’s keep this as rigorously scientific as you no-virus people demand of the virus people.
Would you kindly provide an isolated and purified sample of whatever shit the body is ridding itself of during the alleged cleanup? Would you kindly furnish experiments proving and describing the mechanism how a whole class of children synchronize their cleanups? And specify why the fuck they’d do that? Likewise, provide scientific evidence, ideally an isolated, purified sample of whatever is the culprit, for women who sleep together (you mean fuck one another) to synchronize their menstrual cycle?
As to your question about hospital, a while ago I dated a nurse practitioner who was frequently sick as a dog, apparently from contracting some shite at St. Mike’s in Toronto. But then again, since contagion doesn’t exist, it must’ve been something else. Like she was synchronizing her sore throat with the sore throat of the other guy.
You know what? I’m sick and tired of this utter imbecillism. This is an idiotic red-herring debate.
The point here is, as I said before, that NOBODY CAN BE MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HEALTH OF SOMEBODY ELSE and deprived of his freedom on those grounds.
Wait now – so you’re saying they’ve done experiments where healthy people are asked to sit with people who have flu and stuff – and not a single one of these fellas has ever gotten sick after?
Not a single one? Really?
According to the no-virus crowd who keep researching this crap, it’s actually worse than that. They had sick people cough and spit on healthy ones, but none of them ever got sick.
Who knows how this works. Maybe contagion takes place after prolonged exposure, maybe there is a psychosomatic factor, maybe it’s all a crock of shit altogether, maybe this, maybe that.
My personal experience is that I mainly get sick after weakening my body one way or another. I’ve also got sick when the family and kids were sick, where I was usually the last one. At the same time, my girlfriend was sick on quite a few occasion (flu) and I never got it. I have a feeling that the mind plays a huge role – when I believe that I can’t get sick, I won’t. But it’s unpredictable and I couldn’t give two shits. It’s simply part of life. You get sick from time to time. So what, it punctuates nicely the drudgery of the ordinary days. One day, something will make you croak.
One should live a life worrying about health, not being absorbed by what causes fucking disease. That’s sick (pun intended)!
As to the misuse of sickness as a totalitarian vehicle to cage people, that’s a completely different issue. People must insist on this:
NOBODY CAN BE MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELL-BEING (HEALTH) OF ANYBODY ELSE.
That’s what people need to reject, that was the central issue of the convid hoax – making people responsible for others and to that end accept their freedoms to be restricted. That’s total bullshit and that’s where focus should concentrate.
Arguing whether some microscopic piece of shit is virus or exosome will accomplish nothing.
Yeah, that’s what I learned. The Baileys have good videos on this: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/germ-theory/
RE: Scientific debate should be held only among scientists, not among us ignoramuses. Granted, but it looks like *we* would have to take over and become the scientists, the intellectuals of our time: the current scientists who saw the fraud – there is quite a few of them – are not listened to and are slowly withering, and those on the State side, well…The lobby the State exercises on everything related to its own survival is real. Beside, everything can be learned, investigated, and discussed, and pronounced judgment about; even the way to conduct scientific enquiry can be learned by the layman, specially with all the books available through the Internet or otherwise; just give us time. As a matter of fact, “science” as an institution did everything to make access difficult to the layman (e.g; they used to write in Latin so no one outside the club would understand); whereas Science should be the transparency itself. Also, the availability of sources of knowledge coinciding with the motives for raising awareness by the public is a deadly cocktail to the State and the Social order. I say let’s be our own scientists and intellectuals. That’s what we are doing just right now, aren’t we? This is a turbulent time and it is only natural there is a lot of confusion at first; misusing terms, and self-contradicting ourselves, we still don’t know what we want, and where the problem practically is, and it is likely that, at this time, we don’t want the same things, but things will clear up.
RE: Germ theory. I don’t know what this “no-vir**” group believes and I really think we should clearly state our position vis-à-vis the prevailing theory, which in my view is that we obviously are hosts of all sorts of microorganisms (give them the name you like), just like we are hosts of parasites, lice for instance, and just like the earth is host for us all; heck, it would be worrying, if we, as a manifestation of life, weren’t fit in turn to host life or if the mosquitoes biting us died. It is because we are Life that we contain Life. That’s final AFAIC. The problem is with the fundamental statement of the prevailing theory, namely: “germs cause disease”: it’s a dangerous statement because it means that something is wrong in us naturally hosting other forms of life, it produces visceral fear of that which is naturally and permanently occurring in us, fear of Life itself and at the same time it enshrines the State-backed-science in a position of the saviour. That’s the central problem that caused compliance during the last medical dictatorship, i.e. fear of germs, not germs themselves. The statement IMO is incomplete, and the complete one would be “In certain conditions, germs cause disease”. And when discussing conditions, we get to talk about nutrition, clean water, decent housing, social relationships, etc, etc, and therefore we get to talk about the economy, unemployment, poverty, inequality, inflation, family, and so on. I bet anything, institutionalised medicine knows that, but it just says “well, wouldn’t you rather take this pill/vacc*** and be done with it?”; and there is the OTHER PROBLEM: the empirical way of thinking about illness, without going to primary causes: the economic system.
For those who think we shouldn’t give the above discussion and instead concentrate on the recent medical fraud, why couldn’t we engage in both? Why couldn’t we adopt a general statement like “In 2020, officialdom has fraudulently invented a new germ as the base for tyrannical exercise of power that causes loss of life, and in any case germs normally don’t cause disease, the primary causative agent being the economic and social conditions officialdom itself doesn’t concern itself much with as a priority, thereby entering in contradiction with its admitted objectives”? Or am I missing something?
Lastly: For those who think we should concentrate on discussing freedom and related topics: Discussing germ theory is at the core of discussing Freedom; discussing Freedom, the State, as abstract concepts have their place of course. But lack of freedom manifests concretely in the fact that the State coerces/blackmails us into adopting certain measure in the name of this theory. The State coerces us in so many way and *this* is a very blatant way of doing so. Most still don’t consider the State as a fundamental aspect of the problems we face today, because its coercitive actions are often indirect and disguised; still they can clearly see it in the field of germ-theory-based compulsory vacc***tion.
Hence discussing germ theory is at the heart of discussing Freedom; and there is nothing written about what topics should be treated first in a crisis. As contributor Sue said below, this is a house of cards and it has weak spots; well, one of these spots is apparent today. Weakening this spot would in turn weaken an important ally of the State: Drug industry, which would have to reorganise its business or disappear, and that’s a blow to the whole system and it would be naive to think the State would not defend itself against it; that’s far worse than getting some patsies into prison which wouldn’t make any difference anyway. Keep in mind the economic system is all tied up and that’s why it is important from the State’s point of view that everything everywhere goes well. The blows we give make but little dents to the system anyway; what shall make it finally collapse are its own contradictions.
He that teaches himself (by watching YouTube videos) has a fool for a master. You can, in theory, educated yourself, but I’m highly skeptical as to what’s achievable by reading or watching stuff on the Internet, especially when it comes to a highly technical science. I’ve seen ridiculously preposterous statements by self-appointed researchers in regard to fields of which I have a fairly good knowledge, and I’d venture to say that much of what the generic Internet-(anti)virology-researcher claims falls in that category, i.e. pure bullshit.
Any knowledge can be reduced, watered down to be understandable to the layman, but that has to be done by a somebody informed, not a hallucinating cretin.
The state, powers that be, would-be masters of the Universe, the bill gates of the world will always try to take advantage of whatever there is out there, virology being no exception. Some of what they do might even be done in good faith, to an extent. That doesn’t mean that whatever’s at stake is completely wrong, fallacious, malevolent.
Germ theory and freedom correlate only insofar as what you allude to in regard to people being part of nature and such as inherently equipped to deal with it, without the need to be transformed into a transhuman species.
While in the past, the individualist/collectivist dichotomy mainly revolved around economics, it seems that now it’s about people retaining their organic makeup as opposed to being transformed into semi-human entities. And there are tons and tons of other issues. The germ theory and viruses are only a very small part of all this, the plandemic notwithstanding. Reducing human intellectual endeavor to opposing such fuckheads as Tedros, Gates, and the rest of them and their viral phantasms would be endlessly myopic.
By sources of knowledge I meant serious books fallen in the public domain or gotten from particular places, not watching or reading random material. Such books are available on chemistry, physiology, biology, virology, etc, old and new, that expound the foundation of these sciences and written by renowned scientists that are taught in academia. Also, similar books exist that refute the official theories in those fields. I agree that perhaps we can’t pretend to being scientists in the usual meaning of the word, but why not intellectuals? The work to be done in the field of biology for instance is just a comparative one: the official theory with everything that seeks to refutes it. We only need a functioning brain to do this. Science really shouldn’t be the privilege of a few people. That’s how we are controlled. We don’t need to revolutionize the whole Science, but biology and derived sciences and how that knowledge is applied to drug discovery and development should be revised IMO. Everything is out there waiting to be read and understood.
I appreciate the many quacks existing out there but I’m talking about revising the very science that instill in us fear of germs as if it wasn’t ok to host them in the first place, because that’s the effect felt by the general public. And if that’s effect is not intended let’s see what beliefs/attitudes produce it and where these come from within the science.
I agree that virology is one tiny aspect of the whole scientific establishment, but it is connected to everything else and it is not the virology per se that’s the problem but the way it is used and oriented to justify State violence through compulsory measures and one-fits-all kind of policies. This particular phenomenon is singular in the sense its coercive, dictatorial nature is obvious and reaches the integrity of the individual as opposed to paying taxes and similar regulations.
I’m afraid that 2020ff was 100% a logical outworking of belief in germ theory.
Check out the video link in this article to know the real story, presented to the EU parliment
https://centralsun.substack.com/p/you-are-the-force
Can we please keep this discussion about the subject in the article. I have no objection to a discussion of vaccines and reality of viruses in another place but this discussion is not about those things. It is about whether challenging virus theory is a good way of battling the scamdemic, not about whether viruses are real.
I know they are related but it still is confusing when people stop discussing the article and its arguments and start to argue virus theory.
I believe the article is presenting a false binary. For those that want to prove criminal intent, go right ahead. Join Fuellmich, or start a new group. If you can muster going through all the malfeasance of the past three years, more power to you.
Early on I convinced myself this was all a scam – others way earlier, as in before 2020 – and the scam has become second nature. I don’t care if anyone goes to jail. I also don’t think it would matter.
What intrigues me is the revelation that a whole branch of science may have it back to front. The consequences of this would be formidable, a paradigm shift affecting everyone for decades to come. While also putting almost everything else in question.
ITV News reporter Emily Morgan dies aged 45 as colleagues pay tribute (msn.com)
I see nothing wrong with investigating virus theory and illustrating its flaws. This is a good scientific pursuit and helps us get closer to truth. But I find I’m a little confused by some of the statements being made.
Are the challengers of virus theory claiming it’s an inadequate model (this is a scientific argument), or are they claiming it’s fraudulent (a legal argument I presume)?
If the first I applaud the exploration. If the second, what is the basis? An inadequate model isn’t itself evidence for fraud. Science often uses inadequate or partial models based on assumption or best guess. As time goes by these models are updated or discarded, but that doesn’t per se render them fraudulent!
Some of you here seem to be unaware that absence of definitive proof isn’t unusual in science. Many current models are based on balances of probability or intersecting evidences without hard proof.
Evolution is just one. Relativity is another. Higgs Boson and much of the Standard Model of subatomic theory, planets beyond the solar system, Dark Matter.
None of these are backed by hard proof. It may make them questionable and ultimately false, but that does not automatically equate with fraud. So if you show absence of proof for virus theory you will not thereby have an automatic case for fraud
Is there evidence for fraud here as opposed to inadequate model? And is there evidence this fraud was intended to take human life or knowingly endanger people?
Absent such evidence I don’t see how pursuing this line will be helpful in defeating the scamdemic or waking people up.
If we focus solely on the covid scam, however, such fraud, with murderous intent, is very easily proved.
Why divert from this?
I’m reminded of the numerous efforts to divert away from the discovery of incendiary/explosive residue in the WTC dust and toward wider, vaguer concepts such as lasers or masers or holograms. My personal opinion is those diversions contributed to the destruction of a powerful movement for justice. I fear the same could happen now.
I see very similar arguments being employed and similar appeals to “science” aimed at those who may not fully understand the science in question. This concerns and saddens me.
Good breakdown. I’d like to add something that’s been troubling me reading the hundreds of comments.
If the no virus theory is accepted and we get a new official theory of disease, what’s to stop the PTB just using the new theory to create new panics? It’s not getting to the main point. It doesn’t show the PTB were trying to harm people. It just shows they “got it wrong” and they never mind admitting that.
Won’t they just shrug and say “ok viruses don’t cause disease, terrain (or something else) does”, and come out with a way of exploiting this new theory like they exploited the idea of viruses.
The unique thing about the covid scam is it proves the government were deliberately killing people.
Which is going to hit people harder, “your government just murdered members of your family and friends in cold blood” or “the government did dodgy research about viruses like sixty years ago and have been hiding the fact”.
I said lower down that the way some people are approaching this reminds me of the way the 9/11 truth movement was driven in to the ground by Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer and the disinfo gang. Tragic if it happens again.
I, too, see nothing wrong with investigating the virus theory, but I see just about everything wrong with doing so exclusively by illustrating its flaws. Especially if you basically know fuck all about biology, virology, and just about every other -ology and only regurgitating some methodological hallucinations of people who themselves basically know fuck all about the said -ologies as well.
A general debate about organic life in harmony with nature vs. the robotic, android-like existence toward which humanity is inching (the more “advanced” people are, the more fucked up in this regard) is necessary. Virology and the cause of disease can be a part of it. It’s highly technical, however, and needs to be done in an informed manner – not propagated by cretin Internet researchers.
Truth is not a theory, and it’s simply stupid to believe in a theory A or a B.
So some people don’t believe that viruses exist. And some people do believe in them. So what?
Science is not about belief.
It is also not a popularity contest. Nor is it of money.
But money is behind all this murder. Money funds this war, and money profits from it.
Early in the 20th. century, someone tried to start a scam in physics call N-rays, that required a “special way of looking”. Before that some people believed they were seeing – and mapped out – canals on Mars.
I’m going to have to agree 100% with Catte here. How is showing there’s no proof of virus theory going to wake the average person up or get them mad about what our governments did to us?
Most people won’t care if you show them there’s no proof about viruses or germs. But if you show them covid19 was just made up they will care a heck of a lot because it affects their lives directly. They will be mad as hell.
The analogy would have worked if the author instead of a goat used a unicorn. No point in proving the guy painted a unicorn black, show me instead any unicorn at all? This virus debate no longer hinges on whether anyone has isolated a virus because it’s much, much deeper than that. I’ve personally read a few of the studies and others have read many more, enough so we are 100% crystal clear not just that we’re being lied to about viruses, but we are also know exactly how they are lying, when it started, the motives behind the lies and even many times what they are actually looking at.
Sorry, but you go into court explaining some guy painted your pet unicorn black, you’ll not just likely lose your case, but you just fed the narrative that unicorns actually exist. Personally, I’d take a loss with my integrity intact rather than play politics with irrational people. That is, unless one has a unicorn fetish?
A unicorn would presuppose that it’s all made up. Whereas that’s not the point being made. Catte’s piece points out that a strong case against the pandemic doesn’t involve chucking in everything including the kitchen sink. Catte asks us to consider the value of logic and tactics moving forward.
Wow sam. Still chugging away at the virus deniers. You do not let up. Kuddos.
The most phantasmagorical aspect of this debate is that those who claim to defend science, i.e. the people claiming that virology is a bunch of baloney, operate in a manner that’s antithetical to science, discovery.
In other words, they do complete shit. They futz around and keep saying, nay, this ain’t it, no cigar, try again. Themselves, they do fuck all. They propose no substantiated hypothesis that could serve as a springboard for a truly scientific debate. They got shit.
What’s the point? They’ll achieve nothing like that. Most people won’t listen to them and the first thing those willing to lend a receptive ear will ask is, so what causes contagious diseases? For that, they have no answer, or they’ll propose something outrageous that’s a zillion times less researched than viruses.
Case closed, this is a no-debate.
The debate must center on personal freedom, bodily autonomy, collectivism vs. individualism, adaptation vs. modification (vis-a-vis nature), stuff like that.
Virology and these fucking PCR tests are only a minute fragment of all this.
Nice point
Indeed, as the climate issue has demonstrated, it is not about viruses alone.
This can only be solved by making sure that citizens’ basic rights and freedoms cannot be violated for any reason, however serious or urgent.
RFK Jr is talking about this when he says that the constitution cannot be suspended.
Why is someone voting you down?
They don’t like me 😢
Even less heated subjects attract the obsessive down voters, so it is to be expected here 🙂
When you want to bring down a house of cards, you have to focus on one card; preferably the weakest. It may be debateable whether that would be virology, bodily autonomy or state control. Different folk would be likely to focus on what they consider the weakest card.
As per the above, state control or bodily autonomy are certainly more important because the virus, i.e. a phenomenon through which the authorities impose a totalitarian yoke, can be easily substituted with something else, such as an essential human activity that has some allegedly adverse impact on others, heating, i.e. producing CO2, being a case in point.
The implicit idea of the no-virus people that if it’s somehow proved that virus is bullshit, the whole cabal will disappear down the tubes and paradise will ensue is naively imbecilic. They’ll replace virus with something else and we’re back at square one.
Basically, freedom-loving people have to focus on the ol’ collectivism vs. individualism dichotomy and the issues these two embody in the present day.
The virus debate is good for hypochondriacs and germaphobes, including the virophobe subset thereof, or people who genuinely conduct research in this field.
You are creating a strawman argument in implying the no-virus camp has to propose an alternative hypothesis. That most definitely is NOT how science works. Disproving a hypothesis or theory does NOT require proving an alternative hypothesis or theory. So your argument is false and holds no water.
You are also simply wrong to state, “They propose no substantiated hypothesis that could serve as a springboard for a truly scientific debate”. The no-virus camp has provided the core data and information that is pertinent to having a truly scientific debate. For example, Mike Stone at ViroLIEgy has covered the information and data in detail. In short, virology is largely based on the fraud of cell cultures, antibodies, electron microscope, etc. As such, the no-virus camp has provided an EXTREMELY valuable service by handing this information/data to us on a silver platter; all we have to do is read and understand it. Again, it is not the responsibility of the no-virus camp/group/movement to provide an alternative explanation and to expect otherwise is deceptive and intellectual dishonesty.
Note the irony in your stating “most people won’t listen to them” and your assertion that “the debate must center on person freedom, bodily autonomy…“. The covid fraud showed us most people did NOT listen to your argument and instead parroted the mendacious fraud of “the greater good“. So in this respect, the only difference between you and the no-virus proponents is in the strategy/tactic you propose to get your messages into the thick heads of the “sheep” who only parrot official narrative. So far, neither those who think like you or the no-virus side have had much luck in getting your messages out.
My suggestion is, instead of criticizing and fighting each other, you need to learn to start working together to build a common vision and direction.
Your indignation isn’t necessary, so can we stop that?
Perhaps you could cite a historic example of a prevailing scientific orthodoxy being overturned due to shifting the burden of proof, as you describe?
I could be wrong, but I don’t think there are any.
Will shifting the burden of proof achieve much of anything? Often scientific models infer elusive particles, substances or phenomena without direct evidence. Like dark matter.
Just because no one has detected dark matter doesn’t necessarily mean the model is wrong or a fraud. It might be, but it’s not proof it is.
The same can be argued for viruses. The lack of direct evidence is not the smoking gun you think it is. This isn’t a murder trial and treating it like it is doesn’t make it so.
If enough people subscribe to a hypothesis it can become a prevailing orthodoxy and it’s a lot of work to unseat it. Scientific convention, demonstrated by history, shows you need a competing hypothesis with competing subscribers, which is more successful at explaining what we observe, and then the struggle to unseat the orthodox view begins.
As I say, if you know of any exceptions to this please give examples. A2
What “indignation” are you referring to?
1) I stated the scientific process of disproving a hypothesis/theory does not require that that same process provide an alternative hypothesis/theory? This is a fundamental principle of science. Are you disputing this point?
2) I stated the no-virus side has provided the fundamental points that challenge the tenets of virology and viruses. I intentionally made no claim, implicit or explicit, about “prevailing orthodoxy being overturned due to shifting the burden of proof“.
3) I pointed out the irony in Kunda Sem Kunda Tam’s posts. What does this have to do with “overturning prevailing orthodoxy“?
Sam, are you indeed a moderator or administrator? If so, why are you posting comments that express your view because this reflects bias and raises the issue of conflict of interest.
1/ yes. You don’t seem to be familiar with hypothesis-driven science. A complex system is rarely cut and dry as you’re making out, burden of proof doesn’t work in the same way as in a court case. It’s about deciding which model best fits in order to use this as a working hypothesis. It’s nuanced and imperfect. It has flaws. It’s abused. It’s corrupt. People become institutionalised, rigid and unscientifically emotionally wedded to ideas etc. I’m not saying this system is perfect. Not at all.
This is not my opinion, I’m simply pointing to a common convention that I think you’re inadvertently oversimplifying.
Oh no, please don’t take me to science court 😁
1) Disproving a theory does not require providing an alternative theory. This is indeed “cut and dry” and constitutes a fundamental tenet of science.
2) You seem intent on arguing something I have not mentioned or addressed. But if I correctly understand that “different” point you are trying to make, I do not disagree with you.
The no-virus camp don’t disprove the virus theory. They only ‘prove’ that the virus theory is unproven as per a specific methodology. It doesn’t mean that the virus theory is not correct, whether in full or perhaps in part.
What’s with this obsession about proof? Virology has come up with something and it’s the best there is to date. Frankly, why should they prove that it’s correct? Who gives a fuck? For all I care, these guys can poke into slimy stuff in the stench of their labs till the cows come home. Within the science realm, beats me why anybody would bother disprove their theory without offering an alternative. I could understand if you had a different theory and were contesting theirs, but if you got shit, what’s the point? Ever thought of doing something more useful, like conducting some research yourself?
Now, as far as using virology as a pretext to impose medical dystopia, the problem, once again, is not how the stuff works, but the fact that it’s being grossly abused by the powers that be. This is a societal/political issue, which people need to deal with by insisting on individual freedom, bodily autonomy, etc. Viruses, germs, shit like that are all largely irrelevant. They’re just pretext, vehicle. They could use a number of other things (even though this virus thingy is highly convenient and clever, you have to give it to them).
Nice point. It’s impossible to ‘disprove’ virus theory in the way that’s being attempted, like there’s going to be a day in court. All hypotheses have holes in their supporting evidence. Perhaps intersecting, cross referencing evidence from other sources makes these holes redundant, perhaps not. Are failed FOI requests digging to the heart of a major weakness, or are they laughably missing the point in a way only a bunch of layman could? I haven’t seen it argued well enough to know either way, at this time.
And as you say, virology was a pretext. Without safeguards in place, there’ll always be other pretexts.
Yes, well argued. A2
I think I get where the problem (not a problem really) lies wrt point 1; this way, perhaps the discussion may resume: Scientifically, it is perfectly a valid procedure to prove a theory wrong without providing an alternative theory. However, since this theory is the basis of government and the beloved WHO policy regarding national /global health, these institutions can’t afford not possessing a globally-shared explanatory theory of the genesis and spread of infectious diseases.
So, I’d say go ahead with the revision of this theory and install the debate for the sake of advancing knowledge, but under the system we live under, the current theory, even not valid, shall be officially upheld until a new theory imposes itself.
Wait a minute, can government legally adopt a policy based on a disproved theory? I’m dizzy…
For example, it is perfectly possible not having any explanatory theory for the phenomenon of the rainbow because rainbows play no vital role in the march of societies… Whereas infectious diseases, a good part of the State’s population health policy can’t afford be without a theoretical explanation.
But you’re not proving anything wrong unless you submit a counter hypothesis, since you can’t prove a negative.
It’s very simple stuff.
There is an unscientific attempt taking place to apply sophistic spin and reframe virology in terms of burden of proof. But it’s stupid. I mean low-IQ stupid. You’d have as much chance of reframing visible light as a fraud because they can’t isolate a light wave/particle. Or dark matter, because it’s never been detected and was dreamt up to balance astrophysics equations.
No one can disprove dark matter by simply citing lack of isolation. Knock knock, hello… You can’t prove a negative.
Jeez.
YOU CAN’T PROVE A NEGATIVE, therefore virology will still be standing long after we’ve wrecked our credibility and neutered the Covid resistance.
Getting rather sick of this illogical clown show.
😅
I respectfully disagree. I’ll keep this as short as I can and restrict myself to prove that negatives can be proven, but I’m sure this topic would make an interesting subject for an article.
The fact I’ve never seen an electron – an admittedly existent entity, – doesn’t mean electrons don’t exist. It is no proof for non-existence of electrons the fact that I’ve never seen one, or otherwise isolated one so that I could state “this is it”. Non-isolation of viru*** is no proof of their non-existence, just like it is no proof of non-existence of Santa the fact no one has ever seen him. That’s simple, as you said.
However, this considers a particular mode of existence, I may call “particular mode of existence”, existence as a particle, a physical object limited in space and time, like the usual physical objects. We are implicitly viewing viru*** exclusively existing as particles, but existence may also be defined as a set of properties, existence as influence on the environment, like gravity: I’ve read an article about scientists predicting the existence of an asteroid hidden between two planets because the combined movements, speeds and positions couldn’t be accounted for within the larger system of the other objects unless they assumed the existence of an object in-between, whose position besides could theoretically be determined, and indeed that object was proven to exist by other methods and was assumed existent, I can’t remember if it ever could be seen.
Now, let’s say someone states “there is no planet of such dimensions, shape and weight hidden at a given point between Jupiter and Uranus,” and suppose there is no way to have a visual proof or disproof of this statement. What do scientists do? They just check whether the actual, observed mouvements, speeds and positions of Jupiter and Uranus are consistent with the calculated mouvements, speeds and positions if there was a third planet in-between as exactly described. If there is no consistency, **the negative statement is true** (for if the supposed planet existed as exactly described we would have consistency between actual and computed mouvements, speeds and positions, thus since we didn’t have consistency of results then the assumed planet as described couldn’t’ be there and the negative statement is true); if it is consistent then the negative is false and a planet exists of certain characteristics but not necessarily as described. Note that the negative must be well-defined, i.e. exactly what set of properties whose existence are being negated? The true negative doesn’t mean there might not exist a planet of different dimensions, etc between the other two.
My point is then, existence as a particle is just one mode of existence whose negation indeed cannot be proven by the impossibility of direct visual proof or other methods like isolation; but existence can be defined as a well-described set of properties, and in this case may be negated when the consequences necessarily resulting from assuming the operation of those properties are not observed.
This might be a legit way to go about countering the existence of said particles, I agree.
That’s very different from saying ‘show isolates or I won’t believe you’.
This might multiply the task of unpicking virology exponentially, and it might be less work to simply posit an alternative mechanism/hypothesis. You’ve used a very specific and particular example with a planet which could be refuted quite easily. Virology is vast and complicated and there will always be grey areas and room to quibble.
Your example also begs the question, would the planet ever have been postulated had the observable readings not suggested it?
I suggest that causes of observable contagion are things because observable contagion demands an explanation, and whatever the cause it could potentially be used to oppress humanity if we don’t have sufficient protections to our civil rights in place.
The pandemic is demonstrably self contradictory and false. This logical argument can be an absolute statement without needing to discuss virology.
That is the point Catte is making that various people appear to be missing (deliberately or due to other reasons).
A2
It is interesting that vir*** have been first referred to as “contagium vivum fluidum”, to emphasise their fluid qualities for passing through the smallest filters: “Beijerinck [in 1898] concluded that it [what was still causing mosaic disease of tobacco in the filtrate] was neither particulate like the bacteria implicated in certain infectious diseases, nor soluble like the toxins and enzymes responsible for symptoms in others.” – pubmed
But it seems their particulate qualities have been proved thanks to the electronic microscope…
The entities we know as viru*** then may not be isolated with the existing technology or never will because of their qualities. Therefore, their existence could only be proven by the effects they produce. An analogous example of a result that has never been achieved would be mixing water and liquid wax.
The example of the planet is just an illustration. The reasoning behind negating the existence of a source of an influence or a set of properties is simple: If the necessary effects of that influence can’t be observed the source can’t be present, for if it were, we would observe those effects. In case of viru***, we should first know exactly their properties and the necessary effects they produce in the cells as a result. If those effects are not observed then no viru*** there. However, if the viru*** themselves are discovered through their alleged effects that’s it then…
Re your last sentence: FFS, that’s exactly what I’m doing! And that’s exactly what this article is doing, as well. I’m keeping my options open and allowing for any possibility. Likewise, just like the no-virus claim flaws in the reasoning of virologists, I’m pointing out the flaws in their reasoning.
The no-virus people don’t disprove nothing. They only demonstrate that virology doesn’t prove what it claims based on criteria the no-virus people establish. They do have a point, but their claims are rooted in the same frame of mind as that of virologists – there must be a particle that can be isolated, purified. The whole thing probably functions in a yet undiscovered way or in a way that will never be completely understood. Maybe people will realize that there are limits to trying dissect the world to understand it and embark on using intellect in different ways.
There is a ZERO chance that any number of people liable to make a difference will accept the fact that viruses don’t exist the way it’s claimed. Even moderates willing to consider other possibilities won’t accept that and those who might will want to hear an alternative explanation. The number of people willing to accept that science knows shit is infinitely low.
On top of it, virology might have things essentially right or it’s going in the right direction.
The no-virus camp has so far provided shit and I’m sick and tired. I remember Sam Bailey referring to this cretin Christine Massey as a “researcher” and that’s the final nail in the coffin for me.
I have not read any more of your posts to know if you have clarified what you mean by “The no-virus camp has so far provided shit…“. I have followed the no-virus camp for quite some time and have a different, definitely more positive, assessment of it.
To keep this short, the no-virus side has a extremely valuable role to play in our fight against the covid fraud. However, my observations are that the International Covid Summit just held in the European parliament was completely dominated by the pro-virus, pro-vaccine side of the resistance/freedom movement and the no-virus side as completely shut out of it. The same occurred for the National Citizen’s Inquiry here in Canada that just wrapped up in Ottawa. My sense is there is an ongoing effort to effectively censored the no-virus side within the resistance/freedom movement itself. If true, this should be a huge red/warning flag that something is very wrong in the resistance/freedom movement. All our members should start paying attention because this is likely to be the canary-in-the-coal-mine that the our movement is being subverted (e.g. Robert Malone) by the very forces we oppose, a pattern repeated consistently in history.
First, glad to hear that something is being done back home in Canada, from which I defected years ago to save myself from the oncoming wokeness.
FYI, I’ve quite actively participated and promoted the no-virus camp in real life, but the way they operate, they have very little chance to get the message across. Not to mention that if you step back and look at it objectively, the only thing the no-virus side has is the claim that virology is not entirely scientifically legit. They don’t prove it wrong, they don’t offer viable alternative, they don’t do alternative research, they only look for methodological and logical flaws in the virology discourse in trying to discredit it. While it’s obvious that virology is not the ultimate answer to the cause of disease, virologists might be on the right track as far as genetics. I don’t have the technological knowledge to make that determination (and I don’t really care).
The no-virus people have convinced just about nobody, have made just about zero difference in people’s stance vis-a-vis disease, contagion, pandemic, all this shit. The way I see it is that a broad movement away from the plastic, transhuman, sterilized, sanitized, artificial-meat way of life, toward an organic existence in harmony with nature, relying on adaptation rather than transformation. The virus/no-virus debate can be part of it. Or it can be part of a debate about health in general, about getting people off their asses, making them more resilient through exercise and healthy lifestyle instead of popping pills and getting jabs. Also, there should be a debate about science per se, the inherent problems it faces. Stuff like that, stuff that has a potential to reach wider audience. On its own, the no-virus narrative is useless and counterproductive, mainly because it proves nothing, offers nothing positive. It only points out that virology and, to some extent the germ theory, might be or are flawed. Plus, while some of the no-virus people have interesting things to say, such as Cowan, there are stand-up comedians such as Lanka and pure cretins such as ‘the-government-has-no-record-therefore-it-doesn’t-exist’ idiot Massey.
For those who think the “virus” is done with, spare a thought for the tiny island nation of Tokelau, who were just put under lockdown following the discovery of a single “case”.
Tokelau were previously terrorised under Papa Ross Ardern (yes, the father of THAT Ardern, installed as “administrator” of the New Zealand “protectorate”), where there was an absolute vaccine mandate, resulting in a year long house arrest for the one family who refused.
The recent lockdown restrictions involve only being allowed to feed livestock between 7-9am, and measures include house visits by “health” officials and mass RAT testing.
A much-repeated false argument:
“You cannot prove to my satisfaction that A exists, therefore it is proven that A does NOT exist.”
A simple refuting example:
Aristotle believed that our recognition of the aroma of a specific cooking food was due to some component of the food reached our noses.
If you challenged his hypothesis on the grounds that he couldn’t prove it, this would NOT prove that his hypothesis was false.
It’s the “fallacy of arguing from the burden of proof” & is well-known in logic courses.
If one argues that the inability to prove something false somehow proves it’s true, that’s an error– and vice-versa.
Moreover, it is frequently the case that insufficient evidence is available to make a determination, and in that case adherence to truth requires one to say, “I don’t know.”
Yes, ‘I don’t know’ is very hard for most people to say. They do love their certainties.
It’s like this:
None of what the virus denialists has any useful value whatsoever. The only thing they do is trying to put a dent in virology, but they offer absolutely no alternative explanation, no alternative research (at least none to speak of), nothing, nada, zilch, fucking rien. So, the there-is-no-virus yelling provides zero benefit in shedding light on what causes so-called viral diseases.
Likewise, if the there-is-no-virus mantra is supposed to serve as a strategy against the medical totalitarianism that was imposed during convid, it’s a particularly stupid one. First, it doesn’t disprove that viruses in fact do exist and do cause disease; virology is only unable to furnish a ‘proof’ meeting the no-virus-crowd’s requirements (in which they might have a point). Second, most of these no-virus idiots are such obdurate cretins and they’re so militant about their stance, that they do way more harm than good in the fight against medical tyranny because they turn moderate people off.
If any of these guys had research under their belt that would irrefutably prove that viruses are bullshit because they’ve discovered the real cause of disease – that is through scientific experiments, as opposed to their pseudo-methodological hallucinations – then I’d be the first one on the barricades fighting with them, but that’s not the case.
Actually, I’ve lent a very receptive ear to the no-virus theories, and personally to a large extent agree with them, but strategically speaking, these efforts have had zero impact. Not the way to go. And frankly, there still exists the possibility that the no-virus people are shills employed to obscure reality through yet another ‘fake binary’.
The mysterious Catte Black.
Crossing the paths of the PTB and bringing them bad luck. We hope.
I’m with Christine Massey on this one. Cell cultures and electron microscopes are the fraud of virology – this IS very, very simple and something Mike Stone at https://viroliegy.com details extensively.
If you do not hold the con artist accountable then he will continue with his predatory behavior.
The resistance/freedom movement is completely fragmented and disorganized here in Canada. Groups such as Action4Canada, Freedom Rising, Vaccine Choice Canada, Stand4Thee are all fighting their turf wars and clamoring for their sliver of the spotlight and donations. To be clear, it is not the virus-is-real versus the no-virus camps that are dividing the resistance/freedom movement, to suggest this is the case is simply wrong! Instead, what is dividing the resistance/freedom groups are their egos and unwillingness to build and work together with a common vision and direction. To make matter worse, they are all trying to this war with a peace-time mindset where every one does what they want, when they want and IF they want. (see https://www.virusfraud.org/the-last-post/)
There is little to no unity amongst the resistance/freedom groups here in Canada. They loosely talk about “unity” but have demonstrated this only means fighting “under their banner” and no one else, a good example is Tanya Gaw at Action4Canada. So once again, the virus-is-real versus no-virus sides is a red herring that serves only to distract our attention from focusing on the real reasons why the resistance/freedom movement is so heavily fragmented, disorganized and largely impotent.
Electron microscopes are frauds now?
If you have to ask the question then you don’t understand the basics of electron microscopes. Here is your first clue, it is IMPOSSIBLE for electron microscopes to image any and all biological matter/tissue.
I have provided the Mike Stone reference which hands the information/data to you on a silver platter. All you have to do is to sit down and read it. Once you have done that the come back here and answer your own question.
The WHOLE VIRUS bullshit is a red herring. It’s mother of all red herrings, the biggest red herring in history.
The Atlantic Civilization is collapsing, or, as a minimum, one of its historical periods is ending, and the powers that be are trying to save their ass.
Arguing about such patent bullshit as the (non)existence of viruses is endlessly ridiculous. It’s a mildly interesting debate, but that’s it.
Take a step back or two to see …
Freedom movement? Give me a break! The absolute vast majority of people are cogs in the system. Obedient workers salivating at the sight of the breadcrumbs swept from the table for them. How many of the freedom fighters are willing to detach themselves from the system? None? Freedom got nothing to do with the virus!
This is damn brilliant. THANK YOU for writing this!!!
Very glad to see the later comments on this article calmed down! Due in large part to Sam – Admin 2’s useful interjections plus some useful comments by other contributors. At first the whole discussion went off on the virus/no virus fight and the tone was often vicious. I apologize that my own responses to this were not always helpful (I urged others to calm down and not see other O-G readers as the enemy — but the tone of my own remarks tended towards the sarcastic.) I sometimes feel it is useless to read O-G comments, but then I encounter some good and thoughtful ones.
The vaccine is the virus.
The injection is the infection.
Simple.
The injection is poison, not an infection.
The injection was the delivery system.
Yes, all made possible by the socially engineered Communitarian Mind Virus……
“FOR THE GREATER GOOD” WELCOME TO THE COMMUNITARIAN MIND VIRUS..
After all ‘we’re all in this together’
Thank you Catte for talking this sense. This no-germs thing started on here just a little while ago and now it’s like every discussion gets hijacked by it and folks screaming so loud they drown everyone out. Just seems a little strange to me sometimes, though I don’t want to start with accusations.
I don’t think the big cogs of the system succeed if they dare pull anything like the nightmare the world has been through again. Simple psychology. They can try. I remember there was one or two attempts, Anthrax I think it was, but quickly withdrawn. The last three years were just too much. Some of us are still processing everything that’s happened. The whole world locked down!! So they changed the theme, now we have the war in Europe, energy crisis, inflation, etc.
Big pharma was in bad shape during the last decade because their revenue on non-cancer drugs were decreasing, revenues nevertheless accounting for 75% of total revenues in 2019; add to that the crash in the repo market of September 2019 and you get hell on earth.
What do we do now? These people won’t go to jail; they represent the power of Capital and have politicians and judges in their pockets; we know that. I say let’s go ahead and prove the falsity of the theory upon which “modern scientific” medicine is built. If we succeed to seriously “install” (that’s the word I think) the debate and raise awareness that there is a competing hypothesis as valid as the officially accepted one, that what drugs are supposed to “target” may very well not be there or is something else and therefore the drug isn’t doing what the theory assumes it’s doing, then we may miss the opportunity to send the culprits to jail (they won’t anyway, and nothing would change if they did) but we sure would make a big deep hole in their pockets and in the foundation of Big Pharma’s business, which is far worse than any prison sentence. They’d have to redesign their entire policy to take into account a change in public perception of what causes diseases, or change activity.
Ask any CEO of a pharmaceutical company whether they prefer to go to jail or have the germ theory seriously questioned by the public.
About the only person in Big Pharma doing his best to find a cure for Cancer, or even a Prevention was Peter Duesberg
Not Gallo or Fauci – They were in the money to kill as many people as possible, including Freddy Mercury…The truth is really hard to digest..Even I never quite realised such evil existed…Now the Malthusians are back in control – trying to kill us off – by every means they can think of…including The War in The Ukraine
https://www.duesberg.com/
Yes, agreed. Those are the ones that don’t last very long in business, the honest ones, the meek ones, hijacked by the hawkish ones; the efficient ones.
Duesberg, Gallo, that was long time ago! Well, three years but it seems an eternity since I was researching them; also Celia Farber. Of course the Fauci et al party don’t say they want to kill us; they believe in the superiority of “science” over common sense, the one-sided, well funded science. That’s the tragedy; they do believe they are doing good.
They have already gotten away with several other PLANNEDemics pushing jabs.
Yep. And the talk about proving this 2019-vir** is a fraud sounds as if it isn’t debunked, not exposed yet. I’ve seen dozens of interviews with scientists (does anyone remember John Ioannidis?), read as many articles on the subject proving that the whole business was an organised theatre full of contradictions and in which the media and economics were big part of it as Daszak said. I guess what remains to do is organise all this material and file a legal suit. But, it will drag a long time, Fuellmich knows something about that, and the fact that he set a popular jury speaks volumes about the likelihood of success in regular courts. Off-G has done a thorough job in debunking every aspects of the fraud. So what is more to do?
Meanwhile, nothing prevents us from starting to investigate the microbiological theory as it is called. It’s a long fight and this is just the beginning.
Justice will only be had, in these circumstances, by the mob and or vigilantes.
The system will never investigate itself and find itself guilty.
Government will not save us from government.
CJ Hopkins, told Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – to get your head into gear, and tell these Evil Bastards The Truth…
He said OK. I am.
https://www.sott.net/article/480669-RFK-Jr-Bill-Gates-WEF-are-using-climate-change-to-control-population
When he says that the Convid virus was just the flu wrapped around a fear based propaganda campaign and that the jabs are a culling mechanism, then I will believe he might be for real.
While what he says about Climate Change being used as a vehicle for tyranny is accurate, that doesn’t by default mean he doesn’t still believe in the Climate Change narrative.
I still say he is controlled opposition, like anyone else that is allowed to get under the spot light.
One of the best things about OffG is the comment section. And sometimes there is a good article or two. I think there are good arguments here all around.
Fear is a contagious virus. That is how they control people.
In my opinion the best things about OG are
Catte Black
Kit Knightly
CJ Hopkins
Sylvia Shawcross
Riley Wagaman
The Week in the New Normal
Would not miss any of them. The comments I do also enjoy if they are friendly and I don’t feel like I am having agendas pushed at me too much from “certain persons”. I like to read some regulars such as George MC, Tom Larsen, Wardropper and a couple others, and the debate can be fun, but it’s the articles I mostly come for. This place always has its own take and I will often get a point of view I hadn’t thought of before. I don’t see them going with the herd and I like that even if I don’t always agree with them.
Articles far and away. The comments can be interesting but also very annoying when a couple of people with agendas get to take over and start playing with the voting and shouting others down. Like here if I’m honest. Been reading some. People need to calm down.
It is good to see such a lively debate. I am pleased to see that the no-virus idea is strong and growing. All this thanks to Covid!!! Ironic. We need to get rid of all 70+ vaccines in children.
Catte Black,
I completely agree, and a nice way to illustrate it with black and white goats of which there are many.
I don’t know if such a thing as a “virus” actually exists, but I am 99.9% convinced that infectious diseases exist, and not just from personal experience from being a child, almost totally unjabbed…they didn’t do it then…I got almost all the childhood diseases, and they were not nice, and I was very much in favour of innoculations – when my kids were born…
Not so sure now with my 3 Grandkids (who I suspect have all been jabbed) According to their Dad, the 3 of them ages between nearly 1, 5 & 7 – have all got Chickenpox again.
When I was a kid, you got it once, and every kid got it..it wasn’t that bad, and you were immune for life, without any jabs. It wasn’t that bad – a little bit spotty, and no energy for a few days – and then back to normal.
Then I got Scarlet Fever, that was really horrible, and my doctor recommended, I do not go to hospital knowing it was so contagious.
My Mum who knew about these things isolated me in one room in our house, and my brothers and sisters, were told to stay clear, until I got better.
From the age of 8, cos I had had almost every childhood disease going, my immune system was such that I never got really ill, and 61 years later, I am still here, and have not been admitted to hospital since, though A&E did save my life a couple of years ago during lockdown, when I got cellulitis. They put me on a drip for 90min – antibiotics -and gave me two boxes of antibiotic pills – and said I could now go home with my wife
Fortunately, I didn’t have a cold, or I wouldn’t be here now.
My wife nursed me back to health.
Tony
This is to Christine Massey and the other more strident promoters of “viruses are a lie”.
The science is nothing like as simple as you all seem to think. There’s no simple “Truth” here, or at least not one we have managed to work out yet. The argument is that virus theory has been accepted without adequate testing and, if examined dispassionately, will present many problems that need to be addressed.
This is a reasonable argument and well-based in research, but it’s a long way from the simple “viruses are a lie” argument being put about by some non-scientists who have identified this as a cause celèbre. Contagion theory may have problems but is there another model that does better and doesn’t have its own problems? Terrain theory has its own weaknesses and questions.
Germ theory and terrain theory are also not mutually exclusive. Terrain theory accepts that bacteria can harmfully colonize damaged or unhealthy flesh. Germ theory accepts that unhealthy people are more likely to get “infected”. This devolves into questions of emphasis more than wholesale opposition and neither side has all the answers. It’s not a clean cut either/or.
The idea some have that this complex issue can be simplified into a popular crusade to “prove” viruses are a scam and therefore Big Pharma falls apart is just not based in reality. The germ/terrain debate, if it really becomes mainstream, will be a long and complicated one that isn’t going to mobilize people or result in prosecutions. Scientific theories are proven wrong all the time. The people promoting them don’t then get thrown in prison.
How would this prosecution work anyway? Virus theory has been around for decades. Thousands of people have accepted it and worked with it to produce studies and medicines. Are you going to prosecute them all?
How will proving virus theory is faulty result in prosecuting ANYONE? Pfizer and Fauci et al can just say they were working inside the current model. That’s not a crime. Being wrong isn’t a crime. Accepting a bad theory isn’t a crime.
In terms of proving covid is a fraud it’s a non-starter since covid will just be another “mistake” among hundreds of others.
Pursuing this line is a actually a way of getting these covid criminals off the hook, accusing them of being mistaken about viruses rather than committing murder and fraud.
At the moment children from birth onward are inoculated with some 70 vaccines. Currently all-cause mortality is rising around the world dramatically, but for some reason the medical/scientific community is not alarmed or curious.
I don’t really care is the perpetrators and facilitators of the virology scam over the last century are punished or not. I’d like to see the public aware of the great harm germ theory and their attendant vaccines, does to the body, the mind and the soul. It is a vast fraud that brings vast wealth and vast power and influence to multi-national corporations and the worldwide medical establishment. It allows governments everywhere to control and suppress human freedom and bodily integrity. The virus paradigm enslaves us all from birth to death.
To rid ourselves of it will not be easy as it is welded and ingrained into us. It took me over six months to convince myself of the virus fraud and it was a shocking revelation. I can understand how many shy away from inquiring into it, for it sets you apart from the vast majority of people, who trust the medical establishment, “the science” and their governments. To question the virus paradigm is to question our social structure. Thankfully Covid has made this possible, as the fraud and manipulation by governments has been blatant, dishonest and obvious, yet unfortunately quite successful.V-2 as a scam
If people wish to focus only on SARS-CoV-2 as a scam, fine, I wish them well, but they are tending the ground for the next virus, the next vaccine and the next government intervention and suppression of freedom, and it does not solve the problem of the overwhelming intrusive and ubiquitous medical tyranny.
Well said, John. I agree.
“Pursuing this line is a actually a way of getting these covid criminals off the hook, accusing them of being mistaken about viruses rather than committing murder and fraud.“
That statement right there is the money quote for me. They are already using the bullshit excuse that they “just didn’t know” and now some seem to want to give them another one. That probably isn’t intentional, but many refuse to see just how that will work out for the PTB. The PTB may be fully psychotic, but they surely are not dumb. Any tool they can use to “prove” it was only a mistake WILL BE USED, IS BEING USED NOW.
And as you state so very well, it is most likely true that it isn’t one way or the other, that it is vastly more complex than it appears, and complexity in today’s world is the enemy. Really, to the layman, it always has been – we seem to need someone to TELL US what the true answer is. It must be a black and white answer and while they debate about which side is wholly true, the real criminals laugh as that fake “debate” plays right into their plans.
I tend to have in mind the analogy of a growing plant; which needs both good genes (genetics) and a good soil (terrain) to prosper.
The ‘nature vs nurture’ debate was once a big thing, though it eventually settled down to an acceptance of both factors afaik
Covid would seem to have revived it 🤔
Reply pending fwiw
If we’re wrong, cite a valid study showing the existence of any alleged virus. We’ve done our homework, have you done yours?
There is no onus on anyone to provide a better model when refuting a theory or hypothesis. Like I said to someone else, would you be content to stay in jail for a string of murders when there is no evidence against you, just because you can’t prove to the police who did commit the murders?
I rarely discuss terrain theory, so no idea why you’re bringing it up on a comment addressed to me. A red herring, perhaps.
The debate will be unnecessarily long and complicated only if people such as yourself make it so.
Hello, have you ever heard of people being prosecuted for “fraud”? I’m pretty sure it happens every day. You don’t get to excuse fraud simply by saying “well I was just working within a (fraudulent) model”. And they can claim, “oops sorry, we were wrong” no matter what approach you take.
And why are you asking me all these questions about a prosecution, as if all these decisions rest on my shoulders and mine alone? Good lord, nothing at all will happen if everyone just keeps pretending that viruses are a proven fact. And the courts are corrupt, hence you rarely hear of the really big criminals getting held accountable for much of anything.
“Pursuing this line is a actually a way of getting these covid criminals off the hook, accusing them of being mistaken about viruses rather than committing murder and fraud” – oh so now you are familiar with fraud, good to know.
How anyone in their right mind can claim that terrorizing the world over a never-shown-to-exist virus and promoting and administering bogus tests / products / clinical trials, etc would let anyone off the hook, I have no idea. Seems you want to let perps off the hook for all the virus-related harm they’ve inflicted our entire lives. Your choice.
And why pretend that exposing the fraud is only applicable to court cases? It’s greatest application is in people’s day to day lives.
Again, you and the other strident discouragers of no-virus people could just cite a study and prove us wrong 🙂
Can you stop with the righteous indignation? It’s a common trolling tactic as it shuts down debate, it’s been flagged by multiple commenters and I think it’s time to dial this back now, please. Let’s discuss it calmly or not at all. Thank you. A2
While indignation can be abused as a trolling tactic, does it not also have a proper place in discussion? Massey opens with:
This is a reasonable request to make, one that must be answered, and never is.
When other commenters distract from the issue, indignation is a natural way to draw attention to the central question.
I haven’t seen hardly anyone telling her she’s wrong. Most people seem to be supporting the investigation into viruses but saying it’s not the best way of outing the covid scam. She never deals with this though, she just gets indignant and accusatory. It’s not helpful.
This isn’t a controversy. No one is disputing what Massey is saying, at least most people aren’t. People are disputing a) what a lack of evidence for ‘the existence of any alleged virus’ might practically, usefully mean in terms of dismantling virology and b) whether it’s tactically a sound move to pursue this line.
That Massey keeps manoeuvring this into some sort of standoff feels like grandstanding and doesn’t ring true.
And no, indignation is never necessary in a good faith debate in my experience. A2
Thanks for your reply. I feel like I’m missing something obvious. When you say “tactically sound”, what is the goal of the tactics?
Read Catte’s piece. (Hint: it’s not about whether viruses exist or not) 😉
I’ve read and re-read the article. The article aims to convince a court of the fact that Covid was a fraud.
What would be the result or aim of this? When Catte’s tactics succeed, when the court returns a judgement in her favor, what will have changed?
You answered your own question.
Successfully refuting the fake pandemic within the medical/science fields and in the public’s mind will obviously be a very important waypoint in this struggle which can lead to many other positive outcomes.
We just need to make sure we don’t throw the fight by trying to argue too much, or debating the wrong issues.
“you and other strident discouragers of no-virus people”?
That’s all you came away with? That’s what you think I’m saying?
Ok I’m out. It’s pointless. You seem completely uninterested in rational discussion or listening to nuanced facts. You seem primarily driven to create division by treating everyone who doesn’t 100% agree with you as an enemy.
This looks to be more valuable to you than anything else.
You remind me of Judy Wood. No doubt you will get a similar following and help lead another promising movement to disaster
The only thing that makes proving the falsehoods of virology difficult is the limited brain capacity and aptitude of the masses. The very reason they have gotten away with complete and utter lies about how they supposedly implement the scientific method, despite doing exactly the opposite.
This is the very reason that society as a whole has been dumbed down to 30 second segments of information, substantially focused on useless entertainment and stupidness.
That you think we have to cater to the dumbed down masses, most of whom are going to just roll over like a trained dog the next time, is a major part of the problem.
The majority will never wake up because they are the mob.
It only takes a small percentage of intelligent and motivated people to make a huge difference. Those are the aces in the deck.
Exactly. Tony Wright is right.
If Prosecution is the goal then one may be in for a long haul.
The cessation of the injecting of unnecessary toxic substances into the population would happen as a simple matter of course, almost no effort required if said population was aware there was no point in doing so.
Is that not a worthy enough result?
Or are we all hell bent upon retribution?
If there was a perfect concensus of all six billion of us that black swans do not exist- how many black swans would you need to see to realise they do in fact exist and to stand alone apposed to the concensus?
One?
For virology to be a valid science it MUST employ valid controls- PERIOD.
There is no getting around this simple fact.
The fact that virology does not employ valid controls is a black swan.
Courage is required to stand in the face of overwhelming consensus.
That we have all been thoroughly duped by abominations is a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it we must….
The term “False binary is used a lot on this site, and for good reason.
However, when it comes to this subject, both sides refuse to compromise and insist that only their theory is the correct one as if deciding that an egg can only be opened at the big end or the little end.
Both theories have their merits.
Surely the point of the article is to encourage compromise, and coax people off the ledge of a fake binary? A2