Virology’s event horizon.

Along with our allies we have spent the last four years dismantling every aspect of the virus model whether it concerns “isolation”, antibodies, genomics, PCR, proteomics, electron microscopy, or animal and human studies. In 2022, I published A Farewell to Virology, to date one of the only treatises that outlines a formal refutation of the entire virus model. This was inspired by The Perth Group’s 2017 epic HIV – a virus like no other, the most comprehensive document refuting the existence of ‘HIV’ specifically.

In my recent webinars with Dr Tom Cowan we have been discussing the scientific method, along with the concepts of independent variables and controlled experiments. Clearly the virologists have resorted to anti-scientific practices to make their various claims including the foundational claim of virus existence.

It motivated me to write an essay specifically addressing the apical logical fallacy in the cell culture technique – something that has been noticed previously but perhaps not formally expressed. The virologists have claimed they perform control experiments and sometimes describe these as ‘mock-infected’ cultures. In recent months we have also been contacted by people in the ‘no virus’ community asking whether John Enders inadvertently performed a control experiment in his 1954 measles paper. Dr Stefan Lanka exposed the lack of a control experiment in this paper in the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in 2016 and I make some further comments expanding on this in note 20.

The pivotal issue is that the virologists do not have an independent variable and their experiments cannot make a hypothetical particle real. The ‘gold standard’ technique for “isolation” cannot possibly determine the presence (or existence) of viruses no matter how they attempt to control it. The paradigm that was created in the 1940s to keep virology alive was dead on arrival because the technique relies on a reification fallacy and logical errors that disqualify the entire process from being scientific.  

We have had some feedback that although fairly brief, this paper is difficult to follow in some parts. (It helps to read all the endnotes.) If you have not already seen it, I would recommend watching Kate Sugak’s excellent presentation at the XXII Russian Scientific Conference: “The scientific vacuum: The scientific method and its absence in virology“. Kate covers the crucial scientific considerations articulated in my paper in an easy to follow format and shows that the virologists have nowhere left to hide.

I would like to acknowledge Christine Massey and Steve Falconer for their helpful suggestions.

The Lyme Disease Lie

This article was originally published in the Winter 2023 issue of Wise Traditions.

Over the past few years, there have been a lot of requests for us to say something about Lyme disease, so I decided it was time to dedicate an article (and a video) to the topic. In this case, the alleged bacterial pathogen is introduced into the body by a tick, and the claim that ticks cause this disease through bites is considered under the germ theory umbrella. But what does the scientific evidence actually reveal? Have the bacteria been shown to cause sickness, and is Lyme disease even a legitimate entity?

The truth is more shocking than many would imagine. It is also a timely topic, as a new fear campaign has been launched in the form of the alleged deadly Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever poised to come to the United Kingdom, also said to be spread by ticks. Additionally, a tick “bioweapon” gaslighting campaign supposedly implicating the Pentagon was also playing on corporate media platforms in July 2019.

As my husband, Dr. Mark Bailey, summarizes: 

“The introduction of the term ‘Lyme disease’ in the 1970s was a win for establishment medicine but a grave loss for the public. A label was attached to a nonspecific range of symptoms and signs and the bug hunters then falsely accused Borrelia, a bystander bacterial species. If a doctor says you have Lyme disease, they do not know what they are talking about— get out of there before they run non-diagnostic tests or worse, try to ‘treat’ you.”

United States versus New Zealand paradox

Part of the reason we have taken this long to publish something about Lyme disease is that it is said not to exist in our home country of New Zealand. In fact, the Ministry of Health states: “Ticks have the potential to pose public health and biosecurity risks because they can carry and transmit human and animal diseases. However, the Ministry is not aware of any cases of people catching a disease from a tick bite in New Zealand. The main diseases of concern in some other countries are not currently present in New Zealand.” This is an interesting situation, because if we have ticks and  humans coming and going, then on these officials’ own terms, why would we not have Lyme disease?

They give an explanation that states, “The ticks present in New Zealand have shown the ability to transmit pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses. Fortunately, the pathogens are rare in New Zealand and damage is mainly isolated to economic loss caused by heavy infestations.” This is all rather wishy-washy. They are claiming that there are ticks that can transmit pathogens and that the pathogens are present, albeit rare, yet there is no Lyme disease. As expected, the New Zealand Ministry, which is notorious for churning out health disinformation, provides no  scientific references on its  webpage, and the article has been authored anonymously.

Over to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Lyme disease page, which claims: “Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne disease in the United States. Lyme disease is caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi and rarely, Borrelia mayonii. It is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected blacklegged ticks.” There are no citations provided, simply a note at the end of the page that cites the “content source” as the CDC’s “National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases,” but that link doesn’t provide specific citations either. 

What is “Lyme Disease?”

Before we go on a search for scientific evidence of the alleged causal agent of Lyme disease, first we should investigate how the disease is defined. And this is where the whole thing becomes scientifically unhinged. The CDC states that the early signs and symptoms could be “fever, chills, headache, fatigue, muscle and joint aches, and swollen lymph nodes.”
On Wikipedia, it is even worse; the Lyme disease entry states, “Lyme disease can affect several body systems and produce a broad range of symptoms. Not everyone with Lyme disease has all of the symptoms and many of the symptoms are not specific to Lyme disease, but can occur with other diseases, as well.” This is a farcical state of affairs because the diagnosis is supposed to be based on a history of tick exposure (not even a confirmed bite) and symptoms—but these symptoms can be just about anything.

What about erythema migrans, the famous rash said to be specific to Lyme disease? Once again, this is not a specific type of rash, and the CDC even has a page called “The Many Forms of Lyme Disease Rashes.” This page suggests that the rash can be faint, could be crusted and can appear in different shapes and colors, whereas other indistinguishable rashes can be dismissed as not erythema migrans because they are classified as “allergic reactions” to insults such as insect bites and drugs. At this point, we are likely to get some practitioners protesting that they know Lyme disease when they see it. But what exactly are they  referring to? They would have to be making up their own diagnostic criteria as well.

What “pathogen”?

In terms of the alleged pathogen involved, we can consult the “big book” of Lyme disease called Lyme Disease and Relapsing Fever Spirochetes published in 2021. In particular, Chapter 13 titled “Lyme Disease Pathogenesis” states the following:

“Lyme disease was first recognized in 1976 when a cluster of cases of juvenile arthritis was recognized in Old Lyme, CT. Many of these patients also reported cutaneous skin lesions that were similar to those reported in Europe that were previously associated with tick bites. There was a strong suspicion that an infectious agent was the underlying cause of both cases in Old Lyme, CT and in Europe, but it was not until 1982 that a spirochete found in Ixodes ticks was suggested to be the cause (Burgdorfer et al., 1982). The role of this bacterium, named Borrelia burgdorferi, as the causative agent of Lyme disease was quickly established as the bacterium was recovered from patients as well as from reservoir hosts, such as the white-footed mouse.”

The single listed citation by Burgdorfer et al. is the 1982 paper with the title “Lyme Disease—A Tick-Borne Spirochetosis?” (Note the question mark at the end of the title.) The paper describes how the researchers collected one hundred twenty-six ticks from Shelter Island, New York in 1981 and found that 61 percent of them had spirochetes (a type of bacterium) in their gut. On this basis, the authors unwarrantedly concluded, “The degree of infection varied; some ticks contained only a few spirochetes, others contained large numbers.”

Finding bacteria in a gut system is not evidence of an infection. We have trillions of microbes in our gut and, like all animals, the microbes are required for our life processes. In any case, it is nonsense to claim that microbes found in tick guts are the smoking gun for the cause of Lyme disease. To make the case for bitten transmission even weaker, the paper’s authors admitted, “No other tissues, including the salivary glands, contained spirochetes.”

In the same paper, Burgdorfer and his coauthors proceeded to describe a study where they allowed about three hundred ticks to feed on eight New Zealand White rabbits. This was an uncontrolled experiment—simply an observational study—rather than an experimental one capable of testing their hypothesis with an independent variable. If they were suggesting that Borrelia caused  Lyme disease, then some of the rabbits should have been bitten by ticks “infected” with the bacteria and other rabbits bitten by ticks not carrying the bacteria.  Unsurprisingly, the biting onslaught by almost forty ticks per rabbit, attached to their shaved abdomens in metal capsules, caused some of them to develop rashes. However, despite testing the rabbits’ blood daily and taking skin biopsies, they found Borrelia bacteria in exactly zero. The reality was that they failed to demonstrate transmission, let alone any ability of the bacteria to cause disease.

“Antibodies” and more pseudoscience

We can pause at this moment to emphasize the fact that there is precisely no evidence that Borrelia species cause Lyme disease, and yet this 1982 paper is supposed to be one of the studies—if not the foundational paper—for the case. It is an example of the germ theorists’ desperation to make nature fit their model when the science does not back it up; in fact, we can see that they refuted themselves. So, how on earth is this foundational paper accepted as “evidence” to this day?

Due to the patent failure of their experiments, the researchers resorted to an antibody study. The antibodies were created by using an assay that reacted to an antigen contained in a tick specimen mixture. They reported that the antibody was present in all rabbits that had been exposed to ticks, although keep in mind, they are talking about a titer or concentration here—the protein could have been present in the rabbits not exposed to ticks as well, but they set the cut-off for a “positive” at a one in twenty dilution. Then they tested blood from nine patients clinically “diagnosed” with Lyme disease—which leads us straight back to the problem of, what does this even mean? In any case, they reported that the antibody was found in higher levels in these people than in people not diagnosed with Lyme disease.

It is beyond the scope of this article to dive into the deeper problems with antibodies, such as their specificity and the relevance of their detection in a complex organism. You can watch my video series, “The Yin & Yang of HIV” or read Virus Mania to learn about the scandalous claims that the medical establishment has made with regard to these dubious laboratory assays. Suffice to say, they do not constitute evidence for a pathogen, and all we can say is that the apparent presence of proteins termed “antibodies” in higher amounts may be an indication of tissue inflammation and damage (or healing attempts).

It has been an ongoing offense committed by the germ theorists to claim antibodies relate to “pathogen” exposure or “immunity.” They resort to this trick because they cannot fulfill Koch’s postulates or provide the required foundational evidence through the scientific method. To be fair, the authors of the 1982 paper did use the word “may” when stating that their “observations suggest that the treponema-like organism. . . may be involved in the etiology of Lyme disease.” But this is the paper that the seven hundred fifty-page tome on Lyme disease provides as the evidence that Borrelia bacteria cause Lyme disease—and almost everyone in the medical industry parrots the fraudulent claim.

Koch’s Postulates fail

In Lyme Disease and Relapsing Fever Spirochetes, Chapter 24 (“Lyme Disease in Humans”) ventures to state, “Lyme disease is the prototype of an emerging infectious disease”—apparently “emerging” out of the germ theorists’ minds only, not out of nature. The authors claim, “The isolation of its etiologic agent, Borrelia burgdorferi, from humans in 1983, capped an intensive hunt for a pathogen that just a short time before had been cultured from a black legged (deer) tick.” Here, they cite another pivotal paper with the title, “Spirochetes isolated from the blood of two patients with Lyme disease,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1983. The headline sounds impressive until you read that they “isolated spirochetes from the blood of 2 of 36 patients in Long Island and Westchester County, New York, who had signs and symptoms suggestive of Lyme disease.” Two out of thirty-six patients “thought to have Lyme disease” means that thirty-four out of thirtysix did not have any detectable bacteria! The logical gymnastics in the paper are incredible; they even suggested that this result “provides the most direct evidence to date of their [spirochetes’] etiologic role in this disease.”

And how did they reconcile their abysmal statistical findings with germ theory? By claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that “Because of the low frequency of isolations (2 of 36 patients), the spirochetemia is probably transient and of low density in this condition.” Here, they are one step away from the virologists who claim that despite the microbes wreaking havoc in the body, the microbes can’t be found anywhere. The icing on the cake comes when the authors of the 1983 paper bizarrely assert that their paper means that “three of the four Koch’s postulates for establishing the role of the spirochete as the causative agent of Lyme disease have been largely satisfied.”
Utter nonsense—not one of Koch’s postulates was satisfied, as analysis of these foundational papers reveals.

Moving on from allopathic medicine

The last aspect to address is the mainstream claim that antibiotics are useful for treating the disease. If this were true, it cannot be due to any antimicrobial action because, as we have just seen, there is no evidence that any of this is
caused by bacteria. However, even mainstream practitioners admit that they don’t have sound evidence that antibiotics are effective. If we consult the article titled “Diagnosis and Management of Lyme Disease” in American Family Physician, it states that “doxycycline is effective for the treatment of early Lyme disease” but then lists the evidence rating as a lowly “C,” which equates to “consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series”—in other words, not established through the scientific method.

Having worked in the system for two decades, I know that doctors hope that one of their prescription medicines will be the magic bullet. Unfortunately, this hope stems from the chronically ingrained and misplaced belief in germ theory and pharmaceuticals. There are other factors as well; a recent video about “medical self-delusion” by Roman Bystrianyk, the co-author of Dissolving Illusions, summarizes the phenomenon.

We have a conundrum here because the term “Lyme disease” is so well known, it seems to most people that it must be real. However, the term should be relegated to the archives of pseudoscience. And, as “terrain” proponents, we should be careful about being drawn into discussions along the lines of, “What causes Lyme disease, if not bacterial infection through tick bites?” It is not something that can be diagnosed because the signs and symptoms are non-specific, the microbiology is non-specific and the so-called “tests” (blood antibodies) are non-specific. I have heard Dr. Tom Cowan say that labelling a patient with “Lyme disease” is completely unhelpful, and I would wholeheartedly agree, as that is what the scientific literature reveals. Symptoms and signs may be real, but the fictional concoction known as “Lyme disease” is an allopathic germ theory cover story. We need to reject the label and attend to each individual’s situation. Focusing on whether they may have been bitten by a tick in the past few months is probably not going to provide the answer to restoring health.

Every case will be different, and the various symptoms and signs are manifestations of the body’s attempts to heal itself. The answers are found in addressing factors such as environmental toxins and dietary errors. And, it should be pointed out, we do not have pharmaceutical deficiencies, so that will not be the answer either.

Some time ago, I moved away from the medical model involving alleged specific disease entities with the realization that the body simply has various conditions. The condition of the body should be perfect, and this can be achieved through ignoring fear narratives and focusing on right living and right thinking. These principles are covered in detail in the book Terrain Therapy, as well as in my weekly content and through the Weston A. Price Foundation 

Terrain Theory – Recontextualizing the Germ – Dr Sam Bailey

Once again Dr. Sam blew it! Amazing lady there, God Bless the Baileys! Cheers!

This article was originally published on The Secular Heretic on February 16, 2022.

Why is it considered “settled science” among epidemiologists, virologists and the general public that certain diseases like Influenza and COVID-19 are transmitted through human contact, when in fact it has never been proven that diseases spread this way? For more than a century Germ Theory has had the dominance and authority of religious orthodoxy, yet a far more plausible explanation for how and why we get “infected” with certain illnesses is Terrain Theory, which illustrates that a multitude of environmental and genetic components combine to determine the incidence of disease in a population or individual. In the following essay, Torsten Engelbrecht, Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD and Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD draw on material gathered in their extraordinary book Virus Mania to reveal the explanatory power of terrain theory.

For about 120 years in particular, people have been very susceptible to the idea that certain microbes act like predators, stalking our communities for victims and causing the most serious illnesses named COVID-19, AIDS, hepatitis C, avian flu etc. But such an idea is thoroughly simple, too simple. Unfortunately, as psychology and social science have discovered, humans have a propensity for simplistic solutions, particularly in a world that seems to be growing increasingly complicated. But medical and biological realities, like social ones, are just not that simple. Renowned immunology and biology professor Edward Golub’s rule of thumb is that, “if you can fit the solution to a complex problem on a bumper sticker, it is wrong! I tried to condense my book The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure to fit onto a bumper sticker and couldn’t.” [1]

By focusing on microbes and accusing them of being the primary and lone triggers of disease, we overlook how various factors causing illness are linked together, such as environmental toxins, the side effects of medications, psychological issues like depression and anxiety, and poor nutrition. If over a longer period of time, for instance, you eat far too little fresh fruits and vegetables, and instead consume far too much fast food, sweets, coffee, soft drinks, or alcohol (and along with them, all sorts of toxins such as pesticides or preservatives), and maybe smoke a lot or even take drugs like cocaine or heroin, your health will eventually be ruined. Drug-addicted and malnourished junkies aren’t the only members of society who make this point clear to us.

For billions of years, nature has functioned as a whole with unsurpassed precision. Microbes, just like humans, are a part of this cosmological and ecological system. If humanity wants to live in harmony with technology and nature, we must be committed to understanding the supporting evolutionary principles ever better and to applying them properly to our own lives. Whenever we don’t do this, we create ostensibly insolvable environmental and health-related problems.

“The doctor should never forget to interpret the patient as a whole being.”

Dr. Rudolf Virchow

These are thoughts which Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), a well-known doctor from Berlin, had when he required in 1875 that “the doctor should never forget to interpret the patient as a whole being.”[2] The doctor will hardly understand the patient, then, if he or she does not see that person in the context of a larger environment. Without the appearance of bacteria, human life would be inconceivable, as bacteria were right at the beginning of the development towards human life.

Bacteria could very well exist without humans; humans, however, could not live without bacteria! It is, therefore, unreasonable to conclude that these mini-creatures, whose life-purpose and task throughout biological history has been to build up life, are, in fact, the greatest, singular causes of disease and death. Yet, the prevailing allopathic medical dogma of one disease, one cause, one miracle pill has dominated our thinking since the late 19th century, when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch became heroes.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) is considered the “father of germ theory.” He believed the healthy human body was sterile and got sick only when invaded by tiny bacteria too small for any microscope in his time to see. Robert Koch (1843-1910), one of the founders of modern bacteriology, expanded on Pasteur’s germ theory and developed his Koch’s Postulates, long considered the gold standard for linking specific microorganisms to specific diseases.

Prior to that, we had a very different mindset, and even today, there are still traces everywhere of this different consciousness. “Since the time of the ancient Greeks, people did not ‘catch’ a disease, they slipped into it. To catch something meant that there was something to catch, and until the germ theory of disease became accepted, there was nothing to catch,” writes Edward Golub in his work. Hippocrates, who is said to have lived around 400 B.C., and Galen (one of the most significant physicians of his day; born in 130 A.D.), represented the view that an individual was, for the most part, in the driver’s seat in terms of maintaining health with appropriate behavior and lifestyle choices. “Most disease [according to ancient philosophy] was due to deviation from a good life,” says Golub. “[And when diseases occur] they could most often be set aright by changes in diet—[which] shows dramatically how 1,500 years after Hippocrates and 950 years after Galen, the concepts of health and disease, and the medicines of Europe, had not changed”[3] far into the 19th century. The German Max von Pettenkofer (1818-1901), once appointed rector of the University of Munich, jeered: “Bacteriologists are people who don’t look further than their steam boilers, incubators and microscopes.”[4]

Just a few hours after birth, all of a newborn baby’s mucous membrane has already been colonized by bacteria, which perform important protective functions. Without these colonies of billions of germs, the infant, just like the adult, could not survive. What’s more, only a small part of our body’s bacteria have been discovered.[5] “The majority of cells in the human body are anything but human: foreign bacteria have long had the upper hand,” reported a research team from Imperial College in London under the leadership of Jeremy Nicholson in the journal Nature Biotechnology in 2004.[6] In the human digestive tract alone, researchers came upon around 100 trillion microorganisms, which together have a weight of up to one kilogram. “This means that the 1,000-plus known species of symbionts probably contain more than 100 times as many genes as exist in the host,” as Nicholson states. It makes you wonder how much of the human body is “human” and how much is “foreign.”

Nicholson calls us “human super-organisms”—as our own ecosystems are ruled by microorganisms. “It is widely accepted,” writes the Professor of Biochemistry, “that most major disease classes have significant environmental and genetic components and that the incidence of disease in a population or individual is a complex product of the conditional probabilities of certain gene components interacting with a diverse range of environmental triggers.”[7] Above all, nutrition has a significant influence on many diseases, in that it modulates complex communication between the 100 trillion microorganisms in the intestines!

“Alone the production of a large part of the food that lands on our plates is dependent on bacterial activity.”

Dr. René Dubos

How easily this bacterial balance can be decisively influenced can be seen with babies: If they are nursed with mother’s milk, their intestinal flora almost exclusively contains a certain bacterium (Lactobacillus bifidus), which is very different from the bacterium most prevalent when they are fed a diet including cow’s milk. “The bacterium lactobacillus bifidus lends the breast-fed child a much stronger resistance to intestinal infections,” writes microbiologist René Dubos. This is just one of countless examples of the positive interaction between bacteria and humans. “But unfortunately, the knowledge that microorganisms can also do a lot of good for humans never enjoyed much popularity.” As Dubos points out:

Humanity has made it a rule to take better care of the dangers that threaten life than to take interest in the biological powers upon which human existence is so decisively dependent. The history of war has always fascinated people more than descriptions of peaceful coexistence. And so it comes that no one has ever created a successful story out of the useful role that bacteria play in stomach and intestines. Alone the production of a large part of the food that lands on our plates is dependent on bacterial activity.[8]

The term mysophobia (fear of germs) was first coined by William A. Hammond in 1879 to describe a case of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in a person repeatedly washing one’s hands. Irrational fear of germs has been aggressively exploited by Big Pharma, allowing bells on the industry’s cash registers to ring in perpetuity. Image credit: Merlijn Hoek

In this context, it should not be forgotten that a gigantic industry has been built up around the fear of microbes, earning multi-billion dollar profits from the sale of drugs and vaccines, whereas no one earns nearly as much money from advising folk to eat healthier, exercise more, breathe more fresh and clean air, or do more for one’s emotional well-being.

One may ask, But haven’t antibiotics helped or saved the lives of many people? Without a doubt. But, we must note that it was only as recently as 12 February 1941, that the first patient was treated with an antibiotic, specifically penicillin. Therefore, antibiotics have nothing to do with the increase in life expectancy, which really took hold in the middle of the 19th century (in industrialized countries), almost a century before the development of antibiotics; and plenty of substances—including innumerable bacteria essential to life—are destroyed through the administration of antibiotics, which directly translated from the Greek, means, “against life.” Further, nowadays millions of antibiotics are unnecessarily administered, and in fact antibiotics are held responsible for nearly one fifth of the more than 100,000 annual deaths that are traced back to medication side effects in the United States alone.

Indeed, the ledger for vaccinations of any kind reads poorly because there is no solid, placebo-controlled study demonstrating that vaccination—usually an intervention on a healthy body—is better than doing nothing. Meanwhile, there are placebo-controlled studies showing that vaccination is worse than doing nothing—as well as dozens of studies showing that the unvaccinated are better off than the vaccinated.[9]

Furthermore, “It is well known that deaths from common infectious diseases declined dramatically before the advent of most vaccines due to improved environmental conditions—even diseases for which there were no vaccines,” as Anthony R. Mawson, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, pointed out in 2018.[10] This is exemplified by measles. The measles vaccination was introduced in West Germany in the mid-1970s (see the syringe in the graphic below), at a time when the “measles scare” was essentially over.

Measles vaccination was introduced in West Germany in the mid-1970s (where the syringe is shown in the graphic), at a time when the “measles scare” was essentially over. The arrow (early 1990s) indicates the combined data from reunited Germany. Source: Buchwald, Gerhard, Impfen: Das Geschäft mit der Angst (in English: Vaccination: a Business Based on Fear), Knaur, 1997, p. 133.

If we ask bacteriologists which comes first: the terrain or the bacteria, the answer is always that it is the environment (the terrain) that allows the microbes to thrive. The germs, then, do not directly produce the disease. So, it is evident that the crisis produced by the body causes the bacteria to multiply by creating the proper conditions for actually harmless bacteria to become poisonous, pus-producing microorganisms. This explains why the dominant medical thought pattern can’t comprehend that so many different microorganisms can co-exist in our bodies (among them such “highly dangerous” ones as the tuberculosis bacillus, the Streptococcus or the Staphylococcus bacterium) without bringing about any recognizable damage. They only become harmful when they have enough of the right kind of food. Depending on the type of bacterium, this food could be toxins, metabolic end products, improperly digested food and much more.

Pasteur finally became aware of all of this, quoting Bernard’s dictum —“the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything”—on his deathbed. But Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915), known as the father of chemotherapy, adhered to the interpretation that Robert Koch preached: i.e. that microbes were the actual causes of disease. For this reason, Ehrlich, who his competitors called “Dr. Fantasy,“ dreamed of “chemically aiming” at bacteria, and decisively contributed to helping the “magic bullets” doctrine become accepted, by treating very specific illnesses successfully with very specific chemo-pharmaceutical preparations. This doctrine was a gold rush for the rising pharmaceutical industry with their wonder-pill production. “But the promise of the magic bullet has never been fulfilled,” writes Allan Brandt, a medical historian at Harvard Medical School.[11]

Viruses measure only 20-450 nanometers (billionths of a meter) . . . so tiny, that one can only see them under an electron microscope.

This distorted understanding of bacteria and fungi and their functions in abnormal processes shaped attitudes toward viruses. At the end of the 19th century, as microbe theory rose to become the definitive medical teaching, no one could actually detect viruses, which measure only 20-450 nanometers (billionths of a meter) across and are thus very much smaller than bacteria or fungi—so tiny, that one can only see them under an electron microscope. And the first electron microscope was not built until 1931. Bacteria and fungi, in contrast, can be observed through a simple light microscope.

“Pasteurians” were already using the expression “virus” in the 19th century, but this is ascribed to the Latin term “virus” (which just means poison) to describe organic structures that could not be classified as bacteria. It was a perfect fit with the concept of the enemy: if no bacteria can be found, then some other single cause must be responsible for the disease. Readers may wonder how it can be continually claimed that this or that virus exists and has potential to trigger diseases through contagion. An important aspect in this context is that some time ago, mainstream virus-science left the road of direct observation of nature, and decided instead to go with so-called indirect “proof” with procedures such as antibody and PCR tests, despite the fact that these methods lead to results which have little to no meaning.

According to Dr. Samantha Bailey in her video “The Truth About PCR Tests,” the PCR-test is not a legitimate clinical diagnostic tool and thus unable to actually determine if you’ve been infected with a virus. In fact, the inventor of the test, Dr. Kary Mullis, has warned that the PCR-test “doesn’t tell you that you are sick. These tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all.

A virus with indeterminate characteristics cannot be proven by PCR any more than it can be determined by a little antibody test. And even if scientists assume that the genetic sequences discovered in the laboratory belong to the viruses mentioned, this is a long way from proving that the viruses are the causes of the diseases in question, particularly when the patients or animals that have been tested are not even sick, which often enough is the case.

Another important question must be raised: even when a supposed virus does kill cells in the test-tube (in vitro), or results in embryos in a chicken egg culture dying, we cannot safely conclude that these findings can be carried over to a complete living organism (in vivo)! For example, the particles termed viruses stem from cell cultures (in vitro) whose particles could be genetically degenerate because they have been bombarded with chemical additives like growth factors or strongly oxidizing substances. These effects were demonstrated with antibiotic use in a 2017 study.[12]

In 1995, the German news magazine Der Spiegel delved into this problem (something that is worth noting, when one considers that this news magazine usually runs only orthodox virus coverage), quoting researcher Martin Markowitz from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York:

The scientist [Markovitz] mauls his virus-infected cell cultures with these poisons in all conceivable combinations to test which of them kill the virus off most effectively. “Of course, we don’t know how far these cross-checks in a test-tube will bring us,” says Markowitz. “What ultimately counts is the patient.” His clinical experience has taught him the difference between test-tube and sick bed.[13]

“Unfortunately, the decade is characterized by climbing death rates, caused by lung cancer, heart disease, traffic accidents and the indirect consequences of alcoholism and drug addiction,” wrote Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet, recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, in his 1971 book Genes, Dreams, and Realities. “The real challenge of the present day is to find remedies for these diseases of civilization. But nothing that comes out of the labs seems to be significant in this context; laboratory research’s contribution has practically come to an end. For someone who is well on the way to a career as a lab researcher in infectious disease and immunology, these are not comforting words.”[14]

To biomedical scientists and the readers of their papers, Burnet continued, it may be exciting to hold forth on “the detail of a chemical structure from a phage’s [viruses from simple organisms; see below] RNA, or the production of antibody tests, which are typical of today’s biological research. But modern fundamental research in medicine hardly has a direct significance to the prevention of disease or the improvement of medical precautions.”[15]

Medical teaching is entrenched in Pasteur and Koch’s reality-distorting focus on one enemy, and has neglected also to pursue the thought that the body’s cells could produce a virus on its own accord, for instance as a reaction to stress factors. The experts discovered this a long time ago, and speak of “endogenous viruses”—particles that form inside the body’s cells themselves.

In this context, the research work of geneticist Barbara McClintock is a milestone. In her Nobel Prize paper from 1983, she reports that the genetic material of living beings can constantly alter, by being hit by “shocks.”[16] These shocks can be toxins, but can also be from other materials that produced stress in the test-tube. This in turn can lead to the formation of new genetic sequences, which were unverifiable (in vivo and in vitro) before.

Torsten Engelbrecht works as an investigative journalist in Hamburg and is an author of the heretical and still unchallenged book Virus Mania (co-authored by Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD, and Dr. Stefano Scoglio, BSc). In 2009, he received the Alternative Media Award for his article “The Amalgam Controversy.” He was trained at the renowned magazine for professional journalists Message and was a full-time editor at the Financial Times Deutschland, among others. As a freelance journalist, he has written articles for publications such as OffGuardianThe EcologistSüddeutsche ZeitungNeue Zürcher ZeitungFrankfurter Allgemeine SonntagszeitungRubikonFreitagGeo Saison, and Greenpeace Magazine. In 2010, his book Die Zukunft der Krebsmedizin (The Future of Cancer Medicine) was published, with Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, and two other doctors as co-authors. For more details see www.torstenengelbrecht.com.

Dr. Claus Köhnlein, MD, is a medical specialist of internal diseases. He completed his residency in the Oncology Department at the University of Kiel. Since 1993, he has worked in his own medical practice, treating both Hepatitis C and AIDS patients who are skeptical of antiviral medications. Köhnlein is one of the world’s most experienced experts when it comes to alleged viral epidemics. In April 2020, he was mentioned in the OffGuardian article “8 MORE Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic.” An interview with him by Russia Today editor Margarita Bityutskikh, published on Youtube in September 2020 on the topic of “fatal COVID-19 over-therapy,” garnered 1.4 million views within a short time.

Dr. Samantha Bailey, MD, is a research physician in New Zealand. She completed her Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree at Otago University in 2005. She has worked in general practice, telehealth and in clinical trials for over 12 years with a particular interest in novel tests and treatments for medical diseases. She has the largest Youtube health channel in New Zealand, and creates educational health videos based on questions from her audience. For her full, uncensored repertoire, visit her website.

Footnotes

  1. Golub, Edward. The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure. The University of Chicago Press, 1997: xiii.
  2. Langbein, Kurt and Bert Ehgartner. Das Medizinkartell: Die sieben Todsünden der Gesundheitsindustrie. Piper, 2003: 37.
  3. Golub, Edward. The Limits of Medicine: How Science Shapes Our Hope for the Cure. The University of Chicago Press, 1997: 37-40.
  4. Langbein, Kurt and Bert Ehgartner. Das Medizinkartell: Die sieben Todsünden der Gesundheitsindustrie. Piper, 2003: 51.
  5. Blech, Jörg. Leben auf dem Menschen: die Gesundheitserreger. S. Fischer Verlage. Frankfurt am Main, 2014. (see www.aegis.at)
  6. Nicholson, Jeremy K., Elaine Holmes, John C. Lindon, and Ian D. Wilson. “The challenges of modeling mammalian biocomplexity.” Nature Biotechnology, 22. 2004: 1268-1274. (see https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt1015)
  7. Nicholson, Jeremy K., Elaine Holmes, John C. Lindon, and Ian D. Wilson. “The challenges of modeling mammalian biocomplexity.” Nature Biotechnology, 22. 2004: 1268-1274. (see https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt1015)
  8. Dubos, René. Mirage of Health: Utopias, Progress, and Biological Change. Harper & Brothers, 1959: 69.
  9. Engelbrecht, Torsten, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio. Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense, 3rd English Edition. Books on Demand, 2021: 348-357.
  10. Mawson, Anthony R.. “Vaccination and Health Outcomes,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Special Issue, July 15, 2018. (see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/special_issues/vaccination?view=compact&listby=date)
  11. Brandt, Allan. No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States Since 1880. Oxford University Press, 1985: 161.
  12. Buzás, Edit I. et al. “Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA.” Scientific Reports, 15 August 2017.
  13. Grolle, Johann. “Siege, aber kein Sieg.” Der Spiegel, 29, 1995.
  14. Burnet, Sir Frank Macfarlane. Genes, Dreams and Realities. Medical and Technical Publishing, 1971: 217-218.
  15. Burnet, Sir Frank Macfarlane. Genes, Dreams and Realities. Medical and Technical Publishing, 1971: 217-218.
  16. McClintock, Barbara. “The Significance of Responses of the Genome to Challenge.” Nobel speech, 8 December 1983.

Source: https://drsambailey.com/terrain-theory-recontextualising-the-germ/

FDA confirms Graphene Oxide is in the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines after being forced to publish Confidential Pfizer Documents by order of the US Federal Court

Like always they fucking lied you.

The Covid-19 vaccines have been at the centre of a heated debate since their introduction, with many questions and concerns raised about their safety and effectiveness.

Speculation has also been rife that the Covid-19 injections may contain traces of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance.

Medicine regulators, with the support of the Mainstream Media, have repeatedly denied these claims.

But they were lying to you.

Because recent evidence has emerged that confirms the presence of Graphene Oxide, a highly toxic and conductive substance, in the Pfizer vaccine. And it has come from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which has been forced to publish the confidential Pfizer documents by order of the Federal Court in the USA.


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Type your email…


The FDA had initially attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years, despite approving the injection after only 108 days of a safety review on December 11th, 2020.

However, a group of scientists and medical researchers sued the FDA under FOIA to force the release of hundreds of thousands of documents related to the licensing of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine.

In early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to release 55,000 pages per month, and since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website as they have been published.

One of the most recent documents published by the FDA saved as 125742_S1_M4_4.2.1 vr vtr 10741.pdf, confirms the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

The document is a description of a study carried out by Pfizer between April 7th 2020 and 19th August 2020, with the objective being “to express and characterize the vaccine antigen encoded by BNT162b2.”

The study conclusion is as follows-

Source – Page 12

In layman’s terms, the study was conducted to determine how the vaccine works. The study found that the vaccine used mRNA to instruct your cells to produce a protein (called P2 S), which is the Spike protein of the alleged Covd-19 virus.

The millions of spike proteins then bind to a receptor called ACE2 on the surface of your cells, inducing an immune system response.

But what is most interesting about the study is that it confirms on page 7 that reduced Graphene Oxide is required to manufacture the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine because it is needed as a base for the lipid nanoparticles.

Pfizer states on page 7 of the study in section 3.4 the following –

Source – Page 7

This is most peculiar because medicine regulators with the help of the Mainstream Media, have denied for months on end that Graphene Oxide is an ingredient of the Covid-19 vaccine. They’ve been able to say this because those who’ve proven and speculated Graphene Oxide is in the Pfizer Covid19 injection have been asking the wrong question.

What everyone should have been asking is, ‘is Graphene Oxide used in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer Covid vaccine?’

Because as this document, which the FDA attempted to keep confidential and sealed the 75 years, shows, Graphene Oxide is indeed used in the manufacturing process of the vaccine because it is vital in helping to make the vaccine’s lipid nanoparticles stable.

Therefore, trace amounts or large amounts, depending on the batch, of reduced Graphene Oxide inevitably make their way into the Pfizer Covid-19 injections.

What are Lipid Nanoparticles?

The Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine uses tiny particles called lipid nanoparticles to deliver the vaccine’s genetic material (called messenger RNA, or mRNA) into cells in the body. These lipid nanoparticles are like tiny “bubbles” made up of fats and other molecules that can surround and protect the mRNA until it reaches its destination inside the cells.

The mRNA in the vaccine provides instructions to the cells to produce a protein (called spike protein) that is found on the surface of the Covid-19 virus. When the immune system detects this spike protein, it can recognize it as foreign and mount an immune response against it,

Furthermore, it has been discovered that two of the lipids in Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines are ALC-0159 and ALC-315, as confirmed by the assessment report of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine published by the European Medicines Agency.

Source – Page 14

But both of these lipids carry manufacturer’s warnings that state they are never to be used in humans or animals.

As you can see for yourself, it tiny writing at the bottom of the product inserts here and here.

Source

What is Graphene Oxide?

Graphene Oxide is a tiny particle that is made up of carbon and oxygen atoms. It’s really small – so small that you can’t see it with your eyes. But even though it’s small, it can be dangerous.

It is known to be toxic to some cells, and research has shown that it can cause inflammation and damage to the lungs when inhaled.

In addition, Graphene Oxide is able to cross the blood-brain barrier, which is a protective barrier that prevents harmful substances from entering the brain. This could potentially lead to neurological problems.

Graphene Oxide is detected in the immune system as if it were a pathogen. Once injected it has an affinity for the central nervous system, potentially causing paralysis, strokes and alteration of the nervous system.

Furthermore, the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure are not yet known. There is very little research on the long-term effects of Graphene Oxide exposure in humans, which means we don’t know what the potential risks are.

But thanks to the administration of the Pfizer COVID vaccine to millions of people, numerous times, we are finding out as the days pass. And sadly, both the short-term and long-term effects do not look good.

Further Evidence, Other Undeclared Substances & Deadly Consequences

Graphene Oxide is not the only toxic substance that the public should be concerned about. Because scientists have found Nanotech alongside Graphene Oxide when they have previously examined samples of Covid-19 injections.

Nanoscience and nanotechnology involve the ability to see and control individual atoms and molecules. Everything on Earth is made up of atoms—the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the buildings and houses we live in, and our own bodies.

But something as small as an atom is impossible to see with the naked eye. In fact, it’s impossible to see with the microscopes typically used in high school science classes. The microscopes needed to see things at the nanoscale were invented in the early 1980s.

Once scientists had the right tools, such as the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) and the atomic force microscope (AFM), the age of nanotechnology was born.

And scientists from Spain, have declared that nanotechnology, which has the ability to control atoms in your body, has been found in all of the Covid-19 injections alongside Graphene Oxide. https://odysee.com/$/embed/@StopTheCrime:d/Breaking-News-SHOCKING—Here-is-What-Really-is-in-the-Vaccines:d?r=7w5QuSaWFRbu1bEVToV9pb1Zdn8mheAq

According to the Spanish scientists who examined the Covid-19 injections, Graphene Oxide has the potential to cause strange blood clots. This may explain why it has been proven that Covid-19 injections increase the risk of suffering thrombosis with thrombocytopenia.

But it is not just scientists from Spain making these claims. Numerous scientists around the world have published findings where they allege they have discovered both nanotechnology and Graphene Oxide in the Covid-19 injections.

Scientists discover ‘Carbon Nanotech’ & ‘Radioactive Thulium’ in Pfizer & Moderna COVID Vaccines

After reviewing electron microscope images of elements contained in the Covid Pfizer and Moderna injections, Dr Daniel Nagase, a Canadian emergency room doctor, revealed that, strangely, the contents of the Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” show no signs of biological material, including mRNA or DNA. (Read more here).

Dr Nagase’s research group looked at Moderna and Pfizer samples under a regular microscope. Although there were a lot of very interesting images, they were unable to be conclusive about what exactly they were seeing. So, they used an electron microscope to determine what elements the “vaccines” contained.

Here are some of the images of what they found –

Found in a Moderna Covid “vaccine” sample

Dr Nagase examined a “ball with the legs growing out of it” found inside a Moderna sample and had this to say –

“This shape, this ball with the legs growing out of it, for some reason has aluminium in it. And I can say with certainty that this isn’t a mould spore or some other type of biological contamination, because the only thing in it is carbon, oxygen, and no signs of nitrogen, no signs of phosphorus, which would indicate something biological of origin. So, this thing that’s growing is non-biological.”

Dr Nagase and the researchers also discovered an unusual element from the lanthanide series – thulium – in a fibre-like structure found in a Pfizer sample –

Found in a Pfizer Covid “vaccine” sample

Dr. Nagase and the researchers found a variety of shapes and structures inside the “vaccine” samples they tested – crystals, chips, strands, bulbs, spheres, fibres and balls with legs growing out of them – “we have polymorphic, which is many different forms,” he said.

“They all seem to be made predominantly out of carbon and oxygen and they were in both the Moderna and Pfizer samples, and they seem to be in fibre forms. In the Moderna sample, the carbon-oxygen structures seem to be taking nanosphere forms and crystalline forms. And in the Pfizer sample … seem to only be forming fibres and crystals.

Argentina: Researchers Discover Nanotech & Graphene Oxide in COVID Vaccines

In a presentation to the Chilean radio station El Mirador del Gallo, Argentine doctor Martín Monteverde presented the analyses carried out by Corona2Inspect researchers on the microtechnology found in the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA vaccine.

Argentina’s Dr Monteverde and other researchers carried out microscopic analyses of a vial of the Pfizer vaccine alongside four other Covid-19 “vaccine” types.  He then sent these images to Corona2Inspect for further analysis.  Corona2Inspect returned the images with their comments identifying what objects the images were showing.

You can watch a video of Dr Monteverde’s teams findings below – https://www.bitchute.com/embed/rp5ZyrmMLJQv/

Argentina’s Dr Patricia Aprea, Director of Evaluation and Control of the ANMAT, also accidentally admitted AstraZeneca’s Viral Vector Covid-19 injection also contains Graphene during a legal case regarding a death post-Covid injection.

You can read the document where ANMAT recognised that Covid-19 vaccines contain Graphene Oxide HERE in (Spanish) or below, translated into English using Google –

Click to enlarge

Doctors find Graphene is shedding from the COVID Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated, forming Strange Blood Clots & decimating Red Blood Cells

Dr Philippe van Welbergen, Medical Director of Biomedical Clinics, was one of the first to warn the public of the damage being caused to people’s blood by Covid injections by releasing images of blood samples under the microscope.

In a set of slides of blood samples taken from both “vaccinated” and unvaccinated people, Dr Philippe van Welbergen demonstrated that the Graphene Oxide, contained in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines being injected into people by amateurs and volunteers with no adequate training, is organising and growing into larger fibres and structures, gaining magnetic properties or an electrical charge and the fibres are showing indications of more complex structures with striations.

At the beginning of July 2021, Dr Philippe, was interviewed and he explained that when his patients started complaining about chronic fatigue, dizziness, memory loss, and even sometimes paralysis and late onset of heavy menstruation (women in their 60s upwards), he took blood samples.

Their blood had unusual tube-like structures, some particles which lit up and many damaged cells.

Few healthy cells were visible. Until three months earlier, he had never seen these formations in blood. 

We now know these tube-like structures are Graphene Oxide.

He also demonstrated that “shards” of Graphene Oxide are being transmitted from the Covid-19 vaccinated to vaccine-free or unvaccinated people, sadly destroying their red blood cells and causing blood clots. (Read more here).

Below is an image of typical healthy red blood cells as seen with a microscope, what blood should look like. There is no coagulation or foreign objects in it.

Sadly fibres of this size are capable of blocking capillaries.

You can also see that the Graphene fibres are hollow and have swallowed up some red blood cells.

In December 2021, a British medical practitioner offered to assist in an investigation to ascertain whether the results discovered by Dr. Andreas Noack, a German chemist, and Dr. Pablo Campra, of the University of Almeria in Spain, could be replicated in the UK and also to examine the Covid-19 injection vials for toxins or unexpected contents.

The medical practitioner seized an injection vial from the fridge housed in the surgery where she works and handed it to an independent investigator. 

A UK laboratory analysed the sample using Raman Spectroscopy and found Graphene, SP3 carbon, iron oxide, carbon derivatives and glass shards.

The first sample that was evaluated was the Moderna 01 which was examined by Raman spectroscopy. The investigation clearly showed that all the inclusions within the vaccine have a strong carbon signal with confirmed graphene compositions of some representative forms.

Two clear signals were obtained from two objects. The flat ribbon-like inclusions exhibited clear Graphene spectra integrated with the spectrum of glycol and other minor compounds. The other clear signal was obtained from a calcite microcrystalline form and Carbon composite forms also had a clear Graphene signal.

You can read a copy of the document encompassing a case briefing, the UNIT report and a summary of the toxicity of Graphene nanoparticles on UK Citizen 2021’s website HERE

The 48-page UNIT report, ‘Qualitative Evaluation of Inclusions in Moderna, AstraZeneca and Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines’, begins on page 12 of the document.

An Open Access review highlighting the toxicity of the graphene family nanoparticles can be viewed here.

Covid Injection Secret Ingredients | New Zealand Scientists confirm Nanotechnology alongside Graphene Oxide

Nanotechnology and Graphene have also been found in Pfizer’s Comirnaty “vaccines” by scientists in New Zealand. (Read more here).

At the end of January 2022, Sue Grey, co-leader of the Outdoors and Freedom Party, and Dr Matt Shelton from New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (“NZDSOS”) put the Health Select Committee on notice that serious contamination of the Pfizer vaccine has been uncovered and they needed to act immediately to stop the injection campaign.

Dr Shelton came forward to disclose the discovery of formations of nano-particles found by New Zealand scientists using specialised microscopic techniques.

None of the experts consulted had ever seen anything like this before, and none of these contaminants are listed as approved ingredients.

You can read the full account, with additional images and videos, HERE. But below is a snapshot of what one New Zealand scientist found. 

The image below was taken from one drop of New Zealand’s Pfizer Cominarty “vaccine” under a cover slip, after it was inadvertently heated lightly, and viewed the same day through dark field microscopy at low magnification, projected onto a TV monitor.

The following images were taken after a new computer with improved graphics was purchased alongside new software for the camera –

They lied to you

Despite repeated assurances from authorities and mainstream media that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective, evidence has emerged time and time again that proves they have not been telling the whole truth.

The use of Graphene Oxide in the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine has been a source of controversy and concern from the outset, with many individuals claiming that regulators and media outlets were deliberately misleading the public about its inclusion.

Despite initial denials, the documents released by the FDA, which they were forced to publish by order of the Federal Court in the USA. have confirmed the use of Graphene Oxide in the manufacturing process of the Pfizer vaccine, raising questions about who we can trust.

This revelation should cause widespread alarm and will likely fuel suspicion about the true intentions of those in charge of public health.

Attributions: https://expose-news.com/2023/07/14/fda-graphene-covid-vaccine/?cmid=df87c67c-0e9b-4c04-be28-fef09b20d152

Broze’s Blunder

I have seen this argument being made by some prominent people within the health freedom community that there is no need to debate the existence of “viruses” at this moment in time. After witnessing the incredible power of what the fear of an invisible boogeyman can bring about with the destructive lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing, mass testing, forced business closures, travel restrictions, mask and vaccine mandates, etc., these people are of the belief that there is no reason to argue against the existence of this dangerous weapon that was effectively used against us. They believe that we are winning by arguing within the germ theory pharmaceutical paradigm and that the time is not right to change course in order to bring this fraudulent house of cards crashing down. They believe that this debate will not ultimately lead to solutions that will ensure that this “viral” madness never happens again.

When asked why they are unwilling to touch upon this subject, some, like Robert Kennedy Jr., will state that questioning the existence of “viruses” is above their expertise level, as he admitted to investigative journalist Eric Coppolino in April 2022:

“Yeah, I really am not qualified to comment but I…my inclination if there are people who say the viruses don’t exist that there is no virus… I don’t, you know, my inclination is that, um, that simply is not, you know, that’s not true.”

“And I am kind of amused reading the exchanges and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big  hoax, but to me, it all seems  like, you know, viruses are real, and um so, look, I should have just shut up from the beginning and say I’m not gonna answer that question.”

“Again, I am not a good a good per— I am not a scientist. I don’t pretend to be. I find those arguments
interesting.”

-Robert Kennedy Jr.

In his response, RFK Jr. determined that he is not qualified to speak to the existence of “viruses” as he is not a scientist. However, he has concluded, apparently without investigating the matter, that the scientists are right about the existence of these entities. This is despite the fact that, even though Kennedy Jr. says he is not a scientist, he claims an expertise in reading scientific papers and spotting “junk science:”

Q: Do you have scientific training?

A: No. My background is I’m an environmental lawyer. I’m not a scientist. But I have an expertise, I would say, in reading science and spotting junk science because that’s what I do with most of my time.

https://www.science.org/content/article/exclusive-qa-robert-f-kennedy-jr-trumps-proposed-vaccine-commission

Kennedy Jr. has said that he is very accustomed to reading science, and that he knows how to read science critically:

“I’m very accustomed to reading science. I’ve brought over 500 successful lawsuits, almost all of them involve scientific controversy. I know how to read science, and I know how to read it critically.”

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-f-kennedy–vaccines-covid-dr-fauci-i-read-science-1572688

If it were truly the case that Kennedy Jr. can read science critically and that he is an expert at weeding out junk science, it is hard to see how he can continue to promote junk science as if it were real science with his fear propaganda headlines claiming that “SARS-COV-2” is a bioweapon that was engineered during gain of function experiments in Wuhan. It’s difficult to see how he had enough expertise to read gain of function studies and yet, miss the junk science within them, in order to write an entire book about the existence of a “virus” when he admits to being unqualified to speak on the subject of the existence of “viruses” in the first place.

When Kennedy Jr.’s Children Health Defense was asked by Christine Massey about this unwillingness to examine the lack of scientific evidence supporting virology, Mary Holland, CHD’s president, anonymously quoted their science advisor, Jay Couey, who said it lacked nuance and was not a viable position:

“While we agree that there have been many, many lies during covid, we believe that the situation is complicated, and that the ‘no virus’ stance lacks sufficient nuance to be the most viable position.”

The sentiment that attacking virology is not a viable strategy has been echoed by other prominent health freedom activists, such as Del Bigtree, as well. In a September 2022 interview with Derrick Broze, Del stated that the time was not right to change the game. In fact, he said we were winning by playing their game. If he was to discuss terrain theory and virology, he would need to leave the stadium filled with spectators while winning. He would need to go to a different stadium and build a different team and establish new rules. Thus, Bigtree concluded that he can not leave in the middle of the game. In other words, he must continue going on promoting “viruses” and gain of function narratives in order to keep on “winning” within the pharmaceutical playbook.

Del prefaced his odd sports analogy by stating that he was raised to believe that disease came from the mind. He didn’t even go to doctors until he was an adult. His mother would allow any fevers to run their course without interference. However, Del did not address his beliefs or his background on The Doctors as he was enamored by the medical ideas and advancements he was promoting on his show. Through his interviews with scientists and virologists, he came to the realization that they do not know their own “science” and that their beliefs are akin to indoctrination. He believes that they have no understanding of the “immune system,” bacteria, and “viruses.” They assume that the science has been done when, in fact, this is not the case. Thus, Del feels that many base their germ theory assumptions upon the teachings that they received at the pharmaceutically-funded universities.

It is very frustrating as much of what Del speaks to rings true. He seems to understand the issues with germ theory and seemingly subscribed to terrain for most of his life. He believes that terrain theory needs funding in order to be further explored. However, he has some fundamental misunderstandings and differences as well. Del seems to believe that terrain theory teaches that “viruses” are created within the body when the environmental conditions require them in order for a cleansing to occur. However, there is no place for “viruses” within terrain theory. Del also offered that he disagreed that these microorganisms are only found within us, stating that they can invade our bodies from the outside. He felt that if one keeps their terrain clean, “viruses” and bacteria can not make one sick.

Thus, Del has mixed both germ theory and terrain theory together, which is something that I have recently seen from interviewer Derrick Broze and others as well. There is this middle ground that they are trying to play, almost as if they are afraid to upset the apple cart. Broze even cut Del off during the interview in order to interject that germ theory and terrain theory are not mutually exclusive, i.e. cannot occur simultaneously, and that they can coexist at the same time. He even made such a comment recently to users on Twitter where he stated that pathogens and terrain are not in conflict.

Thus, it is with this information in mind that I engaged in a Twitter exchange with Derrick Broze in an attempt to gain some clarity, not only on his position, but also as to why the “no virus” issue is not at the top of the playbook in terms of bringing about the winning play in order to ensure the final outcome of the game is in our favor. It wasn’t a very long exchange, but it was rather informative, which is why I want to share it with you here. I also want to make the case to Broze, Bigtree, and Kennedy Jr. as to why we can not win this game until we stop playing by their rules. When the game is rigged, the only thing left to do is to change the game.

I want to be clear that this is not meant as an attack on Broze, or even Kennedy Jr., Bigtree, and others who share this belief that striking at the very foundations of germ theory and virology is not beneficial. This is an attempt to reconcile a fundamental sticking point that has driven a wedge within the health freedom community. I am focusing mostly on Derrick Broze here due to my exchange with him as well as a recent interview that he conducted with James Corbett. During this interview (at about the 20 minute mark), Broze asked a question to Corbett that he stated the “rabid” audience wanted him to ask. This is the “virus” question…which was never really addressed as Broze immediately shrugged off any discussion about the (lack of) scientific evidence and decided to, instead, focus on the so-called “rabid no virus” community. He wanted to talk about the “you are either with us, or against us” mentality that he said he has seen that leads to himself and others being labelled as controlled-opposition (CO). It was insinuated by Corbett that this approach, of labeling people like himself and Broze as CO based upon a single issue, is a part of a CIA plan to discredit them. Broze seemed to agree that, even though he did not have evidence of this being true, the “no virus” crowd may be an attempt to infiltrate and blow up the health freedom community.

Broze then decided to represent the “no virus” side in the interview by stating that we believe that addressing this issue will bring the whole house of cards tumbling down. However, he immediately stated that he did not agree with this position, thus throwing any unbiased objectivity out the door from his role-playing. Broze followed this up by claiming that communism, climate change, and alien invasions will be used against us even if we bring virology and germ theory down. He argued that those in control do not need the “plandemic” card if they can jump to something else. While there is truth to Broze’s statement, this does not mean that we shouldn’t focus on taking away the “plandemic” card from their arsenal of weapons so that they are incapable of using it against us again in the future. They already have the infrastructure in place to easily play this card whenever they desire in order to bring about further restrictions and control. Of Broze’s list of potential scenarios, the “plandemic” card is by far the easiest and most viable option to be used against us in the near future.

As

Christine Massey’s “germ” FOI Newsletteralso provided an excellent breakdown and commentary that focused on further problems with Broze and Corbett’s discussion on the “no virus” issue, I wanted to share her analysis here as well:

Derrick Broze and James Corbett talk about how uncool it is for no-virus people to accuse yes-virus people of being controlled op (as if all no-virus people do this, and no yes-virus people do this)… and in the same breath speculate about no-virus people being cognitive infiltrators and “part of a plan” (as in “controlled op”) lol. 

Next Derek misrepresents no-virus people as naively thinking/claiming that getting the world to understand the no-virus reality will magically solve all problems. I don’t know anyone who thinks or claims that. It would be a lot more useful if Derek interviewed some no-virus people instead of speculating and putting words in our mouths.

Next James asks Derek to stand in and speak for no-virus people (!!) and answer the question as to whether or not governments would have the right to violate people’s bodily autonomy IF there really was a contagious health threat. Derek says “no” (so does everyone else that I know). But then James ironically goes on an almost-hysterical rant saying that anyone who answers “yes” is NOT part of the health freedom movement and is missing the whole point. It’s almost as if he’s trying to cause division over people’s hypothetical answers to a hypothetical question.

James also claims that answering “no” to this hypothetical question is more important than addressing the real-world issue of whether or not we’ve been lied to all our lives about “viruses”. What was the purpose of all this in the middle of a discussion about no-virus people, I wonder?

James also makes reference to some people not believing in bacterial infections. He seems not to realize that people are actually pointing out the lack of science showing that bacteria are the CAUSE of disease. He wouldn’t have this misconception if he had just spoken to some well-known no-virus people instead of speculating about them. Meanwhile Derek keeps nodding and looking into the camera as if to say “those ridiculous no-virus people”.

Next James claims that germ theory and terrain theory go together!  And talks about how a healthy immune system will protect you from pathogens.  Maybe someone will ask him to share the successful, valid germ theory controlled experiments that progressed a germ hypothesis to the theory stage.

Then Derek shared his “feeling” that there could be other reasons for the hundreds of failures by institutions in 40 countries to provide even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” being purified from any alleged host (which would only be the 1st step necessary to show the existence of a “virus”).  He speculates that maybe institutions really do have responsive records.  Hmm, well if Derek knows of any such record, for any “virus” in the history of virology, I do hope he will share it with the rest of the world post haste. 

Then James makes a ridiculous comment about how he supposedly filed a FOIA with the government for “isolated terrain” and got no records – which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever since terrain isn’t a specific particle/thing that can be isolated/purified. He then quips that therefore “terrain theory doesn’t exist”, as if this shows that the hundreds of FOIs responses about imaginary viruses (which are alleged to be specific particles in “hosts”) are actually irrelevant and useless. Derek nods smugly and laughs.

Are Derek and James really so clued out that they don’t realize that the FOI responses align with what is seen in the published literature, and simply confirm what could already be seen?

There is a further problem with conversations such as this exchange between Broze and Corbett as well as the earlier example from Broze’s interview with Del Bigtree. According to his biography, Derrick Broze considers himself an investigative journalist:

“Derrick Broze is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, public speaker, and current candidate for Mayor of Houston. For the last ten years, Derrick has been active in Houston as a journalist and activist seeking to expose local corruption and give a voice to ignored Houstonians. As a candidate for Mayor, he is focusing on issues, which affect all Houstonians yet are ignored by local press and politicians.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aama.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Website-Bios_DB.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjplYPvvbv_AhVOkYkEHT_nCOAQFnoECCIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3P5AKyD8omhkAArgYTAm_X

Journalists are supposed to side with none of the parties involved, and only provide the relevant facts and information. This is how they keep their reporting unbiased. However, Broze regularly intercedes by incorporating his own opinions into his questions and then tends to guide the conversation with leading questions. He is not presenting an unbiased look at the “no virus” position to his viewers. He is flavoring it with his own opinion and interpretations that were seemingly gathered from a few conversations he had with Drs. Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan, as well as authors Dawn Lester and David Parker. While Broze says that the “no virus” position raises interesting questions and points, he seems disinterested in truly exploring them and has mostly written the position off as a “rabid” base that he must appease by occasionally asking questions and misrepresenting our position to his guests.

If he is going to ask questions about the “no virus” position and attempt to represent our side fairly, Derrick has a responsibility as an investigative journalist to fully research the topic in order to present it accurately to his guests and his viewers. He should do so without coloring our position with his own opinions, especially as to a “rabid” social media base or the idea of a CIA psy-op bent on infiltration. If he is not clear about our position, there are many other great people to learn from including Dr. Stefan Lanka, Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey, Dr. Jordan Grant, Dr. Amandha Vollmer, Dr. Kevin Corbett, etc. All he has to do is ask and we will be more than happy to enlighten him further.

Derrick stated in his interview with Corbett that this is not about censoring the “no virus” position. While it is true that he is not outright censoring us, Broze doesn’t seem to want to include our position as a part of the conversation going forward in regard to bringing about lasting solutions and change. This, in turn, is keeping people away from an important discussion that will help to free them from the medical cartel. Broze’s reluctance to discuss this topic was evidenced by exchanges with Alec Zeck about a recent event that they both participated in. While I was not involved in this event in any way, I will do my best to summarize the situation as accurately as possible based upon what I know.

In a January 2023 event called “The Greater Reset,” Alec was invited as a speaker. Doing what he does best, Alec brilliantly provided the case for why germ theory and virology are pseudoscience during his presentation in order to help dispel the fear of pathogenic entities. This apparently was not to the liking of Derrick and others leading the event. This was pointed out by Alec in a recent tweet that Derrick responded to, stating that the “no virus” topic was not to be included in the event as it does not offer practical solutions that help us to escape the slavery system.

It really surprised me that Derrick is under the impression that exposing the germ theory fraud and unshackling the masses from the grips of the pharmaceutical cartel does not offer a practical solution to help us escape the slavery system. This response didn’t sit well with me nor with Alec. He pressed Broze about the inclusion of Del Bigtree, asking what solutions he offered during the event. Alec also challenged Derrick on why the “no virus” conversation is not a part of the solution. This was something that I wanted further clarity on as well.

Derrick shared a private message from Telegram between himself and Alec explaining that, while Del had no solutions to offer, he was there to “pump up the crowd.” Alec challenged Derrick to show how his own presentation helping others to let go of the fear of germ theory is not solution oriented. Sadly, that thread went silent.

In a separate exchange related to the Bigtree topic, Derrick answered another user, Greg Shantz, regarding the lack of a solution offered by Del. Broze doubled down on his hypocritical explanation of including Del, a speaker without solutions who was there to “pump up the crowd,” while disparaging Alec, a speaker who actually provided a solution with his presentation.

While I am not certain what Del spoke about at the event, I jumped in with my own thoughts on how Del regularly “pumps up the crowd” with talk about bioweapons, gain of function myths, “safe” vaccines, and the existence of invisible boogeymen. In my opinion, based upon what I have seen, Del promotes fear. This, to me, is not a practical solution. Broze argued that Del spoke about none of those things at the event and that we, on the “no virus” side, are too narrow in our focus on germ theory and virology. However, I was focused on the content Del regularly ptoduces on The Highwire and that his message is aimed at promoting fear when discussing those topics to his viewers as the truth. We can promote solutions without repeating the pharmaceutical propaganda.

While I understand that there are other important issues to address that go beyond germ theory and virology, I fail to see how this topic should not be at the forefront when looking for solutions, especially factoring in all that we have endured over the past three years. Derrick did not seem to like my question probing him as to why this topic was not a part of the solution. He brushed it off, telling me to do my thing and that he will do his. When I clarified that he was not providing a direct response, he implied that my asking for one was reflecting my attitude of entitlement. It’s an odd position to take for someone who regularly interviews others.

In a separate conversation with another user, I pointed out that no one was trying to force Derrick into any position. My intent was simply to understand why he felt that discussing the lack of scientific evidence for germ theory/virology was not a solution. If we expose this centuries old lie, we can bring down the pharmaceutical-industrial complex built upon it. Derrick jumped in and once again painted our side as “rabid” (ironic) and that the discussion was not essential. It seemed to me that he was judging our position based upon Twitter comments and social media interactions. However, Derrick clarified that he based his views on his interactions with Dr. Cowan, Dr. Kaufman, as well as Dawn Lester and David Parker. It is a truly great line-up representing our position, so I am at a loss as to how Derrick still seems unclear about our argument.

Regardless, Derrick seems intent on painting our side as “rabid” and “entitled” due to the fact that we want our position at the table when it comes to speaking about solutions. I do not consider our base “rabid.” I consider them passionate about spreading the truth of the matter, which is that there is no scientific evidence supporting germ theory and virology. If he has any misunderstandings about our position, all he has to do is ask.

Derrick said that he does not jump on bandwagons and that he takes the time to research a topic before forming an opinion. However, based upon what I have seen, it does not seem that he has truly researched this topic as he is still not clear as to what our position is. Instead, he has decided that the “no virus” issue is not crucial to bringing about lasting change. While he claims that we have interesting questions and valid points, he is disinterested in pursuing them. He has somehow come to the conclusion that both terrain theory and germ theory can work together.

Thus, I want to know what research Derrick has done on this topic outside of his four interviews. What information did he see that left him unconvinced about our position? Did he read any of the foundational virology papers looking to see if they actually contained evidence derived from the scientific method? What contagion experiments convinced him that germ theory has any validity whatsoever? Did he read about the failed human-to-human transmissions experiments conducted by Milton Rosenau in 1918 during the height of Spanish flu, considered the most infectious and deadly “virus” of all time? How much of the history of germ theory did he investigate? Did he take the time to read Robert Koch’s experiments with bacteria and his failures to satisfy his own logical postulates? Did he look into Louis Pasteur’s unethical and fraudulent rabies experiments that were exposed by Pasteur’s own notebooks? Did he read John Franklin Enders 1954 measles paper that established as well as disproved the cell culture process that is still used to “isolate viruses” today? What scientific evidence convinced Derrick that there is any truth in germ theory and virology at all and that they can coexist with terrain theory?

These are not just questions that I would like Derrick to answer, but also Robert Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree, and anyone else within the health freedom community who continues to promote the existence of pathogenic “viruses” and bacteria. If anyone in the health freedom community is going to parrot the mainstream narrative that these entities are pathogens capable of bringing about and spreading disease, as well as that they can be engineered into dangerous bioweapons, they must show us the evidence derived from the scientific method that supports this belief, just as we ask any virologist, microbiologist, scientist, doctor, etc. to do as well. Please share the necessary scientific evidence that should be included in any foundational paper claiming the existence of any “virus” with us if you remain unconvinced.

If you can not provide this evidence, ask yourself why it does not exist. Ask yourself how germ theory and virology were scientifically validated without adherence to the scientific method. What you will see is that the evidence supporting germ theory and virology that has been piling up for centuries is, in fact, by definition, pseudoscience. Once you realize that our pharmaceutical-industrial complex was built on top of pseudoscientific fraud, you will see that exposing this lie to the masses ends this corrupt system. There will be no more ability for those in control to use the fear of the pathogenic entity in order to bring about destructive lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing, mass testing, forced business closures, travel restrictions, mask and vaccine mandates, etc. Once people realize that they were knowingly lied to for over two centuries about the nature of health and wellness, they will start to examine what other areas they were lied to about as well. Exposing the germ theory lie has the potential to bring about a domino effect of realization that, if we were lied to about the “science” of “viruses,” we may have also been lied to about the “science” of other topics such as climate change.

Thus, exposing the fraud of germ theory is vitally important. It has the potential to bring about real and lasting change. It can cascade into other areas while saving many lives in the process. This topic must be at the forefront of any discussions involving solutions. This is not to say that the other topics are not important. It is to say that exposing germ theory may very well be the most pressing one that has the most potential for an immediate impact.

Continuing to play within the germ theory playbook, discussing gain of function, bioweapons, PCR fraud, the ineffectiveness of the restrictive measures enacted, the need for “safer” vaccines, etc. will ultimately get us nowhere. Going down this road continues to promote the lie and takes us further away from the truth. If those within the health freedom community continue to promote pathogens, knowing full well that the scientific evidence does not exist, in order to try and “win” the game, they are no better than the people and organizations they rally against that also promote these same lies. We will not win by playing their game and hiding the truth. In order to really win, we must expose the lies and the corruption. We must blow up the game board and change the playbook. It is far past time to bring this discussion to the table. Failing to do so at this moment in time is an incredible blunder, i.e. a stupid and careless mistake.

Update 6/21/23:

Since this article came out, a few things have happened which I feel are important to update here. On June 19th, Derrick posted a walkabout video where he touched on his recent Corbett interview and his frustration with the “no virus” crowd. In this short video, Derrick broke the camp into 3 groups. Those who believe:

  1. “Covid” has not been isolated.
  2. “Covid” does not exist.
  3. “Viruses” do not exist and terrain theory is correct.

Broze stated that he tends to agree with the first group in that “Covid” (I’m assuming he means “SARS-COV-2” as “Covid” is the disease, not the “virus”) has not been isolated. He stated that this debate about “viruses” has been going on for three years, which is misleading as there have been many who have challenged germ theory and the existence of “viruses” ever since these concepts were introduced. The most prominent period occured with those who challenged the HIV/AIDS narrative in the 1980s and throughout the proceeding decades. The “SARS-COV-2/Covid” debate has been an extension of this. Terrain theory itself has been around since the mid 1800’s to challenge Louis Pasteur’s germ theory due to the work of Claude Bernard and Antoine Bechamp. In other words, this is not a new debate.

Derrick discussed his early conversations on this subject with Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan, and stated that he was unsure if they were real doctors. This was rather shocking to hear from an investigative journalist who had previously interviewed both men. This confusion is easily rectified by a quick search where one can find out that both men are, in fact, doctors.

Derrick stated that, throughout this “pandemic,” he has been giving a voice to the “no virus” crowd even though he is not fully convinced of our conclusions. Thus, I would again like to ask Derrick what he remains unconvinced and/or skeptical about? Myself and others are more than happy to clear up any questions he may have. Derrick stated that he has asked many prominent people including Del Bigtree, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Catherine Austin Fitts about the “no virus” position and whether:

  1. It is a distraction.
  2. It is meant to divide and conquer.
  3. It is true, but that it is not a good time to talk about it.

Again, these are leading questions that do not do our position any justice. The first two paint our position in a entirely negative light, while the third is absurd in that, if they agreed that our position is true, why would there be no reason to discuss it? The truth should never be sidelined. The time to discuss the truth is now rather than when it is convenient.

Derrick touched on Christine Massey’s excellent FOI requests and presented the case for why he felt they might not matter if they are worded wrong and/or sent to the wrong institutions. However, Derrick did say that they are intriguing, even though he personally is not sure, even if they are true (they are), that the information from these FOI’s should lead one to believe that “Covid” (again, I assume he means “SARS-COV-2”) does not exist. I’m not sure how Derrick comes to the conclusion that one should still believe in the “virus” even when the very institutions claiming the existence of the “virus” admit to not having the necessary evidence showing the existence of the “virus,” so it would be great if Derrick would clarify what he means. At about the 10 minute and 40 second mark, Derrick does mention me by name due to this article. He stated that he was not calling me out or trying to start a feud. I want to be clear that my intention was never to start a feud. My interest is mainly to clear up some fundamental sticking points that I feel really need to be addressed.

Derrick stated that he will continue to ask prominent people about the “no virus” issue, which I applaud. I truly hope that he does. However, I also hope that Derrick takes to heart some of the constructive criticism laid out here. Derrick says that he is continuing to research and that he has a video coming out soon about the “Rosenbaum” papers on contagion (I believe he is referring to the Rosenau Spanish flu experiments linked within this article) and that he still has questions after reading these papers. I would love to help address any questions Derrick may have.

On June 20th, I had another brief exchange with Derrick on Christine Massey’s Facebook post about this article. It was a pleasant enough exchange which I am presenting here:

I did send Derrick an email as he requested if he wishes to continue this discussion. Hopefully, we can build on this going forward and clear up any sticking points along the way.

The Truth Seeker wrote an excellent piece back in March addressing many of the misconceptions that Broze and others have about the “no virus” issue.

The Truth Seeker

My attempt to address some misconceptions

In a recent panel with Derrick Broze, Whitney Webb, Ryan Christian and Matthew Ehret there were some talk about the debate regarding “viruses” where I felt that I have to address some of the misconceptions that these people have. DB made a clip of this that can be found here titled …

Read more

7 months ago · 52 likes · 22 comments · John Blaid

Dr. Tom Cowan wrote a brilliant piece for the Weston A. Price Foundation on what makes us ill that challenges us to really think about what we “know.”

Truthiverse by Brendan Murphy examined why it is important to get to the bottom of the “virus” existence debate.

Truthiverse by Brendan Murphy

Does It REALLY Matter Or Not?

Recently a few of my fellow Substackers here have highlighted some of the limitations of the rhetoric of some very well known figures in the “truth movement”… …specifically limitations to do with inconsistent or just plain unhelpful views around the question of whether “the virus” (or “viruses” in general) actually exist as they are believed to within th…

Read more

4 months ago · 7 likes · 5 comments · Brendan D. Murphy Official

Dawn Lester looked at the importance of bringing to light the lack of scientific evidence for pathogens in her latest.

Dawn’s Writings

And on and on it goes….

It seems that many people wonder why the ‘no virus’ issue remains important now that the ‘pandemic’ is over. To add to that, there are some people in the ‘freedom movement’ who have recently asserted that there are many aspects of the globalists’ agenda that are not related to health and are far more dangerous to humanity, such as technocracy, transhuman…

Read more

4 months ago · 43 likes · 43 comments · Dawn Lester

The Real AIDS Epidemicexamined the dangerous toxic HIV drug Truvada and the lawsuits currently cropping up.

The Real AIDS Epidemic

BREAKING NEWS – Truvada lawsuits are just the tip of the iceberg

This is a developing story. Please stay tuned to this page for updates as they occur. There is certainly more information to come. Regular readers of this SubSTACK are no doubt aware of the ongoing Truvada disaster, as well as attempts on the part of activists to…

Read more

5 months ago · 8 likes · 1 comment · Rebecca Culshaw Smith

Sebastien’s Newsletter looked at the similarities between ionizing radiation poisoning and contagion in the first part of a two-part investigation.

Sebastien’s Newsletter

Contagion or radiation?

Summary In this article, we take a closer look at ionising radiation and how it can affect us. Radiation-emitting particles can be transmitted from one person to another, and contaminated materials and / organisms, including animals, insects, and plants can contribute to the spread…

Read more

4 months ago · 2 likes · Sebastien Powell and Caroline Coram

Dr Sam Bailey took issue with Dr. Peter McCullough promotion of the pharmaceutical fear propaganda known as vaccine shedding.

Dr Sam Bailey

Peter McCullough’s Shedding Stories

Watch now (20 min) | While almost everyone in the health freedom community agrees that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous, there has been a lot of disagreement about why this is so. There is also the additional issue of whether “shedding” of particles from the vaccinated can make the unvaccinated sick…

Read more

4 months ago · 107 likes · 41 comments · Dr Sam Bailey

The Rise of the Global Police State

The Rise of the Global Police State

publicerad 17 oktober 2023

Drone photo: Derbyshire Police, EnglandIcke essentiella aktiviteter. Drönarfoto: Derbyshire Police, England

“Non-essential activities” during the 2020-22 Covid years.

At this point in time, it’s crucial to realize that the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are part of the plan to implement a One World Government, where the entire world will be run by unelected bureaucrats beholden to technocratic ideals.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola. This article was first published on Mercola.com

Story at-a-glance

  • The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals are not about sustainability. They’re tools to facilitate the implementation of a One World Government.
  • The term the globalist alliance uses to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P. The G3P is composed of most of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, they are the “stakeholders” that are implementing the SDGs.
  • While SDG16 claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” this goal is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and implementing a centrally controlled global system of digital identity (digital ID).
  • A digital identity is not merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7. Universal adoption of digital identity will enable the G3P global governance regime to establish a behavioral-based system of reward and punishment.
  • The COVID pandemic was used to redefine human rights and to get people used to the idea that the rights of individuals are conditional and can be ignored or suspended “for the greater good.” The United Nations’ Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context.

In a two-part Unlimited Hangout investigative series,1,2 independent journalists Iain Davis and Whitney Webb expose how Sustainable Development Goal No. 16 (SDG16), which claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and forcing a “centrally controlled global system of digital identity3 (digital ID) upon humanity.”

As explained in Part 1,4 the term the globalist alliance of technocrats use to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P:

“The G3P is toiling tirelessly to create the conditions necessary to justify the imposition of both global governance ‘with teeth’ and its prerequisite digital ID system. In doing so, the G3P is inverting the nature of our rights. It manufactures and exploits crises in order to claim legitimacy for its offered ‘solutions.’

The G3P comprises virtually all of the world’s intergovernmental organizations, governments, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, these form the ‘stakeholders’ implementing sustainable development, including SDG16.”

The following chart, sourced from IanDavis.com,5 illustrates how the G3P operates.

How the g3p operates. Chart by Mercola.com
How the g3p operates. Chart by Mercola.com

What SDG16 Is Really About

The central objective of SDG16 is to strengthen the UN-led regime, and of all the subgoals included in this SDG, the establishment of “a legal identity for all” (SDG16.9), is the most crucial, as other goals rely on the use of digital identity. As noted by Davis and Webb:6

“Universal adoption of SDG16.9 digital ID will enable the G3P global governance regime’s to establish a worldwide system of reward and punishment. If we accept the planned model of digital ID, it will ultimately enslave us in the name of sustainable development …

SDG16.9 ‘sustainable development’ means we must use digital ID … Otherwise we will not be protected in law, service access will be denied, our right to transact in the modern economy will be removed, we will be barred from participating as ‘citizens’ and excluded from so-called ‘democracy.’”

Understanding Digital Identity

The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the implementation of digital identity. The problem with calling it “digital ID” is that people misunderstand it to be something it’s not. There’s a huge difference between identity and identification.7

Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.

Your identity encompasses everything that makes you unique, and that’s what the globalist cabal is really after. Step out of line, and every social media interaction, every penny spent and every move you’ve ever made can be used against you.

Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation and control of the global population. The graphic below, from the WEF, illustrates their idea of how your digital identity will interact with the world.

Everything you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.

If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or emotional support to.

Digital Identity
Digital Identity. Chart by Mercola.com

Interoperability Will Link Disparate Systems Together

As people are coming to understand the threat of a One World Government, resistance against digital ID and the social credit score that comes with it has started to mount. The G3P’s answer to that dilemma is the construction of an interoperable system that can link disparate digital ID systems together. As explained by Davis and Webb:8

“This ‘modular platform’ approach is designed to avoid the political problems that the official issuance of a national digital ID card would otherwise elicit.

Establishing SDG16.9 global digital ID is crucial for 8 of the 17 UN SDGs. It is the linchpin at the center of a global digital panopticon that is being devised under the auspices of the UN’s global public-private partnership ‘regime.’”

You Have No Rights, Only Permits, Under the New World Order

You may be wondering where human rights enter into all of this. If your digital ID records every move you make, which can then be used against you, won’t that violate some of your basic rights as a free human being? Well, that depends on how human rights are defined — and who defines them. Davis and Webb explain:9

“… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The preamble of the Declaration recognizes that the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ of all human beings are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’

After that, ‘inalienable rights’ are never again mentioned in the entire Declaration. ‘Human rights’ are nothing like ‘inalienable rights.’

Inalienable rights, unlike human rights, are not bestowed upon us by any governing authority. Rather, they are innate to each of us. They are immutable. They are ours in equal measure. The only source of inalienable rights is Natural Law, or God’s Law.

No one — no government, no intergovernmental organization, no human institution or human ruler — can ever legitimately claim the right to grant or deny our inalienable rights. Humanity can claim no collective authority to grant or deny the inalienable rights of any individual human being.

Beyond the preamble, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) concerns itself exclusively with ‘human rights.’ But asserting, as it does, that human rights are some sort of expression of inalienable rights is a fabrication — a lie.

Human rights, according to the UDHR, are created by certain human beings and are bestowed by those human beings upon other human beings. They are not inalienable rights or anything close to inalienable rights.

Article 6 of the UDHR and Article 16 of the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … both decree: ‘Everyone has the [human] right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’

Note: We put ‘[human]’ in brackets … to alert readers that these documents are NOT referring to inalienable rights. While the respective Articles 6 and 16 sound appealing, the underlying implications are not.

Both articles mean that ‘without legal existence those rights may not be asserted by a person within the domestic legal order.’ As we shall see, the ability to prove one’s identity will become a prerequisite for ‘legal existence.’ Thus, in a post-SDG16 world, persons without UN-approved identification will be unable to assert their ‘human rights’ …

Article 29.3 of the UDHR states: ‘These [human] rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’

In plain English: We are only allowed to exercise our alleged human ‘rights’ subject to the diktats of governments, intergovernmental organizations and other UN ‘stakeholders.’ The bottom line, then, is that what the UN calls ‘human rights’ are … government and intergovernmental permits by which our behavior is controlled.”

Covid Was an Opportunity to Reset the Playing Field

Our behavior is also controlled through censorship and control of information. In its “COVID-19 and Human Rights” document,10 published in April 2020, the UN presents human rights as policy tools and openly admits that “securing compliance” with health measures that severely restrict (or outright eliminate) human rights will depend on “building trust,” and that includes censoring that which might undermine trust in authorities.

Censorship of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is also required under the proposed International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, which places the World Health Organization at the center of all pandemic-related agendas, and in the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs). Importantly, both of these instruments will be binding. As noted by Davis and Webb:11

“The current proposed amendments12 to the IHR illustrate how ‘crises’ provide unique opportunities for the UN and its partners to control populations — through purported ‘human rights’ — by exploiting those ‘rights’ as ‘a powerful set of tools.’

Here is one example of the proposals being put forth: The WHO wishes to remove the following language from IHR Article 3.1: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.’

It intends to replace that regulatory principle with: ‘The implementation of these Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities of their States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.’

This proposed amendment signifies that the UN and its partners wish to completely ignore the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever any of these agencies declares a new ‘crisis’ or identifies a new ‘international threat.’ This exemplifies the ‘course-correction’ the UN envisioned would arise from the ‘unique opportunity’ presented by the COVID-19 crisis.”

The UN Has Already Assumed Authority; No One Granted It

Right now, the WHO appears to be set up to become the de facto global government, but the UN is also a contender, and it has openly assumed this authority.

For example, in its “UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda” document,13 published in 2013, it states that “A global governance regime, under the auspices of the UN, will have to ensure that the global commons will be preserved for future generations.”

The United Nation’s Charter establishes a global governance regime that stands against freedom, justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be understood within this context.

As noted by Davis and Webb:14

“The UN calls itself a ‘global governance regime.’ It is arbitrarily assuming the authority to seize control of everything (‘the global commons’), including humans, both by enforcing its Charter — citing its misnamed ‘Human Rights’ declaration — and by fulfilling its ‘Sustainable Development’ agenda.

Note that the ‘global governance regime’ will ultimately ‘translate into better national and regional governance.’ This means that the role of each national government is merely to ‘translate’ global governance into national policy. Electing one political party or another to undertake the translation makes no material difference. The policy is not set by the governments we elect.

As nation-states one by one implement SDG-based policies, the regime further consolidates its global governance. And since the ‘global governance regime will be critical to achieve sustainable development,’ the two mechanisms — global governance and sustainable development — are symbiotic.

Again, by the UN’s own admission, inalienable rights are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet the UN’s entire Charter-based human rights framework comprehensively rejects the principle of inalienable and immutable rights.

The UN Charter is, therefore, an international treaty that establishes a global governance regime which stands firmly against ‘freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ All of the UN’s ‘sustainable development’ projects should be understood in this context …

You may wonder what Sustainable Development Goal 16 … has to do with protecting the planet and its inhabitants from the predicted ‘climate disaster.’ The answer is: nothing at all. But then, ‘climate change’ is merely the proffered rationale that purportedly legitimizes and lends urgency to sustainable development.

Establishing firm global governance — in effect, a world dictatorship — through the implementation of SDGs is the United Nations’ real objective. ‘Climate change’ is just the excuse.”

‘One Health’ — The Global Takeover of Everything

The pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, once enacted, will form the foundation for the WHO’s legal authority to act as a global governing body. Both are broadly focused on pandemic preparedness, planning and response, but there are built in loopholes that can easily be invoked by the WHO to turn it into a de facto global dictatorship.

The central instrument that will allow for the vast expansion of the WHO’s power is something called the One Health Joint Plan of Action, officially launched in October 2022 by the WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH).

This initiative amounts to multiple globalist organizations synchronizing their plans, while at the same time combining their resources and power.

The “One Health”15,16 agenda recognizes that a broad range of human and environmental aspects can impact health and therefore fall under the “potential” to cause harm. For example, this is how the WHO will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns.

The graphic17 below illustrates how the WHO’s scope of control is expanded under the One Health agenda to cover vast aspects of everyday life.

One Health
One Health

On paper, the One Health Joint Plan of Action “seeks to improve the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment, while contributing to sustainable development.”18 Its five-year plan, which spans 2022 to 2026, intends to expand capacities in six key areas, including health care systems, the environment and food safety.

The plan includes a technical document that covers a set of actions intended to advance One Health at global, regional and national levels. As reported by the WHO:19

“These actions notably include the development of an upcoming implementation guidance for countries, international partners, and non-state actors such as civil society organizations, professional associations, academia and research institutions.”

In other words, the goal is to create health, environmental and food safety rules to be followed on a global scale.

The Endgame and How to Stop It

In an April 16, 2023, Substack article,20 Jessica Rose, a postdoctoral researcher in biology, tried to make sense of the last three years. Starting at the end, she believes the endgame is the “conversion of the majority of human beings into workers … like ants.”

To get there, the globalists must dehumanize us, systematically chip away at the human spirit, render us infertile and destroy all notions of bodily autonomy and national sovereignty. The plan has worked well so far, but cracks are beginning to show. More and more people are starting to put the puzzle pieces together, as Rose attempts to do in her article.

The COVID pandemic was the set-up, Rose suggests. It was geared to “test compliance levels” and set the scene for the next act, which was to normalize all things abnormal. The trans movement, which completely overwhelmed the social consciousness in a single year, is a continuation and expansion of that “normalization of the abnormal” phase.

It’s also a major component of the agenda to dehumanize and sterilize the population. After all, trans youth — who are also among the most brainwashed individuals in society right now — are the future of humanity. A brand-new report by legal experts backed by the United Nations is also seeking to normalize pedophilia,21 which would further dehumanize and de-spirit our youth for generations to come.

Adding insult to injury, the report was published March 8, 2023, “in recognition” of International Women’s Day. Never mind the fact that young girls and women are the primary victims of this sick mindset.

The “manmade climate change” hysteria and subsequent war on carbon is another fabricated “emergency” that is unhinged from science and reality. And the UN’s SDGs are perfectly tailored to enable the endgame. Under these goals, human freedom, human health and quality of life are sacrificed to “protect the environment and save the planet.”

As Rose notes, if the WHO pandemic treaty goes through, we can expect to be locked down indefinitely under the guise of “some climate catastrophe, likely linked to some ‘deadly pathogen’ passed to humans via some insect vector like mosquitoes.”

By then, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will also be in place, which will enable the unelected totalitarian regime to enforce whatever restrictions the WHO and its funders dream up, be it related to the food you’re allowed to eat based on your carbon footprint, the drugs you’re forced to take, what causes you’re allowed to fund, what businesses you’re allowed to buy from, when and how far you’re allowed to travel or anything else.

“A practical way I can think of to stop the endgame from being realized is to stop the CBDC,” Rose writes. “Use cash. Insist upon it. Do not give business to stores that only use cashless systems. Supply equals demand, so demand the use of CASH.”

Other Strategies to Reclaim Our Freedoms

Other ways to prevent the WHO’s power grab, include the following:

By Dr. Joseph Mercola (Mercola.com)

Sources and References

The Germ Theory House of Cards

“The general public, however intelligent, are struck only by that which it takes little trouble to understand. They have been told that the interior of the body is something more or less like the contents of a vessel filled with wine, and that this interior is not injured – that we do not become ill, except when germs, originally created morbid, penetrate into it from without, and then become microbes.

The public do not know whether this is true; they do not even know what a microbe is, but they take it on the word of the master; they believe it because it is simple and easy to understand; they believe and they repeat that the microbe makes us ill without inquiring further, because they have not the leisure – nor, perhaps, the capacity – to probe to the depths that which they are asked to believe.”

-Antoine Bechamp

Preface to La Théorie du Microzyma, as quoted in Béchamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology By Ethel D. Hume on page 304 [prefaced by Pasteur: Plagiarist, Imposter: The Germ Theory Exploded By R. B. Pearson

The above quote by French scientist Antoine Bechamp accurately summarizes the very problem that we find ourselves in today. The general public, in the present as well as in the past, are all too willing to believe in what they are told as long as the story is simple and easy enough to understand. They allow their minds to be controlled, believing in invisible pathogenic entities that have never been scientifically proven to exist and cause disease. They are unwilling to spend any of their own time and effort to investigate in order to verify whether the simple germ theory fantasies that they have been sold are, in fact, true. This is why it was far too easy for the whole world to lock down under the false pretense of a “pandemic” when there was no such thing. There wasn’t even a shred of scientific evidence that a novel pathogenic “virus” existed, let alone that it was quickly spreading a “new disease” across the world. Anyone who devoted a little bit of their own time and effort to research and understand the situation would have easily seen through the scam from the very beginning. However, the general public, without giving much, if any, thought to the matter, relinquished their own authority over to the storytellers, willingly accepting the story based upon the fear propaganda provided by the mainstream media as has been done throughout the past century plus.

Fortunately, not everyone has been willing to give their minds over to the special interests that seek power and control of the narrative. We can find many respected scientists and medical practioners who rallied against the germ theory tale that was being woven from the 1800s onwards. The aforementioned and well-respected scientist Antoine Bechamp was a leader against the germ theory of disease and was a thorn in the side of the creator of the theory (really, an unproven hypothesis) in Louis Pasteur. According to a 2007 article published in the South African Journal of Science, Bechamp was quoted as saying that Pasteur’s germ theory of infectious disease was “the greatest scientific silliness of the age.” He is quoted in Ethel D. Hume’s book Bechamp vs Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology as saying “There is no doctrine so false that it does not contain some particle of truth.  It is thus with microbian doctrines.” What Bechamp was referring to is that germ theory is dangerous precisely because it contains elements of truth within it. However, it is a bending of truth mixed with falsehoods. While germs and microbes do exist, they are not the outside pathogenic invaders as envisioned by Louis Pasteur. As demonstrated by Antoine Bechamp’s research, these entities are found within us at all times, and they can either be a reflection of health or disease depending upon the internal terrain of the individual. When healthy, microbes live harmoniously within us, resulting in normal fermentation processes. However, if the conditions change due to imbalances from unhealthy living, these entities will evolve into other forms (bacteria, yeast, fungi, mold) as required by the body at the time to restore balance. This is known as pleomorphism, which is a central tenet of the terrain theory of disease that is in stark contrast to the germ theory of diseases’ monomorphic view.

According to an excellent article by Merinda Teller, MPH, PhD for the Weston A. Price Foundation, much of Béchamp’s work centered on the biological role of fermentation. Bechamp brought about awareness to the tiny elements within the blood that he could view under the microscope in all living things. He decided to call these elements “microzymas,” which he had derived from zyme, the ancient Greek word for a ferment. Bechamp spoke of the microzymas as the “primary anatomical elements of all living beings” as well as “the beginning and end of all organization.” He viewed these particles as living entities precisely due to their “power of movement and production of fermentation.” Because of his studies into the microzyma, Bechamp realized that disease did not come from germs in the air invading from the outside. Disease was produced within the body due to an unfavorable internal environment brought about by poor nutrition, drugs, alcohol use, toxins, and various other factors. In other words, Bechamp viewed disease as multifactorial and saw the microbes as a response by microzymas coming from within that were brought about by the changes in the internal environment. Pasteur, on the other hand, viewed these entities as coming from outside of the body which fueled his belief that there were specific invading microbes associated with specific diseases.

While Pasteur, a proven plagiarist and fraud, ultimately won the day with his unproven hypothesis of pathogenic air germs due to his powerful and influential connections, Bechamp’s work was not for naught. His observation of the microzymas were verified by many researchers over the proceeding decades including Gunther Enderlein, Royal Raymond Rife, Gaston Naessens, Dr. Robert O. Young, and many others. According to Dr. Norman Allan PhD DC, a neurophysiologist, chiropractor, and holistic health practitioner, “all those who have worked extensively with darkfield microscopy, with live blood, have come up with similar stories of pleomorphism.” The dark field microscope allowed the microscopists to see the microzyma in a living state (or somatids, as referred to by Naessens) and observe the pleomorphic cycle as they changed form from microzyma to bacteria, fungus, mold, etc. This cycle was demonstrated in the below video with Gaston Naessens with his powerful Somatoscope.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/laSBUn1xTgw?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Fortunately, Bechamp was not the only person who criticized Pasteur’s germ theory of disease. There were plenty of other important people who disagreed with Pasteur’s conclusions. Probably the most prominent critic was Rudolf Virchow, a German pathologist and one of the most respected physicians of the 19th century. Considered the “father of modern pathology,” Virchow did not believe in the idea that germs invaded from the outside. He emphasized that diseases came from within the individual cells within the body:

“While Virchow, in Germany, was developing the new science of cellular pathology, Louis Pasteur, in France, was developing the new science of bacteriology. Virchow fought the germ theory of Pasteur. He believed that a diseased tissue was caused by a breakdown of order within cells and not from an invasion of a foreign organism.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603088/

Another respected figure who was aware that disease came from within was Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. In her 1860 book “Notes on Nursing,” Florence made it very clear that there are no separate disease entities, only different conditions, and that these disease conditions are very much within our control. Florence explained how she was brought up to believe that smallpox started off with a first specimen in the world that “went on propagating itself, in a perpetual chain of descent.” She stated that her own experiences caring for smallpox patients convinced her that smallpox was not something that was “caught” from outside but was grown from within. She also recounted how she had seen diseases transform into other diseases, such as a fever going to typhoid and then to typhus. Thus, she looked at disease as a single continual process rather than something caused by separate entities:

“Is it not living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases, as we do now, as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs instead of looking upon them as conditions, like a dirty and a clean condition, and just as much under our own control; or rather as the reactions of kindly nature, against the conditions in which we have placed ourselves.

I was brought up, both by scientific men and ignorant women, distinctly to believe that small-pox, for instance, was a thing of which there was once a first specimen in the world, which went on propagating itself, in a perpetual chain of descent, just as much as that there was a first dog, (or a first pair of dogs), and that small-pox would not begin itself any more than a new dog would begin without there having been a parent dog.

Since then I have seen with my eyes and smelt with my nose small-pox growing up in first specimens, either in close rooms or in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have been “caught,” but must have begun.

Nay, more, I have seen diseases begin, grow up, and pass into one another. Now, dogs do not pass into cats.

I have seen, for instance, with a little overcrowding, continued fever grow up; and with a little more, typhoid fever; and with a little more, typhus, and all in the same ward or hut. Would it not be far better, truer, and more practical, if we looked upon disease in this light?”

Daniel Roytas of Humanley.com uncovered an article written by Dr. Lawson Tait, Chief surgeon of the Birmingham and Midlands Hospital, published in the British Medical Journal in 1887, where the role of bacteria are clearly defined as a phenomenon of decomposition and not disease. Bacteria do not attack living tissue, and once the waste material is removed, the bacteria are “starved into submission.” Dr. Tait spoke about his own experiences of being unable to eliminate all bacteria in tuberculosis patients, and yet, the patients still recovered when he enabled them to rid their bodies of the waste materials the bacteria were living off of. Dr. Tait pointed out that the germ theory was incompatible with the facts, and that if it were correct, no one would be safe as tuberculosis bacilli would be encountered everywhere.

D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic care, as well as his son B.J. Palmer, the developer of chiropractic care, rejected Pasteur’s germ theory of disease. In fact, B.J. was famously quoted as saying “If the germ theory were true, no one would be alive to believe it.” He believed that there had never been a single germ that was discovered that was ever proven to cause disease.

Palmer’s views were backed up by Montague L. Leverson, MD, a British lawyer and homeopathic physician, in a lecture delivered at Claridges Hotel, London, on May 25th, 1911. Leverson argued that not only had the germ theory, which rested entirely upon assumptions, never been proven true, but these assumptions were incapable of being proven, and many of the assumptions had already been proven untrue:

“The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of these unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infectious and contagious disorders are caused by germs.”

On page 111 in the 1921 book Timely Truths on Human Health by Dr. Simon Louis Katzoff, it is stated that members of the profession agreed that no germ causes tuberculosis, and that germs do not cause any disease. It was argued that there was more harm in the fear of germs than there was in the germs themselves. It was emphasized that the importance of the germ as the cause of the disease had been greatly exaggerated. The same sentiment as presented by Dr. Palmer was given in that, if the germ theory were true, the human race would not be able to exist for more than one hour:

“We agree with those members of the profession who hold that no germ causes tuberculosis. Germs do not cause any disease. Further, we agree that there is more harm in the fear of germs than there is in the germs themselves. We do not claim that there are no germs, but maintain that the importance of the germ as the cause of the disease has been greatly exaggerated to say the least. If the present-day notions concerning the extreme importance of disease germs and their destructiveness were true the human race could not exist for one hour. Disease germs are everywhere. The air is full of “contagion.” And were all humans susceptible we should all be on our death beds before sundown. As a matter of fact, there are some germs that are present in parts of all animals, especially in the intestinal tract and the mouth. The writer is not opposed to the further research and understanding of the action of germs (which rightfully belongs to the realm of Biology), but cannot agree with the view advocated by many well-meaning physicians that germs are the sole or chief cause of this or any other disease.”

In the first chapter of the 1925 book Principles and Practice of Naturopathy, Dr. E.W. Cordingley, M.D., N.D., A.M. wrote that the germ theory of disease was weakening and due to be thrown away. He supplied the examples of Dr. Fraser of Canada and Dr. Powell of California, who had both experimented with billions of germs of all varieties. Neither doctor could bring about a single disease through the intentional introduction of the germs to healthy human subjects. Another doctor by the name of Waite was also mentioned as having tried to prove germ theory, but had failed in his efforts to do so. Dr. Cordingley even brought up the famous Gallop’s Island studies by Milton Rosenau that tried, and failed spectacularly in many ways, to infect healthy subjects with what is considered the deadliest “virus” ever with the Spanish Flu:

“Medical doctors are working on the germ theory of disease…But the germ theory is already weakening and is due for being thrown aside. Dr. Fraser of Canada and Dr. Powell of California have experimented with billions of germs of all varieties, but they have been unable to produce a single disease by the introduction of germs into human subjects. Dr. Waite tried for years to prove the germ theory, but he could not do so. During the World War an experiment was conducted at Gallop’s Island Massachusetts, in which millions of influenza germs were injected into over one hundred men at the Government hospital, and no one got the flu. Germs are scavengers.”

On pages 189-190 of the 1928 book Human Life: Its Philosophy and Laws, Dr. Herbert Shelton, a naturopath and founder of the modern-day Natural Hygiene movement, wrote about the nature of germs as the scavengers of unhealthy tissues. He wrote that they are purifying and beneficial agents that the medical industry whipped up into a scapegoat for disease. He stated that germs are ubiquitous and all around us. As they are beneficial agents and present always, it is a fool’s errand to try and eliminate them. Attempting to do so will only destroy the patient:

“Warmth, moisture, food-these are the causes that activate latent germs and arouse them to activity. They exist, all except the food, in the mouth, nose and throat at all times. The food is thrown out into these, as excretions, in disease. The germs feed on the excretions. They are scavengers. They were never anything else and will never be anything else. They break up and consume the discharge from the tissues. This is the function ascribed to germs everywhere in nature outside the body and is their real and only function in disease. They are purifying and beneficial agents. The medical profession has worked itself into hysteria over the germ theory and is using it to exploit an all too credulous public. Germs are ubiquitous. They are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. We cannot escape them. We can destroy them only to a limited extent. It is folly to attempt to escape disease by attempting to destroy or escape germs. Once they are in the body the physician has no means of destroying them that will not, at the same time, destroy the patient. We cannot avoid germs. We must be proof against them. We have to accept them as one of the joys of life.”

In the book The Medical Mischief, You Say!: Degerminating the Germ Theory, a 1947 passage from The Homeopathic Review by Royal E. S. Hayes, M.D was reprinted. The doctor did not hold back at all, saying that germ theory is a travesty on science, a ghastly medical farce, and the biggest hoax.

“The germ theory of disease is the greatest travesty on science that was ever stumbled over during this semicivilized age; the most ghastly medical farce in which the human mass ever played its part; the biggest hoax the medical profession ever took in after with little hesitation and no mastication.”

The above people are only a handful of the many who spoke out about the fraudulent and unscientific nature of the germ theory of disease. They knew that disease was a process coming from within, and that endogenous germs were being misinterpreted and misrepresented as being harmful invaders because they may, at times, be associated within someone in a diseased state. However, just as it would be inaccurate to conclude that the firemen are the cause of the fire as they were the first ones on the scene in order to put the fire out, germs have been erroneously targeted as the cause of disease when they are only present due to the condition of the terrain of the individual. They are present at the scene as they are performing an important cleaning function that the body needs to restore homeostasis.

The reason I am bringing up these voices from the past who spoke out against Pasteur’s theory is because they were at the forefront of the creation of this deception. They witnessed firsthand the pseudoscientific practices that were employed from the beginning in order to convince the public to fear the invisible boogeymen. Many of these people pointed out the contradictory evidence that should have ended germ theory at its birth. Sadly, their voices were mostly silenced by powerful interests that sought to drown them out. Thus, it is important to rediscover and learn from the wisdom of these pioneers of the past as well as to give them another chance to have their voices heard.

In the spirit of listening to and learning from the past, I am presenting here what I find to be one of the best early refutations of the germ theory of disease. I was alerted to the below 1913 El Paso Herald article by a Twitter user named CharliePoet, and I feel that the article needs to be shared in its entirety. I will summarize and interject commentary along the way while providing pertinent information that I have found matches up exactly with the argument that is made. The headline stated that this is “one of the most important investigations ever made,” and I wholeheartedly agree. Let the germ theory house of cards fall.

The article shared here was presented in the El Paso Herald in 1913. It was written by Dr. Herbert Snow, a surgeon, medical writer, and cancer researcher. Before diving into the article, I want to provide some background information on Dr. Snow. According to a 2004 paper published in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, Dr. Snow graduated from the University of London in 1869 with First Class Honors in Medicine, Forensic Medicine, and Midwifery. He was a member in the Royal College of Surgeons of England (MRCS) as well as the Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries of London (LSA). Two years after graduation, he was awarded his Doctorate of Medicine. Dr. Snow went on to become the House Surgeon at South Staffordshire General Hospital and subsequently became Resident Surgeon at Birmingham General Dispensary. In 1876, Dr. Snow was moved to the Cancer Hospital, Brompton, London, which was the first hospital in the world specifically founded to treat patients with cancer, where he served as a senior surgeon for three decades:

Dr. Herbert Lumley Snow, MD, MRCS (1847-1930): the original champion of elective lymph node dissection in melanoma

“Although little is known of his early life, Herbert Snow graduated from the University of London in 1869 with First Class Honors in Medicine, Forensic Medicine, and Midwifery. Two years later, he obtained his Membership in the Royal College of Surgeons of England (MRCS) and Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries of London (LSA). He was also awarded a Doctorate of Medicine (MD) in the same year. Snow never obtained a Fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS). It is perhaps for this reason that his writings on cancer are little known.

He was the House Surgeon at South Staffordshire General Hospital and subsequently became Resident Surgeon at Birmingham General Dispensary. In 1876, Snow was appointed to the Cancer Hospital, Brompton, London—the hospital set up by William Marsden (and subsequently to bear his name) and the first hospital in the world specifically founded to treat patients with cancer. The Cancer Hospital (Figs. 1 and 2) was granted Royal Charter by Edward VII in 1910 and was renamed the Royal Marsden Hospital after the formation of the National Health Service, because it was believed that “the word cancer was too frightening and a deterrent to patients.” Snow worked at the Cancer Hospital for three decades as a Staff Surgeon until 1905. At this time, he was one of six surgeons on the unit, the senior surgeon being Mr. Thomas Stoneham, FRCS. He was based at Number 6 Gloucester Place, Portman Square.”

Dr. Snow was very much against the germ theory of disease as well as the practice of vaccination. In fact, he viewed vaccination as a primary cause for people who were suddenly dropping dead and said that it was a well-known cause of grave and permanent damage to the heart. Dr. Snow was also very vocal about his objections to animal research, as he viewed it as futile in providing relevant information about human disease. He stated that the experimental disease developed in mice was not cancer at all, and that it had no relation to the disease seen in humans:

Snow publicly condemned as fraudulent the (by-then) well-established theory that germs cause disease, saying that “as for Lord Lister, he should be remembered, only because he got surgeons to wash their malodorous hands.”

Even more controversial were his views on vaccination:

“In recent years many men and women in the prime of life have dropped dead suddenly, often after attending a feast or a banquet. I am convinced that some eighty percent of these deaths are caused by the inoculation or vaccination they have undergone. They are well known to cause grave and permanent disease of the heart. The coroner always hushes it up as ‘natural causes.”

“Snow was a vocal opponent of animal research, a theme revisited in his later life. Ardently believing that basic surgical science would not provide the answers that medicine sought, he thought that physiological research was a futile means of promoting medical science. He maintained that experiments on animals “. . .are not dealing with cancer at all [,but that] which has been reported as cancer in mice is a totally different thing from the cancer of humans.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15342349/

All of this is to show that Dr. Snow was a very well-educated and credentialed individual. For those who feel that an argument against germ theory should come from those with the “right credentials,” Dr. Snow definitely has the bona-fides to be an expert witness against the germ theory of disease. However, regardless of his background, the validity of his argument should really be based upon the merits of the information presented. So without further ado, let’s dive into Dr. Snow’s investigation into the germ theory of disease and see what he uncovered.

Immediately from the start, you will see Dr. Snow call out the entire lack of scientific proof for the casual association of microbes and disease. He argued that, in most instances where there is evidence claimed as proof, there is an abundance of evidence that completely contradicts that view. He stated that there have been ill consequences resulting from the premature adoption of the germ theory as a proven axiom of science. In line with terrain theory, Dr. Snow pointed out that it is unquestionable that disease is often the result of environmental toxins such as foul air, polluted water, non-nutritious food, deficient light, etc., and that when these are remedied, the state of health returns. However, he maintained that there is ignorance to the subtler causes, and that due to this ignorance, there is a natural temptation to assume that, if a microbe is found in association with a diseased state, it is the cause of this state. Going along with these assumptions overlooked necessary links in the chain of scientific proof. Essentially, Dr. Snow was calling out the fallacy of using correlation to equal causation. Echoing Bechamp, he called germ theory a simplistic explanation that was easily adopted by the fooled medical profession, which was then adopted by the general public who look to them as authorities. He noted that no investigator had at that time, been able to detect any causative germ whatsoever in some of the most familiar and prevalent maladies despite many efforts. Dr. Snow argued that the evidence for the causative agent of whooping cough was weak, and that even Pasteur himself was unable to identify any microorganism as the cause of hydrophobia, a.k.a. rabies. This was pointed out even by the Pasteur Institute, which stated that “Louis Pasteur’s initial efforts to isolate the rabies virus proved unsuccessful as the virus remained invisible.” You can learn more about Pasteur’s rabies fraud here.

Regarding cancer, Dr. Snow stated that over 400 microbes were proclaimed at some point as causative agents, and yet none were ever accepted. However, when microbes had been put forward as a causative agent of disease, this assumption led to the creation of a vaccine or a serum as a “cure.” Thus, Dr. Snow wanted to examine these particular instances in order to see what scientific evidence was available in support.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT INVESTIGATIONS EVER MADE

Has Just Been Completed by a Great Body of Scientists, And in His Report Dr. Herbert Snow Says That Microbes Never Caused a Disease.

They Are Scavengers and Help You But That the Ignorant Are Kept Believing it so That Vaccinations of All Kinds of Serums May Be Sold, As There Are Millions in it And That Vaccinations of Serum Increase the Death Rate, And in no Way Prevent Diseases.

If That Is so, Who Killed Your Loved One? Read it and it Will Save Your Life. It Is Far More Intelligent to Believe in Witches Than Microbes. This Undoes the Whole Medical Science and Proves it Fraud Pure and Simple.

The Germ Theory of Disease, so prominent in medical literature and practice, began with the efforts of the chemist Pasteur to apply to human, maladies—which, not being a doctor, he only knew academically—deductions drawn from the phenomenoa he had observed in fermentation. There has never been anything approaching scientific proof of the casual association of micro-organisms with disease; and in most instances wherein such an association has been pretended, there is abundant evidence emphatically contradicting that view. Yet most unfortunately this lame and defective theory has become the foundation of a very extensive system of quackery, in the prosecution of which millions of capital are embarked, and no expense spared to hoodwink the public with the more credulous members of the Medical Faculty. It may then not be out of place to survey, as fudicially as may be, the position in which the Germ Theory now stands; with the ill consequences very conspicuously resulting from its premature adoption as a proven axiom of Science. Those ill results are demonstrated and lucidly set forth in categorical detail, by the recently published Minority Report—whereof Dr. George Wilson is author of—the Royal Comission on Vivisection.

The subject naturally falls into two divisions: (a) the Microbe or Germ as asserted to cause febrile and infectious maladies; (b) the same as the source of suppuration in wounds and of the basis of Lister’s exploded “Antiseptic Theory.” The former appertains to Medicine, the latter to Surgery.

(Microbes Asserted Cause of Fevers, Consumption Diphtheria, Etc.)

The majority of zymotic maladies are unquestionably due to some sanitary defect, as dirt, foul air, polluted water, innutritous food, deficient light, etc; and when the fault has been remedied, the disease is prevented or cured. But these are its gross causes. Of the subtler agencies whereby illness is produced, our ignorance is crass indeed.

Hence a natural temptation, whenever a micro-organism is found in connection with a malady to assume that the latter is directly due to the former, and to overlook necessary links in the chain of scientific proof. The Germ Theory offers such a simple explanation of so much that is profoundly mysterious and obscure that, in spite of every difficulty, belief in it has come to be with the bulk of medical practitioners—and so with the public who place implicit confidence in “Medical Science”— an obsession overwhelming and unapproachable by reason.

The first of these difficulties is the fact that in spite of the most diligent and persevering efforts, no investigator has ever yet been able to detect any causative germ whatever in some of the most familiar and prevalent maladies of this zymotic class. Vaccine lymph we have always with us, and in forms peculiarly well adapted to the methods of laboratory research. More than twenty years since, the Grocer’s Company offered a prize of $5,000 to the discoverer of its “germ.” That prize is still open, and has never been even claimed.

No one has yet discovered any micro-organism in association with Measles, Scarlatina, Smallpox, Chicken-pox, and Mumps. One has lately been put forward as the source of Whooping-cough, but proof of the statement is wanting; and the same with Pfeiffer’s Influenza-bacillus. Pasteur, the Apostle of the Germ Theory, could detect no microbe (in spite of assiduous search) in Hydrophobia; not of course a zymotic malady. Of Cancer, some 400 distinct micro-organisms have been proclaimed the cause; but no one beyond the discoverer has ever accepted this discovery.

Per contra, a micro-organism has been discovered in more or less frequent associations with the lesions of Diphtheria, Tuberculosis, Cholera, Bubonic Plague, Tetanus, Typhoid Fever, Spinal Meningitis, and a few more. In each instance it has been put forward as the cause; and on that assumption a serum or vaccine has been commercially exploited as cure or as preventive of the disease in question. Let us briefly inquire into the credentials of some of these germs: and consider how they would satisfy the requirements of genuine Science.

In this next section, Dr. Snow examined the evidence of bacteria in relation to Koch’s Postulates. He started by pointing out that, morphologically, microbes bear so close a resemblance to each other that highly skilled microscopists have great difficulty in distinguishing one from another. These microbes are often mixed together in a jumbled and confusing mess. We can find confirmation of this from the 1905 speech by Count K.A.H. Mörner awarding Robert Koch the Nobel Prize. In his speech, Mörner stated that investigators often found different bacteria in the same diseases or would find that the bacterium supposed to cause one disease would be found in cases of another. He stated that it was difficult to envision a bacterium as the cause as “it looked partly as if the same disease could be caused by different bacteria, and partly as if the same bacteria could produce different diseases.”

Dr. Snow discussed how German bacteriologist Robert Koch and his postulates were meant to remedy this mess. He mistakenly referred to five Postulates as he had broken the first of Koch’s Postulate into two separate ones. However, Koch technically only established three postulates even though there are four that are most commonly attributed to him. The last one was added by Koch’s pupil Friedrich Loeffler. The postulates are as follows:

Dr. Snow brought up Koch’s Postulates on the basis of expert opinion, as well as the fact that they are logical and appeal to common sense. He stated that not a single germ discovered had ever succeeded in fulfilling all of these conditions, and no single microbe put forward as the cause of a disease had complied with more than one. This is in agreement with Ethel D. Hume, who quoted in her book Bechamp vs Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology a March 29th, 1909, Lancet article that stated, “Koch’s Postulates are rarely, if ever, complied with.” Dr. Snow concluded that no microbe had ever satisfied more than one of the four postulates.

Koch’s Postulates.

But first it may be presumed that germs in general are of extremely numerous varieties, and that morphologically these varieties often bear so close a resemblance to each other, that even a highly-skilled microscopist has the greatest possible difficulty in distinguishing one from another by its appearance under the microscope. Also the micro-organisms found in disease are commonly mixed and blended in almost inextricable confusion. Hence Professor Koch, of Berlin, the discoverer of the Cholera and Consumption bacilli, laid down five postulates with which any germ must comply, before it could be scientifically admitted the “vera causa” of any malady whatever. At the time Koch was practically the head of the bacteriological world, and his dictum was unhesitatingly accepted by bacteriologists. Apart from expert opinion, it obviously appeals to common sense.

In order that a micro-organism may be scientifically held causal, it must—

  1. Always be discoverable in association with the particular disease.
  2. Never occur under conditions of health, or in other disease than the one indicated.
  3. Be capable of cultivation for many generations outside the body of the host.
  4. Always produce the same disease when subsequently inoculated into the body of another animal.
  5. Then always be found in this second animal host.

Not a solitary germ yet discovered has succeeded in fulfilling all these conditions. In fact, no single microbe put forward by bacteriologists as the cause of a disease has yet complied with more than one, and—which is a point of particular significance—that one is the third of the above.

In other words every micro-organism yet found in association with disease has utterly failed to fulfil four out of five tests which the leading bacteriologist of his day laid down as absolutely essential before it could be counted a genuine cause, or held in any sense etiological. Witness the following examples:

Looking at the evidence for diphtheria, Dr. Snow mentioned that, during the investigations by Messrs, Klebs, and Loeffler, they could not find the associated bacterium in 35% (1 in 4) of the cases of the disease. Obviously, this means that the evidence for the microbe as the causative agent immediately conflicts with Koch’s first postulate which requires for the microbe to be present in all cases of the disease. Even Sir William Osler, considered one of the foremost leaders in modern medicine, admitted that the bacterium is regularly absent in cases of the disease. It was also found by many independent researchers to be in abundance in entirely healthy people. It is present in many other diseases such as in cases of tuberculosis, in the vaccine vesicles, in mucus from ordinary sore-throat, in stomatitis, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, in eczema and other skin eruptions, and in gangrene, noma, ozoena. Being found in unrelated diseases is another way in which the bacterium fails Koch’s first postulate. When injected into animals, the same disease as seen in humans was not produced, thus failing Koch’s third postulate. In other words, the diphtheria bacillus does not satisfy Koch’s Postulates by supplying the necessary evidence proving that it is the causative agent of disease. Ironically, Loeffler declared, during the 1903 celebration of Koch’s 60th birthday, that the development of “Koch’s Postulates” was the decisive attainment for scientifically proving a microbe causes disease, something that it is clear that he was unable to accomplish himself.

The Bacillus of Diphtheria.

The microbe to which Diphtheria has been for the past seventeen years attributed and whose presence in the throat-mucus now constitutes the official and sole acknowledged test for the presence of that malady, was discovered by Messrs, Klebs and Loeffler and is called by their name. They could not detect it in 35 percent, (one in four) cases of undoubted Diphtheria. See also Osler’s Practice of Medicine, Page 138, where Osler, practically the leader of modern Medicine, admits its frequent absence even in bad cases.

Since its discovery as above the bacillus has also been found in abundance in the throat-mucus of innumerable healthy people; and this by many independent observers. Ritter detected it in 127 perfectly healthy school children. Hewlett and Murray found it in 15 percent of children in hospital with various maladies other than Diphtheria (British Medical Journal, June 15, 1901)

The organism has a very wide distribution. It has been detected microscopically in the contents of vaccine vesicles, in tuberculosis and emphysematous lungs, in mucus from ordinary catarrhal sore-throat, in stomatitis, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, in eczema and other skin eruptions, in gangrene, noma, ozoena, etc.

Injected into the body of another animal the Klebs-Loffler bacillus invariably fails to produce disease in any way resembling human Diphtheria. The horses so treated for the purpose of manufacturing Diphtheria-Antitoxin from their blood-serum, show no symptoms apart from general malaise, (See evidence of Professor (C. J. Martin, Proc Royal A-V, Commission, Q. 11327).

“Intensive research during the past twelve years on the relationship between diet and susceptibility to infection, not only in polio but also in common respiratory infections and tuberculosis, has convinced me that the human organism can protect itself against infection virtually completely by proper nutrition.”

Dr. Benjamin P. Sandler M.D.

http://www.whale.to/v/sandler.html

Dr. Snow pointed out that, despite Robert Koch’s efforts to prove that the tubercle-bacillus was the causative agent of tuberculosis, he failed miserably in doing so as all of his conclusions were promptly contradicted by Professor Middendorp and others. I wrote about Koch’s difficulties with tuberculosis here. The bacterium does not make its appearance in the sputum of patients until disease has continued for several months, sometimes nearly four months after symptoms begin. Dr. Muthu affirmed that the bacillus is regularly absent from the fluids of patients with very advanced disease and “extensive mischief in the lungs.” Professor Middendorp stated that the bacterium is absent from recent nodules, and Spina, Charrin, and Kuskow failed utterly to detect it in Acute Military tuberculosis patients. In I868, Dr. Wilson Fox proved that it was very easy to produce tuberculosis in guinea pigs, the animals utilized in experiments by Koch, using almost any tissue-irritation as well as by inoculation with miscellaneous substances. His findings were confirmed by Dr. Waldenburg, and they were never contradicted.

Tuberculosis.

The Tubercle-bacillus was discovered by Professor Koch in 1881. He endeavored to prove that it is the cause of Tubercular Consumption, but entirely failed to do so; all his conclusions were promptly contradicted by Professor Middendorp and others. Nevertheless, this microbe has since been elevated to the baleful potency of a malignant African fetish. It has caused unhappy consumptives to be shunned like lepers; is now dangerously threatening the milk trade, the agricultural interest, and even the general arrangements of industry at large.

The germ does not make its appearance in the sputum of consumptives until that disease has continued for several months. Dr. H. J. Loomis (Medical Record, July 29th, 1905), gives the average date of its detection at three and one-third months from inception, as fixed by the physical signs. Dr. Muthu’s extensive experience at the Mendip Sanatorium enables him to affirm that it is not infrequently absent from the expectoration of patients with very advanced disease and “extensive mischief in the lungs.” (Pulmonary Tuberculosis and Sanatorium Treatment, 1910).

Professor Middendorp denies that the bacillus exists in any tubercular nodules of recent formation, and prior to the onset of degenerative processes. Spina, Charrin, and Kuskow failed utterly to detect it in Acute Military Tuberculosis, wherein, were the causal theory of Koch genuine, it must needs be specially abundant.

A noteworthy element of fallacy in reference to the value of inferences from experiment with the Tubercle-bacillus upon the lower animals lies in the fact that most of such experiments take place with the guinea pig. In I868 Dr. Wilson Fox proved that it was easy to produce Tuberculosis in that animal by almost any tissue-irritation, and by inoculation with miscellaneous substances very varied in character. Eleven of thirteen guinea pigs became tubercular through the subcutaneous injection of pneumonic lung-substance, four out of five by that of putrid muscle, others by the insertion into their tissues of silver-wire, cotton thread, and the like. (Lecture Royal College Physicians. May 15th, 1868). Dr. Fox’s conclusions were confirmed by Dr. Waldenburg and have never been contradicted. They appear to invalidate the bulk of “scientific” researches including those most elaborate and prolonged investigations by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.

A 1896 report on the Plague by bacteriologist Mr. Hankin stated that there was no doubt that there were cases of the Plague in which no microbes were visible at the time of death. Regarding cholera, it is shared that Dr. Klein drank pure comma-shaped bacillus, no effects followed, and he remained alive and well. Pettenkofer and Emerich swallowed the actual objects of a cholera patient with similar negative results. Thus, it is clear that the comma-shaped bacillus is not pathogenic and cannot satisfy Koch’s own postulates. For more on Koch’s cholera catastrophe, please refer to this article.

The Microbes of Plague, Cholera, Tetanus, Etc.

The Times of January 13th, 1896, quotes a Report to the Plague Commission at Agra, by Mr. Hankin. Bacteriologist for the North-West Provinces. “There was no doubt that cases of Plague occurred among human beings in which no microbes were visible at the time of death. This fact was first proved by the members of the German and Austrian Plague Commission.”

The “Comma bacillus” was discovered by Koch, who proclaimed it to be the cause of Asiatic Cholera. Dr. Klein, who was about to proceed to India to investigate the origin of that disease, did not believe in Professor Koch’s statement and experimentally drank a wine-glassful of comma bacilli in “pure culture.” No effect followed; and Dr. Klein remains alive and well to this day. At Hamburg Pettenkofer and Emerich swallowed the actual objects of a cholera patient with result similarly negative.

“It is bad enough for the doctors to blame the diseases on germs, viruses and bacteria, but when they pick on healthy people who do not “catch diseases” when they are exposed, and claim they are “carriers” and can infect others, this is the height of the ridiculous.”

-Eleanora McBean Ph.D., N.D.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/typhoidmary.html

Regarding tetanus, Dr. Snow pointed out that many gardeners regularly acquire wounds to the hands without ever having any issues. He also noted that many cases of tetanus appear without any prior wound and occur upon injections of serum and diphtheria anti-toxin.

For typhoid fever, Dr. Snow stated that the bacillus is regularly found in healthy people. I noted this as well in my article covering the ruse of the asymptomatic carrier of disease. An example was shared of Major Horrecks, who was able to transform the typhoid bacillus into other forms of bacteria through cultivation, lining up with Bechamps pleomorphism observations. Dr. Snow pointed out how the bacterium is never found in the water where it should be present due to the ascribed mode of transmission. He also shared the story of Dr. Thresh, a well-known Medical Officer of Health, who accidentally drank pure culture without any ill effects. Dr. J. W. Hodge found multiple instances of healthy people being injected in various ways with pure cultures of both typhoid bacillus and anthrax that resulted in no ill effects. On a related note, during a conversation on Twitter, I came across a paper stating that anthrax results in very low “infection” for exposed workers, with chronically exposed annual rates of 0.6-1.4%. In one mill, where workers were breathing in 600-1300 spores per 8-hour shift, not a single worker came down with ill effects. In fact, the anthrax bacillus was found in 14 of 101 healthy workers.

Thus, we once again see that the typhoid bacterium as well as the anthrax bacterium both fail Koch’s Postulates. Dr. Snow concluded the section by stating that it was admitted that the microbes claimed to result in spinal meningitis, anthrax, influenza, etc. cannot be detected in all the victims of these disorders even with the most careful searches. No pathogenic germ has ever been found in the air.

Pettenkofer Concluded That “the Specific Virus of Cholera Does Not Arise From the Comma Bacillus, But Is Evolved in the Human Organism.

Tetanus is ascribed to a microbe resident in garden soil, which gains access to wounds. That cannot be true, because such wounds among gardeners and agricultural laborers must be most common; yet they are very rarely attacked. Also, tetanus not seldom occurs without external wound and Dieulafoy has recorded thirty-five cases following the injection of highly sterilized serum. In India, Italy, and America, severe outbreaks of Tetanus have followed the use of Diphtheria Anti-toxin.

The bacillus typhosus, the pretended cause of typhoid fever, is found in healthy persons, and according to Major Horrecks, R. A. M.A. (British Medical Journal, May 6, 1911) has no specific character whatever. He finds that it is easily changed into other forms (B. Coli, B. Alcaligencs, etc.) by cultivation. It has never been found in the water, to which many virulent epidemics of typhoid have plausibly been ascribed. Dr. Thresh, the well-known Medical Officer of Health, told the jury in the Malvern Hydro case, that he had accidentally swallowed a wine-glassful of the “pure culture” of virulent typhoid bacilli without the smallest ill-consequence.

On experiments involving the like conclusion, Dr. J. W. Hodge remarks: “In medical literature I find a number of recorded instances of the apparently healthy human body having been repeatedly inoculated hypodermically with pure cultures of, the active bacillus typhosus, the supposed cause of typhoid fever. These fully virulent cultures have also been injected into the rectum of the human body, and applied to large abraded areas from which the cuticle had been removed . . . with no other effects than those resulting from the puncture or abrasion.” He makes a similar statement about the bacillus of Anthrax; and says that’so far as his knowledge extends, all such experiments with other microbes reputed pathogenic have been negative. (American Journal of Neuropathy, February, 1911.)

These remarks are specially pertinent at the present time because of the recent official order that the whole United States Army is to undergo inoculation with Anti-Typhoid serum, a remedy resting in toto on belief that the B. Typhosus is the source of Enteric fever.

It is admitted that the microbes asserted to generate Spinal Meningitis, Anthrax, Influenza, etc. cannot be detected in all the victims of these disorders by the most careful search. No pathogenic germ has ever been found in the air.

Regarding malaria, Dr. Snow began by pointing out that the disease shows up where mosquitoes are entirely, or almost entirely, absent. The fever was known to be at its worst when few mosquitoes were around, and far less severe when more mosquitoes were present. He also noted that the efforts to control the disease by eliminating mosquitoes always resulted in failure. For more information on the ways in which malaria fails Koch’s Postulates, please refer to this article I wrote on the subject.

Mosquitoes and Malaria.

The present position of the favorite official view of a germ as the cause of Malarial fevers, and conveyed by the mosquito, may be here glanced at. On the general theory, it may be remarked that Malaria abounds where the insects are entirely, or almost entirely, absent; as in the tropical highlands generally and the elevated regions of Rhodesia (Bantock.) That the fever is at its maximum when there are hardly any mosquitoes about, and at its minimum when these are most numerous. That the malady is apt to follow a chill, after long years of immunity of temperate Europe.

Secondly, we note that although the theory has been current for nearly ten years, wherever it has been acted on, it has totally failed in actual practice. Wherever operations for the destruction of the mosquito (per se) have been carried on, as at Miam Mir, for seven or eight years (Lancet, April 1909), they have proved useless. The malady is as prevalent as ever, in spite of the great labor and sacrifices involved. So far as it is possible to obtain unbiased official testimony, we learn that only the gross measures of sanitation count.

In this next section, Dr. Snow discussed the attempts to sanitize in order to prevent microbes from causing disease. He spoke about Lord Lister’s use of a toxic carbonic spray which damaged the hearts of doctors and ultimately killed patients. It was eventually discovered that it was impossible to eliminate the millions of microbes which gain access to every wound during even the briefest operation, and Lister had to confess that his theory was erroneous. Lister went so far as to state that he was ashamed for having tried to eliminate microbes from the air. It was later decided that, instead of killing the germs, it was best to leave them alone.

II.

Microbes and Suppuration. The Obselete Anti-septic Theory.

The Antiseptic System of Surgery, to the introduction of which the late Lord Lister owed his extraordinary fame, was based on the theory that certain specific micro-organisms cause suppuration in wounds; and that by destroying them before they could gain access thereto, suppuration was prevented.

Hence the Invention of the Carbolic Spray, and all its accompanying cumbersome technique, which in the seventies of last century wearied the heart of the surgeon, and not seldom killed the patient. It was eventually, discovered that no human power could possibly devitalise the millions of microbes which gain access to every wound during the briefest operation. Lord Lister had to confess at Liverpool, on September 16th, 1896, that his whole theory was erroneous, and that it was only “the grosser forms of septic mischief” which had to be reckoned with in surgery. The Carbolic Spray, and even the “Antiseptic washing and irrigation,” had been authoritatively abandoned by him six years earlier, with an expression of regret for the introduction of the former. “I feel ashamed that I should ever have recommended it (the spray) for the purpose of destroying the microbes in the air.”

Antiseptic surgery was then replaced by Aseptic; which being translated simply signifies careful and wholesome cleanliness—that and nothing more. Instead of striving to kill the germs, we severely let them alone, concentrating all our attention upon that cleanliness of patient, of doctors, of nurses, and of dressings, which assuredly in this matter is not merely next to godliness but infinitely preferable.

In this final section, Dr. Snow highlighted how powerful vested interests, in combination with even more powerful financial forces, worked together to keep the germ theory alive. He stated that even greater forces worked to keep the theory that specific microbes caused a specific disease in order to prop up and sell fraudulent “cures.” I explained many of these events and forces in this article examining the rise of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex. These “cures” actually failed to work as promised. However, this was concealed to the public as the frequent dangerous side effects were disguised, and the statistics of disease were either manipulated towards the desired end goal, or often purposely falsified on a grand scale.

III.

The Fallacies of the Bacteriologist and the Tricks of Trade.

But unfortunately both in the medical and surgical departments of the healing art, powerful vested interests had by this time (i. e. 1890, when Lister at the Berlin Congress officially discarded his “Antisepsis”) arisen, and, in combination with still more powerful financial forces outside the faculty, were compelled to prop up the decaying Germ Theory by every possible method and at all hazard. Consequently, when Aseptic Surgery displaced Antiseptic, it was officially proclaimed publicly that the former was only the corollary of the latter—which it really negatived entirely. Lister was induced to ally himself with the successful new school, and to confer upon its edicts and practical prescriptions the unparalleled lustre of his world-wide reputation. At the Royal Medico-Chirurgical Society on June 20th, 1891, the Antiseptic method in surgery was solemnly buried in the presence of its author, but proclamation was also made that the new Aseptic “was the outcome of the Listerian method.” The proposition is ingenious; but one might as well describe the locomotive as the outcome of the stage coach.

So much for surgery. But in medicine, still greater forces were indissolubly pledged to the maintenance of the belief in special micro-organisms as the cause of specific diseases. Pasteur has invented Serum-Therapy, beginning with fictitious cures, whose validity he signally failed to prove, for Rabies and Anthrax. Millions of capital were being invested in commercial enterprises for the manufacture of sera to cure or to prevent human maladies, and sold on the credit of the Germ Theory. Hence it was impossible to suffer public belief in the evil potency of Germs—by this time thoroughly established—to be trampled out by the hard facts of Science.

So nothing was spared that could serve to prevent a perception of the actual truth. The total failure of every one of these nostrums to accomplish its ostensible object was concealed; their frequent dangerous effects disguised, and the statistics of disease manipulated, towards the desired end, or often purposely falsified upon a most extensive scale. In the whole wide field of Serum-Therapy so far, not a solitary genuine success has been scored. The fact is categorically demonstrated by Dr. Wilson’s Report in the recent Blue Book. For all who can read between the lines it stands admitted to all intents and purposes, by the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Vivisection (q. v.)

Herbert Snow. M. D, London Cancer Hospital.

The final section of the article appears to be written by the editor, who proclaimed that Dr. Snow’s investigation proved medical “science” as a fraud that has more to do with witchcraft than actual science. The writer preached the dangers of injecting poisons into the body, while speaking highly of the work of Osteopaths who, through the proper alignment of the nerves, joints, and organs, allowed the body to clean the blood in order to cure disease. The writer claimed that, in El Paso, over 8,000 cases of disease of all types were cured via Osteopathic means. The article concluded by stating that scientists were right in that all diseases originate from within the human due to the accumulation of stagnant, decaying blood making a receptacle for the poisons. Thus, the remedy is within the diseased person, and disease can be removed by restoring the circulation of the blood so that it can carry out any impurities and return the body back to homeostasis.

This undoes the whole Medical Science and proves it a fraud, pure and simple and that it is not a science at all any more than witchcraft but does far more harm because the percent of deaths are so much greater from the poisons used as remedies. This has given rise to the spread of all drugless sciences and beliefs as they save thousands of lives by teaching people to restrain from taking drugs and serums as their intemperate nature makes them strictly against the teachings of the Bible which has been the basis of all true sciences from the beginning of the world and we have only progressed when we come back to its teachings and it deals with every phase of life from the cradle to the grave. Be temperate, be clean, be virtuous. Little Daniel knew this and purposed in his heart he would not defile himself with the King’s (highly spiced) meats, nor drink of the King’s (fermented) wines.

And the cleanliness taught, forbids the injection of any poisonous serums into the human body, “For if you come in contact with anyone who has any kind of an issue from the flesh, go bathe theyself”—Bible. And is in perfect accord with the conclusions of these great Scientists that cleanliness is the draining of swamps, to keep their poisons from being inhaled into the system and isolating one’s self from contagious persons lest the poison matter from them poison the same parts of your system and thus produce the same disease in you provided the nerve has already been weakened to that part by drugs, stimulants or excesses, so stagnant blood has been allowed to accumulate for the poison to settle in and produce the “virus evolved in the human organism” necessary to produce the disease which these scientists say produces the disease, and not the Bacillus. And without these exhaustive conditions to an organ there is an absence of stagnant blood and that person can take no disease. Hence you will notice the splendid continued health of people who take Osteopathic treatment and their immunity from disease and perfect control in the curing of all diseases. Diphtheria, Scarlet fever, Lung fever, Appendicitis for the stagnant decaying blood, the real cause of all diseases are thrown out by freeing the exhausted nerve to that part, and the cause of the disease removed, the blood rebuilds the part just as it did when it first made it and result is invaribly a cure, unless the patient has let it run so long before the Osteopath was called that the system was too weak to throw it out, as in last stages of consumption and in cancers. The ability of the Osteopaths to handle all diseases of eyes, ears, nose, throat, lungs, stomach, livers, appendix, kidneys, heart, asthmas, rheumatisms, spinal meningitis and all female and children’s diseases, has been so thoroughly demonstrated by the handling of 8,000 cases here in El Paso with by far the largest percent of cures ever known. That the most skeptical cannot help but be convinced if they will only go there and talk with those that were and are being cured and see and they will be satisfied that this great association of Scientists were right, and that all diseases originate from within the human organism from the accumulation of stagnant, decaying blood making a receptacle for the poisons from without and that the remedy is all within yourself and is removed by restoring the circulation of the blood so it can carry out these impurities and build up the part again and you are whole. “For in the Blood is the Life all Flesh.”— Bible.

Throughout this article, I wanted to present examples of the voices that spoke out against the germ theory of disease. I primarily focused on those who were present at the beginning of the fraud. However, what was presented here is just a very small sample. There are many more who spoke out from the start, as well as those who raised concerns throughout the proceeding decades. I highlighted Dr. Herbert Snow’s excellent investigation and subsequent article as it does a masterful job of putting the spotlight on the unscientific fraud that has taken place over the last two centuries. Like the highly skilled surgeon that he was, Dr. Snow cut through all of the pseudoscience in order to show that the scientific evidence supporting germ theory was non-existent. He put the spotlight on the accepted bacterial causes of disease and demonstrated how not a single one satisfied Koch’s Postulates, the very requirements that were agreed upon as essential in order to prove that microbes cause disease. Dr. Snow understood that there were powerful forces and vested interests that were propping up the fraudulent germ theory for various reasons, including money and control. He realized that contradictory evidence and dangerous side effects were buried while statistics were intentionally manipulated and falsified as a means to an end. We still see these exact same practices utilized today in order to fool the masses and perpetuate the lie in order to gain further money, power, and control. Thus, it is extremely important that we listen to and learn from these voices of the past, lest we continue to cycle through the same mistakes. Had people actually listened to Dr. Snow and the many prominent voices speaking out against the unscientific germ theory of disease when it was first developed, perhaps this fraudulent house of cards would have never been built up in the first place.

Disease X: Upcoming rockstar on world stage.

Are you getting bored of listening to the exact same song and dance numbers over and over again? Are the old “viral” bands just not doing it for you anymore? Are you looking for something new and mysterious to come along in order to spice things up a bit and reignite the dwindling levels of fear? If so, then you are in luck as there is a brand new “viral” sensation headed your way!

Introducing Disease X!

“An old adage says, “Prevention is better than cure.” Nothing exemplifies this idea better than “Disease X.” According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease.”1

Richard Hatchett, chief executive officer (CEO) of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), said about Disease X, “It might sound like science fiction, but Disease X is something we must prepare for.”2 In a list of diseases that the WHO considers high priority in terms of research and development, Disease X occupies a spot among diseases such as Ebola, Zika, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1Unexpected outbreaks of infectious disease (Disease X) have repeatedly rocked the medical confidence and have taken the medical world by surprise.3

Some experts have even commented that COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), met the standards to be considered the first Disease X,4 while some authors have called Zika a Disease X.5However, one unfortunate possibility is that COVID-19 and other recent pandemics might have been milder versions of what will eventually be the most prominent Disease X.

Disease X is supposed to be caused by a “pathogen X.” Such a pathogen is expected to be a zoonosis, most likely an RNA virus, emerging from an area where the right mix of risk factors highly promotes the risk for sustained transmission.6

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8367867/

A Look At Malaria

In this webinar, Dr. Cowan takes a look at malaria as well as reads a passage from “The Forest Passage” by Ernst Junger.Here are the links to the malaria articles discussed in the webinar: https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-3305-3-5#:~:text=Laveran%20was%20the%20first%20person,this%20case%20the%20avian%20Plasmodium https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-022-04110-z

How to make a polio vaccine – 30th, 2023

Dr. Cowan discussed the following:
The making of the polio vaccine. This study can be found here:
https://brandfolder.com/s/jgsqq6fcmv86rw3zg8w7rrst
Dr. Cowan also does a rebuttal from the Twitter spaces event a few weeks ago.
The studies that were submitted to him & were discussed can be found by clicking on the links below:
https://brandfolder.com/s/jc8qshc5qfjjhxrpq7zsncn
https://www.nature.com/articles/423240a
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01780-9
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12114528/
Check out Spacebusters’ series called “A Farewell to Virology” video, which details Dr. Mark Bailey’s “A Farewell to Virology”, which is a 29,000-word essay debunking virus theory and virology.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5EAWnkwUuJWJ/