Whatever the minutiae it seems that, like "no-planes theory", "actors theory", and "flat earth theory" that all came before it, virus denial, or "no-virus theory" is latest meme to scoop up slightly unbalanced minds to be occupied by untenable conspiracy theories and highly unlikely scenarios.
Join us on this episode of Objective:Health as we look into viruses - how do we know what we know about them and how do we know that they're real? We'll be discussing some of the different no-virus theories circulating and talking about why they're unlikely to be true.
A couple of good links to check out:
https://virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1358456485051834369
For other health-related news and more, you can find us on:
♥Twitter: https://twitter.com/objecthealth
♥Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/objecthealth/
♥Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channel/objectivehealth
♥LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@objectivehealth:f
And you can check out all of our previous shows (pre YouTube) here:
♥https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16H-nK-N0ANdsA5JFTT12_HU5nUYRVS9YcQh331dG2MI/edit?usp=sharing
Running Time: 01:06:01
Download: MP3 — 60.4 MB
Here is the transcript:
Doug: Hello, welcome to Objective Health. I am your host, Doug and my co-hosts today are Erica and James. In the background, as usual, on the ones and twos, keeping it real, is Damian.
{Hellos}
Doug: Today, we decided that we would take the no-virus theory head-on. I don't know how many people are familiar with this out there, but particularly around the Coronavirus pandemic, lockdown thing that's happening right now there has been a resurgence of this no-virus idea.
Now, the idea that there aren't actually any viruses has been around for quite a while. There's different flavors of it, obviously. Some people say that there's no pathogens at all, and some people say that there's bacteria and things like that but there's no viruses. There's a lot of different players in the game, but we thought that we would sit down and really take a look at the evidence that we have for viruses. Also, I should say that there's people out there that say that the Coronavirus isn't real, even though they don't necessarily subscribe to the no-virus theory overall. They think viruses exist but not the Coronavirus.
To start things off, there was an article in The Conversation. I study viruses: How our team isolated the new coronavirus to fight the global pandemic. It's written by a researcher named Karen Mossman who is a professor of pathology and molecular medicine and acting vice president of research at McMaster University. She is Canadian and is basically telling the story of how Canadians managed to isolate the Coronavirus.
I was going to go through where it says "ideal viral conditions". The first paragraph there says,
"Isolating a virus requires collecting specimens from patients and culturing, or growing, any viruses that occur in the samples. These viruses are obligate intracellular parasites, which means that they can only replicate and multiply in cells."Now, that was one thing that I think we will probably get into more later on. A lot of the people who were denying the existence were saying that the way that the virus has been isolated has not fulfilled Koch's postulates. Koch was a researcher around the turn of the century and he came up with these postulates that were basically the way to determine whether a pathogen is causing the disease that it seems to be causing.
The problem is that this predated the discovery of viruses by a long shot and it doesn't quite fit with modern medicine and our conception of disease as it is now because of this. She is saying that these viruses have to survive in a cell because viruses don't have the machinery themselves to just replicate and survive on their own. They need to hijack the cell and its machinery to be able to reproduce.
I thought that was interesting because it gives a reason behind why people are saying "Koch's postulates haven't been fulfilled for the Coronavirus." They can't really be fulfilled as they were stated back in the 1800's because they didn't know about viruses and viruses can't be held to the same standard that bacteria are.
"To isolate a particular virus, researchers need to provide it with an opportunity to infect live mammalian cells, in tiny flasks or on tissue culture plates. Viruses adapt to their hosts and evolve to survive and replicate efficiently within their particular environment. When a new virus such as SARS-CoV-2 emerges, it isn't obvious what particular environment that virus has adapted to, so it can be hard to grow it successfully in the lab."This is another place where you see a lot of people, Thomas Cowan in particular brought up a study where they tried culturing these viruses in multiple different types of cells. I think there were monkey kidney cells and other mammalian cells. They were trying to figure out "how can we culture this?" They were trying it in different cell types, and most of them failed. Thomas Cowan was like "Ah ha! See? Most of them have failed so the virus isn't even real."
Really, this is a very simple study in order to find out how they can grow that virus. It's a necessary thing. There are lots of studies out there that are trying it on all kinds of different cells, but he took this one and was saying "There you go. The only one that it actually worked on were diseased monkey kidney cells" or whatever it was. Really, this is just a process of elimination.
Continuing on here:
"We can use tricks to draw out a virus. Sometimes the tricks work and sometimes they don't. In this case, the researchers tried a method Banerjee and the team had previously used while working on the Coronavirus that caused Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome: culturing the virus on immunodeficient cells that would allow the virus to multiply unchecked. It worked."So, they did find a cell that it actually worked in. They had to disable its immune system though to be able to get it to propagate.
"Since specimens from the patients are also likely to contain other viruses, it is critical to determine if a virus growing in the culture is really the target coronavirus. Researchers confirmed the source of infection by extracting genetic material from the virus in culture and sequencing its genome."This is another complaint that you hear a lot. That they haven't isolated the virus to the extent that there's nothing else around it. It's kind of a sticky point. I don't think it's an open and closed thing. I was talking over email with a guy who we had on the program before, Professor Denis Rancourt, and he considers this to be a sticking point with the whole thing, that the virus hasn't been isolated to the extent that other viruses have been and he thinks that it should be. I don't want to speak for him here, necessarily so, understand that this is my impression of what his objection was. He is saying that the virus has not gone through a rigorous enough isolation process. I just thought I would mention that there.
Then, "They compare the sequence to known Coronavirus sequences to identify it precisely. Once a culture is confirmed, researchers can make copies to share with colleagues." They are basically taking a culture that has all kinds of different things in it and what they are doing is they are comparing the different stuff in there to known Coronaviruses. That could be the common cold or something like that.
They know that they are looking for a Coronavirus, so they find the thing that's close to it and they match it up and say "Ah ha! This is our culprit right here." Keep in mind that this is being done all over the world by different labs most of which probably aren't in communication with each other. All of them are coming to more or less the same conclusion, they are finding the same genetic code for the virus.
I thought that I would just go through that first part there to give an idea of what the process has been for them to identify this Coronavirus. What do you guys think?
Erica: Definitely not my wheelhouse of expertise, but it is interesting because there is so much information out there that seems to be one of those things that people pick up on and run away with, right? Instead of really looking at the result of it all. We are living the result of a virus.
I'm fascinated by it all. As I said when we were speaking off-air, I am not really sure because it is so hard to keep up and I feel like it could be one of those things that people go "Oh my God! The sky is falling! It's not real!" But, here we are with a lot of us still in lockdown almost a year later. I'm always solution-oriented, so what's the solution? It's not a virus? Then what? How does that move us forward in space and time? That's just me.
James: That reminds me of what one of my mentors told me, he used to say it all the time, that the body doesn't care what you call it. At the end of the day, I think we can agree that there is some sort of illness going around. It seems like there are a few issues. It's easy to see that there seem to be elements of society, government elements, and corporate elements etc. who are taking advantage of the situation.
That doesn't necessarily mean that the virus itself doesn't exist or that the illness that the virus causes doesn't exist. Going back to what I said originally about the body not caring what you call it, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is not a virus, it just means that the disease is what it is and there are different levels of reality.
As far as I can tell from the reading that I have done, it seems that there is an actual virus that's been isolated from samples and you can argue about the lab protocols that have been followed and whether or not the virus has been sequenced or isolated appropriately but it does seem that there has been a virus isolated and it would have to be a massive conspiracy on a global level encompassing thousands of researchers...
Doug: Billions, maybe.
James: ...all agreeing to falsify their lab results and cover up the fact that there's no virus and put their reputations on the line and fabricate these results. There's probably some of that going on. In last week's show with Dr. Merritt we talked about the issue of mask wearing and she said that she had dug into some of the papers that had been published around mask wearing and she doubted that they were done appropriately and that some of the authors maybe weren't even scientists who were trained appropriately to write on those issues.
When it comes to the existence or non-existence of the virus, certainly there are plenty of qualified researchers in labs who have sequenced the virus in multiple countries. That's my take at this point. It's a little convoluted, I'm sorry.
Doug: No, I agree with you. For me, in a lot of the cases these conspiracy theories - I hate to call them that because that's really broad strokes - tend to fall apart when they require that there are millions of people who are in on it, millions of people whom you might even know some of them. "I know that that guy is not involved in some major conspiracy." Some of what they are saying doesn't necessarily have to involve that sort of thing. Sometimes it might just be that a number of people are ignorant or are being led in the wrong direction.
Erica: One thing that I was reading about was from Dr. Bush, I believe. He is a microbiome advocate and does research in farming so I follow his work. Several months ago he was saying not that there wasn't a virus necessarily, but that what people were suffering from respiratory-wise could be due to pollution, which for someone like me seems very reasonable because it started in Wuhan and then it was in Lombardi, and he was talking about Wuhan being one of the most polluted places in the world. Maybe it was something pollution-oriented and we are not really looking at that. So I could go down that rabbit hole, for sure. It's like the autism debate, is it just vaccines? Well, it could be a confounding factor. I just wanted to put that out there. That I can see.
I know that No More Fake News reporter, Jon Rappaport, was on that same line of thinking. This could just be massive environmental toxicity and people are having respiratory issues as a problem. Of course, it feeds into my narrative. We are not really doing anything about the massive amount of pollution that's in the world. We haven't seen anything change in the last year about remedying water toxicity. I could see how this idea could really ensnare people and lead you astray.
Then, take your energy in the process and move you out of objective thinking into subjective thinking. I wanted to put that out there because I do think that there is something to be said for the immune system being suppressed massively because of environmental toxins and then subsequently people getting sick.
James: Absolutely, that would make people potentially more susceptible to infection whether it's a virus or a bacteria. If you are exposed, environmental toxins and pollution could certainly weaken the immune system. I think the way that the narrative has been driven, a lot of people are very afraid and that drives people to black and white thinking, then people start thinking it's EITHER pollution OR a virus, or the virus doesn't exist and there's a huge conspiracy. Certain elements of society are taking advantage of the situation.
Doug: We did a show a while back where we were talking about whether it was the germ or the terrain. Our point on that show was that it was both. If your terrain is damaged by these environmental things or even emotional type things or electromagnetic type things then that is a breeding ground for the virus or bacteria to be able to take hold. If you are run down and your immune system is not in good shape then you are more susceptible.
We came to a similar conclusion when we were interviewing Scottie from Scottie'sTech.info about 5G.
Erica: "5G caused it."
Doug: It's not completely out of the question for that very reason. We know that electromagnetic stuff can definitely hinder the immune system, so sure it can make you more susceptible. It's that black and white thinking, "It is definitely caused by 5G, there is no virus, it's just that people are having this sickness because of 5G." But it doesn't play out, that's the problem.
When you are looking at all these other kinds of things, what we are seeing is that this is spreading in the way that a pandemic spreads. They only look at one node and say "Wuhan had just introduced 5G and that's where it broke out." Well, where it broke out in South Korea didn't have 5G, or where it broke out in Lombardi didn't have 5G.
That's just on the simplest level, even looking at other levels and other things that people are blaming this on, you have to look at it on a spectrum and say "Why is it spreading the way a pandemic spreads if it's not a pandemic?" If you can't answer that question then I think you really have to step back and say "Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here."
Erica: Agreed.
Doug: David Icke is one of the guys who's really been pushing the "it's all 5G" thing. He says a lot of stuff. There was one video in particular that was floating around when he was interviewed by London Reel. He has been a big player in this whole "it's 5G that's doing it" and it's kind of led to people burning down 5G masts.
We should say, as we said in our show with Scottie, we are certainly not comfortable with 5G as it's being rolled out. There are a lot of questions around it, so we are certainly not defending the whole 5G network. I think that there are a lot of things that need to be researched and dug into more on that, but that doesn't mean that the Coronavirus doesn't exist and that it's actually all 5G. One of the other guys is Dr. Andrew Kaufman who is a psychiatrist, he is not a virus researcher or anything like that.
Erica: I thought you said he's not a virus!
Doug: No, no! He is not a virologist, is what I should have said. He is also not a virus, although his video apparently is, a mind virus. I'm actually surprised at the number of things that spread because of things that are said by these people, things that I had picked up on and held in the back of my mind as possibly being true.
There was one thing in particular that was mentioned which was promoted by both David Icke and Andrew Kaufman which was with the PCR tests. That one of the strings that they were picking up is actually a genetic code that's found in humans. This is then leading to all kinds of false positives across the board because it's a genetic code that you find on humans.
It came from an obscure blog post where a guy had found a string of code which was found in chromosome 8 of the human genome. The thing is, it just shows that these people don't really know what they are talking about. They have got a theory and they are jumping on to anything that confirms that theory.
Once you had some researchers weighing in on that they were like "No, that's not true. The code that is found in the Coronavirus that they are searching for is reversed." It was very complicated and I admit that I didn't totally understand it but basically what they were saying was it was the reverse. The code that you are finding in the human genome versus what you are finding in the Coronavirus was essentially reversed.
The PCR tests are not picking up any human genetic code, but I had heard that somewhere and put it in the back of my mind. "Oh yeah! Those PCR tests are total bullshit. They are just finding human genetic code in them." But, that's not true. One thing from going into this deep dive on this stuff is that the amount of stuff that has been floating around that actually came from people who are not exactly qualified to be making these kinds of statements.
James: I think that's a sticky issue because some people might be qualified to discuss it even if they don't have a degree in epidemiology or virology. Just because somebody doesn't have a degree or a certificate doesn't mean that they're not necessarily qualified.
Then, on the other hand you have other people who suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome who think because they have a medical degree that they're qualified to talk as an expert in any domain of medicine. Then, you might have somebody who is a psychiatrist who might say "I'm a doctor, I am a psychiatrist therefore I'm an expert in all domains of medicine." I think that you're right, Doug. You have to look at what they say and do your own digging and come to your own conclusions for sure.
The PCR tests are really confusing. It's not a simple positive or negative test because of the cycles that have to be run to amplify the signal from the viral RNA in this case. First, they have to take the viral RNA which has to be isolated and then it's transcribed into DNA, because it's an RNA virus and the PCR test uses DNA as a base. Then, the DNA is amplified and each cycle multiplies the amount of DNA in the sample until there's enough to give you a positive test.
Obviously, the fewer cycles you do the more genetic material was present in the original sample. There are a lot of numbers thrown out around that, that if it's closer to 25 cycles then it's more reliable. Other people say if it's less than 35 cycles then it's reliable. I think that's a matter of debate.
Doug: It definitely is. It is very confusing too, because I know a lot of people are saying that PCR tests aren't accurate and that they're terrible. The more digging I have done on this, the more I realize that actually PCR tests are pretty incredible at what they do. The problem seems to be what they are using it for.
They can detect if there is genetic material there and they're very accurate, but the problem is that just because you have found genetic material doesn't mean that you are sick. It might be a viral fragment, it might have some of the virus there but your immune system is doing a good job and has almost cleaned it all up. It seems to me as a layman that it isn't that the PCR tests are bad because they've been using those since the 80's.
Any time they've been talking about identifying DNA somewhere in a crime scene or while doing a paternity test, those are all PCR tests they are using for that. Those things are generally well respected, they are accepted in courts of law. Those things are accurate at what they do. The other thing about the cycles, like you mentioned, James, I was reading one blog where there was a guy saying that he's upset at the number of people who are dissing PCR tests. He was talking about a study that he pulled up where there was a contagious virus that wasn't detected until over 35 cycles. It was still a contagious virus.
So for people who are putting these limits on it and saying "It can't be over 35," it's really not that cut and dry. There is also the issue that multiple labs use the PCR tests in a slightly different way. I think the way that the PCR tests are being used is probably irresponsible. Again, I am a layman so I don't know. But the PCR tests themselves, I think we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
James: One of the articles that I read said - and I didn't back up the information myself, it was second hand information - their sources suggested that the PCR tests were 90% effective at detecting positives. If you got a positive result you could be 90% sure that it was accurate. There were 10% false positives.
But on the other hand, they found that there were actually a lot of false negatives. It's interesting because if that's the case then we could theorise that there are more Coronavirus cases than are showing up as positive tests. That would lower the case fatality rate even more, because there are more cases, right? Then, you get into the issue of calling a positive PCR test a "case", like what you were saying just now.
Doug: Exactly.
James That's really a change from the way that we normally practice medicine. You don't send people for a strep throat test unless they have a sore throat, normally. No one's sending everyone to get tested for the flu unless they have symptoms. Traditionally, you would only label it a case if a person has the symptoms of the disease and tests positive. The lab tests were used to confirm what you saw through physical diagnosis, what you were able to observe in the patient.
That's open to abuse because of this whole issue over asymptomatic transmission and being able to say that everyone has a moral responsibility to social distance and wear a mask. You could be an asymptomatic carrier walking around and spreading the disease. That certainly seems up for debate, at least as far as I can tell from the research that I have done.
Doug: Definitely. Maybe we should move on to Koch's postulates. I briefly described Koch's postulates at the beginning, but a lot of people have been talking about this online and citing it as evidence that the virus doesn't exist. Koch was a guy who came up with postulates to be able to determine that the pathogen that they found was responsible for the specific disease that they found in a person.
It was four postulates which have been written in different ways but essentially one is that "the organism must be regularly associated with the disease and its characteristic lesions", fair enough. "The organism must be isolated from the diseased host and grown in a culture", okay. "The disease must be reproduced when pure culture of the organism is introduced into a healthy, susceptible host".
These all make sense. You take it from a person who has these symptoms and you are able to grow it in a culture and then when you introduce it to a new organism they get the disease. Then, you have to do that again. The same organism has to be re-isolated from the experimental infected host. Again, you have to be able to draw it out.
The thing about Koch's postulates is that they are a good guideline. It was certainly good for him to do at the time because he was laying out a systematic method for determining that "this bacterium that we found is responsible for this disease". He used it to identify tuberculosis and I forget the other one. What they don't tend to point out is that even within his lifetime he actually became less rigid on these because what he found was that there was such a thing as an asymptomatic infection.
Erica: The other disease they were talking about was anthrax in cattle.
Doug: Anthrax in cattle, right. The idea that the microorganism is found in a diseased animal but not found in healthy animals. Sorry, the version that I read out first didn't say that, but the first postulate was that "the microorganism must be found in the diseased animal and not found in healthy animals". At that time, he already figured out that that wasn't the case because he found out about asymptomatic infection. He knew that the putative agent in cholera, for example, could be isolated from both sick and healthy people. He already got rid of that first postulate at that time.
Then, with the second one "the microorganism must be extracted and isolated from the diseased animal and subsequently grown in a culture", as I explained at the top that can't be done at all with viruses. Viruses won't replicate outside of a cell, so you need to use some kind of host cell to be able to replicate that. A lot of people are complaining that there are no pure samples out there. I think that this is the reason; that you have to have it in cells to be able to replicate. Already, that's two of the postulates that are not used. Mind you, scientists still do the same equivalent of that, and they have done it. with Covid as far as I understand it.
They have done it in monkeys and hamsters where they have taken the virus, cultured it and managed to infect another organism with it. It seems to me that there are a lot of sticking points on this stuff that people are getting a little bit hung up on.
Erica: On a lighter note, I recently heard that Covid-19 is a virus previously known as the cold or flu.
Doug: It certainly does seem that way. There is a lot of nuance to this because it seems like things have divided into sides. The people who think the reaction to the virus is bullshit are falling in one camp, and then you have got the mainstream guys on the other side who are falling into another camp and all the nuance seems to be lost.
For instance, I don't know how many people out there are like us who think the lockdowns and the measures are bullshit, but that doesn't mean that the virus doesn't exist. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who are like that, but it seems like that is a smaller segment of overall people. I guess it falls in with all that Q-Anon stuff as well, people who just take things too far in their rejection of the system, the rejecting of the scheme that we are confronted with.
Erica: I agree, and again it comes back to the question: how does that help everyone move forward? If the virus doesn't exist, does that mean that all these emergency orders that are in the US are going to be lifted tomorrow as if there is some magic bullet that comes out? I feel like it feeds into wishful thinking. If we could just be right about it not really being a virus then everything will go back to normal. I think we've crossed the threshold of us not going back. That's my thoughts on it. Reading about it is fascinating and I'm not a medical person. With a lot of the stuff you will find yourself falling asleep at the computer because you can't follow along the train of thought. It does seem like a way to co-opt people's energy into a direction that maybe isn't even that beneficial or positive.
Doug: It certainly makes it divisive. I think it gives people something to fight against. There is very little doubt in my mind that we are all being played here. It's the extent to which we are being played that is a bit up in the air, and there is a lot of confusion about that. I think that you're right in the sense that even if the whole thing is blown wide open and we know precisely what is going on, what is the way forward? Does that mean that the lockdown ends and everybody goes back to normal? It's unlikely. I don't think we have ever in history seen people giving up....
Erica: Liberty for safety?
Doug: Well, even once liberties have been taken away I don't think there has ever been an instance where the powers-that-be have said "Let's just give them back. We found out that we were overreacting so we better roll things back and give everybody back the freedom that they had." There might be some examples, but I think it's certainly not the usual way things go. Once somebody has achieved some level of power they seem unlikely to give that up.
Erica: Most definitely. It might be another way to pigeonhole people into what I like to call "conspiracy queries". If you are interested in it and you want to research it, in everyday life talk about it with co-workers or people who are acquaintances and you start to question things, and they say "Oh you are one of those conspiracy theorists who denies the virus exists, right?" then that will end the conversation instead of the conversation being more broad, for example, "Look at what it's done to the reality that we are living in, whether it's just a cold that's been renamed or the flu, or environmental toxins, as I said before. It has upended the entire world. We are all falling down the rabbit hole trying to reorient ourselves on how to make it through the day.
Back to my theory, if it's man-made or if it's lab-made there are so many ways that they could upend the conversation and get away from the true implications that every single one of us is living with every single day.
Doug: It seems like a common tactic to amplify the extremists in order to smear the reasonable people. Anybody who has any questions is labelled as a virus denier. They're all lumped in with the people who are burning down cellphone towers. "You don't believe in the virus? You're one of those."
We saw the same thing happen with the whole anti-vaxxer thing too. Anybody who has questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer. They amplify the signal of the craziest people out there, the people who are saying the wackiest stuff and that ends up smearing the people who have legitimate questions. It's like a strawman argument, essentially. It's a way to polarize the debate and smear one side with kookiness.
Erica: I agree.
James: Just for the sake of discussion, could you imagine a more deadly virus like a smallpox or a black death or something like that, which would justify having the types of lockdowns and restrictions of movement and things like that?
Erica: I think what Lee Merritt said about smallpox in the interview that we did with her was a really good point. She painted a pretty dire picture. After living in Hawaii, which was a state which was decimated by smallpox at the turn of the century, I could see that, yes. I could see that if it was as virulent as smallpox and could spread through the air like that then you wouldn't want to leave your house and you would want to hunker down. I'm realistic in that way.
Doug: That's the key though, you wouldn't want to want to. I think that if this was actually a serious pandemic where people didn't have to get a test to know whether or not they had it, and people were dropping dead in the streets, and people were having very severe symptoms then you wouldn't have to be enforcing lockdowns I wouldn't think.
Everybody would be like "I'm not going outside. I'm not going to come into contact with this thing." You wouldn't need police-state measures because I think that common sense would take over at that point. Maybe I give people too much credit, but honestly I think if bodies are piling up then I don't think anybody's going to say "I've got to go to work" or "I've got to go and visit my grandma."
There would probably be government advice, but I don't know that it would necessarily need the same level of enforcement. Governments would just be like "Okay, everybody should wear a mask so you don't catch it" and you would have enough incentive from what you were seeing out there to wear that mask and to lockdown in your house and not within two meters of somebody. That's the way I see it anyway.
James: I agree. It seems like when the pandemic first broke about a year ago and most Western countries started locking down because of the way that the situation was painted in Lombardi and the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with 2003 SARs which had a higher mortality rate but which was less infectious.
A lot of people got really scared that we were looking at something with a 30% mortality rate like SARS but very transmissible. It has been interesting to see that the more data that comes out, it's clear that that is not the case. The mortality rate is actually very low, but because we are committed to these strict draconian measures, we have to keep following them until who knows what.
Doug: Until when?
James: They're already talking about new variants like the South African variant or the UK variant which the vaccine may not be effective against. Does that mean that as those variants become more widespread that everyone who has already been vaccinated will have to get vaccinated again? That's what I wonder about.
Erica: Maybe it's priming for what may eventually be a black death type of scenario. Maybe there's something that they know that we don't. It seems like the narrative is that they know that they can do this and lock the entire planet down and that people are going to comply. In the United States, as states start to open up and they are not requiring masks as much, people are still wearing them. I do think there is a lot of psychological warfare going on. I think this virus/no virus/man-made this-that-and-the-other-thing are all just ways to distract and convolute the discussion. I don't have a solution for the way out of that other than to always be very critical.
I did spend two hours and 30 minutes watching David Icky {sic} on that video {Laughter}. I will say that he had some very compelling information, especially his information about super-psychopaths, which I thought was very interesting. A lot of things that he said could be right on, but then there is some other stuff in there that could really throw anyone for a loop if you were solely looking to him for your information.
Doug: I think that's true, and I think that it really takes a critical eye to sort through all this stuff. I do think it's a worthwhile exercise though. I think there is a real temptation to throw up your hands and say "Well, whatever happens, happens. I can't sort through this mess." I do think that it's worthwhile to try and stay on top of it and to try to figure out what is actually going on. If somebody makes a claim, to really look into it and see because like I said before, the number of things that I have found in doing the research for this for which there was no basis but it was in my head - not that I had necessarily bought it and completely believed it, but it was in there as a possibility - it has been a worthwhile exercise for me to go through this and sort things out and see where everything lies. How much of this stuff is coming from people who have an agenda?
I think that guy, Andrew Kaufman, has some agenda going on and I can't say what it is. He seems to be deliberately misleading people by saying that viruses don't exist. Maybe we should go into it a little bit. He was talking about it and Thomas Cowan says the same thing, that viruses are actually exosomes. Exosomes are particles that are in the cells and that are ejected from the cells to serve a number of different functions. They don't know what all of them are.
They've only been deeply researching these things for the last 20-years or so. One of the things they do is get rid of cellular debris, another thing that they do is pass messages between other cells. I think part of the confusion comes in because viruses have been found to hijack the exosomes from cells. They can travel from one cell to another by getting themselves inside these exosomes.
One thing that Andrew Kaufman said, he quoted a researcher who is a virologist named James Hildreth. He was quoted as saying "The virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word." Kaufman basically jumped off by saying "See, even this virologist agrees" and he exaggerated it by pluralising it and saying "some virologists actually agree". The fact of the matter is that that was taken completely out of context. It was taken out of a paper where Hildreth was talking about this process where the viruses will hijack exosome pathways in cells and NOT that viruses and exosomes are the same thing.
Kaufman shows a picture of an exosome and a picture of a virus and says "See it looks like the same thing!" That's a layman looking at it. No, they don't. To a virologist they can look at those two things and see that they are different. It doesn't really matter anyway because they are not only identifying these things visually. The biggest difference between exosomes and viruses is that exosomes don't replicate on their own. Viruses do.
If you took exosomes and if you had made a mistake and thought that these exosomes were actually viruses and you put them into a culture with cells and tried to get them to replicate they wouldn't do that, not in the same way that viruses would. The cells will make exosomes, but they don't replicate. They are not replicating in the same way that viruses are.
So they have lots of different ways of determining that these things aren't the same things. As a layman looking in on it, a lot of people can't tell that. They hear a convincing argument from Kaufman or from Cowan or from other people "These aren't viruses, viruses don't exist. These are just exosomes that they are finding."
There is a tweet from James Hildreth showing how he feels about it. He says,
"The virus is real, the pandemic is real and is caused by the virus, period."He was alerted to the fact that there are people out there quoting him as evidence for the idea that viruses don't exist. He is a virologist so he is like "No, that's not the case. That is not what I'm saying, I don't agree with you people." and he was putting an end to it there. Kaufman made what can only be deliberate blunders in his video as well. I don't think I'll go into it too much, but I think he is deliberately misleading people. I don't know exactly what his agenda is, but maybe it's just to be a superstar.
James: It could be. In one of the things that we read for this show they were talking about the semantics involved. If you define an exosome as a packet of genetic material that's expelled from a cell wrapped in a protein then viruses are exosomes because they're genetic material and they are ejected from the cell.
Not all exosomes are viruses though. You could say that there are endogenous exosomes that are produced by the cells for their own purposes and then viruses are like a parasitic organism that by definition is an exosome if you define exosomes that way. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
So if you have an agenda and you take somebody's quotes out of context then of course you can make it fit your agenda. They might be doing it on purpose or maybe not. There is a little bit of that selection and substitution of data and trying to make the facts fit the narrative. Do if you are looking for evidence that it's all about the terrain and there's no physical material pathogens, then bacterias and viruses are not causative - they are present, but they are just part of the disease process, they are not causing the disease - and you are then going to look for data to support that and take things out of context.
Doug: Essentially that is what they are saying, that Covid-19 is not contagious and the virus isn't real and these people are suffering from some kind of toxicity, 5G or pollution or whatever the case may be. We've covered that.
James: It seems that Tom Cowan's agenda is to promote the terrain theory and that it's all about the terrain and not the pathogen and that people get sick because of environmental toxins and malnutrition and that sort of thing. I don't know about Kaufman, I didn't look into his material quite as closely.
Doug: It's a similar kind of thing, they seem to both be arguing the same idea. Cowan as well has been accused of misquoting Steiner and misrepresenting a lot of the stuff that Rudolf Steiner had said. There is a link to the Flower Society.org that I sent to you? This was a guy who was a researcher on Steiner and he wrote a really good piece pointing out all the places where he felt that Cowan was misrepresenting the things that Steiner had said.
His contention was that Steiner never denied the existence of viruses or the existence of bacteria or pathogens or anything like that. He had a more holistic view of things and it was the meeting of the pathogen with the terrain which is what we have been saying as well. He brought in other things like the spiritual level, the emotional level and the environment, like I said, a much more holistic view of things which I'd certainly agree with.
I think that Cowan, to an extent, is like that too. I think that he goes way too far and has to be very black and white about it. It's not that it's 'it's the germ and the terrain', but he's like 'no, there are no germs. It's all the terrain.' It's that polarized, black and white way of looking at it that I think really trips people up a lot.
James: You can also look at different levels of reality too. On one level, you could be talking about it as energy medicine. We were talking about Chinese medicine, and the Chinese medical theory is a very naturalistic model and discusses environmental factors and how they affect the body. You could look at it as an energetic medicine, talking about wind, heat, cold and dampness, but all of those symptoms are describing symptoms in the physical body. It's a theory, a conceptual framework that was developed for understanding those symptoms when it's really describing the physical body, the biology, the functional physiology. It's almost like Newtonian physics versus quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics are more true than Newtonian physics, but with Newtonian physics when you are inside the solar system you are not on the vast scale of the universe then Newtonian physics works fine to describe how gravity works on Earth on a smaller scale. It's not necessarily untrue, it's just not as true as quantum mechanics, and it's still useful.
So the idea of the body as an environment and symptoms as being caused by environmental factors may not be scientifically true, maybe it's not true by the tenets of microbiology, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. I guess I'm going into the "terrain or the disease" mechanic and saying it doesn't have to be one or the other.
Erica: The devil is in the details.
Doug: Do you guys have anything more to add to our discussion here? I don't think we really presented a smoking gun or anything like that today, but how does the saying go? Great claims require great evidence? I think if somebody is going to make a claim that the virus doesn't exist they need some pretty strong evidence to back that up, pretty strong evidence that what virologists are seeing and what they are reporting on is actually false. The bottom line is, I don't think we are seeing that. I don't think we are seeing that at all. I think that what we are seeing is the opposite. What I'm saying is I don't have a reason to doubt virus theory.
Erica: That's the whole purpose of this show, right? Objective Health. To try and needle out those details and provide some background for people who are interested and who want to go down those paths to find out more. I think this is really about encouraging individual learning and knowledge. If that is something that fascinates you then look into it, but be willing to hold two opposing viewpoints at the same time without coming to a conclusion right off the bat.
I feel like we are in this age of laziness. "He said it so it's not true." Then it gets tweeted around. People just run with it and it gets away from itself. I want to encourage people to do your due diligence. It's hard with how much misinformation is out there. It's really hard, but Doug you are an excellent example of somebody who spent the greater part of their last week going through hundreds of pieces of information to just try and understand it. You have to ask "Is there any sort of support for such an idea?"
Then too, you have to walk away from it for a moment and say "Okay,I'm going to smell the flowers today" and not get caught up because it could make you go crazy like you see in all these movies of the conspiracy theorists with all the yarn tied. People are like "See? They lost the plot!" I know a lot of people don't have time to do that but everyone has got something that interests them and fascinates them. Be willing to be wrong.
Doug: I think that's a big part of it. I think that a lot of people do get caught up in some of these ideas because they're not willing to be wrong. There is the whole thing where once you dig into something you get more and more invested in it. I think that being able to question your own assumptions is important.
Erica: In a respectful manner. Obviously, don't go on social media and try and do that because it just seems like a flinging of faeces. {laughter}
Doug: You don't even necessarily have to call anybody else on it, but just do it for yourself when you're digging into something. There is something to be said for being open to different things. I'll leave it at that. I think you need to question your own thinking ion a lot of stuff and test what you think is true for yourself every once in a while.
Erica: I think that these are times where we are not seeing that. As you were saying earlier, it's not the great divide. This side is {lost audio 1.04.59} and we shall meet in the middle, but I think that's what we all have a responsibility to try and do, listen to people and be objective and let the conversations happen without getting emotionally worked up and angry and frustrated.
Doug: I think we can call it there for today. Thanks everybody for joining us, we hope it was informative for you. We will be back next week with another interesting topic. Thanks to my co-hosts, thanks to Damian, and we will see you all on the next one.
James: Thanks Doug. See you next week everybody.
{Goodbyes}
Reader Comments
Also one if them seems to believe we evolved or spawned from a virus, maybe. Thats a theory. And maybe a con. Imho of course.
A lot of contacts. No new cases as if now. No one is getting seriously ill. Scratching my head.
Its the mis and disinfo and lack of transparency by govts that lead to people theorizing. Everyone who disagrees with their narrative gets labelled a conspiracy theorist. They use that term to shut your opinions down. They're assholes.
Maybe this podcast could of covered that too.
Ps is Laura Knight still around?
The woman on this podcast said david icke's name the same way Laura use to. Just saying.
SOTT Focus:Signs of the Times Attacked by Abovetopsecret.com Psy-ops!
Signs of the Times is one of the very few news and information portals on the web that remains uncorrupted in any way and is staffed by a group of people who are dedicated to one thing - bringing...Question, is:who wrote it? Seems an odd article for SOTT.
Perhaps there is a point to be made, but this is not a very well thought out way of doing it.
Perhaps there is a point to be made, but this is not a very well thought out way of doing it.
AND
Cockroaches are not aliens (maybe).
Connect the dots ...Pfft!
This modern article about umbras makes sense to me, as with the diagram in it:
Eclipse Shadow: What Is the Umbra? (timeanddate.com)
And the part about Sun/Moon/Earth relationship The fact umbras get bigger toward the poles as the angle of the shadow cast slopes further away from the more-perpendicular equatorial zone is further evidence the world is round.
Btw the moon is 2160 miles diameter, not 6783 miles... thats the circumference!
In general, I don't think one can tell the difference between a disc and a sphere at a distance - You can discern a sphere is there is a light source, as the light would not be reflected evenly (as with see with the moon and other luminaries)
The Conintelpro side of the narrative pushes the absurd version of "flat earth" to distract from legitimate queries and arguments
I don't accept that the Royal Society determined reality that we are asked to accept - I don't accept that any NASA generate CGI image is proof of that reality
If you infer the moon is a sphere then simply assume everything else is a sphere until proven otherwise.
Most galaxies might be relatively flat but I don't believe the universe is flat... On the contrary, I think the universe is spherical in 'shape' expanding outward in all directions from a timeless indeterminable point of origin.
Leave the Royal Society and NASA out of it if you want... don't mind me..
SOTT Focus:No, The CDC Did Not Admit That SARS-CoV-2 Has Not Been Isolated
Comment: The following article was published two months ago in response to claims circulating on alternative and independent media sites that 'SARS-CoV-2 does not exist because it has never been...SOTT refuses to engage or critique virologist Stefan Lanka's papers: [Link] [Link] [Link] or his 2015 court case where he established by the Law of Evidence that the Measles virus has never been proven to exist, a line of reasoning which can be generalised to all viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. SOTT refuses to engage or critique microbiologist Michael Speth [Link] especially his demonstration that viruses, if they existed, should be able to be isolated by the same procedures used to isolate exosomes and yet no-one wishes to do so. SOTT refuses to properly engage or critique Dr. Andrew Kaufmann [Link] . There is only pathetic interaction with Kaufmann's assertion that neither Koch's nor Rivers' postulates have been fulfilled for any virus. SOTT refuses to engage or critique Torsten Engelbrecht et al., Virus Mania (3rd ed.; 2021) [Link] SOTT refuses to engage or critique advances in exosome theory which will soon, I hope, overtake virus theory.
SOTT has failed to demonstrate 1. viruses exist as independent entities (especially outside the cell/host); 2. viruses cause illness (esp. cell death - see Lanka's papers above); 3. viruses are entirely separate entities from cellular exosomes. All they have done is regurgitate outdated, bankrupt, biased science propping up the sacred cow of modern medicine. Because if you allow critical inquiry to disprove virus theory (as Lanka and Speth above have done), especially the notion that 'viruses' are exosomes and are an essential component of a healthy immune/biological system and have not (as far as I have read) been identified as a cause of illness, guess what happens?
You no longer need to fear infecting or being infected by others.
You no longer need to be vaccinated to assuage such fears.
You can spend your life concentrating on actual causes of illness: exposure to chemicals/pharmaceuticals/pollutants in air/food/water etc; poor diet/nutrition; lack of exercise; EMF exposure; hypoxic conditions resulting in anaerobic microbial toxicity.
The only "conspiracy theory" being promulgated here is that viruses exist and they cause illness.
Congratulations, SOTT, for being expert obfuscators of this debate. *Thumbs down*
And the Earth definitely is A Flat Non-Rotating Stationary Plane.
So this whole debate centres on whether or not 1. 'viruses' exist independently of cellular exosomes; 2. 'viruses' cause cell death in healthy hosts; 3. 'viruses' can spread between hosts.
1. Is still under debate.
2. Is false (Lanka, 2015, 2020).
3. Is still under debate.
Exosome [Link]
1. Initiation
2. Endocytosis
3. Multivescular body formation (MVB)
4. Secretion
[5. Attachment and Penetration of new cells (Internalisation)]
Virus [Link]
1. Attachment and Penetration of cells
2. Endocytosis
3. Initiation (uncoating and replication)
4. Multivescular body formation (assembly)
5. Secretion (egress)
That the 'vaccine' intends to disrupt/reprogram this cellular communications network should ring alarm bells for everyone. They are installing a new OPERATING SYSTEM e.g. [Link] in the human body, one that will subvert our current one and hook us up to the Cloud/IOT forever. It is the transhumanist integration of biology and technology, Klaus Schwab's wet dream; this is the hijacking of our cellular communications system for nefarious purposes. All those who have been vaccinated have received version 1.0 of this new operating system. That's why Bill Gates is involved. It's a human-computer interface.
The Virus/no virus debate is missing the point.
"Either you believe viruses are real, or you're a flat-earther equivalent." Simplistic reasoning for simple minds.
I must say I'm disappointed both by the actual content of this discussion (how can you talk about the PCR test and not mention Kary Mullis?) and also the connotations of how it's been presented.
The "flat earth" derives from a distrust in the "proven" gravitational, heliocentric model - One that cannot concede any ground to the Electric Universe theory without collapsing under the weight of all it's lies
The "viruses aren't proven" derives from a distrust of the dogmatic principals of western medicine and the poison pedlars who would have us take their experimental gene therapy to "protect us" from said viruses
Elvis Costello & The Attractions - Pump It Up (Official Music Video) - YouTube
The Rolling Stones - Sympathy For The Devil (Official Video) [4K]
women would prb be ok, but men would cry and cry
I watched this one, and I liked it well enough. this is what it reminded me of.. for some reason...
Dwight Yoakam - Fast As You (Video) - YouTube
yikes! have I been living in the south for SO long that I am beyond redemption?
thanks for the music friend.
The Rolling Stones - Doom And Gloom - YouTube
not a good idea.
Garbage - Stupid Girl - YouTube
made me realize i might actually not have any base reference point(s)
should i have had?
i am just happy to find someone with a somehow overlapping taste/understanding in/of music
AC/DC - Touch Too Much (Official Video) - YouTube
Elle King - Ex's & Oh's (Official Video) - YouTube
should such be true.. the difference between us, is clearly thermodynamics.
'potential difference is easy enough to understand.. however, if we consider the dew-point of Lindamay...
things get complicated.
Stray Cats - Be Bop A Lula - YouTube
What It Takes - YouTube
if I remind you, that AC power CANNOT be stored.. it HAS to be created and consumed instantaneously . suddenly what just happened in the great state of Texas.. makes more sense, eh?
when I write something like that.. and I am not jacked with.. you can bet that it is true.
Bow Wow Wow - I Want Candy - YouTube
if I understand what you wrote correctly, then AC power is not really power at all, it is just a method of distributing power. we can agree on that point.
the actual source of the 'AC power' came from something that was burned typically, to spin a turbine attached to a generator.
this is not a love song.
Rammstein - Amerika (Official Video) - YouTube
Hydrogen is actually the most abundant substance in the universe, and Oxygen too is very abundant. In fact, if you separate water into H2 and O2, then recombine it by burning, it returns to water, and our planet has more water than dirt. Oxy-hydrogen is truly "green."
PIL - This is not a love song - [Link]
FYI: I have to copy the links to notepad first and then copy / paste to the comments in order to get the hyperlink as opposed to text
The assertion that it would require hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to be in on it is also ridiculous.
While I'm not decided or even learned enough to make a decision on the matter, there are credible people with credentials and plausible theories that raise legitimate points that deserve far better response than afforded in the video.
It seems beneath the surface there is some other vested interest that's clouding your objectivity in being able to consider an alternative explanation on this topic, and in doing so, you've adopted methods you claim to be against.
Agree, only the few at the top know the true agenda, can see the big picture. Whistleblowers are silenced or eliminated.
The no.1 symptom for such people is 'missing time'. They will go to bed at night and wake up in someone else's house and not know how they got there. They will eat a burger for dinner and then find a pizza box in the trash in the morning. They will work hard to earn a few $$ and find it all gets spend on weird stuff (esp. children's toys, lollies, etc). They have no idea that while they are 'asleep', another alter personality has taken the front position and gone and done things, like buy pizza late at night or whatever. This is real life for millions of people around the world, victims of this cult programming.
until you wrote that, I had respect for you.
on the other hand, kin takes care of kin.
The objection that millions could not possibly be 'in on it' and no-one whistleblow is also falsified if one factors programmed multiple-personality mind-control into the picture.
if one factors programmed multiple-personality mind-control
completely cognitively separated from their 'front' personality(ies) through decades of torture and specialist mind programming/training, is doing most/all of the the agenda work.
you made a fool of yourself by writing that spit. do you deny that you wrote that?
Movin' Out - YouTube
mind control 101..
Lord of the Thighs - YouTube
This never happened to SOTT, as far as I'm aware of.
Always think for yourself ... at least what I try.
*
Ebola: the new fake outbreak
The virus is the cover story by Jon Rappoport
We’re being warned that a new Ebola outbreak is spreading.
Yahoo News (February 26, 2021): “On Feb. 17, the World Health Organization reported a cluster of Ebola cases in Guinea…The Biden administration is moving forward with plans to screen airline passengers from two African countries arriving in the U.S. for Ebola…”
Before yet another lunatic pandemic story takes off, people need to understand the multiple hoaxes behind Ebola.
I covered the story in 2017 and 2014. Here are the essential quotes from my pieces. Buckle up:
~~~
There is one predictable outcome: at Congo clinics and hospitals, frightened people who arrive with what are labeled “early signs” of Ebola will be diagnosed as probable cases. What are those symptoms? Fever, chill, sore throat, cough, headache, joint pain. Sound familiar? Normally, this would just be called the flu.
Here’s another point you won’t see discussed on the mainstream news: the reliability of tests used to diagnose Ebola.
Two of those major tests---antibody and PCR---are notoriously unreliable.
Antibody tests will register positive for disease because they ping on factors that have nothing to do with the disease being looked for. And even when the test is accurate, a positive reading merely shows that the patient came in contact with the germ in question. It says nothing about whether he’s ill or is going to become ill.
In fact, before 1985, when the science was turned on its head, antibody-positive status was taken to mean the patient’s immune system had successfully warded off the germ.
The PCR test is a sophisticated way of amplifying tiny, tiny bits of what are assumed to be viral material, so they can be observed. The problem here is this: if only tiny bits of material could be found in the patient’s body in the first place, there is no reason to suppose they’re enough to cause disease. Very, very large amounts of virus are necessary to begin to suspect the patient is ill or is going to become ill.
Bottom line: huge numbers of people on whom these tests are done are going to be falsely diagnosed with Ebola.
You “show” people a germ and you tell them what it is and what it does, and people salute. They give in. They believe. They actually know nothing. But they believe.
The massive campaign to make people believe the Ebola virus can attack at any moment, after the slightest contact, is quite a success.
People are falling all over themselves to raise the level of hysteria.
And that is preventing a hard look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Republic Guinea, three African nations where poverty and illness are staples of everyday life for the overwhelming number of people.
The command structure in those areas has a single dictum: don’t solve the human problem.
Don’t clean up the contaminated water supplies, don’t return stolen land to the people so they can grow food and finally achieve nutritional health, don’t solve overcrowding, don’t install basic sanitation, don’t strengthen immune systems, don’t let the people have power---because then they would throw off the local and global corporate juggernauts that are sucking the land of all its resources.
In order not to solve the problems of the people, a cover story is necessary. A cover story that exonerates the power structure.
A cover story like a germ.
It’s all about the germ. The demon. The strange attacker.
Forget everything else. The germ is the single enemy.
Forget the fact, for example, that a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.
These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding.
Which just happens to be the scary “Ebola effect” that’s being trumpeted in the world press.
(J Clin Microbiol, July 2013, 51(7), 2435-2438), and Annals of Internal Medicine Dec. 1986, “Potential for bleeding with the new beta-lactam antibiotics”)
Forget the fact that pesticide companies are notorious for shipping banned toxic pesticides to Africa. One effect of the chemicals? Bleeding.
Forget that. It’s all about the germ and nothing but the germ.
Forget the fact that, for decades, one of the leading causes of death in the Third World has been uncontrolled diarrhea. Electrolytes are drained from the body, and the adult or the baby dies. (Diarrhea is also listed as an “Ebola” symptom.)
Any sane doctor would make it his first order of business to replace electrolytes with simple supplementation---but no, the standard medical line goes this way:
The diarrhea is caused by germs in the intestinal tract, so we must pile on massive amounts of antibiotics to kill the germs.
The drugs kill off all bacteria in the gut, including the necessary and beneficial ones, and the patient can’t absorb what little food he has access to, and he dies.
Along the way, he can also bleed.
But no, all the bleeding comes from Ebola. It’s the germ. Don’t think about anything else.
Forget the fact that adenovirus vaccines, which have been used in Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia (the epicenter of Ebola), have, according to vaccines[dot]gov, the following adverse effects: blood in the urine or stool, and diarrhea.
Reporter Charles Yates uncovered a scandal in Liberia centering around the Firestone Rubber Plantation—chemical dumping, poisoned water.
And skin disease.
“Rash” is listed as one of the Ebola symptoms.
Liberia Coca Cola bottling plant: foul black liquid seeping into the environment---animals dying.
Chronic malnutrition and starvation---conditions that are endemic in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea---are the number-one cause of T-cell depletion in the world.
T-cells are a vital component of the immune system. When that system is compromised, any germ coming down the pipeline will cause epidemics and death.
Getting the picture?
This will have to be in several parts: exceeded word usage limit
In email correspondence with me, David Rasnick, PhD, announced this shocking finding:
“I have examined in detail the literature on isolation and Ems [EM: electron microscope pictures] of both Ebola and Marburg viruses. I have not found any convincing evidence that Ebola virus (and for that matter Marburg) has been isolated from humans. There is certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.”
Rasnick obtained his PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and spent 25 years working with proteases (a class of enzymes) and protease inhibitors. He is the author of the book, The Chromosomal Imbalance Theory of Cancer. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.
The real reasons for the “Ebola outbreak” include, but are not limited to: industrial pollution; organophosphate pesticides (causes bleeding); vast overuse of antibiotics (causes bleeding); severe and debilitating nutritional deficiencies (which can cause bleeding); starvation; drastic electrolyte loss; chronic diarrhea; grinding poverty; war; stolen farm land; vaccination campaigns (in people whose immune systems are compromised, vaccines can easily wipe out their last shreds of health).
Doctors and nurses in West Africa are working in very high temperatures, in clinic rooms likely sprayed with extremely toxic organophosphate pesticides. These workers are sealed into hazmat suits, where temperatures rose even higher, causing the loss of up to five liters of body fluid during a one-hour shift. Then, recovering, they need IV rehydration, and they are doused with toxic disinfectant chemicals. They go back into the suits for another round of duty. One doctor reported that, inside his suit, there was (toxic) chlorine. These factors alone could cause dangerous illness and even death, and, of course, the basic symptoms of “Ebola.”
People diagnosed with Ebola outside West Africa? Again, the diagnostic tests are completely irrelevant and unreliable. Illness, if any, could come from a variety of causes. The “Ebola symptoms” are similar, for example, to the flu.
Repackaging a set of common symptoms under different disease labels is a standard practice of the medical cartel.
Even assuming the Ebola virus exists, the experts were expressing grave doubts all the way back in 1977. Right at the beginning of Ebola hysteria.
The 1977 reference here is: “Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever: Proceedings of an International Colloquium on Ebola Virus Infection and Other Haemorrhagic Fevers held in Antwerp, Belgium, 6-8 December, 1977.”
This report is 280 pages long. It’s well worth reading and studying, to see how the experts hem and haw, hedge their bets, and yet make damaging admissions:
For example, “It is impossible to consider the virological diagnosis of Ebola virus infection loose [apart] from the diagnosis of haemorrhagic fevers in general. The clinical picture of the disease indeed is too nonspecific to allow any hypothesis as to which virus may be responsible for any given case.”
BOOM
[...]
Irrelevant or non-existent viruses function as cover stories to conceal actual and inconvenient causes of illness, such as industrial pollution, ag pesticides, GMO food, fracking chemicals, radiation, etc.
The medical cartel and its government allies move a step closer to being able to mandate all vaccines for the population, with no exemptions permitted.
The overall toxifying and weakening of populations, through vaccines and drugs, thus moves forward. Weakened=easier to control.
Selective quarantines further establish unconstitutional government control over the people. A phony epidemic can trigger the wide declaration of martial law.
Under the aegis of “tracking carriers of the virus,” the Surveillance State expands.
Combining the epidemic op with open borders, the government and medical authorities can assert there are now vast numbers of unvaccinated people in the US (immigrants)---and they must be protected, through “herd immunity,” by vaccinating everyone in the US with every conceivable vaccine.
Under the cover of “a global pandemic,” toxic modern medicine can expand its reach into every corner of the globe as a necessary platform for treating ‘infected populations’.”
The DOD and DHS expand their operations, because “every pandemic is a threat to national security.”
The Globalist view of one world under one controlling management system is enhanced---“every epidemic threatens all of us, we’re all in this together, we need, among other innovations, one coordinated medical system for the whole planet.”
Travel to and from any point in the world can be cut off arbitrarily---more top-down control.
Through declaring “infected zones,” economic attacks can be leveled by isolating and quarantining those zones. Loss of business, loss of money---the IMF and World Bank step in and make draconian deals for loans, in exchange for surrender to mega-corporate control of those territories.
In the wake of “fear of the epidemic,” all national health insurance programs on the planet, including Obamacare, can assert more power over the people---“we’re here to protect you from illness and death, so accept all diagnoses and treatments; no opting out, no resistance…”
Further attacks can be launched at traditional and natural solutions to illness---“how dare people try to treat Ebola with anything except (unproven and toxic) drugs and vaccines.”
Further propaganda covertly characterizes “deepest darkest Africa” as the place where terrible things come from.
“The killer virus” functions as a cover story, concealing the centuries-long campaign to weaken and decimate the populations of Africa through starvation, wars, contaminated water supplies, overcrowding, theft of fertile farm land and other natural resources, toxic vaccine campaigns.
To those who point out there is a history of hemorrhagic (bleeding) fevers in parts of Africa, there is also a history of horrendous malnutrition, one aspect of which is scurvy, which also causes bleeding from all mucous membranes.
Scurvy is far from the complete explanation for “Ebola,” but it exemplifies how easy it is to overlook and intentionally ignore non-germ factors.
Bottom line: no need for a virus to explain the bleeding.
Then we have pesticides.
The reference here is “Measuring pesticide ecological and health risks in West African agriculture…” Feb. 17, 2014, published in Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, by PC Jepson et al.
“The survey was conducted at 19 locations in five countries and obtained information from 1704 individuals who grew 22 different crops. Over the 2 years of surveying, farmers reported use of 31 pesticides…
“…certain compounds represented high risk in multiple environmental and human health compartments, including carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, endosulfan and methamidophos.
“Health effects included cholinesterase inhibition, developmental toxicity, impairment of thyroid function and depressed red blood cell count…”
The study also notes that “[p]esticide imports to West Africa grew at an estimated 19% a year in the 1990s…well ahead of the growth in agricultural production of 2.5%…” In other words, pesticides have flooded West Africa.
Here is another vital observation made in the study: “The distribution and sale of pesticides in West Africa is not effectively regulated. Multiple channels of supply commonly include the repackaging of obsolete or illegal stocks [extremely toxic] and the correspondence between the contents of containers to what is stated on the label is poor…”
Pesticide suppliers conceal banned pesticides—which they are taking a loss on, because they can’t sell them—and put them inside containers labeled with the names of legal pesticide.
Let’s consider the pesticides specifically mentioned in the study.
[...]
These pesticides can and do produce a number of the symptoms called “Ebola:”
Bleeding, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, stomach pain, coma.
But all this is swept aside in the hysteria about The Virus.
[...]
So let’s look at the level of antibiotic use in West Africa and the Third World.
Voice of America, February 26, 2014, “…antibiotics have become the automatic choice for treating a child with a fever.”
AAPS (American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists): “For instance, in most areas of West Africa, antibiotics are commonly sold as over-the-counter medications.”
TWN (Third World Network): “…a survey carried out in 1999 showed that nearly one out of two antidiarrheal products in Third World countries contained an unnecessary antibiotic [and chronic diarrhea in the Third World is a leading cause of death, so you can be sure that these antidiarrheal drugs are consumed in great quantities].
“…75 products (including some antibiotics) which had been pulled out or banned in one or more European countries were identified in the Third World in 1991.”
Of course, banned antibiotics would be exceptionally toxic.
In West Africa, antibiotic use is sky-high…and antibiotics do cause bleeding.
Bleeding where? In the digestive tract.
In light of that, consider the following excerpt from the healthgrades[dot]com article, “What is vomiting blood?”
“Vomiting blood indicates the presence of bleeding in the digestive tract…
“Vomiting blood may be caused by many different conditions, and the severity varies among individuals. The material vomited may be bright red or it may be dark colored like coffee grounds…”
Yes, it turns out that any source of internal bleeding in the digestive tract---such as overuse of antibiotics---can cause a person to vomit blood.
“The uniqueness” of “Ebola-blood-vomiting” is a fairy tale.
[...]
What about vaccines?
A number of vaccination campaigns have been carried out in West Africa. I have found no in-depth independent investigations of the ingredients in these vaccines. But for example, a simple flu vaccine, Fluvirin, carries the risk of “hemorrhage.”.
Several other routine vaccines can cause vomiting. The HiB, for example.
[...]
A further investigation in West Africa could well turn up even more reasons for bleeding---none of which has anything to do with a virus. The region is rife with industrial operations which produce major pollutants---mining, offshore oil exploration and drilling, rubber-tapping, etc.
Then we come to the frightening press stories about the “Ebola-stricken, collapsing” doctors and health workers, who are treating patients in the Ebola clinics in West Africa.
But wait. These health workers have been wearing hazmat suits. Sealed off from the outside world, working shifts inside those boiling suits, where they are losing 5 quarts of body fluid an hour, they come out for rehydration, douse themselves with toxic chemicals to disinfect, and then go back in again.
One doctor told the Daily Mail he could smell intense fumes of chlorine while he was working in his suit. That means the toxic chemical was actually in there with him.
No wonder some health workers are collapsing and dying. No virus necessary.
From the Daily Mail, August 5, 2014, an article headlined, “In boiling hot suits…”:
“Doctor Hannah Spencer revealed how she wills herself to feel safe inside a boiling hot air-sealed Hazmat suit…”
“Boiling: Doctors and nurses lose up to five litres in sweat during an hour-long shift in the suits and have to spend two hours rehydrating after…”
“To minimise the risk of infection they have to wear thick rubber boots that come up to their knees, an impermeable body suit, gloves, a face mask, a hood and goggles to ensure no air at all can touch their skin.”
“Dr. Spencer, 27, and her colleagues lose up to five litres of sweat during a shift treating victims and have to spend two hours rehydrating afterwards.”
“At their camp they go through multiple decontaminations which includes spraying chlorine on their shoes.”
“Dr. Spencer: ‘We would like to keep a [patient] visit between 45 minutes and one hour, but now, we’re stretching it to almost two hours. We put ourselves through a very strong physiological stress when we’re using personal protection gear.'”
“‘We sweat, we’re losing water; we’re getting hotter and it wreaks havoc on the body. Our own endurance starts to wear down.'”
From another Daily Mail article (“What’s shocking is how Ebola patients look before they die…”), Dr. Oliver Johnson describes working in protective gear: “The heat of the suits is quickly overwhelming, as your goggles steam up and you feel the sweat dripping underneath. And the smell of chlorine is intense.”
Getting the picture? Imagine losing five quarts of water from your body in an hour. While you’re trapped inside a bulky hazmat suit. While you’re treating a patient who, for example, might want to escape the clinic because he’s afraid of you and your Western medicine.
Imagine needing two hours after you climb out of your suit to rehydrate. Then you go back for more. Of course you also decontaminate yourself with toxic chemicals, including chlorine.
But of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with why you might fall ill. No. If you fall ill, or collapse, or suddenly die, it’s Ebola. The virus.
Sure it is.
No need to wonder. Don’t ask questions. Believe the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control. They always tell the truth.
~~~~
As I wrote at the top of this article, I’ve been quoting my own reporting from 2017 and 2014 here. Everything you’ve just read about Ebola comes from my published pieces in those two time periods.
Now we have the harsh lesson of COVID. And we have 2021 announcements about another Ebola outbreak.
Another EXTREME outbreak of lies.
The link to this article posted on my blog is here [Link]
This is so, so true.
[Link]
Dr.Andrew Kaufmann: The Rooster in the river of rats [Link]
" Exosomes" can you say exosomes!
This site rarely publishes original content anymore. When was the last time Niall or Joe or anyone else published an article? The last features I can recall are Pierre on covid and an unknown author under the pseudonym Mandatory Intellectomy dissecting evolutionary theory. The only reason I still come here is because they post alternative journalists/bloggers worth reading. Pepe Escobar, CJ Hopkins, Charles Hugh Smith, Edward Curtain, Eric Peters Auto, OffGuardian, Whitney Webb etc. Even then the good material is pinned between constant articles from The Post Millenial, The Federalist, Breitbart and other conservative outlets. Not to imply that those sites have nothing to offer but most of that stuff comes across as minor league material.
The last article by Lescaudron was:
SOTT Focus:The Inanity of RNA Vaccines For COVID-19
The present article is a follow-up of Compelling Evidence That SARS-CoV-2 Was Man-Made published in June 2020, which I encourage people to read first. In it, I concluded as follows: It's probable...The last article (not a Flashback) by Quinn was:
SOTT Focus:Everything You Think You Know About Coronavirus...
Despite government and health authority claims to the contrary, the accumulated evidence from the SARS-CoV-2 'outbreak' earlier this year points to it being no more significant than a seasonal...I love all the sites you mentioned. As others have said, the aggregate presentation of the site makes it more convenient than any other site I’ve found which is why I’ve yet to stray. Although this place (meaning it’s editors and founder) doesn’t seem to be as present as it used to be.
I feel both sides of this debate (virus vs no virus) have decent cases to be made. Which then makes SOTT’s connotation of people being idiots for not buying the virus story somewhat depressing.
Why not have a ZOOM debate between the editors and the readers who oppose their view? Let everyone put their dicks on the table and see who’s is the biggest, toughest, hardest one of the bunch.
You certainly seem like one of the most insightful commenters around. If Mandatory can write a series of articles why can’t you? I await your masterpiece. 😁
Its going to be about Race... Since we can't get enough of it. However, I've gotten a bit undone at the moment, of late - causing me some consternation: I want to be as fair in representation as I am egalitarian and all-inclusive, to ensure everyone is offended equally... I wouldn't want anyone to feel sidelined. But it mustn't come across as contrived either. So as you can imagine; its quite a tightrope!
I'll get through it..
As I don't think SOTT would want to officially represent such an unfettered "article" approved without some heavy editing/moderating first gone into it beforehand, which would irk me a little, I'll probably just drop it off in some comment section somewhere. I'll let you know where, when its ready.
There's more to Martin Harris than administering a website richie, its one of many hats I wear.
Looking forward to your detailed response.
The higher the civilisation the more meticulous admin needs to be to keep up and keep track of the checks and balances and correct mistakes. So without good administration a high civilization would fall apart quite quickly... So spare a thought for the Administrator.
"Administrate" means I manage a website and take care of its daily operation. If no one managed or administrated websites there wouldn't be any websites for you to comment on.
I used the term "virus deniers" in quotation marks for a reason: I was being deliberately facile. Your comment wasn't facile, however: it was utterly pointless.
I'll let you get back to your housework.
The dilution of original content from the SOTT founders and previous main personalities is obvious.
On account of the some of comments above, a quick scoot around [Link] (noting that it doesn't generally get much attention), and a quick sampling of the discussion presented, I have not listened to it in full so can't comment beyond saying it seems a bit shallow and tame. In short a time waster.
I had previously read this:- [Link] and decided that watching the video in full was not going to add much to my understanding of the subject.
[Link]
Any website spilling the beans whould be shut down immediately. As had been happening.
SOTT become more and more of a RT appendix lately.
Analysis by infectious disease specialist claims mismatch between data published by authorities and reality on the ground. [Link]
Wasn’t going to listen, as I’m sick to death with this covid crap that’s continually broadcast non-stop all year round... 24/7... Its torture.
Anyway I took the bait and found the podcast to be quiet tame, the podcasters are probably just too intelligent and balanced for Bizarro world.
I recommend several gases of Chardonnay or maybe Russian vodka to readjust cognitive function to the point where your convinced that the earth is flat and pivoted in the middle as moving around caused it to wobble... and where a virus is the thing you might use the next morning as an excuse for everything...