Recently, I had an exchange with health freedom activist and Houston Mayoral candidate Derrick Broze on the importance of exposing the “virus” lie for everyone to see. We had a major disagreement as to whether or not bringing this conversation out into the open for the public at large will lead to lasting solutions. After this exchange, I wrote an article detailing our conversation where I laid out my thoughts on the matter, providing evidence showing that prominent people within the health freedom community who are seen as leaders, such as Robert Kennedy Jr. and Del Bigtree, are unwilling to critically examine the “virus” matter. They brush it off as either unimportant or too controversial to bring to the public at this point in time. Instead, these people, who consider themselves well-versed in the scientific literature, resort to selling fear by promoting the scientifically unproven mainstream pharmaceutically-approved gain of function/bioweapon/lab leak narrative, reinforcing the “virus” lie. They treat the non-specific symptoms labelled as “Covid” as if it is an actual new disease in need of pharmaceutical help in the form of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, or various other drugs and/or supplements. Willingly or not, they act as an alternate arm of the toxic pharmaceutical cartel, pushing the “viral” lies along with the chemical “cures” that keep people entangled in the germ theory web of deception. Thus, when I see prominent people within this community, or those closely associated with them, continuing to push the mainstream narrative while disparaging those of us challenging the lack of scientific evidence supporting the germ theory house of cards, I feel a need to respond in order to highlight why they are mistaken and how they are playing right into the interests of those who perpetrated this hoax upon the world.
One of these people tied to influential voices within the health freedom movement is Robin Monotti, a man who spent years as an architect, film-maker and as a lecturer. Recently, he has been an outspoken critic of the lockdowns and the vaccines which landed him with the badge of honor known as the Twitter suspension. Mr. Monotti was the one who published on Telegram Eric Clapton's disastrous account of having taken the AstraZeneca “Covid” vaccine. I was not familiar with Robin until I was made aware of his association with former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy and Respiratory New Medicines for Pfizer Dr. Mike Yeadon, as they share the Telegram channel together.
Dr. Yeadon has been a very prominent and powerful voice of opposition against the mainstream narrative for many in the health freedom movement, particularly due to his status as an ex-VP of one of the biggest vaccine manufacturers in the world. Thus, his voice carries a lot of weight for those who have become disenfranchised over the course of this “pandemic.” I first took notice of Dr. Yeadon due to his criticism of the PCR test and his questioning of the official “Covid” story. I started paying a bit more attention to Dr. Yeadon when, in an interview conducted on August 1st, 2022, he started to question the existence of “viruses,” saying that respiratory “viruses” do not exist and that there was never any new health threat:
"In my opinion there never was an exaggerated, there never was any new health threat whatsoever. Partly the beauty of this is it can’t go wrong, there are no moving parts, the only moving part is the PCR test.
The initial thing, an exaggerated health threat. Now, some people believe there is a new virus but if so it is not any more serious than influenza, not really because flu vanished at the same time by sheer coincidence.
Personally, I have come to the conclusion and I will credit Andrew Cowan, and his colleagues, I had a really good chat with those guys early in 2020 and it bothered me, bothered me, bothered me.
I realized over time I could no longer maintain my understanding of respiratory viruses as I thought I knew them and then I learned a new bit of information recently and it was just, it collapsed the possibility that respiratory viruses exist at all. They don’t.
People do get ill, people are ill, they have exactly the same illnesses, Peter, and your listeners, have exactly the same illnesses as before that horrible Yeadon says viruses don’t exist, they still have quotes colds, they still have quotes flu, I think we don’t know what causes them and they’re not respiratory viruses.
-Dr. Mike Yeadon
https://genkimanquest.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-on-respiratory-viruses
Around this same time, Dr. Yeadon had joined many of us, including Drs. Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan (who he mistakenly combined together as Dr. Andrew Cowan in the above interview), by signing on to our “No Virus” challenge.
https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/15/the-no-virus-challenge/
Dr. Yeadon explained his reasoning for signing on to our challenge on his shared Telegram channel with Robin Monotti. He stated that those in the field have accepted that “viruses” exist without ever examining the original papers. He described the hollow feeling that he felt after realizing that the papers making up virology do not adhere to the scientific method:
“I’m aware this two page backgrounder & experimental proposal aims to show whether or not viruses exist, focusing on SARS-CoV-2. I’m a signatory because, having given a lot of thought to the entire proposition, I now believe it’s yet another of the lies to which we’ve been subject. In the case of scientists, even those in commercial drug discovery, have taken as fact that viruses exist without ever reviewing the original papers.
When you read the earliest such paper, you may get that hollow feeling in your abdomen (as I did) when you realise that what’s being described does not conform to “the scientific method.”
In March of 2023, Dr. Yeadon wrote an article explaining why he felt that there was no new novel “virus” and that the “pandemic” was a psychological operation preying on people’s fear of a “pathogenic virus.” He argued that all that was needed to successfully pull this off was a fraudulent genome and a PCR test. Dr. Yeadon explained that the fear of a novel “virus” has led to people questioning the origins of how this “virus” came to be, whether through carelessness or a deliberate lab leak. He believes that this controversy over the origin of the “virus” was planted by the perpetrators of this hoax, and that it was used as a way to convince the public that “SARS-COV-2” actually exists when, in fact, it doesn't. Presented below are a few highlights from his piece:
Why I don’t believe there ever was a Covid virus
“The alternative I think they’ve used is to add one more lie to the tall stack of lies which has surrounded this entire affair. This lie is that there has ever been in circulation a novel respiratory virus which, crucially, caused massive-scale illness and deaths. In fact, there hasn’t.
Instead, we have been told there was this frightening, novel pathogen and ramped up the stress-inducing fear porn to 11, and held it there. This fits with cheating about genetic sequences, PCR test protocols (probes, primers, amplification and annealing conditions, cycles), ignoring contaminating genetic materials from not only human and claimed viral sources, but also bacterial and fungal sources. Why for example did they need to insert the sampling sticks right into our sinuses? Was it to maximise non-human genetic sequences?”
“If I’m correct that there was no novel virus, what a genius move it was to pretend there was! Now they want you only to consider how this ‘killer virus’ got into the human population. Was it a natural emergence (you know, a wild bat bit a pangolin and this ended up being sold at a wet market in Wuhan) or was it hubristically created by a Chinese researcher, enabled along the way by a researcher at the University of North Carolina funded by Fauci, together making an end run around a presidential pause on such work? Then there’s the question as to whether the arrival of the virus in the general public was down to carelessness and a lab leak, or did someone deliberately spread it?”
“I believe that the perpetrators (who could be all or any of Gates, Fauci, Farrar, Vallance, CEPI, EcoHealth Alliance, DARPA and numerous others) planted the controversy about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 because a little embarrassment of the establishment was a small price to persuade most of us that there surely must be a novel virus when there isn’t. (And they have got away with it to date.)
I have colleagues who do not believe what we’ve been told (i.e. that a virus has been experimentally constructed) is even possible technologically. I don’t have the background to assess that idea. But the rest hangs together for me in a way that no other explanation does.”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-i-dont-believe-there-ever-was-a-covid-virus/
It seems very clear that Dr. Yeadon questions the existence of “viruses,” or at the very least, respiratory “viruses” like “SARS-COV-2.” He understands that the virology literature does not adhere to the scientific method. He is convinced that this “pandemic” was not the result of any “virus” nor any lab leak/bioweapon, and even questions whether such a thing as engineering a “virus” is even possible. However, his Telegram partner, the previously mentioned Robin Monotti, seems to view things very differently, leading to a bit of confusion on their shared Telegram channel.
On August 19th, 2023, Robin posted to his Twitter, as well as to his and Dr. Yeadon's Telegram account, a notice to the “no virus theorists.” In his notice, Mr. Monotti claimed that those of us challenging the evidence for “viruses” are culpable for any deaths that may occur by leading people away from “lifesaving” treatments. He laid out 5 points that he felt were valid reasons as to why our position is dangerous to the health freedom movement as well as to the health of those suffering from symptoms of disease. This position by Mr. Monotti is in direct opposition to what Dr. Yeadon has presented over the last year. As Mr. Monotti is directly tied to Dr. Yeadon through their Telegram account, with a reach of over 98.6 thousand members, his notice is primed to generate quite a bit of confusion regarding this issue. Thus, I think it is best to address Mr. Monotti's points and explain why it is absolutely essential that we expose the lack of scientific evidence for any “virus” at this very moment in time. I am presenting Mr. Monotti's entire notice, along with a response by Dr. Yeadon, and I will interject commentary throughout in an attempt to clear this issue up.
NOTICE TO THE "NO VIRUS" THEORISTS:
“A number of people in the freedom movement have adopted the narrative that viruses do not exist.
I personally consider this position wrong on all possible levels, and we would have to go back to 1898, when the word was first used by Beijerinck and analyze every single virus identified since independently and in detail to have this debate, so it's not something that we have the time to do, it would take a lifetime or two, and to me the result is also a foregone conclusion, so I have no interest in this exercise, nor the time for it, but that is beside a much more important point, that I will try and explain in a notice here.
Mr. Monotti believes that those of us challenging the lack of scientific evidence supporting virology are wrong, and that in order to even have this debate, we would need to analyze the history of virology, something he feels would take a lifetime or two to accomplish. Mr. Monotti refers to Martinus Beijerinck's first use of the phrase “filterable virus” in 1898 as the starting point that one would have to begin at in order to undertake this task. Fortunately for Mr. Monotti, many others and I began investigating this foundational evidence long ago. Coincidentally, I had just done an article on this very topic regarding the origin of the “virus” concept. I responded to Mr. Monotti on Twitter by pointing out that what he had stated would need to happen in order to have this debate absolutely should happen:
I provided Mr. Monotti with two pages from the second chapter of Alfred Grafe's A History of Experimental Virology showing how Beijernick made no attempt, theoretically or scientifically, to defend his “filterable virus” hypothesis. His work lacked proper experimental controls, and his ideas were disregarded at the time. Beijerinck's foundational evidence from 1898 is full of holes. It is a great starting point for unraveling the fraud that has taken place over the last century plus, so I encourage Mr. Monotti to begin there and see the lack of scientific evidence for himself. Once he can see that the concept of a “filterable virus” was created minus scientific evidence, he can move on and look at the proceeding pseudoscientific evidence that was built on top of this fraudulent foundation. For easy access, he will be able to find many of the original papers at my site ViroLIEgy.com. Once he has looked at the foundational papers, Mr. Monotti can turn to the masterful work of Christine Massey and the numerous Freedom of Information requests that she has documented from various health organizations across the world showing that they hold no records of any purified and isolated “viruses” ever being found directly in the fluids of a sick human or animal. After digesting that, if he wants to watch some highly entertaining and informative videos on this subject, Dr. Sam Bailey has plenty of excellent content at her site. I would also highly recommend that Mr. Monotti reviews the work of the Perth Group and Dr. Stefan Lanka, who together with the help of others who were rethinking AIDS during the 80s, 90s and beyond, helped to expose the HIV hoax. What Mr. Monotti doesn't realize is that much of the work that he feels will take two lifetimes to achieve has already been handled by many individuals over the last few decades. Pointing out the fraud of germ theory and virology is not a new topic. Once one sees that the foundation was built upon pseudoscientific grounds, it is easier to see the rest of the cracks within the framework.
This is a very dangerous position to promote publicly, for the health of others. For the following reasons:
1. You can't possibly exclude as a certainty that various labs have viruses that they will release as bioweapons. We already know that Porton Down in the UK is claiming they are working on making "variants". There are claims of such work in Wuhan, and in Ukraine, as well as Fort Detrick, and there labs in Georgia too.
One can absolutely exclude as a certainty that various labs have “viruses” that can be released as bioweapons as there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of any pathogenic “viruses.” This is where understanding the scientific method really helps. In order to prove such a thing as a pathogenic “virus,” the researchers must actually have the assumed “viral” particles on hand in a purified (free of contaminants) and isolated (separated from everything else) state in order to study and experiment with. This would be the independent variable (i.e. the cause) in the experiment to demonstrate that it influences the dependent variable (i.e. the effect) in a cause-and-effect relationship as proposed by the hypothesis. The researchers must demonstrate that these particles, when introduced to a healthy host via a natural route of “infection” (such as an aerosol), will actually produce the expected symptoms of disease.
The problem for virology is that there has never been such an experiment as no “viral” particles have ever been properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal in order to be used as an independent variable. The closest that virology has ever come to doing such an experiment were those conducted by Milton Rosenau during the Spanish Flu. These experiments took place on both the East and West coasts in 1918. This research showed that the most contagious and deadly “virus” of all time could not be transmitted from the fluids of a sick host to a healthy host in various ways, no matter how hard the researchers tried. There have been numerous other failed contagion studies that I recommend Mr. Monotti takes a look at when he gets a chance, some of which I have outlined here as well as here. Jacob Diaz (a.k.a. the Undercover Virologist on Instagram) created a nice document detailing these failed contagion studies for our presentation during The End of Covid that can be viewed here.
2. If a virus is released, and this time it's even more dangerous than the last one, and you are making people believe that no such thing exists, then these people will ignore any treatment that is identified as a possible cure or antidote. Do you really want to dissuade people from seeking out treatments if this does happen?
Again, as there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of any pathogenic “virus,” this is an unfounded fear. There is no need to rely on any pharmaceutical treatments as potential “cures.” All these toxic products do is suppress the symptoms that have shown up as a means of detoxifying the body. This stops the healing process rather than allowing the body to expel the toxins as it is supposed to do. There is a very entertaining explanation as to what happens to the body when one suppresses symptoms by author Don Tolman which can be viewed here. In order to understand this process better as well as how to keep the body healthy without pharmaceuticals, I would recommend that Mr. Monotti reads this article.
3. If a virus is released, and people do start dying from it, and it's because you have influenced them to believe that no such thing exists, you become partially responsible for the failure of these people to seek treatment. Is that what you really want?
Is Mr. Monotti responsible for anyone who may be harmed by the treatments that he is promoting here?
The World Council for Health recommends Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, Doxycycline, and many other antibiotics/antivirals/antimicrobials, anti-inflammatories, and anticoagulants as treatments for “Covid.” Many of the drugs listed have known serious side effects that can lead to injury and/or death. Is Mr. Monotti culpable for the injuries and deaths that occur as a result of his treatment recommendations?
We are simply presenting an argument that there is no scientific evidence supporting virology. Anyone is free to read the information and come to their own conclusions as to whether what we say has any merit or not. They must decide for themselves how to support their own healing and how to stay healthy. I'm confident that anyone who views the information that we have presented in various formats critically and logically will come to the same conclusion that we have. Germ theory and virology are pseudoscientific fraud.
4. Such irresponsability has the potential to shut down the entire freedom movement as "virus deniers", and during a possible real emergency, there will be no hesitation in holding such views and people responsible by the authorities, which could easily organise scientific proof of the new virus in a court of law, specifically for the objective of a show trial against the "no-virus anti-vaxxers".
There is no scientific proof for any “virus” that the authorities can introduce in a court of law. That is the entire point of our argument. If they had the scientific evidence supporting their claims, this evidence would have been presented by now. When challenged, the evidence has either failed, as was seen during Dr. Stefan Lanka's measles trial in 2016, or the court backs down from discovery and the case is dropped, as was seen recently in April 2023 with Marvin Haberland. We absolutely welcome the authorities providing their best evidence if they have been holding back. Everything that has been presented thus far has been the opposite of scientific. It is straight-up pseudoscientific.
5. You are entitled to your own scientific views, but you must also consider your shared liability with other members of the freedom movement, and the counterproductive strategy of publicly proclaiming as a certainty something which you can't be certain of, as you don't know for sure what is happening in gain of function labs around the world.
I agree that we are entitled to our own views. However, there is a big difference as to whether one's views are based upon scientific knowledge vs. pseudoscientific knowledge. Those promoting germ theory and virology do not have scientific views on the matter as their whole belief system was developed on pseudoscientific grounds.
As for the gain of function fiction, saying that “viruses” exist because we don't know what is happening in locations closed off to public view is like saying unicorns exist because we don't know what is going on in Antarctica. There may be mysterious and magical creatures that roam the artic land. Perhaps this is where the unicorns live. We cannot say for certainty anything about locations that we do not have access to. However, that does not mean that we need to speculate as well as take at face value what is claimed to be going on at these locations. We know that no scientific evidence exists proving such a thing as a pathogenic “virus.” The particles claimed to be “viruses” have never been observed in nature nor directly in the fluids of an “infected” host. There is no reason to believe that researchers are able to create and genetically engineer in a lab entities that they have never been able to provide valid scientific evidence for from nature.
I therefore consider it highly irresponsible to push this view onto others who may indeed be stocking up on treatments for the next pandemic without your influence over them. And it's irresponsible to potentially give such an open goal to the authorities to come for all of us in the next "pandemic" with careful proof of their gain of function virus, which they may be prepsring now specifically for a court trial.
No one is pushing their views onto anyone. However, this conversation on “viruses” must be held out in the open so that anyone can analyze the argument for themselves in order to make up their own mind on the matter. If we are wrong, then those who support germ theory, virology, and the gain of fiction narrative should be able to support their beliefs with scientific evidence showing us how we are wrong. However, they fail to do so every time.
If I am wrong, nothing will happen, as the virus does not exist. If I am right, then you possibly become co-responsible with the perpetrators of any potential real death as a result of an untreated infection, because the infected person listened to your theory that "viruses don't exist". Think about it, there is no certainty in science, so why publicly act as if there is when it has the potential to damage our entire movement?
There is no certainty in science? I thought Mr. Monotti was concerned that scientific proof was being gathered up to be presented in a court of law for a show trial in order to make us all look foolish. That's about as certain as it gets. Which is it? Does science prove things or not? Is there certainty in science or not? If one is unable to say with certainty that “viruses” do not exist, why is it allowed to say with certainty that “viruses” do exist and that there are pharmaceutical treatments that are able to combat these invisible entities?
Science is about explaining observed natural phenomenon by establishing a falsifiable hypothesis that proposes a cause-and-effect relationship that can be tested and either confirmed or rejected through experimentation. Being able to reproduce and replicate the results through rigorous application of the scientific method with proper controls should offer plenty of certainty about the knowledge gained. This is where germ theory and virology fall apart. Scientific findings (or pseudoscientific ones as in the case here) are meant to be challenged. This is exactly what we are doing. If the evidence supporting these fields is valid scientific knowledge, then it should hold up under scrutiny. There is no reason to discourage this as it is the spirit of science to challenge the results.
I will add below the wording in the letter of Jonathan Hall to Patrick Henningsen, which I think is useful to explain this in other words than mine.
As a last point, I don't have any evidence of anyone pushing this theory being controlled opposition, so I am not making that claim. I believe most people making this claim are in good faith and sincerely believe their own theory, for their own reasons, which I do not share.
However, I do notice patterns on twitter of sock puppet accounts really pushing this theory aggressively.
I don't have the time to make an analysis of these accounts to prove this, but the indications are all there that there is a campaign to push this theory in my account, to associate me with it by force. I am here making it clear that I am distancing myself categorically from it.
Thank you for the consideration of my points and the negative repercussions that the the public proclaiming as a certainty that viruses never existed, and therefore never shall exist in future, can have on our entire movement.
This seems to be a thinly veiled way of saying that the “no virus” position is a controlled opposition psychological operation without having to completely own and defend this stance. This is a point that I challenged Mr. Monotti on via Twitter.
I would love to hear from Mr. Monotti how awakening the public to the pseudoscientific fraud of germ theory and virology would benefit the pharmaceutical industry in any way, shape, or form. If one were to look at it logically, gaining the trust of those within the health freedom movement by criticizing the mainstream “Covid” narrative while still promoting the existence of “viruses,” the MSM-approved gain of function/bioweapon narrative, and the promotion of alternative pharmaceutical treatments such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, would seem to be the more likely controlled opposition psychological operation that benefits the pharmaceutical industry. However, while I don't have any evidence that those pushing this narrative are controlled opposition, I have noticed sock accounts pushing this narrative aggressively, and the indications are there that there is a campaign to push such an agenda (see, it works both ways). 🤷♂️
Extract from letter to Patrick Henningsen @21WIRE from Jonathan Hall:
"Will 'no virus' proponents factor in the evidence outlined and reconsider their conclusions? Or will they continue to ignore medical evidence such as the distinct pathologies of Sars-Cov-2 as it does not fit with the theories? Are they also aware of all the wider consequences and implications of their actions? As I argue there are serious risks to public health by under-estimating agents such as Sars-Cov-2 and bio-warfare capabilities generally. There are many questions and unknowns that frankly you and other commentators are guessing and making assumptions about. People need to learn from Covid and be fully prepared with early treatments. Not act as if risks do not exist at all! For has it occurred to you 'no virus' theories influence the public to have a false sense of security on the risks and so are less prepared and able to respond should there be similar or worse incidents, increasing illness, hospitalisations and deaths? Also, how far you are willing to go personally in real-life with this theory? Are you going to refuse effective anti-viral early treatments if you have Sars-Cov-2 symptoms? Do you aim for not only tweets of approval but for followers to do the same? Are you really sure about that? I think you need to be more responsible in considering all the implications."
In response to the excerpt Mr. Monotti shared from Johnathan Hall seeking to make the case for pharmaceutical treatments for those with “Covid,” unlike what Mr. Hall claimed, there are no distinct pathologies for those who suffer from “Covid.” In an August 2020 review on the pathological picture of “Covid,” the researchers stated that the overall pathologic findings are similar to those reported in “H1N1” (swine flu) and “SARS1.” The gross macroscopic findings in “Covid” patients are non-specific. Autopsies showed non-specific histopathologic findings, none of which are pathognomonic of “Covid.” Diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) in “Covid” patients could not be differentiated from the other etiologies of DAD by morphologic evaluation. It was noted that there is no consistent or pathognomonic “viral” cytopathic effects. The authors even state that the pathology described in organs is far from specific, and it is unclear whether the changes described reflect “viral” infection or underlying/pre-existing conditions. This fact that the pathological picture of “Covid” is non-specific was backed up by an August 2022 review which stated that “the respiratory distress and the gross pathological changes observed in COVID-19 are not specific.”
A September 2021 study attempting to create a differential diagnosis between “Covid” and other diseases stated that “Covid” cannot be differentiated from other respiratory infections via clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results. The symptoms defining “Covid” are non-specific and overlapped with many other conditions. The researchers stated that establishing differential diagnosis criteria remained very challenging and that clinical discrimination was unreliable as there were no clinical or laboratory parameters that could be relied upon.
Thus, my question to both Mr. Hall and Mr. Monotti is this: Will they continue to ignore that the medical evidence shows non-specific pathologies of “Covid” which does not fit in with their theories of a new distinct disease, or will they reconsider what they believe when shown evidence contradicting their previously held beliefs? Like much of what Mr. Monotti wrote, Mr. Hall's statement is a push for toxic pharmaceutical treatments for the same symptoms of disease that were fraudulently assigned to a scientifically unproven “virus.”
Dr. Yeadon Responds
One day after Robin posted his notice to the “virus-deniers,” Dr. Yeadon offered a response to him:
Robin,
On the absolutist position, we are aligned.
I do think it’s POSSIBLE that the entire discipline is fraudulent.
I agree however that despite my long career in life sciences, I don’t know enough WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF CERTAINTY to adopt a public position that there are no viruses.
Frankly, it hardly matters what I think, because we’re all incredibly circumscribed in the people we can reach.
I’d go further and say that, if we were much more effective than we actually are, we would almost certainly be murdered.
That said, I’m not inhibited in any way by that risk, because I’ve already decided I’m not interested in scuttling around in a highly constrained retirement, flinching at each new restriction and humiliation.
So I’ll communicate or die trying!
If I was appreciably younger, in full health and with a partner who doesn’t think the same way I do about it all, I might well have a different perspective.
For example, on the transmission experiments, I’ve clearly got homework to do! In due course I’ll let you know whether what you’ve said is enough to destroy or substantially weaken it as an argument. If so, I’m willing to reinstate my earlier view that I cannot eliminate transmissible respiratory pathogens.
This wouldn’t change my opinion on the current fraudulent claim for a pandemic, nor the immunological argument that since the nastier it might be, the stronger that self limiting nature of spreading, pandemics of severe respiratory illnesses aren’t possible.
All the best,
Mike
All I can really say to Dr. Yeadon is, if we are basing fraud on a lack of evidence derived from the scientific method, then the entire field of virology, as well as the entire germ theory of disease, is most definitely fraudulent. This is not only a possibility but an absolute certainty. Dr. Yeadon already understands that the papers “do not conform to the scientific method.” It should be fairly easy for him to come to the same conclusion. Thus, I am uncertain why Dr. Yeadon cannot adopt a public position and say with a high level of certainty, at the very least, that the scientific evidence supporting “pathogenic viruses” does not exist. If Dr. Yeadon has any questions on the failed transmission experiments of the past, all he needs to do is refer to the resources I provided Mr. Monotti above. While I respect Dr. Yeadon's right to investigate this matter thoroughly before coming to a conclusion one way or the other, it is time for those who are in a public position to make a clear statement rather than to keep everyone guessing as to where they stand.
NOTICE TO THE "VIRUS" THEORISTS WITHIN THE HEALTH FREEDOM MOVEMENT
To everyone else within the health freedom community (as well as those who are not) who continue to promote the “virus” lie, the gain of function/lab leak narrative, and the alternative toxic pharmaceutical treatments as a “cure” for non-specific symptoms relabeled as a new disease, consider this a notice. If you are going to make such claims, you must back them up with actual scientific evidence. This begins by providing the necessary evidence that should be found within any foundational paper claiming the existence of any “pathogenic virus.”
Do you have evidence of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal without culturing that are then confirmed via EM?
Do you have evidence that these purified and isolated particles were proven pathogenic naturally via adherence to the scientific method?
If you are confused as to what the scientific method is, here is a refresher:
Observe a natural phenomenon
Alternative hypothesis
Independent variable (the presumed cause)
Dependent variable (the observed effect)
Control variables
Null hypothesis
Test/experiment
Analyze the observation/data
Validate/invalidate hypothesis
If you cannot provide this basic but absolutely essential evidence, then perhaps you should not be making any claims about the existence of any “pathogenic viruses,” the ability to engineer such entities in a lab, or the effectiveness of alternative pharmaceutical treatments against these invisible boogeymen that you cannot provide valid scientific evidence for. If you cannot find this evidence, perhaps it is time to rethink your position. As I stated before, willingly or not, you are acting as an alternate arm of the toxic pharmaceutical cartel, pushing the “viral” lies along with the chemical “cures” that are keeping people entangled within the germ theory web of deception. Your promotion of the lie allows for the continued reliance on lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing, masks, vaccines, and pharmaceuticals to be used against us in the future in order to combat the scientifically unproven threat. You become as much a part of the problem rather than being a part of the solution. Thus, just as we ask of anyone defending germ theory and virology, you must back up your claims with valid scientific evidence. When you make such claims, it becomes your theory to defend, and it is now your burden to prove.
Thank you for all your hard work Mike!! I have been a Registered Veterinary Technician in emergency, critical care, surgery, anesthesia, and imaging since 1996. I currently work for a major medical supply company. My mom was an RN and my father was a paramedic before they were really certifying people for it. So I basically grew up with and was well versed in "germ theory". Because of my medical background, I did not believe the "covid" narrative at all and told everyone I know that it was all a lie.
When I first heard David Icke talking about Drs. Kaufman and Cowan and how "viruses" had never been proven, I was skeptical and unbelieving at first. However, once I heard and read more of the evidence, I am 100% sure that "viruses" have been one if the biggest lies we have ever been sold/told.
Your work, along with that of Christine Massey, Drs. Kaufman, Cowan, Bailey and others needs to be shared with EVERYONE! I tell everyone I meet that "viruses" have never been proven and they look at me like I'm crazy. Oh well, jokes on them. 😂🤣
This is a superb and thorough science-based taking down of Monotti, Mike!!
"Instead, these people, who consider themselves well-versed in the scientific literature, resort to selling fear by promoting the scientifically unproven mainstream pharmaceutically-approved gain of function/bioweapon/lab leak narrative, reinforcing the “virus” lie. They treat the non-specific symptoms labelled as “Covid” as if it is an actual new disease in need of pharmaceutical help in the form of Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, or various other drugs and/or supplements. Willingly or not, they act as an alternate arm of the toxic pharmaceutical cartel, pushing the “viral” lies along with the chemical “cures” that keep people entangled in the germ theory web of deception. Thus, when I see prominent people within this community, or those closely associated with them, continuing to push the mainstream narrative while disparaging those of us challenging the lack of scientific evidence supporting the germ theory house of cards, I feel a need to respond in order to highlight why they are mistaken and how they are playing right into the interests of those who perpetrated this hoax upon the world."
Excellent. Except that i don't think they are simply making a mistake and thus unwittingly playing into the interests of the perps. They, or at least some of them, are invested in this hoax. This could be an ideological investment, because they *want* to believe the virology ideology. Or it could be an emotional investment, because they have adhered to this lie often in the past, and don't wanna be seen as being utterly wrong, and risk the tarnishing of their credibility. Or in some cases a financial investment, be it in "alternative treatments" for "COVID" and "the virus" or in technology which is at the heart of implementing the 4th Industrial Revolution, what the entire Operation "Pandemic" has really been about.