Targeting the wrong prey.
I have been avoiding writing this article for some time, as I was hoping that cooler heads would prevail, and that this simmering problem would fade harmlessly into the background. However, recent events have shown me that this is unfortunately not a self-correcting situation that will go away quietly on its own. In fact, it has only grown worse over time. This is an issue that looks to do far more damage to our collective efforts aimed at exposing the fraud of germ theory and virology than anything Big Pharma mouthpieces can throw our way. It has become clear to me that there is a veritable pitchfork wielding mob within the “no virus” community who are on the hunt and looking to tear down the hard-working people leading the charge over minor differences. They are taking aim at those who are in the spotlight trying to do their best to awaken the public to the lies that we have been exposed to for the last few centuries. While healthy skepticism of those who are speaking out in the public is all fine and good, there is an extreme skepticism that is festering within some that has caused them to target those whom they see as “leaders.” Any disagreement that they perceive in a position contrary to their own has led to accusations of shilling, grifting, controlled opposition, etc. Insults and ad hominem attacks are thrown about in attempts to stamp out level-headed and rational conversation. These accusations are cast out into the public sphere, sowing distrust in the individual targeted, without the accuser ever speaking to the accused in order to gain clarity on any perceived issues. The in-fighting and slanderous attacks needs to be addressed before this ticking time-bomb destroys everything that we are collectively seeking to achieve.
I first became aware of this problem within the “no virus” community (for lack of a better term) in May of 2023. Dr. Kevin Corbett had written an article on Substack addressing his concerns over a growing chorus of attacks on himself, Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey, etc. by individuals who are supposedly on the same “no virus” side. As Dr. Corbett put it at the time, there was a group of unnamed angry agents who were mounting attacks on people in private e-mail lists and across social media. Dr. Corbett related much of what he was seeing at that time to what had transpired within the old AIDS dissident movement in the past that had been targeted by outside groups. He spoke of nefarious forces that are working through various angry actors to open a dark chasm within the community by targeting investigative journalists, dissident scientists, citizen scientists, and many others. The tactics utilized involved mobbing, bullying, lynching, and haranguing. As Dr. Corbett foresaw what was coming, he ultimately distanced himself from these agents:
‘NOT-IN-MY-NAME’: DISTANCING FROM THE ‘NO-VIRUS’ WITCH HUNT
MAY 11, 2023
Just as bad feeling, distrust, strife and hate are engineered in order hit on those not ‘conforming’ to the official ‘virology paradigm’ now the converse is happening around mythical views of the work of certain scientists and physicians like myself, Drs Sam and Mark Bailey, Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr Tom Cowan to name just a few. This may have unintentionally been given oxygen by the negative publicity against Professor Peter Duesberg which resurfaced again in 2022. Unsupported by the above named scientists, various agencies spouting anger are now acting to try to conform others to a particular line of mythical ‘no virus’ thinking which has all the hallmarks of a modern McCarthy-style witch hunt, perhaps even worse, because it comes from those ostensibly espousing an open critique of molecular biology and virology yet whose actions only create more and more division and strife. Their language is that of being "radicalised" by the ‘no virus issue’ and of fighting a ‘war’ against ‘virus believers’ evident in recent attacks where agents espouse an ‘ends-justifies-the-means’ approach, with no quarter shown. Already lists have been compiled of ‘good’ (non-virus) and ‘bad’ (virus) believers: "Virus Pushers Against Clot Shots" (‘bad guys’) implying a converse list of "good guys". This is being done in the name of what is said to be a so-called ‘no virus’ team, camp or side. In reality, there is NO ‘no virus’ team, camp or ‘side’, and by definition there can be NO leaders other than those who are self-avowed or self-appointed. There are ONLY individual ‘scientists’ and ‘medical doctors’ (not synonymous terms) who think critically, and often differently, about the epistemology of ‘virology’ and molecular biology, plus a growing number of citizen scientists and independent journalists. I am making this statement so as to disallow my name and my work from being cited in ad hominem attacks by angry agents who are overshadowing this loose grouping and who have commonly labelled themselves ‘no virus’: they are angry apparatchiks of unknown provenance who are mounting ad hominem attacks on people in private e-mail lists and across social media. I consider that my action here in making this statement is ethical and based on my professional science and healthcare training and background. It is also based on loyalty to professional colleagues, many of whom are personal friends who have been working since the 1980s to uncover the multiple lies and deceptions in 'virology' and its associated applications. The most recent attacks are a continuation of those which are known to have been operating since the 1980s orchestrated by deep state mechanisms and their nefarious agencies and agents, targeting investigative journalists, dissident scientists and citizen scientists, and sadly many, many others. The results have been shocking: mobbing, bullying, lynching, haranguing and profound reputational damage, engendering the inevitable physical and psychological morbidity and mortality. Journalists, scientists and citizen scientists have lost their careers, been defunded / deplatformed, imprisoned and killed. This started around 1987 with the publication of Professor Peter Duesberg’s paper killing the retroviral theory of AIDS and expanded in the 1990s after the articles in SPIN Magazine by Celia Farber and her 2006 Harper's Magazine article uncovering the deadly impact of HIV / AIDS Virology and the paper from ‘The Perth Group’s’ in Nature Biotechnology 1993 on the ‘HIV’ Western blot showing ‘no isolation’ of ‘HIV’ and detailing the absurd fallacy of ‘HIV tests’. Nefarious forces are now working through angry actors to open a dark chasm within the public arena and amongst scientists and their supporters, groupies and hangers on using arguments over the ‘non-existence’ versus ‘existence of’ ‘viruses’. These agencies are currently plying a dogmatic and fundamentalist style to try to enforce and conform people’s thoughts and actions using a discursive ‘virus’ / ‘no virus’ mantra with which to bombard people. This is bastardising the traditional scientific and citizen science approaches for winning the hearts and minds of people which normally uses open scientific debate and scientific experimentation, all of which were usually published sometimes in scientific journals, or as gross censorship increasingly prevails, in self-publications and web-based media; all of which are somewhat acceptable means to enable questioning of perceived wisdom. It may be difficult to stop the deep state forces but those like myself can publicly oppose these individual agents and their networks from expropriating our names and our work for misuse in their angry ad hominem attacks.
I was very busy working on The End of Covid at the time, so while I was aware of Dr. Corbett's concerns, I was doing my best not to be distracted by what I had hoped would work out to be a temporary problem. However, as the months passed, I have seen firsthand what Dr. Corbett was warning us about. At first, I defended claims of a “rabid” base when I saw people like Derrick Broze use this phrase to describe the “no virus” community. I chalked it up to a base that can sometimes be overly passionate about the cause, wanting to ensure that the collective information exposing the lies is shared far and wide. I still contend that many who have been labeled as “rabid” truly are just a bit overzealous and intense in how they go about expressing themselves when engaging with the opposition. However, there is a small fraction within the “no virus” ranks who do fit this “rabid” description. They are not only fervent when engaging with those who are on the other side, they are eager to attack those who are fighting for the same cause. They are quick to accuse, insult, and label anyone who has a slight difference of opinion. These extreme tactics do a diservice to presenting the message to a wider audience. They are off-putting and divisive, and those who are on the outside looking in will turn away after witnessing such behavior from our side. Thus, I am sharing some of the encounters that I have personally had with this group in order to showcase the extent of this hunt and to hopefully make the point that this kind of in-fighting will do more damage to our collective efforts than any good it could ever serve. I am highlighting this issue so that we can come together and find a better way forward to sort through any perceived differences before they blow up in our faces.
Failure to Communicate
My first encounter with this hunt came immediately after The End of Covid was released. I saw people who were suspicious of the project start to attack Alec Zeck and others involved in its creation on Twitter, using guilt by association tactics over different presenters that were involved in the project. This was primarily due to the inclusion of David Icke, a known conspiracy theorist in the UK, as well as speakers who may not necessarily subscribe to the “no virus” position. It was claimed that these individuals were included in order to discredit the entire movement along with anyone involved in the production of TEoC. While I understand the criticism, I believe that it is unfair to judge TEoC based upon the inclusion of a few controversial figures. In a project with so many presenters involved, it is impossible to only include those that everyone agrees with 100% on everything. It is easy for those who are skeptical to find one or two people that they may disagree with in order to disregard the entire event without giving the information contained within it a fair trial. The project should be judged based upon the content and value of the information presented and not solely on who is the one doing the presenting. The topic that Icke spoke about and the information that he shared had absolutely nothing to do with his more controversial beliefs. Sadly, Icke's inclusion may put off some who are skeptical of him as either a conspiracy theorist or as someone many believe to be controlled opposition. Thus, it is a valid criticism that his inclusion potentially harms viewership of the TEoC. However, while I can ultimately understand these concerns, I personally do not feel that the inclusion of voices from many different walks of life that we may not trust or agree with 100% damages the event or the overall message that was conveyed.
The inclusion of Icke was not the only condemnation that was brought about against the project. People also drew ire over the price attached, seemingly not realizing that it cost money in order to produce the series, as well as a lot of time, effort, and hard work by many individuals involved behind the scenes to bring about its creation. Some individuals felt that a paywall had been put up in order to keep valuable information from the people while others pointed to the numerology of the pricing point ($77 or $111) as a way to claim that the project and the people involved were suspicious. The conversations around these criticisms seemed to be aimed at discrediting the project and those involved in superficial ways rather than addressing any valid concerns about the overall content that was presented. Unfortunately, many of the attacks became very personal, going after Alec for his familial ties as well as using his military service background to claim that he was controlled opposition, which I found to be very disrespectful. Some examples below show how those who are skeptical of Alec are attempting to paint him as a Luciferian/Freemason.
I have known Alec for over a year now, and, in my experience, I have found him to be an honest, genuine, and sincere human being who is trying to do his best to make the world a better place for his family as well as for everyone else. He is a brilliant young man who has a real firm grasp on many of the problems that we face in this world today. He has a gift for speaking in public and for getting people to open up in engaging interviews on his The Way Foward podcast. He is able to masterfully use social media in order to get the message across. I have nothing but respect for what Alec has been able to accomplish at such a young age. I know Alec has been willing to talk with his accusers, even offering to do podcasts with them, but for some strange reason, they never want to participate in an open dialogue with him. While people are free to have their concerns over some of the presenters involved in TEoC as well as the price attached to the project, the personal attacks against Alec for trying to create an educational experience that can reach a wider audience are, in my opinion, entirely unwarranted. They seem to be aimed at discrediting someone who has worked hard to bring about truth to the public at large.
Not long afterwards, I saw some of these same individuals target the late researcher David Crowe, insinuating that he was controlled opposition who was there to disrupt the work of the Perth Group and to break apart the AIDS dissident movement during his tenure as the president of the Rethinking AIDS group. This mostly stemmed from David's involvement in the Andre Parenzee case in the mid 2000s. While it is far too long to recount all of the details here, David was a non-official consultant to the lawyer on a trial where the Perth Group were set as the expert defense witnesses for a man who was accused of not disclosing his HIV+ status to his partners. The Perth Group argued before the judge that HIV did not exist and that it was not proven to cause AIDS. Unfortunately, the judge presiding over the case did not see the Perth Group as experts based upon their backgrounds and dismissed their testimony:
Judge dismisses claim HIV does not exist
“Defence lawyers launched an appeal calling two Perth medical researchers - Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Valendar Turner - who testified in the South Australian Court of Appeal that the virus did not exist and could not be sexually transmitted.
The two AIDS-dissidents are members of the Perth Group, founded by Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos, that believes HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
Justice John Sulan today dismissed the witnesses' testimony, saying the pair lacked credibility and were advocates for a cause rather than independent experts.”
This resulted in the defense needing to change strategies from stating that HIV does not exist to saying that it does exist, but that it was a harmless “retrovirus.” Sadly, the case was lost and somehow David was blamed for the outcome as he was accused of sabotage by the Perth Group and their close associates. However, no one ever reached out to the defense lawyer in the case to see if David's involvement and advice was the sole reason for the change in legal strategy. They also ignored the judges own statements that disavowed the expertise and testimony of the Perth Group. The accusations against David were based solely on weak indirect evidence, with the main accusers being unwilling to discuss the matter with the accused while he was alive.
Beyond the Parenzee case, charges were levied that David was not doing enough to speak out about the non-existence of “viruses,” which was an accusation that was utterly ridiculous to anyone who knew David and his work. David not only wrote papers challenging the existence of “viruses,” he hosted a podcast called The Infectious Myth covering this topic and more. He was also working on a book of the same name that unfortunately remains unfinished due to his untimely passing in July 2020. As I considered David as a mentor and he was not alive to defend himself, I engaged with these individuals in order to show that David did a great deal to raise awareness about the fraud of germ theory and virology. However, it wasn't enough to show them David's own research along with the numerous instances of him openly stating that “viruses” do not exist.
The goal was clear to paint David as a “no virus” saboteur who had infiltrated the movement with the intention of bringing it down. This looked to me like an attempt to character assassinate David in order to keep people from seeking out the valuable information that he had accumulated throughout his time here on Earth.
After witnessing the attempts to bring down both Alec and David, I began to see that this same group had been doing their best to find flaws in what they feel are the “leaders” of the “no virus” movement. They have taken aim at Dr. Tom Cowan for selling different products that they disagree with such as the marine plasma drinkable sea water and the Amalemma water wand, claiming that he is grifting for doing so. Grifting is when one engages in fraud and deception in order to trick and swindle people out of money. In my opinion, there could be nothing further from the truth regarding Dr. Cowan. From my understanding, the products that Dr. Cowan sells are those that he himself uses and has researched extensively. However, the accusations continue to flow without any attempts by these individuals to address their concerns with him about these products.
They have also brought charges against Dr. Andrew Kaufman, stating that he is promoting the use of Ivermectin because he has said that it was effective at killing parasites. They conveniently ignored that Dr. Kaufman also stated that he would never use it himself or give it to his family, and that he could see it only being used as a last resort in the case that one was dying and had no other options. This was hardly a ringing endorsement. Dr. Kaufman has also been recently called out for his recommendations of using turpentine for healing, even though it was used effectively throughout history in order to treat wounds, respiratory ailments, and joint pain even by Hippocrates himself. In both cases, these concerns have, to my knowledge, not been addressed with Dr. Kaufman by any of the accusers. Regardless, both Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Cowan are now considered by this group to be Big Pharma shills and grifters who are not to be trusted or promoted to the public any longer.
The final example that brought about a sense of urgency on my part to highlight what looks to be a growing problem were recent accusations made against the Baileys. These same individuals are on a targeted campaign against those who they see as promoting the use of Vitamin D3, otherwise known as cholecalciferol. They have taken issue with the use of the synthetic vitamin as it is the active ingredient in rat poison. Thus, anyone who is remotely tied to D3 in any way is accused of encouraging humans to consume rat poison and promoting the pharmaceutical interests. Sadly, this has led to a witch-hunt against Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey due to a 3-and-a-half-year-old video Sam made in May of 2020 titled 8 Must-Know Tips About Vitamin D.
In the video, Sam did speak of a D3 regimen that she used herself at the time as an experiment during the winter months in order to see if it would help her to stay healthy. She also provided information on how much D3 one could safely take on a daily basis if they so desired. This section near the end of the video where she discussed whether to use supplements or not, and how to do so safely if one chooses to go that route, has been taken as Sam promoting the use of D3. However, those who accuse Dr. Bailey are ignoring what she said leading up to her discussion of the supplement. Sam not only made it perfectly clear that the supplement can cause illness and toxicity, but stressed that one should obtain vitamin D naturally:
"Should you start vitamin D supplements? OK. Let's get down to the nitty gritty here. Too much vitamin D in the form of tablets can make you sick, and can cause toxicity, so it's all about getting the balance right. Those of you who know me will be tired of me saying that if you can get it naturally, then do that, which I still strongly believe in by the way. I'd far rather go out in the sunshine and get some melatonin and vitamin D naturally than stay inside popping supplements. Despite saying that, I have to confess and tell you that I take vitamin D supplements, but only for the three months in the winter time. And this was because I wanted to try a personal experiment to see if I got less sick over winter doing this, and it actually worked for me so now I take them every winter."
Immediately before discussing her own regimen that she used at the time, Sam pointed out that she had seen quite a few patients go overboard and feel terrible. Thus, she was presenting advice on how to take the supplements safely if one chose to do so:
“What is the right way to take vitamin D supplements? Well, I have seen quite a few patients who have started vitamin D and then ended up going overboard on them and feeling terrible, so let me explain how you should do this.”
After presenting the D3 regimen, Dr. Bailey stated that most people do not need supplements. She stressed again the importance of natural sources of vitamin D, such as getting plenty of sunshine:
“Most people don't need this in the summer months, if you're out and about in the sunshine, or if you live somewhere hot and beautiful like Florida, you probably won't need any supplements. Thankfully, you can't overdose on vitamin D from sunshine.”
Regardless, the hunt was on for Dr. Bailey. She was ultimately accused of grifting and shilling for Big Pharma without anyone ever addressing their concerns with her based upon old videos mentioning pharmaceutical products that were made when she was still part of the allopathic profession. As I had continued to see this pattern of allegations without clarification from these same individuals, and it appeared to me that they were unwilling to actually reach out themselves to talk to those that they criticized, I took it upon myself to try and clear the matter up. At first, I simply pointed out that the Baileys no longer use or promote supplements. This was something I knew just by following their work over the years. However, my explanation of the Bailey’s current views was not accepted, and I was accused of speaking for them. Thus, I did what any of those concerned about the video should have done themselves in the first place, and I reached out to Dr. Mark Bailey in an attempt to end what I felt were unwarranted accusations of the Baileys pushing pharmaceutical products. As the Baileys are open and honest people, Mark quickly responded to my email (bold emphasis are my own):
as you know we changed our position a lot in 2020 when we woke up to the wider fraud.
They obviously do not follow us or are being disingenuous if they claim we still push pharmaceuticals and supplements. Which of our articles, books, or presentations in the last 3 years would suggest this? As you probably know, my family take none of these. Some of our kids have had precisely NONE in their life times.
In 2020 Sam thought that Vitamin D supplements were ok in the winter (and was taking some herself). She has since changed her mind and now advocates natural dietary sources such as cod liver oil and the sun.
Is it worth spending your time with this group - what is their goal? We allow our work to speak for itself. Like Andy, Tom, etc we openly admit we were misguided in the past and do not cover up our history as allopathic doctors who once went along with things like germ theory. We do not attempt to scrub history and continue to strive to improve our knowledge. I wonder if the people you are talking to could endure a fraction of the ongoing persecution Sam has endured from the media as well as the ongoing prosecution attempts from the authorities in order to speak out against allopathy as a doctor?
“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” - John 8:7
It was clear from Mark's response that the video was outdated information as they had changed their minds quite a bit since 2020. Sam was no longer using D3 at all and he emphasized that their family does not take supplements of any kind. The Baileys only promote natural sources. However, this response was not good enough for their accusers. I was criticized for not addressing the concern of D3 being used as a rat poison and for not asking why the video remained up on YouTube. Thus, I reached out to Mark for further clarification on these two points. He once again quickly responded:
"They are concerned as cholecalciferol is used as a rat poison." - what dose are we talking about here? The monthly supplemental doses of Vit D3 typically given to humans would be 50,000IU per month. Toxicity is seen at doses over 50,000IU per day: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3191699/
In NZ it is only possible to get a 3 month supply, i.e. 3 capsules, so it would be extremely difficult to cause much damage on this supply.
Almost everything is toxic at certain doses - even excessive water ingestion can lead to death as you probably know. We need to remain scientific about it rather than hyperbolic.
"They want to know if there are any plans to remove the video or to do an update on it in the future explaining the potential dangers of this supplement." - did they provide scientific evidence for the dangers of what Sam presented? (BTW this is almost exactly the same as the "requests" Sam gets from the medical council of NZ - she is very dangerous on all fronts apparently 😂)
It should be clear we advocate for natural sources of Vitamin D. However, if I was struck on the Antarctic for a couple of years and had no other option, I would probably take the supplements.
Mark was clear that the evidence for toxicity for human use of D3 was excessively high doses of over 50,000 IU taken per day taken over time. What Sam had recommended in the past was a single 50,000 IU dose once per month for only three months. He asked for any scientific evidence that the regimen that Sam had highlighted in her video was dangerous. Unsurprisingly, this answer did not sit well with their accusers who maligned the “dose makes the poison” argument. However, what they fail to realize is that the amount of cholecalciferol given to a rat, a much smaller animal than a human, in order to have a 50% chance of killing it, is 100,000 IU. The equivalent for a human would be 4,000,000 IU. Even at this amount, it is stated that this would most likely only affect one’s health and not kill them.
I want to be clear that I am in no way defending D3 nor am I claiming that it has any health benefits whatsoever. It most likely has no benefit at all and there is no logical reason to take any synthetic vitamins, especially over natural sources. I believe that challenging the benefit for D3 supplementation and other synthetic vitamins is a very valid argument to make, and I am happy to see people exploring the origins of these industrial byproducts and their overall health effects. However, it needs to be noted that just because cholecalciferol can be used as a rat poison does not necessarily mean that it has the same effect on humans, especially in small doses. It seems that the “rat poison” label is being used in order to claim that any amount of D3 is harmful when it is very difficult to find any evidence that it damages the body at low doses. Calling the D3 supplement “rat poison” is an easy way to accuse the Baileys and others of wrongdoing while stifling any discussion on the topic as one is immediately accused of defending the use of rat poison when taking the opposing position. The “rat poison” label itself could be applied to many non-synthetic substances as there are various natural food items that can kill a rat.
Are we supposed to avoid everything on this list because they can potentially kill a rat in a large enough quantity? Both chocolate and caffeine are toxic to dogs while avocados are toxic to birds and rabbits. Are we supposed to vilify anyone who consumes or promotes these items? Shall we crucify the baristas at Starbucks for selling us dog poison? Labeling a substance as “rat poison” due to the fact that it can be used as such does not necessarily mean that it is harmful to humans in the same way or that it has no benefits. While I personally question the benefits of these products myself and I have so far seen no scientific evidence supporting the use of D3, there are those who swear that taking this supplement saved their lives. Thus, we need to be careful about making claims that are not supported by evidence and for vilifying people over data that we do not have. We need to demand that well-designed and properly controlled scientific studies are carried out on these substances in order to establish whether there is any health benefit over a placebo, and also what, if any, damaging health effects prolonged use at low doses can ultimately have on a person. Until results from such studies surface, it is a valid argument to state that no one should be supplementing with D3. However, we must be patient with those who may still hold on to the belief that there is a benefit and share with them the reasons why there most likely is none.
After the answers from Mark did not satisfy this group, the Baileys were taken to task for including a link to a discount code for a vitamin D test in the description of the video. At first, this was utilized in order to say that the Baileys were promoting the use of D3 supplements via testing results. If vitamin D levels tested low, they claimed that people would turn to D3 based upon Sam's regimen. However, this ignores the advice of the Baileys who state that vitamin D should come from natural sources first and foremost. It is a stretch to say that test results equal the promotion of D3. If this group had based their argument around whether there was any benefit or usefulness to using a vitamin D test, I would have agreed that they have a valid point. However, as if they realized that the original argument was not strong enough, it then became guilt by association as the company itself sells “Covid” tests, meaning that the Baileys are now “guilty” of partnering with the very people who created the “pandemic” that they regularly speak out against. Even a discount code for minoxidil for hair loss has been used against the Baileys as the company was bought out by Pfizer.
Sadly, it became rather apparent to me in my conversations with this group that there is no appeasing them. It was clear that, no matter how much evidence I shared that contradicted their preconceived determination that the Baileys are villains that are “guilty of crimes against humanity” (yes, this was actually claimed) due to an old vitamin D video and a discount code or two, they would find something else trivial to shackle the Baileys with. While the concerns underlying the attacks have merit, the way in which this group approaches getting their views heard is troublesome. There is no reason to make claims that Sam “liked to promote toxic drugs” and that the Baileys are guilty of shilling for Big Pharma and grifting without ever conversing with them about any of the concerns. I could sit here and defend the Baileys against every single accusation made against them, however, I think it is unnecessary as their work and their track record speaks for itself. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Baileys and the amazing job that they have done uncovering the lies in many areas related to our “healthcare” industry. If these are the worst charges that people can bring against them, then the Baileys are sitting pretty good in my book.
Lay Down Your Arms
So where does this leave us? I must say that I don't quite understand the motives behind this group. What is the endgame? Is it to turn people away from the very ones who have brought the extremely important topic of the fraud of germ theory and virology to the forefront for a modern audience? Are we supposed to stop learning from Dr. Cowan? Should we steer clear of anything Dr. Kaufman has to say? Must we turn off the entertaining videos from the Baileys? Do we stop tuning in to The Way Forward with Alec Zeck? Is it unacceptable to listen to David Crowe? Is the goal to keep people away from all of the invaluable resources created by people looking to educate the unaware and to make the world a better place just because we find one or two areas of disagreement? If so, then it seems that the goal of this group is to divide the movement and shut down the message.
However, if their goal is to address any concerns that they have with the people out there on the frontlines, then there is a much more effective, impactful, and inclusive way that does not risk driving people away from the overall message. It's called respectful communication. This is something that is not happening at this moment in time. Based upon my own interactions and from witnessing those of my peers, I have found that the individuals within this group are rather emotional, and that they are quick to make accusations and lash out in anger at anyone taking the opposing view. For defending Alec, David, Andrew, Tom, Sam, and Mark, I have been called a “fraud” who is “unworthy of promotion” and someone with “a history of being a liar.” These words came from people who have been following me and promoting my research for the last year. Even Christine Massey, who has done stellar work exposing the fraud through her excellent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, has been ridiculed by these individuals for simply defending the Baileys. Insults and allegations are directed at the accused and those who defend them. I can handle this as I will simply block and not associate with those who continue to engage in this behavior after being repeatedly asked to remain civil. However, I have a hard time staying silent when I see my friends being openly attacked and harassed for standing up for those that they believe in. I am unable to sit back and not say something, which is why I am writing this article now.
We need to be better than this. There is no need to accuse people and vilify them based upon the flimsiest of evidence, especially when it is directed at those within our own camp. There is no reason to shoot first and ask questions later. This “guilty until proven innocent” and “you are either with us or against us” warrior mentality is doing us no good. This kind of behavior is divisive and ultimately drives people away from the information that we present. While there are valid points that are brought up by those within this extremely skeptical camp that definitely deserve to be addressed and discussed, the way that they are approaching bringing about these discussions leads to strife and discord. Ironically, those within this group seem to believe that they are on a mission in order to stop the “no virus” movement from splintering apart, as had occurred during the AIDS dissident days, by “outting” the hidden operatives that they suspect are camouflaged within the movement. However, it is very clear to me that it is the very actions, conduct, and approach by those within this small group that will lead to the division that they claim to want to stop.
I want to be clear that I do not believe that those within this small group are bad people who are looking to destroy the “no virus” position. I also do not believe that they should not be allowed to raise questions for those who are out on the frontlines. However, I do believe that they are misguided in their approach, and that they are allowing their anger, distrust, and frustration to get the better of them after having been lied to for so long. There needs to be understanding that everyone learns and grows at their own pace. If there is something that is truth to one person, it may not be a truth to another person at that time. They either may not be aware of the information, or they may have a different opinion based upon their own research. Thus, it is best to respect where a person is coming from and to try and plant the seed that will hopefully sprout a desire within them to research the area discussed in the future. Pose questions to those with whom there are disagreements in order to understand where they may be coming from and see what bridges can be built to close any gaps. Respectful communication is the key. There needs to be understanding that just because people may see things differently and their views and actions may not align 100% with one’s own, this does not make them shills, grifters, controlled-opposition, etc. that must be shunned and ridiculed. Aiming pitchforks at and leveling accusations against the Baileys, Dr. Cowan, Dr. Kaufman, Alec, etc., in order to vilify them without even approaching them with any concerns will only result in the splintering of the movement into two groups. There will be those who defend them, and those who do not, and this division will occur at a time when we should be coming together rather than drifting apart.
In order to prevent this from happening, the weapons aimed at our own soldiers need to be laid down so that the lines of communication can be opened. This is the only way that differences can be resolved without destroying the efforts of those who are effectively spreading the message to a wider audience. It's far past time to commit to engaging in an open and honest dialogue over differences and to remain respectful even in times of disagreement. It's time to end the hunt against the very people trying to raise awareness. Seek communication and understanding with them first, and then redirect the weapons back at those who rightfully deserve the anger.investigated the medieval origins of Big Pharma's war on health. shared part 2 of her series covering the very real, but largely hidden health effects of the “pandemic.” examined the growing lack of trust in science since the “pandemic.” conducted a fascinating interview with Roman Bystrianyk, co-author of the book Dissolving Illusions.