Thank you, Christine. I'm sorry that you have had to put up with these attacks as well. Thank you for helping to provide a voice of reason when engaging in discussion witb this group.
A brilliant article, Mike, well-written, rational and reasonable.
Let's hope those who need to read this will do so and change their approach so that the 'no virus' position does not lose its credibility.
Yes, no one is perfect and no one knows everything, and so questions must continue to be raised of anyone and everyone, but this needs to occur in a spirit of curiosity and with respect.
Thank you, Dawn. I couldn't agree more that we need to approach each other with respect. We may not all align 100% with every single thing, and that's OK. We each have our own journeys to go on.
Definitely one of my first thoughts. Reading your even-tempered and open-minded article, Mike, generously giving these angry folks the benefit of the doubt, I felt a little ashamed I even thought of it! But it is something to keep in mind--not making any accusations, but being aware that this is exactly the kind of thing that those putting forth the dominant narrative would do to try to prevent the no-virus message from being heard and considered by large numbers of people.
I agree Betsy. It is definitely a way to create division in order to drown out the message. I'm hoping that those who need to hear what I am saying are able to receive it and will reflect on it with open minds. 🤞
An excellent article, Mike, and I concur with all the points you've raised. However, I find myself willing to go even further in defending diverse viewpoints. I sense that within the no-virus camp, there's a tendency to categorize anyone endorsing germ theory as the antagonist, equating them with vaccine advocates—even those diligently educating the public about vaccine risks. It's reasonable for one to hold a pro-virus belief without endorsing the safety and efficacy of any and all vaccines. Drawing from my personal journey, my current stance on disavowing germ theory is an ongoing process, shaped by continuous learning. My perspectives have evolved thanks to individuals like Suzanne Humphries and her outstanding book, "Dissolving Illusions." I have noticed her being demonized here along with others who still cling to a belief in virus theory.
Even if practitioners such as Dr. Humphries still adhere to germ theory, they should be acknowledged as valuable contributors in awakening people to the potential brainwashing within contemporary medical practices. Engaging in constructive dialogue is essential, avoiding the dismissal of our own messengers of truth, even when their beliefs may not align entirely with our own understanding of truth.
Thank you, Rob. I completely agree, and I believe that this "de-learning" is an ongoing process that requires understanding and patience. We have all been there in believing the lies, and we all had different paths towards awakening up from them. It comes in stages.
I am only a bystander and commenter. I don't participate in private email lists and I'm not in contact with any of the leaders of the movement, neither with people at the base. I am only on substack. Yet, I have felt the burn of these people a couple times, maybe more.
I made quite a few mistakes back in April. I stirred the pot and attracted the attention of trolls. I tried to have a rational exchange, and it was not possible. The conversation went off rails and it was a sad and somewhat fun show. Thus, my days of trying to reason with deeply hurt and unreasonable individuals ended. I apologized to the hosts of a few substacks for my wrong behavior in feeding the trolls.
I don't understand why some are so obsessed about ivermectin. Is it wrong that people take it because it perpetuates the myth of the non-existent disease they called COVID? Probably, but there are people who need placebos to keep functioning. It would be better to use harmless placebos, but it would be even better that people try to overcome their obsessions, all of which seem to stem from disinformation. We all have been hit with an incredible amount of very harmful lies for a long time. I understand it takes a lot of time, personal effort and support to undo the damage. Some people seem to be able to reason their way out of a con in a short span of time. Some take years, and need crutches. In my opinion, it is morally wrong to insult people, and shame them so as to stimulate them to overcome their obsessions. So I don't do it. I would prefer for others to be more humane and not do that either, but it's not in my power to control the behavior of these zealots.
Kevin Corbett is a treasure of all humanity. He has proven he is a real caregiver. He knows both academic work and empirical clinical practice. The health of all patients would vastly improve if there were many Corbetts in the world. It seems to me one important job of a nurse is to make sure the Doctor does not kill the patient during an experiment disguised as treatment. Patient advocacy is a very serious occupation. So thanks to Kevin for all his hard work for so many years, and for sticking to his values. All people in the no-virus community should show more gratitude to him, and others like him.
It is very important this business of convincing people that there are no viral diseases, and also the more general case of germ theory being wrong, and a source of all kinds abuse. Most people believe it is true and take wrong decisions because of that wrong belief, which is constantly reinforced through common propaganda techniques. The behavior of certain people does not help the cause of dispelling this humongous myth. I wish they would rethink their position and understand their error.
Part of this problem comes from the perennial show of political elections. People tend to get sidetracked with the bells and whistles of all that. It's better to focus on understanding better the scientific work and methods related to all this. That's time well spent.
Thanks again for this post and for all the things you have taught on your website and here on substack.
I agree with you. There is too much division being created because some can not understand that everyone learns and grows at their own pace. They are unwilling to see that it can take time to undo all of the lies that we have been exposed to. Not everyone is going to be on the same page on everything, and just because they may not be there yet, doesn't mean they won't be there someday. We need more compassion, patience, and understanding, and less anger aimed at those who have a difference of opinion. We stand a better chance of getting people to listen to our message if we stop responding in ways that will create more anger and division. Thanks for your feedback. 🙂
I think I need to point out a piece. But first say I did not read your whole piece. I just don't have the bandwidth anymore. I was fortunate to be plugged into the community of Tomas Cowan etc at the beginning of 2020 because of someone's work I had been following.
Many are dealing with extreme trauma right now and have been fed many messages of fear for almost four years straight. For some the past four years has completely altered their lives. Their ability to survive financially. They have been cleaved from their communities and families. Some have watched their grown children choose to be 'vaccinated'. Some who were divorced watched their ex-partner have their children 'vaccinated'.
I've had two people recently accuse me of being a Fed. Both because I needed to set boundaries around unhealthy behaviors.
I personally don't do drugs of any kind. It's not something I have to weigh or think about. I have found the approach that some in the 'no virus' camp take is damaging. Some seem desperate. Some seem to take pleasure in trolling. It wouldn't be my approach and isn't.
People in the best of times have difficulty communicating. This is not the best of times.
I also wonder that having leaders of any kind right now can be tough for those who are dealing with being sidelined.
Hi Elizabeth, thank you for the comment. I definitely understand. I think that there is a lot of anger, frustration, and distrust that has been building up over the last 4 years, and rightfully so. I agree with you that the approach some take is ultimately damaging and will make people on the outside looking in disregard what we have to say due to the way that they interact with others outside and within our "movement" (for lack of a better term). I hope that they realize the faults in their approach and look for a better way to express themselves. We need to create inclusiveness rather than divisiveness.
Hi Mike - thanks for responding. I agree absolutely, inclusive not divisive. I keep feeling if the subject is approached from the perspective of individual toxins creating illness, which are then called disease and thus create 'the need' to 'vaccinate', cure said disease. Then then the pieces are smaller, easier to digest. One piece at time. (as Sam Bailey has been doing)
Two of the pieces I see are an inability to listen and a reducing of the one who needs to be heard experience of illness. Asking instead of telling.
I know there is such a great weight of, 'if only they could hear!' (and I've misplaced my magic mind opening wand)
If the big 'C' is an unusual illness in some people's experience, that needs to be heard.
I was one of those people fortunate enough to have stumbled into the work of both Duesberg and the Perth Group 20 years ago. It's been a kind of lone journey. I've been aware of these 2 camps in this space during that time. But to me they felt complementary to each other despite the obvious virus-no-virus core stance of each side. I'm glad you're writing about this because there's never going to be Borg like unification in thoughts, ideas and interpretations of data. Frankly this is kind of the fun of this process, allowing ourselves to entertain new ideas we hadn't considered before.
I knew the HIV theory of AIDS was wrong for 20 years, but for some reason didn't stop to consider that all viruses were crapola. I suspect that Eleni knew this too, but she was smart and kept focus on a single target.
I was in a similar boat at the start. At first, I thought it was only HIV that didn't exist. After continued research and questioning, it became clear to me that the same failure to prove HIV stemmed to all "viruses." I definitely believe that Eleni knew this as well. I wish she would have said as much publically as people have used statements she made seemingly confirming the existence of "viruses" against me when sharing her work. Regardless, she was a brilliant voice who contributed greatly to bringing awareness to the faults in the methods used by virologists.
If it's not possible to engage in civil, rational debate with someone, that is a big red flag IMO. A lot of problems could be avoided if everyone stuck to the issues, and stayed away from judging someone's personal motivations, which we can never know for sure. But we can know if someone is spreading bad information--and that's not a subject that should be avoided IMO, if the ultimate goal is truth. If the person being challenged is on the up-and-up, then they will respond rationally, and if they were in error, acknowledge it.
Hi Ginny, I couldn't agree more about the red flag of those being unwilling to engage in a respectful discourse. Once respectfulness is lost, the chance of an honest dialogue is gone. One of the things I respect most about Dr. Cowan is his willingness not to divine motivations for anyone, even those who he strongly disagrees with. He remains respectful when discussing others and pointing out their errors. He is also very willing to admit his past mistakes and correct himself when he comes across new information. Those two things have influenced me greatly, and I try to emulate his example.
I always start with respect, and maintain it until there is no reasonable alternative but to either give up, or get tough--at which point I've been known to resort to brutal satire.
If you allow yourself to become embroiled in the pretext you'll be 'caught' & caught again by the 'virus' of gaslighting.
The underling deceit is baited by the 'accuser' whatever its framing pretext.
Jesus used 'the accuser' for Satan - the deceiver by which we attack our own sins in the Othered as belief we thus gain from another's loss.
I see Jesus as exemplar for waking & walking out of the guilting booster for a religion set in ritualised sacrifice as sacred - and as core to any of the issues arising from the lie & the father of it.
The capacity of the ego to identify against a perceived evil as a claim to righteousness is so pervasive to 'our world' yet few see what they look out with!
I reiterate that a 'no virus' position is a counterclaim and subject to being attacked or undermined by every kind of false engagement.
But as a counterclaim it engages the polarised identity of conflict - which is a magnet and magnifier that attract the urge to 'fight'.
One the 'war' has been defined we see the factioning & fragmentation of an insanity.
hence I choose the 'what virus?' position. While always expanding on the illumination of the contexts or terrains of which such beliefs & invested identities arise to embody.
That is I don't attack people, I don't polarise with pejorative accusations or guilting insinuations but I may address behaviours that to me are incongruent with love or truth or freedom.
If those who engage in gaslighting, fear-porn and guilting accusations respond to an invitation to communicate with childish or malicious put-downs, I drop them as self-cancelled. If they later recognised and corrected the error, I would engage as there is someone to be in relationship with - rather than a masked manipulation.
I get bored of any 'movement' that becomes a broken record.
I'm not here to wake the dead but to grow in and with the living.
Much of the 'movement' is framed within deeper facets of a manipulative mindset that is not really 'awake' so much as disturbed and seeking to renormalise or regain lost love or power in a sense of grief & grievance.
I witness for freedom to question, to seek and uncover and share in answer. That cannot be served by forcing 'answers' onto others - else guilting, smear and underhand tactics claiming righteousness.
There IS contagion - hence the manipulation of mass mind by Media, Education, and Medical Care.
The underlying nature of undermining of health is revealed in psychic life shocks projected onto body as masking fear & guilt set in grievance driven vengeance to attack or deny others with a 'clear conscience' as they/we believe they are both justified and right.
I love this, Binra! Especially what I feel are two major points that you brought up:
1. The capacity of the ego to identify against a perceived evil as a claim to righteousness
2. That cannot be served by forcing 'answers' onto others - else guilting, smear and underhand tactics claiming righteousness
There is a tendency for many to feel that they have all of the answers and the full truth, and then they try to force their own truths onto others. This is what I feel ultimately creates division and will keep people from wanting to listen to what we have to say.
The “science” has no unifying manifesto. It vaguely refers to methods, carefully avoids repeatability, glorifies unique publications based on one in a trillion cases, and strongly protects the old cult tribes that have become literally rooted in drawing profits from patents, copyrights, publication nodding, fancy indexes, and quotation numbers. There is no ONE science book for all science fields, sort of constitution of science.
As a result, each field creates its own mini-universe, secured by “authorities” who have been educated on 120-years-old books. The more fantasy they add, the more fiction they integrate in their “body of knowledge”, the easier it will be to defend their field against anybody trying to ask inconvenient questions.
2019-2023 simply showed this on the example of a supposedly very strict field of “health care”. The only conclusion from these 4 years that you may draw is that this particular field has nothing to do with health or with care.
The same goes for every other field. Including automotive electrical engineering, the new form of creating a completely fake volatile market based on a defective, disposable, hugely overpriced product whose practical value (competitive edge) is far below that of Volkswagen Type 1 (1938) - 21.5 m units sold, 60 mph cruise speed, 350 miles range at any weather from 11 US gal worst grade fuel that you could have refilled in 3 minutes.
The whole science is a fiction world with occasional practical (and working) applications, packaged in tons of styrofoam and design paperwork. “Virus” or no, or anything else, is just a means to deflect attention away from the absence of any reasonable foundations.
Classic snark and ridicule. Trolls. People who have nothing better to do or people who knee jerk and throw the baby out with the bathwater. So much easier to cry "shill" or "controlled opposition" or "grifter" than take the time to be rational and ask questions, Take the time necessary to read clarifications and have a discusssion. The inability or unwillingness to understand a simple statement like, "I have changed my mind on this. I now have a better understanding." Mike you are the most level-headed, calm and civil person I know.
Thanks Lynn! I think, during times like these, we have to be calm and level-headed. Lashing out with accusations and anger helps no one and hurts the overall message. I hope those who choose this path will see the errors of their ways.
Venting off the mind boiling with nothingness - legitimized by the net and its programmers - is a training exercise. Huge populations are being systematically taught how to destroy their neighbors, friends, colleagues, associates, superiors, family members, even their own folks. And they are being actively rewarded for their actions. It’s a training. It’s about mastering one skill that everyone has - harming others through words, gossips, false stories, or without any reason, just because they can and they will not be punished in any way. (PS. These are all illegal actions, where are lawyers?) Everyone has this skill because it has been used in every family to cleanse the moods and restart the next day with more understanding.
Until recently, few took the liberty to make a living of this skill. Now that it has entered the academia, we know how little the “science” is worth if a single sentence can spoil the whole field, research teams, competition or the key principle of science: do not speak out if you have not been conducting long-term, true observations. We may be afraid to admit it, but - in my subjective opinion - the 2019-2023 campaign has ALREADY destroyed ALL science. It’s only a matter of time when we will witness more “science” buildings collapse, one by one. The reason is obvious: there are far too many educated people who understand what the control freaks do and why.
Freezing down ALL science for 20 or 50 years won’t change anything for them. They simply continue what they have been doing until now, this time away from journalists and media. But dumbing down students, doctors, professors, medicine professionals, economy analysts, trade experts - we saw this already, half a year was enough to destroy the economy of the whole world. After 20 years? Students won’t even know who “Newton” was. They will define a solar system in terms of power output of single panels. Laziness will push out thinking - it has already been happening. People cannot mentally calculate their change from $20 note in the shop. Adding 1/4” + 3/8” + 7/16” has always been a huge challenge for building constructors and engineers in the field, but now it will become an impossible task. The whole construction site will be stopped. For days, possibly. While for our generations (50s, 60s, 70s), adding three fractions in the mind was a 0.2 s fun game.
Newton is a myth, just like all figures in the history, back from Plato to Marco Polo to Vasco da Gama and Columbus to Copernicus to Leeuwenhoek to Pasteur to Koch to Jenner and more. Whether they actually lived in flesh is irrelevant.
The point is that there is nobody alive who has any experience of them or their teachings. Which means that anyone can write down literally anything and ascribe it to them as “holy truth”. Once you associate anything with an “established” surname, that creation will automatically gain supremacy over reason, and asking difficult questions about it will become difficult. So many careers, posts, jobs and money exist only through the rationale of historical references. Those “scientists” will defend even most absurd figures from the past simply to justify their own existence.
This is what I call a “myth” - an unverifiable body of knowledge that is blindly elevated owing to its historical connotations. Jenner’s absurds and Pasteur’s stupidities are a good example of the snowball effect following the myth becoming an axiom excluded from criticism.
If you have doubts, read their writings. You can start with On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by Copernicus. It’s not a tough reading. If you actually read it and try to reference it to the present day’s knowledge, you will be amazed. How come nobody can see this thing as it is? Its absurdity may be checked against the timeline. It was published in 1543, or 480 years ago - five centuries. ALL science has changed since then, literally everything. But his fantasy (theory, concept, idea) has survived all scientific earthquakes. How come?
Same with Pasteur. Read contemporary writings, and you will be amazed how huge myths have been built to protect the status quo. Unfortunately, progress and science is not equal to status quo.
As for proving the solar system… we have no capacity to say anything about it. Zero, nothing. We theorize that Neptune’s orbital axis is 9 billion km - the figure that no-one can even think of, it’s completely beyond our comprehension. We have no instruments to measure it. We have no method to measure it (other than our imagination translated into fictitious formulas). We have no way to check whether it actually exists or not. It’s all guesswork, skillfully combined with other guessworks to produce a coherent system that will convince the mind. It’s all fantasy.
Same with speeds. We have no idea what is the speed of light. We have no instruments to measure it. We have no way to observe it. We don’t even know whether light “travels” or not. And we don’t know what light is. It’s beyond myth. Fortunately, we will never solve these “mysteries”. Our minds are not capable of understanding the nature of these phenomena. But we can always fantasize and produce feel-good “knowledge”. Amazing.
First, there is no educating anybody here. We are all sharing our views, both authors and those who make comments. You want to expand your outlook, you read and think and do whatever you like with the ideas, or do nothing. That’s the beauty of the public commenting space.
Second, I do not want to convince anybody about anything. No politics, no business. No substack payments, no donations.
Third, if you want to go after unsubstantiated claims, you should start with the sources. That is not those who view opinions different from established ideas, but the original baseline dates, events, documents, etc. If you don’t do this, you will pick up a lot of fights, I’m sure many are ready to ping-pong ideas back and forth. But nobody will benefit from it, except that either party may have the feeling “oh, I am right’ - which is the most wrong result you can have because you will be putting your mind at stake in a dispute over things that somebody else created, without your participation, and in mst cases it was so long ago that all your current knowledge is hearsay anyways.
You don’t need to go back in history far. Start with the origin of the Wuhan virus. But if you like history, read about Jenner. There is plenty of texts, both from his times and published later, that give interesting backgrounds to his “science”. As I suggested, you can read Copernicus, which is a pretty easy task. But YOU have to make the effort - not to prove or disprove, but to get the view of the matter based on original sources.
I asked you specific questions, not about your views.
The funny thing is that guys like you were learning from people like me when we were exposing truth about biological viruses in the beginning of 2020.
No virus has ever been proven by direct observation of all vital occurring processes with it or by identification of it and experimentation on it in a form of independent variable.
Also I did not ask you about what method to use to verify anything.
For your information my cognitive standards are logic, scientific method and shared human experience.
Start discussing with me in good faith, not through your ego.
Again. Stop lecturing if you are not asked about it. You can only try to correct someone about something specific.
If you think that I committed any logical fallacy or cognitive bias, then point them out by naming them and describing how I did it.
And know this eristic, sophistry and other mental gymnastics do not work on me. So do not even try using them.
If you haven’t noticed it so far, I didn’t intend to discuss with you - it was your reply in which you put yourself up as an authority figure, demanding and demanding more.
Since you know everything about me (“guys like you”…), any discussion will be pointless - you obviously know things, and I obviously don’t. Since you are a master teacher “exposing truth” applying cognitive standards, you are fully entitled to demand “start discussing with me…” You are also fully entitled to demand that I “stop lecturing if not asked” - in the style of all great master teachers, those who are one of a kind.
In a way I love all your demands put in advance on a person whom you have never met. Why should you consider anyone having any freedom of expression without your approval, right?
Well written Mike and I fully agree with you here. I certainly do not agree with everyone on everything like nobody does and I have always felt like the odd one in various groups because honestly, I generally do not hold the views of the majority of any group anywhere on any social media platform. I tend to use the various groups as springboards towards a higher understanding and when I feel I can't get any more out of it I leave. What always bug me is that some people seem to believe that we should only collaborate or support people that we agree with 100% on everything which is impossible because there is not a single human being on earth that we agree with on everything. Having that kind of false belief essentially shuts down all collaboration and support which hurts everyone including themselves.
Thanks so much! I completely agree that the false belief that we all have to align 100% on everything in order to work together and share information is determental. As you said, it shuts down collaboration and support. Those who engage in this way are shooting themselves in the foot with that approach.
Thanks Snakes&Ladders! I agree that people are too quick to jump on others as CO. There is no need to divine motivations. We need to be able to discern truth of the information that they present for ourselves, and understand that people are at different levels of insight and knowledge. What they believe today may not be what they believe tomorrow. If one believed something in the past that another may disagree with, that doesn't automatically make them CO. The labels are unnecessary.
Excellent and super-thorough as always, Mike. Thank you once again for having the patience and putting in the time to do this :)
Thank you, Christine. I'm sorry that you have had to put up with these attacks as well. Thank you for helping to provide a voice of reason when engaging in discussion witb this group.
A brilliant article, Mike, well-written, rational and reasonable.
Let's hope those who need to read this will do so and change their approach so that the 'no virus' position does not lose its credibility.
Yes, no one is perfect and no one knows everything, and so questions must continue to be raised of anyone and everyone, but this needs to occur in a spirit of curiosity and with respect.
Thank you, Dawn. I couldn't agree more that we need to approach each other with respect. We may not all align 100% with every single thing, and that's OK. We each have our own journeys to go on.
Thanks, Mike! One wonders how much of this is the work of ops. But i'm not charging, just wondering. :-)
Thanks, Jeffrey. I can't lie. That thought has crossed my mind as well.
Definitely one of my first thoughts. Reading your even-tempered and open-minded article, Mike, generously giving these angry folks the benefit of the doubt, I felt a little ashamed I even thought of it! But it is something to keep in mind--not making any accusations, but being aware that this is exactly the kind of thing that those putting forth the dominant narrative would do to try to prevent the no-virus message from being heard and considered by large numbers of people.
I agree Betsy. It is definitely a way to create division in order to drown out the message. I'm hoping that those who need to hear what I am saying are able to receive it and will reflect on it with open minds. 🤞
An excellent article, Mike, and I concur with all the points you've raised. However, I find myself willing to go even further in defending diverse viewpoints. I sense that within the no-virus camp, there's a tendency to categorize anyone endorsing germ theory as the antagonist, equating them with vaccine advocates—even those diligently educating the public about vaccine risks. It's reasonable for one to hold a pro-virus belief without endorsing the safety and efficacy of any and all vaccines. Drawing from my personal journey, my current stance on disavowing germ theory is an ongoing process, shaped by continuous learning. My perspectives have evolved thanks to individuals like Suzanne Humphries and her outstanding book, "Dissolving Illusions." I have noticed her being demonized here along with others who still cling to a belief in virus theory.
Even if practitioners such as Dr. Humphries still adhere to germ theory, they should be acknowledged as valuable contributors in awakening people to the potential brainwashing within contemporary medical practices. Engaging in constructive dialogue is essential, avoiding the dismissal of our own messengers of truth, even when their beliefs may not align entirely with our own understanding of truth.
Thank you, Rob. I completely agree, and I believe that this "de-learning" is an ongoing process that requires understanding and patience. We have all been there in believing the lies, and we all had different paths towards awakening up from them. It comes in stages.
Hello Mike.
Thank you for this post.
I am only a bystander and commenter. I don't participate in private email lists and I'm not in contact with any of the leaders of the movement, neither with people at the base. I am only on substack. Yet, I have felt the burn of these people a couple times, maybe more.
I made quite a few mistakes back in April. I stirred the pot and attracted the attention of trolls. I tried to have a rational exchange, and it was not possible. The conversation went off rails and it was a sad and somewhat fun show. Thus, my days of trying to reason with deeply hurt and unreasonable individuals ended. I apologized to the hosts of a few substacks for my wrong behavior in feeding the trolls.
I don't understand why some are so obsessed about ivermectin. Is it wrong that people take it because it perpetuates the myth of the non-existent disease they called COVID? Probably, but there are people who need placebos to keep functioning. It would be better to use harmless placebos, but it would be even better that people try to overcome their obsessions, all of which seem to stem from disinformation. We all have been hit with an incredible amount of very harmful lies for a long time. I understand it takes a lot of time, personal effort and support to undo the damage. Some people seem to be able to reason their way out of a con in a short span of time. Some take years, and need crutches. In my opinion, it is morally wrong to insult people, and shame them so as to stimulate them to overcome their obsessions. So I don't do it. I would prefer for others to be more humane and not do that either, but it's not in my power to control the behavior of these zealots.
Kevin Corbett is a treasure of all humanity. He has proven he is a real caregiver. He knows both academic work and empirical clinical practice. The health of all patients would vastly improve if there were many Corbetts in the world. It seems to me one important job of a nurse is to make sure the Doctor does not kill the patient during an experiment disguised as treatment. Patient advocacy is a very serious occupation. So thanks to Kevin for all his hard work for so many years, and for sticking to his values. All people in the no-virus community should show more gratitude to him, and others like him.
It is very important this business of convincing people that there are no viral diseases, and also the more general case of germ theory being wrong, and a source of all kinds abuse. Most people believe it is true and take wrong decisions because of that wrong belief, which is constantly reinforced through common propaganda techniques. The behavior of certain people does not help the cause of dispelling this humongous myth. I wish they would rethink their position and understand their error.
Part of this problem comes from the perennial show of political elections. People tend to get sidetracked with the bells and whistles of all that. It's better to focus on understanding better the scientific work and methods related to all this. That's time well spent.
Thanks again for this post and for all the things you have taught on your website and here on substack.
Hi Agent Roger,
I agree with you. There is too much division being created because some can not understand that everyone learns and grows at their own pace. They are unwilling to see that it can take time to undo all of the lies that we have been exposed to. Not everyone is going to be on the same page on everything, and just because they may not be there yet, doesn't mean they won't be there someday. We need more compassion, patience, and understanding, and less anger aimed at those who have a difference of opinion. We stand a better chance of getting people to listen to our message if we stop responding in ways that will create more anger and division. Thanks for your feedback. 🙂
Hi Mike,
I think I need to point out a piece. But first say I did not read your whole piece. I just don't have the bandwidth anymore. I was fortunate to be plugged into the community of Tomas Cowan etc at the beginning of 2020 because of someone's work I had been following.
Many are dealing with extreme trauma right now and have been fed many messages of fear for almost four years straight. For some the past four years has completely altered their lives. Their ability to survive financially. They have been cleaved from their communities and families. Some have watched their grown children choose to be 'vaccinated'. Some who were divorced watched their ex-partner have their children 'vaccinated'.
I've had two people recently accuse me of being a Fed. Both because I needed to set boundaries around unhealthy behaviors.
I personally don't do drugs of any kind. It's not something I have to weigh or think about. I have found the approach that some in the 'no virus' camp take is damaging. Some seem desperate. Some seem to take pleasure in trolling. It wouldn't be my approach and isn't.
People in the best of times have difficulty communicating. This is not the best of times.
I also wonder that having leaders of any kind right now can be tough for those who are dealing with being sidelined.
I hope this makes some sense to you.
Hi Elizabeth, thank you for the comment. I definitely understand. I think that there is a lot of anger, frustration, and distrust that has been building up over the last 4 years, and rightfully so. I agree with you that the approach some take is ultimately damaging and will make people on the outside looking in disregard what we have to say due to the way that they interact with others outside and within our "movement" (for lack of a better term). I hope that they realize the faults in their approach and look for a better way to express themselves. We need to create inclusiveness rather than divisiveness.
Hi Mike - thanks for responding. I agree absolutely, inclusive not divisive. I keep feeling if the subject is approached from the perspective of individual toxins creating illness, which are then called disease and thus create 'the need' to 'vaccinate', cure said disease. Then then the pieces are smaller, easier to digest. One piece at time. (as Sam Bailey has been doing)
Two of the pieces I see are an inability to listen and a reducing of the one who needs to be heard experience of illness. Asking instead of telling.
I know there is such a great weight of, 'if only they could hear!' (and I've misplaced my magic mind opening wand)
If the big 'C' is an unusual illness in some people's experience, that needs to be heard.
I totally agree.
Thank you, Mike.
Keep on crushing!
I was one of those people fortunate enough to have stumbled into the work of both Duesberg and the Perth Group 20 years ago. It's been a kind of lone journey. I've been aware of these 2 camps in this space during that time. But to me they felt complementary to each other despite the obvious virus-no-virus core stance of each side. I'm glad you're writing about this because there's never going to be Borg like unification in thoughts, ideas and interpretations of data. Frankly this is kind of the fun of this process, allowing ourselves to entertain new ideas we hadn't considered before.
I knew the HIV theory of AIDS was wrong for 20 years, but for some reason didn't stop to consider that all viruses were crapola. I suspect that Eleni knew this too, but she was smart and kept focus on a single target.
Hi Christoph,
I was in a similar boat at the start. At first, I thought it was only HIV that didn't exist. After continued research and questioning, it became clear to me that the same failure to prove HIV stemmed to all "viruses." I definitely believe that Eleni knew this as well. I wish she would have said as much publically as people have used statements she made seemingly confirming the existence of "viruses" against me when sharing her work. Regardless, she was a brilliant voice who contributed greatly to bringing awareness to the faults in the methods used by virologists.
Many of the people you are talking about, who have directed their deranged screeds at me as well, are at best thugs; and some are probably agents.
Agree.
If it's not possible to engage in civil, rational debate with someone, that is a big red flag IMO. A lot of problems could be avoided if everyone stuck to the issues, and stayed away from judging someone's personal motivations, which we can never know for sure. But we can know if someone is spreading bad information--and that's not a subject that should be avoided IMO, if the ultimate goal is truth. If the person being challenged is on the up-and-up, then they will respond rationally, and if they were in error, acknowledge it.
Hi Ginny, I couldn't agree more about the red flag of those being unwilling to engage in a respectful discourse. Once respectfulness is lost, the chance of an honest dialogue is gone. One of the things I respect most about Dr. Cowan is his willingness not to divine motivations for anyone, even those who he strongly disagrees with. He remains respectful when discussing others and pointing out their errors. He is also very willing to admit his past mistakes and correct himself when he comes across new information. Those two things have influenced me greatly, and I try to emulate his example.
I always start with respect, and maintain it until there is no reasonable alternative but to either give up, or get tough--at which point I've been known to resort to brutal satire.
If you allow yourself to become embroiled in the pretext you'll be 'caught' & caught again by the 'virus' of gaslighting.
The underling deceit is baited by the 'accuser' whatever its framing pretext.
Jesus used 'the accuser' for Satan - the deceiver by which we attack our own sins in the Othered as belief we thus gain from another's loss.
I see Jesus as exemplar for waking & walking out of the guilting booster for a religion set in ritualised sacrifice as sacred - and as core to any of the issues arising from the lie & the father of it.
The capacity of the ego to identify against a perceived evil as a claim to righteousness is so pervasive to 'our world' yet few see what they look out with!
I reiterate that a 'no virus' position is a counterclaim and subject to being attacked or undermined by every kind of false engagement.
But as a counterclaim it engages the polarised identity of conflict - which is a magnet and magnifier that attract the urge to 'fight'.
One the 'war' has been defined we see the factioning & fragmentation of an insanity.
hence I choose the 'what virus?' position. While always expanding on the illumination of the contexts or terrains of which such beliefs & invested identities arise to embody.
That is I don't attack people, I don't polarise with pejorative accusations or guilting insinuations but I may address behaviours that to me are incongruent with love or truth or freedom.
If those who engage in gaslighting, fear-porn and guilting accusations respond to an invitation to communicate with childish or malicious put-downs, I drop them as self-cancelled. If they later recognised and corrected the error, I would engage as there is someone to be in relationship with - rather than a masked manipulation.
I get bored of any 'movement' that becomes a broken record.
I'm not here to wake the dead but to grow in and with the living.
Much of the 'movement' is framed within deeper facets of a manipulative mindset that is not really 'awake' so much as disturbed and seeking to renormalise or regain lost love or power in a sense of grief & grievance.
I witness for freedom to question, to seek and uncover and share in answer. That cannot be served by forcing 'answers' onto others - else guilting, smear and underhand tactics claiming righteousness.
There IS contagion - hence the manipulation of mass mind by Media, Education, and Medical Care.
The underlying nature of undermining of health is revealed in psychic life shocks projected onto body as masking fear & guilt set in grievance driven vengeance to attack or deny others with a 'clear conscience' as they/we believe they are both justified and right.
I love this, Binra! Especially what I feel are two major points that you brought up:
1. The capacity of the ego to identify against a perceived evil as a claim to righteousness
2. That cannot be served by forcing 'answers' onto others - else guilting, smear and underhand tactics claiming righteousness
There is a tendency for many to feel that they have all of the answers and the full truth, and then they try to force their own truths onto others. This is what I feel ultimately creates division and will keep people from wanting to listen to what we have to say.
Thanks for sharing. 🙂
The “science” has no unifying manifesto. It vaguely refers to methods, carefully avoids repeatability, glorifies unique publications based on one in a trillion cases, and strongly protects the old cult tribes that have become literally rooted in drawing profits from patents, copyrights, publication nodding, fancy indexes, and quotation numbers. There is no ONE science book for all science fields, sort of constitution of science.
As a result, each field creates its own mini-universe, secured by “authorities” who have been educated on 120-years-old books. The more fantasy they add, the more fiction they integrate in their “body of knowledge”, the easier it will be to defend their field against anybody trying to ask inconvenient questions.
2019-2023 simply showed this on the example of a supposedly very strict field of “health care”. The only conclusion from these 4 years that you may draw is that this particular field has nothing to do with health or with care.
The same goes for every other field. Including automotive electrical engineering, the new form of creating a completely fake volatile market based on a defective, disposable, hugely overpriced product whose practical value (competitive edge) is far below that of Volkswagen Type 1 (1938) - 21.5 m units sold, 60 mph cruise speed, 350 miles range at any weather from 11 US gal worst grade fuel that you could have refilled in 3 minutes.
The whole science is a fiction world with occasional practical (and working) applications, packaged in tons of styrofoam and design paperwork. “Virus” or no, or anything else, is just a means to deflect attention away from the absence of any reasonable foundations.
Keep up the good work, Mike! Just remember, trolls can never be appeased--that would go against their nature.
Thank you, Benden. I appreciate it. 🙂
Classic snark and ridicule. Trolls. People who have nothing better to do or people who knee jerk and throw the baby out with the bathwater. So much easier to cry "shill" or "controlled opposition" or "grifter" than take the time to be rational and ask questions, Take the time necessary to read clarifications and have a discusssion. The inability or unwillingness to understand a simple statement like, "I have changed my mind on this. I now have a better understanding." Mike you are the most level-headed, calm and civil person I know.
Thanks Lynn! I think, during times like these, we have to be calm and level-headed. Lashing out with accusations and anger helps no one and hurts the overall message. I hope those who choose this path will see the errors of their ways.
Venting off the mind boiling with nothingness - legitimized by the net and its programmers - is a training exercise. Huge populations are being systematically taught how to destroy their neighbors, friends, colleagues, associates, superiors, family members, even their own folks. And they are being actively rewarded for their actions. It’s a training. It’s about mastering one skill that everyone has - harming others through words, gossips, false stories, or without any reason, just because they can and they will not be punished in any way. (PS. These are all illegal actions, where are lawyers?) Everyone has this skill because it has been used in every family to cleanse the moods and restart the next day with more understanding.
Until recently, few took the liberty to make a living of this skill. Now that it has entered the academia, we know how little the “science” is worth if a single sentence can spoil the whole field, research teams, competition or the key principle of science: do not speak out if you have not been conducting long-term, true observations. We may be afraid to admit it, but - in my subjective opinion - the 2019-2023 campaign has ALREADY destroyed ALL science. It’s only a matter of time when we will witness more “science” buildings collapse, one by one. The reason is obvious: there are far too many educated people who understand what the control freaks do and why.
Freezing down ALL science for 20 or 50 years won’t change anything for them. They simply continue what they have been doing until now, this time away from journalists and media. But dumbing down students, doctors, professors, medicine professionals, economy analysts, trade experts - we saw this already, half a year was enough to destroy the economy of the whole world. After 20 years? Students won’t even know who “Newton” was. They will define a solar system in terms of power output of single panels. Laziness will push out thinking - it has already been happening. People cannot mentally calculate their change from $20 note in the shop. Adding 1/4” + 3/8” + 7/16” has always been a huge challenge for building constructors and engineers in the field, but now it will become an impossible task. The whole construction site will be stopped. For days, possibly. While for our generations (50s, 60s, 70s), adding three fractions in the mind was a 0.2 s fun game.
Are you sure that Newton was real?
How is he relevant to current times?
Did he prove something that no one else would ever do?
What is a solar system?
Has it been proven logically or scientifically?
The masses were always dumbed down. That is why the majority of people do not use reason and logic.
Newton is a myth, just like all figures in the history, back from Plato to Marco Polo to Vasco da Gama and Columbus to Copernicus to Leeuwenhoek to Pasteur to Koch to Jenner and more. Whether they actually lived in flesh is irrelevant.
The point is that there is nobody alive who has any experience of them or their teachings. Which means that anyone can write down literally anything and ascribe it to them as “holy truth”. Once you associate anything with an “established” surname, that creation will automatically gain supremacy over reason, and asking difficult questions about it will become difficult. So many careers, posts, jobs and money exist only through the rationale of historical references. Those “scientists” will defend even most absurd figures from the past simply to justify their own existence.
This is what I call a “myth” - an unverifiable body of knowledge that is blindly elevated owing to its historical connotations. Jenner’s absurds and Pasteur’s stupidities are a good example of the snowball effect following the myth becoming an axiom excluded from criticism.
If you have doubts, read their writings. You can start with On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by Copernicus. It’s not a tough reading. If you actually read it and try to reference it to the present day’s knowledge, you will be amazed. How come nobody can see this thing as it is? Its absurdity may be checked against the timeline. It was published in 1543, or 480 years ago - five centuries. ALL science has changed since then, literally everything. But his fantasy (theory, concept, idea) has survived all scientific earthquakes. How come?
Same with Pasteur. Read contemporary writings, and you will be amazed how huge myths have been built to protect the status quo. Unfortunately, progress and science is not equal to status quo.
As for proving the solar system… we have no capacity to say anything about it. Zero, nothing. We theorize that Neptune’s orbital axis is 9 billion km - the figure that no-one can even think of, it’s completely beyond our comprehension. We have no instruments to measure it. We have no method to measure it (other than our imagination translated into fictitious formulas). We have no way to check whether it actually exists or not. It’s all guesswork, skillfully combined with other guessworks to produce a coherent system that will convince the mind. It’s all fantasy.
Same with speeds. We have no idea what is the speed of light. We have no instruments to measure it. We have no way to observe it. We don’t even know whether light “travels” or not. And we don’t know what light is. It’s beyond myth. Fortunately, we will never solve these “mysteries”. Our minds are not capable of understanding the nature of these phenomena. But we can always fantasize and produce feel-good “knowledge”. Amazing.
It is your claim that any alleged historical figure is a myth. Thus the burden of proof is on you.
Also you have not presented anything new to me as it seems that you wanted to educate me about something.
And I am one of those who challenges unsubstantiated claims.
I even created platforms for this.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/730268405254476/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/370499601818806/
First, there is no educating anybody here. We are all sharing our views, both authors and those who make comments. You want to expand your outlook, you read and think and do whatever you like with the ideas, or do nothing. That’s the beauty of the public commenting space.
Second, I do not want to convince anybody about anything. No politics, no business. No substack payments, no donations.
Third, if you want to go after unsubstantiated claims, you should start with the sources. That is not those who view opinions different from established ideas, but the original baseline dates, events, documents, etc. If you don’t do this, you will pick up a lot of fights, I’m sure many are ready to ping-pong ideas back and forth. But nobody will benefit from it, except that either party may have the feeling “oh, I am right’ - which is the most wrong result you can have because you will be putting your mind at stake in a dispute over things that somebody else created, without your participation, and in mst cases it was so long ago that all your current knowledge is hearsay anyways.
You don’t need to go back in history far. Start with the origin of the Wuhan virus. But if you like history, read about Jenner. There is plenty of texts, both from his times and published later, that give interesting backgrounds to his “science”. As I suggested, you can read Copernicus, which is a pretty easy task. But YOU have to make the effort - not to prove or disprove, but to get the view of the matter based on original sources.
I asked you specific questions, not about your views.
The funny thing is that guys like you were learning from people like me when we were exposing truth about biological viruses in the beginning of 2020.
No virus has ever been proven by direct observation of all vital occurring processes with it or by identification of it and experimentation on it in a form of independent variable.
Also I did not ask you about what method to use to verify anything.
For your information my cognitive standards are logic, scientific method and shared human experience.
Start discussing with me in good faith, not through your ego.
Again. Stop lecturing if you are not asked about it. You can only try to correct someone about something specific.
If you think that I committed any logical fallacy or cognitive bias, then point them out by naming them and describing how I did it.
And know this eristic, sophistry and other mental gymnastics do not work on me. So do not even try using them.
If you haven’t noticed it so far, I didn’t intend to discuss with you - it was your reply in which you put yourself up as an authority figure, demanding and demanding more.
Since you know everything about me (“guys like you”…), any discussion will be pointless - you obviously know things, and I obviously don’t. Since you are a master teacher “exposing truth” applying cognitive standards, you are fully entitled to demand “start discussing with me…” You are also fully entitled to demand that I “stop lecturing if not asked” - in the style of all great master teachers, those who are one of a kind.
In a way I love all your demands put in advance on a person whom you have never met. Why should you consider anyone having any freedom of expression without your approval, right?
Oh, boy.
Well written Mike and I fully agree with you here. I certainly do not agree with everyone on everything like nobody does and I have always felt like the odd one in various groups because honestly, I generally do not hold the views of the majority of any group anywhere on any social media platform. I tend to use the various groups as springboards towards a higher understanding and when I feel I can't get any more out of it I leave. What always bug me is that some people seem to believe that we should only collaborate or support people that we agree with 100% on everything which is impossible because there is not a single human being on earth that we agree with on everything. Having that kind of false belief essentially shuts down all collaboration and support which hurts everyone including themselves.
Hi John,
Thanks so much! I completely agree that the false belief that we all have to align 100% on everything in order to work together and share information is determental. As you said, it shuts down collaboration and support. Those who engage in this way are shooting themselves in the foot with that approach.
Mike this is a well thought out post as usual came to it from your doctor Baileys interview well played as usual.
Thank you! I appreciate it. 🙂
Hi Mike,
Thank you very much for this article!
This might be one of your most important ones,
at least of those that I've read :)
Though you might not have been thinking about this other Mike while writing that piece,
I'd like to share the following two links for anyone who's interested:
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-im-being-censored
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-is-censored-again
I think it's a good case in point for potential misjudgement by all those
who like to jump to conclusions about who is CO (whatever that empty term means).
Of course, one can always claim that it's all part of the plan - can't argue with that.
Once again thank you and all the best to you and yours!
Thanks Snakes&Ladders! I agree that people are too quick to jump on others as CO. There is no need to divine motivations. We need to be able to discern truth of the information that they present for ourselves, and understand that people are at different levels of insight and knowledge. What they believe today may not be what they believe tomorrow. If one believed something in the past that another may disagree with, that doesn't automatically make them CO. The labels are unnecessary.
Well said Mike Stone.