We hate to admit we don't know stuff. One can no more prove viruses don't exist than that they do. It is closer to the truth to say that there are significant problems with the virus theory and with the no virus theory. It seems likely that once again, reality has escaped human's ability to pin it down. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" once observed a certain great writer and observer of human foibles.
Claiming viruses do not exist is a bold statement that cannot be proved. However it is clear, despite what you say in your article, that viruses have never been properly isolated in the way germs have, nor have they definitively been shown to cause any disease. That they fail Koch's postulates is dismissed as being not applicable to viruses. The burden of proof is on the proponents to prove viruses exist, cause disease and are transmissible, not the other way around. Louis Pasteur was a fraud, and we can see that a lot of what is currently passed off as science is, in reality, just marketing for the pharmaceutical companies.
As I wrote in the post, the virus theory is model for explaining disease symptoms that appear to be contagious -- that is, passed from one person to another through contact. We also cannot see "electrons" -- even with an "electron" microscope -- but our model that they exist is the basis for our "electronic" communication right now. It may well be that our "virus" model of some infectious diseases does not accurately reflect the objective reality of these diseases. The deep reality -- the "thing in itself"--is of great philosophical interest, but in the practical world in which we live, we must make practical decisions. What would you advise the hypothetical "man who has just returned from Vegas" to do, practically speaking?
omg "the way germs have" has me rolling. For those who do not know, Koch's postulates are for bacteria, something that can live and multiple outside of a host. A virus does not have to meet that standard because they operate differently.
What is fascinating regarding the "viruses don't exist" crowd is that they all hold contradictory positions that intersect at a common point, that a replicating, parasitical bit of genetic material must exist. But don't call it a 'virus'!
Some of those points of intersection / contradiction:
- biolabs / bioweapons
- gain of function research is dangerous (genetic manipulation of organisms)
- mRNA injections can program cells to make copies of something harmful / fear of mRNA shots
- paternity tests
- belief in Ivermectin / hydroxychloriquine (viral disruptors)
- herd immunity
Believing in any of these require belief in all of the same things that make viral theory sound. Sadly, because the medical industry has bio-engineered itself toward only one goal, profit, to the point of being willing to kill people to keep the beast fed, smart people have been forced into a corner in order to defend their own sanity. It is not easy to navigate out of that position so I think it is entirely reasonable for people to simply take the easy way out and proclaim to their own psyche "viruses don't exist" to explain away the malevolence of the medical world. The logic of it all becomes a snake eating its own tail.
My personal way of looking at viruses is that they exist but are almost impossible to stop with a preventative because they constantly mutate. Ergo, almost all vaccines are useless and, given their adjuvants, probably a net harm. (mRNA IS a deadly virus, btw, so not actually a vaccine per the actual English language.) Vaccines also prevent herd immunity and administering them in most situations (beyond the profit motive) is akin to superstition.
The datasheets / inserts regarding test data and methodology, the violent refusal of big pharma (and the government) to submit to scrutiny and the use of violence to force people to take shots are the datapoints I use to reach this conclusion.
John, thanks for taking on this subject. Let me add some rebuttal here to drive the conversation.
The biggest angle here for that statement “viruses don’t exist” is that NO VIRUS has even been isolated. It wasn’t discussed here in this article, but the “isolation practice” PRODUCES what people think at viruses. Remove the isolation practice, then there is no virus. Dr. Stephan Lanka has been the largest voice calling this out and I detail that here: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience-93c
The other angle for “viruses do not exist” simply means that’s the concept of “viral particles” causing diseases is a fallacy. That’s the key here: “causing diseases.” What we’ve misnomered and call viruses are actually “messengers” — sharing information from one human to another.
However, again, thanks to the flaw of the isolation practice, there is no such thing of a virus, and what we’re seeing in situations like chickenpox, measles, etc, is the passing of information from human to human — hence why we had chickenpox parties and these conditions were not considered deadly but healthy. Again, viruses do not causes diseases.
Regarding the HSV scenario, there’s actually an article that actually debunks that scenario too as to why it wasn’t a virus. Similarity to HIV, Jamie Andres has done phenomenal work on that condition and others on why these “viruses don’t exist.”
I placed a few links up there to explain my rationale, but hoping this clears up the space on why “viruses don’t exist.”
You’re most welcome, and thank you for the engagement! I’d tell our gentleman to be honest with his wife about the encounter. The lesion is very real, but I wouldn’t treat the lesion itself as proof that a virus caused it or was transmitted.
One thing I want to call out is that the scenario assumes the encounter caused the gentleman’s lesion because it appeared afterward. That may be one explanation, but timing alone doesn’t establish when or from whom it came. Even the CDC says a blood test can’t identify who transmitted HSV or when it was acquired.
I had to refresh my memory to respond here, but it provides more literature to support these statements. The biggest takeaway is that we’ve been given one view of the world, where viruses and other fallacies are presented as fact. Now, we have the ability to go back in time and examine whether those concepts are still real and true. This is one area where we can see there’s a lot more to what we know, and that financial incentives play a role as well.
We should not jump off buildings, but conversations like these help us investigate what we should investigate.
Again, thank you for this work! Very timely and much needed.
Notice the pedantics in the "viruses don't exist" crowd. "What we've misnomered and call viruses are actually 'messengers' - sharing information from one human to another." The absurdity of this statement cannot be understated.
"She's not my mistress, she's my girlfriend" comes to mind.
Hi Dash - just to add more context to my statement. Sharing information is not the same as sharing diseases. This is the biggest minute conceptual difference between the two. One side views chickenpox as simply information sharing resulting in bodily responses that heal over time. The other group views the same exact sequence as a disease and something to treat and profit from.
It's minute, but is a world a difference. The devil is in the details.
Its a pretty common feature of our current narcissistic culture that people act as if they have absolutely certain knowledge and grasp of facts which they cannot possibly know for certain. They lie not only to others but also to themselves. Many lies are comforting. I really noticed this when the media kept parroting “safe and effective” COVID vax proaganda. They obviously could not possibly have known that for sure, but millions nonetheless believed it. Tell a lie for long enough and many people will think its true.
Thank you for your thought-provoking, well-written articles. I’ve said it before, but I appreciate the way you write about complex topics in an easy-to-understand manner.
I always wonder why people keep reading your articles if they disagree so adamantly. 🤔
Perhaps “because lawless is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.” Matt 24:12. That would explain a lot.
Thank you for this response John. Dr. Tom Cowan has some good thoughts about virus theory, disease interpretation, terrain theory, and why people are questioning the current medical "dogma". Please take a listen when you have some time. My thoughts are that virus theory largely helps sell Pharma products/vaccines and keeps us in fear of the "stuff out there" that can "hurt us". Most of the people who disbelieve virus theory aren't saying that they are sure of an alternative cause (they do speculate, of course), but maintain that the virus model has been proven to not be a viable one (no isolation).
Probably not accurate to presume the respodents to be the cross section of society. Don't read too much into it.
As an academic/scientific subject, it has its draw. When it becomes the bludgeon by which to make a working man kneel before totalitarianism, then it has a completely different hurdle to clear.
Covid, and before/since autism, was a perfect storm of raw pharma avarice, Karen/Ken paralyzing fear, and lib/communist opportunity for power structure building. Any argument drawn from the deck of cards that has value gets played; any ivermectin draw gets swapped with the ace up the sleeve.
Understand that there are lifetime professional activists who actually believe in their nihilism. Wrap your head around that and you start to get the landscape.
To "viruses don't exist", the response may as well be, "have heard that a lot lately. Must be a pretty contagious concept."
Definitely good information for contemplation. The idea of explanatory power has some utility as it allows us to begin to categorize and work through possibilities. Therefore explanatory and dogmatic are very different Camps of virus versus antivirus groups
Fauci admitted that anything over 35 CT's, is a worthless test. What were the CT's of US labs testing for covid? 40 to 45 CT's, our Raleigh lab told me they ran at 42 CT.... Worthless.... false positives.....
Duesberg's BS has been utterly debunked. Numerous studies have documented that HAART prevents the development of AIDS and substantially prolongs survival, disproving along with other evidence the claim that these drugs "cause" AIDS. The claim that poppers cause AIDS was also BS. Many neocons died of AIDS and one wonders if this might not have happened if their butt buddies had used condoms but didn't because they believed that viral transmission was BS.
“I mention this hypothetical scenario as an illustrative example that what we describe as “knowledge” may be characterized an explanatory model that has practical, real-life utility, even if it doesn’t ascertain to” [sic]
We hate to admit we don't know stuff. One can no more prove viruses don't exist than that they do. It is closer to the truth to say that there are significant problems with the virus theory and with the no virus theory. It seems likely that once again, reality has escaped human's ability to pin it down. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" once observed a certain great writer and observer of human foibles.
Claiming viruses do not exist is a bold statement that cannot be proved. However it is clear, despite what you say in your article, that viruses have never been properly isolated in the way germs have, nor have they definitively been shown to cause any disease. That they fail Koch's postulates is dismissed as being not applicable to viruses. The burden of proof is on the proponents to prove viruses exist, cause disease and are transmissible, not the other way around. Louis Pasteur was a fraud, and we can see that a lot of what is currently passed off as science is, in reality, just marketing for the pharmaceutical companies.
As I wrote in the post, the virus theory is model for explaining disease symptoms that appear to be contagious -- that is, passed from one person to another through contact. We also cannot see "electrons" -- even with an "electron" microscope -- but our model that they exist is the basis for our "electronic" communication right now. It may well be that our "virus" model of some infectious diseases does not accurately reflect the objective reality of these diseases. The deep reality -- the "thing in itself"--is of great philosophical interest, but in the practical world in which we live, we must make practical decisions. What would you advise the hypothetical "man who has just returned from Vegas" to do, practically speaking?
omg "the way germs have" has me rolling. For those who do not know, Koch's postulates are for bacteria, something that can live and multiple outside of a host. A virus does not have to meet that standard because they operate differently.
What is fascinating regarding the "viruses don't exist" crowd is that they all hold contradictory positions that intersect at a common point, that a replicating, parasitical bit of genetic material must exist. But don't call it a 'virus'!
Some of those points of intersection / contradiction:
- biolabs / bioweapons
- gain of function research is dangerous (genetic manipulation of organisms)
- mRNA injections can program cells to make copies of something harmful / fear of mRNA shots
- paternity tests
- belief in Ivermectin / hydroxychloriquine (viral disruptors)
- herd immunity
Believing in any of these require belief in all of the same things that make viral theory sound. Sadly, because the medical industry has bio-engineered itself toward only one goal, profit, to the point of being willing to kill people to keep the beast fed, smart people have been forced into a corner in order to defend their own sanity. It is not easy to navigate out of that position so I think it is entirely reasonable for people to simply take the easy way out and proclaim to their own psyche "viruses don't exist" to explain away the malevolence of the medical world. The logic of it all becomes a snake eating its own tail.
My personal way of looking at viruses is that they exist but are almost impossible to stop with a preventative because they constantly mutate. Ergo, almost all vaccines are useless and, given their adjuvants, probably a net harm. (mRNA IS a deadly virus, btw, so not actually a vaccine per the actual English language.) Vaccines also prevent herd immunity and administering them in most situations (beyond the profit motive) is akin to superstition.
The datasheets / inserts regarding test data and methodology, the violent refusal of big pharma (and the government) to submit to scrutiny and the use of violence to force people to take shots are the datapoints I use to reach this conclusion.
deal with his spiritual guilt and shame .. and detox it a bit.
👏👏👏spot on! Wait till you see what Pasteur did for petroleum as well and how that became another con: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-greatest-con-ever-the-theft-of
John, thanks for taking on this subject. Let me add some rebuttal here to drive the conversation.
The biggest angle here for that statement “viruses don’t exist” is that NO VIRUS has even been isolated. It wasn’t discussed here in this article, but the “isolation practice” PRODUCES what people think at viruses. Remove the isolation practice, then there is no virus. Dr. Stephan Lanka has been the largest voice calling this out and I detail that here: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience-93c
The other angle for “viruses do not exist” simply means that’s the concept of “viral particles” causing diseases is a fallacy. That’s the key here: “causing diseases.” What we’ve misnomered and call viruses are actually “messengers” — sharing information from one human to another.
However, due to modern science and looking to profitize off a scandemic, when the measles outbreak of the 50s occurred, this is when the “viral claim” became mainstream thanks to the work of Dr. John Enders: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience
However, again, thanks to the flaw of the isolation practice, there is no such thing of a virus, and what we’re seeing in situations like chickenpox, measles, etc, is the passing of information from human to human — hence why we had chickenpox parties and these conditions were not considered deadly but healthy. Again, viruses do not causes diseases.
Regarding the HSV scenario, there’s actually an article that actually debunks that scenario too as to why it wasn’t a virus. Similarity to HIV, Jamie Andres has done phenomenal work on that condition and others on why these “viruses don’t exist.”
I placed a few links up there to explain my rationale, but hoping this clears up the space on why “viruses don’t exist.”
Greetings Franklin, and thank you for your thoughtful reply. What practical advice would you give the man who has just returned from Vegas?
You’re most welcome, and thank you for the engagement! I’d tell our gentleman to be honest with his wife about the encounter. The lesion is very real, but I wouldn’t treat the lesion itself as proof that a virus caused it or was transmitted.
One thing I want to call out is that the scenario assumes the encounter caused the gentleman’s lesion because it appeared afterward. That may be one explanation, but timing alone doesn’t establish when or from whom it came. Even the CDC says a blood test can’t identify who transmitted HSV or when it was acquired.
I also found the article I was referring to: Dawn Lester’s “There’s No Such Thing as a Sexually-Transmitted Disease.” https://dawnlester.substack.com/p/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-sexually
I had to refresh my memory to respond here, but it provides more literature to support these statements. The biggest takeaway is that we’ve been given one view of the world, where viruses and other fallacies are presented as fact. Now, we have the ability to go back in time and examine whether those concepts are still real and true. This is one area where we can see there’s a lot more to what we know, and that financial incentives play a role as well.
We should not jump off buildings, but conversations like these help us investigate what we should investigate.
Again, thank you for this work! Very timely and much needed.
Notice the pedantics in the "viruses don't exist" crowd. "What we've misnomered and call viruses are actually 'messengers' - sharing information from one human to another." The absurdity of this statement cannot be understated.
"She's not my mistress, she's my girlfriend" comes to mind.
Hi Dash - just to add more context to my statement. Sharing information is not the same as sharing diseases. This is the biggest minute conceptual difference between the two. One side views chickenpox as simply information sharing resulting in bodily responses that heal over time. The other group views the same exact sequence as a disease and something to treat and profit from.
It's minute, but is a world a difference. The devil is in the details.
What is a disease and how is one triggered?
https://rumble.com/v3tafrv-do-viruses-exist.html
Its a pretty common feature of our current narcissistic culture that people act as if they have absolutely certain knowledge and grasp of facts which they cannot possibly know for certain. They lie not only to others but also to themselves. Many lies are comforting. I really noticed this when the media kept parroting “safe and effective” COVID vax proaganda. They obviously could not possibly have known that for sure, but millions nonetheless believed it. Tell a lie for long enough and many people will think its true.
“Gravity doesn’t exist” …claims the man jumping off a 10-story building during the 2.5 seconds it takes for him to hit the ground at 54 mph.
Thank you for your thought-provoking, well-written articles. I’ve said it before, but I appreciate the way you write about complex topics in an easy-to-understand manner.
I always wonder why people keep reading your articles if they disagree so adamantly. 🤔
Perhaps “because lawless is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.” Matt 24:12. That would explain a lot.
Greetings from a fellow Texan & DFW resident. 👋
Thank you for this response John. Dr. Tom Cowan has some good thoughts about virus theory, disease interpretation, terrain theory, and why people are questioning the current medical "dogma". Please take a listen when you have some time. My thoughts are that virus theory largely helps sell Pharma products/vaccines and keeps us in fear of the "stuff out there" that can "hurt us". Most of the people who disbelieve virus theory aren't saying that they are sure of an alternative cause (they do speculate, of course), but maintain that the virus model has been proven to not be a viable one (no isolation).
https://rumble.com/v7g9kl2-measles-contagion-and-what-the-evidence-shows-q-and-a-dr.-tom-cowan-webinar.html?e9s=src_v1_s%2Csrc_v1_s_o%2Csrc_v1_rso&sci=fd442694-bcab-4cf0-a4b7-d204cd0fabaf
Probably not accurate to presume the respodents to be the cross section of society. Don't read too much into it.
As an academic/scientific subject, it has its draw. When it becomes the bludgeon by which to make a working man kneel before totalitarianism, then it has a completely different hurdle to clear.
Covid, and before/since autism, was a perfect storm of raw pharma avarice, Karen/Ken paralyzing fear, and lib/communist opportunity for power structure building. Any argument drawn from the deck of cards that has value gets played; any ivermectin draw gets swapped with the ace up the sleeve.
Understand that there are lifetime professional activists who actually believe in their nihilism. Wrap your head around that and you start to get the landscape.
To "viruses don't exist", the response may as well be, "have heard that a lot lately. Must be a pretty contagious concept."
Definitely good information for contemplation. The idea of explanatory power has some utility as it allows us to begin to categorize and work through possibilities. Therefore explanatory and dogmatic are very different Camps of virus versus antivirus groups
"...molecular biology/PCR analysis" I can't help but giving you an either/ or. The PCR reads nuclear debris, not viruses.
The inventor of the PCR said the PCR is not a diagnostic tool... course he then "died suddenly" fall of 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kerry+mullis+covid+pcr+fauci
Fauci admitted that anything over 35 CT's, is a worthless test. What were the CT's of US labs testing for covid? 40 to 45 CT's, our Raleigh lab told me they ran at 42 CT.... Worthless.... false positives.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=1743s
The myths that helped build the framework for the plandemic of fear porn, lingers on...........
Duesberg's BS has been utterly debunked. Numerous studies have documented that HAART prevents the development of AIDS and substantially prolongs survival, disproving along with other evidence the claim that these drugs "cause" AIDS. The claim that poppers cause AIDS was also BS. Many neocons died of AIDS and one wonders if this might not have happened if their butt buddies had used condoms but didn't because they believed that viral transmission was BS.
“I mention this hypothetical scenario as an illustrative example that what we describe as “knowledge” may be characterized an explanatory model that has practical, real-life utility, even if it doesn’t ascertain to” [sic]
This sentence/paragraph seems to need editing
Thanks, I was interrupted by a phone call before I finished the sentence and then didn't notice that I hadn't finished it when I resumed writing.