I can't imagine a room, maybe in the CIA, where a meeting takes place with Corbett, Webb, Big Tree and others, being briefed by the commanding officer. How does gatekeeping actually work, then? I started back in 2001 with John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Chomsky, Amy Goodman etc, even Alex Jones (god forbid) and they were the revelers of this grand conspiracy behind everything that made me so excited. Little that I knew, they all became gatekeepers and a new layer was revealed below that apparent "truth" layer. Layers of "kind-of-truths"?? Corbett exposed Chomsky as a gatekeeper. And now HE is a gatekeeper. So, how does this work and how many layers are there? Fortunately Kaufman, Cowan, Massey, Baileys, Lanka etc are still good, which is a relief, but for how long?
The non-virus thing is so obvious and simple that, in my view, the issue is the cult mentality we were all born into(?). For Corbett, non-virus is the same as flat earth and reptilians. Corbett thinks people "believe" the virus doesn't exist, which shows that he, while almost brilliant in many other subjects, like Chomsky, is indeed a gatekeeper, like Chomsky. It's like Scientology. This cult thing is much more important and powerful than people think, I think. I see mentions of it, but in passing, when it's THE thing that keeps everyone incapable of seeing the obvious, and locked in the belief that viruses are real. Some deep psychological personal aspects are attached to the mainstream "story" (about everything) and if you take that from them, they fall. They fall all the way (like Oedipus). So they reject it like their lives depend on it - and psychologically it does.
So, Eric, you think the spell is breakable with leading intellectuals? Simple folks are much easier, but these guys..?
Sorry for the long comment. I should've written a post.
In most organizations there are are unwritten rules that are learned. If those rules go against your ethical standards then you’ll probably be slower in learning them, and you won’t rise very high up in the ranks. Potential initiates are vetted by their personality and by how they learn unwritten rules that go against societal norms. I do, however, assume that for those who do rise up in rank there are explicit orders also.
I think the layers go deeper than any uninitiated person can plumb.
I think that exposing the gatekeeper’s folly can loosen the psychological fear that many normies have of looking into what’s behind the gates.
I do have a problem with the no-virus group. While they convinced me that no virus had been isolated, that did not convince me that an infection was impossible. When I was a child, I had measles. Several days later, the characteristic rash indicating measles appeared on my younger sister's skin. It seems to me that a virus is a name for something we do not understand. Do electrons exit and run along a wire? No one has ever seen them or isolated them. Yet, we have electricity. Electron is a name for a carrier of electric charge, but we know that electricity is transmitted via electromagnetic waves and waves are not material. So, my sister could have gotten measles via some wave or something that we humans cannot even imagine.
Eric and the group would be able to give a better answer. Where I am, I'm the only one who is convinced, so I took the no-virus issue for my personal life, meaning I don't fear virus or contagion anymore. Your problem with them seems to point to the whole health issue - what makes you sick, how the body works, how nature works etc, so it's a much deeper problem than simply understand virus are just debris from dying cells etc. Since the Rockefellers change the course of medicine, it's been a whole different planet. And the problem now is that, deciding arbitrarily that electrons are living deadly organisms that come from Mars, as an analogy, they ("they") demolish the entire human life, and that's the problem. If Scientology decided - and had the power - to make everyone on Earth believe in Xenu, we would start asking for proof.
Sonja, Briefly, bodies communicate any ways other than "disease vector." We know electrons are there because they behave like electrons. But disease vectors do not behave like vectors, in or out of the lab. So the first question with measles or any of these childhood skin eruptions is, what is it? What is the body doing? The contagion is a misleading framework that provides false explanations and does not answer questions -- it leaves them strewn on the roadside. What has virus theory ever done for you? In other words, how has it actually helped you?
For easygoing comprehensive education, watch the programs of Sam Bailey, and her husband Mark. I know them well and trust them as people, not just as presenters; Mark is my technical advisor on medical and scientific issues.
Dear Sonja, yes, I agree. But the label of infection, is to say that something is invading the body. Your analysis of electrons would be more like dialing into the same frequency and your little sister, receiving the message that it was time to detox.
At age 21 months, my daughter had one day rash. I diagnosed it as rubella. She stayed home from day care one day. No fever, no itching. At age 3y 9mo, she had chickenpox (that largely fit the 18th century description of mild smallpox). She was attending a school - other children were sick too. It was the middle of winter in Bosnia. After I started giving her vitamin and mineral supplements, and bee pollen, she did not get sick again.
The important issue is that there are no illnesses caused by viruses. And hence, there is no immunity. So certain illnesses can occur in the same person. Edward Jenner, noted that one of his patients had smallpox 5 times! See Baron (1838). On the other hand, most of us do not pass through puberty multiple times - it is one and done (just like what they say about measles, mumps, and smallpox). But no medical texts claim that after puberty, we are "immune" to the changes that occur during puberty.
Meryl Nass: The "No Viruses exist" cult has been out in force lately
"I cannot say who is driving this. It is infantile. People who have never looked through a microscope, and a few who have, but misinterpreted what they saw, relentlessly spread their pseudo science mixed with venom on twitter. Why does this fairytale keep growing new legs? It makes sense that a few true believers are being used; perhaps they have been encouraged that they will be mankind’s saviors if we all just stop believing in those viruses. ...Have none of these pseudo-scientists ever had a cold?"
" t would take a lifetime or two, and to me the result is also a foregone conclusion, so I have no interest in this exercise, nor the time for it...This is a very dangerous position to promote publicly, for the health of others."
I am especially interested in Nass...any could be fantastic...can you please assist with time stamps? I am overproducing already and this would help me and my editor immensely...thank you...efc
Hi Christine. I met you before on Sasha Latypova's substack, when you were banned in the middle of a comment. Eric should know this wee story. I asked Sasha why she banned you and after some bla blas, I tried to suggest that if people knew, no one would be scared of pathogens etc, and she replied "I don't think fighting a cult with another is the answer". "Qué??" - I replied. A...cult? And never heard from her again. They think it's a cult (!!) Anyway, nice to see you here.
Meryl Nass. How much worse can this get? Is she a scientist? I don't know, but hopefully not a medical doctor, for the sake of sick people. Her conclusion that a cold is evidence of virus be like the santa claus logical fallacy. I'm so tired of this shit. She reminds me of Ulrike Kämmerer who claims that if viruses would be found directly in a patient, then this patient "would be already dead because of the viral load". Speechless. And "that's why no sample from a dis-eased person ever contains enough particles to be directly isolated" without "enrichment". Cringe. This is not a joke, it's a quote of her.
If scientist are really that dumb, then we are doomed as long as they have a say in our lives.
After further review Catherine Fits is being critically careful about supporting the no virus position. Reasoning that it is a distraction from the bigger issue, in her opinion, of stopping the control system. Tom Cowan argues that the truth of no virus is the straw that will break the whole myth of science that is hypnotizing society. I have to say, when I understood we do not get sick from germs and bugs it sent my life in a completely new direction and I am very grateful to Tom Cowan for that perspective. Also gratitude to Catherine and of course Eric.
Where does Catherine Fitts say that no-virus is a distraction, or how did you come to this conclusion? From my perception, she is fully supportive of the virus having escaped from a lab theory, and thus fully in the virus exists camp and not even considering the no-virus position. Please educate me.
There was quite a bit of pushback in the comments section. She came on strong in the first paragraph and didn't let up:
"I cannot say who is driving this. It is infantile. People who have never looked through a microscope, and a few who have, but misinterpreted what they saw, relentlessly spread their pseudo science mixed with venom on twitter. Why does this fairytale keep growing new legs? It makes sense that a few true believers are being used; perhaps they have been encouraged that they will be mankind’s saviors if we all just stop believing in those viruses. Tonight one claimed this was “the” existential question."
Catherine Austin Fits has trouble understanding that viruses don't exist as discussed in her conversation with Tom Cowan February 28, 2023 The Electromagnetic Body. It's on the solari web site but I could send you the transcript of the conversation if you want it.
The only logical approach to this whole question is "who cuts down some of the most important sources of information, has had decades of proven work for the benefit of bringing truth to the many and profited zero and paid massively, vs. the record of those who are doing the cutting down?" That simplifies my work.
I know Derrick Broze interviewed Mercola and when discussion of the missing virus came up they both simply laughed and called it a ridiculous assertion and then moved on. I don’t know how to find that, however.
Starts around the 20 minute mark. Basically they just commisterate about being badgered by no virus people/bothered by their tactics, all but accuse them of working for Cass Sunstein/being agents of division, and never actually address the matter of evidence. Here’s the most relevant bit: “the hypothetical question, at base, if it existed, if there are communicable diseases, does that give the government the right to violate your bodily autonomy?” So he starts from the - hypothetical - assumption that “it”/they do exist, missing the whole point/importance about the no virus question and dishonestly framing the no virus people’s opposition to the response/policies/“treatments” (crimes) as conditional on whether on the non existence of “it”, implying that if “it” did we would suddenly support all of the above. Then this: “germ theory and terrain theory are not incompatible…and whatever pathogens are gonna do whatever they do are not going to affect you in the same way.” Addressing Christine Massey’s FOIAs, Corbett first sarcastically dismisses it, then concludes: “I don’t think that’s the bottom line smoking gun.” It seems to me that, common to many others who take their position, either they can’t accept their lifelong belief is wrong or they really are controlled opposition and so find a million ways to dismiss the evidence, critique, and those providing them without ever addressing them directly and honestly.
Exactly. I was a faithful "Corbeteer" myself once, but got out as soon as my needles started moving. The "if it existed...does that give the government the right to violate your bodily autonomy" bit is unbelievable. He bombarded Chomsky because he didn't want to look at 9-11and then does the same. He didn't look at anything. Once I sent an email asking him why he didn't follow up the Technocracy thing (hip at the time - Patrick Wood etc) and he replied angry, "How dare you say I never talked about it??" which is not what I asked. It's quite clear that he's not genuine. He just found a way to make a living working from home and having a nation of followers - which are really called Corbeteers.
Yeah it’s funny he complains about Litmus tests because I think the no virus issue really is this generation’s 9/11 and JFK assassination - if a journalist or public figure posing as alternative or a radical or as dissident, especially if they deign to be some kind of leader, and they won’t touch it or, in the case of Corbett, dismiss it in such a dishonest way, then I think it’s pretty clear they’re frauds.
On the other hand, I tend to think that the word "gatekeeper" is not good, for some reason I can't say precisely. Chomsky is an example. Many things he said over his life are valuable, legitimate etc. Maybe (I'm not 100% sure of this) we can take the good and discard the bad, so we don't fall in the trap of simply disregarding everything a person says because of one thing. I'm starting to sound a bit like Mike Yeadon. But I don't think gatekeeping is a black and white thing and they end up gatekeeping because they can't go further in their...what...ontology. Their realm of knowledge, or their beliefs. On the third hand, whenever challenged, they behave like fundamentalists, so I really don't know. I'll think about it more, ha ha.
thanks -- my issue with them is not what they profess to believe, but what they will and will not consider. this demonstrates that their "belief" is an unfounded assumption. Notice that he goes right to the us and them of it, and does not say, "this is established by valid research and data." and of course they don't go near the FOIAs. they really need a good explanation for that — something convincing or at least intellectually satisfying and not the brush-off of this most profound legal and scientific discovery.
Yes. As I said in the long comment, it's such a simple thing that once you see it, game over. It's not a proposition by Wittgenstein. But they refuse to look, and that's a clear sign they're not serious. The idea that the non-virus people are there to disrupt the "movement" is just ... embarrassing. Their belief is, I think, founded on what they read in the comment sections of their cults, and picking the ones that are most ridiculous. And from that they think they already know the subject, which is exactly what they repeat over and over for people NOT to do.
I am an uneducated old fart with brain damage since 1982, I had to learn to tie my own shoes again, how to drive a car. Helmetless motorcycle accidents are a Bitch !! But it only took me One Time seeing how and hearing the description of isolation of a virus.
Wait, they put WHAT in it ??
They rinsed it with WHAT ??
Sterilized it with WHAT ??
What they pulled from the putrid puddle in the petri dish is WHAT ??
Ummm, NO, just NO, Full Stop !
So if I drank a quart of battery acid, then sample my pee and claim it is a virus that is dissolving my insides, ... it makes perfect logical sense, yes ? lol The isolation process is so absurd that even an old brain damaged fool can clearly see it, ..... But these geniuses CAN'T ??
No, none of them are that stupid, so that only leaves Complicity !
In Dr Sam Bailey's latest video, Viruses Don't Exist and Here's Why, at 24:30 Steve Kirsch in an interview with Dr Denis Rancourt, questions Rancourt several times about a "novel pathogen" being released and finally Rancourt says "I am not convinced that viruses exist." At this point Kirsch says: "Okay, okay we gotta move on then."
Zach bush deserves a spot in this conversation. While he has attempted to distance himself from the “virus debate” he has made a very clear statement indicating his loyalty to the cult. He has not responded to my own several emails I sent to him. He has also not responded, as far as I know, to Cowan’s request (start @ 33:50) that Zach put forth the scientific justification for his faith in “Virus”.
Zach has changed course since I first heard him in 2020 saying there were an infinite amount of viruses in our body and that they were harmless but played a vital function of communication. Now it seems he doesn't want to rock the boat of his sponsors.
This crowd is perfectly aware of the social and political currency they will have to throw overboard if they fully exit the cult and say there is no proof of a virus. I find it interesting that two of the folks on this panel have interviewed Cowan and Kaufman more than once. Is "no virus" the gateway drug to "health freedom" stardom, as long as you go full on virus? I have watched maybe a dozen or so interviews with WW and have never seen her as antsy as she was listening to the others avoid the question almost completely.
In the Corbett interview Bronze's set up of the question is loaded AF. First, he ironically just gets finished saying that RFK's democratic presidential run makes people put their faith back in the system, then proceeds to call people who want the virus issue to be discussed "rabid". Then, he admits to putting the evidence and data aside? He makes a good believer.
The Dr Tozzi I cound't watch cause Rumble doesn't work in Brazil anymore. But they all act the same, basically. Not one says anything about the studies, It's almost all "I believe" and the "talking about my underwear" expression. What are you gonna do with all those, Eric? That should be a very interesting show.
The other pattern I keep seeing is that of a victim mentality taken by the "journalists" and content creators and "experts": they are being "attacked" by "rabid" no virus loonies who are taking over spaces with their cult mentality. The argument made in the WW one is that people are expecting too much out of the journalists, and they just are not interested in this aspect of the debate, and should not be held to a standard of reporting based on their personal interests? The Health Freedom "leaders" are victims of the no virus cult. Again, speechless.
Mercola says "It is your immune functions that will ultimately determine your reaction when you are exposed to a pathogen". What proof can he offer of an immune system? This is another reification fallacy of the germ theory.
As far as that Trozzi explanation, why do we need to go through a complicated computer/lab process to find the genome of what is being claimed exists in particle form in the host? It just defies reason. The ides that the lungs themselves are the actual cell culture at the site of infection just never occurs to these people? This is where Massey's pile of FOIA are the right bower in this euchre match and no one can seem to make that connection.
The unposed questions are always the most telling untold, missing pieces of information. Like when Trozzi says "we have libraries and computer data". As If this was something that grew naturally like a tree. The question should have been immediately: who made the library? Where do the computer data come from? Who put it in? What is the source of the information?
He woul be forced to answer honestly: someone developed it. It's creation, modelings, assembling, alignment.
And the next conclusive question should have been: what was the source of these alignments, assemblies modelings?
At the end he should have been forced to admit that the primary source is nothing but fantasy. Anyhow not a thing, a particle, a "virus" on its own.
That's not a balanced discussion. And your quote (and possibly his) do not make clear who he is referring to. Are these commenters? Other presenters? Chinese spam robots?
Mercola has called for the "silencing" of missing virus people. Are the missing virus people to silence themselves ostensibly to partake in a discussion that won't happen anyway?
I wonder how Alex Jones deals with the subject, especially considering Kaufman was a fourth hour host for a brief time in 2021. There is also that Ranger guy who appears on Jones's show sometimes who had what I thought was a great interview with Cowan and Kaufman in 2021, and yet didn't seem to take up the case much further past that. Shrug.
Jones caucuses with Füllmich who caucuses with RFK, the lab leak and the virus. You have to admit that's a more thrilling novel than the "leak" from a computer lab.
I can't imagine that this man has done very much research himself. It is sad that he mistrusts himself to create his own knowledge through gathering of information. He has given his power over to experts and authorities, and wants to make sure that we do as well.
Excuse my English - Brazilian talking here.
I can't imagine a room, maybe in the CIA, where a meeting takes place with Corbett, Webb, Big Tree and others, being briefed by the commanding officer. How does gatekeeping actually work, then? I started back in 2001 with John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Chomsky, Amy Goodman etc, even Alex Jones (god forbid) and they were the revelers of this grand conspiracy behind everything that made me so excited. Little that I knew, they all became gatekeepers and a new layer was revealed below that apparent "truth" layer. Layers of "kind-of-truths"?? Corbett exposed Chomsky as a gatekeeper. And now HE is a gatekeeper. So, how does this work and how many layers are there? Fortunately Kaufman, Cowan, Massey, Baileys, Lanka etc are still good, which is a relief, but for how long?
The non-virus thing is so obvious and simple that, in my view, the issue is the cult mentality we were all born into(?). For Corbett, non-virus is the same as flat earth and reptilians. Corbett thinks people "believe" the virus doesn't exist, which shows that he, while almost brilliant in many other subjects, like Chomsky, is indeed a gatekeeper, like Chomsky. It's like Scientology. This cult thing is much more important and powerful than people think, I think. I see mentions of it, but in passing, when it's THE thing that keeps everyone incapable of seeing the obvious, and locked in the belief that viruses are real. Some deep psychological personal aspects are attached to the mainstream "story" (about everything) and if you take that from them, they fall. They fall all the way (like Oedipus). So they reject it like their lives depend on it - and psychologically it does.
So, Eric, you think the spell is breakable with leading intellectuals? Simple folks are much easier, but these guys..?
Sorry for the long comment. I should've written a post.
In most organizations there are are unwritten rules that are learned. If those rules go against your ethical standards then you’ll probably be slower in learning them, and you won’t rise very high up in the ranks. Potential initiates are vetted by their personality and by how they learn unwritten rules that go against societal norms. I do, however, assume that for those who do rise up in rank there are explicit orders also.
I think the layers go deeper than any uninitiated person can plumb.
I think that exposing the gatekeeper’s folly can loosen the psychological fear that many normies have of looking into what’s behind the gates.
I do have a problem with the no-virus group. While they convinced me that no virus had been isolated, that did not convince me that an infection was impossible. When I was a child, I had measles. Several days later, the characteristic rash indicating measles appeared on my younger sister's skin. It seems to me that a virus is a name for something we do not understand. Do electrons exit and run along a wire? No one has ever seen them or isolated them. Yet, we have electricity. Electron is a name for a carrier of electric charge, but we know that electricity is transmitted via electromagnetic waves and waves are not material. So, my sister could have gotten measles via some wave or something that we humans cannot even imagine.
Eric and the group would be able to give a better answer. Where I am, I'm the only one who is convinced, so I took the no-virus issue for my personal life, meaning I don't fear virus or contagion anymore. Your problem with them seems to point to the whole health issue - what makes you sick, how the body works, how nature works etc, so it's a much deeper problem than simply understand virus are just debris from dying cells etc. Since the Rockefellers change the course of medicine, it's been a whole different planet. And the problem now is that, deciding arbitrarily that electrons are living deadly organisms that come from Mars, as an analogy, they ("they") demolish the entire human life, and that's the problem. If Scientology decided - and had the power - to make everyone on Earth believe in Xenu, we would start asking for proof.
Sonja, Briefly, bodies communicate any ways other than "disease vector." We know electrons are there because they behave like electrons. But disease vectors do not behave like vectors, in or out of the lab. So the first question with measles or any of these childhood skin eruptions is, what is it? What is the body doing? The contagion is a misleading framework that provides false explanations and does not answer questions -- it leaves them strewn on the roadside. What has virus theory ever done for you? In other words, how has it actually helped you?
For easygoing comprehensive education, watch the programs of Sam Bailey, and her husband Mark. I know them well and trust them as people, not just as presenters; Mark is my technical advisor on medical and scientific issues.
This is a good start
https://planetwaves.fm/a-farewell-to-virology-by-dr-mark-bailey/
edited
Dear Sonja, yes, I agree. But the label of infection, is to say that something is invading the body. Your analysis of electrons would be more like dialing into the same frequency and your little sister, receiving the message that it was time to detox.
At age 21 months, my daughter had one day rash. I diagnosed it as rubella. She stayed home from day care one day. No fever, no itching. At age 3y 9mo, she had chickenpox (that largely fit the 18th century description of mild smallpox). She was attending a school - other children were sick too. It was the middle of winter in Bosnia. After I started giving her vitamin and mineral supplements, and bee pollen, she did not get sick again.
The important issue is that there are no illnesses caused by viruses. And hence, there is no immunity. So certain illnesses can occur in the same person. Edward Jenner, noted that one of his patients had smallpox 5 times! See Baron (1838). On the other hand, most of us do not pass through puberty multiple times - it is one and done (just like what they say about measles, mumps, and smallpox). But no medical texts claim that after puberty, we are "immune" to the changes that occur during puberty.
Best
I found the articles linked in this post helpful:
https://theresearchofmilesmathis.substack.com/p/preface
Interesting, thanks. Just gave a look, but will read properly later. As Miles seems to be my age, those might be helpful indeed.
Meryl Nass: The "No Viruses exist" cult has been out in force lately
"I cannot say who is driving this. It is infantile. People who have never looked through a microscope, and a few who have, but misinterpreted what they saw, relentlessly spread their pseudo science mixed with venom on twitter. Why does this fairytale keep growing new legs? It makes sense that a few true believers are being used; perhaps they have been encouraged that they will be mankind’s saviors if we all just stop believing in those viruses. ...Have none of these pseudo-scientists ever had a cold?"
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-no-viruses-exist-cult-has-been
Vernon Coleman - his no-virus rant is now gone but there are quotes here:
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/a-response-to-dr-vernon-coleman
Robin Monotti's "NOTICE":
" t would take a lifetime or two, and to me the result is also a foregone conclusion, so I have no interest in this exercise, nor the time for it...This is a very dangerous position to promote publicly, for the health of others."
https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1692870149580243216
Kirsch:
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/settling-the-virus-debate-challenge
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/do-you-know-why-they-never-want-a
McCullough:
"So, the next time someone at a cocktail party says “COVID-19 is a hoax, the virus has never been isolated,” show them some of these works of art!"
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/electron-cryotomography-of-sars-cov?r=17h73c
Bigtree 1 minute rant: "you want Tony Fauci to walk off scott free!"
https://twitter.com/polybadger/status/1634006881080410119
JLW: no virus is ridiculous, page 2:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/James-Lyons-Weiler-2022-10-PACKAGE.pdf
calls us "virus deniers" page 2:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/James-Lyons-Weiler-2023-03-19-PACKAGE-1.pdf
Latypova says I'm in a "camp", so can't function
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/virus-questions-sasha-latypova-hop
D Martin calls no-virus a distraction:
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/virus-fois-canadian-food-inspection
J Corbett and Broze:
James filed an FOI for isolated terrain:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid033mot4ZMv1kpeJmspda8DAi6vsTfzkFZQKB4woSq5WPJe4BYRiAQTH8cTp8a9Vuhpl&id=100084768107639
hahahahah a microscope!! I am laughing - loudly. FFS.
Dear EFC,
I sent you an email. I hope you can correct the name Derrick BROZE on your webpage for the program of Friday, 2024.02.23.
Thanks
Thank you Christmas
I am especially interested in Nass...any could be fantastic...can you please assist with time stamps? I am overproducing already and this would help me and my editor immensely...thank you...efc
It's just a short article actually, I don't have any videos of Nass.
Hi Christine. I met you before on Sasha Latypova's substack, when you were banned in the middle of a comment. Eric should know this wee story. I asked Sasha why she banned you and after some bla blas, I tried to suggest that if people knew, no one would be scared of pathogens etc, and she replied "I don't think fighting a cult with another is the answer". "Qué??" - I replied. A...cult? And never heard from her again. They think it's a cult (!!) Anyway, nice to see you here.
no sense of humor from Latypova. just the next da Vinci.
Thanks Alex. From what I've heard, Sasha always comes unhinged over no-virus. Strange!
And revealing.
Meryl Nass. How much worse can this get? Is she a scientist? I don't know, but hopefully not a medical doctor, for the sake of sick people. Her conclusion that a cold is evidence of virus be like the santa claus logical fallacy. I'm so tired of this shit. She reminds me of Ulrike Kämmerer who claims that if viruses would be found directly in a patient, then this patient "would be already dead because of the viral load". Speechless. And "that's why no sample from a dis-eased person ever contains enough particles to be directly isolated" without "enrichment". Cringe. This is not a joke, it's a quote of her.
If scientist are really that dumb, then we are doomed as long as they have a say in our lives.
After further review Catherine Fits is being critically careful about supporting the no virus position. Reasoning that it is a distraction from the bigger issue, in her opinion, of stopping the control system. Tom Cowan argues that the truth of no virus is the straw that will break the whole myth of science that is hypnotizing society. I have to say, when I understood we do not get sick from germs and bugs it sent my life in a completely new direction and I am very grateful to Tom Cowan for that perspective. Also gratitude to Catherine and of course Eric.
Where does Catherine Fitts say that no-virus is a distraction, or how did you come to this conclusion? From my perception, she is fully supportive of the virus having escaped from a lab theory, and thus fully in the virus exists camp and not even considering the no-virus position. Please educate me.
Meryl Nass, from her substack in late December. Here's the headline:
The "No Viruses exist" cult has been out in force lately
A friend suggested this is part of the mind control operation, designed to divide us and make us angry at each other.
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/the-no-viruses-exist-cult-has-been
There was quite a bit of pushback in the comments section. She came on strong in the first paragraph and didn't let up:
"I cannot say who is driving this. It is infantile. People who have never looked through a microscope, and a few who have, but misinterpreted what they saw, relentlessly spread their pseudo science mixed with venom on twitter. Why does this fairytale keep growing new legs? It makes sense that a few true believers are being used; perhaps they have been encouraged that they will be mankind’s saviors if we all just stop believing in those viruses. Tonight one claimed this was “the” existential question."
Awesome Eric! Thank you!
There are thousands in front of the gate!
Not enough though, we win!
Truth, Love, Justice and Freedom
contagionhoax.com
Suzanne Humphries 16:25
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/live-with-dr-suzanne-humphries--medical-battery-trial/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chdtv&utm_id20231106
Oh nooo :(
Catherine Austin Fits has trouble understanding that viruses don't exist as discussed in her conversation with Tom Cowan February 28, 2023 The Electromagnetic Body. It's on the solari web site but I could send you the transcript of the conversation if you want it.
The only logical approach to this whole question is "who cuts down some of the most important sources of information, has had decades of proven work for the benefit of bringing truth to the many and profited zero and paid massively, vs. the record of those who are doing the cutting down?" That simplifies my work.
I know Derrick Broze interviewed Mercola and when discussion of the missing virus came up they both simply laughed and called it a ridiculous assertion and then moved on. I don’t know how to find that, however.
At 14 minutes. My mind had condensed the clip but they do eventually laugh at this “crazy” idea.
theconsciousresistance.com/dr-mercola-discusses-the-solutions-to-the-great-reset/
excellent example of the "needless distraction" talking point. Thank you Ro.
He also interviewed Corbett and they "talked about" the germ theory, o so very briefly.
link - https://www.bitchute.com/video/2YlDlZzZ0Uze/
have you got a time stamp please? thank you
Starts around the 20 minute mark. Basically they just commisterate about being badgered by no virus people/bothered by their tactics, all but accuse them of working for Cass Sunstein/being agents of division, and never actually address the matter of evidence. Here’s the most relevant bit: “the hypothetical question, at base, if it existed, if there are communicable diseases, does that give the government the right to violate your bodily autonomy?” So he starts from the - hypothetical - assumption that “it”/they do exist, missing the whole point/importance about the no virus question and dishonestly framing the no virus people’s opposition to the response/policies/“treatments” (crimes) as conditional on whether on the non existence of “it”, implying that if “it” did we would suddenly support all of the above. Then this: “germ theory and terrain theory are not incompatible…and whatever pathogens are gonna do whatever they do are not going to affect you in the same way.” Addressing Christine Massey’s FOIAs, Corbett first sarcastically dismisses it, then concludes: “I don’t think that’s the bottom line smoking gun.” It seems to me that, common to many others who take their position, either they can’t accept their lifelong belief is wrong or they really are controlled opposition and so find a million ways to dismiss the evidence, critique, and those providing them without ever addressing them directly and honestly.
Exactly. I was a faithful "Corbeteer" myself once, but got out as soon as my needles started moving. The "if it existed...does that give the government the right to violate your bodily autonomy" bit is unbelievable. He bombarded Chomsky because he didn't want to look at 9-11and then does the same. He didn't look at anything. Once I sent an email asking him why he didn't follow up the Technocracy thing (hip at the time - Patrick Wood etc) and he replied angry, "How dare you say I never talked about it??" which is not what I asked. It's quite clear that he's not genuine. He just found a way to make a living working from home and having a nation of followers - which are really called Corbeteers.
classic pseudo intellectual
Yeah it’s funny he complains about Litmus tests because I think the no virus issue really is this generation’s 9/11 and JFK assassination - if a journalist or public figure posing as alternative or a radical or as dissident, especially if they deign to be some kind of leader, and they won’t touch it or, in the case of Corbett, dismiss it in such a dishonest way, then I think it’s pretty clear they’re frauds.
On the other hand, I tend to think that the word "gatekeeper" is not good, for some reason I can't say precisely. Chomsky is an example. Many things he said over his life are valuable, legitimate etc. Maybe (I'm not 100% sure of this) we can take the good and discard the bad, so we don't fall in the trap of simply disregarding everything a person says because of one thing. I'm starting to sound a bit like Mike Yeadon. But I don't think gatekeeping is a black and white thing and they end up gatekeeping because they can't go further in their...what...ontology. Their realm of knowledge, or their beliefs. On the third hand, whenever challenged, they behave like fundamentalists, so I really don't know. I'll think about it more, ha ha.
The Corbett Broze clip is particularly ironic because the first thing they talk about is avoiding an us versus them mentality
Terribly sorry. Yeah, around 20 minutes. 20:10 actually.
thanks -- my issue with them is not what they profess to believe, but what they will and will not consider. this demonstrates that their "belief" is an unfounded assumption. Notice that he goes right to the us and them of it, and does not say, "this is established by valid research and data." and of course they don't go near the FOIAs. they really need a good explanation for that — something convincing or at least intellectually satisfying and not the brush-off of this most profound legal and scientific discovery.
Yes. As I said in the long comment, it's such a simple thing that once you see it, game over. It's not a proposition by Wittgenstein. But they refuse to look, and that's a clear sign they're not serious. The idea that the non-virus people are there to disrupt the "movement" is just ... embarrassing. Their belief is, I think, founded on what they read in the comment sections of their cults, and picking the ones that are most ridiculous. And from that they think they already know the subject, which is exactly what they repeat over and over for people NOT to do.
"it's such a simple thing that once you see it"
I am an uneducated old fart with brain damage since 1982, I had to learn to tie my own shoes again, how to drive a car. Helmetless motorcycle accidents are a Bitch !! But it only took me One Time seeing how and hearing the description of isolation of a virus.
Wait, they put WHAT in it ??
They rinsed it with WHAT ??
Sterilized it with WHAT ??
What they pulled from the putrid puddle in the petri dish is WHAT ??
Ummm, NO, just NO, Full Stop !
So if I drank a quart of battery acid, then sample my pee and claim it is a virus that is dissolving my insides, ... it makes perfect logical sense, yes ? lol The isolation process is so absurd that even an old brain damaged fool can clearly see it, ..... But these geniuses CAN'T ??
No, none of them are that stupid, so that only leaves Complicity !
In Dr Sam Bailey's latest video, Viruses Don't Exist and Here's Why, at 24:30 Steve Kirsch in an interview with Dr Denis Rancourt, questions Rancourt several times about a "novel pathogen" being released and finally Rancourt says "I am not convinced that viruses exist." At this point Kirsch says: "Okay, okay we gotta move on then."
Zach bush deserves a spot in this conversation. While he has attempted to distance himself from the “virus debate” he has made a very clear statement indicating his loyalty to the cult. He has not responded to my own several emails I sent to him. He has also not responded, as far as I know, to Cowan’s request (start @ 33:50) that Zach put forth the scientific justification for his faith in “Virus”.
https://zachbushmd.com/coronavirus-statement/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GL3yjhOQVObi/
Zach has changed course since I first heard him in 2020 saying there were an infinite amount of viruses in our body and that they were harmless but played a vital function of communication. Now it seems he doesn't want to rock the boat of his sponsors.
This is only 17 minutes long. Whitney Webb, Derrick Broze, Ryan Christian et al - https://www.bitchute.com/video/kzLBW09c3NKR/
This crowd is perfectly aware of the social and political currency they will have to throw overboard if they fully exit the cult and say there is no proof of a virus. I find it interesting that two of the folks on this panel have interviewed Cowan and Kaufman more than once. Is "no virus" the gateway drug to "health freedom" stardom, as long as you go full on virus? I have watched maybe a dozen or so interviews with WW and have never seen her as antsy as she was listening to the others avoid the question almost completely.
that's right. by lying, in three-part harmony, they have created their own third rail.
I have a few more cued up to time stamp for you after work with Peter McCullough.
would you email those please? thank you
efc@chironreturn.org
done
They all act like they are talking about their underwear or something embarrassing. Weird.
Great observation. I've begun to compile them
Mercola and Boze, 14 minutes
https://theconsciousresistance.com/dr-mercola-discusses-the-solutions-to-the-great-reset/
Susan Humphries CHD TV 16 minutes
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/live-with-dr-suzanne-humphries--medical-battery-trial/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=chdtv&utm_id20231106
James Corbett 20 minute mark
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2YlDlZzZ0Uze/
Dr Trozzi and son 9 minutes
https://drtrozzi.org/2022/09/05/germ-terrain-reality-is-sars-cov2-real/
Whitney Webb 5 mins - Unlimited Hangout - use your brain but don’t talk about whether viruses exist.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kzLBW09c3NKR/
In the Corbett interview Bronze's set up of the question is loaded AF. First, he ironically just gets finished saying that RFK's democratic presidential run makes people put their faith back in the system, then proceeds to call people who want the virus issue to be discussed "rabid". Then, he admits to putting the evidence and data aside? He makes a good believer.
I will start that clip early to catch that bit of the rap
The Dr Tozzi I cound't watch cause Rumble doesn't work in Brazil anymore. But they all act the same, basically. Not one says anything about the studies, It's almost all "I believe" and the "talking about my underwear" expression. What are you gonna do with all those, Eric? That should be a very interesting show.
The other pattern I keep seeing is that of a victim mentality taken by the "journalists" and content creators and "experts": they are being "attacked" by "rabid" no virus loonies who are taking over spaces with their cult mentality. The argument made in the WW one is that people are expecting too much out of the journalists, and they just are not interested in this aspect of the debate, and should not be held to a standard of reporting based on their personal interests? The Health Freedom "leaders" are victims of the no virus cult. Again, speechless.
Mercola says "It is your immune functions that will ultimately determine your reaction when you are exposed to a pathogen". What proof can he offer of an immune system? This is another reification fallacy of the germ theory.
As far as that Trozzi explanation, why do we need to go through a complicated computer/lab process to find the genome of what is being claimed exists in particle form in the host? It just defies reason. The ides that the lungs themselves are the actual cell culture at the site of infection just never occurs to these people? This is where Massey's pile of FOIA are the right bower in this euchre match and no one can seem to make that connection.
It is unscientific to question the existence of viruses but THERE IS a lot of corruption in Virology. WTF Susan Humphries!
Dr Trozzi…start at 9:00 to save time
https://drtrozzi.org/2022/09/05/germ-terrain-reality-is-sars-cov2-real/
That's not what happened, no no no, here is what happened! Exactly the thing you said happened!
The unposed questions are always the most telling untold, missing pieces of information. Like when Trozzi says "we have libraries and computer data". As If this was something that grew naturally like a tree. The question should have been immediately: who made the library? Where do the computer data come from? Who put it in? What is the source of the information?
He woul be forced to answer honestly: someone developed it. It's creation, modelings, assembling, alignment.
And the next conclusive question should have been: what was the source of these alignments, assemblies modelings?
At the end he should have been forced to admit that the primary source is nothing but fantasy. Anyhow not a thing, a particle, a "virus" on its own.
Or he should have run from the question.
Trozzi is a fool.
"A problem with the militant no-virus brigade is that they paralyse discourse with a one-trick pony narrative as if it’s the only thing that matters.
It isn’t.
Dismantling virology is necessary but it is not sufficient." Jerm Warfare in his Telegram channel https://t.me/jermwarfare/20142
That's not a balanced discussion. And your quote (and possibly his) do not make clear who he is referring to. Are these commenters? Other presenters? Chinese spam robots?
Mercola has called for the "silencing" of missing virus people. Are the missing virus people to silence themselves ostensibly to partake in a discussion that won't happen anyway?
I wonder how Alex Jones deals with the subject, especially considering Kaufman was a fourth hour host for a brief time in 2021. There is also that Ranger guy who appears on Jones's show sometimes who had what I thought was a great interview with Cowan and Kaufman in 2021, and yet didn't seem to take up the case much further past that. Shrug.
Jones caucuses with Füllmich who caucuses with RFK, the lab leak and the virus. You have to admit that's a more thrilling novel than the "leak" from a computer lab.
For sure. That guy wants stories that make it look like he is about to shit his pants when he delivers the news.
another moral standard-bearer.
Anti-vaxxers: Mentally Ill Victimhood Conspiracists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK-fcZd_qWQ
This article is linked in the show notes of that video. Speechless.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/01/covid-vaccine-hesitancy-could-be-linked-childhood-trauma-research
Tx!
Buncha Kooks!
I can't imagine that this man has done very much research himself. It is sad that he mistrusts himself to create his own knowledge through gathering of information. He has given his power over to experts and authorities, and wants to make sure that we do as well.
I wonder if he would threaten to lock somebody up in a psych ward for having unconventional opinions on voodoo jabbery.