Disturbingly, I watched a video posted with a link to Dr Sam Baily of NZ who has done a great deal of research and is a published author on the topic of viruses and toxins and similar ilk. She has made me rethink a great deal and as a non-expert on the subject I can only point you in its direction so that you can make of it what you will…
Disturbingly, I watched a video posted with a link to Dr Sam Baily of NZ who has done a great deal of research and is a published author on the topic of viruses and toxins and similar ilk. She has made me rethink a great deal and as a non-expert on the subject I can only point you in its direction so that you can make of it what you will.....she posits that the Ivermectin option that was so widely known and shut down - and recommended by Joe Rogan. Dr Pierre Kory etc....is not nearly as helpful -or necessary- as they promote and in fact was a counter-thing from Big Pharma to persuade folk to in fact take it as a remedy when in truth it is anything but. ( She reminded me of a recent advert from the Ozempic makers who 'begged' people to refrain from taking their wonder drug that brought about amazing weight loss in celebrities ....they explained it was intended for diabetics and not those desiring to lose weight...so please leave it for those who are health compromised. Nice tactics ! ). As I say, I found this disturbing and can make no comment other than to suggest you read and listen to this young and highly knowledgeable doctor.
The key things to understand about these people are:
•They are misrepresenting terrain theory (I utilize it a lot in medical practice).
•Many of their core arguments are easily disproven (see the previous articles).
•They have consistently refused to publicly debate or defend their points and will not listen to any of the arguments raised against them (hence why I spent days writing the previous articles).
•Most of the people promoting this lost their medical licenses and hence are financially dependent upon doubling down on this theory to be true to maintain their following and hence economic livelihood.
•This whole thing originally started as a prank/trolling campaign to fracture the vaccine safety movement (igor chudov tracked it down).
•Some of what they are saying is indeed true, but they are overextrapolating from it (hence why I needed the context of the above articles).
Agree and thank you for taking the time to write those two posts. You pointed out the main reason I no longer pay to much attention to those that deny the existence of viruses: "They have consistently refused to publicly debate ..." which is what I also experienced when raising questions in the comments.
When people ask whether viruses exist, I reply "Do electrons exist?" akin to debating the existence of God. While I do not deny that living a healthier life or having certain genetics or environmental factors can help you not get sick or not feel sick or not think you are sick, it is less important what we call or name the ability to transmit sickness than it is to recognize it is happening. I do not see it as an either-or situation, but rather a complex and-situation in which most of what biology and life is. It is the complex miracle of the human body, in combination with heart/mind/soul/spirit over matter, which some may have success in imitating or unraveling parts of it, but will never be able to replicate, reproduce, explain the whole as we are each unique individuals every millisecond of the day.
The inability/unwillingness to communicate uncertainty is another tell when it comes to fraudulent “experts”. I want experts to tell me what they know, but also what they don’t know or they aren’t sure of. Humility matters.
Dear AMD, uh, yeah-no. Core critique of viral contagion theory is the utter lack of ANY evidence of a so-called infectious particle being found in tissues of a sick person; AND subsequent proof of transmission. Even Montagnier conceded that he NEVER found HIV.
How about you demonstrate that ANY contagious and infectious virus exists. Dang.
I am not sure that you have read some of the original papers of Pasteur and others in the 19th century. See e.g., BMJ 1887 of March 5: 532-534.
Let us start with the premise that a bite from a dog, or other mammal, results in a specific set of symptoms. Why would we attribute said symptoms to a single, never isolated, never replicated, agent? Further, I do not suppose that you claim that EVERY bite from a so-called "rabies infected" animal results in the same symptoms. How many never reported cases are there?
Pasteur was injecting material into the brains of rabbits and dogs, and making biological soups and claimed that if he injected that material, he would cure or prevent rabies.
About those "lab" settings. Can you send me a paper?
In sum, as the term is conceived at present (Summers 2009), I am credulous to believe that there is a rabies "virus".
(Summers (2009) claims that “viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that can exist as potentially active [sic], but inert [sic] entities, outside of cells”. Encyclopedia of Microbiology: 546–552).
Recall, before the 1900, "virus" simply meant "disease." (Have you seen the Lanka presentation on the evolution of the term virus?)
Hence for Pasteur, rabies virus (aka, hydrophobia - do you really believe that any dogs feared or had an aversion to water to the point of death?) was "rabies disease".
Pasteur claimed that the disease was transferred by a bite. But that begs the question, "what caused the FIRST case?"
And what were the pictures of "rabies" before 1933 (before the electron microscope)?
I do not claim that every bite would cause rabies symptoms. I don't think virologists even claim 100% infection rate upon exposure to viruses. The premise of a single agent is pretty consistent with the standard description of rabid dogs every now and then. A flu, rabies or ebola have fairly consistent symptoms with victims in very different local circumstances, such as importing a fellow who causes a man in another country to have the disease. It's a challenge for no-virus terrain theory, I think, to explain the importing of a disease without importing the environment a man with the disease lived in.
In regards to hydrophobia and the appeal to incredulousness, yes I do believe it's possible to be so mentally damaged for whatever reason that you would avoid drinking water. There are stories of stranger and I've visited quite a few mental institutions myself to give me the belief that behavior can become very warped. If a virus, let's say, induced an extreme fever then their thinking would become incredibly strange after a while.
That's not to say that modern theory is pristine. It's incredibly flawed and hard to study because people are so damaged by environmental things like vaccines and pollution and diet. But the original terrain theory said that the microbes appeared when the terrain was weak, not that the microbes didn't exist at all. The specific nature by which a weak diseased man dies is going to be determined by the microbe that can take advantage of it and those produce reliably consistent damage that can be treated or at least supported until the person's health can be restored.
As to what caused the first case, while I can speculate, logically there's no need to explain where a virus originated to determine what it does and how to treat it. I don't need to say where the first human heart came from in order to treat a heart attack. A mechanic doesn't need to tell you who invented the car to fix it.
(This is short - I will read the article and respond later)
Thanks for the reply but ... with VIRAL theory, the claim is that a virus exists and then is TRANSFERRED to another body. If Rabies is ONLY caused by virus; AND that virus MUST be transferred by a bite, then how did the FIRST case of rabies come to be?
Heart attack and or car troubles are not analogous.
I am reviewing some lectures by Tom Cowan. He cited a paper from 2003, by Carolyn Buxton Bridges et al (https://sci-hub.se/10.1086/378292). They offered:
"Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza. ... Thus, most information on human-to-human transmission of influenza comes from studies of human inoculation with influenza virus [sic] and observational studies." See page 1097.
Nevertheless, the authors conclude: "Evidence exists to support the transmission of influenza viruses by direct and indirect contact and by droplet and droplet nuclei
(i.e., airborne) transmission." (page 1099).
Last week, someone who purported to be Christian admitted they never saw God, never felt God, but there IS evidence that God exists. Oh well, dogma trumps falsifiable evidence every time ... in Wonderland.
There's plenty of evidence of God: demonic possession of people and places, miracles and prayer, other spiritual phenomenon, and after death experiences when people are resuscitated from the dead, to name a few examples. (Yes, there are also misinterpretations, stretching of the facts, monetization of "ghost stories," other "spiritual phenomenon" or even hoaxes. But, there's also very real phenomenon.)
Yep, I am with you. However, I get terrified at the notion that I might be making a HUGE mistake (mortal sin) when choosing between white clam sauce vs tomato sauce on my linguini. That Flying Spaghetti Monster is a jealous god, and does not take lightly to the wrong sauce. My go to is to say that the "devil made me do it."
As for evolution, I think that we have evolved passed the White supremacist ideals of Darwin and those inbred Brits of the 19th century. But to paraphrase what you said, "my claims could be wrong, of course." Now where and when shall we bet?
Oh I know. I bet you are completely wrong about evidence of God being "demonic possession." It is like saying that proof of unicorns are fairy folk. (Even if I saw the fairy folk, that does not mean that unicorns are out there - but I digress).
Here is the bet/contract. I bet you that do not really believe in God/Devil heaven/hell. So in exchange for ALL your present and future worth and money, after we die, I will volunteer my soul to take your place in hell. Deal?
Disturbingly, I watched a video posted with a link to Dr Sam Baily of NZ who has done a great deal of research and is a published author on the topic of viruses and toxins and similar ilk. She has made me rethink a great deal and as a non-expert on the subject I can only point you in its direction so that you can make of it what you will.....she posits that the Ivermectin option that was so widely known and shut down - and recommended by Joe Rogan. Dr Pierre Kory etc....is not nearly as helpful -or necessary- as they promote and in fact was a counter-thing from Big Pharma to persuade folk to in fact take it as a remedy when in truth it is anything but. ( She reminded me of a recent advert from the Ozempic makers who 'begged' people to refrain from taking their wonder drug that brought about amazing weight loss in celebrities ....they explained it was intended for diabetics and not those desiring to lose weight...so please leave it for those who are health compromised. Nice tactics ! ). As I say, I found this disturbing and can make no comment other than to suggest you read and listen to this young and highly knowledgeable doctor.
I wrote a detailed series addressing their points because they were repeatedly raised.
Part 1 is here: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/thoughts-on-the-existence-of-viruses
Part 2 is here: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/nuanced-ideas-and-simplistic-truths
The key things to understand about these people are:
•They are misrepresenting terrain theory (I utilize it a lot in medical practice).
•Many of their core arguments are easily disproven (see the previous articles).
•They have consistently refused to publicly debate or defend their points and will not listen to any of the arguments raised against them (hence why I spent days writing the previous articles).
•Most of the people promoting this lost their medical licenses and hence are financially dependent upon doubling down on this theory to be true to maintain their following and hence economic livelihood.
•This whole thing originally started as a prank/trolling campaign to fracture the vaccine safety movement (igor chudov tracked it down).
•Some of what they are saying is indeed true, but they are overextrapolating from it (hence why I needed the context of the above articles).
Agree and thank you for taking the time to write those two posts. You pointed out the main reason I no longer pay to much attention to those that deny the existence of viruses: "They have consistently refused to publicly debate ..." which is what I also experienced when raising questions in the comments.
When people ask whether viruses exist, I reply "Do electrons exist?" akin to debating the existence of God. While I do not deny that living a healthier life or having certain genetics or environmental factors can help you not get sick or not feel sick or not think you are sick, it is less important what we call or name the ability to transmit sickness than it is to recognize it is happening. I do not see it as an either-or situation, but rather a complex and-situation in which most of what biology and life is. It is the complex miracle of the human body, in combination with heart/mind/soul/spirit over matter, which some may have success in imitating or unraveling parts of it, but will never be able to replicate, reproduce, explain the whole as we are each unique individuals every millisecond of the day.
The inability/unwillingness to communicate uncertainty is another tell when it comes to fraudulent “experts”. I want experts to tell me what they know, but also what they don’t know or they aren’t sure of. Humility matters.
Dear AMD, uh, yeah-no. Core critique of viral contagion theory is the utter lack of ANY evidence of a so-called infectious particle being found in tissues of a sick person; AND subsequent proof of transmission. Even Montagnier conceded that he NEVER found HIV.
How about you demonstrate that ANY contagious and infectious virus exists. Dang.
What's your refutation on the rabies bit? It was fairly persuasive in
1) Having been identified with, supposedly, pictures
2) Having consistent unique symptoms generally not attributed to poisoning or health decline
3) Being able to be reliably transferred from animal to animal in a laboratory setting
4) Consistently being caused by exposure (dog bite) to a rabies carrier as opposed to people getting rabies from being bit by random non-rabid dogs.
Dear Dave, thank you for your question.
I am not sure that you have read some of the original papers of Pasteur and others in the 19th century. See e.g., BMJ 1887 of March 5: 532-534.
Let us start with the premise that a bite from a dog, or other mammal, results in a specific set of symptoms. Why would we attribute said symptoms to a single, never isolated, never replicated, agent? Further, I do not suppose that you claim that EVERY bite from a so-called "rabies infected" animal results in the same symptoms. How many never reported cases are there?
Pasteur was injecting material into the brains of rabbits and dogs, and making biological soups and claimed that if he injected that material, he would cure or prevent rabies.
About those "lab" settings. Can you send me a paper?
In sum, as the term is conceived at present (Summers 2009), I am credulous to believe that there is a rabies "virus".
(Summers (2009) claims that “viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that can exist as potentially active [sic], but inert [sic] entities, outside of cells”. Encyclopedia of Microbiology: 546–552).
Recall, before the 1900, "virus" simply meant "disease." (Have you seen the Lanka presentation on the evolution of the term virus?)
Hence for Pasteur, rabies virus (aka, hydrophobia - do you really believe that any dogs feared or had an aversion to water to the point of death?) was "rabies disease".
Pasteur claimed that the disease was transferred by a bite. But that begs the question, "what caused the FIRST case?"
And what were the pictures of "rabies" before 1933 (before the electron microscope)?
Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
I found one about cats and rabies.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3516030/
I do not claim that every bite would cause rabies symptoms. I don't think virologists even claim 100% infection rate upon exposure to viruses. The premise of a single agent is pretty consistent with the standard description of rabid dogs every now and then. A flu, rabies or ebola have fairly consistent symptoms with victims in very different local circumstances, such as importing a fellow who causes a man in another country to have the disease. It's a challenge for no-virus terrain theory, I think, to explain the importing of a disease without importing the environment a man with the disease lived in.
In regards to hydrophobia and the appeal to incredulousness, yes I do believe it's possible to be so mentally damaged for whatever reason that you would avoid drinking water. There are stories of stranger and I've visited quite a few mental institutions myself to give me the belief that behavior can become very warped. If a virus, let's say, induced an extreme fever then their thinking would become incredibly strange after a while.
That's not to say that modern theory is pristine. It's incredibly flawed and hard to study because people are so damaged by environmental things like vaccines and pollution and diet. But the original terrain theory said that the microbes appeared when the terrain was weak, not that the microbes didn't exist at all. The specific nature by which a weak diseased man dies is going to be determined by the microbe that can take advantage of it and those produce reliably consistent damage that can be treated or at least supported until the person's health can be restored.
As to what caused the first case, while I can speculate, logically there's no need to explain where a virus originated to determine what it does and how to treat it. I don't need to say where the first human heart came from in order to treat a heart attack. A mechanic doesn't need to tell you who invented the car to fix it.
Dear Dave, did you read the Rosenau (1919) study on "flu"?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/221687
Dave, I only see the abstract. Can you access the full pdf? Thanks
Dear Dave,
(This is short - I will read the article and respond later)
Thanks for the reply but ... with VIRAL theory, the claim is that a virus exists and then is TRANSFERRED to another body. If Rabies is ONLY caused by virus; AND that virus MUST be transferred by a bite, then how did the FIRST case of rabies come to be?
Heart attack and or car troubles are not analogous.
Best
He did. You're psychotic!
I still have faith that one day John will give up on this.
And this attitude here is why I come back to your Substack - unfailing charity and good will.
Dear SaHiB? He did what? AMD demonstrated that a contagious, pathogenic virus exists? Where is the published paper?
Are we ignoring that Montagnier was given the NOBEL for "discovering" HIV, yet he declared that he never purified?
I think the link for Part 2 is the same as Part 1. Could this be the Part 2 link that you intended? https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/nuanced-ideas-and-simplistic-truths
Fixed!
👍Thanks again so much for a Substack that has legs and legacy!
Dear AMD,
I am reviewing some lectures by Tom Cowan. He cited a paper from 2003, by Carolyn Buxton Bridges et al (https://sci-hub.se/10.1086/378292). They offered:
"Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza. ... Thus, most information on human-to-human transmission of influenza comes from studies of human inoculation with influenza virus [sic] and observational studies." See page 1097.
Nevertheless, the authors conclude: "Evidence exists to support the transmission of influenza viruses by direct and indirect contact and by droplet and droplet nuclei
(i.e., airborne) transmission." (page 1099).
Last week, someone who purported to be Christian admitted they never saw God, never felt God, but there IS evidence that God exists. Oh well, dogma trumps falsifiable evidence every time ... in Wonderland.
There's plenty of evidence of God: demonic possession of people and places, miracles and prayer, other spiritual phenomenon, and after death experiences when people are resuscitated from the dead, to name a few examples. (Yes, there are also misinterpretations, stretching of the facts, monetization of "ghost stories," other "spiritual phenomenon" or even hoaxes. But, there's also very real phenomenon.)
The evidence for evolution appears to be anything but compelling: https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david. But, even if evolution were true, God could easily create the process of evolution. I suppose one argument for evolution might be there is no God and so we must have come from somewhere except there's plenty of evidence for God as stated above.
My explanations could be wrong of course, but I am more than happy to place my bet here for these reasons and more.
Dear Doug,
Yep, I am with you. However, I get terrified at the notion that I might be making a HUGE mistake (mortal sin) when choosing between white clam sauce vs tomato sauce on my linguini. That Flying Spaghetti Monster is a jealous god, and does not take lightly to the wrong sauce. My go to is to say that the "devil made me do it."
As for evolution, I think that we have evolved passed the White supremacist ideals of Darwin and those inbred Brits of the 19th century. But to paraphrase what you said, "my claims could be wrong, of course." Now where and when shall we bet?
Oh I know. I bet you are completely wrong about evidence of God being "demonic possession." It is like saying that proof of unicorns are fairy folk. (Even if I saw the fairy folk, that does not mean that unicorns are out there - but I digress).
Here is the bet/contract. I bet you that do not really believe in God/Devil heaven/hell. So in exchange for ALL your present and future worth and money, after we die, I will volunteer my soul to take your place in hell. Deal?
John, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think there's multitudes of evidence and ways of getting evidence.