- ● The players
- ● Unwrapping the sticking points
- ● What is meant by ‘does the virus exist’?
- ● Paraphrasing the ‘No Virus Exists’ debate
- ● Cutting to the chase
- ● Has the virus been isolated?
- ● Are Koch’s postulates mandatory, relevant or obsolete?
- ● Germ versus Terrain Theories
- ● Evolutionary and environmental ecology
- ● Epilogue
By Rob Verkerk PhD
Founder, executive & scientific director, Alliance for Natural Health International
Co-chair, Health & Humanities Committee, World Council for Health
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
- Drs Doug Altman & Martin Bland (University of York, UK), BMJ 1995; 311(7003): 485.
The airwaves of alt media are once again bristling with strings of activity over whether or not COVID-19 is a manipulated hoax that doesn’t even involve an infectious microbial agent in the form of SARS-CoV-2.
This one’s not going away either – at least until there’s some reconciliation – such is the passion each side has for its arguments. What makes this latest polarisation unique is that it is the first that could do real harm to the truth and health freedom movement. A movement that’s so far been more or less united in calling out manipulated science and defects in global policy on COVID-19, whether that’s unjustified lockdowns or masks, misleading PCR or mortality data, or creeping totalitarianism.
If you haven’t yet had a dive into the rabbit hole of this latest division of views, expect it to be more of a warren than a hole. It pertains not just to the field of virology, but draws on a host of interfacing disciplines, from experimental science, to molecular biology, genomics, computational biology, bioinformatics, evolutionary biology, ecology and even anthropology.
Among the currently vocal protagonists of the ‘no virus exists’ side of the debate is virologist Stefan Lanka PhD (Germany), four medically trained doctors, Dr Tom Cowan (USA), Dr Sam Bailey (NZ), her husband, Dr Mark Bailey (NZ), and Dr Andrew Kaufman (USA). Health and exercise scientist, Mike Stone (USA), has done a comprehensive job coalescing most of the key arguments into a single website, viroLIEgy.com. These six are among the signatories, who include ex-Pfizer vice president Dr Mike Yeadon, formerly vice president & chief scientific officer of Allergy & Respiratory at Pfizer Global R&D, of the Settling the Virus Debate challenge put forward by Drs Cowan et al in July 2022.
I’ll nail my cards to the tree now and predict that this Settling the Virus Debate challenge will likely lead to a dead end without any resolution because it won’t get the participation required. It will be seen as unnecessary or irrelevant. Another case for calling in Doug Altman and Martin Bland’s profound logic: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps a tangential analogy to help explain my concerns? You’ve been doing your weekly shopping at your local grocery store for years and just as you’re about to enter, a stranger taps you on the shoulder and challenges you to now do your shopping while standing on your head. You would likely think the challenge was odd, impossible, irrelevant or pointless. More to the point, you’d probably be unlikely to even try.
On the other side of the house…is pretty much everyone else. Those who have voiced opposing views to the ‘no virus exists’ protagonists, but from within the health freedom movement, include Steve Kirsch (here) and Jeremy Hammond (here). For information, neither are virologists, scientists, medical doctors or health practitioners.
Leading doctors who continue to challenge key aspects of the mainstream narrative on COVID-19, who have also countered the Cowan, Bailey, Kaufman positions, include Drs Bob Malone, Peter McCullough and Ryan Cole. They uphold a view shared by many that viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, do actually exist, that they require a suitable host cell to be able to infect and replicate, and they can in certain people under certain conditions cause disease.
If you want to dive into the scientific arguments lining the virus denial rabbit burrow system, easy access points are Dr Tom Cowan’s Virus Challenge, Drs Sam and Mark Bailey’s website, and Mike Stone’s website viroLIEgy.
Let’s not forget there are actually a myriad of different positions, not just two. One more to contemplate, one that most people on the planet likely subscribe to. It's that viruses, as obligate intracellular parasites that need to hijack their host’s replication machinery, are inherently pathogenic and therefore are bad guys that we’d all be better to live without. That’s why trying to hide from them, kill them, or get your body to wipe them out by using vaccines or antiviral medications makes so much sense. That is, if you accept ‘viruses are the real enemy’ position. More on that later.
Unwrapping the sticking points
I’m not a virologist, but I have three science degrees (BSc, MSc, PhD), I've worked as a postdoc researcher for 7 years at a major university (Imperial College London, before the Gates funding take-over) in the field of multitrophic interactions, and have spent 40 years using science as a tool to help understand the incredibly complex workings of nature. I’ve worked in academia, as a consultant, as an educator and as a natural health activist, the last 20 years with the non-profit I set up back in 2002, the Alliance for Natural Health.
I’ve written this article not in some belief it might help resolve this complex debate, but rather to offer some of my own insights about why this schism has arisen, and why it’s critical we work through it if we’re not to see the freedom movement against the mainstream narrative divided and conquered. I also think it’s so important that this debate — in the manner of all proper scientific discourse (of which we’ve seen very little over these last few years) — is conducted respectfully by focusing, debating and pondering the issues at hand, not by attacking the messengers.
"...it’s so important that this debate - in the manner of all proper scientific discourse - is conducted respectfully by focusing, debating and pondering the issues at hand, not by attacking the messengers."
- Rob Verkerk PhD
What is meant by ‘does the virus exist’?
When people challenge the notion as to whether a virus is involved with COVID-19, their views may still differ in some fundamental respects. Some are entirely comfortable with the notion that viruses are non-living entities consisting of a central core of either DNA or RNA, nearly always surrounded by a protein coat. Seen in this way, viruses don’t do a bunch of things living organisms do. They don’t produce waste products, they don’t grow or develop, they lack any kind of energy metabolism, they don’t tend to respond to stimuli and they can’t reproduce (replicate) independently. They must rely on a host so must invade the cells of living things and hijack the host cells’ replication machinery to make new copies of themselves. They can move genetic material between organisms and it is widely upheld that some 8% of the human genome is derived from ancestral retroviruses that has over eons been incorporated into our DNA, our genetic blueprint or ‘book of life’. This general view, as it happens, is shared by the vast majority within the scientific community.
It’s worth recognising that viruses are in some ways more digital than living. In fact, they’re not living at all. Everything they do relies on a digital code made up of the four ‘letters’ or bases of DNA or RNA, comprised of sequences of four nitrogenous base pairs, namely adenine (A), cytosine (C), thymine (T) for DNA or uracil (U) in place of T for RNA, and guanine (G).
"It’s worth recognising that viruses are in some ways more digital than living. In fact, they’re not living at all."
This is why digital technology that humans have developed, that relies on computer technology, genomics and bioinformatics, such as Next Generation Sequencing (more on that later), is able to understand the language of viruses, and is helping unravel so many of the mysteries linked to virus-host interactions.
Even if you agree that viruses, as non-living entities, aren’t just a fake construct masterminded by a bunch of greedy humans, you may not agree that viruses are the causative agents responsible for diseases that have become regarded as “viral diseases”, such as smallpox, chickenpox, measles, polio, dengue, flu, HIV, hepatitis B or, for that matter, COVID-19.
In short, you might feel that Pasteur’s Germ Theory of Disease is misplaced or even entirely false, and has been misused as a vehicle to pedal vast amounts of vaccines and drugs to an unsuspecting public.
Among the array of differing views, perceptions and beliefs out there, there are two particular viewpoints that are not shared by the vast majority of us scientists out there.
The first is the notion that no virus of any sort has ever been proven to exist. The second, that doesn’t require this first notion to be accepted, is that the virus that was given the name SARS-CoV-2 by the World Health Organization (WHO), and has been associated with the COVID-19 pandemic formerly announced by the WHO in March 2020, has never been proven to exist.
The view that SARS-CoV-2 is entirely fictitious might be seen as enticing because it immediately reveals every aspect of the mainstream narrative to be a hoax. It also conveniently makes redundant the key corrective strategies offered by the mainstream, namely 'genetic vaccines' and antivirals.
"The view that SARS-CoV-2 is entirely fictitious might be seen as enticing because it immediately reveals every aspect of the mainstream narrative to be a hoax. It also conveniently makes redundant the key corrective strategies offered by the mainstream, namely 'genetic vaccines' and antivirals."
Paraphrasing the ‘No Virus Exists’ debate
Don’t shoot me, but I will do my best to try to paraphrase where we currently are with the so-called ‘virus debate’.
Virus deniers argue that virology doesn’t follow the scientific method that includes critical steps such as observation, development of hypotheses, and replicable, controlled experimentation to test and validate the hypotheses. Virologists will argue that they are dealing with a particularly challenging interaction because viruses are not organisms, they are simply bits of genetic information in the form of single or double-stranded RNA or DNA that is usually protected by a protein coat, and that viruses can only multiply if they dodge the host’s immune system and find their way into a given host cell with suitable receptors, and then successfully take over its replication machinery. This means virologists have had to develop unique methods specific to virology and individual viruses. It also means that recent developments in whole genome sequencing technology have triggered a massive acceleration of the field of virology (including vaccine and antiviral development) because it allows the active part of a virus to be understood according to the 4 letter genetic language of nature.
Among the key tenets upheld by virus denialists is the idea that the virus hasn’t been isolated and purified, and it hasn’t been observed to be infectious or capable of causing disease (i.e. be pathogenic). They say the often non-human (such as green monkey/Vero) cell cultures on which viruses are supposedly grown and concentrated are contaminated with antibiotics, heavy metals and other nasties. Virologists claim these are necessary to stop mycoplasmas, bacteria and other microbes contaminating samples and they don’t damage the non-living RNA or DNA nucleic acids that represent the ‘guts’ of any virus.
When particles that are claimed to look like previously described viruses are observed using, for example, electron microscopy, virus deniers say this is no proof these are viruses because the particles from these cultures have not been shown to be infective and cause the particular disease in question. They say these particles are likely just artefacts or exosomes – nano-sized extra-cellular signalling particles that contain nucleic acids that are produced in response to cellular stress and, specifically here, the abuses of the cell culture.
Others might be persuaded that the detailed scanning electron microscopy carried out by, say, the French group publishing in Frontiers in Microbiology over two years ago more than adequately shows the infectious cycle of SARS-CoV-2 – and not exosomes. Virologists and pathologists will argue they have limited options for culturing samples taken from humans; they can only use very few types of cell culture because all viruses have very limited hosts and can only infect them if the host cell has receptors specific to the particular virus, ACE2 receptors being proposed as the key receptors for SARS-CoV-2.
When researchers find a culturing system that works this then becomes the accepted system that others use, helping work in different labs to be comparable because the culture system (a controllable variable) is the same.
Virologists who are researching what they consider infectious or pathogenic (disease-causing) viruses claim that the cytopathic effects shown in cell cultures are caused by the virus hijacking the replication machinery of the cells in cell culture and provide evidence of infection.
Virus deniers go on to say the genetic sequences that are ‘read’ and computed from this cell culture soup provide only indirect, rather than direct, evidence of the existence of a virus because the sequence is now computer generated and exists in silico, not in the real world.
"Virus deniers go on to say the genetic sequences that are ‘read’ and computed from this cell culture soup provide only indirect, rather than direct, evidence of the existence of a virus because the sequence is now computer generated and exists in silico, not in the real world. "
These and more arguments were recently clearly voiced by Mike Stone, Eric Coppolino and Mark Bailey on the Dolores Cahill Show on TNT Radio.
Further momentum has been given to these views following Christine Massey’s Freedom of Information (FoI) requests of 208 different health and scientific institutions in over 35 countries around the world, that has apparently failed to show a single record of isolation and purification, having “been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever”.
Cutting to the chase
Out of all the noise and hubris, some of it twisted and amplified by lay followers whose understanding of science prevents them from critically appraising either side of the argument in a meaningful way, are two foundational claims by the virus denier sub-movement:
- The whole SARS-CoV-2 virus genome taken from an infected patient replete with its 30,000 base pairs has never been isolated and sequenced and therefore cannot be proven to exist
- This so-called ‘virus’ has not been shown to cause COVID-19 disease by satisfying Koch’s postulates, a methodology proposed originally by the German physician Robert Koch and microbiologist Friedrich Loeffler in 1884. The postulates were based on concepts developed by Koch’s former professor, Jakob Henle and others, such as Agostino Bassi, who are both credited with co-founding the theory that microorganisms are the cause of infectious diseases. The methodology built on the then emerging germ theory of disease as proposed by the French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur and the English surgeon, Joseph Lister. The four criteria, comprising what are sometimes also referred to as the Koch-Henle (or Henle-Koch) postulates, were recognised as deficient and not universal by Koch himself, shortly after their formulation. The postulates were subsequently updated after viruses were supposedly discovered, first by Rivers in 1937, then by Evans in 1976. They continue to evolve as our understanding of microbial communities and interactions explodes in concert with the rapid development of molecular biology and sequencing technology.
Both of the claims I’ve outlined above – like any – are open to critique or challenge, but each is nuanced, meaning different things to different people.
Has the virus been isolated?
It’s not hard to find research papers that claim isolation. Take, for example, the Harcourt et al paper that claims to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 from the first US covid-19 patient in January 2020, and then claims to have reinfected commonly used human and primate cell lines. Harcourt et al appeared to have done the whole sequencing as they registered their nasopharyngeal sample from the first US patient, here, and the oropharyngeal sample, here. You can look at up the accession numbers and see all the roughly 29,900 nucleotides that make up the whole genome with your own eyes by looking up the Genbank accession numbers.
Many countries claim to have isolated the full SARS-CoV-2 genome. For example, Italy’s claim is here, Korea’s is here and Turkey’s is here.
You can also compare isolates taken from different people with each other, or compare them with the much-discussed reference genome, described by Yong-Zhen Zhang’s team at the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center and the School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Patient data, chest radiographs, testing for other potential viral or pathogenic agents, as well as the full sequence was published in due course as Fan Wu et al in Nature in 2020. Time magazine wrote a piece in August 2020 that focused on some of the controversies around the timing of the release of this publication that has formed the genomic basis of all but the most recent crop of genetic vaccines, as well as PCR tests. The GenBank accession number for the 29,903 base pair length genome (the human genome is 3 billion base pairs in length for comparison) is currently MN908947.3 and dates from 17 January 2020. It replaces the previously uploaded version (GenBank: MN908947.2)
Virus deniers claim this reference genome is largely computer generated. While that’s a partially correct claim, it doesn’t mean the genome sequence is invalid because it’s lodged on a computer, the system that is used to help humans understand the meaning of the sequence. The methods in the Nature paper tell you it's been sequenced on the high throughput Illumina Next Generation Sequencing system and that fits with Zhang's claim in Time magazine (above) that it was done and dusted in just 40 hours. I'm rather more interested in why there are differences in the nucleotide sequences between the different uploads to GenBank and a reader may have an explanation about this of which I'm unaware.
"I'm rather more interested in why there are differences in the nucleotide sequences between the different uploads to GenBank and a reader may have an explanation about this of which I'm unaware."
Computers are an integral part of any high-throughput sequencing system, this being a rapidly developing part of genomic science and molecular biology that is helping us to better understand the genetic composition, interaction and evolution of different life forms, from gut and soil microbes, through to the advanced forms of life like ourselves.
High throughput sequencing allows reads across whole genomes to be done very rapidly and cheaply by anyone with access to the technology. This is the domain of Next Generation Sequencing or NGS. This type of high throughput sequencing is a far cry from its predecessor, shotgun sequencing, that required the cloning of small sections of human DNA in bacteria prior to them being sequenced one DNA fragment at a time, before the whole genome patchwork could be stitched back together like a giant puzzle.
This laborious, potentially error-prone way of unravelling genomic data was the reason it took two decades to sequence the majority of the human genome (albeit not entirely correctly), celebrated as one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time in 2003 under the banner of the Human Genome Project. At that time, the capillary electrophoresis-based Sanger sequencing system used was limited to reads of only around 200 nucleotide base pairs because it could only read one DNA fragment at a time. NGS today, based on the widely used Illumina platform can now read hundreds of thousands of genes in parallel.
Claims by mainstream scientists of isolation and whole genome sequencing from the US, Italy, Korea, Turkey and elsewhere won’t likely satisfy virus deniers. They say these are not examples of true purification and isolation, reflecting their concern that other sequences from other organisms have contaminated the culture or sequences have been damaged by the chemical nasties and obscure the results.
Here we arrive at a junction, if not a road block. There are a limited number of accepted (many would argue tried and tested) systems of efficiently sequencing the genetic information that makes up a virus. The reason there are so few is because it’s a challenging task because you want to ensure you are looking at the right genetic information and the viruses require highly specific conditions and host cells to replicate.
Somewhat ironically, the standardisation of methods is there to make comparisons between labs more valid by reducing controllable sources of variation. Just as ironic, the antibiotics, heavy metals and other ‘nasties’ that are added to culture media for viruses – that virus deniers complain are contaminating samples – are actually there to prevent contamination with other microbes that might otherwise incorporate their genetic material in the culture and make them less pure genetically.
So let’s park this obstacle for now before we decide if it’s a deal breaker or if there's any chance of reconciliation between opposing sides.
Are Koch’s postulates mandatory, relevant or obsolete?
Although some of what we’ve already discussed challenges some of the virus denier positions, the inability for SARS-CoV-2 to satisfy Koch’s postulates has become one of the most enduring arguments driving the virus denial movement.
Let’s have a quick sniff down this rabbit hole. While we could plunge deep into it, I will keep it very brief because of what we know from the totality of evidence of microbe and host interactions.
Many are under the apprehension that Koch’s four postulates must be satisfied to prove that a virus causes disease. in brief: 1) the microorganism must be found in diseased not healthy individuals; 2) it must be cultured from a diseased individual; 3) when a cultured microorganism is exposed to a healthy individual it must re-create the same disease, and; 4) it must be able to be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased individual and matched against the original microorganism.
Even a cursory understanding of science or medicine tells you the original postulates aren’t always satisfied for conditions that are widely regarded as being caused by viruses. This of course strengthens the hand of the virus deniers, which is why clinging to Koch’s postulates makes so much sense to them. For example, we know that many viruses, like Epstein Barr that’s associated with glandular fever, or Herpes simplex that’s associated with cold sores, may be present in healthy individuals who express no symptoms of disease.
"Even a cursory understanding of science or medicine tells you the original postulates aren’t always satisfied for conditions that are widely regarded as being caused by viruses."
Such persons are regarded as ‘asymptomatic’ – and at this point I would add that I think the concept of ‘asymptomatic disease’ is a contradiction. You can be infected and asymptomatic, but if you have no symptoms of disease, you shouldn’t be regarded as diseased, surely? Or have I missed something?
Ultimately, as all of us in the health freedom movement – on both sides of this virus debate – will agree: it depends on the terrain, hence the critical need to consider the host and the environment in any assessment of any host-microbe interaction.
The reason a small subset of viruses are associated with, and are often thought of as causing diseases in humans – recognising causation as a troublesome concept because of the number of variables and cofactors often involved – is that under certain conditions many of the viruses known to infect humans find their way into humans via highly specific receptors. If they’re already in your body (as with Herpes and cold sores), they may change from a latent to an active state, and then their replication might go into overdrive, induce cytopathic effects and contribute harm to any number of our bodily systems. Based often on decades of investigation and pattern recognition, the cytopathic effects related to particular viruses have been attributed to specific pathologies that have been named as diseases – this being one of the foundational principles of the medical discipline of pathology.
Postulate 3 is also a no-goer. What if the healthy individual’s innate immune system prevents the virus from gaining traction? If you can’t satisfy postulate 3, you can’t satisfy 4 either.
Interestingly, in Koch’s own address before the Tenth International Congress of Medicine in Berlin in 1890 (cited by Rivers in 1937), he mentioned, even before he knew of the existence of non-living microbes that we now call viruses, of certain instances in which only the first two postulates might need to be satisfied to validly prove disease causation.
Better to consider Koch’s original postulates as guidance rather than mandatory (in the knowledge this is what the man himself would likely do) and fast-track briefly to the two most significant updates to Koch-Henle’s original criteria. The first by Rivers (1937), the second by Evans (1976), respectively.
The distinguished American virologist, Thomas Rivers, introduced a lot more flexibility to Koch’s original postulates to take into account the vagaries of viruses, their requirement for very specific host cells and conditions, and the fact that disease doesn’t always manifest as a result of infection. He upheld that blind adherence to the postulates might be more of a hindrance than a help. He also introduced the idea that a given disease might arise from more than one cause – a concept that’s remarkably in tune with any modern interpretation of pathogenesis following specific viral infection.
Rivers also brought in the pathologist’s perspective, arguing that the patterns and frequency of disease associated with specific viruses is particularly important. That carries through to today and COVID-19 in the way in which CT scans of infected persons’ lungs that showed characteristic ground-glass opacity rapidly became important diagnostic criteria for COVID-19-specific pneumonia during the early waves of infection (Omicron rarely induces such pathology), distinguishing this disease from other respiratory or pulmonary infections.
As the virus evolves, owing to interactions between its own, probably partially engineered, genome and its changing host, particularly given the selection pressure induced by mass genetic ‘vaccination’, both the virus’ genome (especially the spike protein) and the symptoms have changed. The disease has become milder and less often affects the lower lung. Such are the moving goalposts and difficult-to-predict course of an evolving virus-host interaction.
All in all – any rationally minded person who cares to read Rivers’ 1937 update with a good understanding of the totality of available evidence from the clinical examination of cohorts of COVID-19 diseased patients, as well as from gene sequencing, electron microscopy, histology and pathology, will likely be satisfied that SARS-CoV-2 is an obligate causal (but not sole causal) agent that induces COVID-19 disease.
If we could teleport Thomas Rivers in for a fireside chat, we might expect him to say that you can claim COVID-19 disease is causally associated with SARS-CoV-2 if SARS-CoV-2 is always present in all cases of disease. We’d then have to explain all about genetic vaccines and how, these days, people’s bodies are genetically programmed to produce the cytopathic part of a virus that’s claimed to infect over 600 million people so far and that can produce a similar cluster of symptoms, plus some others. He’d likely look perplexed and ask what we call this new self-induced disease. We’d say it hasn’t got an agreed name as yet; some of us call it ‘spikopathy’ or genetic vaccine injury, while others deny it occurs at all. He'd probably suggest we sort it out sooner rather than later if we're genuinely interested in the public's health. Or he'd opt to return to his maker and count his blessings this wasn't his problem.
Indeed – I'd urge that it’s a whole lot more important we sort this scientific skirmish out with the medical and scientific community, as well as with the WHO, CDC and others, rather than spending too much time arguing about whether viruses exist or not.
A quick 4 decade leap to the second important update of the Koch-Henle postulates, by American viral epidemiologist and professor of epidemiology at the Yale University School of Medicine, Professor Alfred Evans. By this stage Evans was really thinking about the differences between viruses and bacteria, and recognised Rivers’ contribution to understanding the complexity of the relationship, including the clinical symptoms of disease, the immunological responses by the host and the epidemiology.
In his 1976 review, Evans takes the reader on quite a journey, including of Robert Huebner’s ‘Prescription for the Virologist’s Dilemma’, listing 9 conditions necessary for establishing a virus as a cause for a specific human disease. In the absence of gene sequencing technology, Evans proposed that indirect immunological evidence should be sufficient to prove causation.
He lists 5 criteria (see below), all of which can be readily satisfied with bucket loads of existing data on SARS-CoV-2 and the associated immunological response in susceptible persons that comprise sequelae that characterise COVID-19 disease.
Extract from Evans AS. Causation and Disease: The Henle-Koch Postulates Revisited. Yale J Biol Med, 1976, 49, p. 184
There are even more recent attempts to bring Koch-Henle postulates in line with modern day virology that now cannot, and should not, be separated from the genomic and bioinformatics tools that have thrown open the door to a much deeper understanding of living systems and their interaction with microbial communities.
Germ versus Terrain Theories
If you’re still reading this – well done! You’re around 4,500 words in and the journey I’ve taken you on brings us to what I feel is the most interesting place of all, because it’s where we can have a real win – for humanity, and for science and medicine.
It’s where we can get to with the interplay between two prevailing theories of disease that can be associated with infectious agents: the germ theory and the terrain theory, the latter often being attributed to the work of a contemporary of Pasteur, Antoine Béchamp.
Just as we recognise the limitations of the Koch-Henle postulates because of the historic era in which they were conceived, we must do the same with Béchamp. That means applying less of a focus on his microzymes and more on what makes up the genetic, physiological, immunological, metabolic and environmental terrain of the host and its surroundings. A big part of that includes the microbial communities associated with the host. It includes the pattern of gene expression of the host that is in turn a product of transgenerational inheritance and environment (i.e. epigenetics).
These are general concepts that Rivers and Evans were already beginning to grapple with, but they had yet to understand just how crucially important the microbial world was to the function of natural systems. Their minds were still tinged with a Pasteurian hew that made them think of microbes as, at best, commensal, but, more often, harmful. This notion was given a huge boost following Fleming’s discovery of penicillin in 1928 that spawned the advent of industrial scale pharmaceuticals in the Post-WWII era. The virus deniers rightly call out the harms that have been perpetrated on the public because of an excessive focus on germ theory to the exclusion of the individual's terrain.
In 2020, I wrote a piece on ‘covid myopia’ that identified 52 risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease, the majority being modifiable. Following is a self-explanatory summary figure from the article.
Health authorities, governments and even the majority in the medical profession were mute on most of these, such has been the political and economic drive to have us accept the latest patented weapons of germ warfare, new fangled, previously unproven ‘genetic vaccines’ and antivirals.
Without any robust evidence, these products were immediately mislabelled as “safe and effective” and marshalled on the world’s population, the producers being indemnified by governments in the event of any damages. It turns out, those who wanted to capitalise on the situation, one that was largely of their own making, knew there was no money to be made out of focusing on helping people to build more resilience into their physiology and terrain. They also undoubtedly knew that helping people build the resilience of their terrain would lessen their ability to control the masses — through mechanisms like social distancing, masking, mass surveillance, and mass vaccination.
Evolutionary and environmental ecology
Evolutionary biology is a fascinating discipline in itself but more relevant to our understanding of evolution and the role of viruses is an ecological perspective that is more commonly associated with evolutionary ecology.
We’re really beginning to understand that the progression of life on Earth is dependent on how living things interact as whole systems and interacting communities with both the living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) world.
We’re learning that viruses likely preceded life on Earth and as evolutionary engineers were probably involved in helping it develop. In totality, viruses do way more good than harm – despite the relationship often being a bit messy early on when a virus discovers a new host. Living systems look to establish stability and they do this through developing complex interactions and feedback systems between the genes of living organisms and non-living things, including viruses, and their respective environments.
Technology, chemicals and radiation sources created by human beings have such profound impacts on both living and non-living systems, we must now factor these in so that we can manage interactions that don’t destroy the exquisite balance of life on our planet, and humanity itself.
Few recipients of Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca’s C19 ‘genetic vaccines’ will likely have grappled with the notion that their body’s production of a patented protein, modelled on an engineered virus, sets them on the slippery slope towards transhumanism.
In this treatise, for what it’s worth, I’ve made my own views on the existence of viruses clear enough. I know it won’t be sufficient to convert a resolute virus denier, much in the same way a Flat Earther will have trouble convincing the others among us who have bought into the idea the earth is round – or at least roundish. But this article doesn't aim to convert anyone. It simply provides a vehicle for free expression, a prerequisite for scientific discourse, and a call for us to focus on the things we can do when we are empowered and united on issues over which we share similar views.
I must also offer a word of caution: while those encouraging virus denial may be basking in the notion that they have just given the millions out there a good reason to say ‘no’ to genetic vaccines and antivirals about which they sense a problem, they should also contemplate the impact of a change of mind (or heart). A change that might occur if they struggle to take on board the idea that 100% of the morbidity and mortality that has been associated with COVID-19 over these last 3 years had nothing at all to do with any virus. What is the evidence of it being caused entirely by a catalogue of non-viral agents, from 5G, masks and stress, to bad diets, lack of physical activity and chemtrails? Try that one on for size given the available data.
The more we get diverted by sideline scuffles that divert our focus to irreconcilable differences in view, the less energy we get to apply to the gamut of areas over which our views are aligned. Also, the less likely we are to help co-create a future we might consider fit for future generations.
Let’s get this one put to bed sooner rather than later – and re-unite our movement based on the multitude of issues we do agree on. Let’s forge ahead with the extraordinarily ambitious task of re-building a world that respects and values humanity, human dignity and freedom, as well as nature. And one that tolerates and respects differences in opinion or perspective.
But let's not forget for one minute Doug Altman and Mark Bland’s catch cry, ‘The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’
Read Dr Meryl Nass's Substack article asking Is the virus real?
>>> Ready to break free from the current narrative? Want to understand more about how people are being coerced and manipulated? Or are you a health professional who would like more tools for your practitioner toolkit? Find out more about our upcoming training day, Behaviour and Communication Magic
>>> Feel free to republish - just follow our Alliance for Natural Health International Re-publishing Guidelines
>>> If you’re not already signed up for our weekly newsletter, sign up for free now using the SUBSCRIBE button at the top of our website – or better still – become a Pathfinder member and enjoy benefits unique to our members.
>>> Return to the homepage
Proudly affiliated with: Enough Movement Coalition partner of: World Council for Health
your voice counts
02 September 2022 at 8:44 am
Eloquently written and I don't disagree about toxins or "the jab" but I don't find this article convincing at all about why viruses should exist. It's more a work of theoretical art than science in that respect. Where is the empirical data?
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
02 September 2022 at 7:18 pm
Thank you David - I'd like to clarify that the article wasn't written to convince someone who has made up their minds that viruses don't exist, that they do exist. The empirical data I see (a little of which I have referenced), but I know you don't, such are the differences in our perception. My hope is that those of us who share differences of view on some things, but similar views on a whole range of others, can find a way of tolerating the differences so we can get on with the job of rescuing humanity.
04 September 2022 at 8:15 pm
Could you show me undeniable evidence where any alleged biological virus has been directly observed in real time (all vital occurring processes with it to declare it as such) or any alleged biological virus has been acquired as an independent variable and verified as such in a series of scientific experiments?
Also could you show me undeniable evidence where healthy animals or people are getting sick from interaction with sick animals and people?
05 September 2022 at 8:42 pm
I appreciate your article and sincere efforts. I try to be discerning regarding the source of the information I use to make decisions and have some issues regarding some of the tone of your article. I found that you were condescending to those who are examining the viral "theory". There must also be a better name than viral "deniers" such as questioners. We all know that "deniers" is reminiscent of Holocaust deniers which is certainly not neutral.
Also, I would greatly appreciate if you could contact Dr. Mike Yeadon and ask his reasons fro signing on to the experiments which you characterize as ridiculous as asking shoppers to do so while standing on their heads. Dr. Yeadon is certainly familiar with viruses and experimental protocols and if he thinks these experiments have the possibility of being done properly and of providing relevant information, I would be interested in his input on this subject. He certainly has more to lose by siding with the other side than you do with siding with the "mainstream" position.
02 September 2022 at 1:33 pm
To suggest viruses might well exist because of the lack of data/evidence supporting chemtrails (of apparent toxic metals & in Australia's case, toxic airborne 'vaccines'), masks (toxic CO2, fungi, lack of oxygen, nano sized graphene and mask fibres getting into the mouth, throat & lungs) to explain all the apparent COVID deaths is a bit ridiculous as the chemtrail components and mask studies have been documented and clearly are not helping.
But the cell tower transmitters have been studied over the years and found to have a physiological response to the human flesh: it heats it up. Yes, we don't know what damage cell tower radio transmission radiation does to the human body because we don't test for it or long term effects (I used to work in the telecommunications industry and I'm a IT Quality Manager). It is suspicious that the hotspots for the high 'Covid deaths' were apparently the same time the 5G rollout went live in Wuhan and North Italy. Apparently, the 5G radiation results in the same flu-like symptoms.
And you forgot to mention the hospitals, perhaps because you can't even bring yourself to entertain the possibility that medics would kill by mistake or by knowledge. It is well documented that the first treatment the hospital try to get you to accept is Remdesivir drug which is known to damage the liver or kidney that results in the lungs filling with liquid which can then be deliberately miss-diagnosed as Pneumonia and ready for the kill move of administering Midazolam (a lethal injection drug for death row criminals) and morphine, then calling the death and any other death in the hospital as 'COVID'.
I believe much of the industries/corporates are captured; funded by people who wish to depopulate the planet and control anybody who actually survives their treatments and force more medical treatments for the safety of society (money).
We are all in a one-sided war on humanity and we will be extremely fortunate if we make it through the coming years even with all our healthy blood, physiology and terrain. I am open to the possibility that viruses really do exist, but tell me - has there ever been one virus that has been purified and isolated without adding it to a soup of other things? If so, I would agree with you, but if not, you made the case for the whole idea of viruses to be just some theory. After we have lied to so much with the fake science, how you can talk about viruses as if they are proven when if there really hasn't been a single virus purified and isolated, then sorry, this is nonsense and very very dangerous as we have just experienced; it's too easy for the evil ones to call somebody diseased when they are not ('asymptomatic spread'), demand we follow 'the science' (their fake science) and kindly accept lethal injections called 'vaccinations', force people into camps, loss of liberties, slavery etc.
I'm sorry, but those of us who survive this war (probably health conscience critical thinkers) will have no time for 'in silico' (computer modelled) viruses or anything else. Koch's postulates make perfect sense and stupid attempts by others to reflect modern ideas just loses the believability of the tests because we have to BELIEVE in what can not be proved (by purification & isolation & Koch's postulates). So, we will say no to all that dangerous medical nonsense in the future - we know where that leads.
I was shocked by your description of a virus as a 'non-living microorganism', I mean WHAT?! Oh please, are we believing in ghosts and vampires now? Iron becomes rusty - do we say this is non-living microorganism? I'm sorry, this virus theory is losing credibility the more is known about it.
It seems pretty clear the WHO declared an pandemic emergency (after changing the definition of what a pandemic is) based on a non-isolated virus because the WHO wrote that on their website.
Despite a 1.5 million euro prize for the first person to isolate the virus, nobody has succeeded in claiming the prize; 2.5 years on and no purified & isolated virus.
Yes, I agree that the absence of a virus doesn't prove there is not something, but I completely disagree with your suggestion that this is necessarily a novel coronavirus. Could it not simply be a deadly cold/flu?
It is well documented that the PCR test is not a diagnostic test -all 'positives' are therefore false/fake.
It is also well documented that Drosten, the German who created the PCR 'test' based it on SARCOV1, something not what they said it was. Drosten should be distrusted also because he wrote a paper proving asymptomatic spread based on one person, who later turned out was symptomatic and yet the politicians still claim asymptomatic spread occurs.
You want us to move on from the virus/no virus question, but how can we when the powers that be are captured, medical science is captured, the main stream media are captured and everybody is brainwashed or too lazy to think or simply can't handle the truth that the trusted are killing the people (by mistake or intention).
In our health community, surely it is obvious there is no SARCOV2 and COVID is simply flu & pneumonia? The likelihood is 5G on full power killed/damaged a lot of people and the hospitals killed many with their protocols and toxic drugs, 'do not resuscitate', starvation and 'Good Death' 'End Of Life' procedures. UK law changed to allow doctors to kill without prosecution if they thought they were treating COVID. 3 years of Midazolam used by mid 2020. Come on.
And then, the 'vaccination' lethal injections. Only to be repeated with more fake tests for more fake viruses to treated with more boosters and more new vaccinations. Until we get a very firm grip on this medical tyanny, this evil agenda to control and depopulate, we are destined to have every winter follow the same pattern. What's your guess what the next lockdown and pandemic will be? MonkeyPox? Climate Change? My bet is Marburg. They'll say, we have the PCR test. The virus will kill 80%, so no choice in whether or not to take the new vaccination.
Sorry, imaginary 'in silico' viruses must be restricted to theoretical research only. We must go back to Koch's postulates and become grounded in reality and safety. Medics will forever be distrusted and controlled. Governments must be miniscule. We must promote Natural heath including Nuka (fermentation of vegetables), pickling, probiotics, complete diet, oxygenation of the blood, fasting and physical fitness.
Keep up the great work by the way!
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
02 September 2022 at 7:36 pm
Hi Hugh - I think you misunderstood my point about all the cofactors. I stated my case in a lay article as I why I think viruses exist based on available evidence, and I'm very happy to accept that others, especially non-scientists, will not see what I see. Re my single reference to 'non-living microorganisms', that was in relation to Koch and I might have done better to put it in quotes. When describing them as non-living, I've more commonly called them "non-living entities". Thank you for pointing this out, and I have changed the wording in the statement relating to Koch to read "non-living microbes". But your detailed comment spells out the many other things that we agree on.
02 September 2022 at 4:38 pm
I think you have missed the point completely in your article. You have misrepresented the arguments of the 'virus deniers' you have named. Your entire article is based on the premise that the Germ theory is fact and you have misrepresented what the 'virus deniers' arguments and what they call terrain theory. You have presented a circular argument based on a logical fallacy by using references to demonstrate your point that apparently
prove the existence of SARS-CoV-2 based on the fradulent and deceptive science, the very 'science' that the 'virus deniers' are contesting.
The 'virus deniers' argument is an outright rejection of the germ theory. They argue that 'germs' do not cause disease at all and no purified 'germ' has ever demonstrated to be the cause of any disease. They do not believe in the concept of 'infection', that being, that 'germs' are inherently pathogenic. Rather they propose that 'germs' are absolutely essential, part and parcel of us and only become problematic for us when the terrain is compromised, in which case the microbes do what they are meant to do, bioremediation. The terrain theory does not prupose that if you do not look after your body you are more vulnerable to 'infection'. Rather it pruposes that lack of care will result in overall body toxicity and bioremediation by the microorganisms that are part and parcel of our being. This is what results in sickness and explains the microbes role in disease. Nothing from the outside attacks your body and makes you sick unless it be a toxic substance. There is no concept of 'infection' or 'contagion' in the terrain theory as you have proposed so there is no common ground here to agree upon. Germ theory and terrain theory are diametrically opposed and can never coexist
In the section Paraphrasing the ‘No Virus Exists’ debate
You mention that the 'virus deniers' have an issue with the contamination of the animal cell cultures. Although this is true, their argument is more fundamental than this. They argue that there is no need for a cell culture in the first place. The virus should be DIRECTLY isolated from biological samples. The host from which you take the biological sample IS the culture. Meaning, if it's a respiratory virus that is making someone sick, then that person's lungs are the culture and that the virus should be isolated directly from this natural culture.
Indeed, in the entire history of virology, this has never been done.
In the same section of your article you mention that the reason 'virus deniers' reject the genetic sequencing is that they claim it is indirect proof. You are incorrect here. They do not accept it as any form of proof whatsoever, rather they call it an outright fraud and deception because, a purely theoretical, computer generated genome from a toxic slop of biologocal soup, is presented as the actual viral Genome.
Indeed, not a single virus has ever been isolated directly from any biological sample, purified, biochemically characterised, it's genome sequenced, photographed by electron microscopy and it's transmission and pathogenicity demonstrated. Neither has any purified culture of any bacteria ever been shown to be pathogenic.
The foundation upon which conventional medical science is built and promulgated upon is fundamentally flawed. Fraud and deception are being disguised as science and here you are calling to ignore this fundamental argument and for us all to unite upon falsehood and misguidance.
True health freedom will only be achieved when proper scientific methods are applied upon firm principles. You can not mix truth with falsehood and then expect a positive outcome.
For this reason, I see yourself and the other so called 'health freedom' movement Doctors as part of the global problem and you are far from being part of the solution. Adopt true and transparent science and you will truly find the freedom you seek.
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
02 September 2022 at 7:40 pm
Thank you for clarifying your position - and your comment provides us with a harsh reminder that this issue isn't likely to blow over and will splinter a movement that was really starting to get some traction.
02 September 2022 at 8:16 pm
It's better that this so called 'health freedom' movement doesn't gain any traction as it is just an extension of the existing corrupted model built upon flawed and fradulent principles and methods. Just as the current establishment cloaks itself with the garb of authoritative science for vested interests, I fear the ring leaders of this 'health freedom movement' will become the dictators, oppressors and the new 'authority' because they are failing to address fundamental flaws and out right scientific fraud.
The individuals you named in a disparaging way as the 'virus deniers' are not arguing anything new. They are trying to present the true biology and a natural explanation to the phenomenon of disease and why it occurs and what we can do help a diseased state. The germ theory has been contested from day one and the true biology of life built upon water has been proposed. This is what true health freedom means and until we challenge the current status quo head on, the 'pandemics' will never stop and our freedoms will continue to be stripped away from us.
The fact that the entire history of virology has never ever isolated a single virus from any biological sample of a sick person (no independent variable) and not conducted any control experiments for the Cytopathic effects, is sufficient to end the argument!
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
03 September 2022 at 8:13 am
Thank you for your for your comment which does go to the heart of the difference of view. On SARS-CoV-2, it's the reason I gave the examples from the US (Harcourt et al), Italy (Licastro et al), Korea (Park et al) and Turkey (Tastan et al) but recognise this isn't accepted by some who don't accept either the isolation procedure or the sequencing methods used to 'read' the 4 letter code of the nucleic acid.
03 September 2022 at 1:16 pm
Yes your exactly right about the evidence being unsatisfactory. This is why I now refer to anyone who presents these so called 'isolation' experiments as proof for the existence of any virus as 'virus deceivers'.
Presentation of 'evidence' of this sort is arguing using circular reasoning. The 'evidence' that is constantly provided to us of virus existence is the very thing that is being heavily contested.
The only way to resolve this matter is to accept the virus challenge 👇
Dr Stefan Lanka has not put his name on document because he feels that the virus debate has already been settled and there's no need to repeat the same argument over and over. I agree with him. All one has to do is to objectively look at what has thus far been presented in this debate.
Despite this, the true health freedom seekers are reaching out with this new challenge, meeting the Virologists and their supporters half way, to prove the existence of pathogenic viruses using their own methods.
This should just be another day at the office for the Virologists crew but why is there so much resistance and so much conflict on something so straightforward!
Because it already has been attempted and virology has already disproved itself, it simply can't be done because pathogenic viruses simply don't exist.
03 September 2022 at 1:17 am
Thank you Hamza. Your response was written perfectly. You said in a few plain simple words what all of the scientists have been trying to say. And, as far as splintering a movement, there is still to date no collective movement to do anything about the obvious tyranny being forced upon us by the same which own and control our so called medical system. This because those of you who have a some clout and influence and created many organizations to supposedly fight to do something suffer from both fear of speaking out and saying too much, and from ego. You can't win the battle by yourself (and your one organization), so you just contribute and keep supplying the info. you can speak up about.
We now have thousands of doctors and scientists all over the world who have signed a decree, a declaration? or lawsuit that is with some German lawyers who are supposedly suing the WHO, and that is since a year ago now. Nothing else has been accomplished to fight, from anyone, to collectively change things. How about you doctors and scientists get together, (and yes I suppose you must have a lawyer for this) and write up a decree that the tests for the "virus" are fake and can not be used. This is something we all agree on right? Then you personally take it to your government. And you all get everyone on board with just this one issue.to do the same. This would have stopped all the tyranny long ago. I wrote such suggestion to several of you almost two years ago now. Without their fake medicine tests, their entire operation is shut down. The masks, lockdowns, and it would have stopped the vaccine tyranny. It would have ended the fake pandemic. (You do realize it is a fake pandemic, right?)
But it is ongoing, and now "variants", and more vaccines, and soon a vaccine for haemorrhoids and anything they can sucker people for. Millions are dead and many times more have had their bodies devastated and are disabled. And, all because of a test that said there was a virus, a plague.
And millions are dead, and maimed from the fake medicine and vaccines which have been inflicted upon the world for the last several decades.
The issue of a stance on weather a virus even exist or not is in line with the issue of a test for such, if we really want to show how bogus the lie is. If we emit truth, then we are short changing our neighbor, and allowing them to stumble and fall for other lies perpetrated upon us by the bastards. To show that our entire medical system is false and corrupt is no deterrent from fighting for our freedom. It is an asset.
Apparently, also, Robert, you deem, that through the fake science given us by our corrupt medical system is evidence that viruses are detectable, and that SARS COV2 exists (with the help of some chemical wangling and a computer). As far as "splintering" is concerned, who is splintering? Maybe you.
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
03 September 2022 at 8:32 am
Thanks for your input, Donald. I think we need to understand which movement we're talking about. I've been part of a global health freedom movement for over 20 years and this movement has had its most important challenge over the last 3 years given the systematic efforts by governments and the medico-industrial complex to generate unwarranted fear and mass formation in millions, massively overblow the seriousness of COVID-19, use flawed genetic surveillance methods (notably PCR), manipulate data left right and centre, release untested novel genetic agents on a global population that didn't need them, sideline informed consent and other principles of medical bioethics, suspend or remove a gamut of human rights including our autonomous right to manage our own health.... the list goes on. Among the greatest assets we've had over the last 3 years are - just in the US - are the likes of Peter McCullough, Bob Malone, Ryan Cole, Pierre Kory, Paul Marik, and Richard Urso. I am learning that those who don't agree that viruses exist are prepared to cut loose from all of those who do. That requires a split in the existing movement, the very thing many of us were hoping we might avoid. I will reach out to Sam, Mark, Tom, etc and see if there's any interest in bridge building - but recognise this may not be possible given that it seems from the comments above there may be a no deal with the rest of us.
03 September 2022 at 10:15 am
Hi Rob. You repeatedly express lack of optimism in any agreement being reached with the 'virus deniers'. I would like to present an analogy to what you are saying and a solution, if I may.
Imagine a vast farmland owned and controlled by a corrupt farmer who produces toxic food products on a toxic laden land and justifies his actions through distorting the facts, heavy censorship, manipulating science and outright fraud.
As a result of this tyranny, two groups of people arise to liberate people from this oppression. These are, the 'Health freedom' group and the 'virus deniers' group.
The 'health freedom' group proposes we deal with secondary and tertiary issues and ignore the fundamental issue of a toxic laden land. They propose the two groups work together and continue production upon the toxic laden foundations.
The 'virus deniers' recognise the superficial issues but prupose that until we don't purify the land and remove all of the toxicity and replace it with proper nutrition and restore vitality to the earth, we will never be able to free ourselves from this tyranny. They are essentially the true freedom movement!
Now, for the solution. Rob you have already referenced in your article a link to the virus challenge.
The 'virus deniers' have already reached out to anyone and everyone out there to settle this debate by meeting them half way. To prove the existence of any virus by VIROLIGIES OWN STANDARDS!
Rob, if you and the other esteemed members of your so called 'health freedom' movement like Bob Malone, Peter McCullough etc are sincere in freeing people from the shackles of the pharma-medical complex, then please accept the challenge that has been set out and signed by equally esteemed individuals.
The 'virus deniers' have already set the scientific standard upon which the fundamental issue of pathogenic viruses and by extension the entire germ theory of disease has been challenged.
This is the only way out of this mess Rob. Get on that phone and work with the 'virus deniers' on the virus challenge.
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
03 September 2022 at 11:08 am
Yes, Hamza. It's a little more complex than you suggest. But will be in touch with your Sam et al. And I do still have some optimism - just like the way the vast majority of us will happily collaborate on campaigns for human or environmental betterment regardless of beliefs on matters like evolution or spirituality.
03 September 2022 at 1:23 pm
Come on Rob, the virus challenge is very straightforward, logical, rational and in line with the proper scientific methods and principles. Get your team on board and let's settle this once for all (even though its already been settled).
I agree on mutual cooperation on matters of human and environmental betterment but the germ theory of disease is an enormous part of this betterment. In fact it is the core around which everything else revolves. It needs to be resolved.
We are with you guys side by side. Our parting of the way is when it comes to the Germ theory of disease.
05 September 2022 at 9:07 pm
Sam, Mark and Tom have proposed a scientific experiment which has apparently never been done, as a way toward "bridge building" and as a method toward finding truth. Maybe you can explain to them why their sincere effort is ridiculous and unhelpful? Maybe you can propose a more useful experiment? Isn't that how science proceeds toward truth?
03 September 2022 at 1:38 am
The lack of sound, replicable science using the method (independent and dependent variables, particle X causing disease Y) and employing negative controls to prove the existence of viruses is at the very heart of the matter. This is not some "scientific skirmish", the debate of virus existence, this is EVERYTHING. Brushing this discussion aside or belittling it to avoid disagreement or discord among the health freedom movement is a great diservice to science, to freedom, to our children and future generations. It will be a relentless, endless narrative of one deadly invisible boogeyman after another out to kill us. It is the ultimate weapon against humanity and must be exposed as the unproven hypothesis it remains to this day. Those of us who question "novel virus causing novel disease" do not need to come up with a better fairy tale to explain human illness that appears contagious. Those who accept viral theory, those making the positive claim, must provide proof. This has been tried in experimental settings and has always failed (Rosenau, for example). I don't say there are no viruses, I say I have yet to see satisfactory proof.
03 September 2022 at 8:37 pm
My only slight disagreement with what you have put forward is that I believe we do “ ….need to come up with a better fairy tale to explain human illness that appears contagious.”
Evidentially a lot of people in disparate parts of the Planet displayed common symptoms (designated as Covid 19 disease), many succumbed to serious health challenges, and some died. Unfortunately the mist simplistic explanation we have on the table so far is the spread of a contagious ‘virus’.
If we take the ‘virus’ out of the equation how do we begin to explain the above phenomena.
I await alternative theories with interest.
04 September 2022 at 8:19 pm
Based on the burden of proof we do not need a better fairy tale.
But if you were to ask me separately what could cause illness in each individual, my answer is their unhealthy lifestyle and polluted environment.
05 September 2022 at 12:47 pm
There's appears to be a preconceived notion in your question that the Germ theory is somehow a fact and you seek alternative theories. The truth to the matter is that the Germ theory is utter garbage and it has dispoved itself over the last 100+ years.
The alternative 'theories' are actually the facts. That being that human beings fall sick when..
1. They don't receive the proper nutrition
2. Are overburdened with toxic substances in air, food and water.
3. Have prolonged exposure to harmful EMF
4. Have perpetual and Intense negative emotions.
5. Sustain physical trauma
And a sixth factor that can be thrown in to the mix is the effects of the supernatural. The abrahamic faiths all have exorcism practices to expel evil entities and effects. But we won't get in to that. Let's stick to quantifiable and applied science relating to the first five ways a human can fall sick.
Notice that microbes are not in that list because microbes do not cause disease. They are part and parcel and absolutely essential for our existence and well being.
03 September 2022 at 1:49 am
Hi Rob. Just a thought. Have you discussed this issue with Dr. Sam Bailey?
You said..."What makes this latest polarisation unique is that it is the first that could do real harm to the truth and health freedom movement"...
Is it not vital then that those of us on the same side with differing views connect with each other and participate in open discussion on key issues such as this.
I love your work and appreciate everything you have done for health freedom over the last 20 plus years. I've followed Dr Sam Bailey for the last two years, initially on you tube and now on other platforms as she is now heavily censored. As you well know, you don't get silenced unless you're over the target.
I could ramble on but you get my drift. Keep up the good work. We shall not become silent:-)
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
03 September 2022 at 8:34 am
That's the next step, Ian. Your constructive comment is appreciated ;-)
07 September 2022 at 4:11 pm
Would have thought that should have been the first step :/
Nevertheless, I for one await you updating this article once you've opened a channel with the NoVirusTeam and have discussed your ideas (and hopefully those of McCullough, Malone etc if you have access) as to how they can improve or adapt their NoVirusChallenge as per their oft repeated requests.
03 September 2022 at 4:09 am
Though I agree there is the danger of this debate dissipating effort, I would nevertheless argue these kinds of fundamentalist arguments are necessary to slow down the seemingly unstoppable scientific / medical juggernaut that is trying, with the complicity of a profit driven pharmaceutical industry and a lax regulatory regime, to ‘medicalise’ our world.
An acceptance that viruses exist has unfortunately led to the dominant societal perspective that we are constantly under attack by a hostile unseen world of viruses, which requires an increasing application of vaccines to counter an ever growing list of threats. You only have to look at the exponential growth in the US childhood vaccine schedule over the last 50 years to see proof of this trend.
I agree this debate is unlikely to be resolved quickly or neatly, but at least it begins to highlight and question the perhaps uncritical assumptions underpinning modern virology, if only because those assumptions have become the implicit justification for the excessive use of pharmaceutical interventions to re-establish health at the expense of also cultivating a healthy ‘terrain’ which would prevent ill health in the first place.
If nothing else hopefully this debate will help re-balance the perceived relationship between ‘Germs’ and Terrain’.
Rob Verkerk https://www.anhinternational.org
03 September 2022 at 8:45 am
Thanks for your comment, Henry. Agreed. All of us in the counter movement(s) against the defective mainstream narrative, whether or not we believe in viruses, have huge issues with the way in which the germ theory has been used and abused to build the pharma complex, generate fear of microbes, dissociate people from natural systems, etc. Fully agree it's all about the terrain - we said this from the very start - as you can see from well over 275 articles we've written on this subject since March 2020, accessible in reverse chronological order in our 'covid zone': www.covidzone.org. We were highlighting the need to focus on the terrain from the start. These are among the reasons I still believe this splintering movement has so much in common and why it would be a mistake to see it fragment further, and potentially be divided and conquered.
Katarina Lindley DO FACOFP
04 September 2022 at 2:02 pm
The movement that has taken this virus SARS. coV2 doesn’t exist to viruses do not exist while very loud ignores the clinical aspect of viral spread. As family doctor treating children during the spread of RSV, or culturing herpes simplex from genital sores I find this approach reckless. To deny science makes them no better than the ones that are currently ignoring the science behind the vaccine injury mechanisms.
04 September 2022 at 3:31 pm
You hit the nail right on the head there by mentioning the denial of science. That's exactly what the virus pushers are doing and are now been called to task for their wrong doing. This 'culturing process' that you mention is the very thing that is being challenged.
The Virologists and their acolytes have no independent variable (the virus) which they can first prove the existence of before they add it to the cell culture. They are producing a biological toxic slop and then observing a cytopathic effect, which is attributed to a virus which was never introduced to the toxic slop as an independent variable. In addition the entire field of virology is bereft of any control experiments. How can they perform a control experiment when they don't have the independent variable (the virus) to exclude from the experiment!!
The absence of an independent variable and control experiments makes the entire field of virology null and void and all the published papers meaningless.
04 September 2022 at 8:21 pm
There is no proof of any infectious disease.
09 September 2022 at 8:55 pm
What about HIV, Exposure to HIV sexually in Heterosexual relationship is it not transmitted?
Christine Massey https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-have-no-record-of-any-virus-having-been-isolated-purified-virology-isnt-a-science/
09 September 2022 at 8:16 pm
Hi Katarina - you didn't cite any scientific evidence of "viral spread" or "viral" culturing.
I don't want to be like people who ignore scientific evidence of "vaccine" injuries, so please share the science that you are relying on when insisting that viruses do exist. I've asked you before during zoom calls with Doctors for Covid Ethics and you didn't supply any.
Note that I've asked the CDC for records of "virus" purification from bodily fluid/tissue, for dozens of alleged viruses and they have none:
04 September 2022 at 2:06 pm
Hi again Rob. The following discussion will be of interest to you. Let me know your thoughts as the 'virus deniers' make very clear their position here and have reaffirmed what I have spelled out here in response to the errors or misunderstandings in your article.
Dr Naseeba Kathrada Vukasa.org.za
04 September 2022 at 6:27 pm
Reading the comments was very interesting indeed. Hamza - I love your analogy. Henry - I totally agree with you - we need discussions like this to grow and learn. After working behind the scenes in getting ivermectin disbarred in South Africa - i was privy to the outskirts of the reality of the narrative. The fact that we are able to have discussions like this, gives me hope. We need to agree to disagree with respect and dignity. I sometimes wish that i can magically “unknow” - but - ignorance - is not bliss.
Thank you all for taking the time to read Rob’s article - and thank you Rob - for researching , and having the courage to post this much needed article.
I am sure we will engage in deeper discourse because of this
05 September 2022 at 11:42 am
Rob. Have you ever examined, in detail, the scientific arguments the no-virus team put forward. If you haven't, please read these three short PDF documents by Dr Lanka:
If you want further proof, you can translate the following four documents from the original German language:
To me, the evidence in these documents is absolutely irrefutable. The evidence virologists use to 'prove' the existence of viruses is completely anti-scientific and, in reality, is complete nonsense. Even top virology professors have been fooled by this. And it is solely because they have never bothered to check the veracity of the basic assumptions of virology.
Anne O'Reilly www.nzdsos.com
05 September 2022 at 1:04 pm
I would also like to thank you Rob for a very articulate summary of where we are in a complex and poorly understood field -so far, at least. And as Naseeba says, it's gratifying to have willingness in the comments to debate and argue points. As scientists, doctors and lay people we are trying to do our best to understand the last 2 years and in fact, the last how many decades when as Henry so aptly puts it ,the seemingly unstoppable medical and scientific juggernaut, aided by a profit driven Pharma and lax regulatory regimes have captured and medicalised most of the western democratic world. These times, where there is a pervasive unwillingness to engage in answering any questions or in any debate. This side ( as opposed to " our side" which, from the comments it's evident we ARE on the same side) will not care what conclusions we come to in this debate,. Just like all the other debates on lack of transparency, informed consent, ethics and human rights and why there is an imposition of an ineffective medical treatment that is causing untold harm and death.. Even if, in our eyes, this virus debate is pivotal to bringing down the whole juggernaut of oversimplified pseudoscience and propaganda, will it even impact the huge number of the population who have been convinced to follow along? They seem to have handed over responsibility to the juggernaut or are just plain confused and would rather leave these scientific /medical arguments to experts- any "experts" . I hear your concern Rob, as someone so experienced in these debates over decades ,that if we cannot model and engage in open, tolerant and curious discussions, agree to disagree even, we may lose the chance, somehow, to engage our captured humanity to join us in a show of strength and unity. To me, this seems the only way to gain the attention of the ones taking advantage of this time to push an agenda that is not playing out to be in the best interests of anyone. Thanks so much for this article and the chance to comment.
05 September 2022 at 1:50 pm
Is there no edit function on these comments? There are spelling errors in my post above caused by me trying to type too fast because the wife is hassling me to take the dog out for a walk.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
05 September 2022 at 5:28 pm
Hi Mike, thanks for taking the time to comment and add your thoughts to the debate. I've corrected the typos in your post that I can see. If you would like me to make any additional amendments please let me know.
Christine Massey https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
05 September 2022 at 2:41 pm
Hi Rob. I'm briefly mentioned in your article. You've written that there are 90 institutions on record as having failed to show a single record of isolation/purification of the alleged virus by anyone, anywhere, ever. There are in fact now 208 such institutions in over 35 countries, plus we have the CDC and other institutions on record with regard to many other never-shown-to-exist aka imaginary viruses.
Also, instead of linking to my site or any of the FOI responses, you have linked to Mark Crispin Miller's site, which then links to Global Research and the CDC. Please provide the links to the FOIs. Here they are:
FOIs re other imaginary viruses, never shown to exist:
Christine Massey https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
09 September 2022 at 8:18 pm
Hey Rob, I haven't had any response from you or anyone else at AFNHI to either of my communications re your error and omission regarding the worldwide collection of freedom of information responses that you mentioned in your article.
Melissa Smith https://www.anhinternational.org
12 September 2022 at 5:29 pm
Thanks so much for your email and comments. We have updated the article to reflect the updated information on the number of FoIs and the link you've provided.
10 September 2022 at 7:59 am
If we have no virus, what are people test positive to, why symptoms associated with a particular virus manifest in SOMEONE, millions of South Africans have died due to HIV and 102 thousand due to Covid-19, about 7.5 millions are currently diagnosed HIV positive and are on Arvs on daily bases and yet the are no virus
Why would tests determine one person positive and next person negative if they are not specific
On socioeconomic people can have access to all basic needs such as clean water, sanitation and nutrition but one might test positive due to reckless sexual behavior be either heterosexual or homosexuality
12 September 2022 at 7:53 pm
Medicine can kill - Dr Peter Duesberg who took Gallo's 'virus isolate' (soup with assumed HIV virus in it) and checked it in his lab and found it to be dormant, causing nothing - said it eloquently: Aids by prescription". So many lives taken and so many people's lives ruined by mistake or intention.
09 September 2022 at 7:23 pm
"virus deniers" is not the right words to use. How can one deny something that has never been shown to exist.
10 September 2022 at 9:09 am
Any one may respond to this comment/questions,
1. Some one said there's no transmission/contagion of viruses what about HIV is it not sexually transmitted (heterosexual and homesexual) and contact with bodily fluids of the infected person that is blood borne virus
2.If virus don't exist why is it symptoms associated with the particular virus manifest in the 'positive person' eg HSV1&2 cold sores and private parts sores, wasting and skin issues in case of HIV.
3.why would tests eliza and western blot detect and confirm antibodies to a particular virus, in other words why would one person test positive and others test negative if these test are not specific
4.Two people of same socioeconomic status may test differently based on their sexual behavior not necessarily socioeconomic status
5.Why is it that over 30 millions of people are on treatment for HIV
6. In the last 2 years over 3 millions died and such was accredited to Covid-19 as a cause of such deaths yet viruses don't exist
7.What then make people sick if not these different viruses why would people diagnosed with a particular virus eventually displaye same symptoms in the chronic state of desease
12 September 2022 at 6:31 pm
You can review these documents. Hopefully they clear up the answers to all of your questions.
People always ask me, if it’s not covid, what is making people sick? Without going through every single person claimed to be sick with COVlD, you must ask questions regarding their environmental exposures, diet, background, etc. then go from there. It’s a tangled web that may never be untangled as so many things contribute to the body being so out of balance that it starts to detox and manifests symptoms which people call dis-ease.
Are germ theory and contagious viruses really what we are being told? I look into what scripture reveals. (15 minute read)
4 Questions surrounding the science of covid that need to be answered. 30 min read
A more detailed look at the overall science of “virus” contagion and germ theory (45 minute read)
10 September 2022 at 1:14 pm
One thing that no one has directly said, yet, is that they lied. They created the lie and in doing so they created "evidence" (the patent), to back up the lie.
We wouldn't do it, but they would. Look at Fa.u.c.i he is all about lies... And every Canadian person who said the j.a.b is safe they lied.
Christine Massy, and others who helped her, it was like pulling teeth to get this info. That seems more like the "truth will out"".
Thanks for everyone's time.
13 September 2022 at 3:34 pm
Thanks for this article and all the Gr8 links and resources, particularly those which now populate these here comments😉
My only concern regards the tone of your article. It was set right from the beginning with your "virus denier(s)" ad hominin the ins and outs of which have already been well flogged by previous comments.
Now, regarding the scientific ins and out of whether SARScov2 exists I give you FDA's admission they do not have any with which to program their rtPCR "Test."[$] Please see pg 40, paragraph two (2):
"Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted,.." which is followed by, and I paraphrase, "...we instead used in vitro a suspension of human A549 cells and other genetic goop & goo we had on hand and bla, bla, bla."
Sorry, for me this is Cased Closed on the matter though, we still have the issue of all those millions of innocents caught in the crossfire who are now very, Very VERY dead.
In any good MURDER MYSTERY and yes, we are talking murder, the motivations of those pushing the "Germ Theory" - the "science" as it were - must too be examined as well as the trail of money in and out of their respective bank accounts. So, let me briefly mention a few of those who are suspects in our who dunnit murder mystery, "Who Killed the Virus"?
Anthony Fauci is, by his three (3)+ decades of actions, an NIH multi billon bux Bag Man.
Pfizer CEO Bourla OWNS all MSM which is lovingly "Brought to you by Pfizer."
Bill Gates & his father were/are avowed eugenicists.
Klaus Schwab of the VVorld E(XTERMINATION) Forum is an avowed eugenicists together with his dear and treasured mentor Henry Kissinger.
May Queen Elizabeth II R.I.P. but,
her loving cousin & husband Philip as well as their inbred son "King" Charles the III were/are avowed eugenicists. Charles is also a proud WEFer co-founder.
Robert Malone - look up his past & current financial ties and affiliations to NIH etc.
Look up the various heads of European, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, US & UK governments and you will find 50%+ are WEFer "Young Global Leader" graduates INCLUDING the newly appointed UK PM. ALL of them have remorselessly pushed the Covid Tyranny.
I save the best and last in my brief list for...
Frm POTUS Trump and his "Operation Warp Speed."
Those and many more are the suspects who may have had a direct hand in the killing of the virus😂
$ "The 'test' which is not a test which does not test for a virus which does not exist." - David Icke
22 September 2022 at 3:40 am
I have a lot of evidence from 2020 (and some before 2020) that COVID-19 was a hoax. It's only when the so-called vaccines started to be injected into the population (partly because of intimidation) that many became sick. It's the vaccines that are causing COVID symptoms and the vaccinated are shedding the components of the vaccines.
27 September 2022 at 1:02 pm
RE "How polarisation of views on SARS-CoV-2 and ‘pathogenic viruses’ will divide and conquer the health freedom movement"
A perceptive 12-year old can see, and could see FROM THE START, that Covid-19 has nothing to do with real science but it's all political (ie, it's a GIANT scam).
Therefore, ALL the DIVISIVE talk and discourse about so-called scientific issue regarding Covid is ALL "polarisation" and guess who is benefiting from this polarizing circus?
Those who planned this GIANT scam --- see “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” at https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
Without a proper understanding, and full acknowledgment, of the true WHOLE problem and reality, no real constructive LASTING change is possible for humanity.
And if anyone does NOT acknowledge, recognize, and face (either wittingly or unwittingly) the WHOLE truth THEY are helping to prevent this from happening.
If you are in the United States and your employer has mandated the toxic/lethal COVID jabs, you can register to receive a "Medical Exemption Certificate" for free at https://lc.org/exempt
Etienne de la Boetie2 Government-Scam.com
28 October 2022 at 5:11 pm
This article was a giant waste of time but the comments are pure gold. I am an author exposing how inter-generational organized crime runs the "Government", media and academia. I am working on the 5th edition of my book "Government" - The Biggest Scam in History which will be retitled: "Government" and "The Covid" - The Biggest Scams in History. I have broken down in detail the background of the main suspects and their ties to eugenics.
I think I have the best timeline incorporating the suspects, their participation in other vaccine/drug scam frauds, the connection with eugenics, etc.
The final piece of the puzzle is solving germ theory vs. terrain and I was looking for the best arguments proving that viruses are pathogenic organisms that are capable of causing disease in a health host. I didn't find it in this article. The comments are superb and this audience obviously is done an amazing amount of research. I am 95% in the Terrain camp BUT would like to see the absolute best arguments of the virologists specific to the critiques of "Team No-Virus" Ideally a debate or written back-and-forth between real experts on both sides. Can someone here point me to the absolute best debate between acknowledged experts from both camps?
02 February 2023 at 1:50 pm
Thanks for the article!
"They must rely on a host so must invade the cells of living things and hijack the host cells’ replication machinery to make new copies of themselves."
However, there is no replicable science experiment that ever proved or demonstrated this theory. It should have taken place c. 1950-55, when the idea started to come into scientific lingo by scholastic osmosis.
Without a scientific base, there is no virology science.
The discussion could properly end right there.
On top of that, this is truly an extraordinary claim, (normally simply assumed by circularity, assumption to conclusion) and an extraordinary claim needs powerful evidence to be accepted. Inactive/dead RNA/DNA snippets somehow getting into cells, drifting over to the right spot for the incredible hijacking, even of multiple types of cells, and then the lysis or budding to get out. Absolutely incredible!
So where is the non-circular science establishing this as a fact, rather than a theory only by scholastic osmosis?
Steven Avery https://linktr.ee/stevenavery
02 February 2023 at 2:27 pm
"The distinguished American virologist, Thomas Rivers, introduced a lot more flexibility to Koch’s original postulates to take into account the vagaries of viruses, their requirement for very specific host cells and conditions, and the fact that disease doesn’t always manifest as a result of infection."
This seems to imply that Rivers even in 1937 there was acceptance of the theory of viruses hijacking cell replication.
You will see quotes like this as part of the Rivers exposition.
"The virus can be cultivated in host cells."
However, that is quite ambiguous.
So we go to the key 1937 paper.
VIRUSES AND KOCH’S POSTULATES
THOMAS M. RIVERS
From The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York
"How does one go about proving that a virus is the cause of a disease? Viruses, regardless of whether they are parasites or the fabrications of autocatalytic processes, are intimately associated with host cells and, therefore, should always be found at the proper time in specific lesions. In addition, viruses, as is the case with bacteria, may be found also in the blood stream, not necessarily multiplying there but appearing frequently only as a phenomenon of overflow from lesions in the tissues."
So it should be clear that the theory of viruses hijacking cell replication was not part of "science" so-called until the 1950s. And never had an experimental base.
It would be fascinating to attempt to document how this theory became accepted, by scholastic osmosis, without any experimental base of replicable experiments.
Your thoughts most welcome!
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences