Brief Counter Thoughts to Not-So-Brief Thoughts on the Existence of Viruses
It's a Midwestern Doctor Showdown.
For those not playing along at home, the germ vs terrain debate is really starting to fire up, and the Legacy Substackers are getting irritated. Looking past more hysterical defences of the Germ Theory paradigm, we have this restrained, reasonable if lengthy, Eisenstein-lite contribution:
For the record, I enjoy the Midwestern Doc’s contributions, including this one: it was one of the better Substack comments sections I have seen, which says much for the ability of the Doc’s vibe to catalyse such a discussion.
I am also not a ‘virus-denier’ as such. While i’m certainly open to the possibility, it seems more likely to me that viruses are real, but have fallen victim to The Germ Inversion: whereby — not unlike Muslims and 9/11 — they have been thrown under the bus and falsely accused of a crime in order to cover up the misdeeds of the real globalist psychopathic criminals.
That being said, I feel like a defence of my well-intentioned virus-denying Comrades is required, particularly against some of the more dubious claims made by the Doc. Also technically: if you contract my last name, add it to the region of Australia I live in, and remember that I have a PhD (in Town Planning but who cares), I am a Mid-Western Doctor as well — making me adequately qualified to provide such a rebuttal.
“To any outsider, the virus denial ideology seems insane and will typically be interpreted as the product of paranoia and a complete misunderstanding of science. By our movement passively condoning this belief system, it results in the evidence we have being seen through this lens and criticisms of vaccine mandates being equated to a delusional belief the COVID-19 virus does not exist.”
Yeh… nah.
Normies have had every chance to wake up to the scam: robust debate in the ‘Rona-dissident community about the relative merits of germ and terrain theories, even their so-called extremes, is in no way an excuse for them to stay asleep. If they choose to uphold their faith in the mainstream narrative for the reason that some of the people who oppose it with indisputable scientific facts and data are also “delusional” virus deniers… well, then fuck ‘em: they deserve to stay locked in their psy-op. As harsh as that sounds, we are well passed the point where waking these people up should be our priority or obligation, and to argue for the policing of debate on their behalf is bollocks.
This gets to a broader argument I have seen doing the rounds: something along the lines of “now is not the time to have this debate”. A year ago I might have been open to this, but not now, not in the direction things appear to be heading. Anyone really still think it is going to get better soon? I would counter with the opposite: it is now or never, before we have to put our arguments at 12 paces down and start looking after the poisoned and maimed in the community whilst trying to grow our own food and make our own biodiesel in the midst of a global financial meltdown.
“Third, it pushes many of the more moderate authority figures who would want to support fighting the pandemic policies away from supporting the cause because they do not want to be associated with the virus denialism perspective and challenged by the virus denialists”.
Once again, fuck ‘em (in the nicest possible way). Are these vaguely-menacing-sounding Moderate Authority Figures in this for the pursuit of the truth, or to take a political stance that insulates them from having their views challenged? You engage in debate for no other reason then to find the truth — how you are perceived by people on the outside should be irrelevant.
“If our movement is unable to internally address the radical voices within it, it severely weakens the movement’s credibility in the eyes of outside moderates.”
Sorry, what? “Internally address the radical voices within it”. Yikes; the Bolsheviks would be proud of that one.
“By aggressively promoting an extremist version of terrain theory, it is poisoning the well for the important parts of terrain theory to enter the discussion. I have wanted to write about terrain theory, but have specifically avoided doing so for this reason.”
Ok. With all due respect, and in relation to my above point, stop being a little bitch, Doc. If a topic is important and relevant to the debate, write about it without fear or favour (you are already writing under a pseudonym ffs). Right now, it sounds like you are using The Enemy as a scapegoat to justify your own cowardice.
Welp, haven’t even made it through the first section and it’s getting personal, so I think i’ll stop there.
To be fair, I agree with the Doc on the fundamental point of the article: the debate around the existence of viruses is a distraction. Just not in the way AMD does.
My questions around germ theory, like many other people, are not about the existence of viruses, but how they are understood: as pathogenic and contagious.
Convince me that the illness we call Covid (and/or the flu and/or the cold) is a harmful process caused by a microorganism, rather than a normal detoxification expression of the body — an expression now becoming more regular and severe as humans make their environments increasingly toxic; and an expression that can, for certain individuals and for still largely unknown reasons, go off the rails and potentially become life threatening if not cut off (see, i’m not an early treatment denier either).
Convince me that the phenomena of “transmission”, where people in the same vicinity appear to pass on sickness to each other, can be adequately explained by the escapades of air and/or surface-born viruses miraculously passing from the diseased face hole of one person through the defence systems of another healthy person to initiate their illness. I know you take that as a given, but I simply don’t buy it, sorry: there are many potential mechanisms by which our detoxification process could sync up with those around us that don’t require heroic invading germs.
Or, even better, don’t convince me. Let’s keep putting our best arguments out there, sure. But if science isn’t at the stage of being able to provide this level of evidence — and, in the end, if it really does come down to belief and perception, then that’s ok. If we live inside an intelligent simulation, which I am becoming partial to suspect, then the simulation will feed us the evidence to confirm our pre-existing beliefs: not just in relation to the cause of flu-like illness, but to any aspect of reality.
Maybe then, as I am also beginning to suspect, the two camps are pretty much at the point of being irreconcilable. If so, then that’s ok as well — not to labour the point too much, but I think other priorities will soon be taking precedence.
Chief epidemiologist of Chinese CDC admitted 'they didn't isolate the virus'
The CCP isolation data was used to create the spike protein for the vax. This is a big deal. Basically they looked at sputum and got dna fragments and claimed it was the virus. They never took it and made it and made a reinfection.