The recent posts by A Midwestern Doctor have been devoted to fighting “virus deniers.” The articles are filled with straw men and gaslighting but are written in a high and mighty tone that will fool many into thinking that they are scientific and objective.
I definitely see the straw man argument he's making. I think that people who work in health care are so used to thinking in certain ways it's even hard for them to understand the questioning of viruses as pathogens at all. They automatically think that because a disease occurs and appears to be contagious this means that a virus must exist or that being skeptical of the evidence means that people are saying the disease does not exist.
I work in healthcare and saw some things that I would say could be unique sets of symptoms, like the blood clotting with the extreme hypoxia, but this finding was not universal for the respiratory illness called Covid. I did not work in New York so didn't see a lot of sick people who were young and healthy, so was not extremely fearful of it.
In order to do a rigorous analysis of new symptoms, you'd have to compare past flu seasons and see if there were any that sometimes fit the definition of Covid illness.
My understanding of the virus skeptic movement is that the isolation experiments are not isolation and thus cannot show causation. Also, the lack of documented control experiments with "Sars-Cov-2" and others. Also, from the beginning of microbe hunting was aimed at vaccine development and for the enrichment of the medical cartel, not helping people. The conflicts of interest alone should make people question the evidence. And there is nothing wrong with questioning evidence and being able to understand research. In fact, I think this is necessary now because there should be no more trust given the track record of big pharma and the medical cartel.
I don't know why some of the strong believers in pathogenic viruses, don't stick to the points being questioned. The main thing is a lack of control experiments. If this is true, that's a problem.
We should all start with seeing what our Creator says...Are germ theory and contagious viruses really what we are being told? A look into what scripture reveals.
There's some interesting history there. But as a non-christian, the appeal to the Bible is not compelling and frankly a turnoff. To each his own.
There are many different religious texts. Whereas, an appeal to science and logic is universal.
One can look to the Bible for justification for many horrible things, cursing fig trees out of spite, beating ones wife, or owning slaves. As a guide for moral behavior, it's severely inconsistent and morally ambiguous.
I find much greater clarity in the ancient wisdom traditions of India, Yoga, Vedanta, and also Buddhism.. Both are quite valuable, but i tend towards yoga, because it's centered on God, not "emptiness".
This is really funny- Andy and Toms big announcement!
Very sensibly saying there will be no more dialogue unless Captain Kirsch and team virus come up with some evidence instead of keeping moving on to the next distraction
Kirsch keeps trying to re-direct & deflect "the only way to settle this is by debate, and then polling/voting/consensus..."
"no one will debate me, therefore I win!"
How this man still has so many loyal followers eating this garbage up is astonishing yet disappointing. Im quickly losing faith for humans. Theres too many NPC's wandering around....
He's being seriously ratioed in the comments, I think he gets bit fed up with it, so he's not going to talk about the non-debate anymore apparently.
I've commented a few times when he says the more hilarious things about science - like it's about observing things and then coming up with lots of ideas to explain them. He doesn't mention experiments!
I had to look up NPC, I don't know, we're all just doing what's right for us.
Lol!!!! This was my favorite comment on one of his last virus debate posts. It was so fucking hilariously stupid, I had to save it for when I need a laugh. This is 100% real.
"Max
20 hr ago
I would love seeing a group of unbiased researchers performing the steps described. As I said, I don't have money to bet anything or finance such work. But someone else could. Those are logic and necessary steps, I believe.
ReplyGift a subscriptionCollapse

Steve Kirsch
18 hr agoAuthor
That is not how science works. Science does not prescribe a specific method to make a specific determination."
It's not as though he's giving a wishy washy waffling answer! Take out the two 'nots' and he makes a very concise and precise description of what science is.
It looks OK, except I don't see any references, except six (6) references to your own blog.
This means the article is not self contained. It's like a Terms of Use agreement with 6 parts, all in different links which must be individually tracked down.
There is one bare link to Mike Stone's excellent viroLIEgy.com offered without any explanation.
I don't really know what your position is, or if you've said anything dodgy, because frankly, I don't have the time to track down 6 more pages, each likely with similar self-references... Ugh.
There is also a link to lewrockwell.com. The article is about 5G, which seems tangential from the topics of the bulk of the article.
If you're only going to link to yourself, it looks like self promotion.
Just being honest.
Throw in some links to Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Mark &/or Sam Bailey, Kevin Corbett, Amandha Dawn Vollmer, Stefan Lanka, Christine Massey... these are the people doing the groundbreaking work in this area. They are the experts.
Who is Ray Horvath?
(Who is Bill Huston, for that matter. I'm nobody. That's why I cite the people doing the work.)
Including all my blogs that are relevant would take up too much space in the comment section.
My articles do contain references, but my conclusions are usually quite unique, which is why I call myself The "Source" :) Still, if you read my articles, you might find that there is not a single source that I agree with, and for good reasons. How do I know? I've read them.
My objective is not to convince people, but to inspire them to think for themselves. They don't have to agree with anything I say. However, once they are informed, they cannot say they didn't know, and once they make up their own minds, they cannot blame others for their decisions.
Who is Ray Horvath? It doesn't matter, although you can find plenty of details about me in my blogs (that, nevertheless, are not about me, and even more in the comment sections). Let it suffice that I listen to everyone, but take responsibility for my own decisions after that. I expect nothing less from my readers. Why on Earth would I "promote" myself with that attitude? Substack is no good for making money, unless you are one of the "celebrities," which I am not. (In 2005, in my second doctoral dissertation, I drew up a Prolegomena for all future communication between humans and AI in natural languages. Only the final recursive algorithm took up 5-6 pages and its validity was confirmed by two mathematicians, whose abilities far supersede mine. Still, I refused to sell my knowledge, because I immediately realized that whoever know it, could take over the world. While I have been usually 15-25 years ahead of "experts," this time, it was only seven. By 2012, quantum graphene nanocomputers were running 12k faster than the silicon-based "supercomputers," and the current proceedings are obviously run on such a "super AI" that keeps receiving live data from all over the world. The multi-threaded attack on humanity is progressing without a glitch.)
What matters is what I say and I do. Read my stuff, if you care to find out. Point out where you believe I'm wrong. I do not seek contention; it would be a friendly discussion, if it is needed at all.
I'm only giving you suggestions which IMHO would a) add credibility, and b) allow people like me to share your material with ease.
I cannot share your material right now with ease, because you don't cite the authorities i trust. I don't trust you automatically as i don't know what you are about. Your post contains many references to more of your writings, so have to trace many additional links to fully understand where you are coming from.
Don't do anything different because of me. I'm just letting you know why i don't feel comfortable sharing your material.
Be more concise, make posts self contained, cite authorities other than yourself.
All I'm doing on Substack is: inform, entertain, and inspire, while assisting people with a forum, where they can get together. "Secretly," I also target enforcers, because if they realize they are not going to be spared, the globalists will be toothless.
As I have read the "authorities," and I know quite exactly how far they are reliable, I still believe that I am as good a "source" as anyone else. Thinking is not confined to those who have accreditations by those, who are about to kill us, anyway. :)
The end of my reply seems to be missing, so here it is again:
What matters is what I say and I do. Read my stuff, if you care to find out. Point out where you believe I'm wrong. I do not seek contention; it would be a friendly discussion, if it is needed at all.
I would love to see Poornima Wagh be invited to join the VIRUS CHALLENGE. She has proven in her lab that SARS COV2 does not exist. She ran the analysis 3 times and had 6 universities duplicate her process and they came up with the same results. When she shared these results on a 2.5 hour ZOOM call with the CDC and Robert Redfield he told her he didn’t care what she found he expected her to say she DID isolate the virus or he would have her lab shut down. Poornima refused to lie and the FBI raided her lab and shut them down. The FBI also came to her home. Please do not confuse her with PURNIMA Wagh. Her name is POORNIMA Wagh. I believe Christine Massey knows of her. If yo go to the 44 min. mark and listen to the 1 hr. 11 min. mark you will hear the part of this interview in which she discusses the isolation, purification, causation process she used and the fake process other scientist have used in order to deliver the result the CDC/NIH want to see. https://registremblay.com/the-scamdemic-covid-19-sars-cov-2-the-virus-that-never-was/
Yes, I've been aware of Poornima Wagh since March, after her prior appearance on the Regis Tremblay program. And yes, everyone on #TeamNoVirus is aware of her since early July since her one-on-one with Regis, and are excited to meet her!
I am personally not sharing her material just yet, as I want to understand her story better.
There is supposed to be a Zoom call coming up later this month, among a small group of folks, where we hope to get to know her a little better. She has been traveling and has been difficult to reach.
Can you send me a link to an article in a medical journal or a LinkedIn page? I Googled her and I've been trying to find her and can literally only find one interview, but have no way to verify she even exists. For now I'm assuming she's paid to act on camera and they've deliberately chosen a name that sounds like an existing doctor.
The World Council of Health https://worldcouncilforhealth.org the baby of the health freedom movement with leading lights such as Bossche and Malone is annoying me more and more.
from their website 'The virus that causes Covid-19 was first reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In early 2020, the mainstream scientific consensus was that the novel virus, named SARS-CoV-2, originated from a mutation of a beta-coronavirus naturally circulating in bats. At the same time, emerging evidence suggesting that the novel coronavirus may have entered human populations as a result of a lab leak were dismissed.
Almost two years on, the lab-leak hypothesis has been gaining momentum, with suggestions that the virus may have been the product of gain-of-function research and it was accidentally or deliberately released. This evidence includes the lack of an identified intermediate animal host, genetic signatures typical of genetic engineering rather than natural selection, and leaked documents that reveal international collaboration in gain-of-function research in China"!!!
From my post ' It was clear in April 2020 that the Powers That Be were going to try and make us take their horrible vaccine. Which they obviously had already prepared. And like all other vaccines it would be unnecessary and harmful.
A few people placed themselves very well. Doctors trained in the pharma dogma thought they had something to say. Millionaires eg Steve Kirsch, carried on making money with anti viral drugs for a virus that doesn’t exist. And some unknown dudes, who researched and promoted technologies and vaccines that harm people, started getting interviewed all over the place, eg Bossche and Malone. They push vaccines in general but not these ones in particular, or not these ones right now, ie in a pandemic, that’s not happening, go figure; https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/a-healthy-future-does-not-lie-with
I've definitely been tracking them, and their CEO, Tess Lawrie, and all of her side hustles:
World Council for Health, BIRD: British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group, E-BMC: Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy. The goals of these orgs are interrelated. 1) Standardize medical protocols for various conditions dictated by a central authority, removing the decision making power from local doctors/authorities, and 2) pushing "Insecticide Cures".
This year, a proportion of our global deaths from pneumonia will include the presence of COVID-19... COVID-19 seems merciful in the sparing of children and young adults, but we should be saddened by the loss of our elders... May this respiratory VIRUS that now shares space and time with us teach us ... If we choose to learn from, rather than fear, this VIRUS, it can reveal the source of our chronic disease epidemics that are the real threat to our species.
<<< END
Bottom line according to Bush: "COVID-19" is REAL. "The Virus" which causes "COVID-19" is real!
His stance, unless it has changed recently, is along the lines of viruses are genetic messages that are passed among cells/animals to communicate about their environment. They do not cause harm to those who are well adapted/healthy. Viruses are used to upgrade our DNA code to better suit our current conditions, so they are helpful in the long run, although there may be an adjustment period for some which we call disease.
But it's got to more than just an interesting theory.
Where's the evidence?
Where are the blinded experiments conducted with proper controls?
Science works by published papers, which have been rigorously fact-checked by a team of peers, with citations to references, or original research which is shown in detail.
Science works by building predictive models, and then perform experiments which are basically designed to prove the model incorrect. (cf. Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper's work, etc.)
I love all the metaphysics, "it's all mind", spiritual stuff. Yoga/Vedanta, Buddhism, Sufi. I am a huge fan of Terrance McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Lynne McTaggart, Louise Hay, I love all of that stuff. I have been a serious student of Buddhism and Yoga since ~2007.
If Zach Bush claims to be doing science, then he should be able to demonstrate how those little dots he's pointing to on a printout of an S.E.M. photo (which are HIGHLY contrived, as S.E.M. grossly alters the sample under test with poisoning, passaging, and freeze/thaw cycls, JFC!), which he is calling "a virus", perform all of those magical actions he is describing.
Without evidence, it's all science fiction, or pure metaphysics, where there are no rules, and anything can happen, since it is all mind.
I AM OK WITH METAPHYSICS!
Just tell me what realm we (and Zach Bush) are operating in.
Christine Massey has been using this definition of a virus, which she says originated from Mark and/or Sam Bailey. (#TeamBailey)
I've looked at several and I believes this captures the essence which we all should be able to agree upon:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure."
If Zach Bush wants to change the definition, like Peter Duesberg, Larry Palevsky, or Jeff Green etc ("passenger virus", viruses are not pathogenic, or maybe they are sometimes, or viruses are information messengers, or viruses are pure "prana", whatever) then they should invent a new word.
The recent posts by A Midwestern Doctor have been devoted to fighting “virus deniers.” The articles are filled with straw men and gaslighting but are written in a high and mighty tone that will fool many into thinking that they are scientific and objective.
Link?
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/nuanced-ideas-and-simplistic-truths?r=7
Wow, it took me 5 min to expand the full comment thread!
I definitely see the straw man argument he's making. I think that people who work in health care are so used to thinking in certain ways it's even hard for them to understand the questioning of viruses as pathogens at all. They automatically think that because a disease occurs and appears to be contagious this means that a virus must exist or that being skeptical of the evidence means that people are saying the disease does not exist.
I work in healthcare and saw some things that I would say could be unique sets of symptoms, like the blood clotting with the extreme hypoxia, but this finding was not universal for the respiratory illness called Covid. I did not work in New York so didn't see a lot of sick people who were young and healthy, so was not extremely fearful of it.
In order to do a rigorous analysis of new symptoms, you'd have to compare past flu seasons and see if there were any that sometimes fit the definition of Covid illness.
My understanding of the virus skeptic movement is that the isolation experiments are not isolation and thus cannot show causation. Also, the lack of documented control experiments with "Sars-Cov-2" and others. Also, from the beginning of microbe hunting was aimed at vaccine development and for the enrichment of the medical cartel, not helping people. The conflicts of interest alone should make people question the evidence. And there is nothing wrong with questioning evidence and being able to understand research. In fact, I think this is necessary now because there should be no more trust given the track record of big pharma and the medical cartel.
I don't know why some of the strong believers in pathogenic viruses, don't stick to the points being questioned. The main thing is a lack of control experiments. If this is true, that's a problem.
We should all start with seeing what our Creator says...Are germ theory and contagious viruses really what we are being told? A look into what scripture reveals.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT14y9fEKOEZzlVls7uNbA0g1lRfOtMtqbxhpEe7kjVE8fMkMeACP1nugoV-c_ZkI5LVJlJyxGbthWC/pub
There's some interesting history there. But as a non-christian, the appeal to the Bible is not compelling and frankly a turnoff. To each his own.
There are many different religious texts. Whereas, an appeal to science and logic is universal.
One can look to the Bible for justification for many horrible things, cursing fig trees out of spite, beating ones wife, or owning slaves. As a guide for moral behavior, it's severely inconsistent and morally ambiguous.
I find much greater clarity in the ancient wisdom traditions of India, Yoga, Vedanta, and also Buddhism.. Both are quite valuable, but i tend towards yoga, because it's centered on God, not "emptiness".
Tom Cowan discussed a bit of an update in his live webinar yesterday. Also goes into bacteriaphages.
I dont have the original link handy, but here's a re-upload on Odysee.
https://odysee.com/@dharmabear:2/Dr-Thomas-Cowan-Live-Webinar-August-3-2022:e
This is really funny- Andy and Toms big announcement!
Very sensibly saying there will be no more dialogue unless Captain Kirsch and team virus come up with some evidence instead of keeping moving on to the next distraction
Jo
Kirsch keeps trying to re-direct & deflect "the only way to settle this is by debate, and then polling/voting/consensus..."
"no one will debate me, therefore I win!"
How this man still has so many loyal followers eating this garbage up is astonishing yet disappointing. Im quickly losing faith for humans. Theres too many NPC's wandering around....
He's being seriously ratioed in the comments, I think he gets bit fed up with it, so he's not going to talk about the non-debate anymore apparently.
I've commented a few times when he says the more hilarious things about science - like it's about observing things and then coming up with lots of ideas to explain them. He doesn't mention experiments!
I had to look up NPC, I don't know, we're all just doing what's right for us.
The snow flakes fall. Each in their proper place.
Jo
Lol!!!! This was my favorite comment on one of his last virus debate posts. It was so fucking hilariously stupid, I had to save it for when I need a laugh. This is 100% real.
"Max
20 hr ago
I would love seeing a group of unbiased researchers performing the steps described. As I said, I don't have money to bet anything or finance such work. But someone else could. Those are logic and necessary steps, I believe.
ReplyGift a subscriptionCollapse

Steve Kirsch
18 hr agoAuthor
That is not how science works. Science does not prescribe a specific method to make a specific determination."
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yes, I think I saw that.
It's not as though he's giving a wishy washy waffling answer! Take out the two 'nots' and he makes a very concise and precise description of what science is.
Great summary and thanks for the repost!
Jo
Kirsch never plays fairly:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-is-challenging-again
It looks OK, except I don't see any references, except six (6) references to your own blog.
This means the article is not self contained. It's like a Terms of Use agreement with 6 parts, all in different links which must be individually tracked down.
There is one bare link to Mike Stone's excellent viroLIEgy.com offered without any explanation.
I don't really know what your position is, or if you've said anything dodgy, because frankly, I don't have the time to track down 6 more pages, each likely with similar self-references... Ugh.
There is also a link to lewrockwell.com. The article is about 5G, which seems tangential from the topics of the bulk of the article.
If you're only going to link to yourself, it looks like self promotion.
Just being honest.
Throw in some links to Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Mark &/or Sam Bailey, Kevin Corbett, Amandha Dawn Vollmer, Stefan Lanka, Christine Massey... these are the people doing the groundbreaking work in this area. They are the experts.
Who is Ray Horvath?
(Who is Bill Huston, for that matter. I'm nobody. That's why I cite the people doing the work.)
I hope this is helpful!
Including all my blogs that are relevant would take up too much space in the comment section.
My articles do contain references, but my conclusions are usually quite unique, which is why I call myself The "Source" :) Still, if you read my articles, you might find that there is not a single source that I agree with, and for good reasons. How do I know? I've read them.
My objective is not to convince people, but to inspire them to think for themselves. They don't have to agree with anything I say. However, once they are informed, they cannot say they didn't know, and once they make up their own minds, they cannot blame others for their decisions.
Who is Ray Horvath? It doesn't matter, although you can find plenty of details about me in my blogs (that, nevertheless, are not about me, and even more in the comment sections). Let it suffice that I listen to everyone, but take responsibility for my own decisions after that. I expect nothing less from my readers. Why on Earth would I "promote" myself with that attitude? Substack is no good for making money, unless you are one of the "celebrities," which I am not. (In 2005, in my second doctoral dissertation, I drew up a Prolegomena for all future communication between humans and AI in natural languages. Only the final recursive algorithm took up 5-6 pages and its validity was confirmed by two mathematicians, whose abilities far supersede mine. Still, I refused to sell my knowledge, because I immediately realized that whoever know it, could take over the world. While I have been usually 15-25 years ahead of "experts," this time, it was only seven. By 2012, quantum graphene nanocomputers were running 12k faster than the silicon-based "supercomputers," and the current proceedings are obviously run on such a "super AI" that keeps receiving live data from all over the world. The multi-threaded attack on humanity is progressing without a glitch.)
What matters is what I say and I do. Read my stuff, if you care to find out. Point out where you believe I'm wrong. I do not seek contention; it would be a friendly discussion, if it is needed at all.
I hope, that might be also helpful. :)
It's ok Ray. You're doing great.
I'm only giving you suggestions which IMHO would a) add credibility, and b) allow people like me to share your material with ease.
I cannot share your material right now with ease, because you don't cite the authorities i trust. I don't trust you automatically as i don't know what you are about. Your post contains many references to more of your writings, so have to trace many additional links to fully understand where you are coming from.
Don't do anything different because of me. I'm just letting you know why i don't feel comfortable sharing your material.
Be more concise, make posts self contained, cite authorities other than yourself.
Good luck and have a great day. ☺️
Bill,
Thank you kindly.
All I'm doing on Substack is: inform, entertain, and inspire, while assisting people with a forum, where they can get together. "Secretly," I also target enforcers, because if they realize they are not going to be spared, the globalists will be toothless.
As I have read the "authorities," and I know quite exactly how far they are reliable, I still believe that I am as good a "source" as anyone else. Thinking is not confined to those who have accreditations by those, who are about to kill us, anyway. :)
The end of my reply seems to be missing, so here it is again:
What matters is what I say and I do. Read my stuff, if you care to find out. Point out where you believe I'm wrong. I do not seek contention; it would be a friendly discussion, if it is needed at all.
I hope, that might be also helpful. :)
I would love to see Poornima Wagh be invited to join the VIRUS CHALLENGE. She has proven in her lab that SARS COV2 does not exist. She ran the analysis 3 times and had 6 universities duplicate her process and they came up with the same results. When she shared these results on a 2.5 hour ZOOM call with the CDC and Robert Redfield he told her he didn’t care what she found he expected her to say she DID isolate the virus or he would have her lab shut down. Poornima refused to lie and the FBI raided her lab and shut them down. The FBI also came to her home. Please do not confuse her with PURNIMA Wagh. Her name is POORNIMA Wagh. I believe Christine Massey knows of her. If yo go to the 44 min. mark and listen to the 1 hr. 11 min. mark you will hear the part of this interview in which she discusses the isolation, purification, causation process she used and the fake process other scientist have used in order to deliver the result the CDC/NIH want to see. https://registremblay.com/the-scamdemic-covid-19-sars-cov-2-the-virus-that-never-was/
Yes, I've been aware of Poornima Wagh since March, after her prior appearance on the Regis Tremblay program. And yes, everyone on #TeamNoVirus is aware of her since early July since her one-on-one with Regis, and are excited to meet her!
I am personally not sharing her material just yet, as I want to understand her story better.
There is supposed to be a Zoom call coming up later this month, among a small group of folks, where we hope to get to know her a little better. She has been traveling and has been difficult to reach.
Can you send me a link to an article in a medical journal or a LinkedIn page? I Googled her and I've been trying to find her and can literally only find one interview, but have no way to verify she even exists. For now I'm assuming she's paid to act on camera and they've deliberately chosen a name that sounds like an existing doctor.
Here is the challenge:
A Common Law Jury, presented with the all of the facts, unanimously reached the verdict that Elizabeth was NEVER the lawful monarch. And neither is Charles.https://gibraltar-messenger.net/letters/divine-significance-of-the-stone-of-destiny/
Hiya,
The World Council of Health https://worldcouncilforhealth.org the baby of the health freedom movement with leading lights such as Bossche and Malone is annoying me more and more.
from their website 'The virus that causes Covid-19 was first reported in Wuhan, China in December 2019. In early 2020, the mainstream scientific consensus was that the novel virus, named SARS-CoV-2, originated from a mutation of a beta-coronavirus naturally circulating in bats. At the same time, emerging evidence suggesting that the novel coronavirus may have entered human populations as a result of a lab leak were dismissed.
Almost two years on, the lab-leak hypothesis has been gaining momentum, with suggestions that the virus may have been the product of gain-of-function research and it was accidentally or deliberately released. This evidence includes the lack of an identified intermediate animal host, genetic signatures typical of genetic engineering rather than natural selection, and leaked documents that reveal international collaboration in gain-of-function research in China"!!!
From my post ' It was clear in April 2020 that the Powers That Be were going to try and make us take their horrible vaccine. Which they obviously had already prepared. And like all other vaccines it would be unnecessary and harmful.
A few people placed themselves very well. Doctors trained in the pharma dogma thought they had something to say. Millionaires eg Steve Kirsch, carried on making money with anti viral drugs for a virus that doesn’t exist. And some unknown dudes, who researched and promoted technologies and vaccines that harm people, started getting interviewed all over the place, eg Bossche and Malone. They push vaccines in general but not these ones in particular, or not these ones right now, ie in a pandemic, that’s not happening, go figure; https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/a-healthy-future-does-not-lie-with
Have you written anything about them? Would you?
Jo
> Millionaire drug makers, eg Steve Kirsch
What is your evidence that Kirsch is a drug maker?
Thx
no evidence I removed it. He is a millionaire by all accounts and is actively promoting early interventions
Jo
He is promoting drugs through his COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund
https://www.treatearly.org/promising-drugs
Interesting that you mention that.
I've definitely been tracking them, and their CEO, Tess Lawrie, and all of her side hustles:
World Council for Health, BIRD: British Ivermectin Recommendation Development Group, E-BMC: Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy. The goals of these orgs are interrelated. 1) Standardize medical protocols for various conditions dictated by a central authority, removing the decision making power from local doctors/authorities, and 2) pushing "Insecticide Cures".
Hiya,
very interesting. Yes all part of the plan
I've not heard of BIRD, whatever next??
Jo https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/a-healthy-future-does-not-lie-with
Yeah, I agree about Zach Bush. But I put him firmly in the "Virus Pushers" list, due to this:
https://zachbushmd.com/coronavirus-statement/
Excerpt:>>>
This year, a proportion of our global deaths from pneumonia will include the presence of COVID-19... COVID-19 seems merciful in the sparing of children and young adults, but we should be saddened by the loss of our elders... May this respiratory VIRUS that now shares space and time with us teach us ... If we choose to learn from, rather than fear, this VIRUS, it can reveal the source of our chronic disease epidemics that are the real threat to our species.
<<< END
Bottom line according to Bush: "COVID-19" is REAL. "The Virus" which causes "COVID-19" is real!
(Both are false).
He's on the list:
http://apocalypticyoga.wikidot.com/virus-pushers-against-clotshots
His stance, unless it has changed recently, is along the lines of viruses are genetic messages that are passed among cells/animals to communicate about their environment. They do not cause harm to those who are well adapted/healthy. Viruses are used to upgrade our DNA code to better suit our current conditions, so they are helpful in the long run, although there may be an adjustment period for some which we call disease.
That seems all really interesting.
But it's got to more than just an interesting theory.
Where's the evidence?
Where are the blinded experiments conducted with proper controls?
Science works by published papers, which have been rigorously fact-checked by a team of peers, with citations to references, or original research which is shown in detail.
Science works by building predictive models, and then perform experiments which are basically designed to prove the model incorrect. (cf. Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper's work, etc.)
I love all the metaphysics, "it's all mind", spiritual stuff. Yoga/Vedanta, Buddhism, Sufi. I am a huge fan of Terrance McKenna, Rupert Sheldrake, Lynne McTaggart, Louise Hay, I love all of that stuff. I have been a serious student of Buddhism and Yoga since ~2007.
If Zach Bush claims to be doing science, then he should be able to demonstrate how those little dots he's pointing to on a printout of an S.E.M. photo (which are HIGHLY contrived, as S.E.M. grossly alters the sample under test with poisoning, passaging, and freeze/thaw cycls, JFC!), which he is calling "a virus", perform all of those magical actions he is describing.
Without evidence, it's all science fiction, or pure metaphysics, where there are no rules, and anything can happen, since it is all mind.
I AM OK WITH METAPHYSICS!
Just tell me what realm we (and Zach Bush) are operating in.
Christine Massey has been using this definition of a virus, which she says originated from Mark and/or Sam Bailey. (#TeamBailey)
I've looked at several and I believes this captures the essence which we all should be able to agree upon:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure."
If Zach Bush wants to change the definition, like Peter Duesberg, Larry Palevsky, or Jeff Green etc ("passenger virus", viruses are not pathogenic, or maybe they are sometimes, or viruses are information messengers, or viruses are pure "prana", whatever) then they should invent a new word.
I also am not a fan of his "good bacteria/bad bacteria" position. All bacteria serves a purpose.