Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

2023-05-22

Challenge everything. If it stands up, believe it (until it falls down!). If it collapses, discard it.

That's roughly what we all have to do these days if we want to understand what's going on in our benighted world.

I have long suspected (proof is one thing, working assumption another) that the Covid-19 SARS-COV2 never existed, because if it did exist there would have been no need to design a test that was fairly obviously unscientific and prone to false positives.

Many go further and assert that no "viruses" exist as infectious disease-causing agents. I don't have any personal view on that except to remark that such a position is merely a very short step away from saying that SARS-COV2 - whatever it may be - is not a disease-causing agent. If "they" would lie about one virus then "they" would lie about another, and much else besides. Certainly it's a question that is very much begging to be asked, given the array of usual suspects that depend upon the virology industry for extracting money from us by dubious means.

Dr Sam Bailey in her substack posits that no virus has ever passed a scientific proof of existence as a disease-causing agent (the Koch Postulates), and she therefore adopts the position that viruses (whatever they may be) are not causative agents of disease.

Now the Koch Postulates may have some problems as Wikipedia attests, but I know of no other proof that a particular agent causes a particular disease. The fact that the postulates may fail in specific instances does not imply that some rigorous proof of infectivity is redundant. It simply underlines how tricky this whole subject-area is.

Dr Sam then goes on to criticise Reiner Fuellmich for limiting his assertion of non-existence to SARS-COV2, rather than to virology in general.

I think this criticism is simply invalid. Dr Fuellmich is not a medical researcher, he is a lawyer with a case to fight, and in a court of law a "fact" is an assertion that is agreed by all parties to the case and not disputed. Whereas it is relatively easy for him to prove that SARS-COV2 did not exist as the cause of a raging pandemic, it is quite another thing to prove that virology is a pseudo-science, an assertion that whilst it would be material to his SARS-COV2 case, is almost certainly unnecessary. Reiner is a lawyer, he is doing his job by maximising his chances in a specific case rather than fighting unnecessary dragons.