I personally think this is an astroturfed distraction from stopping totalitarianism and democide and is being used to discredit the Resistance via guilt by association with those perceived to be flat-earthers. That’s not to say there isn’t merit to certain aspects of their arguments (obviously, environmental toxins have had a negative impact on health, but that doesn’t mean germs, viruses, and contagion don’t exist). Some of the virus-deniers are reasonable and willing to agree-to-disagree on this topic, but unfortunately, there is a virulent contingency of particularly hateful and aggressive individuals who are focusing their efforts on attacking the most effective voices in the anti-tyranny movement, and it is creating division at a time when it is far more important for us to unite across superficial differences and academic disagreements.

This article by A Midwestern Doctor offers a deep dive if you have the time (I don’t but have saved it for later reading):


Expand full comment
Jul 30, 2022Liked by Winston Smith

I’ve read a couple of books in Germ vs. Terrain theories and boy, I am even more confused. I think the logical thing to do is to follow the money. Germs=drugs.

Expand full comment

The issue is with their isolation methods.

Stefan Lanka ran the same method with a control, no virus, and with virus.

The results were identical. The antibiotics, antifungals, and other chemicals already cause the same cell death and "virus particles" whether there was a virus or not.

They couldn't even prove transmission with the Spanish flu...


All vaccines are useless, coming out after drastic drops

Polio for example was from pesticides, smallpox from sanitation issues.

But you can't sue a virus...


Dr Sam Bailey on odysee is great.

So are these websites



Expand full comment

It's realy very simple; NOT ONE "virus" has ever been isolated and purified, which means they don't exist Virology is fake science.

Expand full comment

I have an open mind to germs/viruses, but after studying it I don't think it's what we believe. I think somewhere in time people decided they were real and taught others they were real, and now a bunch of people believe they're real and have confirmation bias in a big way.

There are plenty of other views, like the terrain theory.

I made a video about how people get sick from a law of attraction standpoint here: https://youtu.be/X3ERj7yjkwg

Here's a German New Medicine standpoint, where she discusses her views on contagion. Her suggestions are mirror neurons, group fear, herd mentality, morphic resonance, and/or the placebo/nocebo effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwqtRL9Xc-c&t=1688s

Dr. Melissa Sell wrote this in a telegram post and I think it's a great explanation about how they messed up with germ theory. The short version is people assumed what they found in bodies when people got sick was something attacking the body, when in reality what they found was something helping the body heal akin to a firetruck not starting fires, but being there to clean up after the fire started. Correlation doesn't equal causation.


Expand full comment

Even if we assume the virus is real, the draconian measures to combat it are surreal. And while the proven absence of a virus would be counterindicative for measures instantly, I fear in our current situation the presence or absence of a virus is rather irrelevant.

Expand full comment

It's rather like you see what used to be a village, with houses smashed and burning, and a bunch of Vikings standing around, surrounded by piles of loot. You ask them, and they profess to have no idea of what just happened... In this case, you get tissue which is undamaged, next to tissue which has suffered damage and there are lots of tiny fuzzy balls hanging around. The logical conclusion is that the fuzzy balls had something to do with the damage, either that they did it themselves, or the SWAT team got called and did the damage for them, and wiping them out in the process.

In the body, there are cells called macrophages - they're the SWAT team, and they destroy cells which produce alien proteins - it's been found through years of research that cells exhibit, on their outside, the proteins that their replicating machinery is producing. The immune system recognizes these proteins as either OK - or Not OK - and in the latter case, shuts down the replication by destroying the machinery (and the cell). The macrophages collect the resultant garbage - in the case of alien proteins and products, such as new virus, which have been tagged with "police tape", otherwise known as antibodies... so if you can detect bits of that "police tape" floating around, you know that something is either happening, or has happened...

Terrain theory dates from back before macrophages were discovered, in the 1880s. People knew something was going on, but had no idea why, and so they created an explanatory theory, to link the effects which were known, and what they surmised were the causes - bad food, bad water, bad air, producing bodies which were susceptible to infection and disease - the "terrain" was favorable for infection to occur. They were in essence flying blind, they did the best that they could at the time, and terrain theory was the result. But scientific knowledge improved and increased, and people were able to detect structures and processes which they could not see before - and that was the end of terrain theory.

Expand full comment
Jul 30, 2022Liked by Winston Smith

Hadn't seen this before. Thanks for sharing, Winston. Will be linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/

Expand full comment

Let us examine the middle ground which bears the most probability of what actually happened.

A decision to rebrand Influenza A or B and attribute otherwise all cause mortality to a novel coronavirus.

At the same time the Chinese CDC announced the discovery of a novel coronavirus that deemed reaponsible for the all cause mortality.

Driven by government and media panic sets in causing mass psychosis..

The rest is history.

This satisfies both terrain and germ theories

Expand full comment

Please come to my Substack - I have been writing on similar lines to Dr Purnima Wagh for several years now. I have as much evidence as you could ever need.

For example:


Expand full comment

It really doesn't matter, at least not for the moment. Everyone that thinks achieving some sort of consensus on the scientific validity of anything is required to resist tyranny/promote liberty is wrong. THIS belief is the stupid, dangerous belief that we must attack and destroy. We will all believe different things about the nature of the universe and truth. Building an effective coalition to resist a dystopian collapse into neoserfdom requires incorporating people who believe the earth is round and flat, people who think viruses exist and don't, people who believe in God and atheists etc. There is a tendency for freedom loving individuals to think a particular belief is the lynchpin for tyranny that if removed we'll all be free. They get so excited about it, so emotionally invested in sharing the incontrovertible evidence. Guess what? Almost every mainstream belief is completely and totally fucked. If you don't believe me, just find any no-shit expert in any field and ask them what heterodox beliefs they have about their field. They will always have at least a few. The idea that there is just one issue that if we just convince everyone then the lynchpin of tyranny will be removed and we'll all be free is a seductive illusion. If there is such a lynchpin, it is based in philosophy and/or spirituality. Some sort of succinct way to internalize that we don't have to agree about everything to trust one another and build an effective sociopolitical coalition around something simple that we can all agree is mutually beneficial. I think this is the NAP, but whatever it is, it is what we need to be searching for, not arguing about this shit. If we ever do combine our efforts to secure a more or less free society government funding of science disappears then you don't have to worry about other people spending their money researching stupid shit that is a waste of time. In a free society we won't have to worry about public health officials setting draconian policy based on lies, because there won't be public health officials. Someone tell me how I'm wrong. Someone tell me how we all have to agree about the particulars of germ theory in order to be politically successful in achieving our mutually desired end state of a free society.

Expand full comment

I think the no-virus camp is for the most part an expression of a free-wheeling left hemisphere, and in that regard not so different from oldschool skepticism in philosophy which concludes that nothing is real, based on entirely logical and convincing arguments (very intelligent people are often susceptible to the illusions of the logical mind). A few red flags that I see is that many of them are very preachy, get irritated quickly, think they are 100% right while demanding 100% "in your face" proof for the existence of viruses, obsession with "isolation", "purification", "direct causality" and definitions, seem to have a "theory" for everything if you question them, etc. - all modes of thought associated with the left hemisphere.

When faced with such intellectual conundrums, I often find it helpful to go back to personal experience. Here's mine: I had Covid, which I undeniably caught from a meeting with other people (half of them had it too in the next days, exactly the same symptoms), and it had very distinct symptoms, in some ways similar to the flu/cold, but still unlike anything I've had before (and consistent with how Covid symptoms are described). Also, as most of us I guess, I could witness hundreds of PCR and antigen tests being administered in my social circle. And there WAS a clear correlation between those tests and typical Covid symptoms: Many people got tested many times, always negative, then had symptoms, and tested positive. So there's that, which to me suggests that the tests do identify something based on the virus model, DNA sequences etc. (of course, all you need to create a "pandemic" would be a false-positive baseline, plus some meddling with cycles; I'm not at all saying that these tests are without error or can even diagnose a disease).

The way I see it is that virology is plagued by materialist assumptions (like all science) and hence probably misses a lot of nuances and might even be somewhat confused about its own models and methods. However, I think they clearly are onto something, and it's quite fascinating really. It also seems to me that virology and associated fields are tightly controlled (see the case of Judy Mikovitz). There seems to be something very interesting going on at the level of viruses, information exchange, possibly some non-materialist, Sheldrake kind of stuff? What's with all that gain of function research: sure seems some very powerful people are really into virology? Perhaps somebody doesn't want independent researchers to look too closely?

Expand full comment

Picture looks like bacteria.

Expand full comment

There is no isolated covid virus and www.awarriorcalls.com is a guy about to confront the Canadian government about it. I am not this guy, but my site is rather www.theredpilloftruth.com

Expand full comment

To my way of thinking, the crux of the matter is this:

Even if we accept that viruses/bacteria/parasites cause acute illness -- though Koch's Postulates have never been fulfilled;

And even if we accept that unvaxxxed individuals (whether "symptomatic" or "asymptomatic"), by electing to take an unmasked breath within a six-foot radius of other unmasked and/or unvaxxxed OR vaxxxed and/or masked individuals is "spreading" acute illness -- though person-to-person transmission has been empirically debunked so many times that such experiments were labelled "unethical" and are no longer performed, including with animals;

It's nevertheless incontrovertible that ALL acute illness will resolve without ANY treatment -- other than rest, hydration, fresh air, peace and quiet, and fasting until the appetite returns. In other words, anybody recommending "early treatment", or "alternative treatment", or any other sort of intervention, is a shyster.


Expand full comment