The ‘Holy Grail’ of politicised climate science is the attribution of single weather events to the unproven hypothesis that humans cause all or most climate change. Like the Holy Grail, it is beyond reach – simply put, it is impossible to attribute a sunny, or rainy, day to long-term climate trends. There are countless influences on the Earth’s atmosphere, many beyond current scientific computation. Despite considerable effort, no ‘attribution’ study proves human involvement, and the suggestions remain little more than imaginative opinion.
But with the growing realisation that global warming has been running out of steam for the last couple of decades, extreme weather events, along with associated ‘tipping points’, are a vital weapon in the drive to politicise climate science, and push forward the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. Difficult, nay impossible, to prove. But happily for the Net Zero activists, help is at hand. Last year, professors Elisabeth Lloyd, Naomi Oreskes and others wrote a paper calling for the level of proof when it comes to the wild claims made by climate change activists should be lowered to “more likely than not”. Climate scientists are said to set the bar “too high” when it comes to proving their claims, thereby conceding too much ground to the ‘deniers’. “In our view, the too narrow focus of climate science on extremely stringent levels of proofs is damaging in a legal context, and can lead to confusion when communicating scientific findings more generally,” they wrote.
Without apparent irony, the authors of the paper point out that a much lower standard of proof was required before cities or entire states were locked down to supposedly slow the spread of coronavirus and argue that the same “level of evidence” should apply when it comes to forcing people to reduce their carbon emissions:
Consider our situation with the coronavirus. We often have to make a variety of policy, practical, and legal decisions based on incomplete information, which also depend on judgements about whether the evidence is good enough. What level of evidence do we need, in the case of the coronavirus, to order a stay-at-home command for an entire city or state? What is the level of evidence required to actively prepare for catastrophic needs for intensive care units in hospitals? If there is an immediate and/or grave threat, as we have seen, it may be better to act on a lower level of evidence than we might otherwise expect.
The philosophers don’t appear to have spotted the circularity in this argument: We should apply lower standard of proof when it comes to assessing claims made by climate change activists because climate change poses an immediate and/or grave threat. How do we know it poses such a threat? Because when it comes to assessing such claims we should apply a lower standard of proof.
Elizabeth Lloyd of Indiana University and Naomi Oreskes of Harvard are both philosophers and historians, and both are highly influential in green activist academic circles. But their scientific philosophy runs counter to the principles set out by the legendary Professor Karl Popper who outlined the basis for today’s widely accepted empirical scientific method. He held that scientific knowledge is only ever ‘provisional’ and, to count as a legitimate, it must be ‘falsifiable’, i.e., capable of being proved false. Hard to see how a scientific hypothesis that is “more likely than not” to be true could be falsified. Citing a fact that was at odds with it could just be added to the “not” column without necessarily tipping the scales against it.
Activists have long harboured ambitions to use the courts to further their aims, where civil claims are usually decided on the “preponderance of evidence” rather than conclusive proof for or against. According to Lloyd and Oreskes, “Scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context.” Stringent levels of proof are said by them to be “damaging”, and can lead to “confusion” when communicating scientific findings to the lay public.
This is an odd argument. After all, if tens of millions of people are definitely going to be made poorer by a climate policy – Net Zero, for instance – surely we need to know with a reasonable degree of certainty that not reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2050 would be even more damaging to people’s welfare, not just that it is “more likely than not”? The difficulty is that the harm caused by Net Zero is immediate and tangible, whereas the harm caused by not implementing Net Zero is speculative and notional.
It won’t come as a surprise that Lloyd and Oreskes are both keen on climate models. “Climate models aid in the attribution of extreme events both through the probabilistic and storyline or mechanistic methods; in both cases, extreme events such as heat waves or heavy precipitation events can generally be attributed to climate change with a high degree of confidence”, they write. Such “advances”, they suggest, “have allowed such analyses to be used as evidence in legal cases involving climate change”.
Overall, the writers suggest that “more likely than not” be considered sufficient proof when it comes to any claims made by climate change activists, including attributing one-off events to anthropogenic global warming. “[I]ts use would increase the odds that the audience for IPCC information understands climate evidence as the IPCC intends it to,“ they write. “Indeed, our argument also applies beyond courtrooms, and more generally to the public discourse on climate change.”
How very thoughtful of them. Let’s hope climate activists don’t apply the same standard of ‘proof’ when it comes to imprisoning climate change ‘deniers’ for challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. Two years ago, Exeter University associate geography professor Saffron O’Neill said a “solution” to the dissemination of climate misinformation might be “fines and imprisonment”. Misinformation was defined as casting doubt on “well supported” science. Casting doubt on dodgy climate forecasts that are “more likely than not” to be true? Time for a spell of model re-education in Maximum Security.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There are people holding responsibilities for the sane operation of normal life, who believe that everyone wafts clouds of viral particles every second of every day.Can someone defuse their ignorance and bigotry, please?
If they have a viral infection that involves the airways and lungs it is likely that they do, in the same way that unclean people waft clouds of unpleasnt odours.
Yes but that is the extent of their knowledge.
Do they know who will be seriously ill and who won’t? No
Do they know what conditions lead to infection and which do not? No
Knowing viruses exist isn’t good enough. They are using the power of the state to tell people how to live their lives pretending they know the answers to these critical questions when they actually have little or no clue.
THAT is what is driving scepticism. Not Dr Sam Bailey.
This ^^^^ !!!!
Absolutely, Stewart. Government’s action (and Opposition inaction) and their seeming inability to chose a broad range of advisors is leading to huge destruction of our culture.
The destruction of our culture is intentional. It is part of the reset.
“Six of 12 men wintering at an isolated Antarctic base sequentially developed symptoms and signs of a common cold after 17 weeks of complete isolation. Examination of specimens taken from the men in relation to the outbreak has not revealed a causative agent.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/
Germ theory needs to explain.
May not have found a causative agent, but assuming there was one, where did it come from and why only six and not all 12 men
I would say that if you had to ask that question – which assumes a “causative agent” and that it’s contagious – you have not exposed yourself to Sam Baily’s easy-to-understand videos. You lucky person ! And the Good Doctor’s article (above) should inoculate you against the curiosity ‘virus’ (Though Sam Baily would probably dispute it’s a ‘virus’.)
Cuddling polar bears. . . just to keep warm, of course!
Denier derives from a religious use. So, it’s use implies that the basis of the argument is belief not science. And, saying “XXXX denier” is usually totally absurd.
Take for example the “climate denier” meme. What is is that people are supposedly “denying”. Is it that there is a climate … or is it that over the 4.5billion years that there has been no climate change? Is it that the climate cannot change when humanity creates large cities (which are several degrees warmer?) Is it that CO2 is not a Infra Red active gas?
It’s a meaningless term … deliberately very unspecific to deliver an insult without being specific enough to be refuted … and therefore “xxxx denier” is really just a stupid and lazy attack on individuals.
Actually the term ‘denier’ to describe those who challenge/do not blindly accept Climatism is quite insidious. It was borrowed from the term ‘Holocaust denier’ loaded with all the emotional baggage and association with the Nazis that brings.
The relevance being that the Holocaust is irrefutable because of so much documented evidence, photo/video, and survivor and eye witness accounts not least soldiers and war correspondents of the Allied forces who liberated the camps.
The Climatists claim to have so much evidence that ‘Climate Change’ is irrefutable, but they never show it. Requests to see it are dismissed with, ‘the debate is over’ to enter into further debate is to give credibility to those who challenge the claims and undermine the verity of ‘the science’ itself.
Well said. ‘Climate (change) denier’, ‘Covid denier’, ‘virus denier’ – abhor the use of these expressions.
The new word for ‘heretic’. Rather like the term ‘Nazi’ being bandied about for anyone who disagrees with a viewpoint, especially those of the Left or MSM.
New? Been in use for the best part of 2 decades thanks to CAGW
Sorry, I used virus denier above, but it is aimed specifically at people who deny the existence of all viruses.
I deny the existence of all viruses. This simply because none have ever been isolated, characterized, much less shown to be infectious.
Wow. That’s a very powerful statement. I mean, how you can prove a negative is … well… astonishing.
Do I take from this that only things that have been isolated can exist?
That’s clearly up to you.
This simply because none have ever been isolated, characterized, much less shown to be infectious.
Those down voting that statement are seemingly truth deniers. That being said, viruses may still exist.
There were debates in the Middle Ages about God’s existence. The disbelievers were told to prove God didnt exist. How could they when it hadnt been proven that God existed.
I wonder how the debate is going in the parallel universe(s) ?
I prefer deployed rather than borrowed, it better describes the weaponising of the phrase.
Yes, it is used to smear any skepticism as National Socialist.
It’s doubly evil as it’s a term used by those who want a second Holodomor while denying that their preferred policies are Communist.
‘denier’ is a shut-up term. It hearkens to Holocaust denier. Presumably the person denies the Moon landing as well.
Uhh….you seriously believe they landed a nailed and pop-riveted together shed made from balsa wood, aluminium sheeting and tinfoil on the moon, which survived temperatures ranging from +100C to -100C with men protected inside it, and then ‘flew’ it back to the mother rocket ready to travel back to earth?
Have you studied this thing close up? Its like something knocked up by a sixth form college.
Yet the world swallowed it up whole, no questions asked. Half my life I worked in the special effects entertainment industry and have long argued the moonlandings were fake. They were laughably fake.
Along with the fake cold war, it was a big distraction from the commies migrating out of Russia into America and Europe.
And here we are are today, with a pseudo democracy and a pathetically degenerate people who have had their brains pulverised with hourly BS from all directions, accepting everything the regime throws at them.
We’re now a nation almost completely willing to sacrifice everything to please the globalist agenda.
https://ourdecisiontoo.com/Issue/there-s-nothing-left-to-do-but-go-our-separate-ways/320/
My kids questioned The Moon Landing. They claim that as no Moon Cheese was brought back, then no Landing.
The 1989 Wallace and Gromit mission confirmed the existence of Moon Cheese, although samples taken at the surface tested negative for Wensleydale.
My kids saw Wally and Grom movie. All that Cheese.
That’s why they doubted the Moon Landing.
Cough. The vile Monbiot actually used “Holocaust Deniers” to describe those of us capable of independent thought.
However, I will credit him. It was his abuse of language that first made me think – something’s not right here…
“the Holocaust is irrefutable”
What, every last detail of the orthodox account of it?
Is the “Holocaust denier” label applied exclusively to those who reject every detail, or does it extend, and, indeed, is, perhaps, overwhelmingly applied, to those, qualified historians, or otherwise, who reject at least one detail?
Is the label being employed to make history a matter of diktat, rather than a product of research?
I think we should be told!
“Climate change denier” is a propaganda term that is used to contaminate the rejection of the theory of anthropogenic climate change by associating or “amalgamating” it with the view that climate change doesn’t happen and isn’t happening.
Curiously exactly the same confusion between cause and effect is evident in the use of the term “Covid” (an illness) to denote SARSCoV2 (a virus).
Once a person’s mind has been befuddled in this way,
George Orwell wrote that “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows”. Nowadays one can say the same about the use of basic techniques of thinking, such as distinguishing between cause and effect; considering what the causes of a known effect may or may not be; identifying assumptions; and trying to update your outlook if one of your previous assumptions is found to be false. Propaganda hinders people from using these basic intellectual tools that a well-raised five-year-old knows how to use.
A climate change denier believes the Earth’s climate is static.
Keep this one-liner handy whenever the pejorative is used against you.
orwell was wrong.
it should be: freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
“Climate change denier” is hurled at those who challenge or reject official claims that humans are to blame. Climate change deniers know climate changes occur. If the media showcase a climate change denier who actually denies climate change, it’s to discredit those who refuse The Official Consensus (aka – Party line).
The term ‘climate denier’ crams an incredible number of fallacies into just two words.
I observe that the first person I ever heard use the term was the illiterate gibbering imbecile Prince Harry.
I believe it’s what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept.
Mike – thanks for the comments; I just cannot think of a better term for someone who denies the existence of viruses; in fact she is really a ‘science denier’ as she dismisses the whole of modern and a lot of established science. I see someone suggesting ‘sceptic’ as the correct term below but sceptics question, they don’t ‘deny’ and/or ridicule in the way Dr Bailey does. Watch he most recent video.
You are sounding more and more like Lord Fauci now, for he too has decreed that anyone questioning his random utterances and constantly changing diktats is a ‘science denier’.
I agree. Here is Sam’s brilliant rebuttal https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/the-covid-sceptics-who-spread-viral-dogma/ I can’t believe Watson’s article appeared in the sceptic, though judging by recent topical posts they seem to have lost the plot completely. Dr Watson also has declined to have a discussion on the ‘science’ with the Baileys…not confident of his evidence?
extreme contrarian perhaps?
Ridiculous comment. Denier is a codeword for ‘you must be a horrible person like a holocaust denier’. That’s where it came from. It’s just a low grubby insult for someone you don’t agree with it, and it’s kind of disgusting. Gussying it up as some kind of respectable intellectual position is not ok.
Oh come on. You couldn’t think of a better term? Perhaps the word sceptic? The clue is in the publication title. You could take all the heat out of this comments thread by just apologising for your poor choice of language, stop making excuses and move on.
“in fact she is really a ‘science denier’ as she dismisses the whole of modern and a lot of established science.”
May I ask if you deem “established science” as “settled science”?
Please set out for us non scientific thickos how and by whom has Peter Duesberg discredited with his research in to HIV/AIDS? Your reply will, I am sure, be illuminatiing.
Exactly Mike.
Whilst I enjoyed this rather hysterical article I found the Nazi connotations disagreeable – straight out of the global alarmists playbook.
Btw has this Chinese/American CIA derived virus been isolated and sequenced
It obviously came from the American sponsored lab in Wuhan. Could the good Doctor apply his local Chinese knowledge to enlighten us?
Thanks, Roger. It’s as I said in March 2020: the authorities’ over-reaction (for whatever reason) to a seasonal flu virus will encourage all sorts of quackery – including the ideas that viruses don’t exist and that vaccines are bad (the real ones, not the “vaccines” peddled in the last 18 months).
PS, Sphagnum Moss is excellent stuff for wiping your bottom in the wild; no sticks required!
I’m just reading “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History”. I’d really recommend you take a look at it before you put too much faith in the good old vaccines of yester year. What’s happening now has already happened with the smallpox vaccination.
From a circular signed”The doctors”,1876:
“Try revaccination – it never will hurt you,
For revaccination has this one great virtue:
Should it injure or kill you whenever you receive it,
We all stand prepared to refuse to believe it.”
Look up what happened in Leicester in 1885.
I’ll take a look, thanks, LovelyGirl.
“The vaccine has actually increased susceptibility to the disease. The conclusion is in every case the same: that vaccination is a gigantic delusion; that it has never saved a single life; but that it has been the cause of so much disease, so many deaths, such a vast amount of utterly needless and altogether undeserved suffering, that it will be classed by the coming generation among the greatest errors of an ignorant and prejudiced age, and its penal enforcement the foulest blot on the generally beneficent course of legislation during our century.” Alfred Russell Wallace
Yes, excellent book. Good recommendation.
So a lot of downvoting but no-one (apart from a book recommendation from LovelyGirl) is choosing to help by adding any detail?
I am not an expert, but the work of Edward Jenner seems pretty conclusive to me.
And bear in mind that inoculation was happening in many parts of the world, centuries before the practice came to Europe.
Sanitation eradicated smallpox. See my reply to LovelyGirl and this:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/what-we-can-learn-from-the-smallpox?s=r
And, yes, I refuse ALL vaccines which probably makes me an ‘anti-vaxxer’ in much the same way as because I don’t eat meat I must be an ‘anti-carnivore.’ Ludicrous terms. Everyone else can do what they like.
Ha! Went carnivore a year or so back. Only animal products. Can’t remember when I last felt SO well. And all locally sourced, meat all grass fed. Supermarket shelves empty? Who cares?!
If it works for you I applaud it. I gave up eating meat because I abhor intensive farming methods and cruelty to animals. If someone fed me venison because they had collided with a deer on the highway I wouldn’t have a problem, though I suspect after 40 years I don’t have the enzymes to digest it. .
Hi Bella, don’t take this as an attack, I mean it truly in the spirit of debate:
It seems to me that your abhorrence to breeding and killing animals for food whilst not abhorring the growing and harvesting of plants for food is illogical. Are plants not equally alive? Or is it just because animals seem more ‘human’?
I’m not a Buddhist but they make a distinction between sentient and non sentient. I think it was Kant who said the essence of life was the eating of itself. Also to sustain life you have take life. BUT Marcus you missed my point. It’s the nature of the breeding. I said intensive farming, where (some) animals are herded together they can hardly breathe and barely see daylight. I gave the example of road kill for a reason.
OK, thanks for the clarification about sentience, Bella. It sort of makes sense to me. But I guess I just don’t feel qualified to define what is or is not sentient. So I just eat the lot! My jawbone and my teeth tell me that wiser heads than my own felt that’s what I should do.
And I agree that some of the breeding methods do not render very good quality meat… in more optimistic times (i.e. Before Covid), I would have said that perhaps the problem will therefore fix itself, but now I am not so sure.
I somehow missed your roadkill example – apologies!
No probs
Nice discussion.
Like Sheeple Bella?
Agreed. Although I believe that vaccination against indiscriminate killers like the smallpox virus has helped reduce deaths from those viruses, I also believe that improved sanitation and access to clean water are most likely the two biggest contributors in this regard.
Together with an improvement in public health and knowledge of vitamin deficiencies.
I am pretty confident that if you read the book I have recommended you will see vaccination in general in a new light (especially because you are a wise and thoughtful emperor
). It’s actually gobsmacking. To be honest, I had already known that smallpox was not eradicated by vaccination, but the details of what actually happened are astonishing and the parallels with today striking.
so was bloodletting….
If you wanted to set up some moderated debates I think your readers would really appreciate it and they would be very successful.
Show the world that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.
That’s what Florence Nightingale said about sunlight. Good for vitamin D too.
Excellent article.
I spent 18 months arguing with “virus deniers” on the David Icke forum showing them scientific evidence for the existence of viruses until the so-called “moderator” known as Grumpy Owl finally blocked me.
Unfortunately some of them migrated onto this website and those arguments continued.
It has diluted peoples energies exposing the Covid fraud and split the sceptic ranks.
Some Charlatans with a failed scientific/medical background with books to sell, websites to fund and pills, lotions and potions to sell to the gullible have seen the profit potential of abandoning mainstream medicine in favour of the 19th century Terrain Theory and “viruses do not exist” quackery. People like Stefan Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, Sam Bailey etc.
These people have seduced others in the alternative media without a medical or scientific background but who also have books to sell and websites to fund to support their spurious 19th century claims and that “viruses do not exist”. People like David Icke, Jon Rappaport, Mike Adams etc.
They keep appearing on each others platforms, including Alex Jones Infowars, and keep quoting each other and operate in an echo chamber of lies and deceit to illicit money from the gullible.
ALL their claims about “viruses not existing” have been debunked.
I gathered many of my arguments against those who have their quasi religious belief that “viruses do not exist” on my blog.
https://classicrecords1.wixsite.com/the-sceptic
I enjoyed your original post, and agree that there is a heavy sense of charlatan in the likes of Kaufmann for example. Mike Adams absolutely is selling his brand.
However, you’ve killed it by shilling your blog now. Ironic enough
I linked to it so I wouldn’t have to keep repeating the same arguments with anyone on here.
I had to create the blog because sites like the Daily Expose wouldn’t post some of my comments in full so it was easier to link to a blog.
I read the book Virus Mania that Bailey co-authored.
The terrain theory on its own, stating that the immune response and deficiencies in certain individuals to a virus are far more relevant to public health than attempts at containment beyond the very initial stages, seems like standard epidemiology before 2020.
Where they lose the plot is by saying that viruses are not the cause of disease. They certainly are, but often only in susceptible individuals.
Exactly.
Viruses exist and are more likely to effect an individual if they have an unhealthy lifestyle.
Your position is always to link anyone who questions the existence of SARS-CoV-II with ‘virus deniers’ in general. Do you do this on purpose?
The vast, vast majority of people who say SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist also say that “no” viruses exist.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
Is there an article about isolation and genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 — in a scientific journal?
Try doing an internet search and there will be thousands of them.
As I think I have said in the past, terrain theory and germ theory are two sides of the same coin, cf the duality of light wave or particle.
If you are in poor physical, mental or spiritual (not in the religious sense) condition then you are more susceptible to and less likely to recover from an infection.
Cold sores reoccur if you are stressed, shingles appears if you are stressed physically or mentally.
I was going to raise the point in the comments of Sam Bailey’s latest YouTube video, about HIV/AIDS developing in normally healthy patients after a blood transfusion, using the example of the science fiction/fact author Isaac Asimov who died of AIDS after receiving contaminated blood, even though he didn’t fit the profile of a typical HIV/AIDS patient.
a great read from the Perth group http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/HaemophiliaHIVAIDS.pdf
Why does it have to be so absolutist and binary – either germ theory or terrain theory?
would it not make infinitely more sense to be a blend of both [ie weak or vulnerable individuals with a poorly nurtured immune system will fall prey to circulating viruses in a way that others don’t]?
I’m in your camp. It’s definitely both. A mixture of your innate immune system (aka terrain, or whatever it is that supports your innate immune system) and a pathogen. I don’t understand the binary thinking.
Terrain would also include genetic/epigenetic influences.
I have no opinion on whether viruses exist or not. I do have an opinion on the efficacy of vaccines though and, in the main, believe them to be suspect. But as I said in another post everyone can make up their own minds and do what they want. But I detect a suspicion in your post which might deride alternative therapies to allopathic medicine (‘without a medical or scientific background.’). I’m an advocate of homeopathy and herbalism and I have endured abuse for over forty years for being so. I don’t care what other people think, it has worked (and still works) for me. Again, everyone else can do what they like, but why deride me because I use it? I’m not forcing it on anyone else.
I’m not deriding you.
I’m 66 and haven’t had a vaccine for 40 years because I mistrust them.
I shun modern medicine and am very relaxed about herbalism.
I believe in eating well and staying fit and healthy.
I’m deriding those who don’t understand modern virology and who keep saying “viruses do not exist”.
Are people denying viruses exist though, or are they denying they are the cause of disease? Like the climate change debate, those who’s opinions are challenged brand people as ‘deniers’ but, what they are denying is climate change equals catastrophic consequences.
Yes. The people I have mentioned “believe” that viruses do not exist.
Unlike thousands of sceptical climate scientists questioning man made global warming there has been no retired virologist or otherwise with nothing to lose in coming forward with any doubts about “viruses existing”. There have been no death bed confessions from modern virologists. There have been no scientific papers suggesting viruses do not exist.
I didn’t mean to suggest you were deriding me, sorry if it read that way. I was referring to the people who have derided me in the past. Where I suggested you might have had some derision was for alternatives to allopathic medicine. I am very happy to be corrected by you that that in in fact is not the case.
You certainly know the names of the enemy. And from now on i wont believe anything people write about Viruses unless they’ve a medical or scientific background (keeping your distinction between ‘medical’ and ‘scientific’).
Which means that though the good Doctor-author is a Dean of Nursing that should qualify him as having virology expertise…
And why not, as during the height of the 1980s AIDS scare the local press quoted / promoted a Dermatologist as an expert on the sexual transmission of HIV.
I know your methods, Watson. Calm rationality, eh? But will this work on the nutters?
Still, lots of us have been accused of being nutters just for opposing lockdowns and being suspicious of the vaccines. It turns out, however, that we were right all along.
I’m not sure I’m sceptical enough, though. I didn’t guess that the US had biowarfare labs in Ukraine. The world seems to be full of facts that are barely credible but entirely true.
The Financial Times is obfuscating on the “labs”. It is confusing its readers about biological warfare, chemical warfare, and the difference between them. It says “Moscow repeats unsupported chemical weapons claims”. In fact, Russia has accused the US of having BW facilities [*] in the Ukraine, not CW ones. Nor does the FT see fit to inform people that Russia has taken the matter of the alleged US BW facilities to the UN Security Council. Presumably support for Russia’s claims will be given to the Security Council at its meeting today. So much for a “paper of record”.
In other news, it is now admitted by the West (Torygraph article) that the Russian government was right and that the woman in the photographs was indeed the “Instagram influencer” Marianna Podgurskaya. Although I still believe she is a crisis actor, and that the photographs were faked, she may well also have been pregnant and now have given birth. Let us hope of course that she and her baby are properly looked after and that both are in good health and doing well.
Note
*) We should call them “facilities”. That covers laboratories, but it also covers storage and launch sites. The US has form in conducting unlawful weapons research on other countries’ territories, but there is no sensible reason why they would have 30 biowar research laboratories even on a territory as large as the Ukraine. Think of all the vetting, physical security, transport, and communications that would be required. No. They would keep something like this small and neat. Perhaps they might need to catch birds or bats at 30 different places, but they would centralise the analysis and experimentation. Similarly Britain doesn’t have 30 different atomic weapons research sites. Launch sites for BW (for which the delivery systems aren’t necessarily long-range) would be another matter.
russia claims?
so what, russia also claims it did not shoot down flight mh17….
And it probably didn’t.
https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/shocking-update-on-the-mh17-cover-up/
have you actually read any of the pieces of eric zuesse?
that man is so far down the rabbit hole that he does no longer see the light of day.
i wonder on what pay scale he is being kept by wladimir…
This credibility of virology certainly needs robust, public debate. After which perhaps it can be cleaned up creating trust and transparency to a general public, some like me, who just want to know the truth. However, what I do not want to read, hear or see are unprofessional comments like:
“Dr. Sam Bailey is a photogenic New Zealand doctor who has abandoned medicine.”
Exactly my point as well. That they made this point at the beginning of their article to me shows their intent. To me, this was just another hit piece. I hope Toby allows Dr Bailey to put her view across.
I hope not I have never heard such a load of shite.
Her “tone” of presentation seems to be something we should be annoyed about also, according to the author of this blog post.
She’s being mean to virus believers. Ergo, viruses must exist.
I believe she’s no longer registered as a physician in New Zealand and is subject to investigation.
for speaking out…bully for her.
Why the down votes again for stating facts, I didn’t give my opinion on the rights or wrongs of that.
Dr Sam Bailey has not “abandoned” medicine but she has stated that she is no longer registered as a practising doctor. After the avalanche of lying these last two years who can blame her? At least Dr Bailey has turned a questioning eye on what passes for “the science.”
Better to have someone who has the guts to speak out than the lazy, prescription filling jokers currently warming their arses in local surgeries for three days a week on grossly inflated salaries courtesy of Bliar.
For a second I thought I had arrived at fullfact.org .
If we take the HIV/AIDS argument, there are credible reasons to doubt that AIDS is caused by HIV alone. Causation has never been proven. HIV may play a part alongside another virus or bacteria or it may simply be exploiting a weakened immune system. We just don’t know.
HIV was fraudulently selected as the cause of AIDS in an unprecedented press conference where zero evidence was supplied (that scientist’s credibility is somewhat diminished by the fact that he stole the discovery of HIV from another scientist). It seems more likely to me that the majority of AIDS cases are caused by the lethal chemotherapy drugs that get issued to anyone who scores a PCR positive for HIV. There are so many warning signs that HIV is a lie, for example the existence of HIV antibodies allegedly confirming HIV infection, whereas for every other virus, antibodies mean you have defeated the virus. Read Kennedys Fauci book and see if it doesn’t make you… erm… sceptical!
About AIDS I too am sceptical that the HI virus solely is responsible for AIDS. I believe that AIDS is quite possibly/probably a disorder caused by a multitude of factors many of them lifestyle/environmental.
About Polio too I am now somewhat sceptical about a direct link between the identified virus and the neurological disorders classed as Polio, after reading some very persuasive articles on the probable/almost certain role of pesticides, eg DDT, in the largest outbreaks.
I am also inclined to believe the arguments that although Measles may be precipitated by a virus the illness that is called measles is very often substantially determined/shaped by nutritional factors, particularly the availability/deficiency of Vitamin A.
I think that the truest picture is that of a synergy between the bacteria + the exosomes that are viruses *with.* the state of the body that they find themselves in.
ie the so called infectious disease types of illnesses are *not* the inevitable result of particular bacteria or viruses, but a possible consequence, *if* other factors are in place.
PS. As such vaccination for probably all of the so called infectious diseases is only half the story, at most, because equally or even more important factors are environmental, nutritional, constitutional/genetic, mental/emotional etc.
But those things cost money and/or definitely don’t make any money for the pharmaceutical companies …. and as such are systematically ignored/dismissed/made to look ridiculous.
Re. Measles, there is a study from 1963 (I have a copy but not a link) which noted that, not only had measles mortality fallen over the the century (between 1900 and the introduction of the single vaccine in 1968 it had fallen by 99%). The study noted that mortality (and long-term mortality) was not uniform, but skewed to poverty.
Exactly. Nutritional factors are the most important in determining the form and degree of what is known as measles, which has is classed as an infectious disease ( therefore supposedly justifying a vaccination programme ) but is more about a person’s nutritional status.
Well I was a breast fed baby and got it at 3 months… back in 1951
Dr MK has set this all out in “Doctoring Data” and on his blog.
Yes, All very well explained and references in the following book:
Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk
Polio was endemic in the U.K. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It is passed through the orofaecal route. Not every child developed the paralysis associated with the disease, there was a level of immunity that developed naturally.
When sanitation standards improved the natural immunity declined and the prevalence of the disease increased, particularly in the immediate post WW2 period, which is when there were epidemics across the USA prompting Salk to develop his vaccine. There were outbreaks in the U.K. in the late 1950’s early 1960’s, the East End of London for example, until the oral vaccine became widely administered in the 1960’s. Don’t forget that in a significant number of tenement flats in London there was one toilet for several flats.
The biggest outbreaks occurred in places using pesticides/DDT recklessly across fruit farms, fields, swimming pools with children swimming in them at the time, spraying in highly populated areas.
The outbreaks started soon after the first such pesticides started being used, from the late 1800s onwards.
And the worst outbreaks, in the USA anyway, in the late 40’s- 50s as you say occurred during a period of massive expansion of agro-industrial farming techniques and mass spraying of these pesticides, and disappeared as soon as DDT use was restricted from the mid 50s.
The UK continued to use this type of pesticides for several more years after the US, and only restricted it from the early 60s.
DDT was banned in the USA in 1972 by the FDA.
If DDT was the cause of poliomyelitis then during the trials of the Salk vaccine the rate of occurrence in the different groups should have been the same, they weren’t, the rate in the vaccinated group was significantly less than in the control groups (placebo and no injection), this trial involved thousands of children.
Poliomyelitis, it is believed, was known in ancient Egypt.
If DDT caused poliomyelitis then why is it possible to contract the disease from the faeces of recently vaccinated infants’ nappies?
DDT is a suspected carcinogen.
AIDS just means Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome – it can be ‘acquired’ because of various things, for example, poor nutrition, certain drugs, vaccination too,.. so called V-AIDS.
It was closely linked with HIV and most associate it with that because of poor public education, lazy/misreporting in the media. AIDS thus became synonymous with HIV, so people would say ‘caught AIDS’ when you cannot ‘catch’ AIDS, but you can ‘catch’ HIV. And HIV did not always lead to AIDS in some cases.
We have the conflating of two things now: CoVid = Coronavirus Disease, with SARS Coronavirus 2 which causes CoVid. Nobody is infected with CoVid, they are infected with SARS CoV 2. This might/might not develop into the disease.
PCR Testing was (usefully to Project Fear) misleading because it shows only possible infection with virus not presence of CoVid, the disease. The viral fragments may be post-disease, or be after an infection which did not result in disease. To label all +ve PCR Tests as ‘cases’ was just more of the lies told.
I was about to say something about this. Kennedy in his book “The Real Dr. Fauci” covers HIV/AIDS quite extensively (mostly with respect to Fauci and AZT), but brings up the issue of whether HIV is associated with AIDS or whether it causes AIDS.
And Fauci was involved …
(Remember him? Hasn’t been seen for 3 weeks…)
Indeed the war in Ukraine gave him the perfect opportunity to disappear from the MSM. Wonder why?
Exactly; A Fauci directed multi billion dollar exercise in making money whilst denying vital treatments despite massive lobbying. The refusal by Fauci and those he bought off to ignore the efficacy of Tetracycline whilst he “mandated” – in effect – the use of a toxic drug (AZT) the development of which he appears to have been, shall we say, a significant influencer seems to me to be an identical situation to the EUA scam of mRNA drugs which do not “work” – but what the hell, people still “bought” the scam and the drug.
So much for “established science”…. another example of mendacity for me.
seminal from the Perth group- http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/HaemophiliaHIVAIDS.pdf
As Dr Andrew Kaufman has been mentioned in comments, implying that he is a ‘virus denier’, I do remember watching a video of his, and don’t think that’s what he was saying at all. It’s a long time ago, but I seem to remember him saying that we all had various viruses/viral material/whatever in our bodies, and that, when we are below par (and yes he may well have said ‘under attack’!) from harmful things (whatever that may be – foodstuffs, things inhaled etc), that that is when the ‘viruses’ that are already present kick in and cause symptoms, in that they are part of the body’s efforts to rid itself of the toxins, and that ‘ridding’ process is uncomfortable, eg the body expunges via mucus, causing coughs, colds etc. I do remember him claiming that there is no evidence to prove that viruses are ‘transmitted’ from one person to another (by coughing, sneezing etc), although I could quite see (and he might well agree?) that if certain viruses are in the blood of one person (the writer’s point about AIDS and haemophiliacs) then yes of course they would be transferred via blood transfusion. I’ve never heard of Dr Sam Bailey, so can’t comment there, but let’s not make a witch-hunt of, or hurl the term ‘virus denier’ at anyone who questions the conventional view of ‘viruses’.
A worthy topic Mr Watson, but you really do need an editor. I gave up going all around the houses with the whys and wherefores a third of the way down and just could not face the rest. I just wanted the meat & potatoes as our American cousins say
Dr B doesn’t believe viruses exist… I got that, no further explanation required. Now succinctly show your evidence for their existence. Two short paragraphs.
Anyway. Viruses which are difficult to classify, somewhere between plant and animal, certainly are demonstrably present in our environment, although only observable inside the cells where they reproduce, they cannot be photographed or cultured like bacteria.
i do take issue with SARS CoV2 being ‘novel’ = ‘ different from anything seen or known before’. But, clue in the name, CoV 2 means there was a CoV 1. That CoV 2 had different characteristic – novel? – is true of all organisms that have mutated. Human Beings – each baby born being a mutant – are all ‘novel’ in that respect.
However ‘novel’ used to describe CoV 2 was just part of the fear-machine to make us believe it was of a type never before encountered and therefore we had no natural protection or experience of the like. That was a lie and explains in part the response by Governments throwing out all we had learned about other respiratory viruses and coronaviruses because CoV 2 was like nothing before.
I agree. It’s padded out way too much and the Covid denier slurs, claims of echo chambers, just ruins it.
I think a lot of the confusion is the fact that so many proxies are used to “isolate” the virus and leaves a lot of room for criticism. It’s almost as if the language used to explain to the layman that they do exist and cause a specific illness isn’t sufficient.
For example they tell us viruses are not alive in the way bacterium are. And yet they “infect” cells and create disease. How? If its inert, how is able to do anything and, in addition, how does it come with any “intention” do do something? Others say that it’s not alive but more just a piece of information. Again, the language is nuts. How does a piece of information actually perform the actions they claim it does? Where do they actually get this ability to act on human cells? They are not living.
If you ask the question “how does SARS-CoV-2 cause Covid”, the answer you get is inevitably wrapped up in language of the virus doing stuff. And yet it isn’t alive. So what exactly is making it do anything?
To a scientist involved in the field these are probably amateur questions. “I don’t have the time” would be the answer. However, it shows why we have such gaps in the positions taken
Are they ‘natural’ mRNA, messengers that change DNA? Existing in a pea soup of mRNA could point to explanaitions of a lot of things.
Still hasn’t been isolated.
As Dr Bailey has said on more than one occasion, the Euro 100k prize for proving the existence of the COVID-19 virus has yet to be claimed despite ‘several’ scientists claiming they have proved so. When questioned by Dr Bailey and her colleagues, all of them admitted they in reality have not proven its existence.
Odd how (IMHO) Dr Watson conveniently forgets that. Also odd how the definition of ‘isolation’ has been changed in recent years to mean something that bears no resemblence to the dictionary term.
‘Computer-generated guess based on a soup of unidentified stuff and previous guesses’ seems to me more accurate for how they ‘isolate’ and ‘sequence’ viruses these days.
Dr Zach Bush had a lot of interesting information about viruses and the virome.
yes! I love Zach Bush, I’m going to watch this again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJxjdGtuEs4 I think a lot of the problem is that we are talking about different things and we need to define our terms. Zach Bush talks about the 10 to the 15 ‘viruses’ in our blood all the time, that can upgrade genetic info. But technically a virus is a poison that can’ infect’ cells and be the cause of disease in anyone if present in sufficient amounts. So there needs to be another word for the packets of genetic information floating around, because they are not ‘viruses’. Genetic sequences seem to be expressed when organisms are stressed and are a communication tool, to other cells and organisms. A fascinating area that’s not being looked into because the powers that be need to keep the virus dogma going.
Duesberg discredited? And you provide a link to Wikipedia!!!!!!! Are you kidding me? Duesberg has not been discredited, on the contrary, his seminal paper 1987 paper Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality in Cancer Research, 1 March 1987 has never been rebutted. Wikipedia? What a joke. This site is starting to turn into something very different.
The article above reads like something the Independent would print, attacking those with a different view to the mainstream ‘settled’ opinion. And look how fast the usual pro-vax trolls magically showed up to show support…
That’s what I thought on seeing the title. I wouldn’t have believed it but for the other article today asking if the west has a leg to stand on complaining about Russia, to which the obvious answer is no. It’s quite weird and sad to suddenly find myself on a site posting these kinds of arguments!
PS. As you say, using Wikipedia ref Duesberg is unbelievably poor journalism. D’s research and argument has become increasingly powerful, relevant and respected if anything..
Yes, it’s not only poor journalism, it instantly signals that the author of the piece has got nothing. Obviously has no clue about Duesberg and the entire debate around HIV. Just lumps it all together. Really pathetic stuff. Seriously what is going on at Daily Sceptic? It’s jumped the shark.
Yep
They are pro-free speech, so maybe they’re going to give Dr Bailey a right of reply so that we readers can make our own minds up. Some of us may disagree with Dr Watson, but banning him is just as bad as the MSM and Big Tech/Social Media do on their platforms/sites.
If someone is talking rubbish, then a healthy debate from both sides and reasoned comments should get to the truth of the matter.
I too am infuriated by this article – I expect better from DS. He says, “I would like to hear Duesberg or Sam Bailey explain how haemophiliacs contracted AIDS from blood infusions. Somehow, I think they’ll have a stock response to that one.” which is a particulary ridiculously circular argument. I don’t know about Bailey, but Deusburg deals with the issue of haemophiliacs and blood transfusions in his book, Inventing the Aids virus and provides a very plausible explanation of the data. Dismissing this as a ‘stock response’ is both ignorant and disingenuous.
Dr sam’s brilliant rebuttal https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/the-covid-sceptics-who-spread-viral-dogma/
In <i>Inventing the AIDS virus</i>, Duesberg devotes an entire appendix to the question of haemophiliacs, reprinted from a 20 page paper published in the Springer journal <i>Genetica</i>. In brief, he suggests that factor VIII was contaminated by foreign proteins and that these brought about AIDS in haemophiliacs, not HIV which was also present as a passenger virus. He may or may not be right, and new evidence may have emerged since then, but he is a distinguished scientist who follows orthodox scientific methodology, and I find the angry, scornful tone unwarranted.
As a – very very – sceptical non scientist – I completely agree; all I have read in the last two years suggests that the statement “Duesberg discredited” renders this guy deeply untrustworthy, and very possibly “agenda driven”.
Would he also opine that Luc Montagnier was, during his lifetime, similarly “discredited” for coming to much the same conclusion as Duesberg, and independently?
Would he also smear Dr Lo and the discovery of the existence of mycoplasma which apparently led to Fauci/Gallo hunkering down – a sure sign of morally bankruptcy – RFK Jnr sets out how they refuse to discuss HHV6 – I am assuredly a non scientist, but in a morally and ethical characterised scientific community I do not believe these factors would NOT be discussed between otherwise highly intelligent people trying to find solutions.
Perhaps “Follow the Money” has replaced Utmost Good Faith and First Do No Harm in so called western “civilisation” (other translations are available). What I find deeply disturbing is that Watson and others like him, just as with politicians, don’t seem to care that once me as a shining example of “Joe Public” discovers how intellectually/morally/ethically bankrupt they reveal themselves to be, their reputation is shot for all time, with no remission for good behaviour.
‘his site is starting to turn into something very different.’ Precisely……
One of the benefits of the last two years is an improvement in my understanding of what a virus is. I have seen video of Mullis saying that Montagnier could not provide his with a paper proving the HIV AIDS link (I had always assumed that to be ‘settled science’). ‘Lifestyle’ certainly seems to play a part, as did Fauci with AZT. That he is still around is a scandal, perhaps his retirement will be another benefit.
i thought so too, thought i was reading the wrong newsletter ! as soon as saw headline what is going on !
In my view, Dr. Watson plays the woman (heavily criticising Dr Bailey’s delivery) not the ball a lot, and refers a LOT of his ‘evidence’ to other people who do the same to others who, when pressed by Dr Bailey and her collegues, confirmed that the SAR-Co-2 virus had indeed NOT been isolated.
The NZ blog ‘refuting’ of her comments in my view does the same, including where it says that centfruging a ‘soup’ of tiny particules miraculously separates them into virus and everything else, at which point it is ‘separated’, grown (in another culture) and DNA sequenced, but not mentioning how do they know any particules are a virus, plus the ‘sequencing’ is computer-generated educated guesses based on previous generation guesses for the ‘base’ virus.
Essentially deeming Y is a virus, so Y x1.001 also is a virus, but without isolating one nucleus, extracting its genetic material, then making solely more ot it (i.e. direct copies) and then trying to infect via normal means (not forcing it down a monkey’s throat of injecting it into their eye/brain in large amounts) and seeing if they ‘experience any adverse effects’.
Dr Bailey regularly and effectively refutes all these claims – the vast majority of which, IMHO are circular reasoning. I would watch her videos, because in my view they are far more understandable than this (IMHO hit) piece.
Whenever personal attacks and jargon like ‘anit-vaxxer’ are used, especially in conjunction with trying to blind us with ‘science’, warning bells go off – especially when said person works for the Chinese in China.
I would invite this website to give Dr Bailey and her colleagues the right to reply – after all, it IS all about free speech. I certainly will be letting her know about this article.
I am in full agreement.
Nutters to the left of me. Nutters to the right.
Here we are stuck in the middle being reasonable
A word that increasingly means able to use reason, which clearly the hysterical cannot.
I think that Dr Watson is more than ungenerous as to his description of Dr Bailey and her views. Just because he describes her as X (and especially and unfairly tying her to [IMHO] actual wackos like David Icke) does not mean that is the truth. It’s what he says it is, which ain’t the same – it’s just an opinion.
I hope that someone from their camp may be willing and permitted to provide a counterattack.
yes, this is the problem you are highlighting – theyARE willing but NOT permitted…as per all things scientific at the moment. The Science is settled and we will brook no argument….
I’ve contacted her via her website to that effect. Hopefully Toby will let her.
Let’s do this! The shock effect will be biblical.
https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/the-covid-sceptics-who-spread-viral-dogma/ here it is . Dr Watson unwilling to discuss ‘the science’ with her!
Hence my invitation to the author to confirm if “established science” is the same as “settled science” as far as he is concerned…
I don’t know why you bother. Those who deny the existence of viruses (it still doen’t feel right to me not to use viri if I remember my schoolboy Latin right) are a tiny minority and are likely to influence an increasing small number of people.
Unlike the stupid phrase climate denial, where there are lots of educated people who don’t subscribe to the increasing tenuous claim that climate change is induced primarily by anthropogenic CO2 levels, there is a vanishingly small cohort of virus deniers who have yet not come up with any other verifiable hypothesis for viral disease effectss.
Beg pardon, but we virological atheists are not obliged to replace one fairy tale with another.
Vira – if you insist they exist.
Terrain Theory – explains everything that virology can’t!
`As an ex materials research scientist with a background in electron microscopy. I’m sure that viruses can be shown to exist using a transmission electron microscope?
No, and primarily because they don’t exist.
I’ve personally never seen anything that convinces me against the broad mainstream understanding of what a virus is. However it is always and without exception a mistake to dismiss those who oppose the mainstream view with ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the issues. At best, by not arguing down their position you fuel the belief they are being persecuted for something the powers that be want hidden (cf holocaust denial) at worst, you stifle progress.
It was widely held at the end of the 19th century that science was “settled” on the Newtonian model of the universe. If people who questioned the consensus had been shunned, ridiculed and had their funding cut we might be a long way back from where we are now in terms of our understanding of physics.
Even Darwinian evolution – that flagship of “settled science” has come under some scrutiny recently and there’s the growing understanding there is more to it than just natural selection through chance mutation.
The point being that time and again in science a theory that has been absolutely and totally established as unshakeable fact that only a fool would question has eventually turned out to be, if not bunkum, at least not quite what we thought it was.
Do I think viruses don’t exist? No. Do I think there’s an outside possibility the science on viruses is somehow deeply flawed and that it is worth querying it, even from well outside the box? Yes – in fact I think it’s essential that we do that and that we engage with people who want to do that in an adult and professional way.
This is the only defensible position and the one that will lead to the most progress and happiness
The only problem is that, as long as belief in cough and kill granny exists, there are no compelling arguments against “stay home, save lives” and “if it saves just one life!” and the implications therein.
Very well put.
I listened to her on The Dellingpod. I’m sorry but if I was part of the NZ GMC equivalent I would have removed her right to practice medicine. She talks complete and utter nonsense. I think even JD sounded taken aback and that’s saying something.
Medicine is mostly nonsense. In the US, healthcare may well be the leading cause of death.
Yes, I read that iatrogenic effects ( medically caused ) *are* in fact one of the leading causes of death. I avoid doctors ( and dentists ) and hospitals like the plague.
Please demonstrate what nonsence and why. Just because someone (else) says it is doesn’t make it true. She mostly asks pertinent questions of scientists and clincians who buy into the so-called long-established facts, but 99% of the time they cannot give any answers other than playing the man not the ball.
Isn’t that the sum and substance of the writer’s contention, that people who claim that viruses should be dismissed, as cranks, because of course they exist ? So’s his uncle.
Yep. The proverbial House of Cards the Establishment theory is built upon has no foundation because, IMHO, they still have yet to prove the first generation viruses exist.
A lot of the time they, in my view, use effect to prove cause,a dn dismiss other (very imporatnt) factors at play, as I allude to in other comments.
I would like to see Dr Watson and Dr Bailey have a live debate, though I suspect the former would chicken out of doing so because they would know their arguments don’t stand up.
I agree that it wasn’t a very good interview, but all it was was one interview.
She is already under investigation.
At the moment I tend to the view that any Doctor “under investigation” is probably asking pertinent questions that the authorities don’t want to answer.
Not in her case.
Could you provide some details on that assertion?
Any “registered” doctor who denies that viruses exists and does not offer their patient anti-viral medication is potentially causing harm to that patient and deserves to be “investigated” by the people that employ them.
I personally wouldn’t take anti-virals but others would.
It’s very much like being a pastor and confessing to the board of elders that you no longer believe in God.
Oh, goody. With luck they’ll burn the witch at the stake for daring to take on the “scientific concensus”.
Book your front row seat now, bro’.
There’s “scientific consensus” based on fact.
Then there’s “scientific belief” just to sell a book.
She’s in the latter group.
In your opinion. On many occasions ‘out of the box’ thinking has lead to theories and supposed ‘fact’ being overturned or at the very least modified in science.
BTW, as far as I know, Dr Bailey does specifically deny the existence of viruses, just that they have not been properly identified nor (because of the former) been specifically proven to cause disease – whether in part or full.
Sounds to me like you are a worshipper of the ‘God’ that is Fauci and his money and power hungry colleagues.
To me, it sounds like you haven’t actually bothered to either fully watch her videos (which, unlike others on your side do contain medical advice as well as opinions on COVID, etc) or have read the book she contributed to with 3 others, two of which are also respected clinicians/scientists.
You are creating strawman arguments.
I admire many alternative medics and scientists because their evidence stacks up.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that I “worship” Fauci?
The man is a cretin.
Bailey has some interesting health videos but her books and videos which categorically state that “viruses do not exist” shows she either has no understanding of modern virology OR she just wants to be controversial to make money from the gullible.
The term “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. True science is not based on consensus and never has been.
Healthcare is likely the leading cause of death. Perhaps she believes she fled the killing fields.
Virology is the modern day equivalent of demonology.
@Roger – If you had a broader base to your knowledge, you’d know that the “viruses don’t exist” position tracks to Rudolf Steiner.
And viruses track to “gods are angry” in pre-Roman times.
Maybe so, and a lot could be said about the use of the rainbow symbol (the curved depiction of a rainbow, not the flag) in Britain in 2020-21, but the trackback of the denial of the existence of viruses to Steiner is more specific. The use of the term “organic” to mean foods grown without the use of artificial fertilisers also tracks back to Steiner. (I like to tell people “all food is organic”, but usually I receive blank stares.) Then there is the “fifth extinction”.
This might be old news… the blog doesn’t actually seem to say who ‘Alison’ is.
“sam bailey on isolating viruses, and why she is wrong”
https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2021/04/sam-bailey-on-isolating-viruses-and-why-she-is-wrong/
Another media outlet in NZ tried (and failed) to smear Dr Bailey – she successfully refuted every one of their claims in one of her videos and things went quiet afterwards. As I understand it, she’s also now taking the NZ authorities to court because they’ve effectively tried to suspend her licence.
Dr. Sam takes no prisoners. If I know her, she’ll put together a crushing rebuttal of this article soon.
If TY gives her space for all of us to gauge against our own fear/prejudices/confirmation biases that otherwise might be called “judgement”…
https://www.waikato.ac.nz/staff-profiles/people/acampbel
Somewhere in Renaissance, at the height of the debate about our place in the Universe, that guy called Galileo was tried and sentenced for the idea that Earth moves around the Sun. I think most of us know that he was forced to ditch the claim. In the 1920ies quite a few renowned physicists were still believing that Universe consists of our one galaxy alone, they didn’t want to hear about its real size. … What I’m trying to say is that idea of what is true and established in nowhere as frail and unstable as in science….
Unfortunately there’s too much money and power involved these days foir much of science to be properly scrutinised.
Many people, including the MSM and most of the general public, still erroneously think that clinicians and scientists are amongst the most ethical and trustworthy people on the planet, and thus we should completely trust what they say.
In my own experience dealing with many of them over the years as an engineer, I can safely say they are at least as flawed (and often far more so) than most of us, bearing in mind that scientific (including medical) discovery is very much akin to politics and entertainment – people who seek fame and fortune for their work, with big egos and who aren’t averse to ethical or moral violations to achieve their career objectives.
That’s not to say they’re all like that. I’d also say that the modern societal weak-mindedness of needing to conform and piling on those who are sceptics (or just asking pertinent questions) in order to protect themselves also plays a part – reflected in the way (un)social media works.
Notice how ‘debates’ often rapidly descend into petty (and pointless) bickering, because people know they aren’t up to the job of defending their point of view or ‘facts’.
It’s also why few people want to engage in public face-to-face debating, because either the event is often biased to one side by who the panel consists of, the moderator or the make up of the audience, or because people don’t have the patience to spend sufficient time to get to the heart of issues – all they want is soundbites reinforcing their existing opinions and political leanings.
It’s a good article, but using the HIV/AIDS example is probably a bad one.
https://www.modernghana.com/news/903640/hivaids-greatest-medical-fraud-of-21st-century-causing-cl.html
The term Denier is a bad choice of words IMO, it’s a substitute shorthand to save oneself wordly explinations, armwaving opposing arguments away, without which the nuance of the arguments leaves room for opponents to find fault in the overall thesis. “Denier” “conspiracy theorist” are all term that should be avoided in intellectual debate if they’re to be taken seriously.
Terrain theory proponents do have so valid points, they get the existance of virus or germs completely wrong, they get transmission comepltely wrong too, but consider an immno-compromised, or malnurished patient does indeed have a biological terrain ripe for pathogenic invasion.
Virology has become so specialized, indeed over specialized, that often we find mainstream virology lacking in the basics of broad based understanding of the innate and adaptive immune systems. For example This Week In Virology – a popular virology podcast, managed to contradict it’s self almost weekly in a poor attempt to stay ‘on narrative’ regarding the Corona Virus vaccines. Broad based biologists who stayed up to date with the latest studies regarding the innate and adaptive immune system were very scarce during the vaccine debates.
Even to this day it is rare to find one that will admit antibodies are not a corrolate of immunity for SARS, let alone any RNA virus. Yet this is well established mainstream immunobiology. This is a direct result of the influence of big pharma vaccine manufacturers desperate to cling to their new pet mRNA technologies.
This gap in mainstream immunobology allows space for grifters like Kaufman, Lanka, and Bailey to exploit.
There is in fact a theory that could bridge both terrain and germ theory, that of Viral Swarms. As virus is replicated in a host, the mechanisms mean there is often imperfect replication, the effect being a host becomes infected with a very varied gentically similar swarm of virus, e.g. some more suited to the lower temperatures in the nasal cavities, some more suited to the warmer areas inside organs ir deeper inside the body with higher temperatures, some of which can lie dormant in the host. We exchange many virus all the time without becomming sick, only when environmental conditions, and the perfect combinations of the swam, does one display symptoms.
1/2
2/2 Dan Sirotkin (original DRASTIC researcher)
https://harvard2thebighouse.substack.com/p/azraels-inoculation-against-a-hardened
The hypothesis is explored in other posts on his substack too, often rather long winded posts, but very interesting non the less. Implications for the 2 year genetic time leap for Omicron should be an obvious fit too.
I think the antarctic outbreak refers to this paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130424/
Thanks for that, an excellent summary. I too believe it is likely that germ theory is invalid and this viral swarm theory seems interesting and worthy of further investigation. It feels there needs to be a shift in virology similar to the eventual realisation that the earth revolves around the sun.
Edit, which I have just seen the next comment coincidentally discusses.
Ditto.
I think the problem is the incredibly dumb people that go into public health. They think the public is as dumb as they are, so they resort to vast simplifications to try to nudge people to act a certain way. Often, the way they want people to act is also dumb.
A large animal is an incredibly complicated system that is in a controlled equilibrium with the environment. It is not as a simple as “exposed to germ- infected- disease- cured/death”. The models are junk. It is more like trying to predict the weather.
I am not a scientist, although I did study Philosophy of Science, and did start listening to TWIV at the start of the scare. Two things quickly became apparent: first they were all quite bitter that they hadn’t had the funding they felt they deserved over the previous years; and second they were highly politicised to the point where anything uttered by Trump was immediately trashed. It also seemed that they had connections to Peter Dacszac (I think that’s his name) who was involved in what went on at Wuhan. Anyway I stopped listening as their narrative became less and less authentic.
I never watched it myself, Johnathan Couey (neuro biologist – gigaohmbiological.com) often played clips from TWIV on his educational biology streams, a group of tenured professors and professional virologists no less, to highlight their lack of understanding regarding the innate and adaptive immune systems, highlighting the knots they had to tie themselves into in order to stay on narrative re Corona virus and the vaccines.
Any scientist who thinks they know everything is an idiot. It used to be believe that stomach ulcers were caused by stress but when two brilliant scientists back in the eighties questioned this and did an experiment to prove that the cause of stomach ulcers was bacteria, they were ridiculed for their discovery.
Every virus denier knows that viruses supposedly don’t have to fulfill Koch’s postulates, but the point we are making is that there is absolutely no reason to believe so. Strict demand of Koch’s postulates fulfillment is based on logic and common sense and the fact that they have been rejected by mainstream medical community doesn’t refute that, it was simply an error from the very beginning. Instead of arguing from authority you’d have to explain WHY they don’t have to be fulfilled and neither you in your article, nor to my knowledge anybody anywhere, has been able to convincingly do that.
Anyway, the article was pretty fair so thank you for that.
Much as I have tried to remain open to even fringe ideas like Bailey’s (as a sceptic and non molecular biologist!), I have never believed for a minute that SARS Cov-2 doesn’t exist and have had quite a few ding-dongs on the subject on this forum. I am convinced that when I ‘caught Covid’ I had something new – the loss of taste and smell was unlike anything I’ve experienced before, even though I wasn’t at any point particularly ill.
If viruses don’t exist, then what are all these biological warfare labs working on exactly?
The most plausible explanation for covid to me is that it is a chimeric virus created in a gain of function lab, most likely Fort Dietrick. By far the most compelling and plausible explanations for this outbreak have been provided by Dr David Martin and dr Judy Mikovits. To see SARS-Cov2 as a bioweapon is a pretty fringe idea but when I listen to Martin or Mikovits, I absolutely believe them.
Sam Bailey has some good ideas about nutrition, but yes, I think she’s gone too far when it comes to germ theory and claiming there’s no virus doesn’t do our side any favours.
That’s like saying don’t believe her ‘fringe theory’ but believe ‘someone else’s’.
She asks a LOT of hard-hitting questions that, as yet, no-one on the other side can answer without invoking circular reasoning or using ‘because it is’ type responses.
If they don’t have anything to hide, why do they always get so defensive when asked to definitively prove themselves?
What’s wrong with believing one fringe idea over another? Martin & Mikovits have real credentials and a mountain of documentary evidence. Shouldn’t all ideas be judged on their merits? We’re in a sea of information and misinformation, all we’ve got are our instincts and judgement based on how credible the sources seem.
That’s true, but I’d refrain from rubbishing one just because you personally believe one over the other. They are, both theories, after all. Obviously both cannot be completely correct, but they could in part.
Those biolabs could be experiementing on ‘tiny paricles’ even if they cannot be sure exactly what they are, and still (if released into the environment) cause havoc one way or the other.
Thje problem is (as is common these days) there’s lots of theories and speculation and not much in the way of incontrovertible proof, mainly because few people want to stick their neck out and put put their careers and livelihoods on the line to prove things one way or the other.
It doesn’t help either that doing so requires a great deal of resources and to be completely open about ever aspect of your work. very few people are willing to take such risks, because there’s very little for them to gain if they are working against the majority/Establishment view, especially in today’s media and technological world where reutations can be shattered in moments (including unfairly)..
Ascertainment bias, as loss of taste and smell are nothing new. I swear, it’s like nobody ever detoxed prior to 2020. Or maybe I’m just one of those ding-dongs.
I didn’t say people were ding-dongs, I said I’d had ding-dongs! Believe me I am a total sceptic when it comes to the plandemic but the fact is I had something weird, as did my equally sceptical close friend who’d I’d been with, and the test (which I’d been rubbishing since it’s advent) confirmed an infection. I simply can’t infer anything from that other than I had a virus and it got detected. Happy to be proved wrong though!
Apologies! Ding-dongs means something else in ‘American.’ But back to weird illnesses … nocebo effect is POWERFUL, never moreso than in the past couple of years.
I think Dr Sam Bailey is very credible and very thoughful.
She gave up a career as a tv Doctor because she refused to go with the flow and support the cv19 narrative, as the cv19 debacle progressed she came to the view that all of virology was bunk not just cv19 and had the courage to say so.
I always assumed that virology was credible and valid until cv19 and I began exploring the topic, it turns out that virology is most likely fake science that has been used to create a massive and lucrative pharmaceutical empire.
Sam Bailey’s presentations can be viewed here-
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c
This is a compliations of some presentations where the core claims of virology are disproven –
VIROLOGY ON TRIAL: Drs Cowan, Kaufman & Lanka Debunk Viral Theory? You Decide!https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/virology-on-trial-2:6
Same here.
The moment I hear the word ‘denier’ when someone is discussing matters of a scientific nature I know that I’m in the presence of a closed and unscientific mind. As for the comment
“Dr. Sam Bailey is a photogenic New Zealand doctor…”
why don’t you just say ‘she’s a bit of all right, a good looking bird’. What have Sam Bailey’s looks got to do with it for heaven’s sake?
I like her “ack-seent” too.
personally, I can’t be doing with her vowel mismanagement!
Ergo, viruses DO exist! Well, if it suffices for the writer …
Oh come on CG. Allowances have to be made for location. Dr Sam lives in New Zealand and the way she speaks English reflects that.
I live in the North West of England and doubtless my accent, my vernacular might be off-putting to some.
If anyone has bothered to listen to the arguments Dr Sam Bailey presents, she has certainly proven that, despite virologists claims, we don’t in fact fully understand viruses at all. This does not mean that they don’t exist. So, perhaps instead of dismissing the points she makes scientists, true scientists that is, might want to go back and re-evaluate some of the ‘settled science’ on this matter
A core feature of this is that virologists never isloate (in the proper sense) that which they claim are pathogenic viral particles and then use them to show that they cause the same disease in a healthy host. They just don’t do it, the reason being because they can’t.
I suppose they COULD exist. But we certainly haven’t found them. And illness can be explained by other means. Also, the excess mortality of 2020 can easily be explained by the effects of panic and despair. No need to default to a phantom pathogen.
‘easily be explained by the effects of panic and despair.’
And kicking old people out of hospital and then bumping them off with Midazolam, and with the toxic drug Remdesivir and with inappropriate use of ventilators.
Of course later on you can kill them with a dangerous ‘warp speed’ vaccine and chalk that up as the virus as well.
There are lots of ways to kill people and pretend it was a virus.
Given very few autopsies on COVID patients were performed, we’ll probably never know what most actually had, given the PCR tests are not diagnostic and the ‘symptoms’ of ‘COVID’ so varied.
Most of them died of government.
Actually I would be inclined to a figure of 100%.
That’s my take on her as well. I thin that Dr Watson and others deliberately try to smear her as a ‘virus denier’ rather than, as you say, someone who is sceptical about how they interract with and affect the human body as ‘defined’ by established science, which could well be wrong.
The problem is no-one on the other side even entertains it could be, and thus always labels anyone who questions it as effective heretics. Todays’ cancellation’ is the virtual (and career) equivalent of ‘witch’ burnings of long ago.
Frankly Dr. Watson, your
hit-piecearticle was ‘extremely tedious’ to read and I actually gave up after the sixth paragraph, which was a shame because I am currently reading ‘Virus Mania’ and I’d have liked to have read a reasoned, evidence based argument against terrain theory.Virus Mania is very interesting.
Have you tried ‘Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk?
The overview –
Not too long ago, lethal infections were feared in the Western world. Since that time, many countries have undergone a transformation from disease cesspools to much safer, healthier habitats. Starting in the mid-1800s, there was a steady drop in deaths from all infectious diseases, decreasing to relatively minor levels by the early 1900s. The history of that transformation involves famine, poverty, filth, lost cures, eugenicist doctrine, individual freedoms versus state might, protests and arrests over vaccine refusal, and much more.Today, we are told that medical interventions increased our lifespan and single-handedly prevented masses of deaths. But is this really true?Dissolving Illusions details facts and figures from long-overlooked medical journals, books, newspapers, and other sources. Using myth-shattering graphs, this book shows that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases. If the medical profession could systematically misinterpret and ignore key historical information, the question must be asked, “What else is ignored and misinterpreted today?”Perhaps the best reason to know our history is so that the worst parts are never repeated.
Yes I have read it, it was a real eye opener.
I would say they very clearly prove that modern medicine has had very little impact on health improvement.
You can say that again. Medical “interventions” are the fourth biggest killer of Americans – or, rather, were until COVID and the ‘warp speed” arrival of Big Pharma’s dodgiest-ever snake oil.
According to analysis by a former Wall Street insider-turned-researcher, Edward Dowd, the ‘vaccine’ roll-out has coincided with a all-cause mortality rise among Millennials which has exceeded in matter of months the total number of US military killed during the 12 years of the Vietnam war.
Pure coincidence, obviously.
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/edward-dowd-on-future-recession-shocking-findings-in-the-cdc-covid-data-and-democide/
Most of the large reductions in death due to certain diseases and lifespan improvements occurred as working and living conditions (including pollution), diet, basic medical treatment and sanitary provision for the masses improved, and after economies prospered and/or the effects of wars subsided.
Time an again, the declines in disease started well before any vaccines or treatments arrived on the scene. What did occur was that young people (myself included) started to get more and more allergies as the amount of vaccines we got as kids went up, and whilst the amount of tiny contaminents in the environment such as microplastics incresaed or heavily processed, low in nutritional value (often high in sugar) foods and drinks became more popular.
Since then, the dietary situation has got worse, along with a far more sedentary, insular, selfish lifestyle which is why so many people are no seriously overweight, unfit and have mental health problems. Stress (and not being able to deal with it effectively) is a BIG factor, as is substance abuse.
No coincidence that those are the ones mostly getting sick amongst the under 60 population.
^^^^^^^^
We ignore history at our peril. The lack of teaching of the subject in a proper time progressive way is wrong.
If we do not understand our past and how we arrived at our present how can we interpretate the world and our future in a meaningful way?
Having said that, the eradication and denial of our history is an integral part of the Reset.
Well Dr Watson, you would appear to have medical opinions cast in stone and sanctimony in spades! Before Peter Duesberg added his name to the now infamous letter that was signed by many world renowned scientists questioning the HIV hypothesis of Robert Gallow, a known charlatan, he was regarded as the most Stella scientists of his generation! His scientific opinion meant that he came into conflict with Fauci and the Vaccine lobby, who stood to make billions from AIDS drugs, they destroyed him…
Read chapter six of RFK jnr book on Fauci for the real story, fully referenced i may add. As regards Sam Baily…read terrain theory, you may find it illuminating.
“Gallo”, unless you meant it….
Dear Daily Sceptic
Was Dr Sam Bailey offered a right of reply before you published this attack piece?
Will you offer her a chance to respond to the accusations made against her?
She takes no prisoners. She’ll likely issue a crushing and humiliating rebuttal shortly. And she’ll do so looking photogenic!
Her husband is a VERY lucky bloke, on all fronts.
Yes, we need a point by point reply from Sam Bailey so that we can draw our own conclusions from this debate.
I sincerely hope that she will consider it; I would welcome it,
Better still, why not debate her live and in public with an unbiased moderator? perferably with a reasonable enough time to be able to get through everything in sufficient detail, and so that ‘facts’ can be actually checked, not just referred to and taken as ‘gospel’.
I think most sceptics don’t question the existence of viruses but rather how much we actually know about them.
Scientists seem to be completely unable to predict how people will react to infection with certain viruses like this last coronavirus. So, for example, why do some people have terrible reactions and some hardly feel it if at all? Scientists make vague references to the immune system showing they don’t know much about that either.
And I suppose what drives the scepticism is that, given how little is known beyond the fact that certain viruses exist and sometimes cause some bad illness, society is subjected to totalitarian control based on this tenuous knowledge.
If scepticism has indeed gone too far, I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of “scientists” who have gone power crazy, and have tried to dictate to society how it must behave and lack the humility to accept how much they really don’t know.
I’m a virological atheist myself.
My sentiments exactly, and I believe that forms most of what Dr Bailey believes as well.
Exactly!
‘I also signed an early petition raised by Piers Corbyn asking the U.K. Government if the novel coronavirus had been isolated. ‘
There’s nothing wrong with asking that question. It doesn’t make you a ‘virus denier’, it makes you a seeker after information at a time of considerable uncertainty and when work on understanding SARS-CoV2 was at a reasonably early stage.
Obviously, the danger comes when you are asked to define ‘isolated’. I speak from the perspective of someone who ‘isolated’ plenty of laboratory-constructed retroviral particles, none of which were bioweapons! By ‘isolating’, I mean we collected supernatant fluid from flasks growing cells termed ‘packaging cells’ which were constructed to produce retroviral particles with defined RNA molecules within them. We didn’t pass them down columns, we didn’t use ultracentrifugation techniques and we didn’t look down electron microscopes to visualise particles.
What we DID do, however, was to titrate those viral supernatants on cells capable of being infected with virus by subsequently adding an antibiotic called puromycin to the selection medium. What then happened was that all cells not having been infected promptly died, where those which had been infected grew into ‘colonies’ of cells which after 10-14 days could be detected with a purple stain. The reason they survived was that we had used retroviral vectors which contained a puromycin resistance gene in them.
We then subsequently showed that those cells which survived the antibiotic treatment produced very specific proteins (which we had also designed our retroviral DNA to produce after integration into cellular DNA).
We did all the relevant negative and positive controls to show that the retroviruses which we had designed and constructed did exactly what we predicted that they would do.
We also showed that very specific retroviral DNA sequences were present in the infected, selected cells by doing PCR analyses, again doing proper negative and positive controls to ensure our positives were true positives and our negatives were true negatives.
But we never visualised them under electron microscopes.
Defining ‘isolated’ is something which is very well worth debating in this context…..
…which is one of the main questions Dr Bailey keeps asking, but never gets a satisfactory reply from people on Dr Watson’s side, never mind Fauci & Co.
Roger Watson writes: “I have had Covid, despite the remarkable claims by my virus denying friends to the contrary.”
Which ‘covid’ did you have? The one that made ham actors pretend to fall over dead in China? The one that hit Northern Italy where it was later found that 89% of supposed covid deaths were not actually ‘covid deaths’? The one that required death certification to be changed in order to inflate supposed ‘covid’ deaths? The one that needed hospitals in the US to be bribed to say a patient had ‘covid’? The one that required people dying of absolutely anything within 28 days of a bogus test to be deemed a ‘covid death’? Or maybe the one that required its imaginary ‘genome sequence’ to be cobbled up on a computer because it didn’t exist in real life?
But… but…. but…. I felt poorly and had a positive LFT result!
Innova insert: “Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”
So a positive LFT result is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Your intemperate, incoherent ramblings make me think that the people who say viruses do not exist might well be onto something.
I’d love to know how Dr Watson can claim to know he had COVID due to a (likely) PCR test, which isn’t a diagnostic test, as its inventor, the late Cary Mullis said (who Dr Bailey refers to a lot).
LFT was it not?
Fair enough, but the overwhelming majority of ‘positive cases’ have come from PCR tests, which never have been a diagnostic tool, but a lab tool for amplifying genetic material.
It could be the virus that killed the guy who had tested positive within 28 days of being shot?
It strikes me as odd that the author chooses to skip over the fact that Covid-19 has not been isolated because he got shouted at a bit. Somebody who skirts the facts cannot then pontificate and claim they are stating facts. Personally, I find little in the article of any merit at all.
Too many great comments to reply to all. I agree the term ‘denier’ is loaded but she does in fact deny that viruses exists – totally, no compromises. But just because the term has been used in one context surely does not mean it cannot be – properly – applied in another. If she were merely ‘sceptical’ which she is not, I would have used that term. The point is – do viruses exist or not; I don’t see many people in the trail taking on that point.
Well you could say something like “Dr. Sam Bailey, who argues that viruses do not exist”. Or perhaps she could dismiss you as a terrain denier? Your response is disingenuous.
And ?
I think that a big problem in the debate is that people disagree over what a virus is.
If a virus is defined, as it now usually/conventionally is, as “a microscopic particle of genetic material in a lipid coating which ***causes*** illness” then I would say that that doesn’t exist, because there is little to no evidence that viruses do in fact determine, or *cause*, the diseases that they have been found associated with.
The kind of virus that I believe in is an exosome made of genetic material in a lipid coating which has some sort of effect in cells in certain particular circumstances/under very specific conditions, depending on a person’s genetic constitution, nutritional status, mental health, environment, and the presence or absence of other such particles, etc.
Disease is not the inevitable product of viruses. They appear to act in synergy with a host of other factors and if those are not present *the virus does nothing*.
Perhaps originally/in the past when people perceived illness differently the viral effect was like a red flag/set of colour coded signals indicating that a particular individual or group of individuals were lacking in a certain nutrient, or being poisoned by some environmental toxin, or experiencing some kind of stress/pressure, and the set of symptoms were intelligible/”readable”, vivid clues or signposts to the probable root of the ill health, and the tribal shaman/healer would look at the skin, the tongue, the temperature, the etc, and declare that the person, or group must do x, y or z.
The viral symptom acting like an early warning sign of nutritional deficiencies or environmental poisons or other factors which would otherwise/soon become untreatable.
“Disease is not the inevitable product of viruses. They appear to act in synergy with a host of other factors and if those are not present *the virus does nothing*.”
This one of the crucial elements I took from the chapters in RFK Jnr’s seminal work on Fauc, was this conclusion, after research, attributed to Duesberg and a load of other scientists – with the result that their work was rendered as “Non Work” by said Fauci…. “WHY?”
What, did you come down in the last shower? The word denier is loaded. It doesn’t mean now ‘someone who denies something’. It means I hate you and want you shut down.
people believe odd things and they have a right to
I have heard that some people think that a man with a beard sits on a cloud watching them and that lockdowns work
I don’t know that anybody thinks a man with a beard sits on a cloud watching them – is it a straw man?
I believe in a clean-shaven God.
Is Aunt Sally round for dinner today?
“Question everything” begins the DS moto. Quite right too; this is the only way to get at the truth or at least to get a clearer picture.. Instead of writing a Daily Mail style hit piece against Dr Bailey, why not challenge her through evidence? Oh, and please invite her to put her side of the argument on this site too. We’ve had two years of being told what to think and been ridiculed for asking pertinent questions. Please just present the evidence and let us make up our own minds
Hear, hear.
My understanding is that Sam Bailey et al do not deny the existence of viruses. They characterize them as exosomes; basically particles that our cells shed.
What they do seem to argue most fundamentally is that no one has showed that viruses on their own create illness, and that no one has shown interpersonal transmission of them beyond circumstantial evidence. Then they make the reference to Koch’s postulates not being demonstrated either.
Their approach seems to be Terrain Theory and they see toxins as causing illness. I am not sure they deny Covid: they seem to be saying that we simply do not know what made people ill in March 2020 and stopped looking once we decided it was a virus.
This article is interesting but does not address the core elements of their rejection of Germ Theory. Specifically, it is majors on isolation but does not explain the proof that viruses cause illness other than implying that Koch’s Postulates were not intended for viruses.
However, it does attack Sam Bailey personally, in at least a veiled way. I am not sure that is needed and I am unhappy that this site has allowed that to be published. The fact that scientists resort to that does not make me feel any more confident that this piece is correct in its views that defend medical orthodoxy.
Hear hear.
At last check, she denies that there is any evidence. For any virus. Anywhere. Ever.
That doesn’t mean she denies they exist.
Am I alone in thinking , as an avowed non scientist, that viruses may be described as disease “enablers” – they are not, in isolation, deadly as such, but as “passengers” or “hosts”in humans they induce changes to other “cells”( for want of another more accurate term) which then induce morbidity an/or mortality. Hence why Duesberg at al came to the conclusion that HIV is “benign” and is not wholly responsible for AIDS as demonstrated by people living with HIV for , in some cases, decades without developing AIDS….and why Dr Lo’s discovery of mycoplasma as a potential deadly “co-agent” is important.
Then I read the diatribe above and I ask myself “what is he selling” and “who do you represent” …still working on that.
This may well be totally correct.
I think reality is that doctors understand what causes illness to a far lesser degree than the orthodoxy admits.
Tom Cowan (who has similar views to Sam Bailey) argues that western medicine is too focused on unique diseases caused by unique causes rather than a holistic approach focused on the patient’s overall “story”.
There is a lot of sense in his view, I believe. However, that would create serious issues for many existing business models.
https://rumble.com/vw9afr-tessa-lena-talks-to-a-team-in-new-zealand-about-mystery-objects-found-in-co.html?fbclid=IwAR2eSLPGgaTR5BkwTDTjSrZleJQpzzZVarjSNJxu3JbLDesQQcEUhIoL9H4
What’s in the Vials? A Conversation with a Team in New Zealand About Mystery Objects They Found
https://tessa.substack.com/p/mystery-objects?s=r
This story is an interview with three very brave people in New Zealand—a doctor and two lawyers—who are trying to get the health officials in New Zealand to investigate and explain the nature of the weird-looking microscopic objects that they (and several other teams) have observed when looking at the contents of the vials under an electron microscope.
The brave people I interviewed are Dr. Matt Shelton, Sue Grey, and an anonymous human rights lawyer who is an active participant in the New Zealand freedom movement but who at the moment cannot publicly disclose her name due to her career situation.
A vial was obtained, and its contents were observed under an electron microscope.
The findings turned out to be bizarre: the injection seemed to contain microscopic square and rectangular shapes, weird-looking structures that showed up with regularity, objects that seemed to possibly “organize” into more complex structures over the course of several days, etc.
Besides observing the mystery objects with his own eyes, Dr. Shelton also connected with another group of scientists in New Zealand who had followed a similar process and ended up with similar findings (in addition to a group in Spain and a group in the UK). In our interview, Dr. Shelton shared images and videos from that other group as well.
At no point did Dr. Shelton, Sue Grey, or the anonymous lawyer claim to know what those weird objects were.
They did, however, become concerned—and so they made their findings available, and they have been very passionately asking the health authorities in New Zealand to please investigate the mystery objects and provide an explanation as to what they are.
The health authorities of New Zealand showed no interest in investigating the vials—but Sue Grey and Dr. Shelton, on the other hand, found themselves under investigation by respective industry bodies!
Dr. Shelton’s medical license was suspended as well.
Police in New Zealand have been given evidence of these foreign materials in vials breaching informed consent.
Matt Shelton has had his license suspended for questioning the narrative.
Dr Matt Shelton states the contracts with governments specifically exclude governments carrying out their own analysis on the vaxxines.
(Together with clauses prohibiting governments allowing other treatments for coronavirus than the vaxxines.)
Over five days structures in the vax appeared to self assemble.
Graphene has unique electrochemical properties that might be employed in this technology.
https://tessa.substack.com/p/mystery-objects?s=r
The suspicion is of course that the mystery objects discovered by the New Zealand team (and other teams as well) could be potentially related to the development of the Internet of Bodies.
At this moment, the IoB hypothesis as it pertains to the COVID injections has not been either proven or disproven—and furthermore, the veil of secrecy and the wall of censorship around these products are so thick that we really don’t know what’s in those vials in earnest.
.… regardless of the actual deal with these COVID injections, the people in positions of power seem to be actually obsessed with the goal of connecting people to the internet in a physical manner and replacing our natural biological functions with commercial, controlled, mechanical ones.
Their robots are an elephant in a china shop. Our bodies are mysterious and complex. Our bodies have been trained by nature for possibly millions of years to do what they do and coordinate all the moving parts—and the idea of sticking tiny robots into our bodies and expecting them to do things better than nature is hubris.
It is the transhumanism agenda Kate.
Vernon Coleman describes it along the lines of what governments are currently publishing on it in terms of the documents describing the way they intend to utilise it is WAY behind how advanced they have got this technology now. So, for people who think it is no more than science fiction and decades away from becoming reality they could be in for a rude awakening.
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=295&part=3&gen=99
There is this discussion on Rich Planet. Three parts
yes Kate, this is what I have read elsewhere – from reliable sources – it is something to do with “thought control” in order to sort of semi-robotise human beings.
From the presentation you link to below it is this statement:
“There is enough evidence here to present to police forces, so that the vaccine centres can be closed down and quarantined, and the perpetrators arrested and sentenced.”
Unfortunately how can the perhaps 75% of the global population who have had these jabs have this nano technology extracted from their bodies? How can they be helped?
But closing down the jabbing centres would be a good start so that future harms could be prevented.
I ask myself – has the complete suite of ingredients to ALL the (still) EUA “vaccines” ever been published without reductions?
May I suggest that sceptical folks take a gander at Dr Richard Fleming’s microscopical examination of samples of all the then EUG drugs and see what he found…..not suggesting a conspiratorial aspect here but his testimony is interesting…
If virology was wrong and therefore vaccinology was proven to be invalid would the pharma companies be happy to admit they have been injecting children and adults with toxins for decades or would they have their bought and paid for ‘experts’ do all they can to bury the truth?
… and I thought a denier was a measurement of fibre size – but I guess that’s just a stocking response.
I admit I am ignorant of enough information to decide the rights and wrongs of this discussion. What concerns me is that I am unconvinced that anyone has enough information and understanding in enough detail to know much definitively.
As soon as I dive into this area, I quickly realise that I have found yet another ‘virtual reality’ based on computer code and models. And lurking , not so much in the background, is our dear friend the PCR test, HIV/Aids was driven by Fauci , nuff said.
It depends on your ‘belief’ in computer simulations, which in areas I do understand , are totally reliant on the initial parameters and the backstops in the coding to prevent very small errors initially cascading into errors that swamp the ‘results’. GIGO in other words.
I have no confidence that the clever sounding analysis of genetic sequencing is any different to any other area dependent on this computer modelling/simulations.
Using recent developments and commonly held views of virus that seem most likely. We appear to have ‘something’ which can get inside cells , that is not alive in itself. Seems to me that sounds like mRNA affecting DNA. I speculate we exist in a pea soup of natural mRNA , most will do nothing to human DNA, some will affect it detrimentally in different ways. The effect sounds like what we call ‘cancer’, which may be a more extreme detrimental effect from say colds, flu, or covid.
Please feel free to pull down this straw man.
Roger Watson writes: “I have corresponded with Siouxsie Wiles, a major debunker of the Koch’s postulates argument, at Auckland University in New Zealand over this point and over the point regarding ‘purification’ of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It transpires that the purification of the novel coronavirus argument is a straw dog created by the viral deniers. In fact, nobody has claimed that it has been purified.”
But thats not true is it. There are many claims to SARS-CoV-II having been purified.
For example, the FDA approved an assay designed by Hologic that supposedly detected, “RNA from SARS-CoV-2 isolated and purified from nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens”.
Roger Watson writes: “I also signed an early petition raised by Piers Corbyn asking the U.K. Government if the novel coronavirus had been isolated. Not my best idea and one which led to a great deal of ‘whataboutery’ (the tu quoque logical fallacy) aimed at discrediting me. On the other hand, the Government response was enlightening/unenlightening – depending on your position – and could easily have been summarised as ‘no’.”
So lets get this right. The government says the virus has not been isolated and Watson says the virus has not been purified. But Watson says the governent is wrong and the FDA says it has been purified. Who are we to believe here?
I think Roger Watson needs to withdraw this article and come back with one that is not riddled with mistakes, false claims and contradictory positions.
See here: https://www.fda.gov/media/138097/download
Not that they don’t exist, just that they are not what we’ve been told..
Viruses, do not float from person to person deliberately trying to infect people and make them sick
The one with a GE “furin cleavage site” not otherwise found in “Nature” does appear to jump from human to human…..”Am I right Sir?”
A radical idea is worth adopting if it simplifies things or if it predicts things. The “viruses don’t exist” idea may explain a few things but it leaves a much larger number of things in need of new explanations, so it doesn’t simplify, and I wouldn’t like to use it for its predictive powers either.
‘But the fact is that the existence of any virus is triangulated by an array of increasingly sophisticated laboratory techniques’
Don’t worry about your fancy cutting edge methods and your triangles, go back and present to us the original experiments that proved that a particle named a virus was proven to cause a disease. Because if you can’t prove that a virus exists as a disease causing agent then your increasingly sophisticated laboratory techniques aren’t worh a guff.
O’ dear all the orignial experiments are junk science lacking controls, riddled with contamination and based on wild speculation.
Roger, as a male, a beta HCG urine test cannot show you’re pregnant but it could show that there may be a tumour.
That these incredibly tiny particles float around in the air and can make you ill is a radical idea and would need compelling scientific evidence to prove that it were so.
The thing is Dr Bailey believed this because she was told to believe this at medical school, but when she was challenged by sceptics to find the evidence that backed up these claims she found the evidence was absent.
To her credit she openly changed her mind and endured the subsequent assault from the orthodoxy.
The idea that these super tiny particles that none of us can see float around and make us ill seems right and proper because we have been indoctrinated to believe that it is so.
When we look for the evidence it turns out to be based on fraud and truly shoddy scienctific practice.
A bit like the way Pfizer’s recent covid19 vaccine trials were riddled with fraud as covered by the BMJ.
Virology and vaccines are a very lucrative lie.
Exactly.
I was fascinated to find out that, after “humours” were displaced as the cause of scurvy, the established position was that it was caused by germs, germ theory being the new orthodoxy. The idea that it was a dietary condition had been discounted by the failure of lime juice to prevent it in the Royal Navy (which few people know !)
Captain Scott took astonishing care over his tinned food to exclude germs, and the expedition medic in Antarctica kept up morale by lecturing on the true cause of scurvy. Unfortunately, though, the expedition was ridden with scurvy.
The dietary hypothesis didn’t get on a firm footing until the 1930s when Albert Szent-Györgyi isolaterd ascorbic acid.
Interestingly, Wikipedia says of him:
Doctors are told a lot of things to “believe” at medical school, but when challenged by someone to find the evidence that back up the claims they wouldn’t begin to be able to find the evidence, nor would they even be interested in doing so.
They just want to recite what they have been told to believe at medical school and that is an end of the matter, because they have pronounced it to be so.
Experienced this at first hand earlier in the week. Am still reeling from it a bit.
Perhaps the greatest piece of misinformation with regard to Covid is the fact that you cannot stop a respiratory virus running its course. The Covid death shot campaign simply emphasises it.
Vaxxes can’t stop. Nor hubris, which has taken front stage the past two years.
‘There is no vaccine that you put into your muscle that can ever protect you from an infection of the respiratory tract. And anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or he’s lying.’ Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, microbiologist.
I smile every time I read that’ but then I ask myself – a non scientist – how does that NOT work?
That is when I discover what antibodies do, how they work on the exterior of cells (and hence have an effect of respiratory tract infections) but perhaps are useless when a spike protein defeats the antibody, enters the cell and other “actors” take over – T cell/Lymphocytes etc – but with the risk of clotting and inflammation on a scale that is ….very disturbing?.
So, logically, why would you need an intra muscular, blood borne injection to defeat a bug in your throat – and one that golly me has not been tested to anything like an “acceptable” degree?
I then ask myself, “why dont Doctors stand up against this”…..that is when I realise I am a fully fledged disciple of W.Mark Felt.
Well, you certainly cannot beat a wholly fraudulent test.
Exactly! You cannot stop a virus!
Locking people in their homes, social distancing and masks can’t stop a virus.
Still not been isolated tho’, has it?
When a credible scientist/organisation demonstrates that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is in the PCR testing ‘soup’, that it is directly responsible for the cell-killing, and that it actually exists, I’ll have much more faith in modern virology. Until then, it smells of BS.
I’m very disappointed in this blatant ‘hit piece’ against alternative opinion. Shameful, from a website that should do better.
I didn’t really like the tone of this article from the very first paragraph.
The author may well be correct but the best way to disprove bad science is with calm, cool, rational, logical arguments. This article doesn’t do this, sadly.
This character really is an archetypal idiot using both words in their original greek context.
Purporting to present a reasoned argument he kicks off with an ad hominem attack on Dr Bailey. Not a good way to start unless you can subsequently back it up. The problem is that most of the reading sheeples will lap all this up because it is written in an authoritative manner and never actually return to Dr Bailey’s many relevant well researched and referenced videos in order to make up their own minds.
That ‘the science is settled’ – the view put forward by this character – is so reminiscent of the Covid narrative, the climate change narrative etc that any rational person should immediately wish to conduct their own research.
Ever heard of Bechamp for example? Give me a break! Baarh, baaahr!
It’s also now reminiscent of the Ukraine narrative, which demonises those who question the honesty of what is happening over there.
Never thought I’d see a website that supposedly protects freedom of speech attack people for them having the “wrong” opinions…
Indeed
Spontaneous generation?
I’ve never heard that argument before and it’s ridiculous straw man nonsense!
Terrain Theory says that illness attracts small organisms which feed off it and possibly help to clear it up but that the illness is not caused by them.
The only spontaneity is the body deciding for itself to become ill to clear out toxins and retain balance.
Interesting that there is very little on terrain theory on the interweb presumably because it is the antithesis of modern drug based medicine. Ironic then that the best doctors understand that terrain theory is what determines which treatment is best suited to the patient.
As I understand it both germ theory and terrain theory contribute to the path of disease – basically it takes two to tango.
Germ theory and terrain theory do co-exist when the person has symptoms – but one says they are caused by the germ and the other says that they are as a result of a healing crisis.
Maybe the germ is related more to the symptom than the disease and the terrain is related more to the seriousness of the disease.
Terrain theory is often talked about in homeopathy, acupuncture and osteopathy – although I don’t personally use these alternatives I have respect for their non-reliance on orthodox medicine and belief in the body’s own ability to stay well.
Here are three discussions about Terrain theory I found on the web:
https://odysee.com/@truthseeker:01/Dr.-Kaufman-w-Adam-and-Josh-Bigelsen-on-Terrain-Theory:a
Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman
https://truthcomestolight.com/drs-tom-cowan-andy-kaufman-stefan-lanka-on-the-myth-that-virology-is-real-science-what-we-dont-yet-know-about-these-highly-toxic-covid-vaccines/
Dr. Barre Lando:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQKT5GsmGaU
Also search for Béchamp vs Pasteur.
Still quite shocked by the above article, the fact this website spends considerable time challenging the “settled science” on ‘climate change’ but clearly now takes a position of smearing and insulting those who take a different view on “the virus”.
That this was written by a doctor only shakes my confidence further on the already tarnished profession.
Unless Dr Bailey is given a chance to respond, Daily Sceptics will inflict irreparable damage upon itself.
Lockdown skeptics labor under the delusion that, were they to entertain the possibility that viruses do not exist, they’d be thought barking mad. Irony: and I think they already know this, they’re already thought barking mad for having opposed lockdowns and such.
Yeah he probably doesn’t think EMF radiation is harmful either.
It may well be. My surmise: this past two years no one anywhere has died of anything new under the sun.
Much nonsense is actually ‘false flag’ in otrigin – as is incontinent anti-environmentalism.
Scepticism cuts both ways, and the other way isn’t alternative religion.
This is a very odd piece in my opinion…but anyway…..If you have a friend that maybe believes in God, which you personally find odd or perplexing, does that mean that everything your friend says is wrong? Bad?
Dr Sam has been one of the superstars of the last two years…she has talked about PCR, testing in general, Wuhan…all sorts of things, and really helped people understand what is going on. To focus on one thing doesn’t mean the rest has no value.
I don’t agree with Toby most of the time, but I appreciate the stuff he’s done…and see him also as one of the superstars for his part in the nonsense, and of course this site…
What’s the point of this article, that people aren’t always right about everything?
Well doh!!
Of course viruses exist.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2 we have the patents to prove it.
Patents owned by the same people who miraculously knew how to create the reagents used in the tests for it, and who created the vaccines (both before the virus was identified) – incompetently as it transpired – that are now shown to have been fraudulently given EUAs across the world and are killing and maiming people because the trials were corruptly designed and carried out.
Not sure what purpose this article serves.
Kudos to you; of the many people who have stood up to be counted, Drs Cole and McCullough, Malone, Yeadon and Martin are a powerful group of people representative of heaven knows how many thousands more who will not be pissed about by this sort of diatribe.
Very very unworthy, and adds nothing to the clarity needed to illuminate these key matters – imho of course.
Dear Dr Watson,
your article looks more like a hit piece against my wife than a serious attempt to refute the arguments that we have produced, Sam’s video that you mentioned is a light-hearted piece to engage a wider audience, many of whom are not interested in the more arcane publications on these topics.
I would be more than happy to have a talk/debate with you and we could do it live on Sam’s channel if that would be agreeable to you? We stand firm on our position that “COVID-19” is a fraud – you can read some of the arguments I summarised with my co-author Dr John Bevan-Smith here:
https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/the-covid-19-fraud-war-on-humanity/
You have referenced a poorly written article that you claim “debunked” Sam’s views but you may be interested to know that when we contacted the author Alison Campbell, she rapidly backed out of any further discussion and didn’t appear to know much about virology at all. Unfortunately, what often happens is people repeat the claims of the virologists but do not read and understand the source material.
We look forward to hearing from you and I’m sure the audience on both “sides” would love to advance their knowledge.
Kind regards,
Dr Mark Bailey
New Zealand
Hi Dr Mark in New Zealand, I used to follow the Daily Sceptic back in the beginning, but not for 18 months and am here because of Dr Sam’s (who I’ve been following for a year or so) rebuttal. The Sceptic seem to have completely lost the plot as regards recent geopolitical issues and also it seems have forgotten what an acceptable way to conduct a discussion is. Dr Watson has embarrassed himself and the Sceptic has turned into a tabloid rag. I feel this will drive people to your platforms though, so it’s all good. Keep up the great work and many thanks, Jo
Viruses may well exist, but …
It is plausible that many exist in a suppressed state to spring into growth triggered by other factors including their environment or host. Or maybe relatively harmless viruses in circulation suddenly have a step change mutation. There is ‘apparent’ randomness in the Universe. It seems clear from what I have read over the last 2 years that they are not well understood.
The way mutations ‘appear’ to arise quite simultaneously in remote (from each other) locations suggests that it is natural mutation that is responsible for some ‘apparent’ spread.
But I agree unless you can repeatedly create the events in a controlled lab environment it’s just speculation.
This piece from Professor Roger Watson does read like a personal attack on Dr Sam Bailey and not a considered focus on the key issues many of us have raised, and continue to do so, concerning the lack of proof surrounding ‘SARS-CoV-2’; namely: 1) in silico modelling; 2) genetic sequencing; and 3) the lack of (or no) controlled experimentation which has so loosely passed for ‘viral isolation/purification’. Scepticism about the validity of such is certainly no straw man as it has a track record within microbiology itself which predates CONVID and which many are patently not aware of. For example, the over reliance on genetic sequencing as evidence for the existence of ‘infectious virus’ was brought into question over twenty years ago by Fredericks & Relman and Calisher et al, all of whom worked within the scientific mainstream; are they too now to be tarred as ‘deniers’? The use of such a perjorative label like ‘denier’ is a very cheap shot as it only serves to obfuscate the real issues by implicitly equating scepticism of virology with Holocaust denial. What’s wrong with ‘viral sceptic’? It seems that those seemingly in the ‘antilockdown movement’ are not on the same viral wavelength, and why should we be? But we can still refer to each other in less loaded terms.
My thoughts exactly, and succinctly argued.
Shame the good Doctor is only able to “debunk” Sam Baily. Would like to read his “debunk” of that troika, Dr Stefan Lanka, Dr Thomas Cowan, Dr Andrew Kaufman.
Covid swept through my family of six in just over a week – headache, body aches, cough, tiredness – all similar symptoms. The same happened to other families around us. But viruses don’t exist and they aren’t contagious? Yeah right.
So you all had colds?
You ask for reasoned and open debate. Then, within the first couple of paragraphs, label those you disagree with as “deniers”. This is the label used simply to shut down debate, to present the opposing view as mad and/or bad. It is a shabby debating tactic. Please note that I am not a virus sceptic.
“..Of course, there have long been those like discredited Peter Duesberg…”
Newspeak..
Yawn..
“Dis-credited” ?..
Only if you use the word in an Orwellian sense..
Dis-credited= smearing/lies/straw men arguments and funding cuts and ad hominem..
I vividly remember all the scientists who were always “too busy” to correct his points either in print or online..
And were also too scared of arguing with him a debate.
We know how that would have ended..
And nobodies waddle in from the sheep like land of no research…….follow the party line(how sceptical of you)??? and repeat the MSN party line.
Well done…
Usually they tell us it’s the scientist or researcher who has been ‘discredited’ or ‘debunked’ – the latter having something to do with removing their bunk / pulling the bunk out from underneath them… It gets a giggle every time i read of someone having been debunked.
Good article, and thanks for it. I watched some of Sam Baily’s videos in the early days of the pandemic. She was quite sensible then, and did some great videos, for example on the problems with PCR testing. Later on, however, she seems to have met some odd people, and really lost the place.
“…. but it is presented in a typically sneering, sarcastic and patronising manner. Consequently, it is hard to know who she is trying to convince.” I love the way the author of this critique presents his case in a sneering, sarcastic and patronising manner.
I was struck by the smugness.
Yes – his dislike of SB is palpable, and very unprofessional. If he believes she’s wrong, then he could have said so in one short sentence – after all, it’s hardly dangerous talk, is it?
As for that Sioux woman – hmmmm…..
this book details facts and figures from long overlooked medical journals, books, newspapers and other sources.
using myth-shattering graphs, this book shows that vaccines, antibiotics, and other medical interventions are not responsible for the increase in lifespan and the decline in mortality from infectious diseases.
if the medical profession could systematically misinterpret and ignore key historical information, the question must be asked, “What else is ignored and misinterpreted today?”
Planet Lockdown: A Documentary
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/12/planet-lockdown-documentary.aspx
Questionable Practices Urged for COVID-19 Diagnosis
So as a non-expert, I suppose smallpox doesn’t exist and its effective eradication (whatever the cause), via a highly successful vaccination campaign across the world over the years, is simply down to better food and healthy lifestyle factors. No doubt if someone is diagnosed with smallpox it will be purely psychosomatic. I’m quite a sceptical person but I was quite stunned by Bailey’s video and her assertions, having seen earlier covid videos of hers which seemed quite plausible.
Read ‘Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History’ by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk.
This book has a whole chapter on small pox and how the initial crude vaccine lead to more outbreaks and killed a lot of innocent people
Dr Watson has failed to address any of the specific negations of viral existence raised by Dr Bailey and many others – until he does so I will keep an open mind. The mortality rate graphs for various diseases over many decades that show the introduction date of the relevant vaccine demonstrate vaccines to have been utterly useless. What does cause diseases is open to question. If the industrial medical industry was so brilliant surely they could have cured the common cold by now? I presume you have no conflicts of interest to declare Dr Watson?
My main problem with this article is that Siouxie Wiles was the person the writer chose to correspond with about this subject matter. Here in New Zealand we have been subjected to this “expert” on an almost daily basis, suffering ad nauseum her hubris and her lack of willingness to ever engage in a discussion with anyone who dares to have a different opinion. Try disagreeing with her on Twitter. It’s almost a badge of honour to be on the “blocked” list. And she isn’t without controversy herself https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/news/siouxsie-wiles-column-on-stuff-co-nz-breached-media-standards/
Photogenic…….how about just saying she is/was a doctor. Abandoned medicine….. are you sure??
This Siouxie Wiles……………. https://thebfd.co.nz/2022/03/08/media-council-busts-stuff-wiles-for-lying/
Absolutely!!!
And this Siouxie Wiles https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/09/09/new-zealander-of-the-year-siouxsie-wiles-unmasked/
Sceptics attacking sceptics. We know c19 wasn’t isolated. We know Yeadon said he couldn’t figure nd an islated virus. We know that to get on the tv you have to agree to terms.
This article does little imo.
He is not a sceptic, just trying to position himself as ‘one of us’.
I do welcome opposing views but this article is clearly a hit job. Calling her a ‘photogenic doctor’ is really designed to put her in her place
Why no mention or real discussion of Terrain Theory? This is the alternative to Germ Theory, as I understand it.
I have an open mind on this whole subject and have watched Sam Bailey quite often and always considered her videos well researched and sensibly presented (albeit as a lay person and someone who is totally captivated by her smile).
Roger Watson presents his case cogently but the snide manner he adopts in his presentation irritated me.
Yes the ‘terrain’ i.e healthy gut is very important for good health and being able to overcome infections. Conventional medicine sadly sneer about the terrain and prescribe drugs such as antibiotics for many things. Antibiotics cannot distinguish between good and bad bacteria and wipe out all beneficial ‘things’ in our body.
One great example is doctors that treat UTIs with course after course of antibiotics – it just come back because the terrain was destroyed. Natural treatments such as D-mannose, Mastic Gum and caprylic acid prevent bacteria to attach to the mucous membranes and result in recovery.
Even the DM had an article today about the importance of the gut.
Established science?? So nothing can be questioned
The point about so called ‘virus deniers’ – a meaningless phrase like anti-vaxxers, is that of course virus exist, our DNA is proof of that. The problem is the relationship between pathogens and disease. Kennedy in his book on Fauci explained it very well. It is about terrain, ie what is the state of our bodies when exposed. See John’s comment below. We are exposed to pathogens daily. Very few of us actually experience disease. If however we are ‘run down’ for whatever reason, then the pathogen will take hold. In some cases we refer to them as opportunistic eg most deaths resulting from a flu infection are not as a result of the flu virus but of pneumonia which has become a problem because our immune system is weakened. In other words a simple model of pathogen = disease, kill the pathogen = no disease, doesn’t work because it is much more complex than that.
BTW as an aside, I also caught Covid19 earlier this year – what I call the mouse variant, omicron. Not as bad as you but yes I slept for 3 days. Generally a very good strategy when fighting an illness. That’s what my cats do if they’re poorly and it works for them. I think Quercitin helped – but who knows.
‘Photogenic doctor’ doesn’t sound very scientific. Abandoned medicine…… are you sure.
This Siouxsie Wiles……. https://thebfd.co.nz/2022/03/08/media-council-busts-stuff-wiles-for-lying/
Nice I suppose you didn’t feel the need to attack her (Siouxsie) about her pink hair, I wonder what you would have said if Sam had had pink hair???
He definitely would not have described a male doctor as a ‘photogenic doctor’ – the veneer is thin
I ran this
hit piecearticle through my logical fallacy detector and it exploded. I sincerely hope that DS will now invite Dr Sam Bailey to present her response and that Roger Watson will take up the invitation offered by Dr Mark Bailey to have a face to face discussion with Dr Sam Bailey on this important topic.I’ve been following Dr Sam for awhile https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/the-covid-sceptics-who-spread-viral-dogma/ here is her brilliant rebuttal. Virus Mania also a great read.
I used to watch Sam Bailey – as you say, she is rather photogenic:-) – but I soon lost interest. I found her talks rather tedious and disjointed but I didn’t notice any anti-virus talk. Maybe that’s happened in the past year or so.
You must get bored very easily Peter.
This article was certainly a good way to draw the crankies out and let the mainstream know what kind of readership this site gets.
not keeping great company here.
It is good to hear counter arguments like this one, so thank you to the Daily Sceptic for publishing it. However, the language Dr Roger Watson uses to personally attack Dr Sam Bailey, rather than her arguments, is totally unnecessary and the same tactic that the lockdown fanatics and jabbing fanatics use. For example: “she’s promoting misinformation”, she’s “just plain wrong”, she’s in the same camp as those who’ve been discredited, they are “demonstrably wrong but stubbornly adhere to their views”, their views are “potentially damaging”, they are “spreading erroneous views”, “bizarre websites”, they are “unable to hear, let alone contemplate alternative views”, they “certainly don’t listen”. Dr Bailey is a “photogenic” doctor (implying that she is all beauty and no brains??), who has “abandoned medicine”. Her views have “been debunked” and her presentation is “sneering, sarcastic and patronising”. These first five paragraphs put me off taking seriously anything else that Dr Watson has to say in response to her arguments. It is clear that he despises her and anyone who takes five paragraphs to attack someone’s character is clearly just as stubbornly adhering to his views and unable to hear, let alone contemplate alternative views himself. However, I am glad to hear counter arguments and will take the time to look further into both sides of this issue.
Agree we do not censor opposing views!!!
However, this is a typical smear job without any substance or providing evidence to the contrary, designed to appear reasonable and being ‘one of you sceptics/challenging the narrative’
I first came across critics who questioned the very credibility of virology over 20 years ago when I was looking into the work of the many HIV/AIDS dissidents (i.e. Dr Stephan Lanka and The Perth Group). But back then I had neither the time nor the inclination to investigate further, so I dismissed it out of hand as a fringe belief. It has only been since March 2020 that I have felt motivated to look much more deeply into this subject and, as a result of this, I am now firmly of the opinion that pathogenic viruses have never been proven to exist.
This has required many hundreds of hours of reading, listening and developing the discernment to try and determine when someone is being honest and practising with scientific integrity, compared to when someone is using their scientific credentials to dishonestly promote an agenda and to shut down debate. It’s also been my observation that between these two extremes there exist many scientists who, are not dishonest per se, but rather are victims of groupthink; conforming to the current consensus because it takes a lot of courage to step out of line.
I’ve also been questioning germ theory for at least two decades and think virtually our entire healthcare paradigm is based on a false premise and needs a complete overhaul. Once you understand these things, there really is no going back in your own mind and it becomes clear that if we are ever to be free from an agenda which is hell bent on medicating every man, woman and child from cradle to grave, then the very foundations our current healthcare belief system must be dismantled.
Unfortunately, virology has become a multi-billion global industry and it is not going down without a fight. This is completely understandable when you consider how many people’s livelihoods and reputations depend on it and how it generates huge income streams for powerful corporations and individuals, not to mention the huge opportunities it gives authoritarians for population control.
I completely understand that for many people the very notion that viruses are not the cause of disease and have never even been demonstrated to exist in vivo, is in the same league as saying that the moon landings were faked, the earth is flat and the royal family are lizards, and therefore the natural inclination of many will be to dismiss this suggestion out of hand and regard it as not worthy of debate. I also understand how many people think that arguing from this position is doing the sceptical side a disservice because of this natural inclination to dismiss it as a fringe belief. It requires a natural curiosity and some serious commitment to study in order to truly grasp what people like Dr Sam Bailey are talking about and, most importantly, a willingness to change your mind as I was forced to when I could not ignore this information any longer. Only when enough people are prepared to do this will we stand a chance of seeing a much needed paradigm shift in our understanding of ‘infectious’ disease.
Excellent comment!
Great post!!
Robert F Kennedy Jr’s book The Real Anthony Fauci explained how the AIDS epidemic was due to the excessive use of poppers by mainly gays partying non-stop. Eventually Fauci and his cohorts paid off the gay interest groups to hide this cause and treatments. Lots of people died needlessly.
Here is a link to the book, as it is quite difficult to obtain it in the UK
https://ebooksoff.xyz/ebooks/The-Real-Anthony-Fauci.pdf
I eventually ordered this book from http://www.AbeBooks.co.uk and it took 3 weeks to arrive
Note:
Kennedy’s book is controversial, smeared by paid critics and censored by the booksellers. However, Kennedy said that if Fauci, Gates or any one else mentioned in the book disagree with anything in the book that they should sue him – needless to say no court action……..
‘HIV/AIDS’ did indeed provide a template on which future phoney epidemics/pandemics could be based, i.e.
· the announcement to the world of the discovery of a new virus and the immediate withdraw of funding for any research looking at alternative causes
· the development of patentable, profit-making test kits with poor specificity causing ‘false positives’
· reclassification of existing disease conditions/symptoms as having a single cause (the virus)
· iatrogenic (medically induced deaths) caused by the administering of dangerous drugs and invasive treatments.
· anyone presenting an alternative view is ignored, marginalised, censored, or vilified.
Indeed! The similarities as shocking as they are depressing. Are we doomed to repeat this nonsense for ever?!
I sincerely hope not. It is encouraging to see the shift in thinking amongst the readership of this site. 12-18 months ago when I posted about the similarities between Convid and ‘AIDS’, all I got was tumble weed!
No, I hope not too! Articulate well thought through comments like yours will help.
I found the same re-AIDS – it’s always been forbidden to question that narrative. It’s heartening to see more and more people going back to look at AIDS again despite the so-called settled science. So much money spent and so many careers made – criticism is not for the fainthearted!
. brilliant post on thank you
Thanks Fruitbat. A calm and measured response. I think those with no axe to grind in this field will readily agree with you if they take the trouble to investigate. Especially when they encounter the deception and fraud associated with the proponents of germ theory.
I sincerely hope more and more people are now becoming aware of this deception.
It is not very often that another persons thinking exactly mirrors mine, but your post is one of them. Thank you for taking the time in constructing a lucid, concise and accurate post.
I would also like to point out that the burden of proof is never on the person to try and prove something does not exist. That burden is always on the person making the claim. And like you, doing my homework leads me to the conclusion that viruses do not cause disease.
If I am wrong about that, i.e. viruses do cause disease, then, as far as I aware, there has NEVER been a controlled, double blind trial study that proves they either pass on or generate a disease. Not one.
There has been 177 freedom of information requests that demonstrate Sars-Cov-2 has ever been purified/isolated.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
But that must be true of ANY virus that it is claimed causes disease.
Thank you. Writing does not come easily to me so it’s really heartening to hear that my post struck a chord with you.
You are absolutely right about the burden of proof lying with the person making the claim, but it is astonishing how many people don’t seem to understand that. How many times have I heard people say; ‘well all my family were ill so unless you can prove what else could have caused that, it must be the virus’. In some ways I can forgive this attitude amongst those who have little to no understanding in the scientific method, virus mythology has become so embedded in our culture that it must be incredibly difficult for many to even contemplate that this might all be down to an enormous error of thinking. What is profoundly disturbing though, is the number of people working in scientific fields who seem to be completely oblivious to this issue and the abandonment of basic scientific methodology, i.e. isolating the variable.
I am resonating to that same chord.
Dr Tom Cowan has a good example of jumping to conclusions:
When whole ship’s crews went down with scurvy it was first thought to have been an infection!!!
All probably consume crap (spiritually, emotionally, physically), and/or live, a too sedentary/stressful life. A form of mass psychosomatic disorder as opposed to mass formation psychosis
Dr. Watson, you provide a link to a Reuters Fact Check claiming that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and its complete genome has been sequenced. Is there an article about isolation and genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 — in a scientific journal?
And we all know Fact Checkers do not check facts but narratives
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3 makes interesting reading. 56 million short reads from a crude lung sample from ONE patient with symptoms indistinguishable from pneumonia, who lived in one of the most heavily polluted cities in the world. 300,000- 1 million overlaying putative ‘genomes’- how to choose one?? Bear in mind all previous uploaded ‘genomes’ also plumped for out of thousands.
Oh dear. No need for such verbose protestations, everything we needed to know was all wrapped up in those few immortal words.
Why is Peter Deusberg discredited? Who decided?
You say he’s wrong but defend his right to be wrong yet you don’t say why he’s wrong. You’re effectively cancelling him without telling us what he’s done to deserve it.
You reference Koch’s postulates yet fail to acknowledge the HIV model does not satisfy any of them in particular the absence of proof that HIV causes disease. Kary Mullis makes this point but no doubt you’ll discredit him too.
Robert Gallo’s announcement in 1984 that he’d discovered the probable cause of AIDS was a lie. He did no such thing. He managed to replicate a virus (that was sent to him) in the lab but that was all. That’s like someone sending you some flour and then you announcing you’ve discovered the probable cause of scones.
And then the US government killed lots of HIV positive patients with AZT turning everyone who was unfortunate to take it into Rock Hudson lookalikes.
As far as I know as of today no one has yet isolated HIV which means no one can prove it causes disease. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t but it’s not true just because everyone says so. Weight of numbers is not a guarantee of anything re the British army funnelling itself into the Kyber Pass.
I know nothing of Sam Bailey but I do know Deusberg is a serious scientist so it should not be the case that you can tarnish his career and his entire body of work without telling us wherein lies his discredit.
After all how would you like it if folk started writing the word ‘discredited ‘ in front of Roger Watson? I guess you wouldn’t like it.
The reaction to this article confirms my view that a lot of Daily Sceptics readers jumped the shark some time ago. Now it’s all about the Icke-ites and their absurd purity spiral.
So presumably you’re just here to troll everyone? Care to back up your assertions with actual verified facts?
The good news for Roger is that if he thinks pathogenic viruses exist he can claim the €1m prize offered if anyone can prove SARS Cov 2 exists. It remains unclaimed after a year! Also another virus-denier Stefan Lanka still has his €100,000 offer intact after a failed claim in a superior court in Germany which hoped to disprove his claim that the measles virus didn’t exist and could not be transmitted.
For my money, I would back the virus deniers when they claim viruses cannot cause illnesses. There is such a heavy presence of deception and lies and outright fraud attached to the promotion of pathogenic viruses which when allied to the rancid influence of Pharma, impresses Dr Sam Bailey’s arguments on me.
indeed I did not hear once any politico or doctor advise that a healthy diet and exercise would be the best preventative against any illness.
Many attended every anti-lockdown march and mixed with hundreds of thousands of people unmasked and without social distancing without catching anything. But the fear induced by the £3billion budget for terrorising the public in the UK must indeed have lowered the immune response of the vulnerable.
Time to roll over Roger. You and your ilk have had their day.
I have just watched James Delingpole and Dr Sam Bailey talking on this subject and I have to say that her opinions resonated very strongly with my own. I am a great grandmother, almost 81 years old, I have lived the way Sam Bailey suggests all my life, having had a grandfather who told me as a child to never compromise on food and always get the best you can afford.
He had smallpox at the age of 20, did not receive a vaccine and although he was very ill in Leicester Infirmary he recovered completely and put it down to good food.Leicester people on the whole historically have not been a fan of vaccines.
My daughter did not have her full vaccinations as a baby, for some reason (she is 57 now) I decided that I was not going to do it.
I do believe, and common sense has got me to this conclusion, that most illnesses are caused by toxicity such as stress, pollution or diet,and that the illness is the result of the body trying to eliminate the toxins.Every single thing that you take into your body has a reaction and as Dr Bailey points out your God given immune system will try to get rid of it.
It has definitely worked for me, no pills, no tests, no vaccines.
Exercise, sleep and rest, the world now is too frantic.
The pharmaceutical industry is a disgrace and actually causing most of the illness we have today.
Great post!
Quotes from the book ‘Dissolving Illusions: Disease, vaccines and the Forgotten History’ by Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk:
.
.
.
.
.
.
This article is basically saying that Germ Theory is right and that Terrain Theory is wrong.
One way of assessing the validity of a theory is in its ability to predict outcomes.
Looking at Germ Theory, it says Covid is new and much more dangerous than flu and that there will be many many many more deaths if we don’t do something drastic. It predicts that lockdowns and mask wearing and vaccinations will work!
Terrain Theory on the other hand predicted that none of the interventions would work and more or less the same number of people would get ill and die as have in most of the recent years.
So. you decide!
I’ve never been vaccinated or taken any medicines (except a few pain killers for a tooth abscess in my 60s) and never worry about being ill. I have had colds and flu and even pneumonia and cannot see for the life of me how Covid is any different to these illnesses.
I’m glad to read so many comments giving this puerile article the kicking it deserves – he might be more justified in his arrogance if his system worked better, but it has an appalling record compared to the more holistic, naturopathic ways he tries to ridicule.
I’m also encouraged by so many of the comments which question this arrogance of the mainstream narrative.
You strawmen’d Duesberg. Interesting that you mentioned haemophiliacs, but failed to see a connection with what was happening on a massive scale with Covid. These are my breadcrumbs. I don’t think you will bite.
Dr’s Sam and Mark Bailey give clear, concise arguments for their rebuttals of germ theory and their doubts as to the existence of viruses! They go into painstaking detail, with references and are open to debate to any and all who would challenge their understandings on the state of germ theory, in general and specifically for any viral disease.
As I understand it, you have been challenged to stand by your critisism of the Baileys’ work, and you have refused, presumably because you know you have zero chance of holding ground in an open and fair debate in the public arena!
Have the good grace to admit that you are not as smart as you think you are, which is self evident to onlookers! Basically, put up or shut up!
Here is Dr Sam Bailey’s reply:
“Recently, “The Daily Sceptic” wrote a blatant hit piece against me, which was a bit of a surprise. It seems that my viral scepticism was too much for them to handle.
Here is my spicy rebuttal!”
https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/the-covid-sceptics-who-spread-viral-dogma
She sliced and diced Watson with a smile.
She certainly did – comprehensively!
Thanks for that link.
It was, of course, brilliant. I’m a big fan of Dr Sam.
I actually prefer articles like Watson’s which support the mainstream narrative – because they allow such a lot of ripping apart in the comments which then illuminate the more thought out counter arguments.
I hope the Daily Sceptic offered to publish Dr Sam Bailey’s response to this hit piece (defined by me as significantly ad hominem) by Dr Roger Watson. After all, if someone is worthy of attack in this way, they must be important enough in the field to have their reply given the same prominence in the same journal.
Can we look forward to the debunking in future issues of flat earth advocates and “moon is made of cheese” promoters?
if this is the new approach of the Daily Sceptic to fringe ideas, I for one will be reviewing my monthly donation.
a good place to start is the original Fan Wu et al https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3 56 million short reads from a crude sample from one patient with symptoms indistinguishable from pneumonia. Making about 300,000 overlapping segments- how did they know which to choose bearing in mind previous ‘genomes’ also guessed at in the same way