Breaking News

Terrain Theorists Are Not Terrorists but Neither Are Germ Theorists

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A lot of debate abounds over whether or not the SARS-Cov-2 virus exists – or viruses themselves exist – and can cause illness or whether it’s the health of our body, our terrain, and the cells that lead to someone becoming sick.

Writing in Country Squire Magazine, Roger Watson, shares a highly emotive piece denying terrain theory. There appears to be some confusion and conflict in his article, which Rachel Nicoll, PhD, seeks to redress in a response to his article.

In it she clearly sets out why both terrain theory and germ theory are both valid and balance each other. The health of our terrain (body) determines how sick we might become if we become infected with a germ, be it bacterial or viral, or even prevent us from becoming sick in the first place.

She sums it up nicely by saying, “…if our health depended exclusively upon germ theory, then we would all be sick all the time. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the human race would have survived past a few hundred years!”.

Note: The above is extracted from Alliance for Natural Health’s Natural News Roundup


Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…


Watson is a British Registered Nurse and Editor-in-Chief of Nurse Education in Practice.  His article is distastefully titled ‘Terrain Theory Terrorists’.  Terrain theorists, irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with them, are not terrorists. Germ theory and terrain theory are both theories.  Although some do, not everyone sits in one camp or the other and even fewer take it to extremes.  It is, after all, science and not warfare.

In science, the word “theory” refers to the way that scientists interpret observed phenomena and the results of experiments. Theories can be proven or rejected and theories are continually improved or modified as more information is gathered.  A part of this process is scientific debate which should be aimed at coming to the most appropriate conclusion. So, to label people who promote any scientific theory as “terrorists” is simply absurd.  And, it is an uncomfortable reminder that science is being used as a tool for propaganda.

But Watson’s shoddy remarks don’t stop with the article’s title.  According to Dr. Nicoll, Watson labelled terrain theory as nonsense and quoted Wikipedia’s opinion that terrain theory is an “obsolete variation” of “germ theory denialism.”

Roger Watson also makes some very sweeping, but unsubstantiated, statements such as ‘But the …. doctors who adhere to (terrain theory) do not use or prescribe antibiotics and, needless to say, they are anti-vaxxers’. Is there a survey of these doctors to find out to what extent they support terrain theory and whether or not they prescribe antibiotics or are anti-vaxxers? No, it seems not, or he would have provided a reference to it.

He believes that one is either a germ theory adherent or a germ theory denier through advocating terrain theory. Such polarisation is completely unnecessary and does not, in any case, reflect the real world where degrees of opinion exist.

Response to Roger Watson’s Article: Terrain Theory Terrorists, Rachel Nicoll, 21 September 2022

As a medical researcher, Dr. Nicoll wrote, “I would like to demonstrate that it is possible for terrain theory to coexist peacefully with germ theory.”

We have all seen comments from aggressive germ theory deniers on social media which seem to have got progressively worse over the months.  Dr. Nicoll admits that perhaps Watson has encountered such people and so has come out with guns blazing. “But I have no intention of employing any of these methods,” Dr. Nicoll wrote.

Nicoll agrees that germs – bacteria, viruses, parasites, etc – do exist “there is ample evidence for this” but argues that terrain theory is also important. “Unfortunately, possibly because of encounters with rabid germ theory deniers, it is clear that Roger Watson does not really understand terrain theory … Yet he appears to accept some of its tenets,” Dr. Nicoll wrote.

Germ theory states that a number of diseases are caused by microorganism/germ invasion of the body. This has now evolved into the ‘microbial theory of disease’ and is currently accepted as the medical model, for which prevention takes the form of avoidance and vaccination, while treatment involves pharmaceutical drugs.

Terrain theory [ ] is essentially what determines whether a germ infects us or it doesn’t and if it does, how badly we are affected. We have all seen in families how one person gets really sick with the flu, others are mildly affected and some seem to escape symptoms altogether. It’s all the same virus, so what determines this difference? The terrain, or health status, of the individual; a healthy body will assist in fighting off a germ, whereas a body which is already struggling with a health issue could have difficulty.

Terrain theory has honourable beginnings, originating with the scientists Claude Bernard and Antoine Béchamp, roughly contemporaries of Louis Pasteur, who originated germ theory in the 19th century. Science, as we know it today, was then in its infancy, so much of what all three scientists postulated has now been overtaken but nevertheless, germ theory has evolved down one route and terrain theory down another.

We can see that germ theory focuses exclusively on the germ, while terrain theory is about the susceptibility to illness or serious disease due to the state of the body. Whereas germ theory advocates avoidance and vaccination, as we saw above, terrain theory recommends getting your body as healthy as possible and boosting your immune system to better fight off the germs. So, we need to take account of both theories in public health, not just the one.

Response to Roger Watson’s Article: Terrain Theory Terrorists, Rachel Nicoll, 21 September 2022

The gut has long been known to contain a mixture of bacteria, viruses, parasites, fungi etc. The lead author of a 2004 study, Professor Jeremy Nicholson, wrote: “It is widely accepted that most major disease classes have significant environmental and genetic components and that the incidence of disease in a population or individual is a complex product of the conditional probabilities of certain gene components interacting with a diverse range of environmental triggers.”

What does he mean by “environmental triggers”?  That would be the terrain, the internal and external environment which affect the body, Dr. Nicoll wrote.

Similarly, others have reported that the gut microbiota composition is influenced by many factors, including nutrition, stress, pollutants, antibiotics and other drugs, collectively known as the exposome; again, this represents the terrain.

The gut contains vast quantities of bacteria, some beneficial, some neutral and some disease-causing. What determines the balance between them, thereby determining whether the body exhibits health or disease? A diet of real food, with plenty of fibre and vegetables and a healthy lifestyle with adequate exercise, are huge beneficial influences whereas malign influences include processed (as opposed to real) food, sugar (because it promotes disease-causing bacteria), smoking, the quantity of antibiotics taken (because they wipe out many of the beneficial bacteria) and environmental toxins.

The gut also contains many viruses.  A healthy immune system keeps stored viruses dormant, while a suppressed or deficient immune system allows them to flourish.

So, the terrain influences whether health or disease results from exposure to disease-causing germs; it is not solely the presence in the body of the disease-causing germs.

Response to Roger Watson’s Article: Terrain Theory Terrorists, Rachel Nicoll, 21 September 2022

The scientific discourse surrounding germ theory and terrain theory has been around longer than we have and, assuming another theory doesn’t appear to replace them, it’s likely to continue long after we’re gone. There are good and respected scientists debating from both sides and the debate should continue but we don’t need to pick a side and fight among ourselves – the growing polarisation of views on SARS-CoV-2 and “pathogenic viruses” will divide and conquer the health freedom movement.  As Alliance for Natural Health’s Dr. Rob Verkerk said:

“Let’s get this one put to bed sooner rather than later – and re-unite our movement based on the multitude of issues we do agree on. Let’s forge ahead with the extraordinarily ambitious task of re-building a world that respects and values humanity, human dignity and freedom, as well as nature. And one that tolerates and respects differences in opinion or perspective.”

Featured image: The Terrain Theory vs. The Germ Theory, Dr. Robert Young and It’s the Terrain, Prestige Wellness Institute

Share this page to Telegram

Categories: Breaking News, World News

Tagged as:

3.1 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

50 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Blaid
John Blaid
2 months ago

I want to address an argument that many in the so-called truth movement make in regards to “viruses” which is that the germ theory and terrain theory are not mutually exclusive. These are even false terms in my view, the correct terms are the germ hypothesis & terrain model.

I truly understand this false perspective that people may have and it’s easy to demonstrate this level of thinking by just throwing seeds on the concrete where nothing will happen with the seeds due to terrain being wrong but if we put the seeds in the soil they will start to grow because the terrain is in alignment with the seeds. Now I will only address this false argument in relation to “viruses” and not bacteria, fungi & parasites because bacteria, fungi & parasites actually exist while there is no evidence for the existence of “viruses”.

To all of you that hold this position, I would like you to answer this question: how can something that never been proven to exist in nature by the use of the scientific method ever be a cause of something regardless of the status of the terrain? To even entertain that argument we would first have to prove the existence of the “virus”, then and only then could we begin to argue from the experimental evidence if the germ hypothesis & terrain model are complementary in regards to “viruses”.

I would also like to say that in my view the terrain model got nothing to do with “viruses” because we would first have to prove the existence of “viruses” before we can begin to argue about how they may behave in various environments. This is why I constantly state in my interviews that there is nothing to debate here in regards to “viruses” because all “virologists”, institutions, scientists and researchers around the world are all in full agreement with the fact that they have never found an alleged “virus” directly from nature. This is also one of the reasons I have turned down debates because what is there to debate, either something exists or it doesn’t. It’s like arguing about the existence of unicorns, either we have found unicorns in nature or we haven’t.

There is no ambiguity here, there is no middle ground, period.https://johnblaid.substack.com/p/viruses-are-not-part-of-the-debate

Nick
Nick
Reply to  John Blaid
2 months ago

Right on John (love your work btw). This article merely shoehorns people into one camp or another. the truth is those that the Watson article was aimed at (Baileys, Cowan and others) are refuting a theory. This is totally different from saying it is wrong because we have the correct theory here. Like Cowan recently stated, why on earth would anyone believing in the solid ground virology supposedly stands on, have any problem in being a signatory to the Settling the virus debate document. It will only prove their case further. The fact there is no appetite from anyone in the health freedom movement to simply verify the uncontrolled science that virology is based on speaks for itself. Again, terrain is not the issue. Virus existence should stand on its own or fall with other unsubstantiated theories. Period.

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
Reply to  John Blaid
2 months ago

Not sure I understood your first paragraph, but in my view the rest was spot on.

This sentence confused me a little and remember please, that I have limited knowledge of the subject .. but you stated full agreement with the fact that they have never found an alleged “virus” directly from nature” … it does not matter in my understanding if it originates in nature or in the lab.

Thanks

Nick
Nick
Reply to  Bob - Enough
2 months ago

Hi Bob, i believe John’s point is here that if you need to culture a ‘virus’ in a lab because it cannot be done (for whatever reason) by simply taking it from its natural state (infected human), how can you ever be sure that what you are witnessing is not a result of the environment you have created.
If I can make the brief assumption you know something of the process of causing cytopathic effects (I’m a layperson myself), if you need to stress a cell culture (that is not even the same type of cell as the infected person) and add things to it that are not present in the natural process of a person getting sick (antibiotics, bovine serum etc), then what kind of conclusion can you draw from what this has to do with what happens with the alleged virus inside the body?

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
Reply to  Nick
2 months ago

Yes, I know a “little” of what I am talking about, but I would have to repeat my non-stop rhetoric of the fact that NO so called VIRUS has ever been isolated and therefore by default NO so called VIRUS can ever physically be developed in a lab – therefore all must be assumed and designed on a computer to boost the jab sales.

Regards your Cytopathic Effects (CPE) – my argument is not that you can inject somebody with a chemical poison, it is that “an alleged virus” cannot be isolated nor can it be proven to be transmittable.

Now bringing up CPE, doesn’t one of the rules state (if you believe it) = “Viruses are parasites that need a host cell to replicate” ?.

For me virology and germ theory are dead; but that is just my personal view; now I am off to that Buddhist temple and learn all sorts of healthy crap.

Nick
Nick
Reply to  Bob - Enough
2 months ago

Yes sorry Bob it seems we are talking at cross purposes as I misinterpreted your initial comment to mean you were saying it is just as valid finding an alleged virus in a cell culture as it is in nature.
In total agreement with everything you have said here. Enjoy your day.

John Blaid
John Blaid
Reply to  Bob - Enough
1 month ago

“This sentence confused me a little and remember please, that I have limited knowledge of the subject .. but you stated “full agreement with the fact that they have never found an alleged “virus” directly from nature” … it does not matter in my understanding if it originates in nature or in the lab.”

What I tried to convey here is the fact that all references to alleged “viruses” are to experiments in labs, not any direct evidence of a “virus” from nature. This is the heart of the isolation issue which all “virologists”, institutions, scientists and researchers around the world actually agree on. What I mean by that is that when they are pushed against the wall they admit that they have never found a “virus” in nature.

They even go as far as to say that it’s outside of what is possible in “virology”. What this in turn means is that all experiments in labs are meaningless because how can anyone experiment with something they have never proved to exist prior to an experiment taking place?

To make an analogy, how can we conduct experiments with unicorns unless we have first proved that they exist prior to any experiment? Obviously we can’t. We cannot manipulate anything that we haven’t shown to exist prior to an experiment.

Now for any alleged “virus” to be man made it first has to exist in nature, yes it has to exist in nature. Contrary to popular belief, we are not gods that can create things out of thin air and create features in nature that don’t already exist. If we lack direct evidence for the existence of “viruses” in nature then it also means that we cannot manipulate it either and sell it under the idea of man made “viruses”.

To make it very simple, it doesn’t matter if you believe in natural “viruses” or man made ones, they both rely on the same procedure and scientific method which is the isolation and purification of a “virus” from nature none of which has ever happened. All claims of isolation are references to experiments with tissue cultures which has nothing to do with any isolation where they work under unproven assumptions and a lack of proper control experiments.

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
Reply to  John Blaid
1 month ago

Thanks for the response, but with all due respect (I hate it when someone says that to me, so sorry), but are we not arguing the same thing ?.

I started off and was quite clear about the fact in writing “NO so called VIRUS has ever been isolated and therefore by default NO so called VIRUS can ever physically be developed in a lab”.

Oh wait, your first paragraph was my original one I think, but not sure…but whatever, no virus ever, whether it allegidly formed in nature (it did not) or some alleged lab developed “virus” (it is not) – IT IS A CHEMICAL WEAPON, not biological, but my point is that it has ever been isolated or been proved transmittable

Daft example … winter time and you have a shocking cold or flu and you go into work with a packed office on Monday; on Tuesday or Wednesday, you can almost guarantee that other people will have the same symptoms (say 50% for arguments sake) – so why ?. In the past, we would have automatically assumed it was because we “gave them” the cold or flu – right ?.

But no, research shows it could be anything from psychosomatic, to timing of the same low vitamin or hormone levels in the body, all sorts of things … but what we never used to ask or even notice; was why if this “cold or flu virus existed” the other 50% remained perfectly healthy !!.

This is all relatively new to me (2-3 years), but I do think we are on the same side here.

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Bob - Enough
1 month ago

In response to your “daft example”, I observe that we tend in winter to wrap ourselves up, closet ourselves indoors, breathing the same unfiltered air laden with who knows what chemicals, cleaners, carpet, termite, spider, roach treatments, plastic furniture, plastic computers, televisions heating themselves up and all gassing off, all the while drinking barely enough water. Sounds like a recipe for building the right terrain for some bacteria, fungus to flourish.
Fresh air, sunshine, lots of quality water have kept me healthy for over thirty years since my last flu event event. PS, staying away from grog helps too.

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
Reply to  Paul
1 month ago

When you say “staying away from grog helps too.”; we are talking .. maybe about a meter but still within arm’s reach – right ?; otherwise I am off to get my 300 clot shots.

But you are spot on regards the lack of fresh air, exercise (in general), poor, unhealthy environment etc.; not sure nor do I want to even contemplate the “termite, spider, roach treatments” …

Cheers and catch you later

John Blaid
John Blaid
Reply to  John Blundell
1 month ago

No we do not need to consider this in regards to “viruses” and here is why. Koch’s postulates, Rivers criteria, Hills criteria etc are completely irrelevant at this point when it comes to “viruses” and only serve to distract us from the core issue, why?

Because for any rules to be relevant in regards to “viruses” we would first have to find the alleged “viruses” directly in nature which nobody has been able to do in over 150 years.

A Person
A Person
2 months ago

“Terrain theory [ ] is essentially what determines whether a germ infects us or it doesn’t and if it does…It’s all the same virus, so what determines this difference?”

I assume this statement is saying that terrain theory people believe in germs and possibly even viruses. I’m not sure that the terrain theory people on this site all believe in germs – certainly maybe don’t seem to believe in viruses, as far as I can tell 🙂 .

Sam
Sam
2 months ago

“Nicoll agrees that germs – bacteria, viruses, parasites, etc – do exist “there is ample evidence for this”.”

This is simply not true. It is essential to distinguish between the different types of “germs”. There is ample evidence that viruses do not exist. A virus is defined as a replication competent, parasitic, disease causing particle that can be transmitted between individuals. None of that has been proven.

The genomes and other supposed viral structures are pieced together on computers and do not exist in their entirety in the real world. Pictures are taken of extracellular vesicles/exosomes which are presented as viruses without any evidence at all. Virologists never purify viruses before studying them and have redefined the word “isolate” to fool people including themselves.

It is obvious from multiple lines of inquiry that there has been no pandemic and those that believe that SARS-CoV-2 exist, either naturally or lab made, fail to understand the difference between genetic sequences in databases and supposed whole virions. Giving the virus credibility plays into the hands of the globalist terrorists.

Bacteria, parasites and fungi on the other hand do exist and given the right conditions (terrain) can cause disease. The extent to which these diseases are infection or outfections is debatable.

Merv
Merv
Reply to  Sam
1 month ago

Well put. And the condition of the biological organism in the terrain?

Sam
Sam
Reply to  Merv
1 month ago

Yes many species of bacteria can be harmless commensals or lethal toxin producing pathogens depending on the terrain. E. coli and meningococcus are good examples. The nurse writing about “terrain theory terrorists” is ignorant of this fact.

Paul
Paul
Reply to  Sam
1 month ago

Well put and in addition Beuchamp and others who followed observed micro organisms change shape and size as the acidity changed,
Just slightly on the alkaline side is where our bodies do a sterling job of keeping us until we overload it with too much acid forming foods, drinks, poor air, lack of sunshine.
Was it Gaston Nassens and his “Dark Field” microscope where he observed such behaviour, or was the R.R.Rife? Probably both.

Islander
Islander
2 months ago

An excellent article that has cleared away a lot of the fog, so that a simpleton like me can understand what’s going on here! Love the cartoon! I am a tank cleaner!

The way certain groups and ideologists bandy around the word “terrorist” really is quite appalling. I was called a “terrorist” for simply being an evangelical Christian, being a danger to society! And when I forsook the state education system some 22 years ago and started my own homeschool, some said this was akin to child abuse-shocking! Well, we know who the child abusers are now, don’t we?

The “scribes and pharisees” scolded the incarnate Deity for not reproving His disciples for “eating with unwashen hands” (Mark 7), such was their extreme punctiliousness! for you can be assured He wouldn’t have come in with His disciples eating with mud falling of their hands!

This “middle ground” position is obviously a hard one to maintain, to some science is “warfare”! I have observed in my lifetime that “the theory of evolution” has silently morphed into “the fact of evolution!” And, believe me, when you start questioning some, the daggers come out!

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
2 months ago

What are you actually arguing here Rhoda (no offence intended).

You start off with “A lot of debate abounds over whether or not the SARS-Cov-2 virus exists – or viruses themselves exist” – well do they ?; have they ever been proven to exist or proven to be transmittable – NO

It is strange because on UK Column and many other alt sites; they are sort of having the same discussion (ish), yes about alleged virus but also about calling the jabs -> vaccines; because of idiots like me, taking offence.

But I notice again the above is a very good piece in that it covers all sides and keeps everyone happy, but NEVER SUMMARISES with a few conclusions.

  1. For instance you state “There are good and respected scientists debating from both sides and the debate should continue but we don’t need to pick a side and fight among ourselves – the growing polarisation of views on SARS-CoV-2 and “pathogenic viruses” will divide and conquer the health freedom movement. As Alliance for Natural Health’s Dr. Rob Verkerk said:”

We have had 2.5 years of this debate, thousands are dying, dropping dead in the street that this web site shows itself and any of us can provide links for eg. https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/

If people do not wake up to the fact that the alleged virus is complete and utter BS and so called vaccines are a scam, we have no hope.

PS Thanks CP – https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/Stefan-Lanka-The-Misinterpretation-of-the-Antibodies-English-Translation.pdf

Nick
Nick
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
2 months ago

I agree there is some risk of divide and conquer fallout but I think some analogy of basically whatever people choose to believe is fine is also dangerous. As above comments clarify, terrain v germ may be a divide and conquer strategy but the main people promoting discussion around this topic are not talking about terrain v germ. Its a false dichotomy. It is simply either viruses exists because they have been proven beyond a doubt, and therefore are able to be used to justify not only big pharma’s existence in general but also all the measures that we have seen for the past 3 years…..or they dont exist insofar as any valid controlled experiments have shown them not to exist, and none of the last 3 years has any valid excuse.
If I said 2 parties had differing opinions, one thought there should be a ruling class that got to lock people up wherever they deemed necessary and push experimental things on them, and the other party just thought people should be free to determine their own life, it is not an acceptable position to say both positions are equally valid and whatever people choose is fine.

Nick
Nick
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
1 month ago

Hi Rhonda, to the first point, no. Thats why I was saying its a false dichotomy. It isn’t about 2 theories battling for higher ground as the article you post suggests. The issue is simply has germ theory, particularly as it pertains to viruses, been substantiated by decent blinded controlled studies. The answer to this is a resounding no. The way science should work is if this is the case then explore other theories. Maybe some iteration of terrain theory is most accurate, maybe not. It is irrelevant as to whether virology can stand on its own two feet.
This debate has been attempted several times in public with Mark Bailey and others. The logical fallacy that is made by all that defend virology is always the same and shadows your first question to me. I think you believe the cause is terrain theory which doesn’t explain everything, or some such line of argument. It does not matter what the ‘virus deniers’ do or don’t believe about the true cause of ill health. We start with ‘has virology been substantiated’. The answer is no. It’s time to explore other explanations. PS I emplore you to read and promote Mark Bailey’s latest article. It deserves to at least be refuted by virology if there are things that are false, but they will not touch it. https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
Re my second point, no I don’t think the tyrants that seek to control everything would give up if virology went away, but I do think it is the most perfect cover for control in existence today. Would you not agree? Tell me a single measure that would have any logical basis from the last 3 years without the belief in invisible spreading pathogens.
At a meta level, govt exists through inciting fear and offering protection (for the small price of freedom of course). Every other function can happen without them. The terror paradigm of the last 20 years supposes your neighbour or fellow passenger with the beard and dark skin could be a terrorist, therefore we need to x ray you, pat you down, have the patriot act etc etc. Now we have biosurveillance. Terror paradigm on steriods. Now the terrorist could be you and you don’t even know it cause the enemy is literally invisible. The only way to keep you safe is to control you down to the cellular level.
Yes the attack on freedom will never end because human nature, but an end to virology would remove many of the excuses currently used to attack said freedom.
Thanks, sorry for the babble.

Islander
Islander
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
1 month ago

Well said. “Bickering on social media” as you call it, is not what the well-oiled WEF, WHO and the rest do!! They “get it done”.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
1 month ago

It is absolutely essential that people understand how SARS-CoV-2 was constructed in silico using unscientific techniques and how the PCR scam works. If people do not understand this then to use your analogy the next prong or barb will be another fake virus and another fake PCR test. This is already being done with monkeypox and polio. This is not a fringe academic debate its essential everyone understands the nature of the scam so they dont fall for it again.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
1 month ago

I agree with you about that but if people knew the truth about fake viruses they wouldnt have had the covid first round of genetic modification.

Bob - Enough
Bob - Enough
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
2 months ago

Hi Rhoda, I was mid sentence replying and it all went dead (the dark winter ?), but anyway.. argumentative as always, here goes.

NO – Germ theory or terrain theory are not part of the same game at all; absolutely not.

? = “However, there is a warning in this article for those who choose to see it and take heed – the clues for which lie in the terms “terrain theorists are not terrorists and “divide and conquer.””; nice bit of psychology there, or hopefully I am just paranoid; a threat ?.

You will certainly not find me dividing people, just the opposite as that is our only chance of winning this war – and I mean across race, religion, creed, culture, sex, you name it.. but if you think I have to shut my mouth, because my view is different from yours or others, unfortunately you have to ban me. WE NEED HEATED DISCUSSIONS, even arguments for people to wake the h3ll up.

Personally I think you are wrong on this subject, as you think I am. Ah well.

GeoffB
GeoffB
2 months ago

The definitive debunking of the “virus deniers”. Article by Steve Kirsch includes the following subjects.
If viruses don’t exist, then how can we see them?
The virus deniers are afraid of a public livestream debate… with just two people on our side vs. their entire team.
If you think I’m wrong? You can win up to $1M!
How science works: the burden is on them to show their novel hypothesis is superior to the current working hypothesis. They haven’t done that.
How people are being misled into thinking science works the way THEY say it does.
Why aren’t they specifying any tests for THEIR hypothesis?
I challenge anyone who thinks viruses don’t exist, not just the co-signers. Win $1,000,000.
Why there aren’t “isolated” viruses available at ATCC (by their definition).
Two papers show viruses that are large enough to be seen with an optical microscope.
Koch’s postulates have been satisfied for SARS-CoV-2.
The virus has been sequenced.
ATCC offer 15 purified viruses for purchase.
How do we know that viruses exist? 100 years worth of experiments, that’s how!
Why do researchers have a hard time infecting people with a virus in lab experiments?
The “Settling the Virus Debate” challenge.
They have no alternate hypothesis to explain the data that is on the table.
They won’t debate any of us.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/if-viruses-dont-exist-then-how-can

Merv
Merv
Reply to  GeoffB
1 month ago

A bit like the “does God exist?” question. No person can prove one way or another. His 1million dollars is as safe as Dr. Stephan Lankas 100,000 Euros. The proponent of this theory must provide logical, incontrovertible evidence that viruses exists, not vice versa.

GeoffB
GeoffB
Reply to  Merv
1 month ago

Lanka lost his bet as the court and experts all agreed that viruses exist but on appeal he didn’t have to pay up due to a semantics technicality whereby he asked for “a” scientific paper and Bardens had produced “six” scientific papers.
It is all documented in the German court papers and is incontrovertible.
https://classicrecords1.wixsite.com/the-sceptic/post/lanka-loses-2-court-cases-in-germany-as-the-judges-and-experts-all-confirm-the-existence-of-viruses

Scientists have shown that viruses exist beyond reasonable doubt and just a handful of people say they don’t exist and all of them have books, websites, pills, lotions and potions to sell to the gullible and no-one who understands modern virology takes them seriously.

Sam
Sam
Reply to  GeoffB
1 month ago

The Perth group of scientists and doctors understand modern virology very well. http://theperthgroup.com/

Merv
Merv
Reply to  GeoffB
1 month ago

I find it amusing that often people reference sites such as wikipedia that do not allow opposing views to be published. eg-yes, Australia is registered with the SEC, but no, it is not a corporation.
Judges, and experts? Like Dr. Mengele?
The highest court in Germany did not confirm the existence of such and found appropriately. From the evidence provided from living persons, not some edited for public viewing site. All things on the ‘net are real, right? Open ur mind which involves admitting that no-one knows everything. And Dr. Lanka hasn’t offered me anything for sale, unlike the frauds at the multi-trillion dollar vax corps. Drink the kool aid?

Merv
Merv
Reply to  GeoffB
1 month ago

If scientists have indeed proven this, why has no pathogenic “virion” never been found and isolated in any sick person? Not to mention satisfied either Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates. Should be easy to isolate and take a pic or two given the size of these virions. 50-150 um, or micrometers. Same size as exosomes! Are exosomes really being passsed off as virus particles?
Virology is not my field, RF (amateur) is. And on that point, are people aware that RF of various frequencies cause the exact same symptoms as cov/’flu? And especially, resonant frequencies oscillate atoms, for example 60Ghz resonates O2 making the haeme unable to uptake the O2. From an electrical engineer with formal education.

Freeman2
Freeman2
Reply to  GeoffB
1 month ago

“Lanka lost his bet as the court and experts all agreed that viruses exist but on appeal he didn’t have to pay up due to a semantics technicality whereby he asked for “a” scientific paper and Bardens had produced “six” scientific papers.
It is all documented in the German court papers and is incontrovertible.
https://classicrecords1.wixsite.com/the-sceptic/post/lanka-loses-2-court-cases-in-germany-as-the-judges-and-experts-all-confirm-the-existence-of-viruses

Since you keep repeating the same misinformation, let me paste here my answer to you from comments to this older article:
https://expose-news.com/2022/02/16/debunking-the-corona-conspiracy-debunkers-by-a-top-british-biomedical-scientist/

Unlike you, I did read the entire decision of the German Court (in original).

Regarding your link, the comment @88: “(In other words the expert agreed that it had been proved that the measles virus existed).” is misleading! Just read the entire 88…

The expert actually claimed that, when_taken_together, the papers provided the required evidence (”…the expert had shown his result that the evidence could be regarded as having been obtained when all publications were viewed together…”)

FACT IS: “NONE of those papers, alone, proved the existence of the measles virus”. They admitted that!

How could you expect the Court to decide in favour of Lanka, and overturn the first Court’s decision, simply based on “semantics” as you claimed?!

AND the one before…

“The Court decided the required proof was not presented”.

THIS IS FACT! and the reason why the prize was not to be paid!

“Bardens supplied SIX papers so due to semantics and this technicality the Court decided he didn’t have to pay the bet.”

This is FALSE! and the problem was that NONE of those papers, alone, proved the existence of the measles virus!!! They admitted that!

It was claimed by the “experts” that however, _when_taken_together_, the 6 papers did prove the existence…

And all those who “agreed” are just like you, believers in the virus-theory, and that was just their opinion on that. Not a proof that measles viruses exist!

There can be no proof for the existence of any kind of “virus” without proper _isolation_ of such particle in the first place. And that hasn’t been done yet!

Merv
Merv
Reply to  GeoffB
1 month ago

FYI, an intelligent debate on this subject.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8Yu97fn8bV9S/
These two, Pat and Steve fail at any point to mention Rivers’ postulates but do mention Koch’s postulates. Both logical IMO. (Koch’s and Rivers’ postulates)

trackback
2 months ago

[…] Go to Source Follow altnews.org on Telegram […]

Tomas
Tomas
2 months ago

What people need to realize is this issue is not about a virus (es) or germ vs terrain theory… It is not even about science but rather about scientism. This particular issue reaches down all the way to the assumptions called theories, such the theory of evolution, abiogenesis all the way to the philosophy of materialism.
If one followed carefully the developmenets of some causes of a cold/flu like symptoms that later became to be called covid-19 you’d know that the first assumption was that it must be a novel virus that jumped from animals to humans and evolved… or the other way around…
But soon, it became clear that the computer generated model of SARS COV2 had a feature (furin cleavage) that just couldn’t have evolved by evolutionary processes. So, the initial assumption had to change now to keep the overblown panic-demic going: SARS COV2 must have been created in the lab. Unfortunately, nobody so far has been able to replicate such a lab creation because those who could know very well that the insertion of the furin cleavage sequence in cell culture doesn’t work.
Let’s not forget that viruses are not alive meaning that according to the theory of virology dead viruses, unlike bacteria, are inanimate. So, in order to infect the host they need to, by unknown mechanism, become alive, infect, steel the host’s mechinery in order to replicate, spread then kill the host and die off until next resurrection…
Magic…

trackback
2 months ago

[…] OD RHODY WILSON NA 26. ZÁŘÍ 2022 •  […]

Mike
Mike
2 months ago

The simple answer is, neither are valid/true and that’s why they’re still called “theories”. The “TRUTH” about disease causation is available for those who wish to look for it. But you’ve got to be ripe to hearing it, otherwise it just makes the majority of people angry. C’est la vie!

Merv
Merv
1 month ago

Most people who call others terrorists are projecting from their own terrorist viewpoints.
BTW, I am only interested in increasing my own knowledge, therefore I must assume that I know very little.
Only those who think they already know everything will NOT learn anything. Not in one camp or the other. Categorizing things (including persons) is wrong, IMHO.

trackback
1 month ago

[…] reading an article we published on Monday titled ‘Terrain Theorists Are Not Terrorists but Neither Are Germ Theorists’ a reader has written to us with his thoughts.  He notes how dualistic, two-part logic, has […]

trackback
1 month ago

[…] reading an article we published on Monday titled ‘Terrain Theorists Are Not Terrorists but Neither Are Germ Theorists’ a reader has written to us with his thoughts.  He notes how dualistic, two-part logic, has been […]

Eileen Bailey
Eileen Bailey
1 month ago

This article is pitiful! Like you can be a bit pregnant!! There is no such thing as a contagious virus and what is called by virologists
a virus is just human cell tissue.

You will note that they never ever put a snot sample under a microscope and say yep there is the virus. They don’t do it because it cannot be done due to the fact there is no virus and they know it!!! It’s a monumental scam!!!

No they put a sample in a Petri dish adding antibiotics and toxic chemicals and starve the sample of nutrients and then say the virus killed the sample. Cmon folks how can you believ this crap!!! It’s fraudulent it’s criminal fraud!!!

Covid19 virology fraud explained in 19 minutes bitchute

Millions of healthy people died being injected for what? A virus that doesn’t exist cos a fake PCR test says it was positive…positive for what? How can they test for a virus that doesn’t exist..none of them exist..not polio not ebola flu virus hiv aids NADA!! No one ever has isolated a virus ever!!! We have the foi requests for 200 countries….including CDC pH England Wuhan China.

All it is a computer code of what a virus could be like if there was such a thing.

Have you any idea of the obscene profits made by governments who have shares in these companies? Have you any idea of the millions they save in pensions and social care when old and infirm are killed off by these jabs?

Well start thinking!!

gruppler
gruppler
1 month ago

Regarding balance between terrain theory vs germ, I have found an interesting perspective in the writing of Jeff Green. Though he has been in conflict with the “viruses don’t exist” version of terrain theory, he has added insightful reinterpretation of repeated observations within virology. Rather than trying to discard an entire field of science and accusing it of ‘pseudoscience’ he has separated the facts from their (mis)characterisations and concluded that viruses exist but are not contagious, rather a non-living agent our own cells produce to break down toxic material or tissue. His website is virusesarenotcontagious.com

The main problems with the position of “virology is pseudoscience” according to debates I’ve read been Green and Mike Stone (and associates) is that the deconstructionist’s goal is only to destroy, not rebuild; therefore they can afford to be reckless and rigid in their one-sided reasoning by reimagining the scientific method as something like the Ten Commandments that shall not be violated, rather than a set of guiding principles.

Luke Durrant
Luke Durrant
1 month ago

This is the truth movement and I’m sick and tired of new now popular people in the truth movement thinking it’s their job to control the truth, to water it down for us dummy’s or to sell a lie to protect us dummy’s. Germ theory is dead and has been for decades so the only divide in the movement is those who can’t let go of a belief system or don’t want to push their new audience away with the truth, and those who seek the truth an to hell with what it means to their own beliefs.

Germ theory is dead and the sooner people actually start understanding that the sooner he can start to fix this mess we are in. Stand with the truth or F OFF.

pablo
pablo
27 days ago

Anyone poisoning an environment causing illness and death, what do we call them?