Newsletter, 9/30/24
SW Asia War/WWIII, Biomedical
Starting with the dire news from the SW Asia War, which is quickly on its way toward becoming a front in the emerging WWIII. I have a few things to say myself. I am steaming angry that my tax money, the tax money of my fellow Americans, is being used to fund a widening Zionist genocide, as well as to fund further preparations for WWIII with Russia and China. And i’m alarmed that hardly anyone seems upset and screaming about this. People are either overwhelmed with immediate dire situations, like the people in the SE US dealing with the catastrophic aftermath of Hurricane Helene, or (more likely)zoned out in the digital world, or not wishing to offend friends or undermine the presidential aspirations of either Israel cheerleader Harris or Israeli cheerleader Trump.. That’s SICKENING. I will not march silently into the darkening nightmare.
And, three videos, all dealing with the assassination of Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut late Friday, the subsequent Israeli raids on Lebanon, and open preparations for a ground Invasion. First up, Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek interviews Elijah Magnier, a veteran war correspondent and political analyst with more than 35 years of experience covering decades of war in the Middle East and North Africa.
What Next? w/ Elijah Magnier, 9/29/24. 59 minutes.
"Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and carpet bombing attacks on Lebanon have shocked the region and the world. What comes next? To discuss this and more, Rania Khalek is joined by veteran war correspondent and analyst Elijah Magnier for a special live episode of Dispatches.”
My comments. Some of this is defiance, some of it bravado. And a lot of it is genuine first hand knowledge. The Israeli state believes that by decapitating Hezbollah, it has destroyed it. The next few weeks will show otherwise, says Magnier.
And here is why most Israelis and so many Americans are clueless about what’s going on.
The Caroline Glick Show (Jewish News Syndicate), 9/29/24. 38 minutes.
"Top Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah is assassinated; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asks the United Nations to choose between blessing and curse in the fight against Iran, and Caroline explains why Israel is winning the war.”
My comments. This is a batshit crazy Zionist rant. These people are really leaving in a “reality” all their own. And this is what’s “informing” most Israelis and many American and European believers, mostly Christian Zionists. A key myth which gets brought up in this context is here: “Jews have always lived in this land, this is THEIR land.” This is as valid as Christian justifications for the Crusades, as they were premised on the fact that Christianity was born in that land and lots of Christians were still living there. Judaism is a religion. Jews do not form an ethnicity. Their genetic ancestry is from all over. European Jews, like the ones who founded Zionism and modern Israel, are descendants for the most part of people from all over Europe, primarily the northern Caucasus/southern Russia. There is firm scientific evidence for this. They have no more claim to the place than do Catholics or any other Christians, certainly nothing which supersedes the rights of the indigenous people.
And,a somewhat dispassionate perspective on “Democracy Now” today.
Trita Parsi on Israel's Nasrallah Assassination and Why Netanyahu Still Wants War with Iran, Democracy Now, 9/30/24, 11 minutes.
"As the Middle East gets ever closer to an all-out war, we speak with Iranian American analyst and author Trita Parsi about Iran's response in the aftermath of Israel's assassination of longtime Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. The powerful Lebanese militia is closely aligned with Iran and is part of the "Axis of Resistance" of forces in the Middle East opposed to Israel that also includes Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. "Israel has quite successfully cornered Iran," says Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. "At this point, if Iran does almost anything, it will risk triggering the larger regional war that Netanyahu wants and that the Iranians have tried to avoid.””
My comments. Parsi didn’t discuss the following very much Iran’s rulers are also very concerned about maintaining their good standing with the rest of the BRICS-Plus bloc, which does not want a regional war. The current dominant faction in Iran believes it can safeguard itself this way and wishes to move away from previously held confrontational positions. And it’s dealing with a severe economic crisis and social unrest. Doing nothing will isolate it from its proxies.
And a report on the ground situation.
Israel ‘on a high’ after Nasrallah killing, as mood for an invasion grows. Confident amid a string of successes against Hezbollah, Israeli public opinion is increasingly in favour of deepening an assault on the Lebanese group, say analysts. Simon Speakman Cordall, 9/30/24.
Israel has largely been fractured over the past year, divided over what went wrong during the Hamas-led attack on October 7, what the priorities of its war on Gaza should be, and whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the right man to lead the country. But the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut last Friday has provided Netanyahu with a major win, say analysts, and has united many of Israel’s politicians – and its public. That ballast for Netanyahu is likely to encourage Israel to push forward with a ground war on Hezbollah and Lebanon, according to some experts.
Opposition leaders have lined up to salute the killing of Nasrallah, carried out by a barrage of bunker-buster bombs that levelled several large residential buildings. Yair Lapid, a former prime minister and the current leader of the opposition, congratulated the Israeli military and said that Israel’s enemies should “know that whoever attacks Israel is a son of death”. And Benny Gantz, a rival of Netanyahu’s who stepped down as a war cabinet minister in June, called the killing “a matter of justice” that was an opportunity to “advance the war’s objectives”.
Israel has defined its objectives for the war as the release of captives held in Gaza, the defeat of Hamas and the return of Israelis to their homes in the north of the country — from where about 60,000 Israelis have been displaced since the start of the Gaza war and the onset of the crossfire between Israel and Hezbollah. Nasrallah’s killing has bolstered the view within Israel that the time is right to target Hezbollah still further, and seek a decisive victory against the armed group. That’s despite Israel’s growing international isolation over the death of more than 41,600 civilians in Gaza, and the rising death toll in Lebanon, where more than 700 people have been killed in recent days.
“On Friday we killed an archenemy, one who has killed many Israelis, Americans and others,” Israeli pollster and former aide to a number of senior politicians, Mitchell Barak, said of Nasrallah’s death. “It’s what we’ve been saying for years: we will punish and kill anyone who tries to harm us.” Barak said a new confidence had taken hold across many parts of Israeli society, as enthusiasm for a land invasion grows — along with the desire for the final destruction of what many within Israel saw as an enduring foe.
“We know this is the time to continue into Lebanon and not allow {Hezbollah} to regroup,” Barak said. “Killing Nasrallah and the attacks upon their beepers and walkie-talkies of last week … has left them weak, but they’re still armed and they’re still dangerous. We need to push them back, at least to the Litani River {In southern Lebanon}, maybe further.” [The LItani is 20 miles north of the current border]
In 2000, Israel ended an 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon, though it has since engaged in numerous attacks on its northern neighbour — and in turn faced missiles from Hezbollah. In 2006, Israel and Hezbollah fought a war. Now, some in Israel are arguing that an Israeli presence on the Lebanese side of the border is necessary to allow for the return of civilians who have had to leave northern Israel as a result of rocket fire from Lebanon. “They want to see a buffer zone that they know Hezbollah can’t enter,” said Mairav Zonszein, Crisis Group’s senior analyst in Israel. “That could be where things are going right now.”
In the last few weeks, Israel’s Northern Command, which borders the frontier with Lebanon, has been bolstered. On September 18, the 98th Paratroop Division was deployed to the border, with two reserve divisions subsequently mobilised to augment the forces there. Any decision on a ground invasion of Lebanon will likely be determined by how far Israel judges Hezbollah’s capabilities have been degraded as a result of the killing of much of the movement’s leadership, air attacks on its positions and weapons caches, and the undermining of its mobile communication systems, say analysts.
Within Israel, some cautioned against assuming a large-scale land invasion was already a given. Political scientist Ori Goldberg pointed to what he described as the dichotomy that continues to define Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon. “We behave like a bull in a china shop, then we pride ourselves on our precision,” he said from Tel Aviv. “It’s the same with a land invasion. Right now we’re on a high and we want to push into Lebanon. At the same time, we’re terrified of becoming bogged down and fighting on a second front.
“We’re basically, Schrodinger’s Israel,” he said, referring to the philosophical quandary of determining whether a cat locked in a soundproof box was alive or dead, first proposed by physicist Erwin Schrodinger in 1935. “We’re preparing to invade and we’re also not,” Goldberg said. “There’s no vision, no strategy, no end game.”
What there is in plenty at the moment in many parts of Israeli society is raw confidence, after a string of successes against Hezbollah, including the explosion of thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies largely used by the Lebanese movement. The explosions in mid-September killed dozens and injured thousands of Lebanese, both Hezbollah members and civilians, and underscored the depth of Israeli infiltration into Hezbollah’s communication network.
Yet Zonszein cautioned that while there was a general feeling of satisfaction among the Israeli public after the attacks on Hezbollah, there was still wariness of potential reprisals – particularly from Hezbollah’s main backer, Iran. “There’s still a bit of waiting period to see how Iran will react, or to see if Hezbollah still has the capacity {to respond} and will use it,” Zonszein said.
In anticipation of potential reprisals in the wake of Nasrallah’s killing, public gatherings have been capped at 1,000 people across much of Israel, with those numbers restricted even further in the north.
Many Israelis seem to be prepared to accept further war restrictions in return for a further military push against Hezbollah, particularly as the feared barrage of missiles deep into Israel has not yet materialised, said experts. For supporters of the war, it’s a question of ending the threat from Hezbollah once and for all, taking advantage of an opportunity to knock out a weakened enemy. “No one was calling for a ceasefire from October 8 when {Hezbollah} started firing the first of their 8,000 rockets into the north,” Barak said. “Only when Israel began to eradicate the threat of the rockets in the past few weeks did the international community wake up to prevent us from defending ourselves.”
Still, the widening of the war to Lebanon – and the recent string of what many within Israel regard as unalloyed successes against Hezbollah – don’t mean that Israel has forgotten about the captives in Gaza who were taken there by Hamas and other Palestinian fighters on October 7, Goldberg said. “They’re not off the radar,” Goldberg said of the captives and their families, who have staged regular protests throughout the war on Gaza. “Right now, Israel regards itself as potent and mighty.” “It’s an unspoken understanding across Israel that the war in Gaza is pretty much over,” he said. “We just don’t want to say we’re done. There’s nothing else that can be achieved there. Many think the time’s right for a deal.”
Biomedical. Christine Massey gets another “no records” response to her FOIA requests .
Thanks to Peggy Hall, the Healthy American. Christine Massey, 9/30/24.
Greetings and Best Wishes,
The FOI described below was inspired by a special lady named Peggy Hall. Peggy lives in/at Orange County, California and has helped many people across her nation navigate the “hogwash” rolled out by “public serpents” under the guise of protecting everyone from “the cooties”.
Peggy never bought into the “suffocation devices”, realizes that poisons (quackcines) cannot be made “safer for everyone” and she doesn’t pretend that restoring confidence in the corrupt clown-shows called FDA, CDC or NIH would be a good thing. She’s a breath of fresh air with an optimistic outlook and plans on “marching this all the way to heaven”.
Because “the Orange County Board of Supervisors has refused to hold a public meeting -- as required by law” to review the fake-emergency conditions and then to terminate the fake-emergency at the earliest possible date, Peggy filed a "writ of Mandate" against the County in September 2021. She has many articles/videos discussing the corrupt/delusional people at the County:[Screen shot]
So, inspired by Peggy, on April 29, 2024 I filed a freedom of information order with Frank Kim (since retired) acting as County Executive Officer, County Administration North, “Orange County” for all studies/reports held by the institution that scientifically:
• prove/provide evidence of the existence of the alleged covid-19 virus aka "SARS-COV2" (showing that the alleged particles with the purported “genome” and proteins have been found in sick people and shown to cause the illness/symptoms that they are alleged to cause), and/or
• demonstrate contagion of the illness / symptoms that are allegedly caused by said purported "virus".
I included a reminder that scientific proof/evidence requires use of the scientific method to test falsifiable hypotheses through valid, rigorous, repeatable controlled experiments and that this requires a valid independent variable (suspected "virus" particles that were found in sick "hosts" and purified). And as usual I asked that if records matching my request were held by the County but were already publicly available, I be given citations so that I may identify and access each one. I also clarified that my request was not limited to records authored by someone at the County but included records authored by anyone, anywhere, ever.
May 3, 2024:
David Kim acting as Program Manager, County Executive Office | Government & Community Relations confessed (pg 9) that: “….the Health Care Agency is unable to locate records responsive to your request” …which was to be expected since virology has always been pseudoscience, no virus has ever been shown to exist, contagion is “public health” mythology and literally hundreds of previous FOI responses from 40 different countries also yielded zero valid scientific evidence of any purported “virus”.
Also, notice that I didn’t even ask for evidence of the purported virus invading and hijacking cells and replicating. I made the request easy and still they failed. Because “covid” was a complete hoax. [Screen shot]
(“Item 1” in David’s response refers to my additional order for records containing litigation/legal/court expenses/fees/costs/expenditures incurred by the County in defending against Peggy’s writ. I’m not convinced that David responded correctly regarding those records, so I wrote back politely disputing his position (pg 10). David never had the courtesy to respond aka he left the battlefield, but I didn’t pursue the matter any further.)
Note: this newsletter has also been sent to the “Reuters Fact Check Team” and ~200 people who work for “the state”, lamestream media, etc. at Canada, Isle of Man, England and the U.S., and to people calling themselves “Senator” on the land known as Canada, so they can’t claim later that they didn’t know.
Update from Peggy:[Screen shot]
Recommended Reading/Viewing [with links]
RFK JR: "I'M GOING TO MAKE VACCINES SAFER for EVERYONE!” :-) RFK, Double-Speak, and Why "Safer Vaccines" Just Ain’t It - Peggy Hall [SNIP,…older material i’ve included in previous editions]
My comment at the page, and the ensuing exchange.
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times, 9/29/24.
Orange Country was the setting of several demonstrations in late Spring/early Summer 2020 pushing against the Lockdowns. Thus, it is quite a striking feat to get the Orange County officials who repressed the protests and maintained their mandates to admit they were not operating on the basis of science. Thanks once again, Christine! You are inspiring.
Christine Massey FOIs, 9/29/24. Author
Interesting. Thanks Jeff :)
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times . Liked by Christine Massey FOIs
See here.
Christine Massey FOIs, 9/29/24.. Author
Thanks again Jeff.
And, Dawn Lester takes on a would be “debunker” of the “no proof of virus” position, and shreds his claims.
Dawn Lester, 9/28/24.
An article was recently brought to my attention that is claimed by the author to not only ‘debunk’ the idea that ‘viruses’ are not the cause of disease, but to also ‘prove’ that SARS-CoV-2 was indeed the causative agent of a condition called ‘Covid-19’ that produced a ‘pandemic’ throughout the world beginning in early 2020.
The article, entitled Covid Misconceptions Debunked is dated 13th October 2021, so it is not a recent piece. Although I am known as holding a strong view on the ‘no virus’ position, I am nevertheless open to considering any genuine evidence that demonstrates this position to be incorrect, although so far I have yet to find any such evidence.
However, as this article was cited as a reliable source of such evidence, I decided to read it to see if any of us had missed a vital piece of information in our research. Having read through it, I felt it incumbent on me to address the problems, or some of them at least, with the claims the author makes in his article.
The very first paragraph provides a good overview of the author’s approach,
“The main problem with the alternative media’s response to the covid crisis was that they confused contrarianism with critical thinking. When it was announced in early 2020 that there was a pandemic - the alt media en masse simply took the stance - "no there isn't - if the TV and the MSM News says there is, then it stands to reason that the opposite is true." - This is not critical thinking, it’s not even free thinking - it’s a mantra.”
I would point out that those of us who spoke out on various ‘alt media’ channels, did not do so from a position of contrarianism, we spoke out from a position of our research findings. What he writes is not an accurate description of what happened, nor is it an accurate depiction of the ‘alt media’, because it is not a single ‘entity’ that acted in unison, unlike the mainstream media.
In addition, the ‘alt media’ did not immediately refute the claims about a pandemic simply because the mainstream media claimed this to be the case. I would add that there are many elements within the ‘alt media’ that still refuse to address the ‘no virus’ issue, so the blanket claim that THE alternative media refused to accept that there was a pandemic is incorrect. It is also disingenuous to state that everyone in ‘the alt media’ merely claims that whatever the MSM says is untrue. Yes, a lot of it is untrue, but many of us are aware that there are often some truths carefully nestled deep within the lies. That’s why their ‘stories’ become confusing, because they do contain some truth and many people intuitively recognise that truth and assume that the rest is also true.
I would add that, in another, but related, article written by the same author, he states that he is not taking all his information from the MSM, but from his own experiences, because he has ‘…spoken with nurses on covid wards, biochemists in labs, care home workers and the anaesthesiologist from Nottingham's main hospital.’ However, as we will see, he does take the vast majority, if not all of the information he cites as evidence from mainstream studies published in mainstream science journals.
In a further paragraph of the debunking article, he states, “So as the evidence stacked up that some sort of worldwide pandemic might be afoot the alternative media doubled and tripled down - swearing blind that no such virus had been proven to exist, or that mainstays of medical procedure used for thirty years were now not fit for purpose, that they knew of absolutely no one that had been affected by this so called disease and that the whole thing was pretty much a hoax. Some even went so far as to convince themselves that viruses themselves don't exist - bless your heart.”
I find the ‘bless your heart’ to be incredibly patronising - what do you think?
Also, his assertions about the alt media are a gross exaggeration. The ‘alternative media’ did not swear blind that no virus existed; that position was only held by a few of us at the beginning of 2020; we were very small in number. I am not going to discuss every single paragraph of this article to show where the author is not entirely correct in his statements or, in some instances, completely wrong. I will, however, because this is the crux of the article, refer to what he calls the ‘misconceptions’……..
One minor point I would raise is the reference to SARS-CoV-2 having been taken off the HCID register, this is an error; SARS-CoV-2 is the name given to the ‘virus’ - the name of the ‘disease’ is ‘Covid-19’ and it was the disease, ‘Covid-19’, that was taken off the HCID register. No I’m not being petty, but just highlighting that the author is also prone to mistakes - and this is by no means the only one he makes.
In another section of the article, he attacks the FOI requests submitted by Christine Massey and states that, “The request asks to see the isolated virus. But they used the different usages of the word isolated to trick people into thinking that such a request could not be fulfilled as the virus didn’t exist. But their request couldn’t be fulfilled – as they requested – because it was impossible. They used the common usage of the term isolated – meaning alone – completely alone. Not the scientific usage of the term – which means to culture the virus to prove its existence. As they state in the request, “in the every-day sense of the word .Now here's the disingenuous trick. You can't photo a virus on its own it needs a host to exist. Viruses are inert without a host cell. They need a host cell to exist – but that wouldn’t be isolated in the common usage. So it's a silly word game.”
It is not a ‘silly word game’ nor a ‘disingenuous trick’. The misuse by virologists of the term ‘isolation’ is intended to confuse people, to ‘baffle them with science’.
Nevertheless, Neil asserts, as if proven to be true, that viruses ‘…need a host cell to exist.’ Which is merely parroting the mainstream science claims, but this has not been proven, because a virus needs to be studied as a distinct entity so that its unique characteristics can be ascertained and recorded - in other words, it needs to have been isolated from everything else.
It is interesting that Christine Massey has continued to submit FOI requests and continued to receive replies that ‘no record can be found’. And even more interesting is that her work is increasingly recognised as pertinent and important, as can be seen by her very recently published article, 25th September 2024, entitled It’s official: No records of the “COVID virus”. [See the last edition of LT, 9/27/24]
What seems to be Neil’s main point of criticism against the ‘no virus’ position is contained within this comment, “Now before we start – do I think that Covid is a terrible world ending event? No. But it isn’t nothing – and pretending it is nothing hasn’t helped and won’t help. You should be holding the government to account – they are using this crisis to destroy and privatise the NHS and denying the existence or potential consequences of this disease actually helps the government accomplish this whilst insulating them from criticism for their failures.”
He clearly feels that the perpetrators should be held accountable and that if there is no such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’ then this argument falls away and they cannot be held responsible.
But he is missing the point. If there was no such thing as ‘Covid’ and no evidence that there is such an entity as a ‘pathogenic virus’, then this is an even greater and more serious issue. In fact, on this basis, that there is no such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’, there is far more that the perpetrators can be held responsible for than if it had been a ‘real’ pandemic.
One of the key issues underlying the discussion about the existence of any ‘pathogenic virus’ is the issue of ‘isolation’, which Neil Sanders describes as follows, “Isolation is the process of culturing the virus on a host cell and then removing its genome to prove that you have a newly found entity.”
That is indeed the medical establishment’s definition of ‘isolation’, but this is a sleight of hand, because the methodology used by virologists does not ‘prove’ any such thing. Neil is simply relying on mainstream ‘science’ to prove its own claims. An appropriate analogy would be accepting the claim that their food is healthy and nutritious from the CEO of McDonald’s.
I think it’s reasonable to say that it would be more appropriate for us to at least attempt to obtain independent evidence from a third party before accepting such a claim at face value. Unfortunately, Neil relies totally on mainstream studies as his ‘evidence’……
I would add, however, that just because a study paper uses the word ‘isolation’ in the title, that does not provide ‘proof’ that the study authors actually performed genuine ‘isolation’. This is just another logical fallacy; it’s called affirming the consequent.
It is widely believed that the ‘peer review’ process is the ‘gold standard’ that provides protection against bias or errors within published scientific study papers. However, there is ample evidence that this is not the case; this process is highly flawed, a situation that is even acknowledged by many who work within the mainstream system.
The best-known example is Dr John Ioannidis MD, who, in his 2005 article Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, states that, “…for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
This bias is definitely prevalent with respect to virology and the idea that ‘viruses’ have been isolated and proven to cause disease. But it is increasingly clear that the problem is far more than a mere bias in favour of study articles that claim ‘viruses’ are the cause of certain conditions, it is the perpetuation of an outright lie, because its foundational claim has never been proven. There is no evidence that the particles that are called ‘viruses’ are pathogenic and can be transmitted between people to cause illness……
In his 1995 book The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, historian Dr Gerald Geison refers to his investigation of Louis Pasteur’s work that involved a comparison of his personal notebooks with his published papers. He discovered that there were significant differences between what Pasteur allowed to be published and what he had written in his private papers. With reference to one set of experiments, Dr Geison states that, “…Pasteur deliberately deceived the public, including especially those scientists most familiar with his published work…” Louis Pasteur is not the hero we are told he is!….
I don’t presume to know Neil Sanders’ reason for writing his article and I will not speculate on what he hoped to achieve. But I will say that he failed spectacularly to ‘debunk’ the no virus position. He provided no evidence that any particle that has been labelled a ‘virus’ can cause any illness. What I find strange is that Neil Sanders is well known for writing about ‘mind control’, and yet he has failed to thoroughly investigate the situation regarding ‘viruses’. He has utterly failed to see that people have been put under a form of ‘mind control’ to make them believe that there are invisible particles that have been labelled ‘viruses’ and can make people ill, and that this idea can be used to control us.
I know I have written many articles on the topic of the unproven ‘germ theory’, I do so because I feel it is important, and the reason it’s important is to show people that there is nothing to fear from these narratives about so-called ‘infectious diseases’, whatever label is given to them and whatever stories we are told about how they can ‘spread’.
My comment at the page.
Jeffrey Strahl, Lockdown Times, 9/29/24.. Liked by Dawn Lester
"One of the key issues underlying the discussion about the existence of any ‘pathogenic virus’ is the issue of ‘isolation’, which Neil Sanders describes as follows, “Isolation is the process of culturing the virus on a host cell and then removing its genome to prove that you have a newly found entity.” That is indeed the medical establishment’s definition of ‘isolation’, but this is a sleight of hand, because the methodology used by virologists does not ‘prove’ any such thing. Neil is simply relying on mainstream ‘science’ to prove its own claims. An appropriate analogy would be accepting the claim that their food is healthy and nutritious from the CEO of McDonald’s."
WORD! Thanks for the brilliant debunking of this pretentious idiot Neil Sanders, Dawn!
Ending this segment and this edition. Mike Stone discusses a key part of the Scientific Method, experiments which are not only repeatable but also “falsifiable,” and explains that term.
Unfalsifiable, Mike Stone, 9/30/24.
How virologists “win” every single game. Falsifiable: designating or of a statement, theory, etc. that is so formulated as to permit empirical testing and, therefore, can be shown to be false[Link]
Beyond adherence to the scientific method, a key factor in determining whether or not the evidence gathered during research is indeed scientific rather than pseudoscientific is a simple concept known as falsifiability. This idea was introduced by scientific philosopher Karl Popper in 1935 in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Essentially, what falsifiability means is that, in order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific, it must have the abilty to be disproven. Someone should be able to conceivably design an experiment that could prove the hypothesis or theory wrong. If a hypothesis or theory is capable of being proven wrong and yet it is supported by experimental evidence of its truth, then it can be considered as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
Popper explained his reasoning for this criterion in his 1963 book Conjectures and Refutations. Falsification was an attempt to draw a line between science and pseudoscience. He was bothered by the ways in which observations could be easily fit to confirm whatever theory was believed by the eye of the beholder. In this way, it is easy to create a confirmation bias where one ignores contradictory information in order to claim that the vast majority of the observations fit within their own theoretical paradigm. Thus, Popper laid out some rules that could discern real scientific confirmations over those that are pseudoscientific. Confirmations should only be accepted if they are able to be refuted. If the hypothesis or theory stands tall in face of the experiments attempting to disprove it, this gives the researcher stronger conviction that their hypothesis and/or theory is correct. Popper wanted to ensure that those who believed in a certain hypothesis or theory could not reinterpret it in a way that it could escape refutation once it was proven to be false:[Quote]….
To understand the concept of falsifiability better, let’s briefly examine what would be considered a falsifiable versus an unfalsifiable hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis could be stated as such: If I water my plant every day, then it will grow. This hypothesis can be easily tested to determine if watering the plant every day will, in fact, help it grow. It is falsifiable as it is possible that watering the plant every day will actually cause the plant not to grow as it may actually die from being oversaturated with too much water. If this latter scenario is observed, this would mean that the alternative hypothesis is proven to be false.
On the other hand, an extreme example of what would be an unfalsifiable hypothesis is blaming invisible unicorns for observing a ball falling to the ground as described here: How we edit science part 1: the scientific method “An untestable hypothesis would be something like “the ball falls to the ground because mischievous invisible unicorns want it to”. If these unicorns are not detectable by any scientific instrument, then the hypothesis that they’re responsible for gravity is not scientific. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is one where no amount of testing can prove it wrong. An example might be the psychic who claims the experiment to test their powers of ESP failed because the scientific instruments were interfering with their abilities.” [Link]
Of course, unicorns have never been proven to exist and we have no ability to actually observe, study, and detect them. While there may be hundreds or even thousands of indirect confirmatory evidence supporting this unicorn hypothesis, there is no ability to actually determine any truth in regard to the initial hypothesis as there is no ability to test it without unicorns existing. Thus, this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
It may already be evident based upon the unicorn analogy that “viruses” actually fit into this same unfalsifiable mold. As these entities have never been observed in nature and directly studied, there is no ability to know how to detect and actually test for these invisible “pathogens.” The concept of a “virus” was created in order to explain symptoms of disease that could not be pinned on bacteria. However, as with bacteria, pseudoscientific rules were established in the face of contradictory experimental evidence in order to trick the masses into believing that the field was scientific when, in fact, it is anything but. Let’s explore some of these pseudoscientific concepts more in depth and see just how unfalsifiable virology and, by extension, germ theory truly is…..
When Robert Koch was hard at work uncovering his evidence for “pathogenic” bacteria, he established a series of Postulates, or logic-based criteria, that were accepted as true in order to further investigate the potential of disease-causing microbes. The very first of these Postulates required that the microorganism assumed to be the cause of a particular disease should be found in all individuals suffering from a very specific set of symptoms being investigated, and that the microorganism should not be present in those who are free of these symptoms. This very first Postulate set up a falsifiable concept in that one could disprove a specific microbe as being the presumed pathogenic agent if it was found in those who were without illness as well as not being found in those with the illness.
However, after gaining prestige and accolades for his Postulates as well as for his work with tuberculosis, Koch began to realize from further investigation that the microbes he had blamed as the pathogenic agents were, in fact, regularly found in those who were healthy. He uncovered this fact as he attempted to discover a bacterial cause of cholera. In many instances, the comma-shaped bacilli that Koch had championed as the cause of cholera were regularly found in those who are healthy. There were also many cases where the cholera symptoms were present, but the bacteria was never found. As he had staked his reputation on discovering the cause of cholera, Koch ended up abandoning the logic of his first Postulate in order to allow for the microbe not to be present in all cases of the disease as well as to be found in those who are healthy:[Quote]…..
[Henry Raymond] Rogers [MD] and others alerted Koch to the fact that the bacilli he had claimed was the causative agent of cholera were, in fact, regularly found in the water and in healthy people. It had been demonstrated not to be pathogenic via ingestion by well-respected physicians. Even Koch eventually tested the bacilli on himself and was unsuccessful in demonstrating pathogenicity. However, even though he could not satisfy his very first Postulate (as well as the latter 3), Koch allowed for the creation of the unfalsifiable concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease, establishing both germ theory and virology as a pseudoscience from the very start.
[Example of people trying to debunk Rosenau’s Spanish Flu experiments by claiming the volunteers, none of whom were infected in spite of numerous and varied attempts, could have been asymptomatic carriers, and should have been tested for antibodies]……
However, even if Rosenau had access to the serological assays and tests that we have today, what would this ultimately have told him? How would it have changed the experiment in any way? Highlights taken from a July 2021 study show exactly how little we actually “know” about antibody results for influenza. For most of its history, the antibody results for influenza were derived from hemagglutinin (HA) protein. However, the authors noted that growing evidence pointed to limitations with this approach. The issue of antibody non-responsiveness after both infection and vaccination was an issue that was deemed necessary to explore. In other words, there are cases where people are “infected’“ with and/or vaccinated against the influenza “virus” who failed to produce any measurable antibody response. This creates the unfalsifiable concept where antibodies are allowed to be both present and absent in cases of previous “infection” and vaccination. Instead of realizing that the antibody hypothesis has been falsified from these findings, the researchers attempted to find ways to explain away why they are unable to observe a response in individuals where one should have occurred………..
Virology allows for:
• “Viruses” to be found within the sick and also within the healthy.
• Theoretical antibodies to be found in the “infected” and not found in the “infected,” while being either a sign of “protection” or a sign of chronic disease.
• The presence of the “virus” within the cell culture determined by both the observation of the cytopathogenic effect as well as the lack of the observation of this efffect.
• The same particles seen in EM images claimed to be either pathogenic “viruses” or non-pathogenic “virus-like” particles.
It is clear that there is no way to be able to falsify the “viral” hypothesis when contradictory concepts are ultimately allowed to coexist in order to explain away inconvenient findings. The “viral” theory is then reworked to allow for the incorporation of the contradictory findings to further confirm and support the unfalsifiable premise. Germ theory and virology are a circular system devoid of logic and reason that have been deceiving humanity for the last two centuries. Isn’t it far past time to demand that they show how their hypotheses and theories are falsifiable?