[Graphic by bis dot org, via Geopolitics and Empire]
Biomedical. I got delayed in seeing this video due to technical issues on Dr Bailey’s non-Substack page, the page where i am able to watch her videos, but glad the problems were fixed. She tackles a common misconception that diphtheria has been not only shown to be a unique disease, but a disease which has one cause, and only that cause, a specific bacterium. In fact, the bacterium in question has definitely NOT been shown to be a pathogen. For that ,matter. neither have any other bacteria.
Diphtheria Disinformation: What You Need To Know, Dr Sam Bailey, [Posted on her Substack on 7/14/25]
Diphtheria was once a much-feared disease with a high mortality rate, particularly among children. Then during the 20th century it almost disappeared in developed countries with the medico-pharmaceutical establishment claiming credit for this situation. However, we know that such vast improvements in health cannot be attributed to vaccines and antibiotics, or in fact most modern medicine.
In the current era it is far more common to see sickness and alleged “pandemics” blamed on viruses. This is because it takes a 29,000-word essay to undo a history of virological pseudoscience and the imagined entities. (For those not wanting to get bogged down in the technical details, we do offer a light-hearted 15-minute video.)
Diphtheria on the other hand is said to be caused by a bacterium, something that can be shown to exist. Germ theory adherents often dismiss Koch’s postulates as being unrealistic or irrelevant, so the claim that Corynebacterium diphtheriae fulfilled the postulates[1] should pique our interest! In this video we analyse the key original papers and what led to one of the most widely-used vaccines in history.
1. e.g. “Diphtheria“, Wikipedia (accessed 11 Jul 2025)
[Video, 21 minutes. References]
And, as i predicted in the 7/11/25 edition when i posted this item from Mike Stone’s Substack page, it has not been posted to his other page. ViroLIEgy dot com, which is fully accessible to the public. Here are just the first para and the last few.
An Inquiry into the Logical Basis of the Germ Theory, Mike Stone, 7/18/25.
To those familiar with my work, it comes as no surprise that I take great interest in highlighting the forgotten voices from the formative years of germ “theory” and virology—those who examined the rise of these pseudoscientific fields with critical eyes. These individuals had front-row seats to history, and they witnessed firsthand the unscientific, contradictory foundations that shaped our modern beliefs about health, disease, and wellness. They recognized the manipulation by vested interests and warned against the manufactured acceptance of germ “theory” by a fearful, uninformed public. And they spoke out—attempting to avert what they foresaw as a grave disaster……
In essence, Dr. Leverson ends where he began: arguing that the germ “theory,” when stripped of its rhetorical armor and emotional sway, fails to meet even the most basic standards of logic and science—and that only by returning to the foundational principles of health and reason can medicine truly serve humanity. He ended with a sober warning: that building medical practice on an unproven theory is intellectually reckless, and its dogmatic enforcement is nothing short of a crime.
Dr. Leverson’s critique of germ “theory” is ultimately a rigorous indictment of the logical and scientific flaws at its core. He highlighted how the “theory” relies on fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, affirming the consequent, and begging the question, all while shifting the burden of proof and treating correlation as causation. Through examples like the presence of staphylococcus in pus or the absurd syllogisms used to justify bacterial causation, Leverson dismantled the foundation of bacteriology with clarity and wit. He also exposed the dangers of medical reification—treating disease names as fixed entities rather than varied expressions of internal imbalance—and insisted on a return to individualized, observation-based care. In his view, the persistence of the germ “theory” is less about evidence and more about institutional authority, prestige, and dogma.
Exposing logically fallacious thinking is not merely an academic exercise—it is a safeguard against flawed systems being mistaken for truth. Fallacies, when left unchecked, allow entire fields to build their foundations on assumptions rather than facts, leading to misguided practices and, in medicine, real harm. By identifying the logical errors within germ “theory,” Dr. Leverson not only challenged its scientific credibility but also illuminated the broader danger of confusing inference with demonstration, consensus with proof.
Preserving critiques like Dr. Leverson’s is not merely a matter of historical curiosity—it is essential for the health of science itself. In an era where consensus is often mistaken for truth, and dissenting voices are readily dismissed as fringe or unscientific, Leverson’s work reminds us of the importance of challenging dominant paradigms. His arguments are grounded not in contrarianism, but in logic, careful observation, and ethical concern. Revisiting such voices ensures that medical science remains open to scrutiny, correction, and evolution. It honors the principle that no theory, however widely accepted, is above question—and that genuine progress requires the courage to confront foundational assumptions. In giving space to figures like Dr. Leverson, we keep alive the spirit of inquiry that makes science worthy of public trust.
4IR. A group of us was discussing what being “a science” means, during which one of us used the first sentence. Eric Francis Coppolino responded, including that first sentence in quotes, and a response which i think is SUPERB. Highlighting in the quote is by its author. The italics are mine. The bolding is by Coppolino.
"What I was drawing a boundary around are explanations that appeal to supernatural or non-falsifiable forces—things that can’t be tested, observed, or potentially disproven”
Such as the Paul McCartney / Tavistock horse shit. That said, I have dug into the so-called evidence and from that determined that it’s garbage and that there is no probable cause to have the discussion. People can make a claim but there has to be a basis for the claim other than someone else having made the claim. And Q Anon…these are all enhancements and amplifications of the digital environment (all digital scams existed before digital conditions).
Anything requiring “clues” is not a real issue.
The problem we have is that under dissembled digital conditions, everything is a myth…everything is a mirage…and the entire planet has been uploaded such that you can carry all of Google Earth in a small disk drive.
Under digital conditions, Flat Earth is presented like the globe cannot be proven and has not been proven hundreds of times hundreds of ways in including daily use. The globe is presented as a matter of opinion. Well how then does GPS work? How can the date, time, location, size, intensity and duration of a solar eclipse be predicted and witnessed by 100 million people (as occurred on April 8 2024).
The “Earth is not flat” until someone explains exactly how the eclipse was predicted using two-dimensional geometry rather than three-dimensional…the exact precise mathematics (which were calculated by mind and hand until the late 20th century).
So what digital conditions does is it converts established observed and proven history into mysticism and someone can then claim that there are no orbiting satellites and some people will believe it. This is a function of mental state, not of science. Obviously there are orbiting satellites. Anywhere it’s dark you can lay on your back for 10 minutes and see them.
You can look up the exact minute the ISS will pass over your house and there it is. OK whatever that thing is, how was the prediction made without the spherical geometry by which it was calculated?
So we are in dangerous times when mathematics is reduced to mythology.
And, speaking of mythology and misdirection, there is the Jeffrey Epstein matter. The Planet Waves FM show of this evening will focus on how the Epstein business is a MASSIVE distraction from a huge event which involves a major implementation of the 4IR/Agenda 2030 Blockchain Based AI-managed Crypto-financed global digital prison via crypto-connected digital currencies. Meanwhile this was sent to a group i’m in a couple of days ago. Thanks, Patty.
Under cover of the Epstein distraction, the most momentous coup over the US Constitution in US history is quietly taking place..Lioness of Judah Ministry, 7/16/25.
"The GENIUS Act would create a digital dollar, the “Stablecoin,” which would likely eventually replace all cash, and would enable governments to freeze the accounts of anyone declared in violation of “lawful” federal or state executive branch regulations, such as the vaccine mandates passed down in 2021 by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Trump is doing the exact opposite of what he pledged to an audience soon after he was elected in November 2024. He said he would ban CBDCs – central bank digital currencies – but Stablecoins are in every important respect CBDCs. "
The GENIUS Act had already passed the Senate days ago,. Yesterday it passed the House 308 to 122., and was sent to Trump. Here’s one of the many reports. Very interesting that CNN’s and the UK Guardian’s web pages not only headlined the Epstein matter, but did not even post an item about Genus on their front “pages.”
US House sends crypto ‘GENIUS Act’ to Trump, in win for industry advocates. Advocates hope House bills will bring decentralised currency into US mainstream as Trump pushes ‘crypto week’.7/17/25.
"The bill that will go directly to Trump is called the GENIUS Act. It sets initial guardrails and consumer protections for a cryptocurrency known as stablecoins, which are tied to “stable” assets like the US dollar to reduce their volatility. House Financial Services Chair French Hill said during debate on Thursday that the bill will “ensure American competitiveness and strong guardrails for our consumers”
But, central bank digital currencies are in fact just one facet of the digital transformation, which will also involve much more innocuous-seeming digital currencies. Iain Davis pointed this out here.
and here [Warning, this link is at times broken]
And so did Leo Saraceno, here.
And, two more bits from Jeff Snider.
First, more signals that consumer demand in the US is dropping, furthering deflationary pressures.
Hotels, Airlines, and Gasoline Just Confirmed the Recession Is Already Here,Jeff Snider/Eurodollar University, 7/16/25.
"Three months ago, hotel operators were confident that the consumer downturn they were experiencing would end being a relatively quick pain. After the tariff matter was finally settled, Americans would sure go back to spending as they always seemed to. Instead, a whole bunch of critical and alarming data out just today has poured oceans of deflationary cold water on the recovery hope.”
And second, news of major upticks in unemployment rates in Australia and the UK, right after the central banks of both nations announced they were NOT gonna lower interest rates. Pressure drop on them.
Australian Central Bank Just Sent a MASSIVE Warning to the World, Jeff Snider/Eurodollar University, 7/17/25, 21 minutes.
"Only a week after the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to pause its rate cutting series, the Australian government reported a rash of exceptionally weak labor data, including the highest unemployment rate for the country in four years. RBA wasn't alone; the Bank of England is finding out the same in the same hard way. Central bank rate cut pauses aren't unusual, and they almost always end just like this."
And, in the growing energy crisis, several pieces. First is from a month ago.
Reclaiming Energy, Reimagining Power:Building Energy Futures from Below,. Madhuresh Kumar
In the light of the unfolding climate catastrophes and the unfolding crisis the language of energy transition has gained unprecedented traction. From the corridors of the Parliament down to the provincial governments, the shift from fossil fuels to renewables is being framed as both inevitable and immediate. Yet beneath the veneer of urgency and technological optimism lies a deeper tension, who defines this transition, and in whose interest is it unfolding?
Even as solar panels are installed and new lithium mines opened, frontline communities continue to bear the burden of displacement, pollution, and violence. What masquerades as climate action often replicates colonial logics: militarised extraction, land grabs in Indigenous territories, and green technologies controlled by the same corporate and geopolitical elites responsible for the climate crisis.
In this context, a recent conversation organised by Global Tapestry of Alternatives and Post Carbon Institute, as part of its Thematic Group on ‘Energy and Alternatives’, brought together two powerful voices – Galina Angarova, Executive Director of the SIRGE Coalition (Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy), and Carlos Tornel, researcher and activist with the Global Tapestry of Alternatives. Hosted by Dilafruz Khonikboyeva, Executive Director of Home Planet Fund and a member of the Liminality Network, the dialogue challenged dominant paradigms of energy and transition, and called for an ontological shift towards memory, reciprocity, relationality, and community sovereignty.
As Carlos reminded the audience early in the discussion, “This is not a transition. It’s an a systematic expansion of all energy sources.” Rather than replacing fossil fuels, the dominant model of green energy merely layers renewables atop fossilized extractive systems. Wind, solar, and electric vehicles become new strategies for dispossession, especially for Indigenous peoples and peasant communities in the Global South –which includes the emerging sacrifice zones in the geographical North–. Galina elaborated, warning of how “efficiency” narratives hide an ever-increasing hunger for minerals, including the return of uranium mining and water for powering AI-driven data centres.
This article weaves together their insights, not simply to critique, but to illuminate the radical possibilities of energy justice when led from below. It centres a critical question often left unasked in mainstream debates: What is energy for? And how do we reclaim it as a commons, rather than a commodity?
This Is Not a Transition: It’s an Expansion…...
And, an essay by Richard Heinberg from a month ago.
Richard Heinberg: Environmental-Political Collapse Accelerates, Energy Skeptic.
Preface. Another wise post with great insights and predictions about where we are today from Richard Heinberg, the foremost scholar of Peak oil, overshoot, ecology, and more. Some excerpts:
“…A basic understanding of overshoot reveals that our modern industrial way of life is unsustainable at anything like its current scale and intensity. Whether as a result of pollution or resource depletion, human population and per-capita consumption will peak and start to decline, most likely during the next decade or two. But it gets worse: during our brief binge of industrialism we humans have found strategies (including corporate globalization and the proliferation of credit and debt in a widening variety of forms) to maximize consumption in the short term; when these strategies inevitably falter, the result will likely be an even faster decline in population and consumption than might be expected on the basis of ecological factors alone.
The inability of national governments to forestall climate change could easily have been predicted decades ago. That’s because stopping global warming is fundamentally at odds with the underlying growthist agenda of the modern world. And most political and business leaders care more about advancing that agenda in the short term than they do about ensuring human survival in the longer term.
A metaphorical hurricane is coming. Cover the windows and make sure your family, friends, and neighbors are safe.”
[Link to and quotes from the essay, posted 7 months ago]……
And, yet another refutation of notions that nuclear power can power the world as it is.
Summary of Greenpeace “Nuclear Reactor Hazards.” Energy Skeptic.
Source: Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes.
Preface. This is a summary of: Hirsch H (2005) Nuclear Reactor Hazards Ongoing Dangers of Operating Nuclear Technology in the 21st Century. Greenpeace International.
The revival of the nuclear power industry, mainly to keep data centers, AI, and cryptocurrencies alive is insane. Keep the lights on for 3 generations and poison the next 30,000 generations with nuclear waste that can last hundreds of thousands to a million years? The electric grid comes down when natural gas to balance the piddly amount of wind and solar as well as base and following power (with help from coal). Nuclear cannot balance wind and solar power (you will hear nuclear proponents say that, but I have never found a peer-reviewed paper saying that).
As nuclear power plants age, they grow more and more likely to fail, especially after 20 years. They were only built to last 20 to 40 years, and now their lives are being extended 20 or even 40 years longer.
Please do not forget or say that having nowhere to store nuclear waste permanently is not a problem. Nuclear is not cheap either. Cleaning up the mess at the Hanford site in Washington may cost $641 billion (Frank 2022) and Fukushima over $1 trillion. And a nuclear fuel pool fire could cost $2 trillion and force millions of people to evacuate.
ProPublica looked at 48 uranium mills and related sites and found that 84% had groundwater contaminated with uranium and chemicals. A uranium mill extracts uranium from mined ore that is crushed and then soaked in chemicals to make “yellowcake”, the raw material for nuclear fuel (Olalde 2022).
Alice Friedemann [Links]…..
Ending this segment and this edition, another piece about the massive ecological destruction wrought by the oh so green means of energy generation and transportation., combined with their implementation doing nothing to actually significantly reduce the usage of fossil; fuels.
Which is most destructive: Nuclear weapons or Mining? You Decide. Energy Skeptic.
Preface. This post has excerpts from Scheyder’s 2024 “The War Below” about the various metals and minerals renewables will need – over 6 times (IEA 2021) more than fossil fueled internal combustion cars, natural gas plants, coal plants, and nuclear power. It is a fantastic book about how incredibly challenging and destructive scaling up mining for renewables would be. I say “would” rather than “will” because with crude oil peak production in 2018, tremendous opposition to new mines, and perhaps another pandemic or financial crash and other factors, it is likely there will never be a Manhattan project to throw all of societies efforts into a transition. If nothing else, limits to growth will finally force companies to face they have already gotten the good, easy, cheap, high concentration ores and it is simply to expensive to open new mines, even with government subsidies.
All this destruction for climate change?!!! This is not a once and it’s done process. Making all these renewables will use an enormous amount of CO2, and requires fossil fuels every single step of the life cycle of EV and more from mining, transportation, manufacturing to recycling (rarely). The lifespan of EV, solar, wind, and batteries are 10 to 30 years. Mining will destroy the planet, push back all of the 9 existential boundaries, 6 of the 9 have already been crossed.
I’ve excerpted some of what Scheyder has to say about various metals, especially the parts about how destructive mining can be. Hopefully this will entice you to get the book. It is so disjointed and I have left so much out.
To see the nuclear side of the potential destruction, see the posts in Nuclear Winter here, and nuclear war here.
IEA post, linked. "The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions. International Energy Agency.
Alice Friedemann [Links]
Scheyder E The War Below: Lithium, Copper, and the Global Battle to Power Our Lives. [Link, quote]