Steve Kirsch: If viruses don't exist, then how can we see them?
(stevekirsch.substack.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (24)
sorted by:
Kirsch has gone full-blown megalomaniacal insane the past few months. He's falsely representing the responses and stance of the group that has demonstrated virology is nothing but a pseudoscience.
Steve has made false claims about what the other side has said and done, misrepresented their positions on multiple occasions, smeared honest people's names, picked fights with unqualified opponents and could not assemble a team to honestly debate the truth-tellers who were ready to engage about 6 months ago, which he conveniently doesn't talk about any longer. He's also aligned himself with at least one well-known disrupter who adds nothing to any debate other than a filthy mouth and very distasteful behavior, which alone makes me now question his motives.
While I fully support his continued efforts to challenge the jab narrative, he's lost his mind on this topic. His $1Million challenge is for the "no proof of viruses" group to PROVE viruses don't exist. He's got it exactly backwards. It's he and the virologists that have made the claim that viruses do exist. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. We can't prove something doesn't exist that's never been proven to exist in the first place!
So Steve is insanely confident because every licensed virologist in the world will agree that their RNA fragment (Human RNA) genetic ASSEMBLY of a Pokemon computer software entity and electron microscope pictures of decayed monkey kidney cells are actually "viruses". They've all been brainwashed to believe this is so. So he would likely win on this fact alone in front of a bunch of retired judges who know nothing of virology and can only hear 1.5 hours of testimony challenging their lifelong beliefs. 500 "experts" agree with Steve, only 1 "former" virologist disagrees with the other 500. Terrible odds in a 3 hours debate.
He'll also have all these brainwashed virologists testify that Koch's Postulates are no longer relevant today and they'll give a thousand technical explanations as to why, all of which are completely insane. When you ask them why nobody has ever been able to take the "virus" from a sick person and give it to a healthy person and make them sick, they claim it's "unethical". And yet, it was tried thousands of times in the past, and never once worked, with fake viruses or real bacteria. This is why they must dismiss it over and over again. They're using brainwashing 101 tactics by continually repeating "Koch's Postulates are arcane and irrelevant" in an attempt to bury this most devastating fact.
Steve won't accept a bet where he and his team have to prove that these Pokemon entities and decayed monkey cells actually CAUSE DISEASE. He can't, because it's never been done for any alleged virus, and never will be done. And his is what a "virus" is really supposed to be. Electron microscope pictures and human ASSEMBLED RNA Pokemon characters on a computer screen demonstrate nothing other than pictures and computer graphics.
Steve is doing this because a logical, rational proposal has been made by the "no proof of virus group" a few weeks ago to settle the debate once and for all. Unfortunately, nobody is willing to fund the double-blinded study as of yet. Steve could easily afford to fund it if he wanted to. But I'm hoping the other group will be able to rally their followers to fundraise for it.
Steve and his team refuse to answer or respond to EVERY RELEVANT question we have posed to their side. For those who still choose to believe in viruses, that should tell you all you need to know. Here are but a few:
Why don't virologists ever run control experiments? (A. because virology is a pseudoscience and it would end their specialty in a hot second as merely a single attempt at a control experiment would disprove what they claim)
Why don't virologists ever attempt to falsify their hypothesis? (A. Because again, it's a pseudoscience)
Can virology even be considered a "science" if they don't even use the scientific method? (A. Nope, certainly not by any rational standard you wish to apply. Virology is, by definition, precisely what a pseudoscience actually is!)
Why have all attempts throughout history failed to demonstrate Koch's Postulates which are elementary level common sense? (A. Because germ theory is a hoax).
Why are there precisely ZERO scientific experiments in the published literature demonstrating human-to-human transmission of viruses (or bacteria), but several dozen that resulted in demonstrating they couldn't produce even a single instance of disease transmission? (A. Because germ theory is a hoax)
Why hasn't any scientist EVER been able to find a single alleged "virus" in the fluids or tissues of any human being or animal (A. Because they don't exist so they have to manufacture them with their deceptive processes)
Why don't virologists check their fluid samples for the potential presence of two or more viruses before running their massively deceptive "viral culturing" process? (A. Because they can't even find the alleged virus in the samples, let alone a second or third one --- because none exist).
How do you respond to Dr. Stefan Lanka's documented experiments demonstrating that the "cytopathic effect" (killing of cells) is caused by the kidney poisons (anti-biotics) they add to their cell culture, without adding any fluids from a sick person, producing IDENTICAL results (cytopathic effects) to the thousands of papers virologists have published without doing this simple control experiment? (A. Because it's the poison (anti-biotic) that kills the cells)
Wouldn't you agree that human lungs would be the perfect "viral culture" to find a respiratory virus in, rather than in a green monkey kidney cell viral culture? (A. Of course it would be, but still the virus can never be found in the lung tissue or bronchial fluids because the "experts" say so and we should take their word for it, just like everything else the experts say.).
Can you prove that the RNA fragments you ASSEMBLE into your so-called in silico "viruses" in your "gene sequencing" software is not of human origin? And can you prove it's origin at all? (A. Nope, they can't because it's just tiny fragments of nucleic acids that have fragmented off of fuller genomic sequences, so they qualify it as "RNA of unknown origin", which is just the trickery they need to pretend it came from a "virus").
How is it that in your collected bodily fluids samples that you use to ASSEMBLE your computer-generated viruses, you can only ever find "virus fragments" but can NEVER find a fully INTACT genetic viral sequence? (A. Because they're inventing them out of thin air through their RNA ASSEMBLY process, like fiat currency).
Is it possible that virologists and research scientists are unable to prove contagion and transmission, run control experiments in their culturing process, attempt to falsify their hypothesis and use the tried and true scientific method because viruses don't exist and the entire field of virology is nothing but pseudoscience? (A. If they can't even acknowledge their complete lack of using anything even remotely scientific as a POSSIBILITY that there's a BIG problem with what they're doing, then it is a hopeless situation to even attempt a debate. They just want you to trust them because they're the "experts", like Fauci, Birx, squawking MSM doctors, the venerated madman and con artist Louis Pasteur etc.).
Net-Net - Steve only wants to play by HIS rules on these challenges. He would almost certainly win by the logical "appeal to authority" fallacy alone in front of a panel of retired LEGAL judges (with highly questionable loyalty to begin with) who have spent their whole lives "trusting the experts" in court cases. He and his team can't prove even the basic premise of human contagion and transmission via standard vectors (through the nose/airway/lungs) with any of the existing scientific OR pseudo-scientific literature available on any alleged virus since time immemorial. Rodent vivisection and injection proves nothing whatsoever, don't let them fool you. These are sicko experiments that torture harmless innocent creatures for no rational scientific reason other than to offer living sacrifices to whatever "gods" they worship.
I'm even doubtful that if the "no proof of virus group" raises the money through fundraising for their virus challenge, they may have a hard time finding 5 independent labs to perform the necessary lab tests, because it might put an end to their business model in its entirety.
If Steve was willing to do the right thing, he'd have an open "town hall" like discussion, as he originally proposed back in January (but mysteriously backed out of without saying why) without playing the money game and involving endless LEGALESE back-and-forth bickering into the picture. His side could make their case and the "no proof of viruses group" could make theirs. Each viewer could then arrive at their own conclusions based on the merits of the arguments. Clean, pure, fair and simple.
Let's see if Steve does the right thing. I applaud his continued efforts to call out the jab and I also applaud his efforts to keep this debate alive. But the two sides will never come to agreeable terms of the debate with big money on the line.
| He and his team can't prove even the basic premise of human contagion and transmission via standard vectors (through the nose/airway/lungs)
This is the part that is hard to understand, most of us think we have experienced what seems to be "catching" an illness from someone we were close to coughing near us. If that isn't what is happening, then what could be happening?
I'm legitimately curious because a couple of times lately when my team members caught a cold at the same time as me, I would have considered there to be something "going around the office". However, I only see them on video calls and they are hundreds of miles away, so it isn't spreading through the air :)
Yes, this is the hardest part. I wish there were one single answer that was easy as the mainstream "one bug, one drug" model.
For all diseases there is an explanation which is psychosomatic in origin. Most commonly, colds and flus, arise when we make a figurative statement to ourselves along the lines of "this stinks....." ....."my co-worker, spouse, child is sick and I don't want to 'catch it'"....
It's the essence of the FIGURATIVE use of the word "STINKS" that our psyche's take LITERALLY. The psyche then goes into action to PROTECT US from smelling something that we feel worried and threatened by. Our psyche then makes temporary adjustments to our nasal, bronchial, lung mucosa to protect us from smelling something we feel threatened by. The duration of time we feel threatened, coupled by the INTENSITY of our fear of the threat, determines whether we then have a mild "cold" or a more intense "flu".
Now imagine 7 billion people collectively saying "this stinks, I have to wear a mask to work, at the grocery, around my kids, etc. etc. And "this stinks, I have to get a vaccine, what a pain". "This stinks, my favorite sport/hobby/practice has been indefinitely cancelled and all I can do now is sit around the house". "This stinks, I just tested positive for Covid" And on and on and on and on.
There's a taste for your consideration. Sound ridiculous? it did to me too the first time I heard it. Then I studied the explanation for all the other diseases that were allegedly caused by fake viruses and real bacteria, e.g. chicken pox, measles, AIDS, polio, small pox, tuberculosis, cholera, etc. etc. and saw that there was a rational and plausible explanation for all of these too. Each beginning with an unexpected life event that we feel threatened by, followed by an appropriate adjustment to organs/tissues in order to improve our ability to deal with and ultimately resolve the conflict.
Let me know how this strikes you, likely for the first time. Absurd? Impossible? Outrageous? Possible? Plausible? Intriguing?
I'm always curious to hear people's honest reactions. I look forward to your feedback!
Thanks for commenting and reading my lengthy missive!
Cheers
Wow. Quite a response, Morpheus11, and I appreciate the civil commentary and generous level of detail.
Your questions, among other things, have made clear to me that I am flatly unprepared to hold an opinion on this topic; my view is entirely from the mainstream -- something I laugh at where many other things are concerned. But the fact is, I grew up with and have never seen a need to question things like:
Penicillin kills certain bacteria
Probiotics improve the gut biota
Bacteriophages kill certain harmful gut bacteria
and then I read your "Germ theory is a hoax" and what I actually hear, or did hear up to this point, is something like "Germ theory has been over-used maliciously in the service of promoting Rockefellian petro-medicine and destroying natural and less harmful approaches" -- NOT that bacteria and viruses don't actually exist.
But perhaps that's the case, although I'm so far from being able to embrace that idea that it makes my head spin.
MANY smaller things are parasitic on larger things in nature. Animal bodies consist of tiny cells, and one-celled organisms were the ONLY form of life on this planet for perhaps a billion years; they certainly haven't disappeared. How likely is it that some of those one-celled organisms aren't parasitic in humans?
And viruses? They rely on the machinery in host cells to replicate (so I learned eons ago), much as certain wasps inject eggs into caterpillars, relying on the victim to provide sustenance for the baby wasp.
So germ theory still seems plausible to me, despite that most conditions of ill-health have roots in poor diet, bad habits, and other things than microorganisms.
Still, plenty of wrong and even bizarre things have been thought plausible -- even to Science! -- over the years, and I'm at least starting to wonder if this is one of them. That's what paradigm shifts are all about: overturning an entrenched view of things with a framework that more closely fits reality. I love paradigm shifts, and this looks to be a doozy if it pans out. I'll keep an eye on this topic but again: I'm not equipped to have an informed opinion at this point. In a few years, maybe; your questions have highlighted for me how much I don't know about the topic.
Thank you again for the reply.
Thanks for your comments Narg. Believe me, the first 5-10 times I heard someone say this, I laughed at the absurdity of their remarks and could barely listen to even 5 minutes of them making their case. I think this is true for all of us as we all "believe" we've "caught" a "disease" from a family member, co-worker, friend, etc. before. This is deep brainwashing that can't be unwound overnight.
As to your bullet list around penicillin and bacteriophages; anti (against) biotics (life) do indeed kill bacteria (and other cells of yours too). The germ theory INVERSION is, that bacteria are harmful. This is not true. All bacteria are a natural part of you, just like your cells and tissues. Your body makes them as needed to perform a wide variety of roles, as you know. The hard part to understand for most, in my experience, is that the primary role of most bacteria is to decompose tissue, as we see evidenced by carrion, spoiling food, etc. What few understand is that our body occasionally generates temporary excess tissue in order to improve the function of an organ/tissue/bone/etc. to help us resolve a troubling life event that catches us off guard. When we resolve this life event, the body then creates bacteria to remove the excess tissue in order to return us to homeostasis. This decomposition process is a putrefaction that enters the bloodstream and can make us "feel sick" for a few days, depending on the amount of excess tissue needed to decompose.
Anti-biotics prevent this natural healing and restoration process from completing, leaving the organ/tissue/bone in an impaired state, opening it up for future difficulties of a wide variety as you're never fully restored to your natural homeostatic state of well-being.
Now I understand, the allopathic claim which they shout from the rafters about how anti-biotics "saved so many lives", especially around pneumonia. It's true that in very extreme cases, this may be the case for elderly patients with many co-morbidities, or for someone who had an extreme case of pneumonia. But these situations are both rare. And further, the patient is left with impaired lung function and a much lower quality of life thereafter. For the majority of patients, the anti-biotics were totally unneeded. Had these patients been left alone to rest, they would have naturally recovered, as is the case for 99.99% of the time that doctors prescribe anti-biotics for anything. They may help you "feel better" sooner (a few days), but the long-term damage is incalculable.
The Net-Net to all of the above is this; your body always knows what it is doing. It never attacks itself, it never gets "invaded" by a microorganism and it never makes a mistake. It is only human intervention in this natural process that opens us up to a lifetime of problems, disease and "chronic ailments".
Hopefully I've made clear above, that bacteria do indeed exist - quite TEMPORARILY I might add. They are generated by the tiny "God particles" that Antoine BeChamp named "Microzymas". When the bacterial role is complete, through pleomorphism, they return back to being the microzyma, just as every cell in our body does when the organism dies.
And hopefully I was equally clear in my prior missive that viruses do NOT EXIST. Full Stop. They are a man-made mental boogeyman, theorized for about 100 years (1850-1950), but never seen/found/located until this fraudulent "viral culturing" process was invented by poisoning monkey kidney cells. This is when and where the controversy fully arises. As i hopefully made clear, this process proves absolutely nothing, just like their RNA ASSEMBLY process.
As to parasites, we have been misinformed about them as well. Parasites perform a beneficial and symbiotic role for humans. You'll hopefully note that there has never been a "parasitic outbreak or pandemic" in the history of man. This makes no sense if we are to believe the mainstream premise about them. Instead, parasites flow through our bodies on a regular basis. If there is nothing there for them to eat (toxic waste), they just flush through our systems. If there is toxic waste food available to them (normally in our intestines and colon), then they go to work to help remove it. And once again, this can make us feel sick as this decomposition process proceeds. But ultimately, it is to our benefit to have the toxic waste permanently removed, versus feeling sick for a few days or weeks at the extreme.
Your wasp example is not the same as the claimed virus behavior. Recall that "viruses" aren't "alive". They have no brain, no heart, no life systems (respiratory, circulatory, nervous, excretory, etc.), they are just pieces of RNA according to the mainstream narrative. So they cannot have a "goal" or a "reason to replicate" or a reason to "survive" or "procreate". The absolute insanity of the CLAIM boggles my mind now that I know what I know.
I do not ascribe to any of the "alternative" causes of ill-health either. For example "terrain theory", toxins, bad diet, bad habits, poor exercise, 5G, smoking, etc. Just like "germ theory", there is no scientific proof of any of these either. I think our body's are far too intelligent and resilient for any of these things to "cause disease". Instead, I believe the idea of "disease" has been completely INVERTED by the mainstream. I believe the cause of ALL disease begins with an unexpected life event that catches us off guard that we are unable to quickly resolve. Our psyche then makes temporary adjustments to help us cope with this conflict, be it to strengthen, improve, avert or defend against our perceived figurative threats to our survival (like losing a job, going bankrupt, losing a loved one, worrying about dying, becoming frightened over a situation, devaluing ourselves, separating from a loved one, etc. etc.). When we resolve these conflicts, the psyche reversed the temporary changes and this is when we "get sick" and what we call a "disease". For those who can never fully resolve their conflicts, they have "chronic diseases" as they cycle back and forth between feeling conflicted and resolution of their life problems.
This is a MASSIVE paradigm shift underway. Keep pondering it. It takes time to unwind. If nothing else, you sound like a perfectly open-minded individual that can reason for yourself. It also sounds as if you understand science. This is all you really need to come around. Nothing in germ theory or virology is SCIENTIFIC. Nothing. It's a pseudoscience by definition. No attempts have ever been made to falsify their hypotheses, nor do they ever run even the most basic elementary control experiments....FOR GOOD REASON. Of course some have, and they were either instructed to "look the other way" if they wanted to keep their jobs, or they were run out of their respective professions, demonized and smeared by their colleagues, etc. This is the sad but true state of things we find ourselves enmeshed in, on virtually every front. The BIG MONEY owns and controls all our institutions, and what they want gets promoted, and what they don't want gets ignored and suppressed.
Thanks for your feedback and open-minded attitude, it will take you far! Here's a fantastic video (2 hours 20 minutes) that broadly covers what I mentioned in this thread to help bring you up to speed, should you be interested in further informing yourself. "The Viral Delusion" ->
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jajyAdPMdzfJ/
Enjoy!
Alright so, public school kid here. Never even questioned the existence of Viruses.
Your telling me viruses are imaginary? To what end were they dreamt up?
Yep, viruses are 100% imaginary, always have been, always will be.
Initially (1800 -1870ish) they were theorized to be the cause of many different diseases when the cause could not be identified. From 1870 onward, the cabal took advantage of the amazing fear-causing possibilities as well as the ability to thin the herd on a regular basis (as is going on now, like then).
They supported madmen like the non-medicial-expert, non doctor, farmer Edward Jenner who was given 150,000 pounds (which is like $50 million dollars today) by the British government to further his "vaccine research" which was really just an elaborate scheme to poison the masses, couched as something "beneficial" (like now).
As well as the doubly-insane Louis Pasteur who was a below average chemist, on his best days, who had zero medical or biological education, but was lavishly supported by the French government to the tune of millions of Francs throughout his career as a grand-standing, show-boating, attention-seeking politician, all the while, the real biologist, Antoine BeChamp, proved Pasteur wrong about everything he ever touched.
And today, we have 13 "Pasteur Institutes" around the world as our finest examples of modern medical education and about a dozen big pharma companies literally earning trillions of dollars per year for sickening, maiming and killing the ignorant sheeple. While simultaneously never once demonstrating viruses ever existed, nor that humans transmit the alleged virus between each other.
And we pay for it all by putting our blind trust in these "authorities".
To what end? The cabal's motto since time immemorial -> "BLOOD & TREASURE".
A hard truth to accept, but there ya have it in a nutshell. Any questions?
So is inoculation bs too? Introducing a dead, Inactive pathogen to prime the immune system to create antigens?
100%. There is no such thing as a "pathogen", nor an "immune system", nor an "antigen" (nor an "antibody"). Antibodies/Antigens are akin to a temporary super glue that works to hold decaying cells together for a little longer. It is a protein "globulin" that is activated during a dis-ease process.
Bacteria primarily work to break down temporary excess tissue that your body deliberately created to assist you with resolving a psychological conflict. When you resolve the conflict, bacteria arrive at the scene of excess tissue creation and decompose it. The "waste product" of the bacteria creates a putrefaction in your bloodstream which makes you feel sick for a few days while the decomposed waste product is flushed out of your system.
As such, the story of the bacteria qualifies as a "half truth". While it's true, the overactivity of bacteria during the decomposition "make you sick", it is not true that the bacteria "cause sickness" because they "attacked you" and that you "caught them" from "out there". Your body produces bacteria as needed to return you to a state of homeostasis, as you were prior to your psychological conflict.
Net-Net - If you leave your body alone, pay attention to symptoms instead of trying to suppress them, take notice of any pains you feel and avoid exacerbating them, rest as you feel you should, drink fluids as you feel you should (if you feel sick), and ensure you're getting enough protein in your diet when you feel sick (which can be hard to do if you have a low appetite - "bone broth" is the answer if this is the case), then your body will naturally and perfectly heal itself without any outside intervention or "medicines".
In a nutshell, your body knows exactly what it's doing at all times. It never "gets attacked", it never "Mutates out of control", it never "attacks itself" and it never "degenerates" before the age of 125. It will always restore you to perfect health if you are able to Accept/Allow/Forgive/Come-to-Terms-With/Be-At-Peace-With the life events that catch you off guard and cause you worry, upset, grief, fear, anger, etc. etc. The quicker you can resolve these psychological conflicts, which are unavoidable, the less "disease" or complete cessation of them in all categories (germs, toxins, cancers, heart disease, muscle/bone disease, skin, organs, etc.) you will experience in life as they all arise when the psyche works to protect us from our perceived threats.