Nov 30, 2023·edited Nov 30, 2023Liked by Rebecca Culshaw Smith
I've read and heard a few times the following sentence: "there are no proofs in Science."
This is the postmodernist way of thinking.
There is no certainty, no data, there is no reality outside of the observer, texts have no meaning (and graphs, and paintings, and an electron microscopy photograph, etc.)
Obviously, this is nonsense.
But they pretend to believe it. Perhaps because it is convenient to get grant money.
And because that sentence is false, there has to be proof of contagious disease. And the no-virus people, who I follow, say there is no evidene to support the claim that disease can be transmitted from one sick person to a healthy person.
Then, the no-virus people (and no germ theory people) make this jump in logic: because there is no evidence, then the theory is false.
This is, in my opinion, half-wrong. A better sentece: because there is no evidence, we better wait until we have it before continuing the research path laid down by that Germ theory of disease. (Which is politically impossible, but who cares)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of falsehood, logically.
But.
There is a majority of doctors and scientists who believe germ theory is true. They all have been taught that it is true. I have asked a few times why it is true. What is the evidence they were given. And they don't mention it, or mention something for which there is a counterargument.
So, it is a theory in tatters.
Not that this constitutes any problem for Political Power at large, or for Financial Power. In the least. They don't need germ theory to be true. They only need the belief.
I'm open to actual evidence. I'm no fanatic. Besides, I only started questioning the virus in 2022, and Germ Theory this year. I confess that I've lived all my life (39 years) believing that infectious disease is real without any evidence or valid logical argument for it. Most people won't ever admit to that, and I don't know why. It's so liberating to admit the truth. It's the true path for learning.
Oh the germ hypothesis is bankrupt and has been refuted by its own adherents. No evidence of actual isolation of viruses (bacteria exist and are only beneficial) and no evidence of contagion. We would all be much better off leaving that fraud in the pseudoscientific dumpster it came from.
I really have disliked the quasi-contention between the two dissident camps, as it were; Duesberg vs the Perth Group. They may not agree on the existence of HIV, but both are complementary in so many ways and I find both so valuable. I actually love listening to presentations and interviews by Duesberg, he's got a lot of wit and humor sort of hides his contempt for the status quo scientists he so clearly see through.
I listened to another interview tonight on the LGBTQ Archives channel, when you listen to these interviews such interesting tidbits show up. In this one at the 1:25 mark, the fellow remarks about having lunch with someone and days later finding out that person had died.
Why isn't that happening now given all the unmedicated positives out there, much less those who don't know of their so-called status?
Meanwhile, other people went through a protracted illness like the partner he lost. Like you mentioned, 'proto-AIDS' was something that happened and doesn't seem to be happening now. In the above interview, his partner died in 1988 and he is described as wasting away, having been in the hospital receiving experimental treatments. No doubt he would have been given AZT at that time, in addition to whatever else they were giving him experimentally.
I'm not entirely convinced by the terrain theory camp, it seems to me there's likely a middle ground between it and germ theory. But yes, AIDS is a spectacular example of germ theory jumping the gun and toxicology being swept under the rug. It bugs me, really bugs me, that I don't know the back story behind people like this guy's partner, it's a huge missing piece to these stories. This notion that someone was just totally healthy and then suddenly dies or gets sick just screams 'there's something more going on.'
Thanks for this on Peter. Although I do not have heroes, Peter would be so designated if I did.
I delved deeply into AIDS at the start of Covid-1984 in March 2020, brought there by my remembered reading 1991 of The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento when living in America, sensing there was a connection between these two. Of course, as Conspiracy Fact showed, there definitively was—both were staged plandemics.
I have been seeking anything by Peter directly on the topic of “No Viruses/Bacteria” Terrain theory but have not found any yet. Can you point me to some; or do a post on this, that would be greatly appreciated and needed, thanks.
> PD: Since the discovery of HIV in 1984,
No, that's not true. HIV was not "discovered".
HIV has never been observed, isolated, or proven to exist as a transmissible pathogen.
By the way, I think Peter Duesberg is a HERO.
Some people get angry when they see that opinion. I've learned to ignore people who want to start a flame war over one of my opinions. Musk them!
I've read and heard a few times the following sentence: "there are no proofs in Science."
This is the postmodernist way of thinking.
There is no certainty, no data, there is no reality outside of the observer, texts have no meaning (and graphs, and paintings, and an electron microscopy photograph, etc.)
Obviously, this is nonsense.
But they pretend to believe it. Perhaps because it is convenient to get grant money.
And because that sentence is false, there has to be proof of contagious disease. And the no-virus people, who I follow, say there is no evidene to support the claim that disease can be transmitted from one sick person to a healthy person.
Then, the no-virus people (and no germ theory people) make this jump in logic: because there is no evidence, then the theory is false.
This is, in my opinion, half-wrong. A better sentece: because there is no evidence, we better wait until we have it before continuing the research path laid down by that Germ theory of disease. (Which is politically impossible, but who cares)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of falsehood, logically.
But.
There is a majority of doctors and scientists who believe germ theory is true. They all have been taught that it is true. I have asked a few times why it is true. What is the evidence they were given. And they don't mention it, or mention something for which there is a counterargument.
So, it is a theory in tatters.
Not that this constitutes any problem for Political Power at large, or for Financial Power. In the least. They don't need germ theory to be true. They only need the belief.
I'm open to actual evidence. I'm no fanatic. Besides, I only started questioning the virus in 2022, and Germ Theory this year. I confess that I've lived all my life (39 years) believing that infectious disease is real without any evidence or valid logical argument for it. Most people won't ever admit to that, and I don't know why. It's so liberating to admit the truth. It's the true path for learning.
Oh the germ hypothesis is bankrupt and has been refuted by its own adherents. No evidence of actual isolation of viruses (bacteria exist and are only beneficial) and no evidence of contagion. We would all be much better off leaving that fraud in the pseudoscientific dumpster it came from.
I really have disliked the quasi-contention between the two dissident camps, as it were; Duesberg vs the Perth Group. They may not agree on the existence of HIV, but both are complementary in so many ways and I find both so valuable. I actually love listening to presentations and interviews by Duesberg, he's got a lot of wit and humor sort of hides his contempt for the status quo scientists he so clearly see through.
I listened to another interview tonight on the LGBTQ Archives channel, when you listen to these interviews such interesting tidbits show up. In this one at the 1:25 mark, the fellow remarks about having lunch with someone and days later finding out that person had died.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCw-79yDuo
Why isn't that happening now given all the unmedicated positives out there, much less those who don't know of their so-called status?
Meanwhile, other people went through a protracted illness like the partner he lost. Like you mentioned, 'proto-AIDS' was something that happened and doesn't seem to be happening now. In the above interview, his partner died in 1988 and he is described as wasting away, having been in the hospital receiving experimental treatments. No doubt he would have been given AZT at that time, in addition to whatever else they were giving him experimentally.
I'm not entirely convinced by the terrain theory camp, it seems to me there's likely a middle ground between it and germ theory. But yes, AIDS is a spectacular example of germ theory jumping the gun and toxicology being swept under the rug. It bugs me, really bugs me, that I don't know the back story behind people like this guy's partner, it's a huge missing piece to these stories. This notion that someone was just totally healthy and then suddenly dies or gets sick just screams 'there's something more going on.'
I forgot who said it, but, while you will be forgiven for being wrong, you will never be forgiven for being right.
Thanks for this on Peter. Although I do not have heroes, Peter would be so designated if I did.
I delved deeply into AIDS at the start of Covid-1984 in March 2020, brought there by my remembered reading 1991 of The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento when living in America, sensing there was a connection between these two. Of course, as Conspiracy Fact showed, there definitively was—both were staged plandemics.
I have been seeking anything by Peter directly on the topic of “No Viruses/Bacteria” Terrain theory but have not found any yet. Can you point me to some; or do a post on this, that would be greatly appreciated and needed, thanks.
Get free, stay free.