How COVID took me to a place I never expected to go

An Odyssey through germ theory – part I

Disclaimer: nothing in this article or other articles is to be taken as medical advice. I am not a doctor, and the information provided here is to be used purely for informational and educational purposes.

This series was written in collaboration with Caroline Coram, whom I thank for her valuable contribution – as I do all those who have written books, published articles, and made videos on this important topic (links will be provided at the end).

---

When reports that a novel ‘coronavirus’ had ‘escaped from a wet market’ in Wuhan, China, I simply thought that this was just another ‘respiratory virus’ outbreak, like the one we’d experienced in 2009 with ‘Swine Flu’. But as country after country started locking down, it became apparent that something was different.

During a trip to London, a cabbie told me that his nephew, who had recently been stabbed to death, had been put down as a ‘COVID’ death. The family had decided to take the NHS trust to court over the matter. Certain prominent individuals who were telling us all to stay home and shelter, appeared to be ignoring their own advice. Various contradictory statements and policies were being put out, and it was becoming clear that something wasn’t quite right.

Opposition voices around the world started making themselves heard, and a number of them rapidly rose to prominence. Having had to permanently close a business I’d built up over seven years, I joined the ranks of the dissenters – it seemed inconceivable to me that we would shut down all of society for what was clearly just a ‘bad flu’.

Many of these individuals, such as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, were arguing for a “herd immunity strategy”, which involved allowing the ‘virus’ to “rip through society”, whilst protecting “high-risk individuals”.

This discourse led to the formation of two camps; the ‘mainstream’ and ‘opposition’ – or ‘branch covidians’ and ‘covidiots’, as they were disparagingly referred to by one another. The fundamental disagreement between these two factions was not whether or not the ‘virus’ was ‘real’ – it was merely a case of how ‘lethal’ it was, and whether the measures being enacted by governments were legitimate.

As the weeks and months went by, the conversation intensified, and the question of ‘case numbers’ and ‘bogus PCR tests’ started creeping in. It was around that time that various clips of the late Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner and inventor of the PCR test, began circulating on Social Media.

One of them was a segment extracted from a 1996 interview with Gary Null, where he (Mullis) made some rather uncomplimentary remarks about a certain Dr Anthony Fauci. His remarks struck a code, so I decided to go looking for the full video, which you can find here.

I would highly recommend watching it – it is possibly one of the most interesting interviews I have ever watched, with a man who is quite clearly a brilliant scientist and thinker. Unlike many of the bigwigs that are routinely paraded in front of us, he isn’t pretentious, and is able and willing to have an open, honest and rationale conversation.

For the most part, the discussion revolved around the topic of HIV and AIDS, which he also covers in his autobiography ‘Dancing Naked in the Mind Field’.

Have a read of the following passage:

WHEN I FIRST heard in 1984 that Luc Montagnier of France’s Pasteur Institute and Robert Gallo of America’s National Institutes of Health had independently discovered that the retrovirus HIV—Human Immunodeficiency Virus—caused AIDS, I accepted it as just another scientific fact. It was a little out of my field of biochemistry, and these men were specialists in retroviruses.

Four years later I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica. Specialty was trying to develop a means of using PCR to detect retroviruses in the thousands of blood donations received per day by the Red Cross. I was writing a report on our progress for the project sponsor, and I began by stating, “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.” I asked a virologist at Specialty where I could find the reference for HIV being the cause of AIDS.

“You don’t need a reference,” he told me. “Everybody knows it.”

“I’d like to quote a reference.” I felt a little funny about not knowing the source of such an important discovery. Everyone else seemed to.

“Why don’t you cite the CDC report?” he suggested, giving me a copy of the Centers for Disease Control’s periodic report on morbidity and mortality. I read it. It wasn’t a scientific article. It simply said that an organism had been identified—it did not say how. It requested that doctors report any patients showing certain symptoms and test them for antibodies to this organism. The report did not identify the original scientific work, but that didn’t surprise me. It was intended for physicians, who didn’t need to know the source of the information. Physicians assumed that if the CDC was convinced, there must exist real proof somewhere that HIV was the cause of AIDS.

A proper scientific reference is usually a published article in a reliable scientific magazine. These days the magazines are slick glossy paper with pictures on the front and lots of advertisements, a lot of editorial material by people who are professional journalists, and a few pictures of girls selling you things you might want to buy for your lab. The advertisers are the companies who make things for scientists to buy and the companies who make drugs for doctors to sell. There are no major journals without advertisements. Therefore, there are no major journals without corporate connections.

I did computer searches. Neither Montagnier, Gallo, nor anyone else had published papers describing experiments which led to the conclusion that HIV probably caused AIDS. I read the papers in Science for which they had become well known as the AIDS doctors, but all they had said there was that they had found evidence of a past infection by something which was probably HIV in some AIDS patients. They found antibodies. Antibodies to viruses had always been considered evidence of past disease, not present disease. Antibodies signaled that the virus had been defeated. The patient had saved himself. There was no indication in these papers that this virus caused a disease. They didn’t show that everybody with the antibodies had the disease. In fact, they found some healthy people with antibodies. If Montagnier and Gallo hadn’t really found this evidence, why was their work published, and why had they been fighting so hard to get credit for the discovery? There had been an international incident wherein Robert Gallo of the NIH had claimed that a sample of HIV which had been sent to him by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris had not grown in Gallo’s lab. Other samples collected by Gallo and his collaborators, from potential AIDS patients, had grown. Gallo had patented the AIDS test based on these samples, and the Pasteur Institute had sued.

I was hesitant to write “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS” until I found published evidence that would support it. Mine was the most minimal statement possible. In my grant request I wasn’t trying to say that it absolutely did cause AIDS, I was just trying to say that it was likely to cause it for some known reasons. Tens of thousands of scientists and researchers were spending billions of dollars a year doing research based on this idea. The reason had to be there somewhere, otherwise these people would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. I lectured about PCR at innumerable meetings. Always there were people there talking about HIV. I asked them how it was that we knew that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Everyone said something. Everyone had the answer at home in the office in some drawer. They all knew and they would send me the papers as soon as they got back. But I never got any papers. Nobody ever sent me the news about how AIDS was caused by HIV. I finally had the opportunity to ask Dr. Montagnier about the reference when he lectured in San Diego at the grand opening of the UCSD AIDS Research Center, which is still run by Bob Gallo’s former consort, Dr. Flossie Wong-Staal. This would be the last time I would ask my question without showing anger. In response Dr. Montagnier suggested, “Why don’t you reference the CDC report?” “I read it,” I said, “That doesn’t really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?” He agreed with me. It was damned irritating. If Montagnier didn’t know the answer, who the hell did?

ONE NIGHT, I was driving from Berkeley to La Jolla and I heard an interview on National Public Radio with Peter Duesberg, a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I finally understood why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren’t any, Duesberg said. No one had ever proven that HIV causes AIDS. The interview lasted about an hour. I pulled over so as not to miss any of it…

A PDF of the book is available here (the above extract is from chapter 18).

This was the first I’d heard of any of this, so I started doing some more digging, and was eventually recommended a book by What really makes you ill – why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong by Dawn Lester and David Parker.

I’d never heard of ‘germ theory’ before. It is the theory that certain microorganisms – namely ‘viruses’ and bacteria, to cause disease in certain individuals by ‘infecting’ them. I was fascinated by what I was reading, and over the following weeks and months, proceeded to read and watch every book, article, and video on the subject I could find.

I shared these findings with others who were sceptical of the COVID narrative, but to my great surprise found that many of them weren’t interested. If ‘germ theory’ was incorrect, I was told, it would mean ‘undoing’ more than 100 years of ‘science’. Too many smart people had been working in this field for too long – it couldn’t possibly be untrue. I realised at this point that ‘germ theory’ is perhaps one of the most deeply entrenched dogmas in our society. The tight grip it holds on the public consciousness is perhaps best illustrated by Dr Auguste Lutaud, in his scathing critique of Louis Pasteur:

“in France, one can be an anarchist, a communist or a nihilist, but not an anti-Pasteurian"

For many, it is inconceivable that so many ‘experts’ have got it so wrong. And yet, it’s not that hard to see how a situation such as this could arise. Take the analogy of a newly built house. The painters and decorators do not bother checking that the foundations are sound when they come do the decorating, because they naturally assume that those who came before them did a good job.

This state of affairs is perfectly encapsulated by the aforementioned passage from Mullis’ book. The electron microscope, needed to view the particles referred to as ‘viruses’, was not invented until 1931, at which point, ‘germ theory’ was generally accepted as ‘fact’. Those working in this field have stopped questioning its fundamental premise – they’re just out looking for these particles – not questioning their role. What Kary Mullis noticed had happened with the HIV virus, is the fact the case, for every ‘germ’.

Going back to COVID, it was at this point that I realised that both sides were engaged in a dialectic rooted in this very theory. If you are familiar with the method of guiding discourse known as the ‘Hegelian dialectic’, you will know that this is no accident. This is how you prevent people from ever discovering the truth – all you need to do is ensure that they keep asking the wrong questions, and look for answers in the wrong places. ‘Germs’, and especially ‘viruses’, have been used for decades as cover for widespread industrial poisoning, genocide, justification for war crimes and human experimentation, and COVID in this regard, is no different.

Some people may interpret my remarks as me suggesting that there is no genuine threat. Although I did initially think this, after reading Caroline Coram’s thread, I think that COVID is in fact, cover for something else. But I am also of the view that COVID is helping draw attention to a number of issues that for a long time, have gone unnoticed. Take for instance the claim of ‘asymptomatic transmission’. This was mocked by the ‘opposition’, and yet the exact same claims are made for every almost ‘virus’ there is. Why aren’t any of them looking at the theory as a whole?

What am I hoping to achieve?

I have come to the realisation that the ‘germ theory’ of disease, has caused untold misery and suffering to both humans and animals, and has done for a very long time. Critics like to point fingers at the ‘pharmaceutical industry’, or more broadly, the ‘medical establishment’, and these entities are indeed the obvious beneficiaries – one does not need to be blessed with any special knowledge, qualifications or intelligence to figure out that the ‘one germ = one disease = one treatment’ paradigm presents a highly lucrative commercial opportunity, which may, in part, explain why this theory has become the dominant one.

But ‘germ theory’ is so much more than a pseudo-scientific cult, used to prop up a money making racket. As we have now all seen first hand, it also provides the perfect pretext for the ‘powers that be’ to get away with just about anything they want.

The aforementioned terms are in reality nothing more than abstractions, used to perpetuate the illusion that these entities have a mind of their own. In reality, they are just one ‘arm’ of the ‘global establishment’, owned and operated by the same individuals and families that run everything else, through their various investment vehicles (Vanguard, Black Rock, State Street etc). Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson – these companies all share the same owners. It goes without saying however, that this is one of their most powerful weapons, and I do not think it is a coincidence that many of the players involved have been pushed into the limelight.

My objective in this series is to share my findings in a clear and concise manner, and hopefully start to build awareness of the fraud this system is built on, in the hopes that we can bring it down. I am convinced we would all be much better off without it

One of the challenges when discussing this topic is that all manner of sophistry is relentlessly used to bamboozle us into believing that we are either stupid, or lack the necessary qualifications to understand the genius of the ideas we are being presented with. ‘Ad hominem’ attacks are frequently leveraged against anyone who raises their head above the parapet.

On the surface, it is complex and daunting, but this is clearly by design – it puts people off from asking questions or digging too deep. But you do not need to be a genius to understand any of the concepts or ideas that will be presented. Just like you do not need to know how a car works to know that a crooked salesmen is trying to swindle you. All you need to do is to apply common sense, and basic logic. Trial by jury, a key pillar of our criminal justice system, runs on the principle that the average person, when presented with evidence in a clear, succinct manner, should be able to assess it and deliberate with others, and come to a sensible conclusion as to whether or not a defendant is guilty as charged. The exact same principle can be applied here.

The establishments’ attack dogs in the media and elsewhere also like to make straw men out of the arguments that are put forth. They will claim that those who ask probing questions and point out the obvious flaws in their ideology are ‘stupid’ or are ‘denying science’. They’ll also say we are ‘denying’ the existence of a given ‘virus’ or that people have got sick and died. These are the classic tell-tale signs that you are dealing with people who have lost the argument. Why do they behave like this? It’s no surprise however – because if their grand theory is proven to be false – it will be end of their system. The significance of this is difficult to fathom.

Before we move on, I just want to provide a bit of information about how I do my research, and what you can expect from me:

1.) I will always provide the reference for any third-party materials I include. I find it incredibly frustrating when I watch a presentation, video, or read a book and the original source for a quote or finding isn’t included.

2.) If I cannot find the original source for something, I usually prefer not to include it – even if it backs up whatever it is I’m saying. As an example – it is widely claimed that Pasteur, on his deathbed said “Béchamp avait raison, le microbe n'est rien, le terrain est tout.” (translation: Béchamp was right, the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything). Sometimes, it is Claude Bernard (another of Pasteur’s contemporaries) who’s name is cited. I think it is possible that Pasteur came to realise, in the end, that his life’s work was built on a flawed premise. However, because I am unable to find proof that he did in fact, say this, I choose not to include it anywhere.

3.) I do not work on this full-time – I have a day job, so this is something I write about whenever I have a spare moment. I do my best to only include factual material, and I triple-check everything before I post. That being said, it is always possible that I’ve made a mistake somewhere, but I have no problem rectifying these, should they occur. Please message if you spot something, and I will correct it.

If you found this introductory article interesting, please sign up to get notified when the next one is published, and please share with others. You can also find me on Twitter.

In the next article, we will take a closer look at the theory, and the many reasons why it doesn’t pass the ‘smell test’.