Dr. Suzanne Humphries on "the whole COVID thing"

Reacting to a segment from an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, 26 March 2025

The knowledgeable Dr. Suzanne Humphries, co-author of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History (2013), was recently on The Joe Rogan Experience and expressed a view about SARS-CoV-2 — without identifying the agent by name.

Below is a transcription of the segment, followed by a reaction.

[15:24] Rogan: Could it possibly be that whatever you’re calling polio evolved and became less powerful over time and more contagious? Does – that does happen with some viruses, right?

Humphries: Most viruses in nature don’t become more problematic as they go through the human system. They become less problematic. Remember the whole COVID thing. Like, in the beginning, people were getting super, super sick. It wasn’t as contagious, but it was more virulent. And as it attenuated into the human bodies, it sort of spilt -- it kind of fizzled out a bit, and then we got the Omicron, which was, you know, less…it was more spreadable but it was much less pathological. And that’s the natural process that happens. So, when you’re gonna have problems, real problems with microbes, they’re usually gonna be reverse-attenuated, meaning made more lethal in a lab. And then they’re introduced into the population.

And, look, I’m not making this up either: 1916, upper East side Manhattan, there was a Rockefeller Lab that their specific stated goal was to try to create the most pathological - neuropathological - strain of polio possible. And they did that by taking monkey brains and human spinal serum and injecting it into monkeys - and there was a big problem with that - which was released into the public by accident.

And the world experienced the worst polio epidemic on record. Twenty-five percent (25%) mortality. That’s unheard of. Really freaked the public out. You can see the epicenter as it fanned out, and as time went on, never heard of it again. It attenuates as it moves through the body, because it’s a normal human commencal that goes back to its normal state when it’s in a human. And that’s generally what happened. If you have a highly lethal virus, and it kills a lot of people, those people are dead. They can’t spread anything. So that’s kind of a different story if you want to talk about hantavirus or something like that. But as far as polio goes? No, polio was only made more lethal by the stupid things that humans did around it; so, make it more invasive into the body.

Reaction

• Viruses. Humphries seems more confident than I am that the agents called “viruses” are distinct biological entities that function in the manner many scientists purport and most medical doctors presume. Through reading and interacting with experts in virology, epidemiology, pathology, etc., I’ve found many are unable to answer basic questions about viruses and/or about SARS-CoV-2.¹

• “The whole COVID thing”. We’ve all adopted terms and phrases for describing the period authorities say was a pandemic. It’s not clear whether “the whole COVID thing” is, for Humphries, a reference to an event, timeframe, disease, virus, or some/all of those things. COVID-19 is the pseudoacronymal name the WHO contrived for a medically-nebulous disease allegedly caused by SARS-CoV-2. Many people (including me) use COVID to refer to an episode or timeframe (COVID event, COVID Era).

• Lab Leak: Regardless of intent, Humphries’ retelling of something “released into the public by accident” in 1916, on the heels of her talking about COVID, has the effect of reinforcing the SARS-CoV-2 lab origin hypothesis (with a similar “Somehow, it must have escaped” vibe). That the setting was New York and Humphries used the word epicenter is notable — as is the mention of Hantavirus, given its recent “appearance” in the news.

• “In the beginning, people were getting super, super sick.” Presumably, “in the beginning,” refers to early 2020. I’ve studied that period very closely - including locations that reported high numbers of positive tests and COVID deaths (e.g., New York City and Bergamo) and have been unable able to corroborate the idea that people became either suddenly sick or suddenly “really, really sick” at all, let alone with a unique illness. The overwhelming number of New Yorkers I’ve spoken to directly say they do not know anyone who became ill with ‘Covid’ or any respiratory illness in March, April, or May 2020. The same is true for the small number of Italian citizens I’ve interviewed.

• Spread/contagiousness. Humphries didn’t describe a spread or contagion mechanism. (Readers can apprise me if I missed it or if she has done so in writing or other interviews.) The WHO’s claim about human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was dubious and never demonstrated. The sudden appearance of a “novel coronavirus” was an illusion created by the deployment of mass testing, with assists from propaganda promoting the idea that a “wicked” virus from afar was coming soon to a city near you!

• Novelty, variants, and herd immunity. Humphries seems to subscribe to the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was novel to human beings and/or their environment and, as it continued to spread or circulated, evolved into less deadly but more contagious variants until “it” reached a point of endemicity. This conception - essentially a herd immunity model - may fit other diseases she has studied; I see no reason to believe it applies to (what we call or think of as) influenza-like illnesses or "common colds.”

As could be expected, Humphries’s view is aligned with - and to an extent extrapolated from - her pre-2020 work and conclusions. Nothing she is saying about “COVID” detracts from what she has done to make more people aware of longstanding lies and misconceptions about diseases, vaccines, and other treatments.

What she suggested to Joe Rogan about SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with the Permitted Dissent end of a false binary promoted by health agencies and government officials - i.e., a novel, risk-additive virus/disease was spreading and could not be slowed/stopped.²

I am sympathetic to that perspective because it is one I used to hold.

However, as

Jonathan Engler

and I wrote in Novelty and immunity: Why were we so blind to the obvious? it has become easier to see how this view enables the perpetrators:

Earlier in the Covid scam, we more or less accepted the WHO's story about a "novel" virus against which humanity possessed some naturally-acquired resistance, and whose approximate "arrival" or emergence could be deduced through serological testing.

Our objections to the dystopian measures imposed on humanity by governments worldwide were based on the premise that although “it” was “novel” (an assertion which we now reject), “it” wasn’t as dangerous as claimed because of “natural immunity”.

We fell into that trap because we failed to grasp both the circularity of test development, and the fact that it was predicated on a contrived sequence.

In retrospect, we see how the "herd immunity" proposition blinded us to flawed assumptions underlying the official narrative.

Whilst difficult to prove one way or another, the debate about “herd immunity” versus “containment” now appears as if it may have been deliberately propagated - or at the least permitted - as a distraction from a more pertinent question:

Was there anything spreading at all?

I say no.

Suzanne Humphries, seemingly, says yes.

1. See questions under “Viruses Don’t Exist” in On dividing a resistance, the existence of viruses, 'the COVID response', & spreading-non-deadly threats and those listed in The Most Basic Questions

2. False Binaries that 'Limit the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinion' in the COVID-19 Debate and Perpetuate Lies Told by The Powers That Be