Discussion about this post

User's avatar
TNK's avatar

It seems Dr Nass is the one insisting on what folks must believe or must stop believing. She appears to create multiple straw men arguments and conjure up the worn specter of the “deep state” instead of engaging in good faith. Giant red flag in my opinion.

Expand full comment
Ernie Rockwell's avatar

Well said once again. I'm taking the liberty of reproducing here my response to her article (which of course mentions your work).

Dr. Nass, I'm a big fan of your work. I don't know if viruses exist or not. However, I would like to state some points in differing with your view here.

1. Denis Rancourt's work has demonstrated that there was not evidence of a deadly circulating pathogen in 2020.

2. Jessica Hockett and her cohorts have provided strong evidence that the "covid hot spots" in 2020 are not at all substantiated and large-scale fraud is likely in play (in NYC, Bergamo Italy, and elsewhere).

3. TPTB use axioms, often not revealed to the public, from which they roll out their tyranny. They have postulated domestic terrorism by Christians/Trump supporters, for example, and acted accordingly during the last administration. They don't really care what any of us think or what rabbit holes we want to go down. So even if "no virus" is completely false, I don't see it changing the trajectory of what they are doing at all.

4. GOF research can be quite deadly even if viruses don't exist and we should oppose it as you have done. The book "Bitten" discusses the weaponization of ticks and the creation of Lyme Disease for example.

5. Even if viruses don't exist, bacteria, mold, parasites, toxins, and synthetic toxins (such as synthetic venoms) do exist. Not to mention radiation, atmospheric particulate dumps ("chemtrails"), and other weaponized things in food and elsewhere. All this weaponized GOF research, in all of its forms, needs to be eliminated.

6. TPTB's propaganda arm ridicules anyone who attempts to expose them or state alternate truths. It is true that "no virus" is much less acceptable than claims for Ivermectin, etc, and thus easier to ridicule. However, the truth is the truth and that is the only place I want to go.

7. The book "Can you catch a cold?" details the numerous failed experiments in trying to demonstrate sick-to-well disease transmission. It does offer some alternate theories.

8. As I understand it, Virology involves taking a bunch of stuff (some toxic), including matter from a sick person, mixing it all up, putting it with cherry-picked cell lines, seeing them die off and calling this evidence that it was caused by a virus. They do have electron microscope images of things that look a lot like exosomes that they claim are viruses but this proves nothing.

9. People, whatever the cause, do get sick with respiratory illnesses and other problems. The fight to be able to use IVM, HCQ, and other remedies needs to continue. "No virus" is irrelevant to this fight for medical choice.

10. If Virology should be downgraded to "unproven hypothesis", which I believe it should, and enough people can come to this realization, then the whole notion of vaccines against them etc. falls apart. It is idealistic to think this might happen, but I go where the evidence leads. Yes, they supposedly have created complete nucleotide sequences of the virus, but this just proves the gargantuan nature of what they have created, based on the very shaky foundation of virology.

11. My experience with colds, supposedly caused by viruses, is not one of catching it from someone. I had a cold some weeks ago, wife didn't get it. Four weeks after I got well, she got one (for 5 days now) and I'm not getting it. I don't mean to be crude, but ill-timed sexual release, experientially, is much more causative of getting or extending a cold than catching it from someone else.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts