Reactions to Meryl Nass's perspective on "The No Virus Narrative"
A follower directed me to this article by .
I am more sensitive than I used to be about leaving entire essays in the comment sections of other authors’ Substacks and therefore publish my reaction here.
Good day
.Previously, Martin Neil, Jonathan Engler, and myself each tried to engage you on questions related to GoF/SARS-CoV-2, without much success. (You and I also dialogued about the New York City Spring 2020 event.)
I am not “Deep State,” not part of a “sponsored narrative,” and I have not made arguments which can be fairly characterized as “viruses don’t exist” or “denying viruses”.
In a recent article, Dr Engler and I offered something of a “bridge” perspective and raised basic questions about viruses we consider scientifically important.
Whether viruses “exist” is a different question from questions about the causal link between viruses and illness (or between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19).
To the points in your first paragraph - i.e., "If people believe SARS-CoV-2 is NOT a virus, then we..." (image below)
There are many good reasons to abolish gain-of-function experiments and so-called “bioweapon” development, none of which are contingent upon SARS-CoV-2 being a virus, novel virus, or causative of a respiratory disease. The research is indefensible and foolish because
nature doesn’t allow viral pandemics;
seasonal injections are inefficacious and immunosuppressive — ergo, those developed for worst-case scenarios via such research can’t and won’t “work” for "pandemic potential" viruses;
universal/One Shot goals for respiratory illness are the epidemiological equivalent of the Tower of Babel (i.e. impossible, idiotic, & defiant) and render corresponding pursuits highly susceptible to being leveraged by those with bio-surveillance, digital ID, and depopulation ambitions;
the implicit endgame of GoF experiments and “bioweapon” research is to compel or require some group of people to take a ‘vaccine’ resulting from the experiments — therefore, the enterprises lack an ethical or moral compass.1
By now, I hope we can agree we shouldn’t look to governments for anything except obfuscation. Regardless of what one thinks SARS-CoV-2 is or is not, the origin is an important line of inquiry - one that certain orthodoxies have incorrectly dismissed as irrelevant or quite subordinate to ‘the response’. No matter what, SARS-CoV-2 is part of a story. Whose/what story? Who planted the story? Have scientists been duped? To what extent?
Further investigation is needed. This is no less true should the ‘No Such Thing as Viruses’ view prove correct. We the People keep getting 'run-arounds' and reports that answer no questions and fail to reconcile scientific realities, time-series data, and on-the-ground events with magical thinking about leaks and releases. It is astounding and laughable that The Telegraph published a story with the line “Somehow, it must have escaped.” Are we in a movie? What are the proposed mechanisms of this attack? What’s the timeframe?
IVM and HCQ appear to be part of a directed, dual-sided op - i.e., intelligence-planted “Permitted Dissent” that helps keep the populace from questioning whether something was spreading.
This isn’t to say the drugs aren’t beneficial in a general way (or at least not harmful). But neither a virus nor a “new” illness or disease is required for HCQ and/or IVM to be comparable or slightly superior to chicken noodle soup and a hug. Both are better than maltreatment or euthanasia.
You also said, “I think it’s important for us not to fight over this, but we can of course disagree.”
Who’s “us”? What’s the difference, in your view, between disagreeing and fighting? (Were colleagues and I disagreeing or fighting when we tried to engage you here?)
Finally, you said,
Please don't waste any more of your time on the "fake virus" hypothesis. We don't have the time or luxury to fight each other. We need all hands on deck to turn back the Great Reset (whatever it is supposed to be) and regain sane control of our societies.
Actually…it seems the people/entities/AI accounts who write and engage on Substack - self included - very much do have time for and luxury of intellectual jousting - including about the “source” of SARS-CoV-2 (whatever it is supposed to be).
The architects of the Constitution certainly did not envision that ‘freedom of the press’ would mean typing a bunch of words, ‘pressing’ a button, and sending ideas to thousands of people in a matter of seconds!
No wonder The Overlords do everything they can to control these platforms. Must be exhausting for them to play Whack-A-Mole day after day..
I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
Regards,
Jessica Hockett
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.
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.