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.
I'll return to this comment tomorrow and indicate what I agree/disagree with -- not because you need to change something...only to further dialogue and understanding.
1) Yes, Rancourt was very early to saying simultaneous spikes in some places and the absence of anything happening in most locations was against expectations for a spreading pathogen
4) Depends. Deadly for whom? The person handling materials? Sure. I'm vaguely aware of some of the Lyme's hypotheses but can't speak to it knowledgeably. All stupidity in all experiments of any kind should be banned. :)
5) First sentence, yes. Second & third sentences, meh. I don't love certain words and terms being used to classify everything under the sun. Leads to obfuscation and misdirection. See here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/opinions-on-the-use-of-bioweapon
6) Meh. Does it? Let's take a clear example: Pierre Kory. Elevated immediately, celebutized over time, now a MAHA leader. Does he fall under "TPTB's propaganda arm ridicules anyone who attempts to expose them or state alternate truth"? For me, no.
7) Yep. I own it and read it on a long flight. Husband reading it now.
8) Sounds about right!
9) Sure. But I still want to see a chicken noodle soup/hug vs. IVM RCT!
10) Sure.
11) TMI!!! 🙈 But it matches what I've said, "If I don't get sick with the man I sleep with, how can I get sick from the man behind the deli counter?"
Hi. Yes, I read that. Certainty IS a prison and (as this children's book illustrates), it can be hard to un-learn or "escape" one's experiences. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/fish-is-fish
Re: engaging with Meryl Nass - I'm not looking to chase her all over Substack. We have interacted previously. Readers can form their own conclusions and characterizations based on their assessments of the interactions.
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.
Indeed.
I'm going to start telling everyone I work for "the Shallow State"
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.
Liberty granted.
I'll return to this comment tomorrow and indicate what I agree/disagree with -- not because you need to change something...only to further dialogue and understanding.
Coming back to this.
1) Yes, Rancourt was very early to saying simultaneous spikes in some places and the absence of anything happening in most locations was against expectations for a spreading pathogen
2) Yes, we have. Re: "hot spots" that's a term Martin & Jonathan used in this article: https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/virus-origins-and-gain-claim-of-function. Other people (Rancourt included) have used it too. I don't use it and don't like it, but that's a very trivial point of difference.
3) Sure.
4) Depends. Deadly for whom? The person handling materials? Sure. I'm vaguely aware of some of the Lyme's hypotheses but can't speak to it knowledgeably. All stupidity in all experiments of any kind should be banned. :)
5) First sentence, yes. Second & third sentences, meh. I don't love certain words and terms being used to classify everything under the sun. Leads to obfuscation and misdirection. See here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/opinions-on-the-use-of-bioweapon
6) Meh. Does it? Let's take a clear example: Pierre Kory. Elevated immediately, celebutized over time, now a MAHA leader. Does he fall under "TPTB's propaganda arm ridicules anyone who attempts to expose them or state alternate truth"? For me, no.
7) Yep. I own it and read it on a long flight. Husband reading it now.
8) Sounds about right!
9) Sure. But I still want to see a chicken noodle soup/hug vs. IVM RCT!
10) Sure.
11) TMI!!! 🙈 But it matches what I've said, "If I don't get sick with the man I sleep with, how can I get sick from the man behind the deli counter?"
Biowarfare or Biotheater? Meryl Nass warns of viral weapons, but without solid proof of virology, is biowarfare just another tool of fear? https://turfseer.substack.com/p/biowarfare-or-biotheater
Related:
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/opinions-on-the-use-of-bioweapon
https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/the-bioweapons-bore
Gain of Fiction. A Song About How the Gain-of-Function Narrative Reinforces the False Belief in Disease-Causing Viruses. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/gain-of-fiction
Dr. Nass shockingly relies in the "Cotton, et al." paper has definitive proof of
isolation of "Sars Cov 2." That alone impeaches her claim, if not her basic
understanding of the scientific method
Here I am more focused on her logic re: the implications of a "there are no viruses" view
Great article Jessica, try reading this substack article
https://stylman.substack.com/p/the-prison-of-certainty
and read Meryl Nass' comment, replying to her comment might be a good place to engage?
Hi. Yes, I read that. Certainty IS a prison and (as this children's book illustrates), it can be hard to un-learn or "escape" one's experiences. https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/fish-is-fish
Re: engaging with Meryl Nass - I'm not looking to chase her all over Substack. We have interacted previously. Readers can form their own conclusions and characterizations based on their assessments of the interactions.
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/responding-to-meryl-nasss-claims
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/conversation-with-meryl-nass-on-gain
I you get covid twice - call the police!
Call every Close Contact!!!!