Folks like AMD, Jessica Rose, Arkmedic, etc., refuse to even acknowledge those fallacies, let alone rectify them with the necessary scientific evidence. It really damages their credibility in my view.
Very fair, only the AMD article is not recent as you state but from 2022. Mind you he or she, I don't think it is clear, still holds to the nonsense of COVID 19 as a new disease. We are now 5 years on, yet it was obvious to me, not a doctor, in June 2020.
I am seriously disappointed and ashamed of AMD's stance but then AMD is supposedly a doctor in the mainstream, albeit one resisting the system.
He/she has failed dismally to engage with me when challenged which I have done on more than one occasion and has merely pointed me to two other articles, neither of which justify his/her position.
AMD does do some useful articles but one must question what he/she is up to. In any event the accusations made by AMD are in part projection of AMD's own weaknesses, causing unnecessary division.
Thanks. It wasn't clear from your article that you had engaged with AMD recently but I assumed that you must have done so.
I keep a record of comments from those who I disagree with and have a reference from last year. When I look at what AMD says about 'the virus' he/she really talks a load of bollux.
From what I can tell I think AMD is probably Jewish as he/she talked about losing many relatives in WW2. It makes me wonder if there isn't some insecurity there explaining the refusal to look critically at the issue.
It matters not, whether it is‘true’ or not (Newtonian mechanics we know it not true with the discovery of quantum mechanics (it’s just that it is a good enough approximation of reality at the macro level)).
That argument (no virus) IMHO is like saying quantum mechanics is what explains everything when you are playing billiards.
It is hard enough battle to get the jabs outlawed against the Big Pharma juggernaut. Fight the no virus battle after we defeat the bioweapons, please.
are You arguing that viruses don’t exist? Or just that COVID 19 doesn’t exist?
Back when I learned microbiology (1973–5) there was not a big market for anti virals, there were only a handful of vaccines & there was no vaccine immunity law.
I am afraid that this is likely unresolvable as the $$$ to establish your paradigm with the robustness to convince more than you & your true believers just aren’t there.
I have to go to bed & have 2–3 days of hard work ahead of me, so I won’t be rejoining this discussion for a few days
Dr. Kimber, I appreciate your response and understand that you have a busy schedule. To answer your question directly, the issue is not just about whether COVID-19 exists but whether the foundational claims of virology hold up to rigorous scrutiny. The debate is not about denying illness or symptoms but questioning whether the assumed viral cause has ever been demonstrated through proper isolation and purification methods.
You bring up an interesting point about the past state of virology—before the industry was flooded with financial incentives. But does that necessarily validate the methodology, or does it simply mean there was less scrutiny at a time when there was no major profit motive? If virology’s foundational assumptions were never rigorously tested, then its modern monetization only compounds the problem rather than being the root of it.
As for the idea that this paradigm shift requires massive funding to be accepted—that assumes science is settled by financial consensus rather than by evidence. If something is demonstrably false, no amount of money should be required to prove it wrong. The reality is that those challenging virology are up against an entrenched system that has little incentive to revisit its own assumptions, regardless of whether they hold up.
That said, I appreciate the discussion and wish you a productive few days ahead.
Dr. Kimber, I understand your perspective that the immediate battle against the pharmaceutical industry's overreach, particularly regarding the jabs, should take precedence over the broader debate on the virus paradigm. However, your analogy to Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics misrepresents the fundamental issue at hand.
Newtonian mechanics remains useful because it provides accurate predictions within its applicable domain. The same cannot be said for virology if its foundational assumptions—such as viral isolation and pathogenicity—are flawed. The virus debate is not about choosing between two equally functional models, one macro and one micro. It is about whether the very existence of SARS-CoV-2 has been scientifically demonstrated through rigorous, falsifiable methods. If virology rests on unproven or circular logic, then the battle against Big Pharma is compromised from the start, because the justification for their bioweapons and vaccines depends on this very premise.
Your argument also assumes that questioning the virus paradigm is a distraction from stopping the jabs. But what if accepting the virus narrative, even as a "useful approximation," strengthens the pharmaceutical industry's power rather than weakens it? If they control the definitions of disease and its causes, they dictate the solutions—whether it be vaccines, antivirals, or perpetual lockdowns. By deferring this debate until after the jabs are defeated, you may inadvertently allow the same faulty logic to justify the next wave of medical coercion.
In short, this is not just about timing—it is about whether the foundation of the fight is built on solid ground or on assumptions that, if left unchallenged, will continue to empower the very forces you seek to defeat.
Of course it matters Roger. The whole vaccine paradigm hinges on the nonsense of disease causing viruses as currently defined by the medical industrial complex.
Viruses once meant 'poison, slime, venom', and they should be still considered as such.
If people realise they need not fear the so-called virus as displayed in electron microscope photos, which in reality is cellular waste, then they will understand that vaccines are pointless and refuse them.
If they realise that which was obvious to me in June 2020 that the 'flu was rebranded, then they will understand therefore there was no new disease, and so no (new) virus even that would be some success.
This doesn't mean there aren't other ways of getting through to people but sadly many will only get the message when they or someone close to them is harmed or dies.
Even then many still ignore the blindingly obvious.
Baldmichael. I asked ChatGPT what people are more afraid of in regard to the exaggerated virus images alluded to in your blog. Here is its response:
The exaggerated representations of viruses, particularly COVID-19, tend to evoke fear by resembling either alien creatures or deadly insects, depending on the audience's psychological predisposition and cultural influences.
Alien Creatures – Many of the digital renderings of COVID-19, including the infamous spiked blue sphere used in media and WHO materials, bear a resemblance to science fiction depictions of extraterrestrial invaders. This taps into long-established cultural fears of unseen, intelligent, and invasive threats—something foreign that takes over human bodies and spreads uncontrollably.
Deadly Insects – Another angle plays into the horror of micro-predators like ticks, fleas, and mosquitoes, which are historically associated with plagues. The idea of an invisible, mutating enemy that "latches on" or "infects" is reminiscent of parasitic organisms, which are deeply ingrained in human fear responses.
Which Fear is More Effective?
For mass psychological manipulation, the alien-like depiction of viruses is more effective because it aligns with the fear of the unknown and plays on science fiction narratives people have been exposed to for decades.
For personal bodily fear, the insect-like or parasitic imagery could work better, as it directly relates to real-world dangers like disease-spreading mosquitoes.
The article you referenced suggests that the fear of COVID-19 was intentionally manufactured through media imagery, shaping public perception to justify measures like social distancing, masking, and mass vaccinations. It argues that what people perceive as a deadly virus might actually be a natural cellular response (exosomes) rather than an external invader, challenging the conventional germ theory of disease.
Ultimately, whether people are more afraid of alien invaders or deadly insects in relation to COVID-19 likely depends on their personal experiences and cultural conditioning, but the media has overwhelmingly leaned into the alien threat narrative for maximum psychological impact.
A very interesting article and thank you for opposing the doctor, who I thought was admirable. However his stance of covid cannot be left to get a pass and you snapped those assumptions of his good and proper. Every doctor needs to be challenged on their stance on viruses and the PCR tests. The truth must prevail. They are sticking their heads in the sand by ignoring terrain theory. Amandha Vollmer had a debate with a doctor on it and he just didn't come up with any substance and it was clear to everyone his argument (for viruses) was not just weak but equaled zero. This fight must continue and I tip my hat to you for taking AMD on.
You know when someone says that as a form of refutation of an opposing case to theirs, it shows (to me at least) that they are bereft of a rational argument and they have resorted to "hitting below the belt" as their only recovery. They don't have anything to hold up their case so they belittle the people who believe differently to them. I do like the work that A MIdwestern Doctor does, nonetheless, kudos to you for calling him out. And this is how it must be if we want to get closer to the truth. He actually is a rather mercenary in my book because he stopped commenters from commenting unless they paid him a ransom. I simply unsubscribe from writers who do that because it shows they are still in the greed mindset, which is primitive and keeping humanity retarded. So I don't know what he's writing these days. Often people don't know, they really do not get that money is THE medium of our enslavement and if we weaned off it, we'd be free (if we adopted a system of money that makes sense, ie: that does NOT appreciate or depreciate)
I usually unsubscribe if they don't allow comments. That's so backward of them. Bailiwick News doesn't have any commenters which is novel, not the best either but at least she isn't mercenary where they hold you hostage. The communication is purely one-sided which is again backward and keeps us generating this same paradigm.
I can comment on some AMD posts. I can understand why some people would not have comments as it is time consuming to read and monitor. Nevertheless it is frustrating if someone states something that one can't counter and challenge.
No offense but that looks like it was written by chat GPT and does not accurately represent the arguments. If you don't agree that's fine but those are my thoughts on the topic.
Liked (1)
Reply (1)
Share
Turfseer
Turfseer’s Newsletter
12m
A well-crafted ChatGPT response requires precise prompts, and I ensured that my critique accurately reflected your arguments before addressing them. If you disagree, I encourage you to refute my points when you have the time.
Good rebuttal, even if it has the feel of an AI dot-point essay (and I hope to God it wasn't AI generated).
Virology has fundamental logical fallacies that must be addressed for it to have any scientific validity as per my essay here:
https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/virologys-fatal-flaw
Folks like AMD, Jessica Rose, Arkmedic, etc., refuse to even acknowledge those fallacies, let alone rectify them with the necessary scientific evidence. It really damages their credibility in my view.
Very fair, only the AMD article is not recent as you state but from 2022. Mind you he or she, I don't think it is clear, still holds to the nonsense of COVID 19 as a new disease. We are now 5 years on, yet it was obvious to me, not a doctor, in June 2020.
I am seriously disappointed and ashamed of AMD's stance but then AMD is supposedly a doctor in the mainstream, albeit one resisting the system.
He/she has failed dismally to engage with me when challenged which I have done on more than one occasion and has merely pointed me to two other articles, neither of which justify his/her position.
AMD does do some useful articles but one must question what he/she is up to. In any event the accusations made by AMD are in part projection of AMD's own weaknesses, causing unnecessary division.
Agree. I wasn't aware the articles were from 2022. But note he was the one who sent me the links yesterday.
Thanks. It wasn't clear from your article that you had engaged with AMD recently but I assumed that you must have done so.
I keep a record of comments from those who I disagree with and have a reference from last year. When I look at what AMD says about 'the virus' he/she really talks a load of bollux.
From what I can tell I think AMD is probably Jewish as he/she talked about losing many relatives in WW2. It makes me wonder if there isn't some insecurity there explaining the refusal to look critically at the issue.
It matters not, whether it is‘true’ or not (Newtonian mechanics we know it not true with the discovery of quantum mechanics (it’s just that it is a good enough approximation of reality at the macro level)).
That argument (no virus) IMHO is like saying quantum mechanics is what explains everything when you are playing billiards.
It is hard enough battle to get the jabs outlawed against the Big Pharma juggernaut. Fight the no virus battle after we defeat the bioweapons, please.
are You arguing that viruses don’t exist? Or just that COVID 19 doesn’t exist?
Back when I learned microbiology (1973–5) there was not a big market for anti virals, there were only a handful of vaccines & there was no vaccine immunity law.
I am afraid that this is likely unresolvable as the $$$ to establish your paradigm with the robustness to convince more than you & your true believers just aren’t there.
I have to go to bed & have 2–3 days of hard work ahead of me, so I won’t be rejoining this discussion for a few days
Good night.
Dr. Kimber, I appreciate your response and understand that you have a busy schedule. To answer your question directly, the issue is not just about whether COVID-19 exists but whether the foundational claims of virology hold up to rigorous scrutiny. The debate is not about denying illness or symptoms but questioning whether the assumed viral cause has ever been demonstrated through proper isolation and purification methods.
You bring up an interesting point about the past state of virology—before the industry was flooded with financial incentives. But does that necessarily validate the methodology, or does it simply mean there was less scrutiny at a time when there was no major profit motive? If virology’s foundational assumptions were never rigorously tested, then its modern monetization only compounds the problem rather than being the root of it.
As for the idea that this paradigm shift requires massive funding to be accepted—that assumes science is settled by financial consensus rather than by evidence. If something is demonstrably false, no amount of money should be required to prove it wrong. The reality is that those challenging virology are up against an entrenched system that has little incentive to revisit its own assumptions, regardless of whether they hold up.
That said, I appreciate the discussion and wish you a productive few days ahead.
You haven’t sold me.
Dr. Kimber, I understand your perspective that the immediate battle against the pharmaceutical industry's overreach, particularly regarding the jabs, should take precedence over the broader debate on the virus paradigm. However, your analogy to Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics misrepresents the fundamental issue at hand.
Newtonian mechanics remains useful because it provides accurate predictions within its applicable domain. The same cannot be said for virology if its foundational assumptions—such as viral isolation and pathogenicity—are flawed. The virus debate is not about choosing between two equally functional models, one macro and one micro. It is about whether the very existence of SARS-CoV-2 has been scientifically demonstrated through rigorous, falsifiable methods. If virology rests on unproven or circular logic, then the battle against Big Pharma is compromised from the start, because the justification for their bioweapons and vaccines depends on this very premise.
Your argument also assumes that questioning the virus paradigm is a distraction from stopping the jabs. But what if accepting the virus narrative, even as a "useful approximation," strengthens the pharmaceutical industry's power rather than weakens it? If they control the definitions of disease and its causes, they dictate the solutions—whether it be vaccines, antivirals, or perpetual lockdowns. By deferring this debate until after the jabs are defeated, you may inadvertently allow the same faulty logic to justify the next wave of medical coercion.
In short, this is not just about timing—it is about whether the foundation of the fight is built on solid ground or on assumptions that, if left unchallenged, will continue to empower the very forces you seek to defeat.
Of course it matters Roger. The whole vaccine paradigm hinges on the nonsense of disease causing viruses as currently defined by the medical industrial complex.
Viruses once meant 'poison, slime, venom', and they should be still considered as such.
If people realise they need not fear the so-called virus as displayed in electron microscope photos, which in reality is cellular waste, then they will understand that vaccines are pointless and refuse them.
If they realise that which was obvious to me in June 2020 that the 'flu was rebranded, then they will understand therefore there was no new disease, and so no (new) virus even that would be some success.
This doesn't mean there aren't other ways of getting through to people but sadly many will only get the message when they or someone close to them is harmed or dies.
Even then many still ignore the blindingly obvious.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/coronavirus-is-it-really-a-monster?utm_source=publication-search
Baldmichael. I asked ChatGPT what people are more afraid of in regard to the exaggerated virus images alluded to in your blog. Here is its response:
The exaggerated representations of viruses, particularly COVID-19, tend to evoke fear by resembling either alien creatures or deadly insects, depending on the audience's psychological predisposition and cultural influences.
Alien Creatures – Many of the digital renderings of COVID-19, including the infamous spiked blue sphere used in media and WHO materials, bear a resemblance to science fiction depictions of extraterrestrial invaders. This taps into long-established cultural fears of unseen, intelligent, and invasive threats—something foreign that takes over human bodies and spreads uncontrollably.
Deadly Insects – Another angle plays into the horror of micro-predators like ticks, fleas, and mosquitoes, which are historically associated with plagues. The idea of an invisible, mutating enemy that "latches on" or "infects" is reminiscent of parasitic organisms, which are deeply ingrained in human fear responses.
Which Fear is More Effective?
For mass psychological manipulation, the alien-like depiction of viruses is more effective because it aligns with the fear of the unknown and plays on science fiction narratives people have been exposed to for decades.
For personal bodily fear, the insect-like or parasitic imagery could work better, as it directly relates to real-world dangers like disease-spreading mosquitoes.
The article you referenced suggests that the fear of COVID-19 was intentionally manufactured through media imagery, shaping public perception to justify measures like social distancing, masking, and mass vaccinations. It argues that what people perceive as a deadly virus might actually be a natural cellular response (exosomes) rather than an external invader, challenging the conventional germ theory of disease.
Ultimately, whether people are more afraid of alien invaders or deadly insects in relation to COVID-19 likely depends on their personal experiences and cultural conditioning, but the media has overwhelmingly leaned into the alien threat narrative for maximum psychological impact.
Very useful, thanks.
A very interesting article and thank you for opposing the doctor, who I thought was admirable. However his stance of covid cannot be left to get a pass and you snapped those assumptions of his good and proper. Every doctor needs to be challenged on their stance on viruses and the PCR tests. The truth must prevail. They are sticking their heads in the sand by ignoring terrain theory. Amandha Vollmer had a debate with a doctor on it and he just didn't come up with any substance and it was clear to everyone his argument (for viruses) was not just weak but equaled zero. This fight must continue and I tip my hat to you for taking AMD on.
Yes I had to call him on it especially after he accused all no virus people of acting in "bad faith."
Quite right. AMD is acting in bad faith and needs a good kick up the backside as I like to say.
You know when someone says that as a form of refutation of an opposing case to theirs, it shows (to me at least) that they are bereft of a rational argument and they have resorted to "hitting below the belt" as their only recovery. They don't have anything to hold up their case so they belittle the people who believe differently to them. I do like the work that A MIdwestern Doctor does, nonetheless, kudos to you for calling him out. And this is how it must be if we want to get closer to the truth. He actually is a rather mercenary in my book because he stopped commenters from commenting unless they paid him a ransom. I simply unsubscribe from writers who do that because it shows they are still in the greed mindset, which is primitive and keeping humanity retarded. So I don't know what he's writing these days. Often people don't know, they really do not get that money is THE medium of our enslavement and if we weaned off it, we'd be free (if we adopted a system of money that makes sense, ie: that does NOT appreciate or depreciate)
I still subscribe (unpaid) and get newsletters. I find AMD's stuff useful but often over long for what it contains.
I usually unsubscribe if they don't allow comments. That's so backward of them. Bailiwick News doesn't have any commenters which is novel, not the best either but at least she isn't mercenary where they hold you hostage. The communication is purely one-sided which is again backward and keeps us generating this same paradigm.
I can comment on some AMD posts. I can understand why some people would not have comments as it is time consuming to read and monitor. Nevertheless it is frustrating if someone states something that one can't counter and challenge.
Exquisite!!
Although I'm a layman, I'm quite well informed, besides AMD website I search... everywhere, but COVID virus hides well, or doesn't exist.
I follow principles of terrain theory, don't take ANY medications and am not getting sick!
A Midwestern Doctor
1h
No offense but that looks like it was written by chat GPT and does not accurately represent the arguments. If you don't agree that's fine but those are my thoughts on the topic.
Liked (1)
Reply (1)
Share
Turfseer
Turfseer’s Newsletter
12m
A well-crafted ChatGPT response requires precise prompts, and I ensured that my critique accurately reflected your arguments before addressing them. If you disagree, I encourage you to refute my points when you have the time.
Like
Reply (1)