Learning! Love it. What exciting times - living in the collision of old and new theories about human disease, precipitated - unintentionally - by the Covid event of 2020. As children at school we were successfully encouraged to revere Louis Pasteur. As for Antoine Béchamp - who he? The man didn't even feature as a loser in a paradigm duel. Far more effective in sustaining the paradigm of germ theory, Antoine Béchamp, champion of an alternative, has been excised from history more surely, perhaps, than those Soviet era leaders who became victims of Stalin's photoshopping. Close re-examination (thanks to platforms independent of legacy media) of a 'lost chapter' in the history of biology is part of making sense of what's happening in our shared understanding of disease. The mighty forces of thesis and antithesis have mustered and entered the battle of the paradigms. We lay people witnessing the sounds of their frenzied dialectic are like peasants in the fields below Mount Olympus hearing the thunder and lightning of argument among Gods,
Beautifully put, Simon. You’re absolutely right—the thunder and lightning we hear now is the crackling of a collapsing paradigm, and the reemergence of what was deliberately buried. Béchamp didn’t just lose the debate; he was scrubbed from the script, memory-holed so thoroughly that generations never even knew there was an alternative.
COVID didn’t just break public trust—it cracked the facade. It forced many to rediscover that terrain theory isn’t some fringe footnote—it’s the suppressed chapter of biology that makes far more intuitive and empirical sense once the fear fog clears.
We’re not peasants anymore. We’ve got telescopes now, and the Olympus they’re arguing on isn’t so high. The gods are looking more like marketers in lab coats.
What caused people to become sick with what they called SARS and what was the mechanism by which the anti-parasitic, ivermectin, returned in ill patient back to health? In other words, for the first part of that two-part question, what did they cook up in a bio weapons lab that made people sick. What ingredient in an mRNA shot and or a vaccination is not toxic and or does not cause sickness?
Great set of questions, Thomas—and they cut straight to the core of the whole bio-illusion.
First, as for what caused people to get sick with what they called SARS (and later SARS-CoV-2), the most grounded answer isn’t a cooked-up bioweapon—it’s environmental toxicity, combined with media terror, bad medicine, and rebranded flu-like illness. In the original SARS outbreak, as with COVID, you had a cocktail of confounders: overuse of antibiotics, ventilators, city smog, hospital panic, and a total lack of actual virus isolation. They claimed to identify a new pathogen via computer modeling—not actual discovery. So what was “cooked up” wasn’t a microbe—it was a story, engineered in public health labs and biotech boardrooms.
Second, ivermectin's reputation as a COVID remedy probably has more to do with its anti-inflammatory and detoxifying properties, not any mythical antiviral action. It works on the terrain—reducing oxidative stress and helping clear out accumulated waste—not on a ghost pathogen. That’s why it helped some people: not because it “fought the virus,” but because it helped their body calm down.
And third—as for what ingredient in an mRNA shot isn’t toxic? You’re asking the right question, and the answer seems to be: none of it is neutral. Whether it’s the lipid nanoparticles (which cross the blood-brain barrier), the synthetic mRNA (which hijacks the body’s protein production), or the polyethylene glycol (a known allergen), you’re dealing with a brew of foreign materials designed to provoke, not support, the immune system.
The whole platform was marketed as precision medicine—but in truth, it’s blunt-force biotech masquerading as progress. Nothing in that syringe nourishes. Everything in it coerces.
Thank you for the discussion! Now that wasn't so hard to hear and it shouldn't be hard for anyone to listen! What you said should be common wealth and common sense.
'Should be common sense' No no. Wait a sec! When Galileo posed heliocentrism, 'common sense' declared 'rubbish on stilts ... see how we stand on solid ground, see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead, and set in the west. You're trying to tell me that it's us that moving (eppur si muove)? Get away with you!" Pasteur's paradigm is now deeply embedded and proven 'common sense' to most of us, widely defended by the modern equivalent of church and state and the rich evidence of 'normal' science. It'll be a long hard road before a better explanation acquires the global repute of virology. Though, as Thomas Kuhn argues, that's good. The inevitable battle of the old and the new enriches and strengthens the paradigm that eventually emerges formed and ready to be the new 'common sense'.
Is viral shedding the same as spike protein shedding or toxin shedding or sharing? When someone gets a shot of chemo there are many precautions taken so that deadly stuff doesn't get into the system of the administrator.
Great question, Thomas—and that distinction is exactly where the narrative gets slippery. “Viral shedding” originally meant the supposed release of replicated viruses from an infected host. But with the COVID shots, people started talking about spike protein shedding—a concept that assumes your body becomes a spike factory and somehow those toxic proteins escape and harm others nearby.
But here’s the rub: no one has ever shown direct evidence that spike proteins exit the body, linger in the air, and cause measurable harm to another person. It’s mostly based on inference, fear, and anecdote.
And you’re right—with chemo, there are legitimate precautions, because the toxins are real, measurable, and excreted. That’s not “shedding” in the mystical sense—it’s toxicology.
So lumping “spike protein shedding” into the same category as chemo exposure or viral transmission assumes way too much without proof. It's like comparing nuclear fallout to a rumor—it might travel fast, but it’s not the same kind of danger.
I'm lumping spike proteins, chemo and other toxins together. I am suggesting that somehow these toxins are spread or in other words somehow, like bad information, these toxins are made up in BIO weapons labs and other ways, like pharmaceutical companies and then distributed in many ways, too.
Got it, Thomas—and that broader framing actually makes a lot of sense. You're pointing to toxic transmission not as some literal particle-based contagion, but as a systemic dispersal—whether it’s via injections, aerosols, food additives, environmental sprays, or even EMFs activating latent junk in the body.
In that context, “shedding” becomes less about invisible spike grenades flying through the air and more about living in a chemically and psychologically weaponized environment—designed in labs, pushed by pharma, and distributed under the guise of health, convenience, or necessity.
So yeah—bad info, bad chemistry, bad faith. Different channels, same endgame. What they can’t spread virally, they’ll inject socially, medically, and mentally.
Thanks Turfseer. One small point: To try to fulfill Koch's Postulates, one must first isolate the suspected "pathogen", to use to experiment. The isolation of the "thing" logically precedes any subsequent experiment aimed at demonstrating causation by the "thing". With bacteria, as you know, they isolated pure specimens. With viruses, as you also know, no one has ever found any...just a lot of big talk. And evasions. Sorry to be a stickler.
Absolutely, Rider—you're not being a stickler, you're being precise, which is exactly what this conversation needs. You're right: Koch’s Postulates presume you’ve got a purified, isolated entity to begin with. No isolate, no postulates—full stop. The whole “causation” sleight-of-hand in virology skips that first step and then plays 3-card Monte with cytopathic effect and PCR signals. It’s like claiming you proved Bigfoot exists because the trees shook when you yelled his name.
Well said. Of course we can be said to shed things from our bodies, dry skin, sweat, even perhaps CO2 when we breathe out for example. Urine and faeces could be said to be shedding too.
Then we are wet chemical beings with a magnetic field so we have some influence, although we would not think of that as shedding per se.
And as indicated there is fear and that is the worst factor although whether we succumb depends on our own state of mind.
But I certainly have thought the viral shedding as defined by the mainstream is just a load of bollox to keep people apart and stop us interacting.
Well said, Baldmichael. Shedding real, observable substances like skin cells or CO₂ is one thing—but this idea of “viral shedding” as a ghostly transference of synthetic spike hexes? That’s where science turns into sorcery.
And you're absolutely right: the true contagion has always been fear. Whether it’s airborne viruses or spike mysticism, the goal is to fracture human connection, turn hugs into hazards, and make people feel like biohazards to each other. That’s the real “gain-of-function.”
Appreciate the links—especially the furin piece. When you dig into that molecular melodrama, the absurdity practically cleaves itself.
I don't mind if there's shedding of interferon stuff sometimes. However, there's no such thing as DNA or RNA injections and prolly the covid jabs was just sugar water cuz there's no reports of injection site pathology. All of the commotio cordis, spaghettis clots & Turbo is part of the psyops.
I think maybe the shedding warning on the fake "RNA" jabs is a vestige from the package inserts of attenuated virus quackzines. The covidhoax kooks were just too lazy to remove the shedding warning, or maybe they thought it would be funny to see what happens with leaving the warning intact to add more mystique to the new-fangled [totally fake] "RNA" jabs.
The "shedding" idea prolly arose from the polio sugar cube experience of blaming a diarrhea outbreak in 'vax naive' kids on the arrival of recently 'vaxxed' kids, while the inherent bias is that diarrhea is prolly due to shedded 'polio' if the kids in the diarrhea group are 'vax naive'. Justa guess that the 'shedding' idea arose as a marketing ploy for the polio cube.
That’s a sharp take, Pete—definitely not out of the question that the “shedding” label was a leftover artifact from old-school attenuated vax voodoo. Like a moldy footnote no one bothered to delete—or maybe they left it there on purpose to inject a little mystique and let the paranoid factions market the psyop for them. Classic divide-and-scare.
And yeah, I’ve always found it curious how little physical reaction people had at the jab site. For an injection supposedly rewriting your genetic software, it looked suspiciously like a placebo roll-out in many cases. Maybe sugar water, maybe saline, maybe just a biometric entry point to the fear-industrial complex.
The polio-shedding connection? Makes sense—especially since blaming the “vaxxed” for infecting the “unvaxxed” keeps the germ theory loop spinning no matter which side of the jab you’re on. Shedding: it’s the plot twist that sells both guilt and protection. Brilliant marketing. Disastrous science.
It's so nice to know that Ralph Baric, Fauci, the US DoD and the three and five letter agencies are innocent of the biowarfare that they have been accused of, and also that the USSR and US spent decades trying to weaponize pathogens that didn't exist.
Most of all it's nice to know that one can exercise one's SCOTUS determined (Lawrence v Texas) constitutional right as an American to be sodomized by promiscuous homosexuals without a condom and not have to be concerned about developing AIDS.
Turfseer, whatever they're paying you at Langley, Virginia, it's not enough.
AwakeNotWoke, appreciate the passion, but let’s not confuse questioning a paradigm with exonerating the perpetrators of decades of deception. The fact that Baric, Fauci, and the usual alphabet suspects behaved like biowarfare criminals doesn’t mean the weapon was real—it means the psyop was.
As Rider rightly pointed out, there’s never been an isolated virus in the first place—just molecular ghost stories and high-stakes theater. So yes, the Cold War bioweapons race may well have been a multi-decade exercise in gaslighting, not gain-of-function.
As for Langley—if I had their budget, I’d at least spring for better lighting on my Substack avatar.
Whatever they were creating in labs it was toxic, but as regards viruses as in the mainstream view they were creating scare stories to get people to take toxic vaccines and drugs.
Thus AIDS has nothing to do with a so-called virus but all the toxic drugs/vaccines sold as 'cures''on top of the drugs used recreationally etc.
The main thing has always been fraud to extort money from the unwise and naive, either directly or via the taxpayer. It's great business for many.
Spot on, Baldmichael. The real “gain-of-function” was in marketing—turning molecular fiction into billion-dollar pharma pipelines. Whatever was coming out of those labs was toxic, sure—but not because it was contagious. It was sold as a virus to justify a never-ending cascade of injections, patents, and poison pills.
AIDS is the template: blame a phantom virus, ignore the poppers, AZT, and immune-wrecking lifestyle factors, then rake in cash while posing as saviors. It's not biowarfare in the traditional sense—it’s bio-theater with a government grant.
Fraud dressed up as science has always been their best product.
Exactly, Pete—and that’s a sharp way to put it. Even if the “virus” was a conceptual decoy, the weapons were real: propaganda, lockdowns, toxic injections, psychological warfare. They didn’t need a functioning bioweapon—just the belief in one.
So yeah, maybe it was a toy gun… but it was pointed at the entire world, and people still got robbed, coerced, and in many cases, killed.
A totally transparent double blind experiment, fully televised, recorded and accessible to all humanity, with no opportunity for AI falsification.
If they need test subjects, they could easily get folks like myself who at age 66 would offer to do this service.
The whole environmental playout with masks, sanitation, distancing, air conditioning vs. open air could be controlled for valid tests.
Petri dishes could be used as receiving devices to catch viral particles should they be present.
My brother and I talked about this need early on in 2020.
I lost two teeth because of the masking BS. I never gave shedding a thought. Even to this day hugs are passed regardless of who was vaccinated. I for one never got that thing jabbed up my nose or in my arm.
Mike, your instinct for a transparent, controlled experiment is exactly what science should demand—especially when the claims are world-altering. But the fact that no such study has ever been done for viral transmission under strict, unbiased observation tells you everything. They had the chance in 2020. They had the cameras, the urgency, the volunteers. Instead, they gave us theatrical models, PCR voodoo, and cartoon spikes.
And props to you for holding the line—no swab, no jab, and still hugging like a human being. That’s real immunity: mental, moral, and constitutional. Sorry to hear about the teeth—mask mandates were rotten in more ways than one.
As to using petri dishes to catch viral particles should they be present, forget that. They can't find virus particles in the tissues or fluids of any sick "infected" people or animals. That's why they engage in the stupid ritual of cell culturing--artifical, non human, poisoned with antibiotics and antifungals, in a starvation medium--to produce the effect of cells dying. That is supposed to be circumstantial evidence of viral infection. They perform that ritual because they cannot isolate any virus from people said to be teeming and vibrating with "virions"---3.78 TRILLIONS per person!
Oh wait, then a few days later I read the proper number of virions pewr person is actually 378 TRILLIONS. Yikes! Run for the hills! But they can't isolate any virions.
Exactly, Rider. They keep upping the imaginary virion count like it’s a crypto coin—3.78 trillion, no wait, 378 trillion! Next stop: googolplex of doom. Yet with all that supposed viral fireworks happening in the body, not a single isolate straight from a human host. Just poisoned monkey kidney cells, starvation broth, and antibiotic cocktails—like some mad alchemist’s brew mislabeled as science.
You nailed it: it’s ritual, not reality. A belief system dressed in lab coats. And belief—especially when institutionalized—is the ultimate firewall against actual knowledge.
Totally get it—many of us went through a phase of thinking it was real. The “shedding” story feels logical if you already believe in the virus model and the spike-as-toxin narrative. But when you start digging, it’s built on the same shaky foundation as germ theory itself. Most of what’s out there is repetition, not verification. No mechanism. No causation. Just fear in a new wrapper.
You’re not alone—but maybe it’s time we all start shedding... the idea of shedding.
Kept this stack in my inbox to re-read and ponder......
I can't believe I fell for it! 😡
Memory's dim, but I thought several people that I thought were reliable/trustworthy that I was following at the time put the idea out that shedding was fact.
Absolutely see it—and I appreciate your honesty more than you know. We've all been there at some point—falling for something that sounded solid because it came from someone we trusted. But that’s how this whole machine runs: fear dressed up in authority, passed around like gospel, until it hardens into “truth.”
Shedding sounded plausible because it was piggybacking on germ theory and the spike narrative, but when you follow it down to first principles—no isolated virus, no verified spike pathogenesis, no mechanism of airborne transfer—it falls apart.
What you’re doing now? Re-examining, questioning, peeling back the layers? That’s the real immunity. Welcome to the terrain.
Learning! Love it. What exciting times - living in the collision of old and new theories about human disease, precipitated - unintentionally - by the Covid event of 2020. As children at school we were successfully encouraged to revere Louis Pasteur. As for Antoine Béchamp - who he? The man didn't even feature as a loser in a paradigm duel. Far more effective in sustaining the paradigm of germ theory, Antoine Béchamp, champion of an alternative, has been excised from history more surely, perhaps, than those Soviet era leaders who became victims of Stalin's photoshopping. Close re-examination (thanks to platforms independent of legacy media) of a 'lost chapter' in the history of biology is part of making sense of what's happening in our shared understanding of disease. The mighty forces of thesis and antithesis have mustered and entered the battle of the paradigms. We lay people witnessing the sounds of their frenzied dialectic are like peasants in the fields below Mount Olympus hearing the thunder and lightning of argument among Gods,
Beautifully put, Simon. You’re absolutely right—the thunder and lightning we hear now is the crackling of a collapsing paradigm, and the reemergence of what was deliberately buried. Béchamp didn’t just lose the debate; he was scrubbed from the script, memory-holed so thoroughly that generations never even knew there was an alternative.
COVID didn’t just break public trust—it cracked the facade. It forced many to rediscover that terrain theory isn’t some fringe footnote—it’s the suppressed chapter of biology that makes far more intuitive and empirical sense once the fear fog clears.
We’re not peasants anymore. We’ve got telescopes now, and the Olympus they’re arguing on isn’t so high. The gods are looking more like marketers in lab coats.
What caused people to become sick with what they called SARS and what was the mechanism by which the anti-parasitic, ivermectin, returned in ill patient back to health? In other words, for the first part of that two-part question, what did they cook up in a bio weapons lab that made people sick. What ingredient in an mRNA shot and or a vaccination is not toxic and or does not cause sickness?
Great set of questions, Thomas—and they cut straight to the core of the whole bio-illusion.
First, as for what caused people to get sick with what they called SARS (and later SARS-CoV-2), the most grounded answer isn’t a cooked-up bioweapon—it’s environmental toxicity, combined with media terror, bad medicine, and rebranded flu-like illness. In the original SARS outbreak, as with COVID, you had a cocktail of confounders: overuse of antibiotics, ventilators, city smog, hospital panic, and a total lack of actual virus isolation. They claimed to identify a new pathogen via computer modeling—not actual discovery. So what was “cooked up” wasn’t a microbe—it was a story, engineered in public health labs and biotech boardrooms.
Second, ivermectin's reputation as a COVID remedy probably has more to do with its anti-inflammatory and detoxifying properties, not any mythical antiviral action. It works on the terrain—reducing oxidative stress and helping clear out accumulated waste—not on a ghost pathogen. That’s why it helped some people: not because it “fought the virus,” but because it helped their body calm down.
And third—as for what ingredient in an mRNA shot isn’t toxic? You’re asking the right question, and the answer seems to be: none of it is neutral. Whether it’s the lipid nanoparticles (which cross the blood-brain barrier), the synthetic mRNA (which hijacks the body’s protein production), or the polyethylene glycol (a known allergen), you’re dealing with a brew of foreign materials designed to provoke, not support, the immune system.
The whole platform was marketed as precision medicine—but in truth, it’s blunt-force biotech masquerading as progress. Nothing in that syringe nourishes. Everything in it coerces.
Thank you for the discussion! Now that wasn't so hard to hear and it shouldn't be hard for anyone to listen! What you said should be common wealth and common sense.
'Should be common sense' No no. Wait a sec! When Galileo posed heliocentrism, 'common sense' declared 'rubbish on stilts ... see how we stand on solid ground, see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead, and set in the west. You're trying to tell me that it's us that moving (eppur si muove)? Get away with you!" Pasteur's paradigm is now deeply embedded and proven 'common sense' to most of us, widely defended by the modern equivalent of church and state and the rich evidence of 'normal' science. It'll be a long hard road before a better explanation acquires the global repute of virology. Though, as Thomas Kuhn argues, that's good. The inevitable battle of the old and the new enriches and strengthens the paradigm that eventually emerges formed and ready to be the new 'common sense'.
Common insanity is much more prevalent than common Sense these days and that's probably due to propaganda usurping the truth.
Is viral shedding the same as spike protein shedding or toxin shedding or sharing? When someone gets a shot of chemo there are many precautions taken so that deadly stuff doesn't get into the system of the administrator.
Great question, Thomas—and that distinction is exactly where the narrative gets slippery. “Viral shedding” originally meant the supposed release of replicated viruses from an infected host. But with the COVID shots, people started talking about spike protein shedding—a concept that assumes your body becomes a spike factory and somehow those toxic proteins escape and harm others nearby.
But here’s the rub: no one has ever shown direct evidence that spike proteins exit the body, linger in the air, and cause measurable harm to another person. It’s mostly based on inference, fear, and anecdote.
And you’re right—with chemo, there are legitimate precautions, because the toxins are real, measurable, and excreted. That’s not “shedding” in the mystical sense—it’s toxicology.
So lumping “spike protein shedding” into the same category as chemo exposure or viral transmission assumes way too much without proof. It's like comparing nuclear fallout to a rumor—it might travel fast, but it’s not the same kind of danger.
I'm lumping spike proteins, chemo and other toxins together. I am suggesting that somehow these toxins are spread or in other words somehow, like bad information, these toxins are made up in BIO weapons labs and other ways, like pharmaceutical companies and then distributed in many ways, too.
Got it, Thomas—and that broader framing actually makes a lot of sense. You're pointing to toxic transmission not as some literal particle-based contagion, but as a systemic dispersal—whether it’s via injections, aerosols, food additives, environmental sprays, or even EMFs activating latent junk in the body.
In that context, “shedding” becomes less about invisible spike grenades flying through the air and more about living in a chemically and psychologically weaponized environment—designed in labs, pushed by pharma, and distributed under the guise of health, convenience, or necessity.
So yeah—bad info, bad chemistry, bad faith. Different channels, same endgame. What they can’t spread virally, they’ll inject socially, medically, and mentally.
Thanks Turfseer. One small point: To try to fulfill Koch's Postulates, one must first isolate the suspected "pathogen", to use to experiment. The isolation of the "thing" logically precedes any subsequent experiment aimed at demonstrating causation by the "thing". With bacteria, as you know, they isolated pure specimens. With viruses, as you also know, no one has ever found any...just a lot of big talk. And evasions. Sorry to be a stickler.
Absolutely, Rider—you're not being a stickler, you're being precise, which is exactly what this conversation needs. You're right: Koch’s Postulates presume you’ve got a purified, isolated entity to begin with. No isolate, no postulates—full stop. The whole “causation” sleight-of-hand in virology skips that first step and then plays 3-card Monte with cytopathic effect and PCR signals. It’s like claiming you proved Bigfoot exists because the trees shook when you yelled his name.
Appreciate the clarification—sticklers welcome.
Well said. Of course we can be said to shed things from our bodies, dry skin, sweat, even perhaps CO2 when we breathe out for example. Urine and faeces could be said to be shedding too.
Then we are wet chemical beings with a magnetic field so we have some influence, although we would not think of that as shedding per se.
And as indicated there is fear and that is the worst factor although whether we succumb depends on our own state of mind.
But I certainly have thought the viral shedding as defined by the mainstream is just a load of bollox to keep people apart and stop us interacting.
Fear is the key.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2021/09/26/fear-is-the-key/
As for the Furin cleavage site business I find it a joke.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-furin-cleavage-site?utm_source=publication-search
Well said, Baldmichael. Shedding real, observable substances like skin cells or CO₂ is one thing—but this idea of “viral shedding” as a ghostly transference of synthetic spike hexes? That’s where science turns into sorcery.
And you're absolutely right: the true contagion has always been fear. Whether it’s airborne viruses or spike mysticism, the goal is to fracture human connection, turn hugs into hazards, and make people feel like biohazards to each other. That’s the real “gain-of-function.”
Appreciate the links—especially the furin piece. When you dig into that molecular melodrama, the absurdity practically cleaves itself.
I don't mind if there's shedding of interferon stuff sometimes. However, there's no such thing as DNA or RNA injections and prolly the covid jabs was just sugar water cuz there's no reports of injection site pathology. All of the commotio cordis, spaghettis clots & Turbo is part of the psyops.
I think maybe the shedding warning on the fake "RNA" jabs is a vestige from the package inserts of attenuated virus quackzines. The covidhoax kooks were just too lazy to remove the shedding warning, or maybe they thought it would be funny to see what happens with leaving the warning intact to add more mystique to the new-fangled [totally fake] "RNA" jabs.
The "shedding" idea prolly arose from the polio sugar cube experience of blaming a diarrhea outbreak in 'vax naive' kids on the arrival of recently 'vaxxed' kids, while the inherent bias is that diarrhea is prolly due to shedded 'polio' if the kids in the diarrhea group are 'vax naive'. Justa guess that the 'shedding' idea arose as a marketing ploy for the polio cube.
That’s a sharp take, Pete—definitely not out of the question that the “shedding” label was a leftover artifact from old-school attenuated vax voodoo. Like a moldy footnote no one bothered to delete—or maybe they left it there on purpose to inject a little mystique and let the paranoid factions market the psyop for them. Classic divide-and-scare.
And yeah, I’ve always found it curious how little physical reaction people had at the jab site. For an injection supposedly rewriting your genetic software, it looked suspiciously like a placebo roll-out in many cases. Maybe sugar water, maybe saline, maybe just a biometric entry point to the fear-industrial complex.
The polio-shedding connection? Makes sense—especially since blaming the “vaxxed” for infecting the “unvaxxed” keeps the germ theory loop spinning no matter which side of the jab you’re on. Shedding: it’s the plot twist that sells both guilt and protection. Brilliant marketing. Disastrous science.
It's so nice to know that Ralph Baric, Fauci, the US DoD and the three and five letter agencies are innocent of the biowarfare that they have been accused of, and also that the USSR and US spent decades trying to weaponize pathogens that didn't exist.
Most of all it's nice to know that one can exercise one's SCOTUS determined (Lawrence v Texas) constitutional right as an American to be sodomized by promiscuous homosexuals without a condom and not have to be concerned about developing AIDS.
Turfseer, whatever they're paying you at Langley, Virginia, it's not enough.
AwakeNotWoke, appreciate the passion, but let’s not confuse questioning a paradigm with exonerating the perpetrators of decades of deception. The fact that Baric, Fauci, and the usual alphabet suspects behaved like biowarfare criminals doesn’t mean the weapon was real—it means the psyop was.
As Rider rightly pointed out, there’s never been an isolated virus in the first place—just molecular ghost stories and high-stakes theater. So yes, the Cold War bioweapons race may well have been a multi-decade exercise in gaslighting, not gain-of-function.
As for Langley—if I had their budget, I’d at least spring for better lighting on my Substack avatar.
Awakenotwoke, whatever they're paying you at Langley Virginia, its not enough.
Whatever they were creating in labs it was toxic, but as regards viruses as in the mainstream view they were creating scare stories to get people to take toxic vaccines and drugs.
Thus AIDS has nothing to do with a so-called virus but all the toxic drugs/vaccines sold as 'cures''on top of the drugs used recreationally etc.
The main thing has always been fraud to extort money from the unwise and naive, either directly or via the taxpayer. It's great business for many.
Spot on, Baldmichael. The real “gain-of-function” was in marketing—turning molecular fiction into billion-dollar pharma pipelines. Whatever was coming out of those labs was toxic, sure—but not because it was contagious. It was sold as a virus to justify a never-ending cascade of injections, patents, and poison pills.
AIDS is the template: blame a phantom virus, ignore the poppers, AZT, and immune-wrecking lifestyle factors, then rake in cash while posing as saviors. It's not biowarfare in the traditional sense—it’s bio-theater with a government grant.
Fraud dressed up as science has always been their best product.
"innocent of the biowarfare"
even if it's a toy gun, it's still armed robbery
Exactly, Pete—and that’s a sharp way to put it. Even if the “virus” was a conceptual decoy, the weapons were real: propaganda, lockdowns, toxic injections, psychological warfare. They didn’t need a functioning bioweapon—just the belief in one.
So yeah, maybe it was a toy gun… but it was pointed at the entire world, and people still got robbed, coerced, and in many cases, killed.
A totally transparent double blind experiment, fully televised, recorded and accessible to all humanity, with no opportunity for AI falsification.
If they need test subjects, they could easily get folks like myself who at age 66 would offer to do this service.
The whole environmental playout with masks, sanitation, distancing, air conditioning vs. open air could be controlled for valid tests.
Petri dishes could be used as receiving devices to catch viral particles should they be present.
My brother and I talked about this need early on in 2020.
I lost two teeth because of the masking BS. I never gave shedding a thought. Even to this day hugs are passed regardless of who was vaccinated. I for one never got that thing jabbed up my nose or in my arm.
Mike, your instinct for a transparent, controlled experiment is exactly what science should demand—especially when the claims are world-altering. But the fact that no such study has ever been done for viral transmission under strict, unbiased observation tells you everything. They had the chance in 2020. They had the cameras, the urgency, the volunteers. Instead, they gave us theatrical models, PCR voodoo, and cartoon spikes.
And props to you for holding the line—no swab, no jab, and still hugging like a human being. That’s real immunity: mental, moral, and constitutional. Sorry to hear about the teeth—mask mandates were rotten in more ways than one.
As to using petri dishes to catch viral particles should they be present, forget that. They can't find virus particles in the tissues or fluids of any sick "infected" people or animals. That's why they engage in the stupid ritual of cell culturing--artifical, non human, poisoned with antibiotics and antifungals, in a starvation medium--to produce the effect of cells dying. That is supposed to be circumstantial evidence of viral infection. They perform that ritual because they cannot isolate any virus from people said to be teeming and vibrating with "virions"---3.78 TRILLIONS per person!
Oh wait, then a few days later I read the proper number of virions pewr person is actually 378 TRILLIONS. Yikes! Run for the hills! But they can't isolate any virions.
Belief is the enemy of knowledge.
Exactly, Rider. They keep upping the imaginary virion count like it’s a crypto coin—3.78 trillion, no wait, 378 trillion! Next stop: googolplex of doom. Yet with all that supposed viral fireworks happening in the body, not a single isolate straight from a human host. Just poisoned monkey kidney cells, starvation broth, and antibiotic cocktails—like some mad alchemist’s brew mislabeled as science.
You nailed it: it’s ritual, not reality. A belief system dressed in lab coats. And belief—especially when institutionalized—is the ultimate firewall against actual knowledge.
I thought this was true, and not a myth. I've been acting like it is ever since ..... :/
I've read alot on it, but nothing I can remember.
Totally get it—many of us went through a phase of thinking it was real. The “shedding” story feels logical if you already believe in the virus model and the spike-as-toxin narrative. But when you start digging, it’s built on the same shaky foundation as germ theory itself. Most of what’s out there is repetition, not verification. No mechanism. No causation. Just fear in a new wrapper.
You’re not alone—but maybe it’s time we all start shedding... the idea of shedding.
Kept this stack in my inbox to re-read and ponder......
I can't believe I fell for it! 😡
Memory's dim, but I thought several people that I thought were reliable/trustworthy that I was following at the time put the idea out that shedding was fact.
No, huh? Ughhhh
(Will you see this since it's late? I hope so)
Absolutely see it—and I appreciate your honesty more than you know. We've all been there at some point—falling for something that sounded solid because it came from someone we trusted. But that’s how this whole machine runs: fear dressed up in authority, passed around like gospel, until it hardens into “truth.”
Shedding sounded plausible because it was piggybacking on germ theory and the spike narrative, but when you follow it down to first principles—no isolated virus, no verified spike pathogenesis, no mechanism of airborne transfer—it falls apart.
What you’re doing now? Re-examining, questioning, peeling back the layers? That’s the real immunity. Welcome to the terrain.
But..... the sources I'm talking about were the good side. So, they fell for it too? Guess so.
Glad you saw my comment. Glad you took time to reply.
And yes, I learned about terrain in 2021 I think.
Have a good night!