Amidst the storm of controversy raised by the lab-origin theory of COVID-19 extolled by such figures as Nobel prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier, researcher Judy Mikovits, bioweapons expert Francis Boyle, and now recently joined by leading scientists among China’s own CDC
p.s. to the post below. Lew Rockwell has devoted his life to trying to correct the misinterpretations and lies that dog Spencer. See his articles. Also see: Bryan Chang, ' Herbert Spencer Freedom, and Empire', Mises Daily Articles,3/12/2014. It is time this defamation of Spencer stops.
Hey Carol. I really respect Lew very much and really love his heart and mind. But the evidence that Spencer was an active player within this broader imperial strategy is too strong. The only reason why Chang or Lew thought he wasn't a part of this operation was because Herbert Spencer promoted free trade and ultra hands-off liberalism which is very attractive to those who follow the Libertarian Austrian school. Both Spencer and Galton believed in the social application of Darwin's model to human affairs which itself is an unscientific poison. The difference in this false debate was whether the natural selection would happen under laissez-faire free trade as the weak were destroyed by the stronger in the race for survival OR whether this had to be done actively by a technocratic managerial class of social engineers from the top (Galton). Either way, both sides were false and denied the reality of a higher truth that actually scared the hell out of the empire. As a final note, Herbert Spencer was a regular participant of X Club meetings but not a full fledged member.
Thanks for your work Mathew. I am amazed by how little i know…always have been …but now having read some of what you and Cynthia have published, my dot of knowledge has become microscopic🙂.
I was born 20/5/1945 just after Vernadsky died and had not come across or heard of this Russian Ukrainian scientist. My mother was born in Kharkov but never referred to herself as Ukrainian.
I came to Australia in Sept 1949 and only developed a real interest in the Ukraine after the US led/funded coup in 2014…as suddenly my mother’s birthplace was on the news!
This interest eventually led to your writings…which as i said above…taught me lots …lots more to learn😎…I’ll say and chat more later…just wanted to say thanks …and look forward to reading and learning more with both of you. Cheers
Are you sure that Herbert Spencer was a part of the X-Club? These ideas were against every thing he believed in and against government's involvement in science. Carol
Why do you keep the name of Judy Mikovits in play? Because you also want to keep the idea that there are "viruses" in play — even when, increasingly, it appears that they do not, when one lacks any real evidence of their existence? Who does the existence of viruses benefit? Whose agenda are you really serving, Mr. Ehret?
Exactly. It would not benefit any Doctors ego (including the honest ones) to discover their scientific method (virology) is a farce. This means decades of studying something that doesn't exist. If germ theory and contagion were true, we'd all be dead.
Since Pasteur’s day, no one has demonstrated experimentally the transmissibility of disease with pure cultures of bacteria or “viruses.”
A “virus” is not a living organism that can reproduce on its own, but a collection of proteins and snippets of DNA or RNA enclosed in a membrane. Since they are seen in and around living cells, researchers have assumed that viruses replicate only INside the living cells of an organism, therefore believing — yet NOT able to prove — that these ubiquitous viruses can infect all types of life forms.
Pasteur did not find a bacterium that could cause rabies and speculated about a pathogen too small for detection by microscopes. The first images of these tiny particles (about one-thousandth the size of a cell) were obtained only when the electron microscope came out in 1931. These viruses (from the Latin “virus” which means “toxin”) were immediately assumed to be dangerous “infectious agents.”
Pasteur passed his lab notebooks along to his heirs with the provision to never make the books public. However, his grandson donated the notebooks to the French national library, which published them. In 1914, Professor Gerard Geison of Princeton University published an analysis of these notebooks, which revealed that Pasteur had committed massive fraud in all his studies. For instance, when he said that he injected virulent anthrax spores into vaccinated and unvaccinated animals, he could trumpet the fact that the unvaccinated animals died, but that was because he also injected the unvaccinated animals with poisons.
In the notebooks, Pasteur states unequivocally that he was unable to transfer disease with a pure culture of bacteria (he obviously wasn’t able to purify viruses back then). In fact, the only way he could transfer disease was to either insert the whole infected tissue into another animal (he would sometimes inject ground-up brains of an animal into the brain of another animal to “prove” contagion) or resort to adding poisons to his culture, which he knew would cause the symptoms in the recipients.
But at the end of his life, Pasteur admitted that the whole effort to prove contagion was a failure, leading to his famous deathbed confession: “The germ is nothing; the terrain is everything.” In this case, terrain refers to the condition of the animal or person and whether the animal or person had been subject to poison —and not infected by any microbe.
Until we base our public policies on the truth, the situation will only get worse. The truth is that the idea of contagion itself is a myth, and we need to become very clear about the real causes of disease… and that means a return to the terrain theory established by Antoine Bechamp —someone from whom Pasteur stole many ideas, as the plagiarist he was.
Matt Ehret apparently needs to take his research skills to a rather different level than he’s currently accessing… unless misdirection is actually a deliberate part of his m.o. — which looks to be more the case than not, since what he leaves out, as opposed to what he includes, seems to appear often enough.
Note: I take back what I said regarding any insinuations against Mr. Ehret — who, having followed him for a while now, I can see has a lot integrity, and so perhaps I was a bit premature in casting a certain kind of doubt on his views, and offer my apologies. I will add, however, that I still stand by what I said regarding Pasteur and Bechamp, and hence, make the necessary allowances that one has to make for others about their own views which, erroneous they may be at times, are still part of a process of education, research and further reflection — a valuable process that undoubtedly takes time, and will eventually lead to greater degrees of truth.
Very much appreciated this message Petrus. Have been reading Beschamp's works and am starting to get a better grasp of that fight. Still not enough to write about it, but getting there.
You’re quite welcome, Matt. You may want to look into the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka, who trained in virology and learned how flawed its tenets were. One of his recent crowning achievements is that he actually won a several year court process in Germany, the outcome of which was that the existence of measles virus was disproved. There was a temporary setback when in March of 2015, the judge ruled against him, and if you do a search for his name in relation to this case, most of the media links you’ll find occur at this point of time, in which they laughed at how Lanka, “who lost,” will now have to pay the 100K euros he bet against his opponent. But he appealed the case — and won, in December of 2016. The media did not report on that, since it was shocking and huge, especially in its implications: if something as common as the measles virus could not have the necessary proof produced to demonstrate its existence, then what of other viruses? A key point of Lanka’s is that certain microbes which have been labeled “viruses” may exist, but that they are produced by the body and do not come in from outside as “infectious agents,” and have positive roles much as bacteria do. (Think: pleomorphism, for example). Anyway, a short video on Lanka’s successful win after the trial:
Now, if there is such a microbe as a virus which is could be defined a pathogenic, infectious entity, one should be able to isolate and purify it, and satisfy all four of Koch’s postulates, still the gold standard — which has not been done for any of the claimed viruses, not for HIV or even the Spanish Flu of 1918. The real cause of illness, unfortunately, points to other factors, such as: vaccines, environmental toxins, and electromagnetic radiation such as EMFs — as well as psychosomatic causes, for which German New Medicine (GNM), introduced by Dr. Hamer, offers a radically effective model for assessing and understanding many of the real causes of disease. They more I look into the GNM approach, and it 5 biological laws, the more impressed I am with its explanatory ability to account for human illness.
Allow me to also recommend a few others who have made a big, courageous contribution in the last few years. Dr. Andrew Kaufman has read through endless papers which claimed the “isolation and purification” of a virus each time, without its actually having been accomplished. Dr. Thomas Cowan, who in complete agreement with him and others, has recently written “The Contagion Myth.” Many of their video offerings are intelligent and challenging (on Bitchute and Odysee platforms). However, a key work you may want to consider getting is Dawn Lester and David Parker’s “What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong” which is full of tremendous research they they have compiled. It’s so well done and offers a lot of hope and inspiration for humanity to live out our lives more fully, since it removes the fear that the notions of contagion and the germ theory have conditioned in us.
Good luck in your journey, and I look forward to many more of your offerings (although I’m not that young anymore and your output is sometimes hard to keep up with).. ;-)
The only thing I would add is that Mr Ehrets seemed to be focussing in his article on differentiating between a deterministic "British" model for societal outcomes, and what is more helpful, ie an "American" one, which takes account of mankind's ability to transcend the purely mechanistic.
As he commented, what you are talking about is another thread in the fabric of the garment, and one which I hope, as you do, that he will follow up on.
I am discovering I am awake and out of the matrix... I am evolving!
p.s. to the post below. Lew Rockwell has devoted his life to trying to correct the misinterpretations and lies that dog Spencer. See his articles. Also see: Bryan Chang, ' Herbert Spencer Freedom, and Empire', Mises Daily Articles,3/12/2014. It is time this defamation of Spencer stops.
Hey Carol. I really respect Lew very much and really love his heart and mind. But the evidence that Spencer was an active player within this broader imperial strategy is too strong. The only reason why Chang or Lew thought he wasn't a part of this operation was because Herbert Spencer promoted free trade and ultra hands-off liberalism which is very attractive to those who follow the Libertarian Austrian school. Both Spencer and Galton believed in the social application of Darwin's model to human affairs which itself is an unscientific poison. The difference in this false debate was whether the natural selection would happen under laissez-faire free trade as the weak were destroyed by the stronger in the race for survival OR whether this had to be done actively by a technocratic managerial class of social engineers from the top (Galton). Either way, both sides were false and denied the reality of a higher truth that actually scared the hell out of the empire. As a final note, Herbert Spencer was a regular participant of X Club meetings but not a full fledged member.
Thanks for your work Mathew. I am amazed by how little i know…always have been …but now having read some of what you and Cynthia have published, my dot of knowledge has become microscopic🙂.
I was born 20/5/1945 just after Vernadsky died and had not come across or heard of this Russian Ukrainian scientist. My mother was born in Kharkov but never referred to herself as Ukrainian.
I came to Australia in Sept 1949 and only developed a real interest in the Ukraine after the US led/funded coup in 2014…as suddenly my mother’s birthplace was on the news!
This interest eventually led to your writings…which as i said above…taught me lots …lots more to learn😎…I’ll say and chat more later…just wanted to say thanks …and look forward to reading and learning more with both of you. Cheers
John Loty (johnloty22@gmail.com)
Are you sure that Herbert Spencer was a part of the X-Club? These ideas were against every thing he believed in and against government's involvement in science. Carol
Why do you keep the name of Judy Mikovits in play? Because you also want to keep the idea that there are "viruses" in play — even when, increasingly, it appears that they do not, when one lacks any real evidence of their existence? Who does the existence of viruses benefit? Whose agenda are you really serving, Mr. Ehret?
Exactly. It would not benefit any Doctors ego (including the honest ones) to discover their scientific method (virology) is a farce. This means decades of studying something that doesn't exist. If germ theory and contagion were true, we'd all be dead.
Since Pasteur’s day, no one has demonstrated experimentally the transmissibility of disease with pure cultures of bacteria or “viruses.”
A “virus” is not a living organism that can reproduce on its own, but a collection of proteins and snippets of DNA or RNA enclosed in a membrane. Since they are seen in and around living cells, researchers have assumed that viruses replicate only INside the living cells of an organism, therefore believing — yet NOT able to prove — that these ubiquitous viruses can infect all types of life forms.
Pasteur did not find a bacterium that could cause rabies and speculated about a pathogen too small for detection by microscopes. The first images of these tiny particles (about one-thousandth the size of a cell) were obtained only when the electron microscope came out in 1931. These viruses (from the Latin “virus” which means “toxin”) were immediately assumed to be dangerous “infectious agents.”
Pasteur passed his lab notebooks along to his heirs with the provision to never make the books public. However, his grandson donated the notebooks to the French national library, which published them. In 1914, Professor Gerard Geison of Princeton University published an analysis of these notebooks, which revealed that Pasteur had committed massive fraud in all his studies. For instance, when he said that he injected virulent anthrax spores into vaccinated and unvaccinated animals, he could trumpet the fact that the unvaccinated animals died, but that was because he also injected the unvaccinated animals with poisons.
In the notebooks, Pasteur states unequivocally that he was unable to transfer disease with a pure culture of bacteria (he obviously wasn’t able to purify viruses back then). In fact, the only way he could transfer disease was to either insert the whole infected tissue into another animal (he would sometimes inject ground-up brains of an animal into the brain of another animal to “prove” contagion) or resort to adding poisons to his culture, which he knew would cause the symptoms in the recipients.
But at the end of his life, Pasteur admitted that the whole effort to prove contagion was a failure, leading to his famous deathbed confession: “The germ is nothing; the terrain is everything.” In this case, terrain refers to the condition of the animal or person and whether the animal or person had been subject to poison —and not infected by any microbe.
Until we base our public policies on the truth, the situation will only get worse. The truth is that the idea of contagion itself is a myth, and we need to become very clear about the real causes of disease… and that means a return to the terrain theory established by Antoine Bechamp —someone from whom Pasteur stole many ideas, as the plagiarist he was.
Matt Ehret apparently needs to take his research skills to a rather different level than he’s currently accessing… unless misdirection is actually a deliberate part of his m.o. — which looks to be more the case than not, since what he leaves out, as opposed to what he includes, seems to appear often enough.
Note: I take back what I said regarding any insinuations against Mr. Ehret — who, having followed him for a while now, I can see has a lot integrity, and so perhaps I was a bit premature in casting a certain kind of doubt on his views, and offer my apologies. I will add, however, that I still stand by what I said regarding Pasteur and Bechamp, and hence, make the necessary allowances that one has to make for others about their own views which, erroneous they may be at times, are still part of a process of education, research and further reflection — a valuable process that undoubtedly takes time, and will eventually lead to greater degrees of truth.
Very much appreciated this message Petrus. Have been reading Beschamp's works and am starting to get a better grasp of that fight. Still not enough to write about it, but getting there.
You’re quite welcome, Matt. You may want to look into the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka, who trained in virology and learned how flawed its tenets were. One of his recent crowning achievements is that he actually won a several year court process in Germany, the outcome of which was that the existence of measles virus was disproved. There was a temporary setback when in March of 2015, the judge ruled against him, and if you do a search for his name in relation to this case, most of the media links you’ll find occur at this point of time, in which they laughed at how Lanka, “who lost,” will now have to pay the 100K euros he bet against his opponent. But he appealed the case — and won, in December of 2016. The media did not report on that, since it was shocking and huge, especially in its implications: if something as common as the measles virus could not have the necessary proof produced to demonstrate its existence, then what of other viruses? A key point of Lanka’s is that certain microbes which have been labeled “viruses” may exist, but that they are produced by the body and do not come in from outside as “infectious agents,” and have positive roles much as bacteria do. (Think: pleomorphism, for example). Anyway, a short video on Lanka’s successful win after the trial:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/T7clboYMkS7I/
Now, if there is such a microbe as a virus which is could be defined a pathogenic, infectious entity, one should be able to isolate and purify it, and satisfy all four of Koch’s postulates, still the gold standard — which has not been done for any of the claimed viruses, not for HIV or even the Spanish Flu of 1918. The real cause of illness, unfortunately, points to other factors, such as: vaccines, environmental toxins, and electromagnetic radiation such as EMFs — as well as psychosomatic causes, for which German New Medicine (GNM), introduced by Dr. Hamer, offers a radically effective model for assessing and understanding many of the real causes of disease. They more I look into the GNM approach, and it 5 biological laws, the more impressed I am with its explanatory ability to account for human illness.
Allow me to also recommend a few others who have made a big, courageous contribution in the last few years. Dr. Andrew Kaufman has read through endless papers which claimed the “isolation and purification” of a virus each time, without its actually having been accomplished. Dr. Thomas Cowan, who in complete agreement with him and others, has recently written “The Contagion Myth.” Many of their video offerings are intelligent and challenging (on Bitchute and Odysee platforms). However, a key work you may want to consider getting is Dawn Lester and David Parker’s “What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong” which is full of tremendous research they they have compiled. It’s so well done and offers a lot of hope and inspiration for humanity to live out our lives more fully, since it removes the fear that the notions of contagion and the germ theory have conditioned in us.
Good luck in your journey, and I look forward to many more of your offerings (although I’m not that young anymore and your output is sometimes hard to keep up with).. ;-)
Everything you say seems very reasonable.
The only thing I would add is that Mr Ehrets seemed to be focussing in his article on differentiating between a deterministic "British" model for societal outcomes, and what is more helpful, ie an "American" one, which takes account of mankind's ability to transcend the purely mechanistic.
As he commented, what you are talking about is another thread in the fabric of the garment, and one which I hope, as you do, that he will follow up on.
What EXACTLY are you afraid of, oops sorry you work for Fauci.....