The Germ Inversion Part 2: In Defence of Viruses
An attempt at Bridge Building between the Terrain Theorists and the Biolabists
Fellow ‘Rona dissidents: we have a problem, and it is threatening to tear our community apart.
You already know what it is, don’t you? I’ve written about it before, this growing shadowy spectre; it might even be the reason why you come and go from these pages, indignant that I am one of those filthy pathogenic-virus-denying terrain heathens that have the temerity to still claim that Sars-Cov-2 (yes I got the capitalisation deliberately wrong, come at me) may not actually have been satisfactorily isolated in line with what is left of the scientific method, and (by extension) did thusly not in fact come from a Biolab in China/Ukraine and is not in fact responsible for the rising epidemic of flu-like illness the world is currently experiencing.
Consider me triggered Robin
What! Steve Kirsch, Robert Malone, Petey Mac, Mikey Y, even the Bossche-Man and his number one pal Biggy Bigtree: they can’t all be wrong! These are the experts we can absolutely trust!
Damn, there I go again. Ok, I’m serious about this, time to put the snark away. I appreciate immensely each of these individuals. They have been guiding lights of courage, commitment and consistency — particularly the Bossche-Man, whose Belgium Waffler vibe I dig big time.
While the chosen language paradigm of these gents (actually let’s throw Tess Lawrie in, so it isn’t a sausage fest) increasingly irritates me, I also understand that they are obliged to stay within the bounds of Germ Theory — that is how the ‘Rona bollocks is best countered. How many Covid-compliers do you think I’m waking up with my terrain rants?
As I explained in my based, Coldplay-themed farewell to the Bioweapon/Biolab timeline, I have nothing against those people who believe there is a highly transmissible, genetically-modified biological entity causing the “Covid-19” disease. Again, that was me; it’s a banger of a conspiracy, no doubt.
I understand how compelling the virus narrative is — that our otherwise unexplainable ills are derived from being infected by something outside of ourselves. In our materialistic, heavily-Biophobic world, it makes sense to place the blame for this on something biological.
Plus: all those virus isolation studies! They can’t all be based on inherently flawed and inverted methodologies that make numerous unsubstantiated assumptions, have never been subject to proper control trials, and that literally require human cells to be poisoned before the culprit can be located/created?
Ahem, sorry.
So here is my attempt at bridge-building across the growing divide within the ‘Rona-dissident community, which will hopefully be less passive aggressive than my last attempt.
First things first: let’s get to the heart of this germ vs terrain brouhaha, and try to find a shared understanding of the basic ideology of each side.
Such a sound starting point is necessary given — as with all contentious issues — people are often arguing against their own projections onto a theory, rather than the theory itself.
Case in point: Flat Earth. Don’t come at me laughing about how silly it is to think we are a pancake flying through space — perhaps even on the back of four elephants riding a Cosmic Turtle ala Discworld — or that the Earth miraculously happens to be the only flat planet when all the others are clearly spherical. Like all proper Flat Earthers, I actually believe space is fake and the sky is a dome and the stars are either plasma projections onto the Firmament or portals to other realms… thankyou very much. Plus, the jokes on you: the laughable theory you are probably laughing at is probably a deliberately laughable theory put out by CIA controlled opposition organisations like the Flat Earth Society who like nothing more than having a good fucking laugh at us.
Still more believable than Neil oblate spheroid deGrasse Tyson telling me we are travelling through space at 66600 miles an hour
Similar logic often applies to the sneering dismissal of terrain theorists.
“Duh you do know there are dozens of scientific studies that have isolated viruses and linked them to disease right?”.
“Well yes, just like there are “studies” showing the Jibby Jab loves you or that Ivermectin hates you, because it’s all about the methodology and in the case of virus isolation methodologies there are more holes than actual dairy product in this block of swiss cheese”.
“Also: Koch called and he wants his Postulates back, given you virologists keep spectacularly failing to satisfy them.”
Or something along these lines:
“What, you mean germs literally don’t exist? That microscopic beings have no role in making us ill, that we should exchange bodily fluids with wanton glee and not wash our lettuce anymore?”
Again, not quite. I would suggest there are two broad terrain theorist categories, each with quite fundamental differences in how they understand the balance between the germ and the terrain.
The Virus Deniers
The most hardcore terrain theorists are the virus-deniers: essentially positing that Virology has so butchered its understanding of basic scientific methodology that they have succeeded in creating a fictitious micro-organism. How? Basically, it seems, through poorly designed laboratory procedures that mistakenly project the picture within a dying piece of test tube organic matter onto living human tissue. Nature doesn’t work like that guys, sorry.
Having spent a fair bit of time getting acquainted to their arguments, I absolutely agree that saRS-cOv-II has not been satisfactorily isolated, along with most (if not all) other viruses. They have my sympathies and best wishes, although I’m not quite there (yet); with the current lamentable state of our institution of Science and its expanding religion of Scientism, the inability of lab-coat wearers to prove the existence of something is far from a convincing argument against its existence — it speaks mainly to incompetence, hubris and a lack of attention to detail.
The Virus Apologists
Your second terrain theorist position (currently held by yours truly, given i’m all about provocative fence-sitting) posits that the microbes we have demonised as disease harbingers do indeed exist, but are actually completely endogenous and have no role in disease. Rather, they are simply a creation of our bodies to help clean up already-diseased-and-dying cells, thanks to a toxic internal environment. In short: viruses exist, but they are neither transmissible nor pathogenic.
Why do I believe this? It’s quite simple really, and it gets back — again — to inversion.
The people who come up with this bollocks are (in the most part) small-minded, fear-pushing narcissists. For this reason, they are not creators — that requires creativity, which in turn requires a connection to the Divine. They lack both of these things, which is why they have to settle for being inverters: taking good things and putting their own self-serving spin on them.
In this line of logic, we give the inverters far too much credit when we accuse them of creating an entire pandemic (and, before that, an entire ideology) around a fictitious entity. It makes far more sense that they would take a positively orientated entity and flip its morality to become the bad guy.
In part 1 of our germ inverting adventure, I used the concept of the False Flag to explain how the role of the germ in the disease process has been inverted. It really is the ultimate setup: viruses have to gather in areas of disease, and they may even need to enter the cell itself to assist the detoxification process. Considering the inverters are the ones who are promoting this toxicity in the first place, and have now succeeded in blaming the beings that are called in to respond, you could even call it the perfect crime.
And so this is my olive branch, to my fellow Covid-dissident Biolabists, given how much we agree on: let’s also all agree, for now, that viruses do indeed exist — and, to go one step further, that they are indeed present in greater numbers in the vicinity of diseased cells. With that established: let us talk a bit about how these viruses are understood under Germ Theory, and why it persists in holding so much against them.
When biophobia satire meets a real and unironic headline
In both terrain theorist archetypes, the underlying cause of disease is not a “germ” — whether a virus or otherwise — but toxicity: it is always toxicity. This model is therefore fundamentally incompatible with the underlying premise of Germ Theory that “specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases”.
And yes: there is fundamental incompatibility between both sides, if we get down to the nitty gritty.
We know that terrain theorists (well, most of them) do not deny that microscopic organisms can trigger illness — just like we know that germ theorists (well, most of them) do not simply ignore the terrain. Most importantly: both sides, for the most part, understand that health is a delicate balance between our internal and external environments.
What is important about distinguishing Germ Theory from Terrain Theory is the intent of the germs — whether or not it is in their nature to cause harm.
Feel free to argue otherwise, but Germ Theory only holds up as an overarching paradigm for human disease if the germs in question have intent — or a will — to do us damage. Basically: these invisible little fuckers are out to get us. Which is strange, given they aren’t even alive.
Could a passively-acting germ simply saunter through a functioning, God-given immune system — inexplicably unnoticed like the remnants of a Fellowship passing through Mordor?
Let’s meet halfway; let’s map out a proper hybrid germ-terrain archetype, that does away with the whole “nature is trying to kill you” vibe.
The Virus Tamers
A typical transition out of Germ Theory begins this way: viruses can indeed initiate disease, but are only able to get a foot in the door, so to speak, if a faulty terrain allows them in. This concession to self-empowerment then develops into a more complex understanding of the character of the germ.
For example, the germ may be granted the generally-benevolent psychology of a teenager: well meaning at heart, yet — if lead astray by becoming exposed to a toxic environment — prone to doing things that it later regrets, and that cause disproportionate harm to the beings that home and feed them.
From this perspective, our terrain acts like a constant moderator and restrainer of a mildly bipolar entity that really wants the best for us despite how its actions might occasionally suggest otherwise.
I’m not overly happy with some of the assumptions here — it’s still a bit too much “Us vs Nature” duality at its core — but at least the fundamental cause of disease becomes focused on the fault in the terrain, not the hapless germ.
Ok, I need a bit of rant here. I think, really, it is your pessimism for the strength, resilience and intelligence of the human body that really gets to me.
The entire discourse around pathogenic viruses, infections, and variants — still propagated by much of the Covid-dissident community — is objectively insulting to both our bodies and to viruses.
Why would we still choose to frame the emergence of flu-like symptoms as a viral “infection” — something that is instigated from the outside — when it could be framed as a normal internal detoxification process facilitated by viruses?
Why would we still subscribe to the theory that viruses change structure to avoid our immune system, when we could instead see the brilliance of pleomorphism at work: where these microorganisms undergo physical transformation, in response to changes in the terrain, to better assist in the healing process?
It seems like, within the Germ Theory paradigm, there is a fundamental linguistic barrier set up, which prevents us from giving our bodies the credit they deserve.
And this issue is not just to do with germs. What I also see in the Germ Theory camp of Covid-dissidents is a lot of doom porn about mass die-offs and incurable Jibby Jab related injuries (are we still telling people Myocarditis is for life?).
Sorry, but that’s bullshit, plain and simple. Black-pilling on the healing potential of the human body helps no-one; no-one has the right to minimise or diminish the healing potential of another. We can all walk and chew gum at the same time: we can bring attention to the damage these injections are doing — including the injustice inflicted on victims — without slipping into narratives that disempower and depress them.
Yes, we will be left with significant illness and disability within the human population because of these Jibby Jabs. But to think we are going full Georgia Guidestones is giving these assholes too much credit, whilst taking deserved credit away from the human body and its healing potential.
Who even knows what is in all these vials, anyway? I’m still betting that most are placebos or repurposed Flu Jibby Jabs, and that the true incompetence of the people running this show means that most of the real mRNA death shots might have degraded before being injected anyway. Imagine if there were even Big Pharma insiders, swapping out Jibby Jabs for horse paste? How’s that for some hopium.
Back to bridge-building, and what better way to finish than by getting all spiritual — given so much of our discourse around health and disease comes down to belief and faith.
To reiterate: if you subscribe to Germ Theory, you believe that nature, in one of its simplest forms, is out to get us. That it always has been, and that it always will be — not just out to get us, but that it will constantly evolve new ways to do this. Good God, no wonder so many of us self-medicate.
It is a compelling story, but to what extent can we actually say that it is non-fiction?
No-one has seen with their own eyes, or on a microscopic movie scene, that a microbe entering a human cell is there to cause damage — such a claim is based on circumstantial evidence only. Similarly, there is literally no way science can tell us that this microbe has left the nasal cavity of one individual, sauntered through the air into the nasal cavity of another, and then proceeded to break through multiple lines of protection before instigating disease in that person. Belief in viral transmission is literally that — a belief — yet now ritualised to the point of superstition.
From this perspective, it is no surprise that our largely secular mainstream society overwhelmingly fell for the Covid scam: they do not project faith and belief in a traditional religious/spiritual sense (no judgement there, just a statement of fact), and seem to fill this void by projecting it on to Science in the form of two and a half years of unwavering adherence to Germ Theory.
But, yet, I wouldn’t go as far as saying that the inverse is true: that religious-minded people are more inclined towards terrain theory. That seems to be more your autistic, heathen-leaning Creationists: you know, us folk who still cringe at using the word God if not qualified by at least one of Creator/Universe/Gaia/Demiurge (lol just joking on that last one). In contrast, in my observations, traditional Religionists seem to be very closely correlated to Biolabists.
Which I find very interesting, as someone who finds religion and the worldviews it fosters very interesting. Because I would have assumed that those who subscribe to some degree of Divine Creation would be all over Terrain Theory: only a lax, scientifically illiterate (or ruthless) God would allow its creation to be so constantly at threat from the Nature it placed humanity within, would it not?
Perhaps this is our problem: perhaps the God that so many of us believe in is a God that has been fundamentally divorced from the natural world — even a God ore akin to a compellingly maniacal patriarch. With that as your starting point, perhaps it does make sense to believe in the plague?
If you think I trigger people about The Germ Conspiracy, wait until I get properly stuck into The Bible Conspiracy.