Sept. 12, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
22:04
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Recently we have seen some lashing out by some of those in the so-called freedom community. | |
| They claim to be a whack to the COVID-19 fraud, but seem to have been caught napping on the biggest issue of all. | |
| While they rightly question the promoted quote science surrounding vaccines, Face masks and other responses. | |
| Paradoxically, they wholeheartedly accept the virological and germ theory proclamations coming from the same institutions. | |
| Anyone claiming to be pro-freedom while promoting the pseudoscience of germ theory is helping the propagation of fake pandemics, unfounded fear, and tragically, distracting from what really makes us ill. | |
| Not to mention that germ theory is used as a Trojan horse for other agendas. | |
| As we have noted, germ theory is a misnomer because it should not have been given scientific theory status when it is, in fact, a refuted hypothesis. | |
| In this video we'll have a look at five of the germ fallacies that are currently doing the rounds. | |
| The End | |
| They're all covered with filthy germs, aren't they, Smithers? | |
| Why, what do you mean, sir? | |
| Freemasons run the country! | |
| Many proponents of germ theory like to introduce epidemiological statistics into their arguments, a practice that went into overdrive in the COVID-19 era. | |
| In fact, a 2020 article on a California State University website stated, The coronavirus epidemic has thrust epidemiology, the study of the incidence, distribution and control of disease in a population, to the forefront of scientific disciplines across the globe and even made temporary celebrities out of some of its practitioners. | |
| Some established celebrities became practitioners as well. | |
| Perhaps the most famous hobbyist epidemiologist was Bill Gates and his preposterous cheerleading of the COVID show. | |
| Britannica states that epidemiology is a branch of medical science that studies the distribution of disease in human populations and the factors determining that distribution, chiefly by the use of statistics. | |
| And Medical Microbiology 4th edition states that Epidemiology is a descriptive science and includes the determination of rates, that is, the quantification of disease occurrence within a specific population. | |
| This is a crucial point. | |
| You will note that the definition does not include providing experimental evidence for causation, as it is essentially concerned with describing the patterns and statistics. | |
| In the case of an alleged pathogenic germ, a hypothesis could be raised, but that would then need to be tested with scientifically controlled experimental studies. | |
| However, this is where the wheels fall off the hypothesis. | |
| The experimental evidence does not support the model. | |
| Germ proponents can now only embarrass themselves trying to claim that there are valid experiments in the literature. | |
| Blaming clusters of disease on germs has a long history of going astray. | |
| In the late 1800s, an imagined germ was being blamed for beriberi when in fact it was due to thiamine deficiency. | |
| In the early 1900s, pellagra was also said to be an infectious disease until it was conceded That it was a niacin deficiency. | |
| In Minamata, Japan, there was an alleged contagious disease outbreak in the 1950s that was eventually shown to be caused by mercury toxicity. | |
| In the current era, the germ theorists still cling to the belief that a cluster of people getting sick, or even just having the same test result, must equal microbial infection, even though they have no experimental evidence to back it up. | |
| 2. | |
| What about chickenpox? | |
| I've already covered this one before in my video, Chickenpox Parties, so please watch that if you haven't seen it before. | |
| In brief, many people seem to think that the condition known as chickenpox is contagious because again, clusters of disease are sometimes observed. | |
| They claim that it is so infectious that even being in the same room with a case could cause you to become the next victim. | |
| It is unclear with their theory why historically such low numbers are seen at any one time. | |
| But their excuses don't matter, because we have reviewed all of the relevant scientific literature, and not once has it been demonstrated that anything of this nature can be transmitted through the ear. | |
| Most of the time no references are provided for the quote, highly infectious claims. | |
| However, if you keep scratching the 1925 experiments of Karl Kondratitz, are cited as proof of contagion, when they provide nothing of the sort. | |
| He took samples of fluid from skin vesicles of chickenpox cases and then injected this foreign material directly into the skin of a group of children. | |
| 17 out of 28 children developed skin reactions in the uncontrolled and unnatural exposure experiment. | |
| Aside from the failures to demonstrate any contagious element for chickenpox, there is also the foundational problem of being unable to demonstrate anything that meets the description of a virus. | |
| Papers claiming to quote isolate varicella zoster virus don't actually isolate anything. | |
| They use cytopathic effects or cell culture breakdown observed in laboratory studies as their so-called evidence. | |
| Electron microscopy images, such as this one from the CDC, claim to depict variants and yet provide precisely no evidence as to the composition or biological nature of these imaged particles. | |
| And detecting genetic sequences from vesicles by using PCR for alleged virus existence tops off the pseudoscience. | |
| The selected sequences have never been shown to be viral in nature, and it is another example of virology's circular reasoning. | |
| When they can't show evidence for the hypothesized pathogen, introduce it with logical fallacies. | |
| Number three. | |
| Historical stories. | |
| Sometimes when a germ promoter is on the back foot, they will resort to pulling out a historical account from Wikipedia or their public education schooling. | |
| It is a sidestepping move because shouldn't they be able to produce a foundational scientific publication for their case? | |
| And while we are talking about Wikipedia, those in the freedom community who still believe in germ theory should ask why the online encyclopedia has a special entry titled Germ Theory Denialism. | |
| It states that germ theory denialism is the pseudoscientific belief that germs do not cause infectious disease and that the germ theory of disease is wrong. | |
| It gives a single reference for this claim and it is a blog post by a Dr. Stephen Novella that provides exactly zero scientific citations. | |
| ZERO! | |
| It also states, germ theory denialism is counter to over a century of experiments and practical observations. | |
| Can they cite one experiment please? | |
| And is the prevailing opinion of almost all doctors and scientists. | |
| Prevailing opinion, appeal to authority, and appeal to common belief is not scientific evidence. | |
| In any case, pulling out historical accounts is often an effective tactic as these tales are somewhat known in the population, despite the fact that almost nobody bothers to look into them in detail. | |
| For example, A doctor recently declared in an article that, I will now explain away. | |
| would like to dismiss germ theory completely must first explain away Dr. John Snow's success in ridding an area of London of cholera simply by removing the Broad Street pump handle. | |
| I will now explain away. | |
| During the Broad Street cholera outbreak in London in 1854, Snow collected data on death rates related to two water suppliers that were drawing their water from the heavily contaminated Thames River. | |
| To give you an idea of the water source in question, this is how it was described. | |
| Many cellars had cesspools underneath their floorboards, which formed from the sewers and filth seeping in from the outside. | |
| Since the cesspools were overrunning, The London government decided to dump the waste into the River Thames, contaminating the water supply. | |
| While Snow's analysis was correct in concluding that it was contaminated water making people sick, the modern era story that it was an infection from the bacterium Vibrio cholerae is not. | |
| To this day there is no scientific evidence that the ingestion of bacteria by itself will make anyone sick. | |
| Max von Pettenkoffer first demonstrated this in 1892 by swallowing a large culture of Vibrio cholerae provided by Robert Koch. | |
| Disappointingly for Koch, his rival did not succumb to cholera. | |
| I note that Wikipedia now speculates that Pettenkoffer did get cholera, but it was mild as he quote, possibly had some immunity. | |
| However, the ingestion of fecal material, decomposing biological tissue and other toxins can certainly make people sick. | |
| So the cluster of cases had nothing to do with infection and everything to do with the common factor of drinking filthy waste containing river Thames water. | |
| Another claim you may see is that native populations such as the Aztecs were devastated by smallpox that was supposedly introduced by Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century. | |
| Such stories are promoted by the public broadcasting service whose funders include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. | |
| As I have covered in multiple videos, there is no evidence that any bioweapon Meaning a contagious and replicating entity has ever been produced, including attempts around World War II. | |
| However, we are now supposed to believe that bioweapons were perfected 500 years ago in the form of smallpox blankets. | |
| Once again, stories like this are being used to support the germ hypothesis and distract from the foundational scientific failures when tested experimentally. | |
| Number 4. | |
| Surgical procedures. | |
| Germ theory promoters, whether intentionally or not, can employ a sleight of hand when conflating alleged microbial invasion with hygiene. | |
| In general, those of us that refute the germ hypothesis do not deny that hygiene is very important. | |
| Note that hygiene means a science of the establishment and maintenance of health and conditions or practices as of cleanliness conducive to health. | |
| There is nothing in that definition that requires the introduction of supposed pathogens. | |
| So when someone says I wonder how many of those who claim there are no germs would be willing to have a Surgical operation without the surgeon washing his hands or wearing gloves? | |
| I would firstly respond that gloves are not that important and half the reason they are worn is that the surgeon wants to keep their hands clean with a perceived protection from the patient's fluids. | |
| And when it comes to benefits for the patient, what did a Cochrane systematic review of 30 trials examining surgical gloving practice find? | |
| They concluded, although the primary aim of wearing gloves during surgery is to provide protection against infections, no trials set out to measure the relationship between gloves and infections in patients or staff. | |
| In other words, the glove claimants probably didn't review the scientific literature. | |
| Well, I guess I just assumed. | |
| Hand-washing, on the other hand, is important. | |
| But again, the germ promoters confuse microbes with hygiene, as they cite the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, the doctor who noted the benefits of hand-washing in obstetric clinics. | |
| They state that, if there is no germ theory, then Semmelweis was wrong, and Semmelweis cannot have been wrong, because his actions And putting his theory into practice and dramatically reducing the incidence of puerperal fever in the hospital where he worked, proved that he was right. | |
| This is another one I've covered before, so let's look at a flashback from my video, Health Risks of Using Your Cell Phone on the Toilet. | |
| A classic example that I am sent is the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, an obstetrician working in Vienna in the mid-1800s. | |
| By the way, this story is listed on the Wikipedia Germ Theory page as part of their quote, evidence for the concept. | |
| Semmelweis was alarmed by the high rates of puerperal fever when doctors, rather than midwives, got involved in the birthing process. | |
| He insisted that doctors start washing their hands between performing autopsies and examining patients, which subsequently resulted in the mortality rate of mothers dropping by 90%. | |
| Now it is clear that no controlled study was performed and we don't know what other variables were operating between the two clinics being compared. | |
| However, the most important point is that no microbes were identified as the causative factor in disease. | |
| It was and remains simply presumed to be the case. | |
| Semmelweis advised washing the hands with a bleach solution to get rid of the putrid smell following the handling of autopsy tissue. | |
| In other words, it was disgusting, diseased and dead tissue, not the sort of toxic brew that a woman needs inside her. | |
| They did not reduce the brew to an independent variable such as a pure culture of a particular bacterial species. | |
| And no experiments have shown such cultures to have pathogenic abilities through normal exposure routes. | |
| The microbes present in such cases are there to manage and decompose the dead tissue and have no capacity to invade healthy tissue. | |
| For example, vaginas are permanently colonized with huge numbers of microbes, including species claimed to be pathogenic. | |
| Some of them may proliferate when there is a problem with the underlying tissue or terrain, but they have never been shown to be the causative factor. | |
| If they did have such a capacity, why has this never been demonstrated? | |
| We know that pure cultures of bacteria have not been shown to be pathogenic unless they are administered to an organism in massive concentrations and via unnatural routes. | |
| Poor hygiene and other neglect is the problem, not microbes, who are simply responding as the clean-up crew to the changed terrain. | |
| Maybe epidemiologists should realize that the risk factors for so-called infectious diseases are some of the causes! | |
| Number 5. | |
| Smallpox or HIV challenge. | |
| Over the years we, along with Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman, Christine Massey and others have been sent various challenges to be exposed to alleged pathogens. | |
| My husband Mark also caught wind of a member of his running club claiming behind his back that the Baileys wouldn't dare go near the snot of a so-called COVID-19 patient. | |
| Mark explained to the embarrassed person that we had already announced by mid-2020 that we would happily walk through a COVID ward without any protective gear on. | |
| Aerosol transmission of microbes that cause disease has never been demonstrated in the history of medical science and it is a fairy tale to scare children and naive adults like the one he confronted. | |
| Even worse when the alleged infectious particle SARS-CoV-2 cannot be shown to exist. | |
| Sometimes we see doctors getting involved in this game. | |
| An example was in September 2022 when Dr. Richard Fleming made this ridiculous video. | |
| So here's my proposition. | |
| If you don't believe that viruses exist, so you can't be harmed by them, I would like to propose an experiment where we contact the FDA and CDC and obtain the vials of smallpox that exist that we know are lethal. | |
| We'll then have you arrange to be in a room and expose you to the smallpox in the vial. | |
| Since, according to you, Terrainers, these viruses don't exist in these vials, because viruses don't exist, then you'll have no harm. | |
| If, however, you're unwilling to participate in that, well, that would indicate that you honestly believe that viruses exist. | |
| Aside from the logical fallacies and conflating the refutation of the virus model with terrain theory, Dr. Fleming demonstrated his lack of insight into the foundational problems with virology. | |
| Whatever he thinks the CDC has in their alleged smallpox vials, we know it is not anything that meets the definition of a virus. | |
| The question he should be asking is, what is contained within such vials? | |
| Could it be breaking down chicken embryo tissue with antibiotics and other additives? | |
| If you have not seen Katie Sugac's documentary, The Truth About Smallpox, then I highly recommend it, as it outlines the mythology surrounding both the claims of a specific disease and the existence of a virus. | |
| Mike Stone's Viraligy also has excellent articles exposing these issues. | |
| A similar challenge that you might see is, well, let's say you accept some blood from an HIV infected source. | |
| Again, this is a misunderstanding of the science. | |
| Nobody has ever been shown to have any quote, HIV in their blood. | |
| What they have is a positive in vitro antibody assay. | |
| There are dozens of conditions that may cause a positive assay, and many of these people are not in good shape. | |
| In which case, you probably don't want their blood. | |
| But not because of any imaginary virus. | |
| We covered this issue in Virus Mania, and if you want to take the deepest dive, then read the Perth Group's HIV, A Virus Like No Other, which remains an uncontested refutation of the existence of a viral entity. | |
| Once after childbirth, I was advised to have a blood transfusion, but declined, as it is not a good idea to have any foreign biological material injected into your body. | |
| Probably the funniest challenge I've ever had was, if you don't believe in germ theory, then let's see you eat faeces! | |
| My response is, isolate the microbes from the biological waste material, and in the tradition of weight, Fraser, Powell and Pettencoffer, swallowing those will be fine. | |
| While we are talking about eating poo, I couldn't go past this old video from Bear Grylls either. | |
| This means there's definitely bears in the wood. | |
| This is the sort of poo they do. | |
| But if you had nothing else, a bit of a rinse down, And that basically is going to be okay to eat. | |
| Pretty sharp. | |
| A bit like somebody's got your apple core and smeared it in a dog poop. | |
| In all seriousness though, the propagation of germ theory is a disaster for humanity. | |
| The downstream effects are filthy vaccines, population control, and vast transfers of wealth from the public to the medico-pharmaceutical complex and their friends. | |
| Although health freedom advocates don't go along with these things, unfortunately many remain wedded to allopathic themes and still go in for pharmaceuticals and other unnecessary interventions. | |
| Perhaps worse is that they promote fear narratives and fall for bioweapon and gain-of-function gaslighting. | |
| Surely it is high time for them to analyse all the pivotal scientific papers as we have done. | |
| Or will they continue to look their audience in the eye and say that the science is settled? | |
| What gives me great hope is that their lashing out is likely the first cracks in the germ theory dam. | |
| It is obvious to us that the fraud is now too widely known about to be contained. | |
| My inbox is also full of messages from well-wishers letting us know that their family's health is the best it has ever been now that they have left the germ theory based allopathic system. | |
| Let's continue to spread the good news that microbes are not our enemies and these unwarranted fears can be left behind. |
Export Selection