Germ or Terrain? Consensus or Hypothesis?

6th August 2022

Orthodoxy, heresy or sceptic?

Professor Béchamp & King Fauci XIV

Fauci Art courtesy of Dianny at Patriot Retort

---

Something is wrong

Ever felt there is something wrong with virology? Particularly virus vaccinology? The whole shebang is riddled rife with failure, contradiction, inconsistency, conjecture and anti-science. Moreover, the exceptions to this imprecise orthodoxy seem only to bow to corporate and political convenience, never to proper science.

Covid has brought the suspicion closer to an arraignment. None of the official anti-covid virus products seem to work. They seem to cause more harm. No one in leadership positions appears concerned.

Would one believe the matter has been fought out many, many times by similar characters with similar results and a steady state-corporate capture of medical and veterinary microbiology orthodoxy across 226 years since Jenner’s vaccination attempts? It seems so.

Idiopathic or iatrogenic?

It has taken 25 years of postgraduate practice and three covid jabs into an unfortunate patient for me to witness a presentation of aortitis. She is a previously well woman in her mid-fifties with no known family history of autoimmune disease. It is a rare, life-threatening condition of unexplained inflammation to the aorta, the major artery connecting directly to the heart. Except, it is explainable.

It is another diagnosis as rare as hen’s teeth. Only, during the current iatrogenic maelstrom brought to us by the globalist Pharma racket, hen’s teeth have become more common.

There is something more remarkable. Given the general current weirdness in clinical medicine, of abnormally high frequencies of multiple clots, menstrual dysfunction, miscarriage, cancers, extraordinary rates of non-covid excess deaths, premature strokes and heart disease, and especially myocarditis, did any of the many GPs and hospital doctors in my patient’s path to diagnosis and a lifetime of prednisolone and other noxious immunosuppressants enquire whether she was covid-jabbed or even implicated the covid jabs?

No. Would they have blamed it on covid, if they could … or even if they couldn’t? Yes, of course, everyone blames everything on covid. Did the patient wonder? Yes. Did she dare ask any of the automatons masquerading as ethical physicians the question? No, that could be dangerous for all and insulting to them. Is that surprising? No. Is it a mark of the general failure of humankind? Yes, in my opinion.

Time for change?

The last three years of my original outrage at covid has yielded to the sobering truth this has all happened many times before. It seems always around germs. Many medical and scientific colleagues of the past have preceded the current Les Enfants terribles of covid dissent. Many of these good colleagues have had their reputations, lives and livelihoods ruined by the orthodoxy.

Covid does, however, feel like a watershed. Orthodoxy seems to have over-played its hand. It has neglected to even properly sheen its assertions with pseudoscience. For the first time, the dissent has been amplified by the internet, and there exists a primordial internet archive of the first internet pandemic heretics in the digital age such as Wolfgang Wodarg from which to start the information fight back. Correspondingly, the orthodoxy has added overwhelming digital propaganda, information suppression and censorship to the ritual witch-burning. States are de-educating in schools, demoralising in society, and subverting innate critical faculties with fear and toxins. The only mercy is that orthodoxy’s recent desperation has led to a crass execution of a previously sophisticated constriction of Overton’s window.

Mainstream political stooges have called for the less censored methods of communication, such as Telegram to be banned. Much of TCP’s unbridled evidence-based scientific and medical discussion occurs over Telegram in these days of shutdown and lies. Such unmitigated tyranny goes relatively unnoticed in the obedient society of reserved, non-agitators our society has proven to be during the covid delusion. People can see it for what it is, if they care to scratch the internet’s surface. Consciousness seems to be rising. Heresy and scepticism are making comebacks.

---

The Heretic & The Sceptic

The human quality of feeling absolutely sure of oneself intrigues TCP. Three years of failed covid dogma might be corrective or instructive to such concreteness, but old instincts die hard. As a believer in questioning everything always, TCP is fascinated, even slightly envious of characters built upon granite bedrocks of personal and intellectual certainty. One’s morals may be absolute, but should one’s science be?

On 11.3.22 there appeared an article in The Sceptic, by Dr Roger Watson which sought to curry favour with the sceptic while avoiding heresy. It even gave the totemic Pasteur some gentle stick. As someone with an open approach to ideas, proven, unproven or disproven, it piqued TCP’s interest. Particularly as it was reassuringly and absolutely entitled ‘The Real Truth About Viruses’ . How could he be so confidant as a sceptic? Is not the real truth, in our post-covid world, that The Truth is extremely elastic? His target was a verifiable heretic and sceptic. Dr Sam Bailey. In short, the author seemed unconvinced with terrain theory, and allied himself within the safe space of germ theory.

It seems unfortunate Watson felt it necessary to allude in any way to Dr Bailey’s physical appearance in his arguments. Dr Bailey is an easy target in the germ-soiled world of microbiology, but her spirit is bullet-proofed by a belief that what is right is not necessarily real, nor true. This looks, to my covid-addled brain, a reasonable stance. For the record, Dr Bailey responded reasonably and comprehensively. Bailey stated, ‘We offered him the chance to come on my channel but he declined saying, “I am not sure how fruitful a debate with me would be,”.

The in-betweener

Dr Bailey is far more radical to orthodoxy than cardiologist, Dr Aseem Malhotra, who if anything was hitherto a doyen in orthodox British evidence-based medicine. He encouraged ethnic minorities to take the covid vaccine. His eminent medical father died of a cardiac arrest on 26.7.21 during a covid-throttled wait for an emergency NHS ambulance in a health service weighed down by the non-evidenced ballast of government covid policy. Dr Malhotra appraised the emerging evidence of heart inflammation being caused by covid ‘vaccines’. He became concerned. He expressed the concern. He may have discovered that orthodoxy does not like its own to wander or wonder afar, even when it is rigorously evidence-based.

Now, he is sailing too close to the wind for the Establishment. The British Medical Association is disassociating from him because he is expressing a relatively minimal concern about its orthodoxy in its own terms. The BMA has taken unreasonable offence and acted disproportionately. This is the same institution which carpet-bombed GPs with emails to support and donate to a divisive, militant American Marxist political organisation at the height of the so-called covid pandemic, in June 2020. I know because I was one of those incredulous GPs.

Malhotra should take cold shoulder as good evidence he is on the right tack. His small indiscretion is a red rag to a raging bull. A small terror from an insider is more pernicious. Their brainstems are closing ranks. His careful ripple of dissent could become a tsunami. Dr Malcolm Kendrick details the Establishment’s incontinence in the Malhotra matter. In fact, Drs Bailey and Malhotra are not so far apart, if intellectual candour is the scientific yardstick.

---

Paradigm Shifting – Einstein & Kuhn

Heresy has a special place in science. Without it science is nothing. Einstein is said to have been taken aback, having arrived in America. He was informed his new scientific paper would have to be peer-reviewed. Einstein’s reported attitude was understandable. He was an outsider, a German patent clerk. His revolutionary theories of special and general relativity, and a mainstream Nobel for the photo-electric effect were not enough to retain credibility in themselves.

This peer-review in establishment journals cuts both ways. It screens for errors, but, brilliant ideas moderated into mediocrity by more conservative, less brilliant, and jealous colleagues abetted by journals with one editorial, wide-open eye anxious not to offend their corporate owners and advertisers are banes to good and revolutionary science.

Thomas Kuhn encapsulated the issue as the ‘Paradigm Shift’ in a seminal text, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Science isn’t smooth, it clunks up and down gears against the inclines and declines of human folly, sadly. People unnecessarily suffer and die because of it.

---

Lessons from Medical History

Where current science was not reassuring enough, TCP has turned to history for answers. Why not? Germ or terrain, something is terribly wrong with how modern infectious disease science and medicine is being conducted and controlled. History confirms the new wrong is a repetition of old wrongs. Hardly anyone properly challenges the established paradigm, even when it is patently not working nor standing up to mere amateur scrutiny.

Given the emerged jab data, isn’t it easier to conclude the covid gene therapy is a dangerous but perfect cure for global influenza than a safe, preventative vaccine for covid? That cannot be right, so surely the question must be wholeheartedly asked: what is wrong with virology and vaccinology?

Many will be aware of the post-WW1 graphs showing major infectious disease (Diphtheria , Tetanus, and Measles) was in decline well before the introduction of mass vaccination against those diseases. Also, that sanitation and improving living standards may have been the real cure. Some will know of the DDT-Polio controversy, and modern witch-hunts against anyone of repute who suggests vaccination could even be harmful.

This strange opacity and interpretation of the data has been ongoing since Jenner decided treating like (variola) with unlike (vaccinia) was a good idea, and since the rebellious City of Leicester decided it was not.

---

The pre-viral world of Béchamp and Pasteur

The book, Béchamp or Pasteur (1923) was written by Ethel Douglas Hume. If one resorts to Wikipedia, and searches Ms Hume, one would not wish to read the book, such is the opprobrium. This told me I really should. I am glad I did. She comes across as thorough, intelligent and balanced. Given the era in which she wrote was closer to the bone of the two scientists’ claims than the present. Pasteur left the world in 1895, Béchamp in 1908. Viruses are said to have been ‘discovered’ between 1892 and1898.

What one ultimately derives from the escapades attributed to Pasteur is an easy explanation of how anything goes in the Wild West of chemicals and corporate greed. Even cocaine in Coca-Cola, fluoride in drinking water, and even parenteral aluminium and mercury via paediatric vaccines into developing brains. Never mind the human-meat tasting vegan burgers.

---

Starting with Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, Hume writes:

“Professor Wallace in Chapter 18 of The Wonderful Century … he shows how free vaccination was offered in 1840, made compulsory in 1853, and in 1867 the order was given to prosecute evaders; and so stringent was the application of the regulations that few children escaped vaccination. Thus the following table provides a striking illustration of the inefficacy of vaccination in regard to smallpox mortality:

These figures show that while the population went up only 7% and 9% in the years covered, smallpox mortality increased at the rate of 40.8% and 123% – and this in face of an ever increasing number of vaccinations!”

There were allegedly a number of botch jobs by Pasteur (Fauci-Tedros), sponsored by the patronage of Napoleon III (the Pharmaceutical-WHO complex). Take his attempt at a veterinary anthrax vaccine. The Sanitary Commission of the Hungarian Government banned it, and in 1881 included in a report this comment on the anti-anthrax inoculation:

“The worst diseases – pneumonia, catarrhal fever, etc. – have exclusively struck down the animals subjected to injection. It follows from this that the Pasteur inoculation tends to accelerate the action of certain latent diseases, and to hasten the mortal issue of other grave affections.”

Regarding Pasteur’s attempt at a commercial rabies vaccine, Hume writes of Pasteur’s statistical manipulation and extraordinary definitions of personal convenience which even hid a possible vaccine cause of death for The King of Greece:

“In regard to the statistical returns of these institutes, we will quote Dr. George Wilson’s summary in his Reservation Memorandum of the Royal Commission on Vivisection:

“Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths had occurred during treatment or immediately after, by ruling that all deaths should be excluded from the statistical returns which occurred either during treatment or within fifteen days of the last injection.

“It is in accordance with this most extraordinary rule that the percentage of deaths in all Pasteur Institutes works out at such a low figure. Thus, in the Report on the Kasauli Institute for 1910, Major Harvey commences his comments on the statistics of the year as follows:

‘In this year, 2,073 persons, bitten or licked by rabid or suspected rabid animals, were treated,’

…yielding a percentage of failures of 0.19. This percentage Major Harvey explains in these words:

‘There were 26 deaths from hydrophobia. Of these, 14 died during the treatment, eight within 15 days of completion of treatment, and four later than 15 days after completion of treatment. Only the last four are counted as failures of the treatment according to Pasteur’s definition of a failure, and it is on this number that the percentage failure rate is calculated.’”

This screening of statistics prevents the inclusion of the death of the late King Alexander of Greece among the list of Pasteurian failures.”

“This screening of statistics prevents the inclusion of the death of the late King Alexander of Greece among the list of Pasteurian failures.”

R B Pearson in the 1942 preface to Hume’s book writes:

“In England there were several Pasteur Institutes doing a thriving business prior to 1902, when a commission was appointed to investigate rabies and the serum treatment, and the Institutes were abolished. They have had no hydrophobia since.”

And of Pasteur’s rival, Dr Robert Koch patronised by the Emperor Wilhelm I, and his disastrous TB vaccine attempt, Pearson writes,

“Dr J. W. Browne, … Medical Superintendent of the Kalyra Sanatorium, South Australia … says:

“To date, upwards of two hundred different forms of tuberculin have been prepared and described. The simple fact of the matter is that no one has yet been able to repeat Koch’s experiment successfully. There is no evidence but Koch’s in favour of tuberculin as a therapeutic cure for tuberculosis in guinea pigs, in calves, or in man. No one but Koch has been able to cure an infected guinea pig by the use of tuberculin of any sort.

“Koch, as Shera says, was an optimist. There is no question that tuberculin can do infinite harm. Scores of people have died prematurely at its hands. Never was there such a commercial vaccine as this one, and never has there been such a gigantic hoax. Tuberculin, Shera says, should not come within the range of vaccine therapy. Whatever good results are imputed to tuberculin must have occurred in spite of it, for its virtues are founded on experiments which cannot be repeated.

“The disbeliever too, can point to many cases where the administration of tuberculin in pulmonary disease has been undoubtedly followed by disaster and, while he freely admits the undoubted powers of the tuberculin therapist to stir up the embers and kindle the fire, he has hitherto asked him in vain for any evidence of power to extinguish the fire.”

It all sounds so dreadfully proximate and familiar 130 years later, in 2022.

---

Pasteur is accused by Hume of simultaneously plagiarising and deriding Béchamp’s scientific ideas to the man’s face, during the 7th International Medical Conference held at St James’s Hall, London 1881. Béchamp pioneered the idea of the germ as not only a consequence of illness, but as an originator from within, via the microzymes (‘microsomes’) of the diseased host. This is not at all shocking if one considers the genetic similarity and overlap between human and germ genomes, and the fact that vaccines can stimulate attack upon the host as we are, unfortunately, rediscovering with the covid gene analogues. In other words, to me it seems he proposed germs are possible recombinants of the stressed host’s component parts. Remarkably, Béchamp proposed this well before subsequent sophisticated molecular biology and molecular genetic theories. It begs the question, is the distinction between infectious and inflammatory disease real, manufactured, or more nuanced than currently is being allowed to be conceived of by the orthodoxy? If these unfashionable ideas from the past grate, please exercise caution. It may be they are more heretical than wrong.

Ms Hume’s take is Pasteur was originally a Sponteparist, in regard to yeasts and fermentation but reluctantly converted only when it was convenient to his career ambition. Béchamp was the opposite, a Panspermist, and he proved it applied to fermentation before Pasteur. But don’t take my word or Hume’s contemporaneous voice from the past, do the due diligence or live and die on received wisdom. Who really knows, anyway? Pretending one does know for sure is the real uncertain domain. In our scepticism, we must not forget to celebrate the collective hypothetico-deductive feats of these 19th century chemists and physicians wielding only crude light microscopes. Their achievements are brilliant, humbling and instructive to the modern medic.

---

Post-pasteurisation of Béchamp

Béchamp is just another doctor and scientist whose legacy may have been neutralised and rewritten by Pharma interests. The more one delves into the history, the more mangled professors one sees littered on the roadside heading toward corporate public health dominion. It makes discomforting and cautionary reading for the honest scientific inquirer. Scientists and medics continue to take mortal chunks out of each other.

Throwing down the covid virus gauntlet

In one passage of his article about Dr Sam Bailey, Dr Roger Watson did not know the future would come to haunt him in the present. He gave Dr. Mike Yeadon a very backhanded compliment to further his own criticism of Dr Bailey:

“After all, anti (Covid) ‘vaxxer’ supreme, Dr. Mike Yeadon made it clear in his excellent interview with Neil Oliver on GB News that he believes a unique virus exists. The HART Group led by Dr. John Lee, who have mounted the most credible and well-informed responses to the UK lockdown, is not stocked with virus deniers.”

One cannot fault Dr Watson for attempting the path of least resistance in opposing Lockdown whilst not otherwise wishing to be labelled a covidiot, but why indulge in the labelling game oneself? Let us truly celebrate inclusivity, equality and diversity by embracing intellectual pluralism. Dr Watson’s rhetorical feat of compressing name-dropping, vicarious conviction, hyperbole and umbrella smear terminology into two small sentences sounds convincing. However, his doing so may not necessarily be in the true spirit of skeptic swordsmanship.

To be clear, TCP believes Dr Yeadon, formerly of Pfizer, is from his own numerous public statements manifestly not an anti-vaxxer. He is anti-unsafe pharmaceuticals, and anti-fraud. He was ignored and derided, but the future has proven him prescient about many ‘incredible’ covid concerns. He has demonstrated bravery and an excellent scientific mind. He has now, after much deliberation and assessment of an anti-scientific covid response driven by unelected global institutions, become reasonably open to a genuine scientific question:

Can a cytopathic SARS-CoV-2 be properly and scientifically proven to exist, in someone who has received a COVID-19 diagnosis via a PCR or lateral flow test?

Even if the Bailey group generally challenges the existence of a pathogenic human virus, the actual blinded and controlled experiment proposed does seem restricted to SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A.

At this stage, the Bailey group is not even requiring all Koch’s postulates are proven. It is not even requiring what some feel is the hardest step, that of purification. Kirsch seems to have made a reasonable point against the group’s term: “each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome”. He explains a certain method of the genomic sequencing of purportedly mutating viruses means that it is impossible to report identical sequences. If so, whose claim does his point support, Kirsch’s or the Bailey group’s? The Bailey group has stated their proposal is open to discussion. Perhaps, a percentage on the sequence homology could be agreed? If not, a good reason needs to be provided.

What does Dr Watson make of the fact Dr Yeadon has now joined Dr Bailey with other medics and scientists in pursuit of the answer to these fine questions? Dr Yeadon explains for himself here and here. There is no shame in reasonably changing one’s entrenched position within science, according to the evidence. Science is an intellectual activity not a partisan bloodsport where being deemed wrong by the masses should mean annihilation.

The group pursue the idea with genuine intellectual interest and with perspicacity. There is a clear distinction being made by such a question between the specific troubles of covid virology compared with, say, the discipline of bacteriology. They seem not terrified by a hypothesis being proven scientifically wrong. They seem more terrified of the damage of it not being proven at all. It speaks volumes of their commitment to science, not corporatism. TCP welcomes the development, in the name of good science, but doubts the experiment will be accepted. For, to even accept it may acknowledge there is something decidedly uncertain about virology and virus vaccinology.

---

Exciting, heretical scientific times

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi seems to have been a high-achieving, conventional, respected German Professor of Microbiology, until he dared question consensus microbiology. His recent courageous conduct during covid suggest to TCP he is the epitome of a caring, ethical and intelligent physician. TCP would have been honoured to have been instructed by this man. He even holds a Robert Koch Foundation prize. One cannot get more orthodox than this. The Robert Koch Institute is a Cathedral to the modern microbiological establishment, as is the Pasteur Institute. Dr. Bhakdi is speaking frankly after over 50 years of realising the rot from the inside. It is an exciting time of intellectual frankness. He is credible, experienced and retired. He can say what others dare not voice. Including saying HIV is a fraud. He is not the first. He will not be the last.

Even one of the credited discoverers of HIV died in something of an atonement, fighting covid tyranny until his last and questioning why putative HIV gene sequences appeared in the putative SARS-CoV-2 genome. It is a stimulating period for medical science. The paradigm could shift away from the profit. Even if not, what should now be clear is that a world of political, legal and institutional absolutism is not a world of science. Watch Bhakdi at the Scandinavian Freedom Events and then ask, if he is right, is the current disaster narrative creating pandemics of more covid, childhood hepatitis, monkeypox, polio, HIV, ill-health and death merely a self-fulfilling prophecy of WHO global health tyranny and covid policy?

The world is experiencing a rise in environmental toxins (ionising and non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, poor water, poor food and pharmaceuticals included), and a rising, ageing population with correspondingly more emboldened calls for eugenics. We also have a rise in iatrogenic death, lengthening and more intensive immunisation programs and a rise in chronic disease. Much of that disease is inadequately explained, even though Pharma-nominated molecular targets and germ scapegoats may exist. A rising component of that chronic disease now commences in early childhood. Paediatric epidemics of liver disease, autism, cancer, mental illness, and malnutrition. Is it fair to say somethings in mainstream, healthcare (or ill-health) industry are failing the people it claims to serve? And further, that we are now being coerced into this system, whilst alternative health systems are being suppressed?

All of this, the toxin, the fear, the cure and the unsustainability seems promoted by the same economic system of waste, expansion and profit. That system even profits when selling unsustainable, flawed models of sustainability. For it wishes to sustain only itself.

The unsettling urgency to genetically experiment on any child says far more about the urgency of Pharma’s business model than any concern for the health of our children. The NHS cannot resist an equal urge to over-supplicate to Pharma, it has added the covid-jabbing of children over 5 years age to the NHS vaccine schedule. It would be plain silly if it weren’t so serious a matter. The NHS and the government is making a good impression of the right not knowing what the left hand is doing: the government ‘Routine childhood immunisations’ webpage updated on 17.2.22 does not mention paediatric covid jabs. Perhaps this is potential incremental nudging, again. The state is aware the UK population smells a lab rat. Uptake is very low. Parents do not like their children to be experimented upon. Direct association of routine of covid jabs with the whole childhood immunisation program has the capacity destroy general trust in the program.

Watching the exemplary Dr Clare Craig speak here, or visiting the Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council (CCVAC) webpage should explain to anyone unaware that covid jabs will needlessly risk serious and fatal harm, and not help a child’s health. Nor will doing so protect granny or petrified school teachers.

---

Assumption begat assumption

It’s important to be thorough, not just because some people may or may not be denying all viruses. A major issue is there have been multiple, additive problems with how the covid narrative was initially and so precipitously constructed. That flawed narrative was then disproportionately over-reacted to so as to wreak medically unnecessary and unjustified destruction upon the whole world whilst efficiently lining a few persons’ pockets.

The initial Drosten test was based on a handful of cases assumed to be of the same cause-effect relationship. My feeling is the cause-effect relationship was rushed and established without firm basis. There were 5 people who were unwell, in China, upon which an assumption was made that they all had the same syndrome: SARS-CoV-2. Aside from the point a syndrome is not as definite an entity as a disease, this presumed case series of 5 persons’ in silico, sequenced humours was handed to the WHO by the Chinese authorities by the end of the first week of 2020. The WHO looked to Dr Drosten. He took those computer-modelled codes and filled in the gaps with SARS-CoV-1 as a template. He very rapidly pushed out the first PCR protocol on 23.1.20. There were no SARS-CoV-2 virus isolates or samples provided to Drosten. His methods were promptly and severely criticised.

Then, there were shoddy mass PCR and testing regimes, and a mass misattribution of cases by poor science, poor diagnostic medicine, and rigged statistical analyses with wholly prejudicial definitions of what a covid case, a covid death and a vaccine death are. Add to this the novel notion that an asymptomatic, well person with a ‘positive’ test is a certifiable and quarantinable superspreader of a respiratory infection.

This was never the way of clinical medicine until December 2019. Has this glut of assumption created a huge artifice?

The same pseudoscientific imprecision mars victims of covid tyranny, long-covid, covid jab damage and of the neologism, SADS (sudden adult death syndrome): what’s their difference? They are all depressed, brain-fogged and damaged, or dead.

Therefore, proving SARS-CoV-2 physically exists and causes specific disease must be a reasonable imperative.

---

The Kirsch Challenge

There is a great deal of fundamental human disagreement these days. While we can still agree some objective truths remain, such as we require oxygen and water to sustain us, it continues to be worth discussing rather than annihilating scientific disagreements. The alternative is subscription to a pseudoscientific covid paradigm that patently does not work and requires a cast of lies to hold it in union.

The heretics who question whether good science exists to support the proper proof of a causal relationship between a SARS-CoV-2 infectious viral entity and covid-19 are considered by more orthodox covid sceptics to be a liability to credible criticism of the whole covid narrative.

Hence, Steve Kirsch is frustrated; that is understandable. He is admired for trying to do good by herding talented biomedical cats and swatting pseudoscientific flies. He wants to bet the Bailey group a million dollars in search of the truth. Money should not determine truth. What it can determine is an unjust victory in court and propaganda. Kirsch has been excellent at bringing minds together to commandeer those who do not agree with the WHO. But, he does not buy Terrain Theory. Béchamp did. Kirsch’s urge to use his resources and business sense to simplify the struggle against unreasonable and dangerous global covid strategies by ridding the stage of what he deems bad actors with his own criteria of money, debate and judges are also understandable. However, is this scientific or reasonable? Science is not a gunfight at the O.K. Corral where those challenging the establishment’s impossible-to-prove hypotheses must perish on someone else’s unilateral terms.

If Kirsch is frustrated with the ‘very disingenuous’ Bailey group, he would be advised to take a stiff drink and a beta-blocker before deciding whom to back in the very asymmetric climate change ‘debate’.

Perhaps, he should welcome any debate on any aspect of such a controversial event as covid, whether it be in the form of a hypothetical challenge with no chance of success or otherwise. Labelling (Dr Tom Cowan) an intelligent human with unusual ideas ‘a complete nut job’ is never wise in the sphere of science, or otherwise. It suggests that he who does so label others is inappropriately confident he, himself, certainly is not. Is this not dissimilar to the spoil tactics of covid orthodoxy which are to all our detriment? His further besmirching of the insightful Dr Cowan by reporting Cowan was recently induced to surrender his medical license does not mention, amongst many others, our formidable medical ally, Dr McCullough is also fighting a potential removal by orthodoxy of his medical license.

The future has proven nut-job scientific heretics correct, time and time again. Surely the impossibilities are the point of the Bailey group scientific challenge to the cosy 100 year germ theory consensus. The last thing science should be reduced to is consensus. Consensus is for politicians. Better and revolutionary science begins with an implausible and persecuted minority’s idea. Often that minority is impecunious and vulnerable to monied entities. There are brilliant scientists who say there is no original scientific research to prove HIV causes AIDS. If this is correct, then that cause-effect relationship has been bought by business, political consensus and activism.

---

Should immutable absolutes exist in science? Science is hypotheses which are intended to be continually challenged and reformulated. Why should the consensus remain entrenched if it is full of holes? Perhaps we must accept that the truth is somewhere between or around the 100 year Pharma-curated status quo in virology and the Bailey group’s ‘impossible’ experiment.

Does Kirsch prefer the orthodox sceptic over the out-cast heretic? The trouble here is orthodoxy chases both Kirsch’s preferred sceptics and non-preferred heretics out of jobs, reputations and medical registration. Take the noble Drs. Peter McCullough and Pierre Kory. They, sadly will be tomorrow’s broken, un-promotable, unemployable heretics should Fauci’s ivory tower remain standing. If either doctor were in the UK, he would already be a persona non grata. At least in the USA, with its constitution’s First Amendment, a doctor is able to speak more diversely and continue to earn a crust. Cardiologist, Dr McCullough is now rightly challenging other elements of vaccine orthodoxy such as the 13-valent pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. He would not have 3 years ago, fate has simply forced to turn his excellent medical mind to vaccination efficacy when it became apparent to him covid jabs were irreversibly and fatally injuring his patients’ hearts. Dr Robert Malone is a pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology, he took the covid vaccine, now he regrets it. He is foremost in fighting establishment covid vaccines and policy. For the record, Dr Mark Bailey, has made some initial comments on Kirsch’s criticism, here.

Kirsch may also need to ask himself why he has omitted Dr. Mike Yeadon on his list of 20 disreputable, nitwit co-signatories, whilst singling out Dr Stefan Lanka for not signing it. Lanka is not at all mainstream in his views on virology. He is credited in the discovery of a kelp phaeovirus (EsV-1 in Ectocarpus) as described by Müller et al. (1990), but bet 100,000 Euros that no-one could prove the existence of a human measles virus. He was, ultimately, vindicated in the German Federal Supreme Court.

Kirsch’s critique may seem more uneven and selective for such relativistic personality bashing. Dr Yeadon questioned the orthodoxy leading from the front at the very start of the covid narrative, while other current anti-covid luminaries were still anxiously waiting to have the covid vaccine. Retaining an open mind is not partisanship, it is a marker of good science. Treating science like a mercantile prize-fight is not optimal. Such attitudes risk an intentional and unintentional creation of a lacuna of taboo scientific topics, such as questioning vaccine safety. I would suggest Dr Andrew Wakefield knows this phenomenon better than most.

The problem with attempting to settle a scientific matter is it never settles. It is not a dispute resolution process, it is crueller. It is the stark method of science. It is not even democratic. Only one person’s hypothesis need be proven best for the science to be universally true. Adjudging scientific ideas wrong and right in perpetuity is the first slip into an endless technocratic tyranny. Trusting the approved science of the crooked steeples of the WHO, FDA, CDC and MHRA without scrutiny and rigorous confirmatory scientific replication is not science.

---

Kirsch’s Final Word

Kirsch feels the Bailey group case has reached a denouement. He has more-recently declared a slam-dunk victory:

“A third paper shows all of Koch’s postulates satisfied for SARS-CoV-2 published in Nature. We’re done.”

However, I am unsure we are done. This paper he has found (Bao et al) declares all Koch’s postulates have been satisfied. Except, Kirsch states it is a different Koch’s postulates to the Bailey group. He doesn’t specify which. Is it Koch’s, River’s (not actually Koch’s) or another modified version, also not actually Koch’s postulates? How conclusive is that?

It seems the Kirsch-approved paper has confected a full deck of Koch’s (or does it really mean River’s?) postulates by looking to another’s study-paper (Zhu et al) for the initial purported isolation from three initial, purported covid-diseased subjects. Kirsch’s approved paper’s starting point is an ‘isolate’ of SARS-CoV-2 which seems to be pre-prepared and provided by Tan, one of the authors from Zhu et al. Shouldn’t the isolate, ideally, appear from the study’s own humans with definitive Covid-19? The pure nature of the ‘isolate’ itself is moot, according to how stringent one’s definition.

Hence, the Kirsch-approved paper admits it is heavily reliant on the vicarious, partial proof of Koch’s postulates from Zhu et al. Except, Zhu et al states about its own paper:

“… our study does not fulfil Koch’s postulates…”

Could Kirsch’s approved paper be criticised for being incomplete, disjointed, borrowing a part from another source taken on misplaced trust, and therefore sloppy? Can its findings actually be reproduced repeatedly, and in entirety in one complete experiment with a pure isolate? Where is the re-isolation, and purification of the paper’s single T.E.M. photograph of one solitary particle submitted as conclusive proof of SARS-CoV-2? The Koch purists will reasonably say that particle should have been used to prove onward human, respiratory re-infection, and ask, why wasn’t it? Where is the proper re-identification with the original virus surrogate substituted from the Zhu et al paper?

The paper’s authors state:

“Our results demonstrate the pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in mice, which—together with previous clinical studies—completely satisfies Koch’s postulates and confirms that SARS-CoV-2 is the pathogen responsible for COVID-19.”

These sellotaped conclusions across two teams with separate and very different experimental methods (including different tissues and species) have the potential to carry the accusation of not being true. The statement ‘completely satisfies Koch’s postulates’ could reasonably be characterised as completely a lie.

It is not just inexpert me speculating on a quick skim-read. See the Peer Review File in the paper’s Supplementary Information section. It seems reasonable to argue Kirsch’s slam-dunk proof is a significantly flawed paper.

Lombardy, Italy emulated Chinese lockdown on 21.2.20, all Italy was locked by 9.3.20. This paper was submitted by 2.2.20 and published 7.5.20. One has to question why the ‘conclusive’ Chinese peer-reviewed, published proof was to post-date the WHO’s pandemic declaration and attendant scorched earth policy of 11.3.20. The WHO appeared disturbingly eager to pursue an unconscionable, unevidenced, false internment of, and genetic experimentation upon 8 billion humans. It is devilish.

Lockdown gone viral

---

The Vatican tussle with Cosmology

Kirsch has only to look at the history of cosmological theory, and the Vatican to see that science is continual tussle of coexisting, parallel ideas, often politically hijacked by unscientific, inconsistent institutions and their fans. Galileo discovered this to his detriment when he was persecuted and interned by the Vatican. An apology 350 years later does not soothe him. His crime? The heresy of doing good science in the name of heliocentrism. For the corporate-supplicating fact-checkers I quote its own Holy Wikipedia:

“Galileo’s championing of Copernican heliocentrism (Earth rotating daily and revolving around the sun) was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical since it contradicted Holy Scripture.”

And, from the epistles of the equally Holy New York Times, October 31st, 1992:

“With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo’s house arrest for eight years before his death in 1642 at the age of 77.

The dispute between the Church and Galileo has long stood as one of history’s great emblems of conflict between reason and dogma, science and faith. The Vatican’s formal acknowledgement of an error, moreover, is a rarity in an institution built over centuries on the belief that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith.

…

By the end of his trial, Galileo was forced to recant his own scientific findings as “abjured, cursed and detested,” a renunciation that caused him great personal anguish but which saved him from being burned at the stake.”

Good science is fickle only to the currently measurable data. Tycho Brahe’s meticulous data gathering instigated a scientific revolution. Brahe was also suspected of heresy by the church. Beware, flat-earth deniers. The day may theoretically return where the Flat Earth Model makes a comeback. According to Wikipedia, in the 8th century, the Vatican subscribed to it:

‘St Vergilius of Salzburg (c. 700–784), in the middle of the 8th century, discussed or taught some geographical or cosmographical ideas that St Boniface found sufficiently objectionable that he complained about them to Pope Zachary. The only surviving record of the incident is contained in Zachary’s reply, dated 748, where he wrote:

“As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he (Virgil) against God and his own soul has uttered – if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the Earth, or in (another) sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church.”’

By the 17th century the Vatican-approved Jesuits were propounding the Spherical Earth Model to the Chinese. Damascene conversion may yet strike Mr Kirsch.

Regarding Germ or Terrain, I don’t know. Yet, I am prepared to keep an open mind. So what if germ theory has prevailed for more than 100 years? There is a long history of verifiable, monumental, institutionalised lies and tactical reversals after many centuries. A sudden collapse of a century-long scientific edifice is short and unexceptional.

Duesberg

Gallo & Montagnier

Mullis

Dr Mullis and Professors Gallo, Montagnier & Duesberg

Is it too much to ask for visual proof of an isolated and purified virus in our age where there are electron microscopy techniques to approximate individual atoms? Especially when the said virus is seemingly ubiquitous and said to be easily filterable by the billions of masks we have been induced into believing do work.

Luc Montagnier tried his best to produce an HIV purification, but it may be he didn’t quite convincingly succeed. Regardless of his receiving a Nobel for discovering it. Even by his own reported tacit admission to fellow Nobel winner Kary Mullis. Mullis records this and his thoughts on Robert Gallo and Peter Duesberg in Chapter 18 of his revealing book, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Mullis was searching fruitlessly for a bona fide scientific paper proving HIV as the probable cause of AIDS:

“In response Dr. Montagnier suggested, “Why don’t you reference the CDC report?”

“I read it,” I said, “That doesn’t really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?

He agreed with me. It was damned irritating. If Montagnier didn’t know the answer, who the hell did?”

Dr Kary Mullis, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, Chapter 18

---

Ghosts of the pandemics past

TCP takes leave with Ms Ethel D. Hume’s prescient words:

“When such ominous danger signals [a doubling of English and Welsh cancer death rates from 1891 to 1939] flare into view after a century of vaccination, the thoughtful may well contemplate with alarm the risks of wholesale inoculation.

“That medical orthodoxy should be blind to the dangers of Pasteur’s techniques should not surprise the honest student of medical history. He has, for instance, only to remind himself how, in 1754, the Royal College of Physicians pronounced the inoculation of smallpox to be ‘highly salutary,’ and how in 1807 the same body, in reply to a question from the House of Commons, had changed its mind, and declared it to be ‘mischievous’.

“Fashions in medicine, like fashions in clothes, change from generation to generation, and it is as difficult for a medical man to break away from the one as it is for a society belle to free herself from the trammels of the other.”

“Independence of income, as well as independence of intellect, is needed for a man to set aside dogma. If the desired goal is the attainment of worldly ambition, unquestioning adherence to orthodoxy is the price that must be paid.”

“So long as the discovery of a ‘microbe’ may result in a medical knighthood and the discovery of a ‘vaccine’ in a comfortable income, no one need be surprised at the continuing popularity of the germ theory and its consequent system of inoculations.”

And also with wise words from Professor Antoine Béchamp, in Les Microzymas (1878):

“The most serious, even fatal, disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms [read also either microzyma, or replicating covid gene lipid nanoparticle technology] into the blood; organisms which, existing in the organs proper to them, fulfil necessary and beneficial functions – chemical and physiological – but injected into the blood, into a medium not intended for them, provoke redoubtable manifestations of the gravest morbid phenomena.

“Microzymas, morphologically identical, may differ functionally, and those proper to one species or to one centre of activity cannot be introduced into an animal of another species, nor even into another centre of activity in the same animal, without serious danger.”

6th August 2022

---

The Covid Physician is (still) an unheroic NHS doctor. This article is a personal view and does not necessarily represent the views of the NHS. Patient details have been anonymised.

Dr. TCP tweets at @tcp_dr & blogs at tcp.art.blog

Conflicts of interest: TCP prefers organic raw milk