In Defense of No Virus and Sanity
Or what is the "no virus camp"?
As I've stated numerous times, I'm not a doctor.
I've read some, don't know much, still my insights and short/mid-term predictions during the “covid”/lockdown era have almost always been accurate. It had a lot to do with analyzing ideas, research and propaganda from various sources, as well as trusting my senses in real life. It had nothing to do with being a health specialist. By the same line of thought, for quite a while now, I'm leaning to "no virus".
But what does "no virus" even mean?
"No virus" isn't a dogma, unified theory or "camp". To most people it's just a confusing concept, likely translating as an offense against the reality they've been used to for their entire lives. It is often considered an insult, like "conspiracy theorist", "anti-vaxxer" and my favorite of Greek fame, "αρνητής μάσκας" (mask denier).
"No virus" can mean that there was no new virus, that "covid" was a plot involving other means. There are plenty of possible, and often confirmed explanations for things that happened during the "pandemic" and the involvement of a (new) virus isn’t a prerequisite at all. The authorities didn't do much to prove they have one anyway.
"No virus" can also mean that several (or even all) viruses aren't scientifically proven to exist. That several (or even all) so-called viruses as disease causing germs is a fallacy, not that microscopes can't detect the particles that are commonly classified as infectious viruses.
"No virus" can also mean proposing alternatives to Virology and/or Germ Theory, including Terrain Theory and its variants. Some claim that even supposedly dangerous bacteria don't cause (infectious) sickness, others that they do (unlike viruses), others that they're only dangerous to an already largely imbalanced individual.
There are many specialists and civilians doing related research out there. Not all of them share the same views and most of them don't claim to hold any absolute truth. Many "no virus" people have a lot of proper science and debunking of pseudo-science to support their claims. But they're usually suffering hostility, unfair ridicule and above all unwillingness to openly debate from the mainstream and the approved opposition. Still they're slowly but steadily gaining ground, as pretty much everyone who dares take a closer look can see that (at least much of) virology is a fraud. Many more doctors have opened to the idea or even embraced it. But you can easily check for yourself. Spotting basic fraud in the methodology of crucial research papers doesn't need a PhD in virology.
On the other hand, "lab leak" and "gain of function", instead of being called “divisive” or “irrelevant” at best (as is the case with “no virus”), get a free pass or even support from most of the "alternative" big names and trolls, and often reach into the mainstream. Even though they're based on nothing more than rumors, suspect interviews and the occasional patent or computer sequence. Those don’t mean proof of existence in reality. But "lab leak" and "gain of function" mean further panic. Which means favorable treatment from those who benefit from your fear, including many who claim to be on your side.
"No virus" can also mean no poison. In Latin, and perhaps in reality, virus = poison.
Some substacks to get you started:
In Greek:
I suspect that the "no virus" idea may originate from the fact that although viruses most likely do exist, sometimes our self appointed masters use the excuse "the virus done it" to avoid blame for poisoning we of the classes who do not matter.
For instance, a good case can be made that while herpes viruses and others exist, the HIV virus is a completee hoax. The people with so called "AIDS" have immune system malfunction for many reasons such as taking toxic drugs for fun and "therapy" that suppress the immune system or many of them are malnourished. Making up a virus can be lucrative for those offering a cure.