The fraud of viruses holds in place the world we do not want to live in

How different would everything be if the public discarded belief in germ theory?

When I started this Substack in February 2024, I called it This Changes Everything because to me, realizing the frauds of virology and the disproven germ hypothesis (a.k.a. germ theory) starts a cascade of realization about how much we have been lied to about the reality we live in and about ourselves.

It may not have to start with viruses—there are other entry points to this deep questioning of received knowledge. But I think understanding that viruses don’t exist and bacteria do not cause disease is a major entry point because of how the world would change if this knowledge were accepted by most people. I wrote about some of the changes that would occur in my early articles: It matter that viruses don’t exist; Stop the next plandemic before it starts; Germ theory hooks us to drugs and needles; How can they not be connecting the dots; and Why our terrain is the key to health.

Those changes focused mostly on our individual understanding of ourselves, our bodies, true health, and our world/reality. These shifts are very significant.

Today, I want to talk about some of those same changes from the perspective of how the world and its systems would likely change if this knowledge were widespread.

And what might those changes be? A couple of answers are obvious, and I’ve written about them before.

No more plandemics

First and foremost, there would be no more plandemics, pandemics, or epidemics. No more fear-mongering news headlines about measles or Ebola or Marburg “outbreaks.” No ridiculous claims about nonexistent particles jumping from birds or pigs or bats or pangolins to people, or from birds to cows, tainting their milk, or from whatever hapless creature might be the next “reservoir” of a “deadly virus.” No further mention of “Disease X.” No more masks, no more distancing or bubbles, no more lockdowns, no more massive wealth transfers. No more tabletop simulations of “the next pandemic” or scary talk about it by the Bill Gateses of the world. No more predictive programming in the form of movies and TV shows about “deadly outbreaks.”

No more vaccines

And, of course, there would be no more vaccines! For anything! All vaccines are predicated on the existence of deadly microbes that modern science can (supposedly) stop from harming us and even wipe out completely. This, of course, is huge. It would mean no more “well-baby visits,” since these are only disguised opportunities to inject babies with more toxins. No more parents needing to fight for exemptions so their children can attend school unvaccinated.

No more requirement for workers in the healthcare field to take any vaccines. No more travel vaccinations—people could go anywhere in the world without having to be injected with any substance. There would be, in short, no more pressure for anyone, child or adult, to take any needle in the arm for any reason.

And with the end of vaccines, over time, there would be a massive drop in autoimmune diseases, allergies, asthma, and autism, and all the more recent vaccine injuries such as myocarditis, strokes, heart attacks, turbo cancers, paralysis, and sudden death with which we have become so sadly familiar in the past 4 ½ years.

These changes would be momentous in our world, especially in light of our recent experience. But these are only the most obvious changes that would happen if the virus narrative and the disproven germ hypothesis were widely considered fraudulent and no longer the center of the medical establishment. The narrative of virology has deeply affected many areas of life in the 20^th and 21^st centuries, many of them having to do with health and illness, but some that verge into other areas. Here are the ones that I see as likely significant changes when virology and the disproven germ hypothesis are fully debunked.

No more ‘public health’

The field of public health exists largely due to belief in the virus and germ theory narratives. According to Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health,

In public health, researchers, practitioners, and educators prevent disease and injury at the community and population level. We identify the causes of disease and disability, and we implement large-scale solutions. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/about/what-is-public-health

The CDC’s definition is very similar:

Public health is the science of protecting and improving the health of people and their communities. This work is achieved by promoting healthy lifestyles, researching disease and injury prevention, and detecting, preventing and responding to infectious diseases. https://www.cdcfoundation.org/what-public-health

In what sense does an agency charged with public health “protect and improve the health of people in their communities” when there is no threat to health of either people or communities by so-called communicable disease? While the mission of public health purportedly extends to lifestyle choices and injury prevention, it is clear that “infectious diseases” are the core of what this field is about. Absent viruses, germs, and contagion—absent infectious diseases—there is little reason for a public health function.

I would argue that overall health of the community should not be a concern of a government agency in the first place. Is there a need for such an agency to educate people about food and exercise to prevent diabetes, or how to lift an item off the floor without hurting your back? It’s a stretch to say that education about proper nutrition and exercise (even if this were what actual public health agencies have ever done) is anything more than an individual issue. Is there anything that a public health agency could do in regard to lifestyle choices and injury prevention that is not already covered by other sources of education or by plain common sense?

To say nothing of the fact that existing public health agencies do not teach truly healthful eating habits. The “food pyramid” has been widely criticized, and rightly so, for promoting foods that are profitable to Big Food over natural, less-processed, locally grown and highly nutritious food such as raw milk which, rather than promoting, they demonize. And we all are familiar by now with the harm caused by a “low-fat” diet, which was promoted by nutritionists and public health agencies for decades while heart disease rates continued to rise, or the lie that butter is bad for you but margarine is good for you.

But the change that looms largest in regard to the end of public health as a field is that there would be no more role for the WHO. Let me say that again. The WHO, the biggest public-health agency in the world, would have to dissolve. Without infections diseases, there would be no more fear-mongering, no more dictatorial edicts that overrule national and local decisions regarding injections, masks, lockdowns, and all the rest of the egregious policies we saw in the plandemic. No more power grab by the globalists through the public’s fear of microbes. This would be a huge step toward dismantling the global structure of domination that has been built over the past century and a half by those who benefit from it, and which is now threatening the freedom of every living thing, because the underpinning of that domination effort has always been fear.

Greater food awareness

Full debunking of virology, germ theory, and contagion would necessarily mean a greater awareness of what does cause the symptoms we call “disease” and what true health is. Part of this shift would be a decrease in reliance on doctors and official sources such as public health agencies (which would be gone!) for information and treatment of said symptoms, replaced by increased awareness of the importance of both nutrition and detoxification (as well as rest, social belonging, and avoiding false beliefs and fears) as ways to support the body’s ability to heal itself. When individuals understand how their bodies really work to constantly restore balance and detoxify all manner of toxins from their tissues, it is much easier to grasp that “you are what you eat,” and make choices to reduce the body’s need for detoxification and supply it with the nutrients that are essential for its everyday operations. (Graphic below from Weston A. Price Foundation.)

Decreased use of pharmaceuticals

Along with ceasing to rely on vaccination for protection from “disease,” awareness that what we call disease is the body’s own detoxification process will also lead to greater trust in that process and how to support it and far less reliance on pharmaceutical medications to suppress symptoms. This means less use of everything from over-the-counter antibiotics and acid reflux medications to highly toxic cancer treatments and harmful heart disease drugs like statins. It also means critically evaluating whether to receive screening tests that often lead to unnecessary surgeries.

Increased awareness of toxins in the environment

Another likely change that I see as happening with the increased rejection of virology, germ theory, and contagion as sources of disease is an increased awareness of toxins in the environment that place a burden on the body and require it to detoxify. These include heavy metals such as those in vaccines, dental fillings, chemtrails, and fluoride in the water. They also include EMFs from cell towers, Wifi networks, and personal devices as well as “dirty electricity” in the home. Microplastics, pesticides like glyphosate, genetically modified foods, pharmaceuticals in the water supply, poisons on everything from grocery store receipts to new clothes, and industrial pollution from all manner of manufacturing and mining will become the focus of attention on what is making us sick rather than the focus being on mythical microbes.

I would even suggest that this awareness might lead to much higher levels of public pushback against corporate activities such as erection of cell towers on every corner, proliferation of plastics, and toxic mining and extraction processes whose pollution of water and land are almost irremediable. At a minimum, people will vote with their dollars for the less toxic choice and demand more such choices.

A more critical view of science

We have been violently instructed since March 2020 and before to “trust the science” which told us that deadly viruses were waiting around every corner and we needed to get toxic injections to protect ourselves. When all of that is proven false, “the science” will no longer be treated as a religion. Already there is significant loss of trust in “the science” and those who invoke it; this can only increase as more people realize how much “the science” has lied to them and how much harm those lies have caused.

Science will then resume being what it used to be before it was a social control mechanism: a field of inquiry about the physical world that is not guided by politics or ideology but by the search for truth. And the public will develop a more critical view of science, and be far less likely to accept unsupported claims about anything having to do with health, the body, or medicine—or indeed, about many other areas that science has made claims about, such as Earth history, dinosaurs, evolution, moon landings, and even the shape of our realm.

Revamping the field of medicine

Ultimately, the changed awareness of what causes disease will result in a complete revamping of the entire field of medicine and a reduction in its power and authority. Reduced reliance on “modern medicine” will likely result in a resurgence of interest in more traditional medicines such as herbs and homeopathic remedies, as well as energy medicine in some of its more recent forms such as biofield tuning and Rife machines.

There is currently a surge of interest in all of these and myriad other forms of natural healing, which is already leading more people to become practitioners of these healing modalities. The words “anti-viral,” “antibacterial,” “anti-inflammatory,” “anti-microbial,” and the like will be heard no more, and even natural practitioners such as herbalists will understand that plant remedies are not “anti” anything and are not killing or destroying, but are supporting the body’s own processes of healing.

Of course, it must be recognized that this kind of sea change in the field of medicine will cause a huge shakeup in society and the economy, since healthcare employs 11% of American workers and is a significant economic engine accounting for 16.57% of US GDP. There will likely be outcries about people losing their jobs in pharmaceutical companies and hospitals, clinics and drugstores, as well as disruptions to institutions as they resist adapting to a different paradigm.

On the other side of this shakeup, however, will be a much more humane and far less controlling and authoritarian system with, almost certainly, far better outcomes for sick people and far better careers and jobs for those who want to work in a field that actually, truly, helps people to attain optimal health.

A very different world

I do not say that these changes will come about quickly even when a critical mass of people reject virology and germ theory. But it will be inevitable at some point that when the very basis of “modern medicine,” which these disproven hypotheses are, has been debunked, the edifice that is built upon them will no longer be able to stand.

And all the while as more and more people are coming to the realization of the falseness of these ideas, they will also be growing into a more responsible relationship with their own health as well as a greatly expanded understanding of who and what they are. I am confident we are headed toward this reality. I echo Indian novelist and social critic Arundhati Roy: “Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

Thanks for reading. Please leave a comment! And consider becoming a paid subscriber.