Terrain Theory or Germ Theory? How did Ancient Persian, Greek and Indian Physicians Treat Disease?

"Germ theory focuses on "exogenous" & Terrain theory on "endogenous" factors that cause imbalances, which humas call "Disease." The problem is both theories (rooted in Europe) have a "reductionist" approach, separating an "organism" into "organs" and from "nature" (Other organisms/organs).

Way before microscopes, Eastern physicians like Avicenna (4th century, from #Persia) or Galen (2nd century, from Greece) and Indian Ayurvedic Physicians treated disease effectively using a non-reductionist (holistic) approach. I have studied parts of Avicenna's "Canon of Medicine" (Ghanoon in Persian/Arabic). I have summarized my findings on how they ingeniously and wisely treated disease in my new article here: shorturl.at/suFS5 "

Ray Armat.

"I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE BODY"

Felice Cimatti - Professor of Philosophy of Language and Mind at the University of Calabria, Italy.

"The doctor Johan Anmuth (his is The Book of Vision studied by Eva), ..believes in a medicine in which the body is not just a sack containing organs and fluids: he treats his patients first of all by listening to their stories and fears, as if he were at the same time a scientist and a psychoanalyst ante litteram. An ancient, patient, fallible medicine that relies even before technology on the body’s intrinsic ability to react to illness. The body, for Anmuth, is connected to the life of people and places, woods and waters, dreams and nightmares.

The idea of ​​the body of the new young doctor who takes his place is completely different, a Cartesian and quantitative idea, the body as machine which needs to be repaired like a broken clock. In the middle there is a woman’s body, that of Elizabeth / Eva, the subject of male discourses, both in the past (the new doctor takes over from the old one to follow her third pregnancy) and in the present (Eva is pregnant, and the pregnancy is at risk for a serious heart problem; a situation that, doctor Baruch Morgan tells her, requires a choice, she must have an abortion if she does not want to risk dying). What is at stake is precisely the body, silent but not mute, slow but not passive, singular but not individual.

What is a body, then? In the film, two eras and two world-views collide, one which ends with Galileo and Descartes, the animated and sensitive world of the anima mundi, and the technological and artificial world of modern science, that of the inert body of an increasingly artificial and inhumane medicine (it is a robot with many mechanical arms that operates Eva). It is difficult, we said, not to see this film without thinking about the months we have just lived, the epidemic and the quarantine, the scientists who tell us what we must do, their words as sentences without appeal, the silence of all others voices, starting from the disappearance (for the first time in human history, probably), of religion and the sacred."

https://nulluslocussinegenio.com/2022/11/30/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-body/

"Power is an educational system that divides us into those who subjugate and those who are subjugated. But be very careful: that same educational system forms all of us, from the people in the so-called establishment to the poorest social classes. This is the main reason why we all want the same things and behave in the same ways. Members of the establishment may use a board of directors or a stock exchange manoeuvre; people from more disadvantaged classes may use a metal bar. You essentially use a metal bar to violently obtain what you want. But why do you want it? Because they told you that wanting something is a virtue and you are therefore exercising your right-virtue. So you’re a murderer, but you’re essentially good....

The first tragedy we live is one shared, compulsory and wrong education that pushes us to own everything at any price. We are pushed and pulled around like a strange dark army, some of us fight with the heavy artillery, others with just a metal bar. As it usually happens, the group gets divided and some decide to fight with the weak ones. But I think that, in one way or the other, we are all weak because we are all victims. And we are all guilty, because we are all ready to play at slaughtering each other, as long as we are able to own everything at the end of the slaughter. In a nutshell, the education we received can be summarised with these words - having, owning and destroying....

But compulsory education creates by force desperate gladiators. Like desperation or rage, the crowd gets bigger..."

Paolo Pasolini, 1975

Civil liberties don’t depend on data. - Mark Changizi

https://twitter.com/MarkChangizi/status/1694465212651385172

With the @WCH_org team at the @JamForFreedom Festival 2023 💜

"I wrote to Prince Charles two years ago, urging him to dissociate himself from Klaus Schwab, who is clearly a psychopath. I reminded him that he was the only public figure who had dared [forty years ago] to stand against [architectural] modernism. But he wrote back, 'This is too far gone, and even I can't do anything about it.'"

ukcolumn.org/video/a-glimpse-into-cities-architecture-planning-and-control-with-leon-krier

Eric Clapton for Truth, Unity & Peace
https://youtube.com/watch?v=9F9DpOmjGfA&feature=shared

LETTER FROM JONATHAN HALL TO THE HART GROUP

HART Group,

I've much respect for your members work involved in campaigns, media appearances and high quality articles analysing Covid issues. However, more recently I've been very concerned with the organisations move towards 'no virus'/'no viruses' theories and proponents, within the contents of articles, posts, interviews etc. and in particular, some of the views from co-chair Dr. Jonathan Engler.

I have therefore written a letter to Dr. Jonathan Engler in context of his recent Twitter exchange with Robin Monotti, and my letter to journalist Patrick Henningsen regarding 'no virus' theories of which was posted on Robin's Twitter feed. The letter to Dr. Jonathan Engler raises relevant points and questions for him to clarify his position.

As I am unable to find his direct email address via web search, I request for you to please forward this message with attachments to him and also please confirm with a reply when you have done so.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Hall

---

Letter to Dr. Jonathan Engler on comments to Robin Monotti and 'no virus' theories  
After reading through your comments in response to Robin Monotti's posts regarding 'no virus' theories, I am writing to raise relevant points and ask questions for you to clarify your position.  

"A number of people in the Freedom Movement are "straw manning" the hypothesis that people like myself, Mike Yeadon, @EWoodhouse7, @MartinNeil9 and others hold. They are mis-characterising our position as being one that claims viruses don't exist. None of the people I have named have said that (though I am aware others in the " movement" who have)."
Dr. Jonathan Engler | Twitter | https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1692886667613352169

I don't think it is right to accuse Robin of intentionally "straw manning" or "mis-characterising" your groups position in an attempt to "suppress" views. He and myself have been criticising 'no virus' groups generally of which include "others in the movement who have" made 'no-virus' claims as you state. Many others in fact who seem very certain and are often quite aggressive in forming conclusions, not hypotheses, that Sars-Cov-2 does not exist and further that viruses do not exist. Thanks for summarising your personal views, the nuances and details of your groups position, and for pointing out the members mentioned have not made 'no virus' claims. It also needs to be pointed out however there are examples of people you have publicly referred to, referenced and worked with in the media. such as Dr. Mike Yeadon, Prof. Denis Rancourt and Patrick Henningsen, who have clearly made definite 'no virus' and 'no viruses' claims within articles, interviews, posts etc.

“Why I don’t believe there ever was a Covid virus”
“This lie is that there has ever been in circulation a novel respiratory virus”,
“a few people would have known there was no new hazard in their environment.”
“If I’m correct that there was no novel virus”
“there surely must be a novel virus when there isn’t.”
“I can reach no other conclusion than that it’s fake.”

Why I don’t believe there ever was a Covid virus | TCW | Dr. Mike Yeadon
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-i-dont-believe-there-ever-was-a-covid-virus/

"In 2020, no respiratory disease virus or viruses (the postulated SARS-CoV-2 included) caused any anomaly (total or incremental) in all-cause mortality."

What I believe about COVID | Activist Teacher | Prof. Denis Rancourt
https://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-i-believe-about-covid.html

Many interviews, commentaries and videos on 'no virus', 'no viruses' and 'no bio-weapon/GoF' theories.
Patrick Henningsen | 21st Century Wire | Covid-19 Archive
https://21stcenturywire.com/tag/covid-19/

That's not say I think their work is without any merit, as there are useful insights to be gained from Prof. Denis Rancourt's and Mike Yeadon's analysis. I can agree with them and Patrick Henningsen on many points, such as the hidden impacts of lockdown, medical mistreatment, data manipulation etc. used to foment the 'fake pandemic' and inflate 'Covid deaths' as cover to enact authoritarian policies and 'create demand' for the vaccines. However, I argue their limited focus has led to them make over-simplified and premature conclusions, that do not fully consider the complexity of situation. They fall into a binary 'real virus' vs 'no virus' trap instead, whereas I propose it's more accurate to consider this complex situation as both real and fake at the same time. Please read my letter to Patrick Henningsen posted on Robin's feed linked below for details on this point and others critical of 'no virus' theories, also in reference to Prof. Denis Rancourt and Dr. Mike Yeadon:

Robin Monotti | Twitter | https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1692151965449404526

"So, I argue it was both REAL AND FAKE. But 'no virus' theories conclude 'it's all fake' while noticeably excluding key evidence e.g. 'real-world' reports of MDs with advanced knowledge of treating Covid patients such as Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory and many, many others. Strangely there is a huge disconnect between doctors like these and 'no virus' proponents including doctors, academics and media commentators like you who likely have no in-depth experience or knowledge of Covid and ignore vast research evidence on the distinct pathologies of Sars-Cov-2."

In this excerpt I have highlighted the 'huge disconnect' between doctors with advanced experience and knowledge of treating Covid patients, and 'no virus' proponents who perhaps are showing something akin to 'survivor bias' when they dismiss the existence and impacts of Sars-Cov-2 by having no direct experience or in-depth knowledge. I urge you to read the two articles linked below by Mid-Western Doctor of which gives many insights into the issues he has faced in the 'no virus' debate, and shares interesting thoughts and observations on his Covid experiences generally. This is because it's a good example of first-hand, primary evidence from a doctor that can provide useful analysis and evidence to inform your understanding on the bigger questions you are examining.

Thoughts on the Existence of Viruses and Evaluating Controversial Scientific Discussions | The Forgotten Side of Medicine
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-existence-of-viruses

Nuanced Ideas and Simplistic Truths in the Context of COVID-19 | The Forgotten Side of Medicine
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/nuanced-ideas-and-simplistic-truths

I further raise an issue on the need for analysts to consider the totality of evidence, by approaching the questions via a range of viewpoints, from real-world on the ground reports of doctors and patients experiences where valuable data points can be gathered, all the way up to the 'big picture' data collections and analyses. As arguably this 'disconnect' has also shown to be problematic when analysts or commentators overlook the specific medical reports of doctors and patients, and mainly focus on a wider data-led approach, resulting in data gaps or 'blind-spots'. Robin made a similar point on how he thought that patient experiences were not being considered as much as they should, and generally how an over-emphasis on data analysis can cause problems. I guess such issues were an area of study during your medical training and career? Your response by misrepresenting his views and reducing it to the "we just need to talk to a few patients" retort, was not really warranted.
       
I would also like to highlight an important point on 'consequences and implications'. For as Robin and I have argued, there are potentially serious risks to public health by refusing to acknowledge and under-estimate the impacts of Sars-Cov-2, and the unique, complex range of symptoms and outcomes it presents, ranging from normal to severe and fatal. Please refer to the article linked below for a fully referenced, in-depth summary of the evidence on Sars-Cov-2 pathophysiology.  

COVID-19 Deep Dive Part I: Pathophysiology | ICENI | Substack
https://iceni.substack.com/p/covid-19-deep-dive-part-i-pathophysiology

Sars-Cov-2 is very different from coronaviruses and flu, mainly as it is an artificially engineered bio-agent of lab origin. There are still many unknowns and questions on how it spread as described in your "what we are saying" list in relation to epidemiological models etc. An accurate figure of real Sars-Cov-2 mortality,  infections, and sequelae is hard to reach due to the large amount of fakery via data manipulation and so on. Although I think we can agree it did not spread like a typical respiratory disease, or as the 'fake pandemic' scientific and media narratives have portrayed. So, I would suggest that rather than comparing it with a known respiratory disease etc., instead focus on studying on what actually did happen through an informed perspective of advanced bio-agents/bio-warfare capabilities, and refer to research papers such as linked below. Please take note of how Sars-Cov-2 is analysed by these academic and military bio-warfare experts in the field.
This is key evidence also, and by factoring in this evidence with the previously outlined, I believe your group could move forward on closer 'getting to the truth' as you have stated to be your goal.  

Prof. Denis Rancourt, who is not a bio-warfare expert, has concluded in his essay it is "irrelevant" and of no consequence whether Covid infections were caused by a Sars-Cov-2 bio-agent. He also goes further to make a range of assumptions that conclude it would be "suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen". He assumes it is not possible for a bio-agent operation to be manageable with measures in place that are not available to the public. Not fully considering that an operation may preferably aim to not cause too much uncontrollable 'real' spread, but have enough of an impact, compounded by lockdown, medical mistreatment, fear mongering and fakery, to ultimately control the narratives and create demand for authoritarian policies and the vaccines.

He also assumes the Sars-Cov-2 bio-agent and the 'counter-measure' bio-weapon vaccines are not connected, when it is possible that Sars-Cov-2 and 'variants' are working synergistically with the vaccines and multiple 'boosters', to cause severe impacts on public health. But overall, strategically planning for a controllable situation with 'plausible deniability' essential for all of the cover-ups. I'm not saying I am certain, but I suggest scenarios such as these are worthy of consideration among many other possibilities, and I argue  Prof. Denis Rancourt's conclusions need to be re-examined.  
 
"Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an escaped bioweapon is irrelevant."

There Was No Pandemic (essay) | Prof. Denis Rancourt
https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=130&name=2023_06_22_there_was_no_pandemic_essay
       
Analysis of the Virus SARS-CoV-2 as a Potential Bioweapon in Light of International Literature | Csaba Bence Farkas, Gábor Dudás, Gergely Csaba Babinszky, László Földi | Military Medicine, Volume 188, Issue 3-4, March-April 2023
https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/188/3-4/531/6586077?login=false

Beyond the Dirty Dozen: A Proposed Methodology for Assessing Future Bioweapon Threats | Theodore J Cieslak, MC, USA (Ret.), Mark G Kortepeter, MC, USA (Ret.), Ronald J Wojtyk, MC, CAN (Ret.), Hugo-Jan Jansen, PhD, NLD, Ricardo A Reyes, MS, USA, James O Smith, USA (Ret.) | Military Medicine, Volume 183, Issue 1-2, January-February 2018
https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/183/1-2/e59/4644219?login=false

It is also extremely important to learn from what happened over the last three years, and the most practical lesson is for the public to be fully prepared with safe and effective early/home treatments should there be similar or worse incidents. Because when public opinion is influenced to believe there are 'no viruses' or bio-agents such as Sars-Cov-2, and a false sense of security grows about all of the risks, the 'real-life' consequences are increased levels of illness, hospitalisations and deaths.

"This notice is clearly addressed to people who say with certainty viruses do not exist, and therefore by consequence also claim with certainty that no atypical virus existed btw 2019-21. Mortality is NOT the issue here. Never has been. We all agree there was no pandemic according to old definitions. That is NOT the point of this notice. The point is to not mislead people about treatments for future viruses."

Robin Monotti | Twitter | https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1693188584302391330

'No virus' proponents need to be fully aware in considering all of the many intended and possible unintended consequences, and be responsible for their actions. Because if they were to be held responsible and legally liable for the outcomes in real-life situations, it's very likely they would be far more careful and tactful in their messaging. I understand you are legally trained as a barrister and so must be aware of such liabilities in relation to cases of medical negligence and malpractice?

"The point is not that you don't go for boosters, masks & lockdowns because "viruses don't exist", that's not going to win you an argument with anyone but people who already agree with you. The point is that mask mandates are violations of your human rights, lockdowns are violations of your civil rights, and boosters are harmful and ineffective. Therefore what is left? Treatments. There are treatments that are safe & effective. That is what we want to focus on next time. Not "viruses don't exist"..Is this clear now why it's a strategic mistake to obsess about your personal views of virology? Nobody cares about those."

Robin Monotti | Twitter | https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1693197641918677319

Finally, as Robin and myself have argued, the 'no virus' groups tactics are strategically on many levels not only very counter-productive to the MFM generally, by dividing groups into opposing camps, undermining the 'real progress' made to counter medical tyranny and totalitarianism, and wasting valuable time, energy and attention that could be far better used on urgent, higher priority and shared goals. But are also unlikely to convince the world of their claims and 'win the argument' in the minds of the majority, especially with the often polarising arguments used and unnecessary antagonisms caused. To the extent, I suspect if the 'debate' has also been co-opted to destabilise the movement via 'cognitive infiltration' methods. Much has been publicly revealed about these type of nefarious activities in 'deep' events such as 9/11 and now Covid. To be clear though, I believe those I've mentioned have the right intentions, but are too certain in their over-simplified conclusions.

"5. You are entitled to your own scientific views, but you must also consider your shared liability with other members of the freedom movement, and the counterproductive strategy of publicly proclaiming as a certainty something which you can't be certain of, as you don't know for sure what is happening in gain of function labs around the world."

Robin Monotti | Twitter | https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1692870149580243216

In closing, I request for you to answer the following questions and clarify your views on the issues:  

1. What are your views on the 'no virus' and 'no viruses' claims by Dr. Mike Yeadon, Prof. Denis Rancourt and Patrick Henningsen? Do you think they should be more rigorous and responsible in their work, as they claim certainty and form definite conclusions on these very complex issues?            

2. Are you concerned about the consequences and implications of the claims that we have outlined on influencing personal health decisions, incident preparedness and public health generally? What are the legal implications of  'no virus' doctors liabilities in terms of negligence and malpractice?  

3. Do you have any criticisms on the conduct of  'no virus' groups? Such as the often aggressive, antagonistic behaviour and polarising arguments used? Do you think this is acceptable behaviour?

4. What are your thoughts on how 'no virus'/'no viruses' groups are influencing your work, and your groups, and the wider influences on MFM groups generally? What is your response to our concerns that the 'no virus' debate is counter-productive as outlined, and that resolutions need to be found?                    

5. What is your overall assessment of Sars-Cov-2 regarding its pathophysiology and symptoms?

6. Do you share our concerns that key evidence of the reports from doctors with advanced Covid experience and knowledge e.g. Dr. Peter McCullough, and patient reports, are being excluded from 'no virus' theories, as well as evidence of Sars-Cov-2's complex pathophysiology and symptoms?
             
7. What are your views on Sars-Cov-2 as an advanced bio-agent, and bio-warfare/GoF capabilities?    

I have copied in a number of relevant professionals to encourage wider public debate on the issues.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Hall

Twitter post's referenced between Dr. Jonathan Engler and Robin Monotti:

"A number of people in the Freedom Movement are "straw manning" the hypothesis that people like myself, Mike Yeadon, @EWoodhouse7, @MartinNeil9 and others hold. They are mis-characterising our position as being one that claims viruses don't exist. None of the people I have named have said that (though I am aware others in the "movement" who have).

My personal view - not actually relevant to this issue - is that we know a tiny fraction of what we need to know to be able to properly understand the role of viruses in disease, how they spread, why they are there, why some people get ill and others don't, and how they interact with bacteria and other pathogens.

What we are saying (and it's frustrating to have to repeat what has been said so many times before):

- the story that a novel virus emerged from anywhere and spread across the world causing the waves of deaths labelled as "covid deaths" just does not stack up
- there is no known epidemiological model to explain what happened in N Italy or New York
- since these drove the narrative, it is essential that people get to the bottom of what happened in those places
- many places - which did not test at all, were essentially untouched by "the pandemic".  Deadly viruses spreading globally don't do that.
- they also don't spread globally for months across several continents, resulting in zero excess deaths and zero contemporaneous write-ups of anything unusual going on, anywhere; these things only started when the hysteria started
- nor do they have vastly different effects in neighbouring cities, countries or other administrative areas - they are not "boundary-aware"

We will not be suppressed because people do not want to face up to some hard truths which include understanding the harms which bureacratically-encouraged maltreatment by healthcare systems may have caused. Nor will we be suppressed just because people might misrepresent (whether wilfully or not) our position as one we don't hold. The "movement" is about getting to the truth and that is all we are trying to do."

Dr. Jonathan Engler | Twitter
https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1692886667613352169

“We don't need to Sean.

Apparently we now don't need to look at any data, or anything published.
We just need to talk to a few patients.🤦‍♂️
I thought we got into the mess we are in by allowing corporate and ideological interests to subvert and pervert the scientific method through undue influence on science and our institutions.
It has done this so thouroughly that scientific endeavour has become nearly devoid of objective analysis.
The solution involves freeing science from corporate and ideological influence and restoring the scientific method, not throwing it out.”

Dr. Jonathan Engler | Twitter
https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/1692886667613352169

“I wish it wasn't but the way some commentators are laughing at the mere suggestion that patients should be listened to and considered as valid witnesses of their own bodies, and that they should be at the centre, not "data", is proof that we have a long way to go to get people off their numbers and data myopia, when it comes to patient centred medicine.”

Robin Monotti | Twitter
https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1692937813929463966

ROBIN MONOTTI'S VIEWS ON VIROLOGY

As my views are also miscategorised by "no virus" theorists, I would like to make them clear in black and white.

I agree with this statement on virology as a whole:

"My personal view - not actually relevant to this issue - is that we know a tiny fraction of what we need to know to be able to properly understand the role of viruses in disease, how they spread, why they are there, why some people get ill and others don't, and how they interact with bacteria and other pathogens."

@RobinMG

https://t.me/robinmg/29764

Fu il Club di Roma, dalle simpatie malthusiane, a teorizzare nel '68 la crescita zero, i limiti dello sviluppo, l'ecologismo antiumano.

Robin Monotti, svela un retroscena, ovvero la mentalità di quella oligarchia: "ragionava a livello estetico: la massa è brutta e incontrollabile, ergo va eliminata".

TRANSLATION:
"It was the Club of Rome, with its Malthusian sympathies, that theorized zero growth, the limits of growth, and anti-human ecologism in 1968.

Robin Monotti, reveals a background, or rather the mentality of that oligarchy: "they reasoned on an aesthetic level: the masses are ugly and uncontrollable, therefore they must be eliminated".

https://t.me/robinmg/29772

Full interview for Italian speakers. I called out The Club of Rome in Italy now..

@RobinMG talks to:

@MPastorelli

https://www.martinapastorelli.it/2023/08/integrali/a-colloquio-con-robin-monotti/

The time has come to focus on more important issues than science & data. By descending to their level of science & data, rather than ascending to moral hights of rights, we legitimize their tyranny.

@RobinMG

Mark Changizi explains:

https://t.me/robinmg/29759

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1694748713850192144