A response to Robin Monotti's "NOTICE" to no-virus "theorists"

No-virus is not a theory, it's refutation of virus "theory".

Greetings Robin,

You’ve tweeted a “Notice” to no-virus "theorists".

I’ve quoted most of your “Notice” in brackets and italics below, and give my own personal responses in bold.

(I started out by citing key phrases/sentences, but ended up leaving most of it intact to save people from having to go back and forth between your “Notice” and my response.)

“NOTICE TO THE "NO VIRUS" THEORISTS”

[A number of people in the freedom movement have adopted the narrative that viruses do not exist.]

I point out that no “virus” has been logically/scientifically shown to exist, and that literally hundreds (~250) of freedom of information responses from 217 institutions in 40 countries align with what is seen in the virology literature: that there is zero “SARS-COV-2” science.

Please cite valid science showing that I am wrong if you can. I challenge you to do so, without delay.

[…we would have to go back to 1898… and analyze every single virus identified since independently and in detail…]

I challenge you to cite valid science showing the existence of even 1 of these alleged “viruses”.

[… it would take a lifetime or two… ]

Not if one makes use of all the work that has already been done on this topic, and focuses on the lack of scientific method in the foundational papers that purportedly showed the existence of alleged “viruses”.

This massive body of work includes an official confession from the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention that “viruses” are never found in, and purified from, the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of so-called “hosts” - thereby admitting that a valid independent variable is never used in virology. The CDC’s excuse for this incredible fact is nonsensical and a red herring.

The “experts” at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto confessed the same.

The FOI collection also includes an admission from the Public Health Agency of Canada that they have no record of any alleged “virus” ever being found in, and purified from, the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of so-called human “hosts”.

[…and to me the result is also a foregone conclusion…]

That’s quite an admission. Who needs science when we can rely on foregone conclusions?

[…so I have no interest in this exercise…]

Wow again.

[….nor the time for it…]

See above.

And, regardless of your views of the necessary time-frame, you could have at least cited what you think is valid science showing the existence of “SARS-COV-2”.

If you claim to know of valid science showing the existence of “SARS-COV-2”, I challenge you to cite it directly and immediately - not links to your earlier tweets… especially tweets that only lead to further substack articles rather than scientific publications.

[This is a very dangerous position to promote publicly, for the health of others.]

I challenge you to prove this by citing valid science rather than the fear-mongering you offer below.

[…You can't possibly exclude as a certainty that various labs have viruses that they will release as bioweapons.]

*If* scientific evidence is produced one day in the future showing the existence of an actual “virus”, so be it. I will acknowledge such - and will want to see a real-time replication of the study with every single step livestreamed for public scrutiny, given the 100+ years of carnage to humans and animals based on fake-science, and the very real incentive for someone to commit fraud in order to preserve the reputation of germ theory.

Until then, I will continue stating the verifiable fact that virology is pseudoscience and no “virus” has ever been shown to exist. If you can cite even 1 valid scientific publication showing the existence of any natural or manmade particle fitting the definition of a “virus”, please do so immediately.

[We already know that Porton Down in the UK is claiming they are working on making "variants". There are claims of such work in …]

The key word here is “claiming”. Unsubstantial claims are not a substitute for valid science, so please cite some valid science if you can. I challenge you to do so.

[…If a virus is released, and this time it's even more dangerous than the last one…]

What “last one”? Again, I challenge you to cite valid science showing a “virus”.

[… and you are making people believe that no such thing exists]

I am not making people believe anything. I point out the lack of science in virology and the official confessions from hundreds of institutions in 40 countries. Please demonstrate that I am wrong if you can, by citing valid science.

[…then these people will ignore any treatment that is identified as a possible cure or antidote…]

Treatments based on “positive” results from fraudulent, meaningless “virus” tests are not needed and can cause serious harm, including death.

[Do you really want to dissuade people from seeking out treatments if this does happen?]

I do not dissuade people from seeking out solutions to real health problems, only imaginary “virus” problems that are based on fraudulent meaningless “virus” tests.

[… If a virus is released, and people do start dying from it, and it's because you have influenced them to believe that no such thing exists, you become partially responsible for the failure of these people to seek treatment. Is that what you really want?]

I do my very best to provide accurate information. If you know of any valid “virus” science that has been overlooked, please let me know immediately because I do not want to mislead anyone. If you can, I will stand corrected. To date, no one else has been able to do so.

To refrain from pointing out verifiable facts and willfully pretend that a horrifically-weaponized field of pseudoscience is actually legit, because of a fear that “one day” a real “virus” might actually exist, would be tragic and irresponsible.

Further, according to your illogic, we should all go along with all aspects of the official narrative and even pretend that quackcines, remdesivir and ventilators are safe and effective… because 1 day an entire official “virus” narrative might be true!

[…Such irresponsability… ]

It is not irresponsible to tell the truth.

[…has the potential to shut down the entire freedom movement as "virus deniers"…]

“Freedom” people are already portrayed as science-deniers regardless of their views on imaginary “viruses”.

When I am labelled a “denier” it is for telling verifiable facts, not for playing along with a scary, weaponized narrative based on pseudoscience and illogic.

[… during a possible real emergency there will be no hesitation in holding such views and people responsible by the authorities, which could easily organise scientific proof of the new virus in a court of law, specifically for the objective of a show trial against the "no-virus anti-vaxxers"…]

You are fear-mongering and trying to dissuade no-virus people from telling the truth, based on an imaginary future scenario that has never occurred in the 100+ years of virology.

If it would be easy to organize scientific proof of a “new virus”, then it should also be easy to cite scientific proof of an “old virus”. Please do so if you can, posthaste, because no one else has been able to.

[…You are entitled to your own scientific views…]

I point out verifiable facts, not mere “views”. Again, if you have scientific information to the contrary, then please cite it immediately. You have not cited any in your “Notice”.

[… but you must also consider your shared liability with other members of the freedom movement…]

I am responsible for my actions and stand by them; yes-virus people are responsible for their actions. There is no “shared liability”.

[… 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…]

Living in fear of imaginary particles and sitting by while the world is turned upside down based on pseudoscience is counterproductive. Telling the truth is not.

[I therefore consider it highly irresponsible to push this view onto others… ]

I do not “push” my “views” onto people. I share accurate information and invite others to review the virology literature for themselves, as well as the freedom of information responses obtained from 217 institutions in 40 countries that show none were able to provide/cite a shred of scientific evidence showing the existence of “SARS-COV-2”, and the dozens and dozens of responses from the U.S. CDC and other institutions about other imaginary “viruses”, as well as the vast body of incredible work done by other no-virus people - some of which is collected here.

[… who may indeed be stocking up on treatments for the next pandemic…]

There cannot be a “next pandemic” when there never was a first pandemic.

[without your influence over them…]

I provide accurate, verifiable evidence and information and people make up their own minds on how to proceed. Again, if you can show that I have erred, then please do so posthaste.

[And it's irresponsible to potentially give such an open goal to the authorities to come for all of us in the next "pandemic" with careful proof of their gain of function virus, which they may be prepsring now specifically for a court trial…]

More fear-mongering based on hypothetical future events that have never happened in the 100+ year history of virology, see response above.

[If I am wrong, nothing will happen, as the virus does not exist…]

Actually, if people who realize the truth about virology start going along with the “virus” fraud/delusion, people who could have learned the truth from them will not learn the truth. Instead, those people will continue believing in imaginary, replicating, contagious, disease-causing particles.

As a result, these people will continue unnecessarily avoiding sick people and they will avoid being around others when they are unwell. Some of them will avoid un-quackinated people and snitch on their neighbours during the next fake-pandemic. Some will opt out of weddings, funerals, and close their business. Some will put masks on their children and babies, put toxic sanitizers on their hands, have their pets quackcinated, obsessively hand-wash, ban the unmasked from their shops. Some will take “prophylactics” and “treatments” that come with risks and no benefits. Some will neglect, isolate, poison and terrorize their patients - including defenseless children and seniors. Some will waste their “science” careers in devotion to a false paradigm and pseudoscience that distracts from reality-based approaches to health.

These people will remain unnecessarily vulnerable to manipulation and harm by the perpetrators, more readily taking part in myriad activities that will facilitate the ongoing pattern of wasted public resources, social disruption and horrific carnage of people and animals of the past 100+ years.

[If I am right… ]

More fear-mongering, see response above.

[then you possibly become co-responsible with the perpetrators of any potential real death as a result of an untreated infection… ]

Your “Notice” seems to me almost as an accusation or claim of trespass. Is that your intention? If so, please be specific with names, dates, times, locations, etc. to enable a proper response.

Again - I am responsible for my actions and stand by them. I am not responsible for the actions of hypothetical future “virus” creators.

[… because the infected person listened to your theory that "viruses don't exist"]

I do not put forth a “theory”, I help to refute virus “theory” and point out verifiable facts, including official confessions from the CDC and hundreds of other “health” and “science” institutions.

[... Think about it, there is no certainty in science, so why publicly act as if there is when it has the potential to damage our entire movement?]

I am 100% certain that there is zero science backing up the “virus” narrative. Here are my notarized declarations on the topic. I challenge you to cite valid science showing that I am wrong.

[…I will add below the wording in the letter of Jonathan Hall to Patrick Henningsen, which I think is useful to explain this in other words than mine.

As a last point, I don't have any evidence of anyone pushing this theory being controlled opposition, so I am not making that claim. I believe most people making this claim are in good faith and sincerely believe their own theory… ]

I do not have a “theory”. I have facts and official confessions/failures, and I’m using them to help refute a story about “viruses” that isn’t quite a “theory” because it has no valid science behind it.

[…for their own reasons, which I do not share. However, I do notice patterns on twitter… ]

I’m not on twitter. I was kicked off during the summer of 2021 and Elon has not deigned to let me back on.

[…. of sock puppet accounts really pushing this theory…]

Pointing out the glaring flaws in the methodologies employed in the pseudoscience of virology is not “pushing a theory”.

[I don't have the time to make an analysis of these accounts to prove this…]

I see. You have enough time to write a vague “Notice” to no-virus “theorists”, with repetitive fear-mongering around hypothetical future “viruses” and speculation about unspecified no-virus “sock puppet” twitter accounts. But not enough time to include a citation for even 1 scientific study showing that an alleged “virus” actually exists. And not enough time to notice the vast army of accounts on social media that push the yes-virus narratives - which are so wildly profitable and useful for controlling and manipulating the masses, unlike debunking said narratives.

[…but the indications are all there that there is a campaign to push this theory in my account, to associate me with it by force.]

I guess you had no time to specify the accounts or include examples? It’s too bad you didn’t, because if you’re going to accuse people it’s always best to make clear who you’re talking about and provide evidence.

That’s what I did with the very aggressive virus-pushers Steve Kirsch, Richard Fleming and Kevin McCairn. I carefully documented their lies/misrepresentations, vulgarity, empty “challenges” and the like, for everyone to see - including Steve’s public contemplation of how to “punish” me for what he called “the Christine Massey problem”. So no one needs to speculate or take my word for it.

[I am here making it clear that I am distancing myself categorically from it.]

No worries, the truth about virology will march on despite your opposition to it.

[Thank you for the consideration of my points…]

You’re welcome. They were nothing new. No-virus people have heard them all before, over and over again.

[…and the negative repercussions that the the public proclaiming as a certainty that viruses never existed…]

Again, cite a valid study showing that any “virus” does/did exist. Then we could talk about these alleged negative repercussions.

The onus is on those making the positive claim that something does exist. People who point out the flaws in virology have no onus on them, but have gone far above and beyond the call of duty by collecting evidence and creating excellent educational resources that have opened many eyes.

[and therefore never shall exist in future…]

I’m not sure I’ve ever said that. “Viruses” might exist one day - just like Santa might exist and quackcines might be safe - one day.

[… can have on our entire movement…]

We might have some shared goals, but are moving in different directions when it comes to “viruses” - which is perfectly fine. Compromising integrity for the stake of some feigned “unity” doesn’t interest me.

[Extract from letter to Patrick Henningsen

@21WIRE

from Jonathan Hall: "Will 'no virus' proponents factor in the evidence outlined and reconsider their conclusions?]

Cite valid scientific evidence of a “virus”, and of course I’ll reconsider.

[Or will they continue to ignore medical evidence such as the distinct pathologies of Sars-Cov-2 as it does not fit with the theories”…]

Evidence capable of showing the existence of a “virus” would have nothing to do with medicine; it would not be “medical” evidence.

Referring to the alleged characteristics of something that has never been shown to exist is a logical fallacy.

I do not have “theories”.

[...Are they also aware of all the wider consequences and implications of their actions? As I argue there are serious risks to public health by under-estimating agents such as Sars-Cov-2 and bio-warfare capabilities generally.]

Again, please cite a valid study showing that a “virus” exists, if you can. Then we could talk about these alleged consequences.

[There are many questions and unknowns that frankly you and other commentators are guessing and making assumptions about.]

Please name one of these alleged guesses and assumptions, then we could discuss it.

[People need to learn from Covid and be fully prepared with early treatments.]

What “covid” aka coronavirus disease? See above.

[Not act as if risks do not exist at all!]

If you’re referring to “virus” risks, see above.

[For has it occurred to you 'no virus' theories influence the public to have a false sense of security on the risks and so are less prepared and able to respond should there be similar or worse incidents, increasing illness, hospitalisations and deaths?]

I don’t have “theories”. What risks? Similar or worse than what incidents? If you’re referring to “virus” risks and incidents, see above.

[Also, how far you are willing to go personally in real-life with this theory?]

I don’t have a theory, see above.

[Are you going to refuse effective anti-viral early treatments if you have Sars-Cov-2 symptoms?]

Please get back to me with valid science showing that “SARS-COV-2” exists and tests that were validated for detecting said “virus”, then we can talk about “SARS-COV-2 symptoms” and effective treatments.

[Do you aim for not only tweets of approval but for followers to do the same?]

I haven’t tweeted in 2 years, see above.

[Are you really sure about that?]

Sure about refusing fraudulently-labelled “anti-viral early treatments” with potentially harmful side effects in response to fraudulent, meaningless test results? Yes, very sure.

[I think you need to be more responsible in considering all the implications.]

Respectfully, I think you need to review the scientific method, compare it to the methods used by virologists, and brush up on your logic skills.

All About That Measles Trial
Translation of an article by Stefan Lanka, about the historic measles trial that in a sane world have ended virology years ago

Official Evidence that Virology is Pseudoscience - June 10 2023
- 40 minute video introduction to the massive body of evidence collected on my website, primarily in the form of freedom of information responses from 217 institutions in 40 countries, including a ridiculous response from the W.H.O., and email correspondences directly with "SARS-COV-2" researchers.

Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (217 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever
(includes emails from investigative journalist Torsten Engelbrecht directly to "SARS-COV-2" researchers)

FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any “virus” having been found in a "host" and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science.

Do virologists perform valid control experiments? Is virology a science?
(includes FOI responses from institutions and more email exchanges directly with "SARS-COV-2" researchers)

So What the Hell Is Going On?
(collection of educational resources showing how the perps pulled off fake-covid without a virus)

Best wishes,
Christine