Why not nip it in the bud?

If irresponsible people are encouraging you to hug grandma, even when you or she are very ill…

…then surely it is worth winning a huge sum of money to shut them up?

It doesn’t matter if someone is

• a vaccine-touting mainstream normie

  or a

• medical freedom plandemic-condemning alternative voice.

If they consider the ever-growing one-way street of traffic to the terrain “side” as a delusion or psyop then surely shutting down this madness is a no-brainer.

If you hold the position that evidence exists for the existence of viruses, and so that those saying otherwise are actively endangering children and adults, and you personally have the power to shut down the entire madness then it is incumbent on you to do so.

• I don’t need your money

  Then give it away in a grand gesture. This will help shine light on your successful ending of the no-virus / no-contagion psyop.

• Why should I bother? You’ll just dismiss my evidence.

  Your hard existential evidence of existence can be published publicly. Having looked at all the available evidence so far with a fine tooth-comb , we are confident we can point out the flaws in it in such a way that you will accept the analysis.

  If you don’t, then make a public fuss! Maybe sue. Point out clearly the errors in our analysis so everyone can see your evidence is scientific and you are owed the money.

  Have a proper discussion. We have all solemnly vowed to give you the money on receipt of evidence. We are all honourable people. If you show that you have proper evidence - not reification and inference - then we will give you the money.

  This is science not vaudeville.

  We offer the money only so people can clearly take on board that viruses are fictional, and that this is a fact.

• What are the rules? Who says what is scientific?

  Here we get to the nub of it. “scientific” means nothing more than “real”. If someone presents presents under a tree as proof of Santa, you KNOW this is not hard proof of Santa., Why would you accept the same illogical inferential “proof” when it comes to viruses? Or to the “pathogenic nature of bacteria”?

A good way to think of it is perhaps in terms of a court of law. In order to get a conviction there must be proper hard evidence not circumstantial inferential “evidence” - no matter how much of it.

For this reason, someone taking us all to court because they don’t accept our dismantling of their evidence would be the best possible result.

Someone with lots of money and clout who wants to claim the money to make a point in a big splash.

No of course not.

But the hard fact that Germ Theory is a fairy-story requires only people’s awareness.

All publicity is good publicity for truth - even if it is pilloried, attacked.

Anyone and everyone who looks in the room sees the elephant quite quickly. The nonsense of Germ Theory requires only attention to see. To avoid the elephant requires a careful denial that the room is there - unlocked - or a refusal to go in.

Warm wishes

Tim

By getting a paid subscription… blah blah …. nothing behind a paywall … blah blah 🙏