So now maybe Dr. Coleman might need to look into the evidence that viruses have never been shown to exist. Does he know about Pasteur's falsified experimental results?
I love Dr. Coleman; he was the first serious voice I heard crying in the wilderness that the jabs were unsafe. But this essay is very fear-inducing. I know some people need a strong wake-up call, but fear is the currency of those who want to destroy most of humanity and enslave the remnant.
The jabbed becoming silent reservoirs of "viruses" that could erupt decades later and destroy even larger swathes of humanity? Scary! But there is that pesky reality: no virus has ever been isolated, major "pandemics" like the Spanish flu turned out not to have been caused by a virus, the polio epidemic and "vaccines" were also fraudulent--and even rabies is not what they claimed. And we need to ask "Cui bono?" Who benefits?
Dr. Coleman, "Those who don’t believe in the existence of germs might like to explain the Great Plague. The plague was famously spread to Derbyshire on old rags sent from London. Without the germ theory there is no rational explanation for how the plague devastated the village of Eyam or why the self-isolation organised by selfless villagers prevented the plague from spreading."
Thanks for your reply. Here's where I am about it at this time. I don't have any row to hoe here; whether viruses exist is not a matter of belief. No virus has ever been isolated despite over a century of effort by scientists, and virology is--from its inception till today--not a real science, but a fraud. You don't have to dig too deep to discover that. I was shocked to find out about Pasteur; I had no idea. So I'm doing some more reading. The illogical conclusions of the unscientific "virology"research appear right there in the papers. Circular reasoning, lack of proper methods, such as control groups, etc., are rife in the literature. The emperor has no clothes.
Second, about the plague, which we weren't discussing, as it is said to be bacterial, not viral, there are in fact other explanations: pollution, ionizing radiation and metallic dust from comets (specific comets making close passes to Earth just before outbreaks), poor sanitation, and more. (See *The Truth About Contagion* by Thomas S. Cowan, MD, and Sally Fallon Morell, especially Chapter 3.)
Anyway, that Coleman quote you posted does not address viruses nor refute the assertion that viruses haven't been proven to exist.
Please know that my respect and appreciation for Dr. Coleman remain undiminished. I also appreciate you and your Substack very much.
In Hungary in the 1970s, even in secondary school, we were taught that vaccines could only be made against bacteria, not viruses. So for me, the flu vaccine was no longer acceptable. In the past decades, vaccines were only made against viruses, which killed a lot of people.
"In the future, we must look for ways to reduce the population. Let's start with the elderly, because once they are over 60-65 they consume more than they produce, and that costs society a lot. Then the weak, then the useless, who are of no use to society because there are always more of them, and finally the stupid. Euthanasia must target these groups, euthanasia must in any case be a fundamental tool for our future societies. Of course we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We will get rid of them if we make them believe that it is for their own good. Overpopulation is useless and economically too costly. From a social point of view, it is also much better for the human machine to stop working suddenly than to gradually deteriorate. We can't test millions of people for intelligence, but we can find or induce something, an epidemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that affects the old or the overweight, the weak... They will succumb to fear and the stupid will believe it and allow themselves to be treated. We convince them that the treatment is there and that treatment is the solution. The selection of idiots will then take care of itself: you go for the cut. "[The Future of Life - Jacques Attali, 1981] Interviews with Michel Salomon, Les Visages de l'avenir collection, éditions Seghers." ... Jacques Attali: "Euthanasia" as "one of the most important tools for the future of societies" - Forum Natural Law and Humanism"
They have done it and they will do it again! Vaccines are designed for genocide and they work very well. At the 2015 Davos conference, there was talk of billions of people dying.
Really excellent comment! I believe the cork is out of the bottle, and the average human will never trust a medical doctor again. Perhaps I'm not smart enough to make that call, but the hundreds of humans around me can't all be that stupid. I did, however, choose to wait ten years and then decide on the shot, and that decision is made (years early) as well as influencing future decisions yet to be made.
But, unfortunately, they are so stupidly gullible, and "authority" can fool them. If the doctors tell them that the vaccine is good for them, they rush to take whatever is in it. And if it makes them sick, they go for the next one, convinced that if they hadn't been vaccinated, they would be much sicker!
They are sick, and they are evil. Our trust in "Modern Medicine" is shattered forever. This experience is going to lead to a complete overhaul of health care on Planet Earth, and not a moment too soon.
This will not be difficult for them, because in most countries vaccination was compulsory for medical staff, soldiers, police officers, members of the state bureaucracy. It was already obvious at the time that they wanted to eliminate these "jobs", including their employees! Of course genocide was part of the plan, but they wanted to be sure!
They have done it and they will do it again! Vaccines are designed for genocide and they work very well. At the 2015 Davos conference, there was talk of billions of people dying.
The following essay is taken from `The Medicine Men’, first published in 1975 and now newly available in paperback:
A decade or two ago, new and important drugs were being brought on to the market almost every year. Today genuinely original and exciting drugs are quite uncommon. Most of the new drugs made available are variations on a few basic themes. Drug company research is organised in a much more systematic way and research workers tend to produce drugs they want rather than simply to produce new drugs. The success of new drugs tends to depend on the marketing skills and on the amount of money available for promotional expenses. In the next few years a good deal of the research done is likely to be concentrated in four areas: drugs for the treatment of cancer, drugs for use in cardiovascular disorders, drugs with which to treat virus diseases and drugs for use in patients with psychological disorders. If we look at the problems facing researchers working in these fields we can see why there is less likely to be a sudden spectacular break through with a single drug than there is to be a slow improvement in the variety of drugs available.
To begin with, take the highly emotive subject of cancer. There are many scores of cancer diseases and many different types of treatment available. Some cancers can be treated with drugs but others need to be treated with surgery or radiotherapy. Because different cancers often respond to entirely different types of drugs, a breakthrough in the treatment of one type of cancer (for example, a particular type of leukaemia) will not necessarily be of importance to re searchers looking for a treatment for another type of cancer ( even another type of leukaemia).
The most important drug we have which is used for the treatment of patients with cardiac disorders is probably still digitalis-the foxglove which was first used medicinally several hundred years ago. Since the discovery of digitalis hundreds of other useful drugs have been marketed and undoubtedly many many more will be found in the coming years. These drugs will most probably be used in specific conditions when prescribed by specialist physicians. Whatever new drugs are produced, there is little doubt that more good could be done in this particular field by persuading people to diet, take exercise and stop smoking.
Drugs used to treat viral conditions are still very few and far between though several drug companies do make vaccines which are used to protect susceptible people from influenza. The problem when treating people with virus diseases is that there are many different types of virus and therefore many different types of drugs are needed. The companies making vaccines to protect us against influenza have found that they have to work very fast to produce a vaccine which can be used against the virus which happens to be causing the trouble at any one particular time. So, again, progress is likely to be slow and unspectacular.
In the field of psychotherapy there are already far too many drugs available. Anxiety and depression have been regarded as very fertile ground by the drug companies who have, to some extent, created a market, though the need has been exacerbated by the breakdown of the family unit, the inability of the family GP and others to provide psychological support and the willingness of patients themselves to accept pharmaceutical alternatives to spiritual support. Pills provide them with a substitute 24-hour-a-day physician. There are unlikely to be any major developments in the pharmaceutical treatment of psychological disorders until scientists have learned much more about the biochemistry of the nervous system. Even then advances will probably be slow if only because of the ethical problems which will ensue when physicians attempt to interfere actively with the metabolism of the brain.
There have been many claims made in recent years for drugs used in the treatment of major psychological disorders such as schizophrenia but doctors are beginning to query the real value of some of these drugs. Many of the drugs said to be effective have in fact created as many problems as they have solved. Patients have been enabled to go home but they have then presented a great problem to friends, relatives, employers and community health services. We should be cautious about exaggerating the values of new drugs for use in psychological disorders.
Researchers dealing with the problems of finding new drugs will have to bear several general points in mind. Firstly, they will have to remember that as Professor Rene Dubos has pointed out 'the more selective the activity of a drug, the better the chance that its toxicity will be minimal.' Drug toxicity is a problem which will be with us for some time. Bernard Towers, Professor of Paediatrics at the University of California wrote: 'It is pertinent to ask oneself whether a single case of iatrogenic disease or death, resulting directly from the careless use of one or more of the powerful tools of modern technology, is not enough to make us pause at least in our current blind admiration for technological sophistication.'
Rather than looking for new drugs it would probably be wiser to spend our resources on finding out how best to use the drugs we have. As Lord Rosenheim has said: 'I do sometimes wonder whether the vast sums of money now being spent, in many countries, on research, might not produce more rapid and spectacular improvement in world health if devoted to the application of what is already known.'
Louis S. Goodman said at a conference in 1963, when he was Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Utah College of Medicine that 'the time has come for those responsible for the introduction of new drugs to reflect seriously on how they invest their share of the nation's limited supply of money, effort, time and scientific manpower.' Professor Goodman went on to say that he felt that most drug company employees knew whether the drugs they prepared were really useful or merely imitative and hopefully profitable.
As the clinical pharmacologist Dr Walter Modell pointed out in 1962 when testifying at the Kefauver hearings 'the excessive number of needless drugs constitutes a present danger. We can make the useful drugs both less dangerous and more efficient by weeding out the useless, the ineffective and the duplicates, and by so doing, make it possible for the physician to learn in depth about potent drugs he will prescribe for his patients.'
Dr Henry E. Simmons, Director of the Bureau of Drugs at the Food and Drug Administration supported this view in 1973: 'If twenty drugs are available for a condition, but only two are effective, it is critical to all patients and to the medical profession that a scientific determination be required to make certain that only the two effective remedies are available for use.'
We would perhaps also benefit more if money was spent on health education, mass screening programmes and so on. We certainly need to review our requirements and priorities.
Finally, a quote from the late President Kennedy:
'The successful development of over nine thousand new drugs in the last twenty-five years has saved countless lives and relieved millions of victims of acute and chronic illnesses. However, the new drugs are being placed on the market with no requirements that there be either advance proof that they will be effective... or the prompt reporting of adverse reactions. These new drugs present greater hazards as well as greater potential benefits than ever before-for they are widely used, they are often very potent, and they are promoted by aggressive sales campaigns that may tend to overstate their merits and fail to indicate the risks involved in their use.'
Sadly that is all still quite true.
Taken from `The Medicine Men’ by Vernon Coleman.
`The Medicine Men’ was first published in 1975. A new paperback edition is now available and can be purchased via the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com Copyright Vernon Coleman 1975 and 2023
Since the vaxx was introduced, cancer rates have risen by 300%. I firmly believe they killed my mom. I have no mercy for those in government, the medical field or big pharma who deliberately introduced, pushed and tried to force this poison on the world's population. I am very grateful to God for making sure I was educated early and never took the jab.
We should stop making medications that are petroleum based, too.
So now maybe Dr. Coleman might need to look into the evidence that viruses have never been shown to exist. Does he know about Pasteur's falsified experimental results?
I love Dr. Coleman; he was the first serious voice I heard crying in the wilderness that the jabs were unsafe. But this essay is very fear-inducing. I know some people need a strong wake-up call, but fear is the currency of those who want to destroy most of humanity and enslave the remnant.
The jabbed becoming silent reservoirs of "viruses" that could erupt decades later and destroy even larger swathes of humanity? Scary! But there is that pesky reality: no virus has ever been isolated, major "pandemics" like the Spanish flu turned out not to have been caused by a virus, the polio epidemic and "vaccines" were also fraudulent--and even rabies is not what they claimed. And we need to ask "Cui bono?" Who benefits?
Thanks for commenting.
Dr. Coleman, "Those who don’t believe in the existence of germs might like to explain the Great Plague. The plague was famously spread to Derbyshire on old rags sent from London. Without the germ theory there is no rational explanation for how the plague devastated the village of Eyam or why the self-isolation organised by selfless villagers prevented the plague from spreading."
Thanks for your reply. Here's where I am about it at this time. I don't have any row to hoe here; whether viruses exist is not a matter of belief. No virus has ever been isolated despite over a century of effort by scientists, and virology is--from its inception till today--not a real science, but a fraud. You don't have to dig too deep to discover that. I was shocked to find out about Pasteur; I had no idea. So I'm doing some more reading. The illogical conclusions of the unscientific "virology"research appear right there in the papers. Circular reasoning, lack of proper methods, such as control groups, etc., are rife in the literature. The emperor has no clothes.
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/a-farewell-to-virology-part-one/
Second, about the plague, which we weren't discussing, as it is said to be bacterial, not viral, there are in fact other explanations: pollution, ionizing radiation and metallic dust from comets (specific comets making close passes to Earth just before outbreaks), poor sanitation, and more. (See *The Truth About Contagion* by Thomas S. Cowan, MD, and Sally Fallon Morell, especially Chapter 3.)
Anyway, that Coleman quote you posted does not address viruses nor refute the assertion that viruses haven't been proven to exist.
Please know that my respect and appreciation for Dr. Coleman remain undiminished. I also appreciate you and your Substack very much.
But plague is a bacterium, not a virus.
Doesn't matter, according to these people, you don't have either.
Don't let them confuse you with their double talk.
Tune them out, or ignore the talking points.
They are charlatans, working against, not for, the common good.
In Hungary in the 1970s, even in secondary school, we were taught that vaccines could only be made against bacteria, not viruses. So for me, the flu vaccine was no longer acceptable. In the past decades, vaccines were only made against viruses, which killed a lot of people.
Regardless, it’s been proven that contagion is a myth, so the “spread” was caused by being poisoned by some other means
Says who?
The people that survived operations with no regard for sterility, you must realize these are pipe dreams.
Thanks for the comment, but no more of this nonsense.
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-why-are-they-all-so
Yet another silenced warrior!
"In the future, we must look for ways to reduce the population. Let's start with the elderly, because once they are over 60-65 they consume more than they produce, and that costs society a lot. Then the weak, then the useless, who are of no use to society because there are always more of them, and finally the stupid. Euthanasia must target these groups, euthanasia must in any case be a fundamental tool for our future societies. Of course we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We will get rid of them if we make them believe that it is for their own good. Overpopulation is useless and economically too costly. From a social point of view, it is also much better for the human machine to stop working suddenly than to gradually deteriorate. We can't test millions of people for intelligence, but we can find or induce something, an epidemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus that affects the old or the overweight, the weak... They will succumb to fear and the stupid will believe it and allow themselves to be treated. We convince them that the treatment is there and that treatment is the solution. The selection of idiots will then take care of itself: you go for the cut. "[The Future of Life - Jacques Attali, 1981] Interviews with Michel Salomon, Les Visages de l'avenir collection, éditions Seghers." ... Jacques Attali: "Euthanasia" as "one of the most important tools for the future of societies" - Forum Natural Law and Humanism"
They have done it and they will do it again! Vaccines are designed for genocide and they work very well. At the 2015 Davos conference, there was talk of billions of people dying.
Really excellent comment! I believe the cork is out of the bottle, and the average human will never trust a medical doctor again. Perhaps I'm not smart enough to make that call, but the hundreds of humans around me can't all be that stupid. I did, however, choose to wait ten years and then decide on the shot, and that decision is made (years early) as well as influencing future decisions yet to be made.
Do not comply - Protect Yourself.
But, unfortunately, they are so stupidly gullible, and "authority" can fool them. If the doctors tell them that the vaccine is good for them, they rush to take whatever is in it. And if it makes them sick, they go for the next one, convinced that if they hadn't been vaccinated, they would be much sicker!
If you can't train them, they want to be fooled, want not to think & reason, are slaves already in their minds.
They are sick, and they are evil. Our trust in "Modern Medicine" is shattered forever. This experience is going to lead to a complete overhaul of health care on Planet Earth, and not a moment too soon.
This will not be difficult for them, because in most countries vaccination was compulsory for medical staff, soldiers, police officers, members of the state bureaucracy. It was already obvious at the time that they wanted to eliminate these "jobs", including their employees! Of course genocide was part of the plan, but they wanted to be sure!
They have done it and they will do it again! Vaccines are designed for genocide and they work very well. At the 2015 Davos conference, there was talk of billions of people dying.
Prescription Drugs – Is there nothing new?
Dr Vernon Coleman
The following essay is taken from `The Medicine Men’, first published in 1975 and now newly available in paperback:
A decade or two ago, new and important drugs were being brought on to the market almost every year. Today genuinely original and exciting drugs are quite uncommon. Most of the new drugs made available are variations on a few basic themes. Drug company research is organised in a much more systematic way and research workers tend to produce drugs they want rather than simply to produce new drugs. The success of new drugs tends to depend on the marketing skills and on the amount of money available for promotional expenses. In the next few years a good deal of the research done is likely to be concentrated in four areas: drugs for the treatment of cancer, drugs for use in cardiovascular disorders, drugs with which to treat virus diseases and drugs for use in patients with psychological disorders. If we look at the problems facing researchers working in these fields we can see why there is less likely to be a sudden spectacular break through with a single drug than there is to be a slow improvement in the variety of drugs available.
To begin with, take the highly emotive subject of cancer. There are many scores of cancer diseases and many different types of treatment available. Some cancers can be treated with drugs but others need to be treated with surgery or radiotherapy. Because different cancers often respond to entirely different types of drugs, a breakthrough in the treatment of one type of cancer (for example, a particular type of leukaemia) will not necessarily be of importance to re searchers looking for a treatment for another type of cancer ( even another type of leukaemia).
The most important drug we have which is used for the treatment of patients with cardiac disorders is probably still digitalis-the foxglove which was first used medicinally several hundred years ago. Since the discovery of digitalis hundreds of other useful drugs have been marketed and undoubtedly many many more will be found in the coming years. These drugs will most probably be used in specific conditions when prescribed by specialist physicians. Whatever new drugs are produced, there is little doubt that more good could be done in this particular field by persuading people to diet, take exercise and stop smoking.
Drugs used to treat viral conditions are still very few and far between though several drug companies do make vaccines which are used to protect susceptible people from influenza. The problem when treating people with virus diseases is that there are many different types of virus and therefore many different types of drugs are needed. The companies making vaccines to protect us against influenza have found that they have to work very fast to produce a vaccine which can be used against the virus which happens to be causing the trouble at any one particular time. So, again, progress is likely to be slow and unspectacular.
In the field of psychotherapy there are already far too many drugs available. Anxiety and depression have been regarded as very fertile ground by the drug companies who have, to some extent, created a market, though the need has been exacerbated by the breakdown of the family unit, the inability of the family GP and others to provide psychological support and the willingness of patients themselves to accept pharmaceutical alternatives to spiritual support. Pills provide them with a substitute 24-hour-a-day physician. There are unlikely to be any major developments in the pharmaceutical treatment of psychological disorders until scientists have learned much more about the biochemistry of the nervous system. Even then advances will probably be slow if only because of the ethical problems which will ensue when physicians attempt to interfere actively with the metabolism of the brain.
There have been many claims made in recent years for drugs used in the treatment of major psychological disorders such as schizophrenia but doctors are beginning to query the real value of some of these drugs. Many of the drugs said to be effective have in fact created as many problems as they have solved. Patients have been enabled to go home but they have then presented a great problem to friends, relatives, employers and community health services. We should be cautious about exaggerating the values of new drugs for use in psychological disorders.
Researchers dealing with the problems of finding new drugs will have to bear several general points in mind. Firstly, they will have to remember that as Professor Rene Dubos has pointed out 'the more selective the activity of a drug, the better the chance that its toxicity will be minimal.' Drug toxicity is a problem which will be with us for some time. Bernard Towers, Professor of Paediatrics at the University of California wrote: 'It is pertinent to ask oneself whether a single case of iatrogenic disease or death, resulting directly from the careless use of one or more of the powerful tools of modern technology, is not enough to make us pause at least in our current blind admiration for technological sophistication.'
Rather than looking for new drugs it would probably be wiser to spend our resources on finding out how best to use the drugs we have. As Lord Rosenheim has said: 'I do sometimes wonder whether the vast sums of money now being spent, in many countries, on research, might not produce more rapid and spectacular improvement in world health if devoted to the application of what is already known.'
Louis S. Goodman said at a conference in 1963, when he was Professor and Chairman of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Utah College of Medicine that 'the time has come for those responsible for the introduction of new drugs to reflect seriously on how they invest their share of the nation's limited supply of money, effort, time and scientific manpower.' Professor Goodman went on to say that he felt that most drug company employees knew whether the drugs they prepared were really useful or merely imitative and hopefully profitable.
As the clinical pharmacologist Dr Walter Modell pointed out in 1962 when testifying at the Kefauver hearings 'the excessive number of needless drugs constitutes a present danger. We can make the useful drugs both less dangerous and more efficient by weeding out the useless, the ineffective and the duplicates, and by so doing, make it possible for the physician to learn in depth about potent drugs he will prescribe for his patients.'
Dr Henry E. Simmons, Director of the Bureau of Drugs at the Food and Drug Administration supported this view in 1973: 'If twenty drugs are available for a condition, but only two are effective, it is critical to all patients and to the medical profession that a scientific determination be required to make certain that only the two effective remedies are available for use.'
We would perhaps also benefit more if money was spent on health education, mass screening programmes and so on. We certainly need to review our requirements and priorities.
Finally, a quote from the late President Kennedy:
'The successful development of over nine thousand new drugs in the last twenty-five years has saved countless lives and relieved millions of victims of acute and chronic illnesses. However, the new drugs are being placed on the market with no requirements that there be either advance proof that they will be effective... or the prompt reporting of adverse reactions. These new drugs present greater hazards as well as greater potential benefits than ever before-for they are widely used, they are often very potent, and they are promoted by aggressive sales campaigns that may tend to overstate their merits and fail to indicate the risks involved in their use.'
Sadly that is all still quite true.
Taken from `The Medicine Men’ by Vernon Coleman.
`The Medicine Men’ was first published in 1975. A new paperback edition is now available and can be purchased via the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com Copyright Vernon Coleman 1975 and 2023
Since the vaxx was introduced, cancer rates have risen by 300%. I firmly believe they killed my mom. I have no mercy for those in government, the medical field or big pharma who deliberately introduced, pushed and tried to force this poison on the world's population. I am very grateful to God for making sure I was educated early and never took the jab.
We should stop making medications that are petroleum based, too.
Condolences on your loss. 🙏🏼💐
Thank you very much.
It's a debate that NOBODY from the "other side" will EVER participate in.
It is a debate that they could never win, unless they controlled the flow of fraudulent information, which is what they do by not debating.
I'm in love with Dr. Coleman's brain.
Spin Spin Spin and dupe the masses!
That is all you get from Big Pharma + a death shot.