I don’t think I could say I would be in the position I am when it comes to the Covid narrative if it weren’t for Dr Mike Yeadon – a former Chief of Respiratory and Allergy at Pfizer – and I know this is also the case for other members of Over To The Youth. In my view, he has consistently shown he is interested in truth and not dogma, demonstrating publicly that he can shift his opinions to better align with his sense of truth. This has not just been limited to adopting a view of the Covid plandemic and jab rollout as a deliberate attempt at depopulation, but also, more strikingly, in denouncing the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and respiratory viruses. For someone whose entire career had been largely based on accepting the establishment view of viruses, Mike’s willingness to adopt a view that challenges so much of his previous understanding struck me as incredibly genuine.
All this was at a time when the “virus existence” debate was causing serious in-fighting amongst different camps in the truth and freedom community. Here at Over To The Youth, Rain Trozzi recorded an interview with his father Dr Mark Trozzi which supported a model of illness involving viruses. I’m sure many of us can recall the exchanges between Steve Kirsch and no-virus proponents, Dr Peter McCullough’s interview with Derrick Broze and many others. I saw many demonstrations of dogma and hostile defensiveness from many, rather than a genuine openness for conversation around truth. There were some attempts, such as Rob Verkerk’s piece for Alliance for Natural Health, and interviews from the likes of Maajid Nawaz and Simon Goddek with Dr Mark Bailey following his “Farewell to Virology” piece. But, sadly, these pieces and conversations felt like an exception.
The initial eruption around this debate has since died down, but it has continued to bubble quietly in the background and now shows signs of re-emerging. Dr Reiner Fuellmich is the latest figure to denounce the existence of SARS-CoV-2 (although still believes in the existence of other viruses). Dr Mike Yeadon has written to Robert Malone challenging his role in upholding the idea that SARS-CoV-2 exists as a pathogenic virus. Many “no-virus” proponents have teamed up for a film entitled “The End of Covid”, premiering on July 11th.
I feel now is a good time to reflect on what we can learn from those past discourses, and how we can hold space for conflicting ideas, while not forgetting and supporting the multitude of commonalities we have between us.
Learning To Live Without The Virus
Although I could probably write this article without giving my personal thoughts on the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and viruses, I feel there is value in exposing my own bias and view on this subject. While I did not hold this position prior to 2022, a model of illness that does not involve viruses now makes more sense to me than a model that does involve them. And I’d like to tell you how I got to this place.
I find myself doing a lot of big-picture thinking, pulling knowledge and experience from a whole range of different interests into what I do. I think it partly shows in how I can go from writing about Shinrin-yoku to Digital Sovereignty to geopolitics. Changing my perspective on the existence of viruses took a lot of different knowledge and perspectives, which were sometimes completely unrelated to viruses. But it began with a personal experience. A patient I saw to in early 2022, as part of my dentistry studies, suffered flu-like symptoms for 2 weeks or so, beginning immediately after I removed a large mercury filling at the very back of their mouth. This came at a time when I was beginning to appreciate just how toxic mercury and many other materials could be. While everyone from the patient, his doctor and my supervisors thought little of the mercury in relation to the patient’s flu, I knew these two things were more likely to be connected than not. I built on this experience with knowledge of environmental toxins (including how easy it is for them to be overlooked), and with the idea that flu-like symptoms are attempts by the body to detoxify. As a result, I became comfortable with the idea that poisoning from environmental toxins could be mistaken for a viral-like illness. And there was evidence to support this idea outside of my own experience, such as in the relation between the pesticide DDT and polio.
It was at this point that the debate on virus existence really rocketed the truth and freedom movement. In the midst of that, my question became this: could Covid-19 purely be a result of environmental toxins? And, by extension, could all viral diseases be the same too? This allowed me to be open to really understanding that many of the things that the no-virus camp were bringing to the table, as I saw that was the only way I might be able to answer such a question.
For now, I am settled on the answer to those questions being “yes”. Exactly what Covid-19 is, I cannot fully say, and things like the loss of taste and smell reported by so many is still one aspect that mystifies me. But when there are so many signs suggesting non-viral contributors of Covid-19 and associated deaths, whether in all-cause mortality data, 5G, dietary copper and Vitamin D deficiency (amongst other deficiencies), glyphosphate and, new to me in Rory Duff’s presentation at the 2023 Better Way Conference, changes in cosmic radiation and energy. When I combine this with the knowledge of how much forward planning and foul play occurred in promoting the Covid narrative, and what I believe are justified criticisms of virology as a field that does not respect the scientific method, the viral model makes less and less sense in my mind.
Debate In A Digital Realm
On the subject of the 2023 Better Way Conference, a recurring theme of the conference which Master of Ceremonies Neil Oliver pointed out was the idea of returning to analogue and physical connections with others. I think his message becomes even more relevant considering how most of the conversation around the virus existence happened in a purely digital space. For one, I knew I had no personal, “analogue” connection to the majority of the figures speaking on this issue, and I suspect most of the readers of this piece will have been (or still are) in a similar boat.
This strikes me as something important, given howso much of our communication is non-verbal. We gather so much about someone from their gestures, tone of voice, and simply their physical presence, which helps us build context around the explicit words and content they impart on us; it helps us discern truth. Tryingto gather this same information through an online medium will inherently be more difficult, partly as so much of this non-verbal information does not transfer well digitally. Sure, a podcast or video recording is better in this regard than written text or an article, but even then, there is much that cannot be conveyed through this medium.
Then, we must consider the sheer amount of explicit information that we sift through on the internet and social media. We become selective about what we choose to receive, and we will naturally be biased towards things we already agree with. As a result, I feel we can become devoid of the context of where words and statements come from, with no scope for these ideas to be organically challenged in the moment and in good faith, in a way that could happen in an ordinary conversation. I can thus see how easy it becomes for terms like “controlled opposition” to be thrown at both virus believers and virus sceptics. It’s an example of the kind of polarisation that being unaccountable to the individuals we interact with drives. We saw this in the general political polarisation that has happened online in the past ten years – something I have experienced through my adolescence and which I saw take hold of my peers. I think we see it here again in the virus debate.
A Dysfunctional Family
I had a conversation with a mother at the 2023 Better Way Conference about the difficulties she has in trying to reach her son on things like the Covid narrative. She spoke of a boy who I perceived as someone absorbed in a digital realm, using the internet as a replacement for the physical realm. He would listen to music from his phone at night instead of his own thoughts. He would go on holiday with the family only to watch YouTube videos of other people on holiday. He abandoned his love for mountain biking to instead play digital sports. It was a story that reminded me of my adolescence, where I replaced the physical world that I had spent my early childhood in with a digital one. But, the digital world of our creation can never truly replace the physical world, created by nature. Our families are physical creations, not digital ones. And when I saw my existence as digital, I lost the ability to adequately communicate my thoughts and feelings with the physical, real family members I lived with.
There has been no shortage of attempts to weaken the role of the family in Western society, as it serves the agenda of technocratic elites. The policies and promotion of state education and indoctrination, intersexuality and so many other elements have shown themselves as directly anti-family. But none of these could be truly successful at destroying families without digital technology, which allows for control of children and promotion of narratives within the home itself. When we’re in that environment for so long, we become so used to seeing re-presentations of people, devoid of physical space and context, that we forget what interacting with a real person looks like. And then, when we do have those physical interactions, we get a rude awakening when we realise the rules of the digital world do not work with real, living people. The son can no longer talk to the mother and, likewise, the mother can no longer talk to the son. Communication breaks down and the family becomes dysfunctional.
I think what we have seen in the virus existence debate is analogous to that broken-down familial relationship. It was a debate that played out in a digital realm in which we forgot that we were speaking to and about real people. I think that’s why it became easy to get angry and rage about the issue without personal consequence and the non-verbal cues that an in-person conversation might have had. It is not effective communication. In so many contexts in life now, I have seen that, when we can’t communicate properly, we become defensive and militant about the world and ideas that we do have in the hopes that somebody will hear us. As Jerm Warfare puts in the preface to an interview with Kevin Corbett, precisely on the dogmatic approach those in both the pro-virus and no-virus camps take:
Unity Does Not Mean Absolute Conformity
In the interview itself, which I found extremely worthwhile listening to, Kevin Corbett makes a great point on how so many of those involved in the health and freedom movement are doing a great job at unravelling the Covid narrative without needing to challenge the existence of viruses. He also has a Substack post entitled “Not In My Name”, critiquing the phenomenon of individuals being attacked simply for adopting either a pro- or no-virus position, which is also worth a read.
My own view on viruses may not be one that will resonate with all members of Over To The Youth, and others in our wider network, who likely fall across a spectrum of views in this debate; I don’t want it to be. Do I think it would be beneficial to how we approach the problems of society if more people held the same view? Sure. But I feel that finding truth requires a space that everyone can step in to fully so they can find that understanding for themselves; it acknowledges that everyone’s path to truth will look different. In this context I think of some of Dr Rashid Buttar’s comments on paths to spiritual understanding in his final interview before his death. Robin Monotti has also spoken about what truth-telling really is. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he has been able to maintain a joint Telegram channel with Dr Mike Yeadon despite them disagreeing on the nature of Covid-19. How have they achieved this? I think it’s because they know there are so many more things they can agree on and mutually work towards, and that they both recognise they are on a path towards truth. They know that none of us are perfect, and it is in this pursuit for a higher greatness, above their individual differences and weaknesses, that they avoid becoming a dysfunctional family.
They do not force their views onto others; they offer them. Likewise, I do the same with my view. For all I know, I could be completely wrong with my view, as I know I have been in the past on many a topic. As the debate around whether viruses exist re-emerges, at the times I am called to step into it and give my views, I do so from a place of seeking to improve my understanding of what is true. I do so from a place of love for humanity and wanting to uplift people, and I do not use the difference in my opinion to discriminate or decry the person who holds the opposing view – only to challenge the view itself. I step into this place where I know that somewhere at the end of my online messages is a real person. I step into this place knowing that we, as a community of conscious individuals, are a family. Families can absolutely have their disagreements, but they do so in the knowledge that their unity and collaboration is what keeps them strong – and is ultimately worth staying together for. Let’s not fragment the family over one issue we disagree on over nine things that we agree on and do good with.