Last week I was on a sold out seminar in Apeldoorn called Battle for Science. Pierre Capel, Theo Schetters, Sucharit Bhakdi, Peter McCullough and many other big international names were on the panel, including maybe the biggest name: Del Bigtree, host at The Highwire and producer of the documentaries Vaxxed I and II and recently An Inconvenient Study. The main battle Bigtree and the other speakers are fighting is raising awareness about the devastating health effects of vaccinations. This is an important and brave battle, but still I wanted to know why they never addressed the very reason the vaccination industry has become so powerful in the past 150 years: the fear of viruses. So I gathered all my courage (I’m a pussy when it comes to speaking in public) and asked Del Bigtree:

“In the past few years several doctors and scientists have come forward and emphasized the lack of scientific proof when it comes to viruses. I saw a podcast with you, Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan where you said: ‘The world is not ready for the no-virus conversation’. This would be a conversation where the lack of science around viruses and the fallacies around the germ theory are actually being discussed in panels like this. So, my question to you is: when do you think the world will be ready for the no-virus conversation?”

Applause followed, which I took as a sign that more people were having this question. Del Bigtree answered:

“When there’s millions of dollars invested into the science that we can actually point to, we can’t just keep chasing an idea. When you look at terrain theory right now, there’s not enough science for it. Neither Kaufman nor Cowan will come to my show and defend the concept of terrain theory. They told me that themselves. They will only shoot down germ theory. This will leave us in an abyss. It doesn’t land us anywhere. So, when the science has been done … and I would be the first to say that we clearly don’t understand the immune system. It’s clear that so much of the science that has been ‘proven’ is built on assumption upon assumption, but right now we are in a critical moment. We not only have maybe three years to save the world and save our species … and that concept … You know, I can’t walk towards a single politician and talk about ‘there is no germ theory, viruses don’t exist’. I won’t get two seconds into that conversation. Nobody will. Meanwhile, this game that has been played, whether it’s a lie or not, the germ theory concept is falling apart, and with it the vaccines, how they are going to use them and how they are going to protect us from germs. We are winning this game with their rules in their plane field. We’re destroying them and as we were pointing out before: they don’t have a single foot to stand on now. They are wrong, wrong and wrong. This is not the time to change the rules, to change the game, to change the entire language of this conversation. Not right when we’re about to win it and not when we need to win it and not right now when we only have a few seconds left in this game.”

More applause, as Bigtree certainly made a compelling appeal, but what exactly did he say here? That the terrain theory, the theory that opposes germ theory by stating that it are not viruses and other contagious pathogens who cause disease, but that the terrain – meaning the environment – causes disease, is merely an idea and that there’s not enough science to defend it? With this answer he actually twisted around my question, where I suggested that actually the germ theory lacks the science to defend it and is therefore nothing more but an idea, a concept, while there is actually overwhelming proof for the terrain theory. However, he’s right that millions of dollars have been invested in the idea of germs causing disease, but is that a reason to not question, doubt or even reject it?

Further on, Bigtree confirms that much of what we call science today, is built upon assumptions and not on proof. I couldn’t agree more. But then he goes on saying that we only have maybe three years to save the world and save our species. Dramatic, as well as his final words in this answer: ‘We only have a few seconds left in this game’, but what does he actually mean? And why does he call it a game. And why does he state so firmly that it is not the time to change the rules of the game, a game that according to him has been installed by ‘them’ – I suppose he refers to the powers behind the corrupt medical system. Why is it not the time? When will it be time to change the rules? What are we waiting for? Why do we have to adhere to their rules and stick to their plane field?

What Bigtree basically says is: “When I say something as outrageous as ‘there is no germ theory and viruses don’t exist’, I lose the support of every politician. In other words, I lose my influence, my credibility and my power.” However, is that a good reason to avoid the no-virus conversation? Tom Cowan comments on this in a podcast with Sam and Mark Bailey in the most simple and truthful way (exactly at 1.00 in the podcast): “In other words, the way to get to truth and freedom is to essentially not tell the truth? That doesn’t make sense.” I couldn’t agree more with Cowan.

sanneburger.com