Part 1: Psyop?

No such thing as a virus?

What is a Psychological Operation?

A psychological operation is one type of thought system meant to trap the mind. Just as livestock are kept within physical fences, people’s minds can be kept inside mental fences. Propaganda is mental trap that when successful, keeps the mind within walls like a trap. Postscript #1 of my AI article below describes propaganda in more detail.

What other thought systems besides propaganda fall within the set of Psychological Operations? Subliminal messaging, and hypnosis are 2 other examples other than propaganda which are types of Psychological Operations. All can be used to “trap” the mind.

What does the “Operation” part of “Psychological Operation” mean?

In my medical world, “Operation” indicates some type of intervention that causes change. If it is a surgery to repair a wound, then it is an operation to restore form and function to the body. However, operations can also deform the body. Sometimes this is necessary in the case of a malignant tumor, or a mangled limb where restoration is not possible. In Psychological Operations, the mental body is the subject of re-formation, or de-formation, instead of the material one.

Example #1 - Analysis of a psychological operation and its effects.

The “No such thing as a virus” narrative.

As far as I can tell the “No such thing as a virus” thought system originated with the Germ theory vs. Terrain theory meme. Once people hook onto this story of hidden “conflict”, many then fall into a belief that there is no such thing as a virus.

Having studied Cell Biology and causes of illness for most of my life, Germ Theory vs. Terrain Theory was completely new to me. I never heard of it till Covid. For someone who reads everything from the European society of Physicists to Genbank, for me to never have heard of a century old conflict in academia is very unusual. This made it an immediate discrepancy. (How discrepancies are critical in collapsing illusions I describe below in Discrepancy Analysis)

Why do I call this a discrepancy? Surely I can’t claim to know everything. But for anyone who knows me I’m always looking at the big picture. To miss the biggest controversy in cell biology, genetics and medicine would make me practically blind. The other possibility, is that this conflict of “disease theories” only showed up sometime after I finished medical school and residency. (To add to the discrepancies, if the fundamental error of “germ theory” was real, none of the genetic engineering and cell biology I learned in the 90’s would exist.)

Despite what believers in the Germ theory vs Terrain theory “conflict” say, I WAS NEVER TAUGHT GERM THEORY. (or terrain “theory” for that matter)

In medical school what I learned were causes of disease.

---

To illustrate how the thought framework I learned at Dalhousie Medical School is nothing like “Germ vs Terrain”, I’ll show people how I learned about diseases. The most common Mnemonic for the material causes of disease is VINDICATE.

V - Vascular - blood flow problems.

I - Iatrogenic - the doctor caused the disease.

N - Neoplastic - Cancers.

D - Degenerative - mechanical wear and tear.

I - Infectious - things that multiply and spread.

C - Congenital - the problem was there from birth.

A - Autoimmune - body making antibody proteins against itself.

T - Toxic - a poison.

E - Endocrine - hormone imbalance or absence.

*Injury is left off this list because for the most part, injuries as causes of illness are self evident; e.g. gravity causing a fall, inertia inside a moving car causing deceleration damage or the environmental extremes such as malnutrition, dehydration, or radiation causing direct cellular injury. Likewise Idiopathic / Unknown is also left out of “VINDICATE” because if all the known causes of disease are absent then all that is left is unknown / idiopathic.

Nowhere in 13 years of schooling or the 15 years of knowledge I acquired thereafter did I hear anything about “Germ Theory” vs. “Terrain Theory”.

---

What happens when I explain “vindicate” to someone who has undergone the Psychological Operation that viruses don’t exist?

They deny that medicine is taught that way, and they insist that I was taught “Germ Theory”.

Wait a minute…

Were they there at my medical school? Were they by the bedside of my patients my entire career and I didn’t notice? How do they “know” what I was taught or what I learned from my patients? Yet “No virus’ers” will insist that they somehow “know” how I learned medicine… because of a youtube video. The power of psyops to create delusions stuns me to this day.

In the mainstream, this thought discrepancy is most often described as “Cognitive Dissonance”. The situation where people have to fabricate something entirely outlandish to maintain their thought system, I liken to a “thought redirect”. (This term is more descriptive because it illustrates the process that creates “cognitive dissonances”)

What is a thought redirect?

Using the example above, when I deny knowledge of a century long war between Germ Theorists and Terrain Theorists, the response I get across all levels of education seem to fall into 1 of 3 categories:

1. Medical education is a big pharma conspiracy, (Partly true) so everything you learned is wrong. (False - none of my patients would have recovered if this was the case.)

2. Germs don’t cause disease. This is a non sequitur - none of the 9 causes listed in “vindicate” mentions “germs”.

3. Denial by Authority. “Dr. So and So says “Terrain” theory is right”, and he knows more than me because of ...

When there is a “war” that no one knows about except for a limited segment of the population I ask myself:

Is there a Strawman psychological operation in effect?

---

What is a strawman operation? A “strawman” operation creates a fictitious weak enemy (the Strawman) who is easily beaten with argument. The psychological “reward” for beating the Strawman is “Victory”.

Why do I know the “Germ Theory” narrative is a Strawman? How is it deliberately constructed to be weak and easily beaten in a fictitious war between Germ vs. Terrain theory?

Because youtube scholars only refer to flaws of experiments done a century ago. Those who claim to “know” that all virology is fake never refer to all the successful experiments from the past 50 years where virus life cycles of multiplying and infecting cells was hijacked by researchers to create genetically altered organisms. Without viruses, modern genetic engineering would not exist. To have the satisfaction of beating down a Germ theory strawman, people must pretend that modern genetics and virology never happened.

It is as if all the successful experiments, gene splicing and animal creations of the modern age made possible by virology are erased. Arguing only within the experimental deficiencies from century ago, and ignoring all the research today, allows “Terrain theorists” to turn “all of virology” into a facile enemy for armchair intellectuals to beat upon. “A few experiments in the beginning were wrong, therefore everything is wrong”. This type of logical fallacy¹ traps minds in a way that the subject becomes oblivious to all information outside the trap.

• In order to have any rational discussion, knowledge of fallacies should be established before entering into argument.² However, with the state of education these days, most people don’t have enough knowledge to see when they don’t make sense, let alone think. I’ve had people who don’t know what a vacuole is tell me I’m wrong about everything in cell biology because of “Exosomes”. It is almost as if the education system creates minds that believe instead of reason by design.

Witnessing that people rarely, if ever, let go of their “victory” against a 100 year old virology “Strawman”, I started to ask why. What I discovered was that an emotional attachment to “knowing more” than the “academics” overrides reason and knowledge. (e.g. “Here’s my proof that the science teacher I hated, and all those arrogant academics are wrong!”) Emotion appears to play an essential function in psy ops.

---

So how did I approach the problem (as an academic)?

I tried to bring things down to a level where everyone could understand — even if they didn’t have any background in biology. I thought if I simplified the 9 VINDICATE causes of illness to a level where people didn’t need decades of experience treating thousands of illnesses to comprehend the many faces of disease, people could break out of the Psychological Operation that altered their minds.

So I simplified the 9 causes of illness down to 2.

1. Non-Living things that cause disease.

2. Living things that cause disease.

Non-Living things that cause disease are things like malnutrition (missing vitamins or nutrients), toxins like lead and arsenic, and environment (radiation, temperature or gravity.)

Living things that cause illness come in different sizes.

1. BIG - Bears, Sharks and Tigers.

2. Medium - visible parasites like mosquitoes, intestinal worms and leeches.

3. small - visible under a microscope.

Living things are called “living” by their ability to multiply, adapt to their environment and function according to a DNA or RNA blueprint. The Big and Medium living things are multicellular, while small living things can be multicellular (yeasts), or single cellular (solitary bacteria). However, regardless of their size, they all share the 3 basic properties of “Living”.

---

And then I asked:

What is the smallest possible living thing?

This last step to break out of the virus psyop I put as a question. The advantage of the Socratic (questioning) method over the didactic is the mind arrives at an answer through process rather than simple acceptance of a statement. A question was the last step to finally break the false argument of “Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory” (or so I thought).

The logical answer to the smallest thing that still lives is subcellular, or smaller than a cell but still possessing all the properties of living things — reproduction, adaptation, and functional genes.

The smallest subcellular structure capable of multiplying is a piece of RNA (or DNA) with a gene carrying instructions for proteins that make copies of the DNA / RNA blueprint.

However, the problem with self replicating RNA or DNA is if it gets outside a cell, it oxidizes and breaks down in oxygen environments — especially with sunlight. And unless it has at least one other gene coding for a protein that enables it to survive long enough to adapt, it can’t change according to its environment.

So a self replicating piece of RNA or DNA, in order to be capable of surviving outside, would need a part of its code (a gene) to provide for a protein or lipid shield, with code for at least one or more proteins to enable adaptations as environments and cells change. Luckily, in the most basic form, DNA and RNA polymerases, which copy genetic blueprints, also allow for mutations that enable adaptation, thus giving 1 gene 2 functions. A construct of DNA/RNA, with a copy function and protective coat, is called a “virus” in English. It is the smallest thing that replicates, adapts and makes a protective body for itself according to a blueprint.

A gout crystal replicates, but does not adapt. A prion replicates but does not adapt either. These are two non-living causes of disease. A living cause of disease is different because it replicates AND adapts. From structural minimalism, self replicating DNA or RNA which we call a virus, is the smallest LIVING cause of disease. (The smallest theoretical entity that still has all 3 properties of living things.)

---

What response did I get when I explained living vs. non-living in the most basic terms?

“Viruses aren’t alive. They are a parasite.”

Nevermind the contradiction that parasites are living things too. (How captured minds become oblivious to such a contradiction puzzled me. The depths of fallacy seemingly creates an inability to recognize nonsense. For example, since when did any non-living thing like a rock or salt crystal ever “parasite” someone. A parasite has to be alive; and if a virus is a parasite, that makes viruses alive too.)

Pointing out that parasites are alive too, however, usually results in this response or some variant thereof: “Viruses aren’t alive because… (someone or some website said so)” or, “Viruses aren’t alive because they need another cell to reproduce.”

When I point out that every living thing needs an environment to reproduce, and that for viruses a cell is their “environment”, just like the Earth is our “environment”, the mantra gets repeated, “Viruses aren’t alive. They are a parasite.” without any recognizance of the contradiction.

Going back to the explanation that in biology, every living thing reproduces in an environment; for a tapeworm, that’s the intestine of another animal; for humans it’s the earth; and for a virus its the inside of a cell, rarely yields results if someone is trapped in a thought cage.

“Viruses are not alive, they’re a parasite…” and then we’re back to the contradiction of “parasites”, which are alive. The fact that a mosquito needs a human to reproduce, and humans need a planet holds, no sway against the claim a virus is not alive “because it’s a parasite”. Try to make progress by pointing out that other than their size and that their environment is a cell, viruses meet all 3 criteria of living things elicits the same canned response. The loop of fallacies repeat endlessly, with any ability to reason a way out, seemingly erased.

Within the freedom movement, I have friends who fought against the “Authorities” who lied, only to suddenly rely on an “internet Authority” to tell them the truth, even if it makes no sense.

A step by step process of how to DETERMINE what is true in biological systems, cannot seemingly break the spell either. People entranced are so thought resistant that comprehension of the difference between living and non-living becomes impossible. What is it about certain internet personalities that overrules even my best reasoning? Perhaps the key is the exercise of “Authority”?

---

Who has the greater authority?

An individual with the knowledge and experience of an Emergency Room doctor? Or a “famous” psychiatrist on the otherside of the world? In the Emergency world, patients who come in with illness from a non living thing, like a toxin, start off sick, and they gradually get better. Pesticides, alcohol, and lead are all non-living things that can cause illness. As long as the toxic exposure is stopped, people will gradually improve.

People with illness caused by living things, on the other hand, tend to get sicker before they get better. Illnesses caused by living things tend to multiply with time increasing in number before decaying, while illnesses caused by non living things tend to decay with time as individuals recover.

When a patient comes into the ER sick and gets sicker in hospital, that’s one indicator that a living thing is the root cause. An organism, as it multiplies, uses resources and creates waste in its host body causing illness. This is defined as an infectious causes of disease, not a “Germ Theory”.³

The numerical spread of contagious diseases between individuals also has convenient “Terrain Theory” explanation. “People’s bodies are just signalling to each other to Detox”. Never mind that I’ve never seen a body get a “signal” to detox itself to death. The “detox” explanation of why 1 cold can turn into 10 or a 100 insists that it’s all signalling and there is no multiplying living organism. I suppose their idea of “signal” can start with not washing hands after vomiting and then serving food. The signal can be washed away with soap or cooking the food above 75 celsius. Doing either stops the “signal” from spreading. But 1 person with diarrhea into a water supply can signal to thousands that they should “detox” in the same way.

If illnesses are a contagious “signal”, is it pheromones, electromagnetic, or both? There’s never any elaboration. Pointing out that if contagious “detoxing” were true, children should get sick the least because children’s bodies have the least cumulative exposure to “toxins”, especially compared to adults and the elderly. The elderly are on all sorts of medications these days, have decades of smoking, alcohol and working with industrial chemicals. Yet it always seems that kids catch “detox” colds far more often than old folks in nursing homes. I’ve done enough nursing home rounds to say this is a fact. However, if one dares to point out the inconsistencies, all sorts of biologically improbable “exceptions” to the invisible detox “signalling” theory suddenly appear.

Nevermind that medically, patients who “detox” start off sick and get better, versus infections which start sick and get sicker. In the psyop’ed mind, internet gurus know more about detoxing than ER doctors who “detox” people back to life from opioid overdoses, pesticide poisonings, and medications. The situation where a patient keeps getting sicker from living things multiplying, aka an infection simply does not exist in the “detox” world. For people who have never worked in an ICU, ER, or operating room, limited life experience allows for ignorance to be extrapolated into complete denial of anything contrary to the detox belief system. One would think simply communicating real life experiences from the ER and hospital wards would dispel this ignorance, but it often does not. People trapped in “terrain theory” seem impenetrable to reality, and the basic concept that different courses of illness have different causes is made untenable.

Things that I’ve heard:

• “It’s a toxin because viruses aren’t alive.”

• “Everything you know in medicine is a Rockefeller conspiracy”

• “How do you know the germ caused the pneumonia… their body was just detoxing…”

These statements are repeated like a mantra by people who claim to know what was wrong with my patients and their illnesses better than I do, despite never having laid hands on them. Ego seems to play a key motivational role behind protecting beliefs with thought redirections and denial.

After reflecting that people without knowledge, experience or observations are overruling all my evidence and reason with a thought system they’ve adopted from watching online interviews, I usually give up. If someone “knows” that all illnesses are “detoxes”, without ever seeing the difference between ICU patients recovering from infections versus an overdose, there is no reasoning a path towards reality. The power of belief in repelling thought, observations and personal experience is truly diabolical. With belief, an online idol can hold supremacy over reality — somewhat like a cult.

---

If it’s a cult, built on propaganda, what’s its purpose?

1. To make fools of people?

2. To waste the time and energy in the freedom movement?

3. To distract while something else goes on?

All of the above?

One cult I previously analyzed is that of Dr. Malone.

---

How did the Psychological Operator or Mental Surgeon create a “No virus” cult?

Emotional attachment appears to be a pillar in the construction of psyops. Fixation to the idea that “I know better than the experts” seems to be an ego driven mechanism by which thought redirects emotionally take over people’s minds. Often, the hook starts off with a revelation of facts. Then after the truthful revelation, comes the “trust me” phase, where you can “trust” what comes next because the narrator told you the truth (in the beginning). And when suddenly one “knows” something that all the experts are wrong about, the ego becomes ingratiated.

Another emotional hook seems to be self identification. “That guy is just like me!”. Social media influencers of all types leverage identity to entrap followers into their “brand”. Though identity advertisement is best known within marketing circles via Edward Bernay’s principles of Propaganda and Public Relations, the freedom movement is no stranger to such machinations (whether we know it or not). In fact the covertness of marketing within the freedom movement makes it all the more sinister. It can take forms such as: “That guy sacrificed everything to stand up for the truth”, so “I am just like him!”. While the positive side inspires others to take a stand for human rights, a subversive side can use that same inspiration to diffuse and distract from meaningful action against government, hospital and judiciary crimes.

With emotional attachments, deceptions can be accepted as true because people are made to “feel” that something is valid, even if reason and evidence say otherwise. For example: the covid vaccine narrative used identification advertisements to push the message to vaccinate, “it’s safe and effective”. Posters of people that everyone could identify with saturated the public space, billboards, hospitals and televisions. The obvious lie that nothing used for the first time can be either safe or effective is glossed over because of mental identification with a picture on a poster.

Repetition, which I have witnessed ad nauseum in both the covid and “no such thing as virus” narratives, strengthens emotional attachments. The stronger the attachment, the more excuses people will make to hold onto “their” story, even at the expense of reality and reason. Hero narratives, martyr narratives, or both at the same time can create strong mental anchors, that hold people within a belief system. While the hero and martyr can be inspirational, they can be deceiving at the same time, especially when truths are mixed in with deceptions.. Particularly if the martyr or hero is “Just like me!”, a blurring of the delineation between self and the stories of someone else paves the way for people to be led astray.

The enemy of any false thought system is knowledge, but a little knowledge is often the allure that baits people into the mind trap. My attempts to transfer enough knowledge to release people trapped in the “viruses don’t exist” thought cage have been dismal. The emotional hooks in the narrative create a seemingly impenetrable blind spot where people can neither see nor think straight. Reason and reality fail when emotions rule absolutely. Even authority through experience, expertise and observation collapses under idolatry built upon feelings.

If acceptance of new information can collapse false belief systems, how do psyops shield themselves from destruction? How are emotions implemented to dispel knowledge and maintain deceptions?

---

Thought Redirects

(the process of creating and maintaining cognitive dissonances)

I’ve observed at least 3 Types of Thought Redirections:

1. Denial.

2. Non-Sequiturs.

3. Circular Arguments.

Denial

Within the field of Denial I’ve observed two forms:

1. Denial by Authority: i.e. this person has more credentials and they say that all other information is false.

2. Denial by Example: i.e. My observation extrapolates to everyone else. Any who observe differently are wrong.

Non Sequitur

The non-sequitur is a statement with no logical connection.

e.g. Viruses replicating consume resources and release waste causing illness. A Non Sequitur response is “Viruses aren’t alive because they are parasites.” (What would be a “Sequitur” or logically connected argument? Lactobaccilus in the digestive tract also multiply and consume resources, but do not cause illness. However, extrapolating an example of a benign living thing that doesn’t cause sickness to say that all living things don’t cause illness is a logical error.)

Circular Argument

Toxins cause illness, therefore all illness is from toxins. If someone is ill, they’re only suffering from “toxins”, nevermind malnutrition, hypothermia or tapeworms.

Any attempt to expand thoughts beyond the walls of a malignant thought system is met with a preprogrammed circular statement redirecting the mind to stay within the system.

---

Part 2 will analyze 1 more psyop and then we’ll look at how emotions and thought redirects are applied to create and maintain cognitive dissonances.

Recognizing that every malevolant application of thought systems may also have a benevolent one, readers should try to develop their own “psyop” and post it in the comments. Stay tuned.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

2. https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

3. Certain chemicals such as anti parasitics and anti biotics can kill multicellular living things such as parasites, and single cell living things such as bacteria very quickly. In such a case the patient who was getting sicker stops getting sicker and starts getting better within 24-48 hours of starting an antibiotic chemical.

Sometimes the body itself can kill parasites and bad bacteria without antibiotics using antibodies. In that situation, the patient gets sicker for about 1 week before getting better. 7 days is approximately how long it takes the mammalian body to make antibodies to a new pathogen. In the case where the body has previously seen a parasite, bacteria or virus, 2 to 3 days is all that is needed to reactivate antibodies. The patient then gets sicker for only 2 to 3 days before recovering “naturally”.

Viral illnesses follow the same time course as other living causes of sickness such as pathogenic bacteria where the patient gets sicker before getting better. This differs from toxic courses of illness where there is gradual recovery.