Tom's Blog on Life

The germ theory has been derived via a pseudoscientific sleight of hand with no validation. Doctors and scientists are indoctrinated into a germ theory dogma, akin to a religion, appealing to authority, with no valid science whatsoever to back up their beliefs. Germ theory history is rife with political involvement, fear based agendas, erroneous testing methods, racketeering, superstition, story telling, silencing of truth tellers, suppression or demonizing of alternative theories, destruction of natural medicine fields and of course massive profit agendas. Those who were properly studying the bodily terrain in the late 1800s and early 1900s identified through important microscope inventions (ie the somatoscope), looked at the living blood and characterized a 16 stage microzyma (any pleomorphic organism inside any given body) somatid (Somatids are microscopic energy particles. They are found in all things including humans, animals, fruit, veg, and the sap of plants and also in lifeless organic matter like rocks and ashes. They are apparently indestructible.) cycle which proved that our entire body is full of life and this life is pleomorphic (able to assume different forms). Our own blood cells can change shape and function based on the pH of its environment into a white blood cell, into a bacteria, then into a yeast form, create a hyphae (a filament of the body of a fungus and of certain bacteria), a mold spore or even smaller particles that can look like what the modern world calls viruses.

By Rob Verkerk PhD, founder, scientific & executive director, ANH-Intl

Last week we announced we’d analysed a sample of the survey data from over 300,000 people in 175 countries who had elected to not receive covid-19 vaccines as part of an initiative of the Control Group Cooperative.

We uploaded the 41-page, entirely transparent report to the preprint site ResearchGate. The report included 21 pages of survey findings, a description of the Methods used, annexes that included all the questions that were presented to cooperative members, an introduction and a discussion, the latter including an outline of five limitations of the survey. The report made clear that the survey design and data collection was conducted entirely independently of the analysis and reporting, which was also entirely unpaid. Together that amounts to saying the work was both independent and transparent, something we’ve seen far too little of in vaccine research.

Today at around midday UK time, I received a letter from ResearchGate letting me know the survey report had been removed from its website. It seems there is a different course of action when science that does not support the mainstream narrative is heard outside the echo chamber of those who’ve exercised their right to refuse covid-19 ‘vaccines’. Yet another reminder of how censorship works in the post-covid world when research findings challenge the narrative.