The Arguments for “NO VIRUS”-PART 22. Anthony Colpo : This is about as far from “isolation” as Australia is from Iceland. Foreword by Dr. Mike Yeadon.
Inventing a New Class of Pathogen to Explain Allegedly ‘Infectious’ Disease.
Dr. Mike Yeadon, April 21, 2025 :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel/2792
Yet another great article which demolishes the lie that there’s solid scientific evidence for the existence of viruses.
I’ve seized the opportunity yet again to nail how the virus lie enables the vaccine lie and how this is all tied together with the malevolent intentions of those I call the “Useless Eliters”.
As I posted my comment, I had to laugh. I’d made a point of lambasting the “But why would they do that?” crew. Immediately before my post, someone has had just one response to Anthony’s article: “But why would they lie?” almost as if “unless you give me a compelling motivation for the lie which you’ve proven, I’m just going to pretend I never read it”.
Best wishes
Mike
Linked :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part
………………………………………………..
Viruses Don't Exist. Deal With It. (Part 1)
Why viruses are the Bigfoot of modern medicine.
Apr 21, 2025
( … )
Inventing a New Class of Pathogen to Explain Allegedly ‘Infectious’ Disease
The Latin word virus means "poison, poisonous liquid, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice."
A far cry from what we now call a ‘virus’.
It was in the late 1890s, with the so-called ‘discovery’ of the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, that the modern virus paradigm began to take shape.
A virus, we are now told, is a tiny, infectious pathogen containing RNA or DNA, with a protein or lipid coating.
Virologists know this, they claim, because they have repeatedly ‘isolated’ viruses.
When most people think of isolating something, they think of that something being separated from everything else.
The last thing most intelligent people assume when they hear the word ‘isolation’ is adding a bunch of other stuff to the thing that is to be isolated.
But that’s exactly what happens during the sham that is ‘virus isolation’.
When Isolation Becomes Rampant Confounding
Most viruses are so tiny, so the story goes, they can only be directly “visualized” by a transmission electron microscope. One of those will set you back at least US $500,000.
Not only will you need a very expensive and powerful microscope, but you’ll need to engage in a procedure known as “cell culturing”. This is where you take a patient sample (e.g., a swab of saliva, lung fluid, blood, poo, etc), and then mix it with a bunch of other stuff including culture medium and bovine fetal serum (which, not inconsequentially, contains RNA and probably DNA).
This is about as far from “isolation” as Australia is from Iceland, but the idiocy doesn’t stop there.
To this mix, virologists further add a cell line (which means more extraneous RNA and DNA). The cell line is deliberately chosen because of its propensity to degrade in vitro. This allows them to claim a “cytopathic effect” (cell-destroying effect) allegedly caused by whatever virus they portend to be looking for. This cell degradation is taken to be proof that a virus is in the mix, even though viruses supposedly need healthy, functioning cells to survive and replicate.
At this point, you may be asking, “where do these clowns get off on adding a bunch of other goo to a patient sample, and calling it ‘isolation’?”
Great question.
One to which virologists have a highly convenient answer. Viruses, they claim, can only replicate inside of cells. That’s why you put the patient sample supposedly containing a ‘virus’ into the mixture containing cells.
The implication here is that, to be able to visually observe a virus, it must be replicating. Which, when you stop to think about it (which most people, including virologists, clearly don’t) is a piss-poor justification for the whole cell culture charade.
Imagine saying to someone that, to observe dogs or cats or ringtail possums, you first have to put them in an environment where they can start boinking each other and bearing offspring.
They’d assume you’re a bloody weirdo.
But more on the viruses-need-to-replicate-before-you-can-see-them charade in a moment. First, we must finish our quick primer on the cell culture circus.
Virology’s standby and absolute fave cell line of choice for these virus culture experiments are Vero cell lines, which are obtained from the kidneys of Green monkeys.
A perfectly logical choice when studying things like influenza ‘viruses’ that supposedly infect human respiratory tracts, right?
While not as ubiquitous as monkey kidney cells, HeLa is another cell line popular among those perpetuating the cytopathic effect charade. This cell line is named after African-American woman Henrietta Lacks, who passed away from cervical cancer in 1951 at only 31 years of age. A lab researcher noticed that a sample of her cancer cells were unlike any others he’d ever seen: Where other cells would die, her cells doubled every 20 to 24 hours. While clearly unrepresentative of typical human cells, the durability of the HeLa line made it a favorite with researchers.
But the absurdities don’t end with using cell lines that are clearly unrepresentative of typical human cells.
Heck no. Virologists are just getting warmed up.
They also add antibiotics to the cell culture mixture, supposedly to prevent contamination. But guess what? Antibiotics are toxic to kidney cells, and constitute one of the most common causes of drug-induced nephrotoxicity.
Given that monkey kidney cells are the most popular choice in cell culture ‘isolation’ experiments, this is definitely a problem.
Just not to virologists, apparently.
Wheel Out the Electron Microscope
After ‘proving’ there is a virus by observing the so-called cytopathic effect, researchers then “visualize” the virus by further examining the mix under an electron microscope.
They look for round things with dots inside, scream “Eureka!”, and declare they have visually documented whatever virus they are supposedly ‘isolating’.
Never mind that, inside and outside of pathogen-free cells, there are lots of other round things with dots inside them known as cellular vesicles, examples of which are endosomes and exosomes.
Take a look at the pictures below.
( … )
Full article :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part
……………………………………………………
Dr. Mike Yeadon comments on Anthony Colpo’s article on April 21, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/110953592
I enjoyed & I echo every part of this evisceration of a long-lived lie.
When I wrote a somewhat similar piece, stepping through each & every category of claim that’s made about these phantom pathogens, for the existence of which there’s no scientific evidence, I thought it important as well as persuasive to point out that the pinnacle claim is for CONTAGION.
Virologists claim that people made sick by a particular “virus” can “give it to” another person and this spreading from person to person is called transmission or contagion.
Here’s the thing: when looked for carefully using proper controls, CONTAGION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. In the case of common colds and of influenza, this utter failure to show transmission of symptoms from one person to another has NEVER been shown, despite literally MORE THAN A CENTURY of trying.
Contagion / transmission of claimed “viral illnesses” is simply a LIE.
Often, people won’t entertain even a thought experiment. It’s as if they dare not risk it, in case they have to concede that they’ve been successfully lied to all their lives. I know, i understand. It’s humiliating to contemplate this.
But it’s going to be a whole lot worse than humiliating if you continue to give houseroom to this pack of lies. I cannot overemphasise how vital it is that you do run the thought experiment (& look at the evidence for multiple lies over several decades).
Others refuse to accept the possibility that they’ve been lied to, demanding to know “But why would they do that?”, as if it’s my job to provide not only the evidence that your neighbour has been interfering with your child but I’m supposed to give you the motive, too? It’s not enough for you to conclude for yourself, based on the evidence of this horrible crime, that the perpetrator needs locking up, regardless of whatever self serving BS they might concoct?
In this case, though, I DO have an explanation. It’s very malevolent. This HUGE LIE, that invisible “viral” pathogens cause illnesses which spread, was created and is maintained for a number of reasons, all of which have been on show in recent years.
1. It’s a means to terrorise & seize control over the lives of their population.
2. CRUCIALLY, it provides for the most valuable LIE of all, that these contagious illnesses can be prevented with “VACCINES - an injected preparation that protects you”. The virus lie enables the vaccine lie. Why is that important? You’re most vulnerable to deliberate, intentional toxicity if someone can use a hollow needle to inject anything the perpetrators choose into your body, thus bypassing every primary defence your body comes equipped with. This is the heart of the matter. The virus lie enables control and that includes coercing the vaccine lie, whereby you can be injured or even killed in an extraordinarily well-controlled manner.
Think this cannot be true? Ok, riddle me this one. Why, of all the categories of products of the pharmaceutical industry, ONLY vaccines cannot be questioned let alone challenged? Why is it that even non-medics cannot question vaccines for long before their regulatory body comes down on you like a ton of bricks?
You can question or challenge any other category of product of this industry, such as lipid lowering agents, by class or by individual product, and nothing like the same ferocious, career ending response simply doesn’t happen. Why is this?
You know why this is. The perpetrators ALWAYS intended to use the virus lie to enable the vaccine lie, because they hate us & want us sick or dead. This is entirely consistent with numerous other actions we observe towards us by the self-appointed, Useless Eliters (as I call them). These are the people who deprived you of your liberty, of your ability to earn a living, to care for your relatives, to be unable any longer to trust any medical professional or government official. This is the same people who clearly intend to shut you up in a “15 minute city”, to force you to carry biometric, digital ID, to deprive you of the use of the anonymity of cash, to steal your savings, to damage the food supply chains. Need I go on? It’s the same people, who think they’re better than you, that they’re smarter than you and that someone died & left them in charge of you.
It’s all lies, because that’s all these entitled creeps know how to operate. Faced with a sufficient number of people willing to point at and call out their lies and they will run scared. Do it now. Before they do us in. Which they are planning, right now.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tom Karnes, April 21, 2025 :
Why on earth would they lie?
………………………
Dr. Mike Yeadon replies, April 21, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/110954534
Tom,
Please read my post. I explain exactly why.
By the way, why on earth does it matter why?
Are you implying that, unless you’ve been given a motive for the lying, you’re planning on continuing to believe the lies?
The author is telling you that you’ve been lied to. He’s shown you more than ample evidence of the lies, which you cannot rebut. They’re definitely lying.
He’s not obligated to guess at their motives, though I’ve had plenty of time to come up with regrettably compelling explanations.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Editor's note :
The article linked below is also very noteworthy. I found the simplicity with which the author describes the problem brilliant, which, contrary to popular expectations, is not easy to implement. This is clearly a very capable author who has thought through the text thoroughly:
…………………………
Amaterasu Solar, April 21, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/110875291
So brilliantly and detailedly put forth. I knew most of this in general, but it's awesome to have such detail. I do hope Those who yet cling to the Rockefeller lies of viruses and contagion open Their minds to the truth.
Here's My meager effort to show the BS :
A Post to Be Viral ( article ) :
A Post to Be Viral
Let's get these solutions viral!
Jul 16, 2023
( … )
The first thing I discovered is that the virologist say We can’t find a virus straight from the sick One. They can’t just take blood or tissue from someOne who is sick and then isolate the virus. They say the virus is “too rare.” And I have to ponder, if it’s so extremely rare, why is it making anyOne sick???
So what They do to “find a virus” is take tissue from the sick One, put it into a dish with all kinds of other stuff which poisons the cells and starves the cells. And, as the cell dies, it opens up, and out come particles. They take pictures of this dead cell debris, draw arrows pointing at the bits of debris, and then claim it’s “the virus.”
I also discovered that this same process was done with cells from healthy Individuals and… They got the same result!
The healthy cells emitted dead cell debris that looked identical to the “viruses” They get from sick People. And I can’t help think that the process does not show viruses at all. Just plain old dead cell debris. Nothing more.
I also discovered that They (the researchers into all things genetic) have seen, with microscopes, the genetic material from virtually all species of critter – macroscopic to microscopic – that We know of on Our planet, and yet, no One has seen the actual genetic material from any (proclaimed) virus. Not one!
Instead, what They did was gather bits of genetic material They found floating about, put the sequences of these bits into a computer, stitched them together by taking any ends that matched and deciding the matching ends were a single representation, adding to the first piece and then on down the line.
This in silico (in a computer) construct is then called “the [fill in a name] virus genome,” and patented.
( … )
Full article :
https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/a-post-to-be-viral
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Rider, April 21, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/110946182
Find Dr Tom Cowan online, he does a weekly Livestream where he answers questions from viewers. Also Dr Sam and Mark Bailey, New Zealand MDs (former) who offer free weekly q and a's. Go to support Sam Bailey or similar to find the way to submit your question.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Differences in Quality Between Studies
by Suavek
The weakness of the attacks on the "no virus" narrative is not easily recognized by everyone. Those who can compare the quality of studies are usually the scientists, but even they can miss some things. So if you're a bit unsure about this because you can't judge the quality of the studies yourself, you shouldn't be ashamed at all. I believe that most doctors don't seem to be able to do so either.
Directly below, you'll find a critical comment that almost certainly comes from a layperson who isn't well-versed in the differences between the studies. Whether he's acting on behalf of someone else or whether he wrote his numerous comments, which have the hopeless goal of defaming Dr. Yeadon, completely independently, is irrelevant at this point, because only the facts count. To shed some light on the matter and to demonstrate that it is not easy for a layperson to assess the quality of a study, I responded to the naive critic directly below the critical comment and added some useful information that every reader can benefit from.
……………………………………………………………..
Ivan Fraser, April 24, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/111472413
According to the ai chatgpt: Direct Refutation of Yeadon’s Claims – Evidence that Cannot Be Denied
The 1960s - Human Challenge Studies (Henderson et al.)
Study: "Experimental Infection of Humans with Influenza A Virus," Henderson et al., 1961.
Overview: This is one of the earliest and most definitive challenge studies where healthy human volunteers were exposed to influenza (the virus was isolated and confirmed). The participants then developed the classic symptoms of the disease.
Key Findings: The study showed direct, clear transmission of the influenza virus to healthy individuals through controlled exposure. This study is one of the most rigorous and widely recognized as fulfilling Koch’s postulates. Importantly, these experiments demonstrate viral transmission by exposure—not through proxies like injections, but through natural means—proving that flu can spread in humans.
Why It Refutes Yeadon: Yeadon’s claims are contradicted by this study because it proves the natural transmission of influenza, performed with scientific rigor, and without the methodological loopholes his argument depends on.
Source: Henderson, D.A., et al., "Experimental Infection of Humans with Influenza A Virus," Journal of Immunology, 1961.
The 1950s - The 1957 Asian Flu Pandemic Transmission Study
Study: "Transmission of Influenza to Human Beings in Controlled Environment," U.S. Army, 1957.
Overview: During the 1957 Asian flu outbreak, the U.S. Army conducted studies similar to the earlier 1918 studies, where they exposed soldiers to the virus in a controlled environment to confirm its spread.
Key Findings: The study confirmed that influenza could spread naturally between humans under controlled conditions without the need for injection or artificial means. The soldiers who were exposed showed symptoms that aligned with influenza, and the virus spread between individuals.
Why It Refutes Yeadon: This study directly shows viral transmission in a controlled human environment. Yeadon’s denials of transmission are nullified by the clear evidence of natural transmission found in this study.
Source: U.S. Army studies during the 1957 pandemic, documented by the U.S. CDC and NIH.
Why These Studies Refute Yeadon’s Argument:
Direct Evidence of Transmission: Both studies I mentioned involve direct human-to-human transmission of a virus through natural exposure, not artificial inoculations or other indirect methods.
Human Challenge Studies: These studies meet Koch’s postulates because they involve isolating the virus, exposing healthy volunteers, and then demonstrating that the infected volunteers develop the disease—proof of viral infection and transmission.
No Room for Wriggle: These studies were not compromised by any of the issues Yeadon often raises, such as artificial contamination or circumstantial observations. They represent controlled, repeatable experiments that prove transmission, not theoretical or speculative claims.
…………………………….
Suavek replies, April 24, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/111556808
I'm pleased to note how inaccurate and superficial the AI statement you cited is. It contains serious errors and gaps in evidence. At least, these gaps weren't necessarily intentional, as they presumably indicate that the programmer couldn't actually find anything better because there was nothing else to find. Please keep in mind, however, that this information is countered by hundreds of studies whose results prove the opposite.
At this point, I must say that I know of much better statements from AI that attempted to prove the "outstanding effectiveness and safety" of the "COVID" "vaccine," and they were actually quite convincing. I must admit that I greatly admired the ingenious construction of these lies. However, your quote is quite different.
First, the programmer obviously didn't know Koch's postulates. Second, the reproducibility of the studies is claimed, but without any evidence. So why hasn't this 1957 study been reproduced/falsified yet? A mere claim of reproducibility is insufficient and indicates the unprofessionalism of the programmer.
We know how easily, studies are conducted in a biased and error-prone manner. Prof. Norman Fenton, among others, has clearly demonstrated this in his very instructive study (I believe he has even published this information in a book since then). Countless other torturers report the same. It is now well known that both the term "study" and "peer review" as a quality indicator have become worthless due to corruption.
Furthermore, Dr. Mike Yeadon has also meticulously researched countless old and new study results and assessed the quality of the statements made therein. He doesn't do things by halves and isn't easily fooled. His meta-analysis, especially regarding disease transmission, was unequivocal.
The quantitative criteria of a study include validity, reliability, and objectivity. Unfortunately, these are often lacking due to the general corruption in the medical industry. Here is a fragment of a Swiss article translated into English, written in German:
More than half of the results are not reproducible
Research must constantly deliver new and surprising results. However, this pressure rarely leads to solid insights, as a large-scale analysis shows.
Angelika Jacobs, August 27, 2015.
"You should clean up this mess," wrote Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman in an open email to fellow researchers in social psychology in 2012. The mess? A multitude of study results that could not be confirmed when other researchers repeated the experiments. For this reason, not only social psychology, but also other areas of psychological research are struggling with doubts about their credibility. A large-scale analysis has now attempted to quantify the problem. Its results were published in the journal "Science": Of 100 studies published in three psychology journals in 2008, only 39 could be confirmed. Especially when a study showed particularly surprising or weak effects, these were difficult to reproduce. "This balance is naturally also unsettling for students when they have to ask themselves how much truth there is to the basic knowledge they are learning," says psychologist Fred Mast from the University of Bern.
( ... )
Full article (in German) :
-------
Quality criteria ensure the quality of your research and ensure that your results are valid for science.
For quantitative research, there are three quality criteria that your research must meet: validity , reliability , and objectivity .
If the quality criteria are met in your research, you can use your data with a clear conscience and gain reliable insights.
The 3 quantitative quality criteria
Validity : A measurement is valid if it actually measures what it is supposed to measure and thus provides credible results.
Reliability : Reliability refers to whether your research produces reliable results when conducted repeatedly.
Objectivity : Research is objective if there are no unwanted influences from people involved.
https://www.scribbr.de/methodik/validitaet-reliabilitaet-objektivitaet/
-----
Replication crisis
The replication crisis or crisis of reproducibility is the persistent observation that numerous scientific findings in repeated studies cannot be confirmed .
( … )
Full article ( in German) :
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replikationskrise
-----
Definition of researcher bias
Researcher bias is the tendency of a researcher to consciously or unconsciously shape data collection, analysis, and interpretation according to their own assumptions, beliefs, values, or expectations. Researcher bias can affect the validity and reliability of qualitative research findings, as well as the ethical conduct of research.
https://qdacity.com/de/forscherverzerrung/
-----
A meaningful article :
Confirmation Bias: The Confirmation Error and Examples
https://www.scribbr.de/methodik/confirmation-bias/
-----
And here are statements from our enemies, the "fact checkers" hired by the perpetrators:
Study: not a protected term
Holger Wormer holds the chair for science journalism at the Technical University of Dortmund and is a long-time science journalist. He says: When reading a study, one should be aware that the term "study" is not protected. There are no general requirements or exclusion criteria for it. Theoretically, anyone could publish something and simply call it a "study."
Holger Wormer compares this to the term "football"—not everything that falls under the term "football" is the same: "Football ranges from the Champions League to the local league. But no one would think that football in the Champions League is the same as football in the local league."
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/wissen/wann-ist-eine-studie-aussagekraeftig-ein-faktenfuchs,SQ8B7kJ
Best wishes,
Suavek
………………………………..
Suavek (P.S.), April 24, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/111565638
P.S.
Please see a related article by Dr. Mike Yeadon:
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/transmission-failure
and a article with the statement from Dr. Stefan Lanka :
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-arguments-for-no-virus-part-10
………………………………………….
Ivan Fraser, April 24, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/111590531
I looked extensively at these things and realised for myself where the errors and circular logic emerged. I also understand a bit more about genes and the bio-harmonics of how they are formed than the virologists. They don't fully understand what viruses are in the first place. And I can entirely sympathise with people like Yeadon, examining the studies and seeing little proof. BUT there's a lot of misdirection too! In the denier camp.
This really is where scientism fails common sense. And transmission is so common an experience - as is toxin elimination effects, terrain theory holds true (if you disregard common misinfo) and scientism has failed on that too!
Yes, it's a scam. Yes, it is scientism. But no - viruses exist and transmission exists. It's how the ecosystem communicates (as well as through bioresonance via water).
There's an even higher level manipulation going on here than this. But it is great that people are lifting the veil on it. Unfortunately, only to go down more complex and convoluted rabbit holes in the process.
All the best
Ivan
…………………………………………….
Suavek (P.S.), April 24, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/111594385
Now that you've made it so easy for me, I only have one question left: Why hasn't the transmission of symptoms through the simultaneous excretion of these toxins in multiple individuals been documented and proven in the hundreds of studies that follow? Dr. Yeadon mentions these studies in his article:
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/transmission-failure
…………………………………..
Ivan Fraser replies, April 24, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/111599304
No idea. I haven't looked into every study.
I prefer to stick with what I know, so wouldn't like to speculate.
Cheers
Ivan
…………………………………..
Ivan Fraser, April 24, 2025 :
https://anthonycolpo.substack.com/p/viruses-dont-exist-deal-with-it-part/comment/111591322
PS - I did a Google search, and the same BS came back as before - this is really a serious case of utter balderdash presented as truth:
………………………………………………………
This was a conversation with :
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Related article :
………………………………………..
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/transmission-failure
………………….
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-arguments-for-no-virus-part-10
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The most reliable information on the “Covid” hoax and the deceptions of the system can be found in the statements of Dr. Mike Yeadon, at the links below.
Dr. Mike Yeadon's Substack #1 :
https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/
( & https://substack.com/@drmikeyeadon )
The Telegram channel of Dr. Mike Yeadon ( other Telegram channels with his name are fake ! ) :
https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannel
There is also a chat channel connected to the channel linked above, which is managed by Tim West : https://t.me/DrMikeYeadonsolochannelChat
A collaborative Substack by Dr. Yeadon and Suavek ( Dr. Mike Yeadon's Substack #2 ) :
Fraud Prevention Hotline / suavek1.substack.com
DEAR FRIENDS,
Now that both Substacks, Dr. Yeadon's and Suavek's, have been merged into one enlightening entity ( you can find Dr. Yeadon's explanation here : https://drmikeyeadon.substack.com/p/my-other-substack ), we urge you, if possible, to add both Substacks to your recommended list in your Substack. We both thank you very much in advance,
Mike & Suavek
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The possible support goes to Suavek. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the 24 people who have supported my work so far with 5 euros per month or 50 euros per year.
You can either do something against or for something :
Finally! I'm so pleased to see that these two incredible gentlemen have joined forces to expose this evil agenda. May I please strongly recommend you both go take a read of 'A Farewell to Virology' by Dr. Mark Bailey in Mew Zealand, if you haven't already. I think you'll find it may be exactly what you're looking for. Keep up the fantastic work, love reading all of both of your articles and thank you so much for the work you do. It's so valuable and important. Best wishes from New Zealand.
I wrote a raft of responses to this and then shelved them
You are welcome to extend my posts with credits - or integrate the essence by giving your own witness in your own way.
We are all unique in various ways. My life has brought me to write in this way - rather than from a presumption of lack, conflict or separateness (but aware of our experience of such).
Yes - evading or masking over fear or self-conflict generates defences against the call to heal or correct them. The 'best defence' being pre-emptive attack or denial.
At some point the demands of the masking ego-defence become more fearful than the fears it is made to hide. The 'mask' breaks down to a willingness to question, but fear can still frame, distort and limit acceptance until there is a deeper trust of self and life in truth. We cant force trust - its a relationship. Not a contract.