Do we even have any pictures of live viruses?
Nope...but that hasn't stopped the circus.Do we even have any pictures of live viruses?
I read his book, "The Ultimate Conspiracy" The Biomedical Paradigm, in 2013.
He writes with a lot of compassion and has done his homework.
Link to it here on Amazon:
The Ultimate Conspiracy - The Biomedical Paradigm: McCumiskey, James: 9780755214709: Books - Amazon.caThe Ultimate Conspiracy - The Biomedical Paradigm: McCumiskey, James: 9780755214709: Books - Amazon.ca
Have you heard of Dr. Lanka from Germany?I am attaching a PDF file of letters a researcher has collected regarding this "live virus" issue.
Yes, I have some of Dr Lanka's work in my collection, his contributions are valuable and add to the evidence that is building against the Pharma monster.Have you heard of Dr. Lanka from Germany?
Good question, yes, how DO we explain "infectious disease"?I'm still puzzled about how transmission works. If not viruses, then how do we explain infections disease? Terrain theory does not go all the way with explaining this as far as I can tell.
Are you saying that the spread of disease is psychological?Do living Beings shed exosmes, (true answer-yes, we do, in copious amounts!!) that are then picked up by others, aka, "contagion", and then those people go into a healing event, similar to ours, which was triggered by a physical exchange of "matter"?
Or is it transmitted via our own radiating Frequency Resonance Vibration?
Or, or, or....?
Measles is an interesting topic.Are you saying that the spread of disease is psychological?
That's what Lanka said about measles.
THANK YOU, DEBRA
I so ordered the book, because I am deeply curious to understand more, deeper and let the outcome of it slowly align to other bits and pieces which float around - in what is pushed coming to pass - but perhaps, by nature - just isn't exactly what it appears to be.
And luckily - it was possible for me to order the book via Swedish Amazon.
(or what they claim them to be)
That's about the gist of it.(or so they claim)
In other words, here is what should have happened in early 2020.
As soon as the Chinese medical authorities suspected an outbreak of a new and dangerous disease, they should have collected about five hundred people with identical, or at least nearly identical, symptoms. Then they should have identified another group of equal size as matched controls—that is, people of a similar age, lifestyle and background, also from Wuhan, who had no symptoms. Given the possible slow development of this illness, it would have been prudent to follow the five hundred control people over at least a few months to make sure that none developed these new symptoms.
The next step would be to do a thorough microbiological examination of a variety of fluids taken from these one thousand subjects. At a minimum, this should have included blood, sputum, urine, and nasal swabs. The examination should have included conventional light microscopy to look for bacteria and electron microscopy to look for viruses. Once a novel bacteria or virus was found in all the sick people and none of the well people, the bacteria or virus should have been meticulously isolated, purified, and cultured in a neutral medium (which is actually not possible for viruses, since they "grow" only in other living cells). Once this purification step was accomplished, the purified microbe should have been introduced into a test animal in the normal way that one suspected the microbe might be spreading—by airborne droplets—not injected directly into the brain of the animal as scientists like Pasteur did to "prove" the contagious etiology of rabies, TB, or polio.
Finally, a control group of test animals should have been subjected to the same attempts at contamination. In other words, if you are going to spray purified virus into the animals' nostrils to see whether they get sick, you need to spray pure saline into the nostrils of a control group of animals to make sure the animals are not getting sick just because you are spraying stuff up their noses.
Any sane and logical person would agree that this is what should have happened. Finally, if for some reason the medical authorities in China were unable to carry out such an investigation, they should have enlisted the help of the CDC and the equivalent organizations in Europe and Russia, or the World Health Organization (WHO), to make sure the investigations were done carefully, properly, and thoroughly.
The amazing part of this story is that not only do we lack this kind of evidence for a viral cause of Covid-19, we also lack this kind of evidence for the many "viral" epidemics we have faced during the last century, including polio, AIDS, SARS, Ebola, Zika, and hepatitis C. In fact, not a single part of this clear and simple proof has been attempted.
Let's look then at what was done to prove that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was the cause of this new set of symptoms. Four papers published in China are cited as proof that the new and novel coronavirus is the probable cause of this new disease.
For an in-depth analysis of these papers, please refer to a presentation by Andrew Kaufman MD, in which he dissects in great detail the methods and conclusions of these seminal studies. To review these four studies, let's look again at Rivers' postulates for determining whether a particular virus causes a disease.
1. The virus can be isolated from diseased hosts.
2. The virus can be cultivated in host cells.
3. Proof of filterability—the virus can be filtered from a medium that also contained bacteria.
4. The filtered virus will produce a comparable disease when the cultivated virus is used to infect experimental animals.
5. The virus can be re-isolated from the infected experimental animal.
6. A specific immune response to the virus can be detected.
None of these four studies met all six postulates. Of the four studies said to prove that a coronavirus causes this disease, not one of them satisfied the first three postulates, and none of them even addressed postulates four and five. One paper claimed to find an immune response (postulate six) by looking at antibody levels from the patient. The first two papers are honest enough to claim only an association of coronavirus and the disease; the third paper claims that the coronavirus is "identified as the causative agent." The fourth paper, from McMaster University, falsely claims that the coronavirus is the causative agent of the disease and that the virus "set in motion the pandemic," with no evidence to back up these statements.
These papers never show that all the people with Covid-19 had the same set of symptoms; they never purify any virus from the sick people; they never demonstrate the absence of the virus from well people; and they never show that the transmission of purified virus could make well people become sick. This is scientific fraud of the first order.
It's interesting to look more closely at how virologists work to "prove" something like causation by coronavirus. One example is a paper published in 2003 in Nature, titled "Koch's Postulates Fulfilled for SARS Virus." Researchers claimed that Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome is caused by a coronavirus. The title itself is misleading, if not dishonest, because the researchers satisfied neither Koch's nor Rivers' postulates.
Here's what they did: first they took respiratory secretions from some sick people; in other words, they took sputum from people with a cough. They centrifuged the sputum, which separates the cellular part (where presumably the virus is residing in the cells) from the liquid part. They discarded the liquid part. This is what they referred to as "purification." Then they took this centrifuged, unpurified sediment from sick people, containing God-only-knows-what, and inoculated that into vero (monkey kidney) cells. Here we have to understand that if virologists want to get enough "virus" to use experimentally, they must grow it in a biological medium such as an animal or at least cells from an animal. Unlike bacteria, which can be grown in petri dishes, viruses are not alive, and they can "grow" only in other living cells. For convenience and because cancer cell lines are "immortal," they generally grow their "viruses" in cancer cells; however, in this case they used kidney cells. This practice is fraught with obvious problems for proving it is the virus and not the kidney or cancer cells that are causing disease when these viruses then get injected into the test animals. Also, it is well known now that as part of their "detoxification" strategy, cells, especially cancer cells produce particles called exosomes, which are identical to "viruses."
Again, the researchers took unpurified sediment from the nasal mucus of sick people and grew that in vero cells until they got a sufficient quantity of cellular material to work with. Then they centrifuged this mess again, not even attempting to purify any virus from the mixture. Finally, they took this witch's brew of snot sediment, kidney cells, and who-knows-what-else and injected that into two monkeys. They didn't do a control group by injecting saline into other monkeys or injecting vero cells into monkeys, or even injecting the liquid supernatant from the centrifuged material into monkeys. They just injected this cellular-debris-laden goop. One monkey developed pneumonia and the other appeared to have respiratory symptoms possibly related to a lower respiratory disease. That, claim the researchers, is the proof that a "coronavirus" can cause disease.
To be fair, in a related study, researchers did the exact same procedure, except to make it more reflective of how the new "virus" actually spreads, they took unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged snot and (again, without any controls) squirted it down the throats and into the lungs of hamsters. (Where is PETA when you need them?) Some, but not all, of the hamsters got pneumonia, and some died. We have no idea what would have happened if they had squirted plain lung cancer cells into the lungs of these hamsters, but probably not anything good. And even more perplexing, some of the hamsters didn't even get sick at all, which certainly doesn't square with the deadly, contagious virus theory.
In short, no study has proven that coronavirus, or indeed any virus is contagious, nor has any study proven anything except that virologists are a dangerous, misguided group of people and that hamster- and monkey-rights people are not doing their jobs!
Lanka's work has helped cut through the veils behind which the field of virology is shrouded. As a young graduate student in Germany, Lanka made the chance discovery of the first virus in seawater. Using electron microscopy in his studies of sea algae, he noticed that the algae contained "particles." To find out what these particles were, and knowing that no one had described viruses living within healthy algae before, he proceeded as follows: He ground up the algae in a sort of blender, essentially to break apart the walls of the algae. Then he purified this mixture using an extremely fine filter to separate out particles the size of viruses from everything else. In this way, he obtained a pure solution of water and viruses and anything else that is the size of a virus or smaller. Then he put this mixture into a density-gradient centrifuge, which spins the solution and allows the particles to separate out into bands. The final step uses a micropipette to suck out the band that contains only the virus. This simple procedure is the gold standard for the purification and isolation of a virus from any tissue or solution. It's not an easy process, but it is not unduly difficult either.
He could then study this purified virus under an electron microscope, elucidate its shape and structure, analyze the genome, and ascertain which proteins it contained. With this work, he could confidently state he had discovered a new virus and was sure of its makeup. For this discovery, he received his doctorate and was about to embark on a promising career as a virologist.
Compare Lanka's careful work with how current virologists find and characterize viruses, including the "novel coronavirus." They start with sputum from a sick person, having no idea how this person got sick. They centrifuge but do not filter the sputum. This is not a purification process, as they readily admit in all of the papers written about the "coronavirus."
Here's what the authors of the original papers that found and linked the "novel" coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) to the disease now called "Covid-19" have to say. The following quotations come from the brilliant paper "Covid-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless," by Torsten Englebrecht and Konstantin Demeter.
Referring to a published image in a paper claiming to have isolated a new virus, they say, "The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus."
If it's not purified virus, how do the authors know whether or not it is even a virus, what it is, or where it came from?
In the paper "Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with Covid-19," the authors stated: "We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells." In other words, they did not isolate the virus, even though they claim to do so in the title.
In the article "Virus Isolated from the First Patient with SARSCoV-2 in Korea," the authors admitted, "We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification." In other words, the authors have no idea whether or not the sample is purified, as an electron micrograph is the only way to determine that. They then claim to have characterized the genetic material of something they never purified, having no idea what they were looking at. This was an important study, as it describes the first case of "Covid-19" in Korea.
Finally, the article "A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China," states: "We show an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones." The researchers took nasal mucus ("snot") from sick people, centrifuged it (which is not a purification step) and then showed a fuzzy picture of what they found. Then they carried out a "genetic analysis" of this sediment in order to characterize the "novel" coronavirus. This piece of fraud was published in the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine.
What is in the centrifuged material that these papers describe? The centrifuged material contains bacteria and perhaps viruses, fungi, human cells, cell debris, and anything else found in the lungs or sinus passages of a sick person. Researchers then inoculate this unpurified mess onto "living tissue" to make it "grow." Sometimes this tissue is lung cancer tissue, sometimes aborted fetal tissue, and sometimes tissue from monkey kidneys. In any case, it is a complex mixture of many components, known and unknown. And then because this "virulent, infectious virus" won't infect and kill this living tissue unless you starve and poison the tissue first, you deprive the tissue of nutrients and add oxidizing agents to "weaken" the tissue. Then you add antibiotics to make sure it's not bacteria that is killing the tissue.
The tissue from this treatment naturally disintegrates into thousands of components. Then you centrifuge this mess again to find your "virus." At that point, you start the PCR testing to determine the genetic and protein makeup of this "virus." The problem is that (unlike the clear situation that Lanka encountered) in this slapdash way, you never have the isolated intact "virus" as a reference to allow you to know which genetic parts of your unpurified mess actually belong to the "virus" you are trying to characterize.
In 1889, most historians agree, the modern electrical era opened.
And in 1889, as if the heavens had suddenly opened as well, doctors in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia were overwhelmed by a flood of critically ill patients suffering from a strange disease that seemed to have come like a thunderbolt from nowhere, a disease that many of these doctors had never seen before. That disease was influenza, and that pandemic lasted four continuous years and killed at least one million people.
Suddenly and inexplicably, influenza, whose descriptions had remained consistent for thousands of years, changed its character in 1889. Flu had last seized most of England in November 1847, over half a century earlier. The last flu epidemic in the United States had raged in the winter of 1874–1875. Since ancient times, influenza had been known as a capricious, unpredictable disease, a wild animal that came from nowhere, terrorized whole populations at once without warning and without a schedule, and disappeared as suddenly and mysteriously as it had arrived, not to be seen again for years or decades. It behaved unlike any other illness, was thought not to be contagious, and received its name because its comings and goings were said to be governed by the "influence" of the stars.
During WWI, radio communication was needed, and at that time there was little infrastructure built for it. Within a year, that changed significantly.Seventeen years of surveillance by Hope-Simpson in and around the community of Cirencester, England, revealed that despite popular belief, influenza is not readily communicated from one person to another within a household. Seventy percent of the time, even during the "Hong Kong flu" pandemic of 1968, only one person in a household would get the flu. If a second person had the flu, both often caught it on the same day, which meant that they did not catch it from each other. Sometimes different minor variants of the virus were circulating in the same village, even in the same household, and on one occasion two young brothers who shared a bed had different variants of the virus, proving that they could not have caught it from each other, or even from the same third person.
Another indication that something is wrong with prevailing theories is the failure of vaccination programs. Although vaccines have been proven to confer some immunity to particular strains of flu virus, several prominent virologists have admitted over the years that vaccination has done nothing to stop epidemics and that the disease still behaves just as it did a thousand years ago. In fact, after reviewing 259 vaccination studies from the British Medical Journal spanning 45 years, Tom Jefferson recently concluded that influenza vaccines have had essentially no impact on any real outcomes, such as school absences, working days lost, and flu-related illnesses and deaths.
The embarrassing secret among virologists is that from 1933 until the present day, there have been no experimental studies proving that influenza—either the virus or the disease—is ever transmitted from person to person by normal contact. As we will see in the next chapter, all efforts to experimentally transmit it from person to person, even in the middle of the most deadly disease epidemic the world has ever known, have failed.
When the United States entered the war in 1917, it changed the terrain in a hurry. The United States Navy already had one giant transmitter at Arlington, Virginia and a second at Darien, in the Canal Zone. A third, in San Diego, began broadcasting in May 1917, a fourth, at Pearl Harbor, on October 1 of that year, and a fifth, at Cavite, the Philippines, on December 19. The Navy also took over and upgraded private and foreign-owned stations at Lents, Oregon; South San Francisco, California; Bolinas, California; Kahuku, Hawaii; Heeia Point, Hawaii; Sayville, Long Island; Tuckerton, New Jersey; and New Brunswick, New Jersey. By late 1917, thirteen American stations were sending messages across two oceans.
Fifty more medium and high powered radio stations ringed the United States and its possessions for communication with ships. To equip its ships the Navy manufactured and deployed over ten thousand low, medium, and high powered transmitters. By early 1918, the Navy was graduating over four hundred students per week from its radio operating courses. In the short course of a year, between April 6, 1917 and early 1918, the Navy built and was operating the world's largest radio network.
America's transmitters were far more efficient than most of those built previously. When a 30-kilowatt Poulson arc was installed at Arlington in 1913, it was found to be so much superior to the 100-kilowatt spark apparatus there that the Navy adopted the arc as its preferred equipment and ordered sets with higher and higher ratings. A 100-kilowatt arc was installed at Darien, a 200-kilowatt arc in San Diego, 350-kilowatt arcs at Pearl Harbor and Cavite. In 1917, 30-kilowatt arcs were being installed on Navy ships, outclassing the transmitters on most ships of other nations.
In July 1918, another 200-kilowatt arc was added to the system the Navy had taken over at Sayville. In September 1918, a 500-kilowatt arc went on the air at a new naval station at Annapolis, Maryland. Meanwhile the Navy had ordered a second, more powerful alternator for New Brunswick, of 200-kilowatt capacity. Installed in June, it too went on the air full time in September. New Brunswick immediately became the most powerful station in the world, outclassing Germany's flagship station at Nauen, and was the first that transmitted both voice and telegraphic messages across the Atlantic Ocean clearly, continuously, and reliably. Its signal was heard over a large part of the earth.
The disease that was called Spanish influenza was born during these months. It did not originate in Spain. It did, however, kill tens of millions all over the world, and it became suddenly more fatal in September of 1918. By some estimates the pandemic struck more than half a billion people, or a third of the world's population. Even the Black Death of the fourteenth century did not kill so many in so short a period of time. No wonder everyone is terrified of its return.
But there is no evidence that the disease of 1918 was contagious.
The Spanish influenza apparently originated in the United States in early 1918, seemed to spread around the world on Navy ships, and first appeared on board those ships and in seaports and Naval stations. The largest early outbreak, laying low about 400 people, occurred in February in the Naval Radio School at Cambridge, Massachusetts. In March, influenza spread to Army camps where the Signal Corps was being trained in the use of the wireless: 1,127 men contracted influenza in Camp Funston, in Kansas, and 2,900 men in the Oglethorpe camps in Georgia. In late March and April, the disease spread to the civilian population, and around the world.
Mild at first, the epidemic exploded with death in September, everywhere in the world at once. Waves of mortality traveled with astonishing speed over the global ocean of humanity, again and again until their force was finally spent three years later.
"The regularity with which these various hemorrhages appeared suggested the possibility of there being a change in the blood itself," wrote Drs. Arthur Erskine and B. L. Knight of Cedar Rapids, Iowa in late 1918. So they tested the blood from a large number of patients with influenza and pneumonia. "In every case tested without a single exception," they wrote, "the coagulability of the blood was lessened, the increase in time required for coagulation varying from two and one-half to eight minutes more than normal. Blood was tested as early as the second day of infection, and as late as the twentieth day of convalescence from pneumonia, with the same results… Several local physicians also tested blood from their patients, and, while our records are at this time necessarily incomplete, we have yet to receive a report of a case in which the time of coagulation was not prolonged."
This is consistent not with any respiratory virus, but with what has been known about electricity ever since Gerhard did the first experiment on human blood in 1779. It is consistent with what is known about the effects of radio waves on blood coagulation. Erskine and Knight saved their patients not by fighting infection, but by giving them large doses of calcium lactate to facilitate blood clotting.
Another astonishing fact that makes no sense if this pandemic was infectious, but that makes good sense if it was caused by radio waves, is that instead of striking down the old and the infirm like most diseases, this one killed mostly healthy, vigorous young people between the ages of eighteen and forty—just as the previous pandemic had done, with a little less vehemence, in 1889. This, as we saw in chapter 5, is the same as the predominant age range for neurasthenia, the chronic form of electrical illness. Two-thirds of all influenza deaths were in this age range. Elderly patients were rare.
Patients also regularly lost some of their hair two to three months after recovering from the flu. According to Samuel Ayres, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, this was an almost daily occurrence, most of these patients being young women. This is not an expected after-effect of respiratory viruses either, but hair loss has been widely reported from exposure to radio waves.
Yet another puzzling observation was that so few patients in 1918 had sore throats, runny noses, or other initial respiratory symptoms. But neurological symptoms, just as in the pandemic of 1889, were rampant, even in mild cases. They ranged from insomnia, stupor, dulled perceptions, unusually heightened perceptions, tingling, itching, and impairment of hearing to weakness or partial paralysis of the palate, eyelids, eyes, and various other muscles. The famous Karl Menninger reported on 100 cases of psychosis triggered by influenza, including 35 of schizophrenia, that he saw during a three-month period.
Although the infectious nature of this illness was widely assumed, masks, quarantines, and isolation were all without effect. Even in an isolated country like Iceland the flu spread universally, in spite of the quarantining of its victims.
The disease seemed to spread impossibly fast. "There is no reason to suppose that it traveled more rapidly than persons could travel [but] it has appeared to do so," wrote Dr. George A. Soper, Major in the United States Army.
But most revealing of all were the various heroic attempts to prove the infectious nature of this disease, using volunteers. All these attempts, made in November and December 1918 and in February and March 1919, failed. One medical team in Boston, working for the United States Public Health Service, tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. Their efforts were impressive and make entertaining reading:
"We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from cases of the disease and transferred this to our volunteers. We always obtained this material in the same way. The patient with fever, in bed, had a large, shallow, traylike arrangement before him or her, and we washed out one nostril with some sterile salt solutions, using perhaps 5 c.c., which is allowed to run into the tray; and that nostril is blown vigorously into the tray. This is repeated with the other nostril. The patient then gargles with some of the solution. Next we obtain some bronchial mucus through coughing, and then we swab the mucous surface of each nares and also the mucous surface of the throat… Each one of the volunteers… received 6 c.c. of the mixed stuff that I have described. They received it into each nostril; received it in the throat, and on the eye; and when you think that 6 c.c. in all was used, you will understand that some of it was swallowed. None of them took sick."
In a further experiment with new volunteers and donors, the salt solution was eliminated, and with cotton swabs, the material was transferred directly from nose to nose and from throat to throat, using donors in the first, second, or third day of the disease. "None of these volunteers who received the material thus directly transferred from cases took sick in any way… All of the volunteers received at least two, and some of them three 'shots' as they expressed it."
In a further experiment 20 c.c. of blood from each of five sick donors were mixed and injected into each volunteer. "None of them took sick in any way."
"Then we collected a lot of mucous material from the upper respiratory tract, and filtered it through Mandler filters. This filtrate was injected into ten volunteers, each one receiving 3.5 c.c. subcutaneously, and none of these took sick in any way."
Then a further attempt was made to transfer the disease "in the natural way," using fresh volunteers and donors: "The volunteer was led up to the bedside of the patient; he was introduced. He sat down alongside the bed of the patients. They shook hands, and by instructions, he got as close as he conveniently could, and they talked for five minutes. At the end of the five minutes, the patient breathed out as hard as he could, while the volunteer, muzzle to muzzle (in accordance with his instructions, about 2 inches between the two), received this expired breath, and at the same time was breathing in as the patient breathed out… After they had done this for five times, the patient coughed directly into the face of the volunteer, face to face, five different times… [Then] he moved to the next patient whom we had selected, and repeated this, and so on, until this volunteer had had that sort of contact with ten different cases of influenza, in different stages of the disease, mostly fresh cases, none of them more than three days old… None of them took sick in any way."
Influenza works its caprice not only on land, but at sea. With today's speed of travel this is no longer obvious, but in previous centuries, when sailors were attacked with influenza weeks, or even months, out of their last port of call, it was something to remember. In 1894, Charles Creighton described fifteen separate historical instances where entire ships or even many ships in a naval fleet were seized by the illness far from landfall, as if they had sailed into an influenzal fog, only to discover, in some cases, upon arriving at their next port, that influenza had broken out on land at the same time.
That's about the gist of it.
Unfortunately, scientific studies are not what they're cranked up to be. For starters, even the scientific community is aware that more than half of them are wrong.
On top of that, the media are more likely to report the wrong ones than the correct ones. And when you add a political agenda, like with COVID, it gets even worse. Also claims made in studies' titles are often not backed up by the studies themselves.
Virtually everyone in the mainstream admits that you can be positive for SARS-CoV-2 and not have any symptoms. They even often say that most people who have the virus are healthy. So let's make one thing clear:
If you can have the virus and not have the disease, then the virus does not cause the disease.
It's really that simple. No two ways about it. Two plus two equals four. It's strange that people's heads aren't exploding from cognitive dissonance when they believe both that you can be positive and healthy and that the virus causes the disease.
And positivity without symptoms is literally the opposite of fulfilling Koch's first postulate, so any claims that SARS-CoV-2 fulfills Koch's postulates are just embarrassing.
Besides, according to various official sources, COVID has about 150 symptoms, and as one researcher commented, about the only thing missing on the list is toothache. And most of those symptoms are also symptoms of dozens of other diseases. So out of 100 people "with COVID", how many of them have the exact same set of symptoms? How many are experiencing the same disease? The only thing that connects these people is a positive PCR test, which is another joke because the test, as its inventor said, can't tell you whether you're sick or anything like that, and depending on the number of cycles can find just about anything.
So not only is it admitted that the virus does not cause the disease, but we can't even say in any meaningful way whether all the people with "COVID" have the same "disease". Germ theory is failing epically.
Anyway, here are a few excerpts from Tom Cowan's recent book The Contagion Myth, which summarize both the situation with SARS-CoV-2 and the situation with virology in general.
Tom mentions a presentation by Andy Kaufman. It can be found here:
Dr. Andrew Kaufman educates us on Koch’s Postulates which is the standard criteria for judging whether a given bacteria or virus is the cause of a given disease. source: https://firstname.lastname@example.org:6/The-Rooster-in-the-River-of-Rats:c source 2…www.bitchute.com
The audio is extremely quiet, so I also uploaded a version with fixed audio here:
Very very interesting.And here are some excerpts from Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow, mainly regarding the 1918 "Spanish flu".
View attachment 53918
During WWI, radio communication was needed, and at that time there was little infrastructure built for it. Within a year, that changed significantly.
One interesting point the book makes is that 300-400 years ago, epidemics spread at exactly the same speed as today, despite travel having been infinitely slower and thus making person to person transmission at such a speed impossible. And it appeared on ships at the same time as on land, while those ships were away from land for months.
The Invisible Rainbow is a very interesting book, full of nearly forgotten history.