Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory / Pleomorphism / Béchamp, Rife, Naessens, Reich
- Thread starter Mandatory Intellectomy
- Start date
Debra
The Living Force
Nope...but that hasn't stopped the circus.
Here are some pictures in a side by side comparison, that were done with cryro-electromicroscopy.
Frozen, sliced and bombarded with electrons, to get a "photo".
Here is a rather interesting composite photo of a bit of a cell:
A 3D rendering of a eukaryotic cell is modeled using X-ray, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and cryo-electron microscopy datasets for all of its molecular actors. It is an attempt to recapitulate the myriad pathways involved in signal transduction, protein synthesis, endocytosis, vesicular transport, cell-cell adhesion, apoptosis, and other processes. Although dilute in its concentration relative to a real cell, this rendering is also an attempt to visualize the great complexity and beauty of the cell’s molecular choreography.
There are more pictures here, if you are interested:
Digizyme - Knowledge Through Visual Science
I am attaching a PDF file of letters a researcher has collected regarding this "live virus" issue.
He has been requesting information from numerous Science Facilities in England, Australia, and Canada and is still at it.
His request is similar to yours:
If you take the time to look at the attached PDF file, you will see that ALL Institutes answered the same way, "Nope", but they used a few more razzle dazzle words.
The researchers name is James McCumiskey and he has dedicated his life to prove that the Medical Mafia in control of the world is based on a foundation of drugs, money and death.
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:
XPan
The Living Force
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.
PaleFace
Padawan Learner
Have you heard of Dr. Lanka from Germany?
He went to the German Supreme Court and demanded proof that measles was isolated and proven to exist in 1953(5?) by electron microscope by the Koch Institute.
No proof was shown at the trial, and he actually ended up winning. Lanka is solid on the AIDS hoax (Fauci won acclaim and the highest award in the land for that, remember) and he's the first guy who got me thinking and questioning the Virus Question.
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. Perhaps Miasma theory has the answers we seek.
Debra
The Living Force
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.
Good question, yes, how DO we explain "infectious disease"?
To begin with, though, what is the foundation of the question?
Is is a solvable question?
Or, is the question flawed from the beginning?
If the foundation of "disease" has been twisted 180 degrees, to instill FEAR of sickness, sadness, weakness and drug and intervention dependency world wide, can one really find the answer, if it is based on a FALSE Belief system?
The Germ THEORY?
If the question is based on False Beliefs, ("germs cause diseases, germs ATTACK") manipulated information,(Contagious Attacking VIRUSES) and twisted, malicious lies,(we are at war with Nature/survival of the fittest, drugs are the only answer) and shocking and scaring vulnerable, naive believers with Latin spells(diagnoses of death and drugs) CAN there BE an answer that makes sense?
Are we asking the WRONG question?
If the ruling Medical Establishment refuses to acknowledge that the "WAR" system that they have based Modern Medicine upon is False, we may never know exactly HOW we exchange this information.
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....?
When I read the C's comment "The Programming is Complete" this twisted Medical system based on Fear is what I understood that completed programming to mean.
In the Epic Corona Virus Thread, during the early days of the year, I made several posts , combining what I have learned, what I was observing, and possible reasons regarding how the "transmission" and "infections" "shock" and "fear" have been manipulated by the Medical Industry, to bedazzle the public with shock and fear.
If you do a search on my profile for "postings", go for the ones on that thread, as well as the German New Medicine thread, I have linked one for you below.
There are several threads here on the Forum that I have contributed information and data gathered over the years, as well.
Here is a link to a previous response regarding GNM:
German New Medicine
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z57uBCcOdvI It is a documentary on German New Medicine, touching on the 5 biological laws and how it is being suppressed or the practicioners of this new form of medicine are being labelled as a cult (in not so many words), and. as well how the scientific...
cassiopaea.org
If you are familiar with Dr Andrew Kaufman, he recently did a video with two German New Medicine Practitioners.
I really appreciated Andy K's questions and realizations.
PaleFace
Padawan Learner
Are you saying that the spread of disease is psychological?
That's what Lanka said about measles.
Debra
The Living Force
Measles is an interesting topic.
It isn't so much "psychological" as it is a response to a perceived threat to ones emotional and or physical survival and well being.
The situations are interpreted by each individuals Psyche, and it happens so fast, that the intellect/ego doesn't usually know it went on.
That is generally what the term "psychological" applies to.
It isn't a conscious thought or mood, filtered through the ego, it is a perception and it happens in the "Super Consciousness" part of us, our Psyche.
Our skin covers our body with layers of amazing sensory apparatus.
All the touches, breezes, and temperature changes, all our perceptions of "out there" are interpreted and felt by our skin.
Did you know that the brain chemical Oxytocin is released into our system, from the pleasure, well being and safety felt when one is hugged?
So, for what it's worth, here is my interpretation of what happens, when measles is diagnosed.
This is what I learned studying GNM.
It applies to all types of skin rashes.
As always:
What I am posting is Research for Entertainment Purposes Only.
I have no authority nor license to give any medical, psychological, or life skills advice, I just have information to share, for entertainment purposes only.
A mini case study:
My life long Best friend had a very interesting case of reoccurring hives, but only on her upper and inner arm area.
Both arms.
This continued to happened to her for at least 20 years.
Dr's would give her magic topical potions, creams and ointments which, at the best would -maybe-nullify a bit of the itching.
They even suggested that she was "Allergic to Sunshine".
But, every year, the hives showed up, they stuck around for about 2 weeks, then they would vanish.
It took a little bit of detective work, but once we found the "tracks" of the cause of the "thinning of her skin" and the healing of the Hives, we cleared it up with Thought Field Therapy in about 15 minutes!
That was 8 or 9 years ago, and the rash thingy is history.
By going over personal stuff that she had "issues" with, at the START OF EVERY SUMMER, we found the triggering thoughts, feelings,and the similar yearly Feeling she would get, and she cleared it.
Healed it.
Cleared it up completely.
If, in a situation of world changing events, something life changing happens,something that takes one off balance, such as a sudden separation, it matters.
When suddenly we are not touched, or hugged, in the way we are accustom, in the way we deeply need to FEEL, the Psyche can and does start a "make skin more sensitive" program.
More skin sensitivity enables one to feel even the lightest of touches, the lightest of hugs.
We all need that comfort, crave that love touch, inducing that hit of Oxytocin (bless you Candice Pert) for our SURVIVAL.
As Candice Pert wrote in her book, The Molecules of Emotion, to paraphase"We are made addicts in our own skin".
During the "Sensitive stage" there is no obvious sign on the skin or in our behavior.
Until... the episode of feeling "untouched enough" is in "resolution".
Once the issue subsides, and its "All OK"...
The rash starts.
The filling in of ulcerations, made under the epidermis, around the nerve endings and tubules, done remember to increase sensitivity, begins.
It all depends on how long the person was in the conflict stage, as to how severe the rash and healing phase takes.
Skin replaces fast, so usually in 2 weeks the job is done!
This is copied from the GNM website:
[...]
Generalized separation conflicts, which affect the entire body, are typically experienced by infants and young children who are much more vulnerable regarding separations from the “pack” (at home, at school). How the “childhood disease” presents itself depends on which epidermal layer is involved (chickenpox goes deeper than measles and rubella) and on the intensity of the preceding conflict-active phase (rubella causes milder symptoms than measles). With the SYNDROME, that is, with water retention as a result of an active abandonment conflict, the blisters of the skin rash appear more dramatic. An intense healing phase is accompanied by high fever.
Skin
Understanding skin conditions based on the science of German New Medicine (GNM).
This page is regarding Dr Lankas work and court case, for anyone interested:
XPan
The Living Force
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.
Weheeee !!!!
I finally got the book sent from the UK yesterday • "The Ultimate Conspiracy - The Biomedical Paradigm by James McCumiskey, @Debra - And I am already reading its first pages - immediately sense that that is a book worth reading. (And so, I love to read it). I choose this over all other... uhm 15-20 books... who are waiting to be read.
You know what is wonderful ?
When a book whispers/radiates/captures you, really wanting to be read. And your mind/heart/soul - is all for it, too. And boy, am I happy you brought it up for further inspiration.
Apollo
A Disturbance in the Force
For what it is worth, NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) has a photo album of various microscope images of SARS-CoV-2 (or what they claim them to be):
www.flickr.com
NextStrain.org is a cite, where researchers share the full genetic sequences of SARS-CoV-2 variants (not PCR tests, but full genomic sequences):
Further, at pubmed, if one searches for SARS-CoV-2 isolated virus or virus isolate, there are quite a few hits:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Incl. this paper on isolation (from symptomatic patients), culturing and re-infecting and pathologically analysing on test animals:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
both isolate, culture, re-infect test animals and do pathological study of symptoms. Both fulfil Koch's postulates (or so they claim).
SARS-CoV-2
Images and B-roll related to the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, also known as 2019-nCoV) that causes COVID-19. See related album, "MERS-CoV"
www.flickr.com
NextStrain.org is a cite, where researchers share the full genetic sequences of SARS-CoV-2 variants (not PCR tests, but full genomic sequences):
Further, at pubmed, if one searches for SARS-CoV-2 isolated virus or virus isolate, there are quite a few hits:
(SARS-CoV-2) AND "virus isolate" OR "isolated virus" - Search Results - PubMed
(SARS-CoV-2) AND "virus isolate" OR "isolated virus" - Search Results - PubMed
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Incl. this paper on isolation (from symptomatic patients), culturing and re-infecting and pathologically analysing on test animals:
Transmission and protection against re-infection in the ferret model with the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 reference isolate
Transmission and Protection against Reinfection in the Ferret Model with the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 Reference Isolate - PubMed
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has initiated a global pandemic, and several vaccines have now received emergency use authorization. Using the reference strain SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020, we evaluated modes of transmission and the ability of prior infection or...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Simulation of the Clinical and Pathological Manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Golden Syrian Hamster Model: Implications for Disease Pathogenesis and Transmissibility
Simulation of the Clinical and Pathological Manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a Golden Syrian Hamster Model: Implications for Disease Pathogenesis and Transmissibility - PubMed
Besides satisfying Koch's postulates, this readily available hamster model is an important tool for studying transmission, pathogenesis, treatment, and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
both isolate, culture, re-infect test animals and do pathological study of symptoms. Both fulfil Koch's postulates (or so they claim).
Mandatory Intellectomy
Jedi Master
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.
Study: half of the studies you read about in the news are wrong
And yes, this could be one of them.
www.vox.com
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:
Bitchute
Bitchute is a video service that prioritizes creators and champions users' freedoms and privacy.
www.bitchute.com
The audio is extremely quiet, so I also uploaded a version with fixed audio here:
Mandatory Intellectomy
Jedi Master
And here are some excerpts from Arthur Firstenberg's book The Invisible Rainbow, mainly regarding the 1918 "Spanish flu".
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.
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.
Wandering Star
The Living Force
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.
Study: half of the studies you read about in the news are wrong
And yes, this could be one of them.
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:
Bitchute
Bitchute is a video service that prioritizes creators and champions users' freedoms and privacy.
The audio is extremely quiet, so I also uploaded a version with fixed audio here:
Very very interesting.
The lies of "science" are unbelievable.
Thanks for the summary and excerpts from the book.
XPan
The Living Force
I wanted to add something revolving SARS.
Medical researcher David Crowe did an excellent analysis about the start and whereabouts of the SARS “pandemic” in an pdf of 53 pages. You will be surprised how it started and especially how it all was truly sloppy and unprofessionally handled - compared to the official scare mongering narrative back then.
Interesting is the section in which SARS patients where by accident mixed up at a hospital with AIDS patients in the same room. None of the AIDS patients got infected with SARS. Which is remarkable given that the aids patients had a very low immune system but no transfer of disease took place.
Also the way the Chinese “determined” SARS in people was totally amateurish, just with help of low fever and if the x-Rays showed some shadows. The. You were given lethal treatments - leading to further illness and damages. As well death.
In essence patients were killed through medications. And Canada’s play in the whole game was a very strange one, too. I have to add that it has been 2 years the last time i read David Crowe’s pdf file, so i hope I didn’t get the details wrong.
David Crowe died hastily of cancer in Jul/Aug 2020 - which felt strange as he was highly critical of the Corona Plandemic at a very early stage (well, no wonder, after what came to the fore regarding the SARS “Pandemic” 2002/03)
Medical researcher David Crowe did an excellent analysis about the start and whereabouts of the SARS “pandemic” in an pdf of 53 pages. You will be surprised how it started and especially how it all was truly sloppy and unprofessionally handled - compared to the official scare mongering narrative back then.
Interesting is the section in which SARS patients where by accident mixed up at a hospital with AIDS patients in the same room. None of the AIDS patients got infected with SARS. Which is remarkable given that the aids patients had a very low immune system but no transfer of disease took place.
Also the way the Chinese “determined” SARS in people was totally amateurish, just with help of low fever and if the x-Rays showed some shadows. The. You were given lethal treatments - leading to further illness and damages. As well death.
In essence patients were killed through medications. And Canada’s play in the whole game was a very strange one, too. I have to add that it has been 2 years the last time i read David Crowe’s pdf file, so i hope I didn’t get the details wrong.
David Crowe died hastily of cancer in Jul/Aug 2020 - which felt strange as he was highly critical of the Corona Plandemic at a very early stage (well, no wonder, after what came to the fore regarding the SARS “Pandemic” 2002/03)
Mandatory Intellectomy
Jedi Master
Since I recently wrote several articles on viruses, I had to think about the whole issue much more, to make sure authoritarian readers couldn't attack it so easily.
I went back to Andy Kaufman's video on SARS virus isolation and reviewed everything in detail. During this process things became much clearer to me.
It's laughable what's being passed on as science when it comes to virology. It's just a bad joke.
After I properly understood relevant terms and methods, I went back to check some of those studies that claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2. With every study, it seems to be exactly the same case as those described by Andy. Take a look at this:
This text, while it claims several times to isolate the virus, actually betrays itself by describing what it really did.
Basically, they do anything but isolation but call it isolation.
If you look at the method, they took samples from the respiratory tract (green rectangle 1), and inoculated it onto Vero cells (rectangle 2).
Then they say this was how they "isolated" the virus.
So to be clear - they took a sample from the lungs that they think had the virus, they put it onto monkey kidney cells, and they call it isolation.
Cause when you have a fluid with a thing you're trying to isolate, you just add it to a bunch of other stuff and thus you've isolated the thing in the fluid... that is, if you're a complete idiot, which apparently most virologists are.
This is in the "Virus Isolation" section of the detailed version of the study:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
You can see they throw around the word "isolate" freely without any understanding of the meaning of the word.
Then in the picture you see yellow-highlighted "Full genome sequencing and electron microscopy were used to identify the virus."
How did they identify the virus when they had a mixture of a lung fluid and monkey cells and antibiotics and didn't separate anything from it?
How did they get the genome from something that has million times more genetic material than the supposed virus?
This is impossible. They didn't isolate the virus, so they can't identify shit, and they're getting the "genome" from some brew that's million times the size of the virus.
There's nothing to even know that a virus is there.
So why do they think it is there? Moving to rectangle 3 - "cytopathic effects were observed". That's the ONLY thing that tells them there's a virus. But it's complete rubbish because, as Dr. Lanka has shown with control experiments, these same cytopathic effects can be observed with the same kind of a sample from a healthy person. In other words, the effect comes from something else in the brew, which is not even surprising.
When they get the RNA sequence (with some voodoo PCR crap), they compare it to "SARS-CoV-2 which was isolated from patients from other countries". The only problem is that, as we've seen in Andy's video, all those "isolations" were done exactly the same as this one, i.e. no isolation took place. So they just compared their voodoo RNA sequence with another made up RNA sequence to confirm that it's the right made up voodoo sequence.
You can see that electron microscopy observation was done "in virus-infected Vero cells" (rectangle 5), that is, they're not observing a pure virus but Vero cells in which they think there is a virus, which they didn't prove in any way. So they're looking for small round things (which can be anything) and when they find some, they ceremoniously proclaim that's the virus.
In the microscope images, there's no way to know whether those things are viruses, exosomes, cell fragments, or something else. All they can see is small round things. But if you start with the prejudice that any small round things you find must be viruses, then that's enough, apparently.
In no part of this study did they come anywhere near to isolating or identifying a virus in any way. But without that, it's impossible to do any of the other steps.
Let's revisit this sentence: "Virus replication and isolation were confirmed through cytopathic effects, gene detection, and electron microscopy."
1. cytopathic effects
Those occur just the same without a virus.
2. gene detection
Using PCR from a ton of genetic material, you can get pretty much any genetic sequence you want. (They also mention they used 40 cycles.) And they compare the sequence with a reference that was gained the same way - without virus isolation.
3. electron microscopy
They identified "small round things".
How much proof of a "virus" do you feel like these 3 points give you? Zero is the correct answer.
As a side note, you may think, "well, they're just using the word 'isolate' differently".
Fair enough, but the fact remains that with such a definition of the word "isolate", it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove a virus causes a disease or even exists. This is why Koch's postulates exist.
Not a single one of Koch's postulates was fulfilled here, just like in virtually any other study that claims to "isolate a virus".
It's all total rubbish.
All this led me to review the question of whether viruses exist at all, so I wrote something about that...
I have been trying hard to stick to the idea that viruses do exist but don't cause disease, but the more research I do, the more even this view is becoming untenable. There is simply no proof of the existence of viruses, due to the preposterously inadequate methods that virologists use. Let's look at what they actually do.
Dr. Andy Kaufman's video The Rooster in the River of Rats is essential to understanding the problems with "isolation" of viruses, so everyone should see that first if they haven't yet.
So how do virologists "isolate a virus" and prove that it causes disease? They take some lung fluid (or another sample) from a patient, which they believe contains the virus. Then, instead of isolating it, they put it in a culture of usually monkey kidney cells and add some antibiotics and other crap. Then they let this grow in the lab. This is what they call a virus isolate. This is the thing they work with, that they use to prove that viruses exist and cause disease, and this is what they get the RNA sequence from. This unspecific mixture of a dozen things.
How do they tell this supposed virus (that's allegedly hiding in this brew somewhere) "causes disease"? They apply this brew to healthy cells, and if they observe a cytotoxic effect (damage to the healthy cells), they conclude it causes disease. Note that they aren't trying to infect any people or animals. They aren't trying to cause any particular disease. They just take this toxic brew, poison cells with it, and that, according to them, is proof that this causes a specific disease and that the virus is there.
Aside from this being completely unspecific and not related to any particular disease (toxicity to cells is about as general as it gets), none of them ever do any control experiments. Which is why Dr. Stefan Lanka did them in the last year. He took samples from healthy people, i.e. without any virus, put that into the same culture of Vero cells with antibiotics etc., and after a few days applied this to healthy cells. He observed the same cytotoxic effect.
So the brew without the virus has the same effect as the brew with the (supposed) virus. The cytotoxicity comes from the other elements, which is not surprising because when you add a bunch of toxic things to something, it's bound to be toxic.
Therefore we now know it's not the virus that caused the damage.
But wait - how the hell do we then know there is any virus present at all?
There was no isolation done anywhere. We only have this brew of a bunch of things, never a pure virus. The thing that was supposed to show the virus is there was the cytotoxic effect. But if that effect occurs even with a sample from a healthy person - that is always - we have no evidence that any virus was ever there in the first place.
Up until the testing for toxicity, the only reason anyone thought there was a virus there was their belief that the person was sick from that virus. But if that's what we're trying to find out, we only have the assumption that the virus is there. If control experiments show the same results with sick and healthy people, then we have absolutely no reason to think there's any virus involved.
Electron microscope photos are of no value under these conditions. How can they tell that some round objects are the virus? Scientists are looking for small round objects, because that's what they believe the virus looks like and that's what they believe they'll find. So when they find small round objects, they say it's the virus. But that's not science. That's just pure confirmation bias.
We know that viruses are indistinguishable from exosomes, for example. As this study says about extracellular vesicles (EV), which includes exosomes:
"The remarkable resemblance between EVs and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs released during viral infections. Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist."
Not only do they look pretty much the same under the microscope, but due to the similarity of size and structure, scientists can't even separate them from one another reliably, which means they can't isolate the virus even if they tried (which they don't) as long as exosomes are present. And exosomes are always present because the antibiotics and other things they add to the tested culture cause production of exosomes. And really lots of other things cause that. If the sample is from a sick person, that alone is almost certain to include exosomes in the sample as any kind of sickness is likely to produce exosomes.
Aside from exosomes, the objects thought to be viruses under the microscope can be just cell debris - something that is, of course, going to be there if we're observing cytotoxic effects.
So how do we know there ever was a virus in that sample? We don't. Observation under the microscope can't tell us what the small object is. Isolation of the virus from the rest of the brew is never done. Cytotoxic effect occurs without the virus. So what's left? There's nothing that can tell us there is any virus at all.
You might think, "but they have the genome". Well, have you stopped to think where they got that genome? If they never isolated the virus, how did they get the genome? And as Andy Kaufman's video linked above shows, they produced this genome for SARS-CoV-2 at a time when definitely no isolation of the virus had been done. (And more absurdly, they made the first PCR test for it even before that.) What does that mean? It means they produced the "genome" from that unspecific brew of many things, not from a pure virus. So the nucleotides that compose the supposed genome come from a brew of lung fluid, monkey kidney cells and a lot of other material.
How the hell do they know which parts of that mess belong to a "virus"? They don't. They just put something together from snippets of genetic code, and when it started to look similar to SARS-CoV-1 (which, as we also saw in the video, was acquired the same way, i.e. made up), they said it's a coronavirus. They had no indication whatsoever that the RNA they aligned into a string of 30,000 nucleotides belonged to anything real. Everything is based on belief.
To make matters more ridiculous, as Andy points out, they said they "knew it was a coronavirus" because it was 80% similar to the first SARS. Well, 80% genetic similarity is between a human and a mouse, or a human and a cow. Or a human and a platypus, which is actually 82%. So to say they identified that this is a coronavirus is to say that humans and platypuses are basically the same.
So how do "mutations" work? Well, scientists get them with PCR tests from the same kind of unspecific mixture of things that has nothing to do with an isolated virus. Neither the original strain nor the mutations have anything to do with viruses. They're just snippets of random genetic code aligned into something the scientists are trying to find. So of course they will find something similar or the same in a lot of people when this shit is not a "virus genome" but rather an arbitrary genetic sequence of things commonly found in (poisoned) cells.
Some scientists even discovered that the mutations in SARS-CoV-2 don't follow a linear pattern. Logically, if you have mutations from alpha to delta, they'd have to be in omicron as well, along with other, new mutations. But nucleotides that "mutated" in delta were back to the original configuration in omicron, and all the different strains just had different mutations in different places. This makes zero sense if these are to be mutations of an actual virus over time.
So what's up with that? Well, these aren't, of course, mutations of a "virus" because neither the mutations nor the original sequence were acquired from a pure virus. They were acquired from a bunch of RNA snippets that were put together based on how somebody thought they should be put together. It's like if you get a box of 10,000 Lego pieces and you put together random 2,000 pieces based on what you think a virus should look like, and you say that's "an isolated virus". Then somebody else has a different box of Lego pieces and they're trying to put together the same thing that you built, using your model as reference. They're lacking 10 pieces that you have there, but they did put together the rest. So they call it "mutation of a virus". In reality, all of it is rubbish.
There is just nothing that can even remotely be considered "proof of the existence of a virus". All they ever work with is an unspecific mixture of RNA/DNA material, and their only proof that there's a virus in there and causes disease is that this toxic brew has toxic effect on healthy cells. Well, no shit, Sherlock.
Imagine I cut your hair, cut it into tiny pieces, mix it into cooked rice, add some formaldehyde, cow urine and flies, and let somebody eat it. Then, when they get sick, I proclaim that I just isolated a virus from your hair. Because I'm a scientist, you know. Well, that's virology in a nutshell.
So do viruses exist? If I said "yes" and somebody asked me "How do you know? Can you provide any evidence?", I couldn't provide shit. Could you?
I went back to Andy Kaufman's video on SARS virus isolation and reviewed everything in detail. During this process things became much clearer to me.
It's laughable what's being passed on as science when it comes to virology. It's just a bad joke.
After I properly understood relevant terms and methods, I went back to check some of those studies that claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2. With every study, it seems to be exactly the same case as those described by Andy. Take a look at this:
This text, while it claims several times to isolate the virus, actually betrays itself by describing what it really did.
Basically, they do anything but isolation but call it isolation.
If you look at the method, they took samples from the respiratory tract (green rectangle 1), and inoculated it onto Vero cells (rectangle 2).
Then they say this was how they "isolated" the virus.
So to be clear - they took a sample from the lungs that they think had the virus, they put it onto monkey kidney cells, and they call it isolation.
Cause when you have a fluid with a thing you're trying to isolate, you just add it to a bunch of other stuff and thus you've isolated the thing in the fluid... that is, if you're a complete idiot, which apparently most virologists are.
This is in the "Virus Isolation" section of the detailed version of the study:
Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19 - PMC
Following reports of patients with unexplained pneumonia at the end of December 2019 in Wuhan, China, the causative agent was identified as coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), and the 2019 novel coronavirus disease was named COVID-19 by the World Health ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
You can see they throw around the word "isolate" freely without any understanding of the meaning of the word.
Then in the picture you see yellow-highlighted "Full genome sequencing and electron microscopy were used to identify the virus."
How did they identify the virus when they had a mixture of a lung fluid and monkey cells and antibiotics and didn't separate anything from it?
How did they get the genome from something that has million times more genetic material than the supposed virus?
This is impossible. They didn't isolate the virus, so they can't identify shit, and they're getting the "genome" from some brew that's million times the size of the virus.
There's nothing to even know that a virus is there.
So why do they think it is there? Moving to rectangle 3 - "cytopathic effects were observed". That's the ONLY thing that tells them there's a virus. But it's complete rubbish because, as Dr. Lanka has shown with control experiments, these same cytopathic effects can be observed with the same kind of a sample from a healthy person. In other words, the effect comes from something else in the brew, which is not even surprising.
When they get the RNA sequence (with some voodoo PCR crap), they compare it to "SARS-CoV-2 which was isolated from patients from other countries". The only problem is that, as we've seen in Andy's video, all those "isolations" were done exactly the same as this one, i.e. no isolation took place. So they just compared their voodoo RNA sequence with another made up RNA sequence to confirm that it's the right made up voodoo sequence.
You can see that electron microscopy observation was done "in virus-infected Vero cells" (rectangle 5), that is, they're not observing a pure virus but Vero cells in which they think there is a virus, which they didn't prove in any way. So they're looking for small round things (which can be anything) and when they find some, they ceremoniously proclaim that's the virus.
In the microscope images, there's no way to know whether those things are viruses, exosomes, cell fragments, or something else. All they can see is small round things. But if you start with the prejudice that any small round things you find must be viruses, then that's enough, apparently.
In no part of this study did they come anywhere near to isolating or identifying a virus in any way. But without that, it's impossible to do any of the other steps.
Let's revisit this sentence: "Virus replication and isolation were confirmed through cytopathic effects, gene detection, and electron microscopy."
1. cytopathic effects
Those occur just the same without a virus.
2. gene detection
Using PCR from a ton of genetic material, you can get pretty much any genetic sequence you want. (They also mention they used 40 cycles.) And they compare the sequence with a reference that was gained the same way - without virus isolation.
3. electron microscopy
They identified "small round things".
How much proof of a "virus" do you feel like these 3 points give you? Zero is the correct answer.
As a side note, you may think, "well, they're just using the word 'isolate' differently".
Fair enough, but the fact remains that with such a definition of the word "isolate", it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove a virus causes a disease or even exists. This is why Koch's postulates exist.
Not a single one of Koch's postulates was fulfilled here, just like in virtually any other study that claims to "isolate a virus".
It's all total rubbish.
All this led me to review the question of whether viruses exist at all, so I wrote something about that...
I have been trying hard to stick to the idea that viruses do exist but don't cause disease, but the more research I do, the more even this view is becoming untenable. There is simply no proof of the existence of viruses, due to the preposterously inadequate methods that virologists use. Let's look at what they actually do.
Dr. Andy Kaufman's video The Rooster in the River of Rats is essential to understanding the problems with "isolation" of viruses, so everyone should see that first if they haven't yet.
So how do virologists "isolate a virus" and prove that it causes disease? They take some lung fluid (or another sample) from a patient, which they believe contains the virus. Then, instead of isolating it, they put it in a culture of usually monkey kidney cells and add some antibiotics and other crap. Then they let this grow in the lab. This is what they call a virus isolate. This is the thing they work with, that they use to prove that viruses exist and cause disease, and this is what they get the RNA sequence from. This unspecific mixture of a dozen things.
How do they tell this supposed virus (that's allegedly hiding in this brew somewhere) "causes disease"? They apply this brew to healthy cells, and if they observe a cytotoxic effect (damage to the healthy cells), they conclude it causes disease. Note that they aren't trying to infect any people or animals. They aren't trying to cause any particular disease. They just take this toxic brew, poison cells with it, and that, according to them, is proof that this causes a specific disease and that the virus is there.
Aside from this being completely unspecific and not related to any particular disease (toxicity to cells is about as general as it gets), none of them ever do any control experiments. Which is why Dr. Stefan Lanka did them in the last year. He took samples from healthy people, i.e. without any virus, put that into the same culture of Vero cells with antibiotics etc., and after a few days applied this to healthy cells. He observed the same cytotoxic effect.
So the brew without the virus has the same effect as the brew with the (supposed) virus. The cytotoxicity comes from the other elements, which is not surprising because when you add a bunch of toxic things to something, it's bound to be toxic.
Therefore we now know it's not the virus that caused the damage.
But wait - how the hell do we then know there is any virus present at all?
There was no isolation done anywhere. We only have this brew of a bunch of things, never a pure virus. The thing that was supposed to show the virus is there was the cytotoxic effect. But if that effect occurs even with a sample from a healthy person - that is always - we have no evidence that any virus was ever there in the first place.
Up until the testing for toxicity, the only reason anyone thought there was a virus there was their belief that the person was sick from that virus. But if that's what we're trying to find out, we only have the assumption that the virus is there. If control experiments show the same results with sick and healthy people, then we have absolutely no reason to think there's any virus involved.
Electron microscope photos are of no value under these conditions. How can they tell that some round objects are the virus? Scientists are looking for small round objects, because that's what they believe the virus looks like and that's what they believe they'll find. So when they find small round objects, they say it's the virus. But that's not science. That's just pure confirmation bias.
We know that viruses are indistinguishable from exosomes, for example. As this study says about extracellular vesicles (EV), which includes exosomes:
"The remarkable resemblance between EVs and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs released during viral infections. Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist."
Not only do they look pretty much the same under the microscope, but due to the similarity of size and structure, scientists can't even separate them from one another reliably, which means they can't isolate the virus even if they tried (which they don't) as long as exosomes are present. And exosomes are always present because the antibiotics and other things they add to the tested culture cause production of exosomes. And really lots of other things cause that. If the sample is from a sick person, that alone is almost certain to include exosomes in the sample as any kind of sickness is likely to produce exosomes.
Aside from exosomes, the objects thought to be viruses under the microscope can be just cell debris - something that is, of course, going to be there if we're observing cytotoxic effects.
So how do we know there ever was a virus in that sample? We don't. Observation under the microscope can't tell us what the small object is. Isolation of the virus from the rest of the brew is never done. Cytotoxic effect occurs without the virus. So what's left? There's nothing that can tell us there is any virus at all.
You might think, "but they have the genome". Well, have you stopped to think where they got that genome? If they never isolated the virus, how did they get the genome? And as Andy Kaufman's video linked above shows, they produced this genome for SARS-CoV-2 at a time when definitely no isolation of the virus had been done. (And more absurdly, they made the first PCR test for it even before that.) What does that mean? It means they produced the "genome" from that unspecific brew of many things, not from a pure virus. So the nucleotides that compose the supposed genome come from a brew of lung fluid, monkey kidney cells and a lot of other material.
How the hell do they know which parts of that mess belong to a "virus"? They don't. They just put something together from snippets of genetic code, and when it started to look similar to SARS-CoV-1 (which, as we also saw in the video, was acquired the same way, i.e. made up), they said it's a coronavirus. They had no indication whatsoever that the RNA they aligned into a string of 30,000 nucleotides belonged to anything real. Everything is based on belief.
To make matters more ridiculous, as Andy points out, they said they "knew it was a coronavirus" because it was 80% similar to the first SARS. Well, 80% genetic similarity is between a human and a mouse, or a human and a cow. Or a human and a platypus, which is actually 82%. So to say they identified that this is a coronavirus is to say that humans and platypuses are basically the same.
So how do "mutations" work? Well, scientists get them with PCR tests from the same kind of unspecific mixture of things that has nothing to do with an isolated virus. Neither the original strain nor the mutations have anything to do with viruses. They're just snippets of random genetic code aligned into something the scientists are trying to find. So of course they will find something similar or the same in a lot of people when this shit is not a "virus genome" but rather an arbitrary genetic sequence of things commonly found in (poisoned) cells.
Some scientists even discovered that the mutations in SARS-CoV-2 don't follow a linear pattern. Logically, if you have mutations from alpha to delta, they'd have to be in omicron as well, along with other, new mutations. But nucleotides that "mutated" in delta were back to the original configuration in omicron, and all the different strains just had different mutations in different places. This makes zero sense if these are to be mutations of an actual virus over time.
So what's up with that? Well, these aren't, of course, mutations of a "virus" because neither the mutations nor the original sequence were acquired from a pure virus. They were acquired from a bunch of RNA snippets that were put together based on how somebody thought they should be put together. It's like if you get a box of 10,000 Lego pieces and you put together random 2,000 pieces based on what you think a virus should look like, and you say that's "an isolated virus". Then somebody else has a different box of Lego pieces and they're trying to put together the same thing that you built, using your model as reference. They're lacking 10 pieces that you have there, but they did put together the rest. So they call it "mutation of a virus". In reality, all of it is rubbish.
There is just nothing that can even remotely be considered "proof of the existence of a virus". All they ever work with is an unspecific mixture of RNA/DNA material, and their only proof that there's a virus in there and causes disease is that this toxic brew has toxic effect on healthy cells. Well, no shit, Sherlock.
Imagine I cut your hair, cut it into tiny pieces, mix it into cooked rice, add some formaldehyde, cow urine and flies, and let somebody eat it. Then, when they get sick, I proclaim that I just isolated a virus from your hair. Because I'm a scientist, you know. Well, that's virology in a nutshell.
So do viruses exist? If I said "yes" and somebody asked me "How do you know? Can you provide any evidence?", I couldn't provide shit. Could you?
That was wonderful Mandatory Intellectomy. Explained in layman terms but I could feel your incredulity as each paragraph progressed. Quite an eye-opener. Thanks for doing the legwork and your tongue in cheek at the end helped to lighten a very serious topic.
