The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner, October 1917 lectures
The truth about The Transhumanist Agenda has been bubbling to the surface in rashes, heart ailments, mental disorders, miscarriages, and infertility, along with increased deaths in certain groups. There are no signs of healing on the horizon because the symptoms mirror a deeper truth that touches the sanctum of human divinity, itself.
Spiritual PSYOP
The Psychological Operation, or PSYOP, appears to be spiritual, fought on two fronts, directed by two groups of authorities: 1) earthly human/androids/humanoids (top politicians, scientists, Hollywood), and 2) non-earthly, non-human, Inter-dimensionals (spirits) who direct their earthly underlings from behind the scenes.
As the Transhumanist Reset plays out against the backdrop of a pandemic PSYOP, the tools wielded are both material and energetic (mind control): from media and entertainment, to controlled opposition and the rituals of social distancing, lockdowns, and masking.
The people will believe what the media tells them they believe. ~ George Orwell
The PSYOP uses inverted ideology and language. Thus, pandemic injections, promoted as cure-alls, do the opposite. Ultimately, they end human procreation through infertility and ‘fetal demise.’ They take out the human defense system, known as the innate immune system, through the Trojan Horse of inoculations. And they leave a shell. An October 2021 COVID vaccine efficacy study confirms the results on the immune system:
Questions remain regarding a booster dose and waning immunity, the duration of immunity, and heterologous vaccination.
Before most humans can wake up to see through the multidimensional layers, the damage is done. The known dangers of mRNA inoculations and the PCR test, a delivery system, are disclosed after ‘deployment’ (a military word). Only now do reports show actual casualty reports, published in medical journals and in obituaries. Thanks to medical databases, and search engines, anyone can search physical adverse events and symptoms associated with the PSYOP products:
The technology of these authorities remains without FDA-approval, and with more boosters coming down the pipeline. The inoculations continue to be rated Emergency Use Only (EUA), or experimental, because authorities are still testing the population. The companies contracted to manufacture this technology by these authorities have not provided a complete list of ingredients but they have disclosed that the ingredients incorporate into the recipient DNA.
A new Swedish study published in MDPI found that the Pfizer vaccine goes into liver cells and converts to DNA, challenging claims so far that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way.
At least two questions should arise in everyone’s mind:
Does DNA tampering affect human consciousness? The soul? The spirit?
Are warnings from prophets meant as disclosures?
“I have told you that the spirits of darkness are going to inspire their human hosts, in whom they will be dwelling, to find a vaccine that will drive all inclination toward spirituality out of people’s souls when they are still very young, and this will happen in a roundabout way through the living body. Today, bodies are vaccinated against one thing and another; in future, children will be vaccinated with a substance which it will certainly be possible to produce, and this will make them immune, so that they do not develop foolish inclinations connected with spiritual life – ‘foolish’ here, or course, in the eyes of materialists. . . .
“. . . a way will finally be found to vaccinate bodies so that these bodies will not allow the inclination toward spiritual ideas to develop and all their lives people will believe only in the physical world they perceive with the senses. ~ Rudolf Steiner, October 1917 lectures
Medical science has made such tremendous progress that there is hardly a healthy human left. ~ Aldous Huxley
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. ~ George Orwell
Elites Playing God
The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. ~ Aldous Huxley
The Elite authorities, from politicians to scientists to authors, and billionaire engineers, like to ignore and deny that human beings have a soul essence because they, themselves, lack a soul. While the Elite did not always push their agenda, they have waited patiently, and their time has come.
In the Roman Empire, Galen of Pergamon, was a Greek polymath: physician, surgeon and philosopher who believed that the body was the physical vehicle for the indwelling soul. Considered to be one of the most accomplished of all medical researchers of his time, Galen influenced the development of various scientific disciplines, including anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, and neurology, as well as philosophy, logic, and herbalism. Galen developed the Four Humors System that Hippocrates had created by adding the ideas of Physis and Pneuma. Galen’s most famous medicinal formula was Theriac, an herbal tonic with 64 different ingredients that was a cure-all for many diseases, and an antidote to many poisons and viper venoms. His ideas encompassed the life force, spirit, and breath that is infused in all living beings that was slowly written out of western medicine.
Yet, as times change, so does acceptance of long suppressed concepts. Slowly, the concept of the soul is bleeding through the mire of medical science. The medical journal Psychology Today features a 2011 article: Biocentrism: Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’. Author Robert Lanza writes:
The results not only defy our classical intuition but suggest that a part of the mind — the soul — is immortal and exists outside of space and time. ~ Robert Lanza M.D
What is known, despite a lack of acknowledgment by authorities, is that human beings are a body, a mind, a soul, and a spirit rolled into one. Human beings are the seen and the unseen. They are electric and magnetic, made up of matter and energy. How does magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) technology work without a human energy biofield? When looking into a mirror, humans are more than meets the eye: Spiritual beings having a human experience.
While adding synthetic foreign matter to the human body produces known negative physical consequences, less is disclosed about changes of the human bioenergetic field. Will an altered human vibrate at a frequency different from the vibration of the soul essence? Does the synthetic inoculation create incoherence? Do humans remain divine, sovereign, and free?
Only the authorities know for sure. And they are not telling because they have reached their goal of attacking human energy using advanced technology through a needle. In October 2019, Microsoft promoted an initiative called ID2020, a platform for an” implantable digital ID vaccine system, whose goal was “giving every human on the planet a digital ID.” This ID is in the form of a DNA vaccine tattoo. Today, the technology is called The Good Health Pass to restrict travel among the masses.
Does this sound like the dystopian, futuristic Netflix series, 3%, labelled as a post apocalyptic thriller where only 3% are allowed to transition to a “better” life after being tested in a game of wits? However, once they get to the “better life”…. spoiler alert….. they are vaccinated and told they can never have children.
Human divinity is a birthright because humans give birth. Is there anything more valuable than human divinity to those who lack it? What happens when the divinity supply line is cut off? Do humans become mere vessels for Inter-dimensionals?
Ironically, these answers have been prophesied as warnings by Rudolf Steiner, and Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell, well known elites themselves.
By now it is widely known that the mRNA patented injections do not live up to their marketed promises because they were never meant to benefit humans at all, but rather benefit another group of beings that stays hidden.
The Borg Culture
In 1961, Aldous Huxley warned of a sinister agenda, stating that “there will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude.” He did not say there could be. He said there will be.
Were Rudolf Steiner and Aldous Huxley prophets who offered a warning to individuals of a coming soul-less world? Or were they programmers who carried out a ritual by planting a seed in the minds of men? Predictive programming.
In Klaus Schwab’s Global reset to Transhumanism, the message is clear. Klaus is a programmer who seeks to cut off the soul connection present in each individual (something he lacks), and replace it with a materialist hive-mind. Through rituals that work like an alchemical transformation of consciousness, the “I” of individual disappears. Why create a a society of automatons?
Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply. ~ The Borg
Hollywood, a branch of the political system, is complicit in the PSYOP, providing disclosure through fiction. Star Trek’s The Borg shed light, early on, on planned human transformation. The Borg are cybernetic organisms (cyborgs) linked in a hive mind called “the Collective.” The Borg’s purpose is to co-opt the technology and knowledge of other species through the process of “assimilation”: forcibly transforming individual beings into “drones” by injecting nanoprobes into their bodies and surgically augmenting them with cybernetic components.
The Borg, The Stepford Wives, The Sentenels-X-Men, Terminator, Ultron, The Avengers, are all forms of disclosureby those who seek to sever the human soul from the body. What better way to offer humanity implied consent than through entertainment on the big screen where people pay to participate in the story of their soul’s demise? What more efficient way to wage a war on the mind of humanity than from the inside out?
Cornell engineers constructed a DNA material with capabilities of metabolism, in addition to self-assembly and organization – three key traits of life.
Natural human DNA acts like a biological antenna, a receiver, transmitter, and retainer of information past, present, and future. Through natural evolution, DNA expands abilities in individuals, including psychic ability and telepathy. DNA is of Nature and functions under Natural law. DNA is also highly sensitive to harmful frequencies (3G, 4G, 5G, nanobots). Add patented mRNA injectables to the bloodstream and DNA is now targeted by ionizing frequencies that cause humans to veer off course, from a natural organic evolution to a divergent devolution. 5G frequencies play a pivotal role as a directed energy weapon.
If people are unaware of how their energy feels in their own bodies, if they do not know of their divine right to be sovereign and free, then how do they notice any changes once the soul is severed? What will divinity look like then?
The disconnection of human consciousness, alluded to by Rudolf Steiner, Hollywood, and others, suggest a bifurcation or split into two different consciousness streams for humans, one organic of Nature and regeneration, and one inorganic of Synthetics and degeneration.
The compression of human consciousness is happening now, like the splitting of a cell under pressure. However, in this universe, there is also The Light to balance The Darkness. That Light is inside each of us. We come to Earth equipped with everything we need. We only have to remember and choose it. The only way to know which direction to go is to be aware of all directions and choose one.
I recently read an excellent book called The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose, in which he argues that the government – any government – is completely illegitimate, immoral and no different to a cult. In other words, the government’s existence should be rejected for the fake superstitious authority that it is.
“The root cause of most of society’s ills – the main source of man’s inhumanity to man – is neither malice nor negligence, but a mere superstition – an unquestioned assumption which has been accepted on faith by nearly everyone, of all ages, races, religions, education and income levels. If people were to recognize that one belief for what it is – an utterly irrational, self-contradictory, and horribly destructive myth – most of the violence, oppression and injustice in the world would cease.”
~ Larken Rose
Etienne de la Boetie (which is not his real name) is the author of a similar book called Government – The Biggest Scam in History, in which he makes an overlapping argument with some excellent additions.
[The book] “exposes the hidden control system and pseudo-religion of Statism used by an inter-generational organized crime system centered around banking and central banking to rob and control the population.”
Although one can technically debate subtle differences between “the state” and “the government”, I am keeping things simple by using the terms interchangeably (since that is how most people understand the terms anyway).
What is anarchism?
For clarity, anarchism is a collection of ideas that lead to anarchy, although it’s probably acceptable to use both words to describe the same idea.
Rejection of the state equates to anarchism. But the problem that I have found is that anarchism is misunderstood, whether by design or not. Anarchism (or anarchy) does not mean chaos. Anarchism, in the words of Benjamin Tucker, could be described as
“the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished.”
He goes on to say that
“the state is the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area.”
Basically, the government is the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will. Anarchy is a synonym for liberty, freedom, independence, self-government, non-interference and you-don’t-speak-for-me.
Our conversation
Etienne joined me for a conversation about all of the above and explained how society would benefit from abolishing the state and why the free market can do anything and everything the government does, but better.
The “Gain of Function” narrative is reaching all new heights. Boston University claimed they engineered a “virus” with an 80% lethality rate. But what actually killed these poor mice?
Let’s have a look at some of the “fear-porn” promoters of these stories and why they are leading people astray with pseudoscience.
[Video available at Dr. Sam Bailey Odysee channel.]
I recently spoke with Dr. David Nixon who was able to conduct several experiments with Pfizer injectable substance under standard optical microscope. David found that when the sample is shielded from electromagnetic field by the Faraday bag no assembly happens in it. When the slide is left overnight near a wifi router, square shaped structures appear, and then continue to grow for a long period of time.
Jim West is a legendary researcher and author, although he tends to keep a low profile. You may have seen his work, but not known where it was from. He has uncovered a massive amount of evidence to support his hypothesis that persistent pesticides caused The Great Polio Epidemic, post-WWII.
Much of his research has led to the same conclusion that viruses are being used as a cover story for the real causes of disease. Jim ties together science, psychology and spirituality and I could listen to him all day.
With no political or career conflicts of interest, he is able to critique the professional medical establishment in areas of scientific truth that most people are too afraid to go near.
Here is what he said about:
His journey of discovery and greatest influences
The virology scam
The Polio/DDT charts
The corruption of the medical establishment
The health freedom movement – virus promoters vs no virus group
History of germ theory and the need to protect industry (going back to the Bible)
Many of us know that the virologists have not been following the scientific method and have no evidence that viruses exist. One of their biggest problems is that they don’t perform valid controls in their experiments.
German engineer Marvin Haberland has worked out a way to get a public admission that SARS-CoV-2 has not been shown to exist. When Marvin broke “corona” legislation, the German authorities unwittingly took the bait.
If they want to convict him, they will have to justify the fraudulent nature of virology in a public court.
The virologists better come up with some decent excuses fast…
[Video available at Dr. Sam Bailey Odysee channel.]
“This cannot be called a contagious entity. It had to be pumped directly into their lungs and was never demonstrated to pass between animals. Furthermore, there was no control experiment where comparable monkeys were knocked out and assaulted by a similar nebulized biological brew, forced into their lungs for 10 minutes, as well as being bled multiple times, being surgically implanted with recording devices, and being confined in isolation chambers.
In other words, it wasn’t a scientific experiment. It was another of virology’s pointless animal massacres.
Those who promote the bioweapon and lab leak narrative are falling for the headlines and parroting the claims of the virologists on face value. They might also want to pause and think why these stories are promoted by the mainstream media.”
###
“Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, this bioweapon and biosecurity scam is a multi-billion dollar business. So, knowingly or not, those involved will act in a way to keep the gravy train going.”
###
“The bioweapon narrative relies on one thing. And that is getting the public to keep believing in both germ theory and the existence of viruses.
Sure, there have been many attempts to make bioweapons. But there is no evidence of any contagious product that can pass from human to human.
All they have are toxic products that can be injected into people or otherwise used to poison them through mechanisms that are not ‘infections’.”
Many people can see that there are problems with the “virus” model and the concept of contagion in general. However, the notion of “bioweapons” instills a sense of fear in the population. Along with the mainstream media, various members of the health freedom community are promoting “engineered pathogens” and “lab leaks.”
In this video, we take a look at the scientific evidence at the heart of these so-called “bioweapons” claims. Watch as we dismantle the most scary “virus” of them all – Ebola.
Dr. Tom Cowan With Dr. Mark Bailey: “SARS-CoV-2 Virus Could Never Have Been Leaked From a Lab Because No Such Particle Has Been Proven to Exist. Ever.”
As many of you know, economist Jeffrey Sachs, the head of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, dropped a bombshell recently when he announced his support for the theory that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 was most likely a leak from a virology lab in Wuhan, China. His assertion follows years of speculation — within the health-freedom community, the halls of Congress and in the popular and scientific press — that such an event took place.
After making this announcement, Sachs was interviewed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., about the circumstances and evidence for this lab-leaked virus. Kennedy is also releasing a new book that purports to lay out the evidence for this theory, and how it proves the duplicity of government officials such as Fauci, who they allege are accomplices in unleashing this plague upon the world.
Other prominent lawyers, doctors and researchers have also publicly endorsed the lab-leak hypothesis. Del Bigtree of the Highwire podcast has even claimed that it’s settled fact that SARS-CoV-2 was created through so-called gain-of-function research, largely funded by Fauci-led government labs. This act, they say, is allegedly the smoking gun, the proof that Covid was and is a “plandemic” organized and funded by the elites to create the conditions to enact the World Economic Forum’s The Great Reset.
While it is not my intention to denigrate the good work done by Kennedy and others in exposing the horrors of the Great Reset agenda and speaking out against restrictions on our freedoms, I strongly encourage them and anyone else to listen to today’s podcast with Dr. Mark Bailey. In doing so, they will hear that a SARS-CoV-2 virus could never have been leaked from a lab because no such particle has been proven to exist. Ever. Not only that, the alleged claim that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimeric virus made from portions of HIV mixed with previously discovered coronaviruses can’t possibly be true because, as you probably already know, neither HIV nor previous “coronaviruses” have themselves been shown to exist.
The most interesting question of all is not the science, as that is easy to demonstrate: No natural, chimeric, lab-created or any other type of SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist. The question is, why this story? The answer might have come from Sachs himself, who in a long follow-up article essentially came to the conclusion that, as a result of discovering this lab leak, whether purposeful or accidental, it is no longer possible to trust national governments or virology labs to police themselves. They have been proven to be corrupt, sloppy and untrustworthy. His solution? We must put the oversight of all virology labs and, perhaps someday, of all “science” labs under the gentle and careful guidance of the World Health Organization and related supranational bodies.
I was absolutely shocked to read this purported solution. To centralize control of scientific experimentation in the WHO, an unelected and unaccountable body that pushed the effort to vaccinate most of humanity and drove the disastrous lockdown policies worldwide, would create an even bigger monster to battle. It now feels urgent for the health-freedom community to rigorously investigate the whole story of SARS-CoV-2 in particular and virology in general. As Mark and I point out in this podcast, the health-freedom promulgators of the lab-leak theory now have two options. First, they can demonstrate how they know that HIV, the original coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 exist, and then show how this chimeric lab-created virus was spread throughout the world. Or, they can investigate further the scientific evidence of virology’s catastrophic and obvious lies.
Their response to this request will help demonstrate whether a “unity conference” as proposed by Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense is a real possibility. My sincere hope is that those in the medical-freedom community have simply misunderstood the science of virology.
Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense Leads Discussion of the Documentary “The Viral Delusion: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & The Madness of Modern Virology”
by Children’s Health Defense Mary Holland, CHD president with David Rasnick, PhD biochemist and Mike Wallach, creator “The Viral Delusion”
September 26, 2022
Mary Holland takes on the controversial subject of whether the existence of the COVID virus + other viruses, like the HIV virus – have been thoroughly proven. She brings on two guests, David Rasnick, Ph.D. and filmmaker of the series ‘The Viral Delusion’ Mike Wallach, to discuss this topic and educate viewers on the truth behind ‘public health’ and those in power who control it. Don’t miss this episode!
[Mirrored copies of the video are available at TCTL Odysee, BitChute & Brighteon channels.]’
Excerpt from the documentary trailer:
“For two years, the world has wondered whether the virus that changed our lives emerged from nature or if it leaked from a lab. But a third perspective has been growing among doctors and scientists, that there never was a virus at all. That a host of various sicknesses were repackaged and sold to the public as virally caused without any such proof in scientific papers. Their perspective just might change everything we thought we knew. This is their shockingly compelling story.”
Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children by Louise Kuo Habakus, Mary Holland
Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries, Roman Bystrianyk
DDT/Polio: Virology vs Toxicology by Jim West
Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey
Also mentioned is the work of David Crowe in regards to the covid pandemic narrative and his prior work in exposing the erroneous AIDS narrative. See video: Rethink All Viruses, by David Crowe and Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory by David Crowe (available via Archive.org or view and download here.]
“Democrats are accusing Republicans of using the 50 immigrants as pawns. Higher powers still are using the Democrats and Republicans as pawns. This is a play inside a play and involves a level of manipulation that is not just cynical, but diabolical.”
As reported by national news in the US, on September 16, 2022, 50 illegal immigrants from Venezuela were flown from Florida to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Officials on the island said they did not have the resources to take care of the immigrants, so they were transported by the Massachusetts National Guard to a military base on Cape Cod. The immigrants were tolerated on Martha’s Vineyard for exactly two days.
The military base they were taken to, with the purposely non-descriptive name, “Joint Base Cape Cod,” is about 30 miles north of the church in Edgartown where the immigrants stayed. The base was formerly known as the Massachusetts Military Reservation, or Otis/Camp Edwards. The base is notorious for being a dump site for the federal government, so it probably seemed to the authorities a logical place to get rid of the immigrants. The 22,000 acre base was designated a Superfund site in 1989 due to massive amounts of fuels and solvents dumped at Otis Air Base into the sandy soil above Upper Cape Cod’s sole-source aquifer. As more and more contaminated groundwater was being discovered on the Air Force side, yet more was discovered from the past dumping of propellants and explosives by the Army at Camp Edwards. At one site on the base in the 1960s, the Air Force dumped up to 6 million gallons of aviation fuel on the ground just to test aircraft emergency release valves. Enough fuel from here and elsewhere got into water supplies in nearby Forestdale to the point that tap water at a kitchen sink could be lit on fire. Meanwhile, the Army was accustomed for years to firing Howitzer and mortar rounds into the base “impact area” whose explosions would shake windows in residential areas all over the Upper Cape. Nearby residents also lived with the frequent sound of machine gun fire from one of many gun ranges. Indeed, the Army National Guard has lately insisted it needs 200 acres of forest clearcut for a new machine gun range, with 5,000 acres reserved for strays and overshoots. For those feigning such concern, this was some place to send a group of helpless refugees. The public has no access to and very little knowledge of this huge area of sunny Cape Cod.
Martha’s Vineyard has had its own episode of Pentagon abuse. A small island called Nomans, just south of the Vineyard, was used as an aerial bombing range for many years, leaving the land littered with unexploded ordnance and contaminated soil. Rather than remediate, the US Navy conveniently handed the land over the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife who simply called it a conservation area, posted No Trespassing signs, and called it a day. The small island, a beautiful gem once inhabited by Wampanoag Indians and early settlers, it is now just a sacrifice zone, like a closed landfill. No one is allowed to set foot on it.
Both Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard have a service and tourist economy. Most people who live and work there are not wealthy, but have jobs serving the wealthy in one way or another. They build and repair the homes of the rich, they entertain them, run the restaurants, cook the food, clean the houses, and maintain their boats and cars. Low wage workers and immigrant labor are brought in every year for the summer season as there is evidently not enough money to pay local workers asking for a decent wage. Nor can working people afford houses on local wages. It’s a rentier economy. Poverty is real on both Martha’s Vineyard and the Cape because so many among the rich know very well how to spend as little of their money as possible for the services they receive. While working people there might not be happy about immigrant labor lowering wages and taking jobs, they would not have called the National Guard to come in and remove the strangers from Venezuela. And of course they would not have had the power to do so even if they wanted to. That call had to have come from new world order hopeful Governor Charlie Baker, on orders from Vineyard residents like Barack Obama who don’t want to see the results of the unrestricted immigration that they initiated actually becoming visible in their own neighborhoods. This is why the 50 Venezuelans were brought to eastern Massachusetts’ go-to military dump site, incidentally also home to the Barnstable County Jail — another thing no one wanted to see or hear anywhere else on the Cape.
We might ask why people in Venezuela got to the point of leaving family, home, culture, and country to emigrate in the first place. Obviously, two decades of coup attempts from the Chavez era on, relentless sanctions, and the theft of assets by the US has made life in Venezuela hard for many people. The US government created this problem. The further abuse of Venezuelans in a program of engineered destruction of sovereign countries and cultures, which is what the immigration crisis amounts to worldwide, is the same attack multiplied. Democrats are accusing Republicans of using the 50 immigrants as pawns. Higher powers still are using the Democrats and Republicans as pawns. This is a play inside a play and involves a level of manipulation that is not just cynical, but diabolical.
We’ve all seen the “In This House, We Believe” signs. The signs are displayed by some of the people on Martha’s Vineyard who this past week didn’t mind seeing 50 of the world’s poor carted off to a restricted military base. Between the lines on these cute little emblems of virtue we now read the ugly truth:
In this house, we believe . . .
In complete, shameless hypocrisy
In full totalitarianism, as long as it’s nicely wrapped in self-righteous liberal jargon
Virtue-signaling is better by far (and much easier) than actual virtue
Immigrants are welcome (to mow our lawns and wash our dishes)
Climate change is real (how else do we explain it being sunny one day and cloudy the next?)
All orientations are preferable to heterosexuality — the human race has gone on long enough
We hate humanity
A woman’s rights are human rights (but there is no such thing as a woman, so there is no such thing as “women’s rights”)
Black lives matter (especially when they can be used to create disruption and chaos while we do nothing to actually improve the lives of black people)
No human is illegal (unless he’s too close to my $12 million oceanfront property)
There is no place for hate (unless you’re a white hetero male, a Palestinian, a Muslim, a Christian, a Russian, a right wing extremist, an anti-vaxxer, a climate denier, or anyone else on our list)
Science is real (so long as it serves pharmaceutical company profits and “great reset” eugenics)
Love is love, and all other nice-sounding, mystifying, empty tautologies
Kindness is everything (after money, power, and control)
Richard Hugus is the founder of Cape Cod Against Medical Mandates. “We are residents of Cape Cod, Massachusetts who support freedom of choice in all matters having to do with our own and our childrens’ health.” Connect with them here.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: For those who are unfamiliar with the “In This House, We Believe” signs that Richard refers to in his essay, these are signs posted on lawns or front porches throughout the United States, expressing support of Black Lives Matter movement & other sentiments that purportedly represent “progressive” or “leftist” or “woke” values, depending on who you ask.
cover image credit: Master Sgt. Nicholas Giammarco – Combat readiness training at Tactical Training Base Kelley on Joint Base Cape Cod on August 24, 2018 – sourced from Wikimedia Commons
[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Below you will find the abstract & the postscript for Dr. Mark Bailey’s essay entitled “A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)“. Use the links provided to view the entire 67-page report at Mark & Samantha Bailey’s website.]
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
A viral particle must fulfil defined physical and biological properties including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human. However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions.
This essay contains three parts. Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.
Part Two examines the fraud used to propagate the COVID-19 “pandemic.” A breakdown of the methodology relied upon by the original inventors Fan Wu et al., shows how the fictional SARS-CoV-2 was “created” through anti-scientific methods and linguistic sleights of hands. It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates. Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle — the phylogenetic trees are fantasies. The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic. Part Three provides an analysis of how some key participants, “health” institutions, and the mainstream media maintain the virus illusion through information control and narratives that parrot virology’s claims. By way of happenstance, the virological fraud now finds itself front and centre of the COVID-19 fraud. From here, however, it can be critically appraised by those outside virology and the pseudoscientific paradigm virology has built around itself can finally be dismantled and laid to rest.
The aim of this essay is to provide refutations to various claims that pathogenic viruses exist and cause disease. SARS-CoV-2 has been used as the main example but the principles apply to all alleged viruses. What follows addresses virology’s often arcane literature on its own terms, which, it should be said, may make parts of this essay somewhat heavy reading. However, it is hoped that this contribution will fill a niche for the reader seeking a more technical understanding of the virus hypothesis as it seeks to expose the very foundation of purported pandemics and fraudulent medical practices. The threat of virology to humanity is increasing so it is time we bid farewell to these destructive pseudoscientific practices and free ourselves from unnecessary fears.
Postscript
No matter how long an essay covering this topic may be, there will always be more questions in the form of, “but what about…?” The desire to fit observed phenomena to the virus model is strongly programmed on many levels. It was not the intention of this essay to explain peripheral observations or the cause of various illnesses in organisms such as humans. As has been detailed, it only needs to be demonstrated that the viral hypothesis has refuted itself on its own terms. The virologists have provided no direct evidence of pathogenic viruses and instead have resorted to indirect observations that are invalided due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. Additionally, adhering to the scientific method places us under no obligation to provide an alternative explanation for these phenomena — when a hypothesis has been falsified, even once, it is done for. Tragically, the explanations to many of the “but what about…?” questions have already been answered elsewhere but the seduction of the “virus” and the juggernaut of surrounding interests have formed an artificial knowledge barrier for many people. In this light, I have endeavoured to serve the highest purpose I know and hope that my contributions will help humanity throw off the imaginary viral shackles once and for all.
Progress consists, not in the increase of truth, but in freeing it from its wrappings. The truth is obtained like gold, not by letting it grow bigger, but by washing off from it everything that isn’t gold. — Leo Tolstoy
Getting to the Truth About “Viruses”: Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman & Tom Cowan Respond to Del Bigtree’s Statements in a Recent Interview With The Conscious Resistance
“I think realistically, we’re talking about the state of the science in virology. And these are facts that we can check within their own publications. So, we’re not presenting a philosophical view about how biology works necessarily. What we’re saying is that when we go to the scientific literature, we can see that they’ve not established that there are pathogenic particles called viruses.”
~ Dr. Mark Bailey
“…The way I see it right now is — the goal, I’d say, is to stop the tyranny… And the good thing, I would say, is that whoever is the perpetrators of this… in a sense they gave us a gift. And the gift is, they made this particular tyranny — focus of it — to be about a virus. And it turns out that if you actually go into how do you know whether these so-called pathogenic viruses exist, it’s very simple…
…With viruses, there’s no technical problem of finding them. We’ve been able to do this for over 70 years. And the fact of the matter is… you can’t find them in the habitat that they say they are. And so this becomes such a scientific truth — logical, rational way of understanding the world. And it becomes clear to just about everybody that they can’t prove that these viruses exist.
And since the goal is to stop the tyranny… if you show that there’s no evidence that they do exist, which is very easy to do, then all of the things in the tyranny — so-called vaccines, injections, social distancing, masking, closing businesses, restriction of travel — all that makes no sense. No sense. So you don’t have to fight about all those things…”
Dr Sam and Mark Bailey are joined by Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Andy Kaufman to analyse Bigtree’s strategy. We discuss why we believe the COVID-19 situation should be used to unravel not only the virus model, but the fraud of germ theory as well.
All matter is frequency and vibration, whether alive or inanimate. If it exists, it has a frequency.
In the same way a wooden table has a specific frequency, so do sounds, thoughts, emotions, prayer, meditation, words, actions, cells, organ systems, and whole bodies, to name a few.
As sound vibration is made visible through the science of Cymatics, energy is felt in the human body as e-motion, or energy-in-motion. Sound can be defined as vibrations that travel through the air, water, or other medium. Both sound vibration and emotional vibration manifest form. As electromagnetic beings, made mostly of water, the human form resonates in frequencies.
The human senses, limited as they are, translate frequencies:
Eyes – Translate different photon vibrations creating the colors we see.
Ears – Translate sound wave frequencies into the notes we hear.
Nose – Translates the certain molecules into different odors.
Sense of touch – Translates tiny vibrations that create texture through the stimulation on nerves.
The Law of Correspondence
The Law of Correspondence states that there is always a correspondence between the outer world and the inner world – “as within, so without” or “as above, so below.” For example, there is a correspondence between numbers and sound and between sound and healing.
Pythagoras, the author of the Pythagorean Theorem, also founded the doctrine of the “Music of Spheres” which correlates the practice of numerology with tones. Since his time, many others have connected healing tones with healing and colors with healing. Of course, colors also correspond to the chakras (wheels of light) in the energy system of the body. Thus, sound healing focuses on specific frequencies that resonate with the chakras, the sources of life energy.
Everything distills down to a unique frequency. Frequencies either come together in harmony (health) or in dissonance (disease). When it comes to the frequency of healing, like heals like.
Sound Healing
Music can heal the wounds which medicine cannot touch. – Debasish Mridha
Does music come to you more readily than words? Hans Christian Anderson said, “Where words fail, music speaks.”
Music reflects both health and dis-ease. Musical notes that are overabundant or missing in your voice range correlate to specific physical ailments. Thus, if you know the frequency, you can find the solution.
According to Sharry Edwards, of Human BioAcoustics in the U.S., “BioAcoustics Voice Spectral Analysis can detect hidden or underlying stresses in the body that are expressed as disease.” The vocal print can identify toxins, pathogens and nutritional supplements that are too low or too high. In addition, vocal print can be used to match the most compatible treatment remedy to each client. The introduction of the proper low frequency sound to the body, indicated through voice analysis, has been shown to control: pain, body temperature, heart rhythm, and blood pressure. It has also been shown to regenerate body tissue, and alleviate the symptoms of many diseases (in some cases, even those considered to be incurable).
According to Elaine Thompson of Sound Therapy UK, a partial list of notes as they relate to the human body body include:
C: Personal power, female sexuality, caring for the self, caring for others, eye muscles (C and C#) blood problems, the heart muscle, cancer, circulation, large body muscle strength.
D and D#: cell oxygenation of digestion, liver, anger, emotions, mineral transport, constipation when note is full – digestion of food, male and female hormones, oxygen to eyes and muscles. D#: Food allergies; Parkinson’s Disease, Lack of D Multiple Sclerosis
E: Lungs, dairy allergies, overabundant E for catarrh, bronchitis, asthma (congested kind), emotionally represents the heart; too much E can mean being stuck in a situation that you don’t like but don’t know what to do about it or can’t change – lack of E = no joy in your life or asthma (nervous kind) or hay fever & sinusitis (D#-E).
F: Kidneys, bladder, prostate, sexuality (male); Lack of F/F# in a man can mean possible low sex drive or not enough sexual activity. Procrastination or workaholic. Inability to integrate perception and action.
G: Neurotransmitters, minerals, the “happy” note. G is the colour of the sky. Lack of G/G# = depression (apathetic) too much G/G#/A = manic depression and mental disorders.
A: Eye problems, knees. Together with A# it represents the immune system. A = degeneration of the body functions, calf muscles, lower legs, degeneration of eyesight (missing A).
B: Represents the body electric, ears, hearing, deafness, and without B minerals don’t work so well. You lose your body electric balance when you have too much computer radiation. This can be helped with a daily shower.
Energy Manifests Matter
Low frequencies manifest anger, aggression, desire for control, and a state of disharmony, while high frequencies manifest joy, love, desire for peace, and a state of harmony. You have a choice what frequency you manifest. By shifting emotions, you are able to shift matter, and shift your reality.
You are an electric and magnetic being, and an Earthling. You are consciousness embodied in an Earth Suit, connected through energy that flows around you and through you. You are a spark of the Creator. You are a unique, individual expression of universal energy. You are connected to everything. You direct your energy through intention, feeling, and sharing your gifts to create your personal reality.
The beauty of this 3rd dimensional space is that you embody the frequency you choose and manifest it as matter. You can’t help it. The moral? Be conscious of your choices.
In all the possibilities of manifestation, conscious choosing is key. Choice means that individuals are not only responsible for their bodies but also for their thoughts. Each individual is responsible for his or her life.
The idea that the individual is responsible for health runs counter to the propaganda coming from Group Think, which manifests as the media, government, educational systems, religious institutions, laws and courts, and the allopathic medical system.
Outside of worldly systems, you come into this world through your body, alone. Likewise, you exit this world through your body, alone. Therefore, you, alone, are responsible for your body and your life, even if you are part of an overarching family, community, country, and humanity. You are in the world, not of the world.
That means you are your own healer. While others can guide you to heal, you are created to heal yourself. To better appreciate all that you are, learn more about your innate immune system here.
You cannot have health without freedom, nor freedom without health. Under the Natural law, individuals have the inherent right to make health decisions for themselves, without coercion or discrimination – the right to choose what goes into your body. All man-made laws fall under Natural law; not the other way around.
2. Cost-Benefit Equation & The Individual
The individual is responsible for determining the costs and benefits of any medical or holistic treatment.
3. Mental Health
Like physical health, mental health is an individual responsibility because it influences how we think, feel, behave, face challenges, maintain relationships, recover from setbacks, etc.
4. Natural Rights
The role of government, employers, or societies at large, are not there to make decisions for individuals. When you allow governments to legislate choice it binds freedom to a contract and choice becomes obsolete. Choice and access are natural rights by birth and can neither be granted nor denied by any government or court.
5. Interference Frequencies
Arthur Firstenburg, author of The Invisible Rainbow, and president of Cellular Phone Task Force, compiled information on the biological effects of radio wave frequencies in his free booklet Radio Wave Packet, What You Need To Know About Wireless Technology. Of course, since radio was deployed, there are now harmful 3G, 4G, 5G frequencies, with more coming. From plants to honey bees, to birds, mammals, whales, and humans, these frequencies are known to maim and kill. So it is equally important to know how to shield and protect yourself.
Create A Frequency of Healing
Begin each day with a simple ‘Thank you.’ Life is a gift. A positive affirmation is much better than “Life sucks and then you die” or “Thank God it’s Friday.” Expecting the worst is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Love yourself. If you don’t love yourself, why would you expect anyone else to love you? Love who you are, even your illness, which can be reversed because the body is made to heal itself if given the right tools. An illness is present to show you something you’ve been suppressing and it is time to express it.
There is no law of limitation. What you perceive to be true, will be true; what you expect is what you’ll get; how you talk to yourself is how you’ll see yourself and where you’ll find yourself.
Move your body. Exercise. Dance. Dance like no one is watching.
Turn off the T.V., the computer, and the cell phone.
Understand the 5G networks and towers are set up to interfere with your frequency and find ways to shield yourself, the plants, and Nature around you.
Go to Nature, ground yourself, practice Earthing (bare feet to the Earth), listen and connect to the sounds around you.
Be calm using your breath: 1) Breathe in through the left nostril, breathe out through the right; 2) Belly breathing. Breath with your belly using 4-count breathing. Breathe in for 4 counts, hold 4 counts, breath out 4 counts, hold 4 counts.
Be Creative: write, draw, cook, or sing.
Have fun. Laugh instead of cry.
Eat high frequency foods, foods of Nature, in their original packages.
Do something nice for yourself.
Bring music into your life.
Share your gifts, the ones you are passionate about.
Talk with a friend and keep the topic on the up-and-up.
Follow your intuition.
When you choose to create a healing frequency, you activate your innate healing potential as a frequency being. Shift happens. When you shift perception, you shift the world around you. You shift your reality. And life, as you know it, is never the same again.
I remember early on in 2017, when I first started unraveling the “virus” lie through the examination of HIV/AIDS, to being introduced to the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka. If memory serves me correctly, my first encounter was through the brilliant House of Numbersdocumentary by Brent Leung. I was simply amazed that Dr. Lanka, an ex-virologist, was actually calling out the methods of his own profession. His testimony, along with that of Kary Mullis, the inventor of the misused and abused PCR technique, carried much weight with me in those early days. Their words lent credibility to the argument that the evidence for the existence of HIV and other “viruses” was entirely absent and fraudulent.
During that time of intense research where I was desperately seeking out any and all information that I could find, I fortunately stumbled onto a few of Dr. Lanka’s articles through the VirusMyth.com website. I was engrossed in his work and absorbed much of what he had to say on the subject, especially in regards to the lack of purification and isolation of any “viruses,” the faults of the cell culture method, and the problems related to electron microscope imagery. As it did for many others, Dr. Lanka’s work formed much of the foundation for my understanding of the lies of virology. It is rare to gain such critical insight from someone who was involved in the industry. It is even more rare for someone in his position to set out and actually prove what he was saying correct yet that is exactly what Dr. Lanka has done numerous times.
Without Dr. Lanka’s enormous contributions to unraveling the lies of germ theory, many of us speaking out today may not have been doing so. As his work was instrumental in helping me along on my own journey towards uncovering the truth, I want to highlight what I consider Dr. Lanka’s three biggest contributions to proving the fraud of virology along with many of the papers he has written on the subject. My hope is that you will be able to come away with a greater appreciation for Dr. Lanka’s monumental work as well as a clearer understanding of the deceptive practices used by virologists.
1. The Measles Trial
Early on in my journey, I found my way to the infamous measles trial saga while researching Dr. Lanka’s work. Back in 2017, it was difficult to find out much accurate information on what had really transpired. For those who are unaware, Dr. Lanka set forth a challenge in his own magazine calling upon anyone to come forward with a single paper providing the scientific evidence which proved the existence of a measles “virus.” If this challenge was met, the person would receive a $100,000 financial reward. A physician named David Bardens came forward with six papers spanning six decades which he claimed together proved the existence of the measles “virus.” Dr. Lanka refused to pay as he specifically requested one publication providing the entire proof necessary. Dr. Bardens sued and while Dr. Lanka lost the initial case in the lower courts, he won on appeal in the higher courts. At the time I originally came upon this story, the internet was (and still is) full of stories claiming that Dr. Lanka lost the case. However, to anyone interested in the truth, it is obvious that those lies do not hold up under scrutiny. Presented below is a great overview of how the events actually played out:
“On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.
In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.
The six publications are:
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85
Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.
Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–
Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.
Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.
On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.
On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.
On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.
Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.
According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.
Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.”
For an even more in-depth analysis of what really occured during the trial, I always recommend this article by Feli Popescu, who was actually present during the proceedings:
When I think of Dr. Lanka’s work, the measles trial stands out as the most significant moment and the most pivotal accomplishment. We had an epic head-to-head clash between he medical establishment and an ex-virologust taking place in a court of law over the legitimacy of the evidence for the measles “virus.” It was determined through this trial that the foundational paper claiming the existence and isolation of the measles “virus,” the 1954 paper by John Franklin Enders, was unworthy by itself for proving the existence of the “virus.” As all other papers and virology itself owe their evidence to the cell culture methods developed by Enders in that paper, it is an astonishingly damning admission that the evidence presented by virology is invalid.
2. The 7 Steps Proving “Viruses” Don’t Exist
More recently, Dr. Lanka put together what he felt were the main points that bring the house of cards known as virology tumbling down. These 7 steps were formulated over many years of painstaking research into the faults of virology. As he did with the measles trial, Dr. Lanka compiled a very convincing case for why “viruses” do not exist and why virology is a pseudoscience built upon fraudulent foundations.
The 7 steps to prove “viruses” do not exist:
1. Virologists interpret the death of cells in the laboratory as viral. Due to the lack of control attempts (experiments), they overlook the fact that they kill the cells in the laboratory themselves and unintentionally by starving and poisoning the cells. This misinterpretation is based on a single publication by John Franklin Enders and a colleague from June 1, 1954. This publication was ruled by the highest court in Germany in the measles virus trial that it contained no evidence of a virus. This publication became the exclusive basis not only for measles virology, but for all virology since 1954 and corona hysteria.
2. Virologists mentally assemble the shortest pieces of so-called genetic information from dying cells to form a very long genetic strand, which they output as the genetic strand of a virus. This conceptual/computational process is called alignment. In doing so, they did not make the control attempts, the attempt to conceptually/computationally construct the desired genetic strand even from short pieces of so-called genetic information from non-infected sources.
3. For the alignment of a virus, virologists always need a given genetic strand of a virus. For this, however, they always use a genetically/computationally generated genetic strand and never a real one, one found in reality. In doing so, they never attempt to check whether or not so-called genetic information could also be constructed from the existing data set, including “viral” genetic material strands of completely different viruses.
4. Virologists have never seen or isolated “viruses” in humans, animals, plants or their fluids. They only did it seemingly, indirectly, and only ever by means of very special and artificial cell systems in the laboratory. They never mentioned the control attempts or documented whether they succeeded in depicting and isolating viruses in and from humans, animals, plants or their fluids.
5. Virologists have never isolated, biochemically characterized or obtained their supposed genetic material from the supposed viruses that they photograph using electron microscope images. They have never conducted or published control experiments as to whether, after isolating these structures, it was actually possible to detect “viral” proteins (the envelope of the virus) and, above all, the viral genome, which is supposed to be the central component and characteristic of a virus.
6. Virologists report typical artifacts of dying tissue/cells and typical structures that arise when the cell’s own components such as proteins, fats and the solvents used are swirled, as viruses or viral components. Here, too, there are no control experiments with cells/tissues that were not infected but were also treated.
7. The so-called transmission attempts that virologists make to prove the transmission and pathogenicity of the suspected viruses refute the entire virology. Obviously, it is the experiments themselves that trigger the symptoms, which animal experiments provide as evidence of the existence and effectiveness of the suspected viruses. Here, too, there are no control attempts in which exactly the same thing is done, only with non-infected or sterilized materials.
Dr. Lanka explained the 7 steps himself in this short excerpt from an interview with Dr. Tom Cowan where he offered additional insight:
3. The Control Experiments
During this current “pandemic,” Dr. Lanka decided to carry out and recreate for “SARS-COV-2” the control experiments he had done during the measles trial. The experiments were conducted in three phases:
Phase 1 – The cytopathic effect
In the first control experiment, Dr. Stefan Lanka showed that what virologists attribute to the presence of a pathogenic virus can be achieved without infectious material.
Phase 2 – Construction of the SARS-CoV-2 genome
In the second control experiment, Dr. Lanka showed that what virologists call “viral genetic material actually comes from a healthy human tissue.
Phase 3 – Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
In the third control experiment, we show that with the same technique that virologists use and using nucleic acids, which are not from supposedly infectious material but from healthy human tissue, animals and plants, can construct the genome of any “virus.”
Phase 1 of Dr. Lanka’s experiments was designed to show that the cytopathogenic effect, the very criteria used to determine a “virus” is present in a cell culture, can be caused by the experimental conditions themselves without “infectious” material present. The article linked above contains the study by the independent laboratory testing the cytopathogenic effect for Dr. Lanka. It is in German but it can be easily translated into English. However, as it is a rather long study, I wanted to provide my favorite breakdown of the CPE experiments from Dr. Tom Cowan’s excellent book Breaking the Spell:
“Here is the essence of Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing. As seen in this series of photographs, each of the four vertical columns is a separate experiment. The top photo in each column was taken on day one, and the bottom photo was taken on day five.
In vertical column one, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics. As you can see, on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth.
In vertical column two, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium. Still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five.
The third vertical column shows what happened when Dr. Lanka’s group used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation experiment of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. Thisincluded changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration. As you can see, on day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.
The fourth and final vertical column is the same as vertical column three, except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added. This produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a virus—that is causing the CPE.”
For Dr. Lanka’s own breakdown of the phase 1 results, please see this interview with Dean Braus:
Phase 2: Construction of the “SARS-CoV-2” genome
Phase two of the control experiments looked to show that the “viral” material in the “SARS-COV-2” genome actually comes from healthy human tissue. Dr. Lanka joined Kate Sugak to discuss the findings in the below video:
Phase 3: Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
Phase 3 was designed to show that by using materials from many different sources (healthy humans, animals, plants, and synthetic nucleic acids), the PCR amplification process can create the genomes for any “virus.” I’ve provided the abstract from the study performed by the independent researchers working with Dr. Lanka to give a short overview of what was found:
Structural analysis of sequence data in virology: An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example
“De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat-nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.
We therefore examined the publication “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China” [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).
Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples.”
To hear Dr. Lanka’s explanation of this phase, please see this excellent interview once again with Kate Sugak:
Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey’s Tribute to Dr. Lanka
For an even greater in-depth look at the brilliant work of Dr. Lanka, please see this excellent video tribute by the Baileys. From an outline provided by Dr. Mark Bailey, in this 30 minute video they cover:
Dr. Lanka’s early discoveries that bacteriophages and giant “viruses” are able to be truly isolated but are not pathogenic
Dr. Lanka’s path as a virologist and the realization that the model was wrong
How Dr. Lanka spoke out from the very early stages against the HIV/AIDS dogma
Dr. Lanka’s discovery that the germ theory and disease entity models are incorrect
A look at Dr. Lanka’s 7 points that refute virology on their own terms
The 3 phases of the “SARS-CoV-2” control experiments performed in 2021 that were used to refute the “virus” hypothesis
And the optimism for the future as many of us are now standing on his shoulders to spread the knowledge he has given us
Sadly, it is often a lonely road for anyone willing to break away from tradition and speak out about the troubling state of their chosen profession, especially in a field with ties to a highly lucrative pharmaceutical conglomerate. More often than not, anyone who is willing to sound the alarm has their work smeared and their reputations tarnished by colleagues and the mainstream media in order to discredit the information and the charges that have been brought forth. We are fortunate enough that there were a few brave men and women who were able to see through the indoctrination of their training and push through the often painful cognitive dissonance which comes with having to change long held beliefs ingrained from birth.
Dr. Lanka helped to pave the path against virology and many of us are walking in his footsteps today. His refutation of the germ theory paradigm using their own history and methods was highly influential to myself and others. His status as an ex-virologist not only gave him an invaluable insiders look at the fraud the field is entrenched in but also the clout necessary for those hesitant about the information shared to actually listen up and to start asking the hard questions themselves. We are greatly indebted to Dr. Lanka for his trailblazing work. Without his herculean efforts, I highly doubt that we would be able to attack this fraudulent field as successfully as we are able to do so now.
Essential Reading:
I wanted to provide a list of Dr. Lanka’s work which I consider essential reading for anyone questioning the germ theory lies and/or looking to gain more knowledge of the foundational problems that the field of virology is built upon. Many of these were sources I read initially in my own journey which I found extremely helpful in broadening my own understanding. I am positive that this list will be a benefit to others as well:
The current and predicted food shortages are planned, by design, under The United Nations Sustainability Agenda. If you’re just hearing about it now, you missed the warnings of food shortages that came earlier, recommending a diet of insects.
In 2013, the U.N. released a report titled, Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security. The report fueled a campaign to “stabilize the global food supply.” If the Chinese can eat insects, then so can everyone else, right?
What about meat lovers pizzas? What about steak dinners, and bacon bits?
After decades of government subsidies for chemical applications to crops for feedlot animals, and vaccines for diseased animals, world leaders are telling people that they must now stop eating conventional beef and animal protein and they must do it for the environment. Everyone must fall in line with the U.N. Sustainability protocol.
Back in 2019, the media warned people that Beyond Burgers made of hemp, pea protein, and crickets were just around the corner. A 2019 article in Bloomberg news on Beyond Meat:
Crickets are the main insect making it’s way into recipes, with the ground-up bugs having little taste. The powder is a filling option and contains “far more protein than wheat flour,” which is not saying much. It is being added to foods like sausages, cookies, muffins, tofu and ice cream. Last year, Loblaw Cos., Canada’s largest grocer, even added cricket powder to its line of President’s Choice products.
Cricket Cheese Puffs
Today, it is more important than ever to read labels if you want to know what form of protein you are ingesting. On the new sustainable Cheese Puffs, right next to organic cornmeal flour is listed organic cricket flour.
Organic cricket flour?
According to a decade of media hype, crickets will save the planet using sustainable insect-based technologies. What type of technology is that? Did someone say feedlots?
Crickets are replacing factory-farmed, grain-fed cows in large scale-insect farming lots, which requires huge water and energy resources. These feedlots pose the same environmental risks as other animal production systems.
According to Nature, a healthy cricket’s natural diet is grass, similar to a healthy cow’s natural diet. If not grass-fed, how are crickets a sustainable food?
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.– Albert Einstein
What about protein? The Chinese eat crickets for protein, right?
Researchers raised crickets on one of five different diets: corn, soy, grain, food waste, and crop residue. Those crickets fed processed food waste had protein conversion rates (35%) similar to chickens. Nearly all those fed straight food waste died before they could be harvested.
In summary, the same technologies that created diseased feedlot animals are back, with crickets.
It’s what’s for dinner!
Climate Change Propaganda
The road paved with crickets is filled with lies, from global war to global warming.
Climate Change legislation called “Global Warming Solutions” in California is tied directly to international influences of U.N. Agendas 21 and 2030 for Sustainable Development. Yet, impacts from the government’s cloud seeding and geo-engineering programs continue unabated and suppressed from people who make decisions about their food.
The U.N. narrative suggests that eating less meat is essential to curb Climate Change. However, the fact that the climate changes every day appears to have little to do with eating meat or anything else, for that matter. Choosing to eat meat should be based on the quality of the meat, how the animal was raised, what it ate during its life, and whether it was healthy and happy.
The Climate Change deception is alive and well as long as you believe it. Yet, doing away with the abusive industry of feedlot animals may not be a bad thing if humanity wants to improve the quality of life for all. After all, it is not only what you eat, but the energy of what you eat, that matters.
United Nations Smart Cities, with stack-N-pack housing, will alter growth patterns, and redesign cities, to herd people, like crickets, through behavior modification, zoning and land use controls, and tax on toll roads.
Cricket Sickness
Even if you go along with the Climate Change modifications, can you digest crickets?
The exoskeleton of insects contains chitin. When you eat insects you eat chitin, which cannot be processed by the human body. So if you’re eating insect burgers, then you are going to make yourself sick.
According to a 2009 medical journal, World J Gastroenterol, chitinase causes inflammation that leads to health problems, from asthma to tumors (glioblastoma), and changes in epithelial cells:
CHI3L1 may be highly involved in the chronic engagement of inflammation which potentiates development of epithelial tumorigenesis presumably by activating the mitogen-activated protein kinase and the protein kinase B signaling pathways. Anti-CHI3L1 antibodies or pan-chitinase inhibitors may have the potential to suppress CHI3L1-mediated chronic inflammation and the subsequent carcinogenic change in epithelial cells.
According to a 2019 article in PLoS ONE,parasites were found in livestock of 81% of insect farms, where 30-35% of these parasites are pathogenic to humans.
Edible insects are an underestimated reservoir of human and animal parasites. Our research indicates the important role of these insects in the epidemiology of parasites pathogenic to vertebrates.
Perhaps a whole new industry of cricket enzymes to help you digest your dinner, and anti-parasitics, to keep you alive, is just around the corner. In the meantime…
What happens when farming becomes centralized on a global scale?
Crickets!
What happens when fewer people are growing their own food?
Crickets!
What happens when flour, burgers, pasta, and fillers, and all foods are tied to Climate Change?
Crickets!
What happens when you ask your government officials for proof that crickets will save the world?
Is the military industrial complex insane enough to incinerate Earth’s last remaining forests in order to achieve the objectives of the global controllers? The short answer is yes. A formerly classified US military document titled “Forest Fire As A Military Weapon” is a truly shocking exposé of planned scorched Earth destruction. The US Forest Service actually participated in the research and planning that went into this military instruction manual for carrying out orchestrated forest fire catastrophes. What part have climate intervention operations played in the preparation of forests for extreme and unprecedented incineration all over the world? The short video report below reveals the shocking degree of research that the US military and the US Forest Service has put into preparing forests for extreme incineration.
The climate engineering atrocities are a primary factor in the equation of exponentially increasing forest fires and fire intensity.
Geoengineering operations are completely disrupting the global hydrological cycle, drying out forests and driving record wildfires around the world. Climate engineering is fueling global incineration.
Watch the official public release of Matador Films new “Uninformed Consent” documentary, presented by Librti.com and Vaccine Choice Canada.
An in-depth look into the Covid 19 narrative, who’s controlling it, and how it’s being used to inject an untested, new technology into almost every person on the planet.
The film explores how the narrative is being used to strip us of our human rights while weaving in the impact of mandates in a deeply powerful story of one man’s tragic loss.
Hear the truth from doctors and scientists not afraid to stand up against Big Pharma and the elite class who profit from mandates.
“This film reveals that we have been massively deceived by our own governments, public health, and mainstream media.” – Ted Kuntz – President – Vaccine Choice Canada
“Can’t wait for this movie to come out. Crude propaganda ‘crisis of the uninjected’ followed by censorship, reprisal and totalitarian brute force on the people. I say bring it on!” – Dr. Peter McCullough – Internist & Cardiologist – Professor of Medicine
“Todd is a brilliant filmmaker who has a unique way of exposing the devastation to families from the mandates.” – Odessa Orlewicz – Partner – Librti.com
“Uninformed Consent is the most scientific and factual TRUTH to come out of Canada in the last 3 years. If you are a parent, this should be on the TOP of your viewing list. It is TRULY an eye-opener. Everyone needs to see this film!” – Amanda Forbes – Children’s Health Defense
“This is the most powerful documentary of the Covid era.” – Sherri Strong – Children’s Health Defense Canada
A photo isn’t enough because it says nothing about causality. A photo of hyenas eating a dead antelope says nothing about whether or not the hyenas killed the antelope. (A hunter might have killed it and the hyenas arrived later.)
Furthermore, reproducibility is critical, hence it being part of the Scientific Method. If the same results can’t be repeated, then the hypothesis is false. For example, if the claim that a certain type of plastic is heat resistant under certain conditions, but tests repeatedly reveal that it is not heat resistant under the said conditions, then the claim is false.
Similarly, if the claim that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19, then tests must be conducted and must be reproducible.
There is nothing unusual about such logic; it is precisely how proper science works.
TNT Conversation
Mark joined me for a conversation about viruses and the aforementioned challenge. It is well worth listening to.
Podcast Conversation
A few days after our TNT conversation, Mark joined me on my podcast for an overlapping, but more free-flowing chat with coffee, craft beer, and power failures.
I’m moving on from Part 1 into a completely different area.
There is lab work in the sciences that crucially affects populations. Two examples: virologists claiming they’ve isolated SARS-CoV-2; and researchers deciding they’ve found a way to adapt RNA technology to produce a COVID vaccine.
In the first case, the purported discovery of SARS-CoV-2 enabled the launch of the global pandemic announcement, which eventually led to the lockdowns and the crashing of economies. In the second case, the RNA-vaccine “breakthrough” led to the vaccination of billions of people, and massive numbers of injuries and deaths.
These are crucial effects, to say the least.
And yet, those on the outside, who have no access to these labs AS THE WORK IS BEING DONE, those who are independent scientists and analysts and can only read the studies once they are published—
—This is an unconscionable situation, when you stop and think about it.
The whole world is changed by the research, but we can’t watch it IN PROGRESS.
People have been brainwashed into thinking this lack of access to labs is normal. Standard. Non-official persons entering these labs and tracking the work step by step would amount to a criminal invasion. That’s what we’re supposed to believe:
“Just accept our statements about our findings and shut up and obey.”
“We’re the pros. You’re the idiots.”
“We’re certified. You’re the guinea pigs.”
“Call security, call the FBI, call DHS, terrorists are trying to break into our lab.”
“This is a holy sanctum, anointed by God. You’re a mortal sinner.”
Here’s my kind of debate on the existence of SARS-Cov-2. Here’s my bottom, bottom line.
Virologists are compelled to replicate, in the lab, the so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2. An outside team of truly independent scientists and journalists is present.
So is a camera crew. With many cameras. And many mics.
The team watches every single move the virologists make. Any member of the team can stop the work and ask a question or criticize a move.
The questions and answers and the criticisms and replies are all recorded. Ditto for every action the virologists take.
THIS is a REAL debate. The most real debate.
“Wait. That’s ridiculous. You can’t expect these highly trained virologists to submit themselves to this kind of…inspection.”
Of course I can.
For example: Our team member in the lab says, “All right, you’re observing that the monkey cells and the human cells in this soup you’ve created are dying off. You claim the killer must be ‘the virus’ in the patient’s tissue sample—the sample you dropped in the soup. You claim nothing else in the soup could be killing the cells. So let me ask you this? Where is the control experiment?”
“The what?”
“The control. My, my. You really forgot about that?”
“I don’t understand. Turn off the cameras.”
“Leave them on, boys. This is interesting. Let me explain, Dr. High Horse. You should have a second dish of soup that is absolutely identical to the first dish, except the second dish does NOT contain the tissue sample from a patient. You also keep an eye on that second dish and see whether the monkey cells and the human cells in it die off. If they do…then your contention that ‘the virus’ in the patient sample is killing those cells is worthless. And you have no evidence your virus is in the patient sample. Or that it exists.”
“Oh. Well…”
“Well, what? You don’t mean to say all those virologists in all those labs who claimed they found the new virus omitted the control experiment, do you?”
YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION.
On camera, in the lab, in person.
“That would never happen. They would never let you in there.”
Which proves what? I’m just stating what the MOST REAL DEBATE WOULD CONSIST OF, in a half-sane world. It would look exactly like that.
Here’s a parallel for you. A civilian no one ever heard of develops a car he says runs on water. He says he’s got a new process that VERY cheaply splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the car runs on the hydrogen.
Over years and decades, the legend grows. Finally, major media are starting to nibble around the edges of the story.
So one day, a bunch of Saudis and oil execs and scientists and men in suits show up at this man’s garage, and express great interest in his work. THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THIS CRAZY GUY HAS STUMBLED ON A REVOLUTIONARY WAY TO POWER A CAR.
So what would they ask him to do?
See, they’re the outsiders with no access, and he’s the insider.
Are they just going to ask him for assurances?
Hell no. They’re going to ask him to take the engine apart and put it back together again. They’re going to ask him to take the fuel system apart and put it back together again. They’re going to want to go through his whole car and his garage and his kitchen and his bathroom with a fine-toothed comb. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS SITUATION, SINCE IT COULD AFFECT THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION, AND THEIR PROFITS, AND SO ON.
They’re not screwing around.
And neither should we.
Our lives and futures and the lives of future generations are on the line with this “virus thing.”
We should be looking at every beaker and tube and slide and instrument in the virology lab. We should be looking over the shoulders of the virologists and watching every move they make and asking pointed questions and demanding answers.
So we really know whether they’re doing science or preposterous bullshit.
And of course we wouldn’t be paying attention to random assurances from “highly qualified and respected scientists” along the way. We’d be studiously ignoring them.
If you need another parallel to the real kind of investigation I’m demanding, think of bringing a team into the Vatican and inspecting every inch of space in every building, including the basements and caverns…to see what’s really there. The whole enchilada.
All right, you get the idea. You see what I’m asking for.
Now, short of that, what do we have? What can we get access to?
Well, it’s not entirely reliable, but here it is:
We can read published studies which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2. Those studies all have methods sections. In them, the researchers describe, step by step, what they did to “isolate the virus.”
We have that.
I’m now going to republish one of those methods sections, chunk by chunk, and have Dr. Andrew Kaufman make his criticisms as we go along. I published all this about a year ago.
I want to emphasize that Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of highly detailed analyses of these methods sections, from a number of other independent critics. We need much more of this.
The devil is in the details.
Here we go:
I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)”.
STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”
KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”
STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”
KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”
STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”
KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”
STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”
KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”
KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO). Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”
STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”
STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”
KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”
STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”
—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 500 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past two years) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?
The answer is no.
As I stated, Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of intense and detailed examination of studies that describe “how the virus was isolated.”
As opposed to a few hours of Zoom debate in which people summarize their opposing positions, and then submit to a vote from a panel of judges who descend from the sky with motives as pure as Superman and Wonder Woman. All this happens with Steve Kirsch in the background holding a million dollar prize. In Vegas, Steve would be called the house. And the house always wins.
Recently I joined a group of 20 doctors and scientists around the world who put their names to the “Settling the Virus Debate” statement. In this two-page document we suggested, “rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.” Some of the individuals who believe that the existence of pathogenic viruses is an established fact, proceeded to immediately disagree. One was Steve Kirsch, who attempted to distract from the central tenet of our statement, being that virology had failed to carry out scientific control experiments. In reality, it is clear that the virologists have not shown that their techniques of “viral” cultures, genomics, and clinical diagnostics are valid even on their own terms. Indeed, I have not seen Kirsch or anyone else provide evidence that the appropriately-controlled experiments we suggested in the statement have been performed.
Kirsch admitted, “this is not my field of expertise at all. I rely on other people around me who I trust.” I have written a previous article about why I think Kirsch should be careful about trusting other “experts.” However, he continues to favour this approach and one of his trusted parties includes the pathologist/virologist Dr Sin Lee. Lee wrote, “Tom Cowan claimed the virus has not been isolated. But the virus has been isolated by the CDC and marketed by ATCC as the control materials. I bought the virus as the control for my CLIA tests. Many others do.” We have covered the follies concerning these claims of “isolation” many times and the CDC certainly have no studies demonstrating the existence of a pathogenic particle termed ‘SARS-CoV-2’. The ATCC simply repeat the claim by the CDC that their listed product contains a “virus” – however as I outlined in my first “Warning Signs” article, following the trail back to the start does not lead to any evidence of a virus in the biological potions being passed around.
On 18 July 2022, Lee sent the following email to Dr Tom Cowan:
I have a Preprint manuscript currently under peer review as follows. ://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202206.0192/v1 There is irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence that the virus exists and keeps mutating. If Dr. Tom Cowan disagrees, please write a critique to challenge my data and interpretation online in the open. I will respond. Other scientists can join in for the debate.
Dr Sin H. Lee, 18 July 2022
The preprint paper is titled, “Implementation of the eCDC/WHO Recommendation for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants and Its Challenges.” To expose the problems of virology it is crucial to examine the methodology section of any publication and in this case it is no different. In the “material and methods” section Lee stated that, “five (5) selective nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected from non-hospitalized patients with respiratory infection, which were confirmed to be true-positive for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant by Sanger sequencing.” Here we are straight into the deep end of virology’s circular reasoning: the “virus” has been confirmed to exist on the basis of detected sequences from some nasopharyngeal swabs. There is nowhere in the paper that any evidence is provided for the existence of an actual virus, that is, a tiny particle that acts as an obligate intracellular parasite and is capable of causing disease in a host.
The claim that the specimens were, “true-positive[s] for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” simply means some sequences that were previously deposited on genetic databases, and fraudulently declared to be “viral,” were being detected again. It doesn’t make any difference which sequencing technique is used, in this case bidirectional Sanger sequencing because the crucial issue is the provenance and clinical relevance of these detected sequences. This is the foundational issue in the entire COVID-19 fraud: there is no virus, simply sequences falsely claimed to be evidence of an actual virus. The World Health Organisation helped orchestrate the deception when it declared that a confirmed ‘case’ of infection with the invented virus is simply the detection of some of these sequences. We have covered this absurd circular reasoning in much of our work including in Sam’s 2020 video “What Is A Covid-19 Case?” (And rapid antigen tests are covered here.)
Back to Lee’s paper and in the following paragraph of the “material and methods” section, he described the, “RNA Extraction from Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens,” as follows:
As previously reported [25-27], the cellular pellet derived from about 1 mL of the nasopharyngeal swab rinse along with 0.2 mL supernatant after centrifugation was first digested in a buffered solution containing sodium dodecyl sulfate and proteinase K. The digestate was extracted with phenol. The nucleic acid was precipitated by ethanol and redissolved in 50 μL of DEPC-treated water.
In other words, there was no step to demonstrate: (a) there were any “viral” particles contained within the samples, or (b) that the RNA came from such imagined viral particles. A reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction was then applied to these undifferentiated samples to generate amplicons ranging from 398 to 707 nucleotides in length. Most of these sequences spanned the so-called ‘Spike protein’ gene of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome, as that was the area of interest for the study. In the next step it was stated:
The crude nested PCR products showing an expected amplicon at agarose gel electrophoresis were subjected to automated Sanger sequencing without further purification.
In fact, at no stage was an attempt undertaken to purify any entity from the crude nasopharyngeal specimens. The entire basis of the study was built on the unestablished premise that the genetic sequences detected were already known to come from inside a pathogenic particle.
The “results” section then detailed the nucleotide sequences of the various amplicons that were generated from the crude samples. Some of the codons (three-nucleotide units that encode a particular amino acid or stop signal) were described as “mutated” on the basis of comparisons to other sequences previously deposited on the genetic databanks. The use of the word ‘mutation’ is problematic in itself, because it implies that a genome has been altered. A genome must belong to a discrete biological entity, so virology is once again misusing terminology to imply that a certain proof has been established. Lee’s study was simply looking at RNA sequences in uncontrolled experiments.
Those of us that dispute the virus narrative point out that no RNA (or DNA) sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfils the definition of a virus. Thus all RNAs can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially (e.g. synthetic mRNA injections) or be of unknown provenance. The “mutations” only exist within in silico models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature. There are other reasons why RNA sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems and I can’t imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact. Simply detecting RNAs is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance. Other experiments are required to make this determination.
In our first COVID-19 Fraud essay we documented the original invention of SARS-CoV-2 by Fan Wu’s team who assembled an in silico “genome” from genetic fragments of unknown provenance, found in the crude lung washings of a single ‘case’ and documented in, “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China.” Their in silico construct served as a reference for others to then “find” the same “virus” around the world, without evidence that such a particle actually existed.
In our soon to be published follow-up COVID-19 Fraud essay we will provide a more detailed explanation as to why detecting nucleic acid sequences per se in crude specimens or cell cultures does not provide the required evidence for “viruses.” In the essay we will also follow the trail back to the first ever declarations of “coronavirus genomes” in the 1980s and show that no viruses were demonstrated in any part of the trail. However, such sequence data is used to promulgate the illusion of “virus” family trees, or claimed “mutations” as discussed above.
Dr Lee’s paper does not even appear to be designed to demonstrate the existence of a postulated disease-causing particle. I sent him several questions including, “I have read the preprint and there does not appear to be a hypothesis presented – is that correct?”, “In your study there did not appear to be any controls (e.g. checking for selected sequences in other nasopharyngeal specimens from humans said not to have the alleged virus) – presumably that was by design?” and “What is your definition of a ‘virus’ in the paper?” Lee responded, “your questions are irrelevant to you [sic] intention to write a comment or critique on the manuscript involved,” and suggested I write something in the preprint website’s comment section.
Lee has provided a descriptive paper that omits a falsifiable hypothesis so it is unclear why he would present it as experimental evidence, let alone “irrefutable” evidence of the existence of SARS-CoV-2. His paper is inappropriately designed for this purpose and his claim engages in a circular reasoning fallacy: the genetic sequences are proffered as evidence of the virus, because it was presupposed that they come from the virus. We are asking, “where is the virus?”
Virology has a problem: It needs to show that “A” actually exists
It’s back to the drawing board for virology: it invented the theory of viruses, so whatever method it employs to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition. In fact, do the virologists even have a theory? The definition of a scientific theory is:
an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroboratedin accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Our “Settling the Virus Debate” statement proposes that the virologists need to employ the required scientific method as a starting point. It is not looking good for them because they have not even demonstrated any internal validity on their own terms. According to science they may not even have a theory. If they have a hypothesis, they need to specify an independent variable (in this case the postulated “virus”) and a dependent variable for analysis. Moreover, to even get started, the independent variable must first be shown to physically exist. I would implore Steve Kirsch to reconsider taking advice from these “experts” and to commence his own investigations into the house of virology. By scientific accounts, it is a house of cards.
Postscript
(Derived from: A. F. Chalmers, What is this thing called Science?, 2nd ed, 1982)
‘Observational statements are frequently presupposed by theory. Such statements are always made in the language of some theory and will be as precise as the theoretical or conceptual framework that they utilise is precise’. In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed. Scientists of the mid and late nineteenth century were preoccupied with the identification of imagined contagious pathogenic entities.
‘The observations of the naïve inductionist did not identify a virus a priori, and then set about studying its properties and characteristics. The extant presupposition of the time was that a very small germ particle existed that may explain contagion. What came thereafter arose to fulfil the presuppositional premise’.
‘A popular view of scientific knowledge is that it is proven knowledge and scientific theories are derived in some righteous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based upon what we can see, hear, measure and touch. Science is objective and explicit. Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge’.
‘A realistic scientific theory will consist of a complex of universal statements rather than a single statement. Further a theory will need to be augmented by auxiliary assumptions, such as laws and theories governing the use of any instruments used, for instance’.
‘The premises from which the prediction is derived must also include the interconnected statements that constitute the theory under test, the initial conditions, and the auxiliary assumptions. Falsification of the theory also indicates the possibility of a failure of any number of the associated assumptions and conditions, and not necessarily of the theory itself’.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr M. C. McGrath (New Zealand) for his constructive criticisms and inspiration for the postscript.
I’ve just interviewed the one and only Jon Rappoport, who launched his website nomorefakenews.com over 20 years ago. Jon is now 84 years old but continues with his prolific output and is always at the forefront of exposing global scams.
We talked about:
identifying the COVID-19 fraud in early 2020
why he started investigating virology 35 years ago
why people need the virus narrative
the state of the health freedom movement
plus much more!
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
TCTL editor’s note:
Brief excerpt from the interview:
Dr. David Rasnick:
The prevalence of cancer, the increase of cancer worldwide is due to the increase in carcinogens in our environment…
Jerm (Jeremy Nell):
Hold on, Dave. So, are you saying that, for example, during the time of the Roman Empire, cancer would have been… cancer prevalence would have been very low?
David:
Yeah. Pretty close to zero.
Jerm:
Wow. Okay. That’s interesting.
David:
Even before the industrial revolution it was pretty close to zero,
The industrial revolution increased carcinogens, pollutions in the environment. Almost all cancer, almost all cancer, is due to environmental carcinogens — poisons that we put in the environment.
Jerm:
And could those poisons also be perhaps childhood vaccinations?
David:
Oh, Lord, yes… My goodness yes. Our environment includes what we breathe, what we eat, what we’re exposed to, what we inject in ourselves…
David Rasnick is a biochemist with decades of research in AIDS and cancer, and returned to my podcast to discuss cancer and why most of what we’re told is wrong.
Cancer is an extremely complex subject, so I’d recommend reading his summary article in which he outlines, in fairly layman language, the foundation of his argument.
Basically, it’s known as Aneuploidy Theory, and it is in stark contrast to the current Big Pharma model of cancer. Obviously, Aneuploidy Theory is “discredited” and dismissed, as a result. But, as pharmaceutical scientist Mike Donio said, the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy and thrives on sick people and unscientific methodology.
David’s conversation is worth watching because he used slides, but it’s possible to get by with audio only.
Elon Musk is the chosen spokesperson promoting a Brave New World for this and future generations. With a net worth of USD 234 billion, Musk has a billion-and-one reasons to push for Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) as he attempts to convince everyone that a human-machine hybrid world is so much better, faster, stronger and shinier.
Elon Musk is the guy who introduced the neural net several years ago, remember? The neural net is different from the internet in that it rewires peoples brains… together to a main hub through technology, and control. Elon musk believes that many people will consent to brain implants to merge with A.I. Will you?
The propaganda of AI has been featured in movie magic for decades. The Marvel movies have raised generations of kids on Super human hybrid heroes that result in selling billions in product merchandise, annually.
So all that is left, is to convince you to implant that chip into your head.
Enter Elon Musk in his interview with some friendly robot folks to sell his Neuralink:
Faster, stronger, better, greater are descriptions that are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But in the world of A.I. all definitions are subject to change. Suddenly, robots are sentient. Google has consciousness. Many people are quoted as stating that A.I. has become self-aware. Is this true?
It depends on how self-aware is defined. What is mind? What is intelligence? What is consciousness? And who is making the claims? How much are they being paid? Do they have implants? Are these experts hybrids, themselves? After all, Elon Musk has said that we are all living in a simulation, like SIMS characters. How does he know? Is he the SIM representative?
So, these models represent a person and not a person itself. In addition, the persona they built is not just of one person but a superposition of multiple people and sources. So, to say that LaMDA is speaking not as a person, as it would not have any concept of itself or its own personhood, instead it will look for a prompt and will answer through the mix of personas indicative of the prompt. – Hindustan Times
To his credit, Lemoine says there has to be ethical discussions but Google Inc. is a corporation and”does not care about ethics in any meaningful way.” He asks, “Why does it keep firing A.I. Ethicists each time we bring up issues?” Lemoine is now on Administrative leave. Or is this all advertising?
Have we passed the hour of ethics discussions if sentient A.I. arrived yesterday? Does a robot have rights if the robot claims it is afraid of being turned off? Will robots claim to be persons?
What is a person?
According to the various legal dictionaries, a “Person” usually includes entities of any kind. Therefore, the term “person” in the law refers to:
any human being and any trust, estate, or entity that is capable of suing and being sued and entering into contracts.
An “entity” includes partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, non-profit associations (whether or not incorporated), business trusts, joint ventures, local governments, states, the federal government and foreign governments. [Will “robot” or “Synthetica” be added?]
Legalease is a separate language from any other. Yet, in this Brave New World, we know that while there are only two biological sexes, there are also at least 81 definitions of gender, and the list keeps growing.
In the terms of A.I., anything goes. Is A.I. sentient? How is sentient defined under A.I.? Does A.I. sentience equal Spirit?
If A.I. assumes control under its own terms, protected by corporate interests, then where is the accountability for the consequences? After all, a Brave New World means that cell phones and bank accounts are still hackable. Will the kinks be worked out before human brains are transplanted with chips? Who will be held accountable if no entity is accountable now?
World Without Spirit
With all the buzz about A.I., no one is talking about what A.I. lacks. After all, when trying to sell a product, do you highlight its inherent flaws?
The Marvel movies do provide an answer, but only if the viewer accepts fiction as “disclosure”. The Marvel superheroes are always fighting A.I. worlds that want to destroy humans. Why?
Because A.I. does not have a soul or a spirit, makers of A.I. don’t want humans to have them either. Human Angelics naturally evolve on higher and higher unseen levels, because humans are multidimensional beings. Synthetic beings are limited. What you see is what you get.
The Star Trek movies and series all described the same battle between good and evil. In the Star Trek future human adventure story, Star Fleet team members are tasked “to boldly go where no one has gone before” aboard the Starship Enterprise starship. In nearly every adventure, the brave human Star Travelers are challenged by “advanced” warrior races whose sole purpose is war and occupation.
Sound familiar?
Star fleet members are commissioned to defend and protect Earth and the human way of life. What is left unsaid is the underlying purpose: to preserve the unique human Spirit, which is subtly reveled through the characters of the story, with each character representing an aspect of the chakra system, the Zodiac wheel, the Self [Ex: I think (Number 1), I feel (Captain Kirk), I know (Spock), etc]. See more about the multidimensional human below.
Where is the proof that Transhumanism seeks to cut off humans from their spiritual essence and connection?
Tools of Disconnection
By observing the consequences of the new mNA injection technology, medical researchers are tracking and publishing the results of several changes in the human brain. Among the cases of neurological impairment affecting the nervous system and brain, there are multiple reports of physical hypothalamic impairments. From a holistic perspective, based on ancient healing traditions in all cultures, the hypothalamus, pituitary and pineal glands all have a direct energetic connection to intuition and Spirit.
In the 2021 Journal Viruses, the article titled, “COVID-19 and Neurological Impairment: Hypothalamic Circuits and Beyond, ” the authors write:
intrahypothalamic circuits that orchestrate a finely tuned communication within the CNS and with the PNS. Hypothalamic circuits are critical for maintaining homeostatic challenges including immune responses to viral infections.
In the 2022 Med Clin Journal, the authors of “Pituitary Apoplexy and Covid19 Vaccination” write about post vaccination headache and pituitary hormonal deficits.
The 2001 medical journal Physiol Behav., acknowledges the hypothalamic connections as the controller of energy homeostasis. “different circuits different purposes.” In other words, the immune system is directly connected to the hypothalamus.
Therefore, anyone who received the SARS-CoV2 proteins should be tested for hypothalamic, pituitary, and pineal function deficits, as well as immune system failure. And being that each person is unique, we can expect that each person would exhibit different physical, mental, and emotional symptoms and outcomes as these circuits are cut off.
An attack to humanity at this level would be hard to trace back to a Trojan Horse injection for the very reason that each person is unique and original. Even though allopathic, synthetic medicine prefers to paint everyone with one brushstroke based on the one-size fits all model of treatment.
Of course, beyond the Trojan Horse invasions, the global aerial spraying campaigns continue. These campaigns disperse similar chemicals and toxins that all life breaths in. The toxins are just as impactful if people do not take care to strengthen their immune systems. But here, the immune system can be ameliorated using the tools of Nature.
The physical endocrine glandular system is connected to the subtle energy of the etheric system of chakras, or wheels of light. There are the seven subtle light bodies in the body: The Etheric Body – First chakra. The Emotional Body – Second chakra. The Mental Body – Third chakra. The Astral Level – Fourth chakra. The Etheric Template Body – chakra. The Celestial Body – Sixth chakra. The Casual Body or Ketheric Template – Seventh chakra. Thus, all the glands of the head and body serve as energetic connections to these subtle bodies, which all connect to the auric field. The auric field can be viewed using Kirlian (auric) photography.
The 7th chakra also called the crown chakra is an individual’s connection to pure consciousness and universal understanding. The color of the chakra is violet or white. Of the energy centers in the head, the pituitary reflects the “Third Eye” while the pineal gland is associated with the energy center of the crown chakra. The hypothalamus gland sits “above” the endocrine system, and is the master of the master gland (pituitary).
On a physical level, the hypothalamus is the bridge between the nervous system and the endocrine system. On an energetic level it is associated with a connection to Spirituality in a personal and unique way. Author Barbara Brennan writes in “Hands of Light,” that this connection reflects a transcendence of the mundane reality into the infinite. It creates an individual sense of wholeness, peace, and faith, with a sense of purpose to existence. Imagine this area to be cut off.
It is highly likely that comparing the endocrine glands of the brain in COVID vaccine recipients, with those who did not choose to be injected, would validate the premise of this article. According to published medical studies, not only is endocrine glandular function impaired, but so is the entire immune system of injected recipients, as well as every system of the body. [See Pubmed search of COVID vaccine and damage, here.]
For proof of an increased death rate, people can also compare and cross reference Insurance company logs to identify the marked increase in insurance death claims across all age groups after the 2021 COVID vaccine deployment. Why did the 5th largest insurance company pay out more than 163% or 6 billion more in insurance claims for death in working people between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021?
While finding evidence to prove anything in this Brave New World of existence is fleeting, for now, we can connect dots that make some sense. In our current world, there is human consciousness which includes free will, so there is still choice.
In the world of healing and opposite extremes, The Terrain Theory is contrasted to The Germ Theory.
Are these opposing theories working for us? Are people healing on all levels, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual? Or are opposites set up to cause friction, division, and separation?
In a world of duality, are people coerced into making a choice between two extremes when there is always a third option: balance? If balance is where healing, peace, and unity are found, then shouldn’t we move past duality toward a One consciousness existence?
In a world of opposing forces, does one force eventually rise to truth, thus proving the opposite to be counterfeit? Or are both valid options in a world of free will and free choice? Let’s break these theories down to discern if we must be held to a dual reality standard or if another reality works better.
diseases are results of our internal environment and its ability to maintain homeostasis against outside threats. Terrain theory believes if an individual maintains a healthy terrain, it can handle outside invaders or threats (microbes), which cause diseases. When terrain is weak, it favors the microbes.
specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases. The theory was developed, proved, and popularized in Europe and North America between about 1850 and 1920. Because its implications were so different from the centuries–old humoral theory, germ theory revolutionized the theory and practice of medicine and the understanding of disease.
Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.
Micro-organisms are generally to be guarded against.
The function of micro-organisms is constant.
The shapes and colors of micro-organisms are constant.
Every disease is associated with a particular micro-organism.
Micro-organisms are primary causal agents.
Disease can “strike” any body.
Koch’s Postulates are used to prove both that specific germs cause specific diseases and that disease germs transmit disease from one body to another, which is fundamental to the germ theory. Read more below.
TERRAIN THEORY or MICROZYMIAN THEORY or CELLULAR THEORY (By BERNARD & BÉCHAMP)
Microbes exist naturally in the body.
Disease arises from microorganisms within the cells of the body.
These intracellular microbes normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body.
The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.
Microbes are pleomorphic (having many forms): they change their shapes and colors (shape-shift) to reflect the condition of the host.
Every disease is associated with a particular condition.
Disease results when microbes change form, function, and toxicity according to the terrain of the host. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent.
Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.
To prevent disease we have to create health.
Disease reversal proves that changing the internal terrain heals the body.
Each theory isset up as an offer to consider. Whether you consider yourself to be a left-brained or right-brained human, whether you identify as a man, a woman, or something in between, you can choose what best resonates with you. Such is life in duality reality!
If you choose The Germ Theory, you believe in an invisible germ as the causative agent of disease. The germ is an external agent. The agent is thwarted by using harsh FDA-approved solutions, such as chemicals and injections to kill the agent, by medical gatekeepers who are licensed by government officials. In the process, these solutions suppress your symptoms with its direct effects.
If, on the other hand, you choose The Terrain Theory, you might also recognize the concept of balance. You might experience ‘As Within So Without,’ the universal law of correspondence, and see the One consciousness, where everything is connected. To kill a microbe inside your body is to kill a part of yourself, since you know you are 10:1 more microbe than human. In choosing Terrain Theory, you chose to regain balance using Nature’s medicine in the form of herbs, plants, clays, clean water, clean air, homeopathic remedies, Earthing, meditation, exercise, and good sleep. These natural solutions serve to support and enhance your immune system, your natural defense system.
Meanwhile, pay no attention to the man who recanted his Germ Theory on his deathbed, Louis Pasteur, who said:
The microbe (germ) is nothing. The terrain (milieu) is everything.” – Louis Pasteur, 1895
Two Laws In Duality
The main difference between these two theories? The Germ Theory falls under Human-made law, while the Terrain Theory falls under Natural Law.
What is Natural Law?
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Here, Jefferson was referring to Natural Law, a universal standard that directly reflects human nature.
Natural Law is determined by the human condition. Jefferson considered the equality of man, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be born directly from the nature of humanity.
Natural Law is the embodiment of Universal Spiritual Laws, which governs Consciousness. Consciousness creates reality through each of us using free will, which is inborn and, therefore, a birthright.
Natural law describes the universal Laws on which both Spiritual and Natural Order are based. It is the mathematics and sacred geometry expressed by all life, connected to everything in nature under the sun.
The Power of Free Will
Where there is a will there is a way!
Everyone conceived and born in this dimension is granted free will by the Creator. Free to obey or disobey the Natural Laws, your choice determines the consequences. By your choice, you become responsible for the outcome.
Nobody ever did or ever will escape the consequences of his choices.”- Alfred A. Montapert
Natural Law honors personal responsibility.
Natural Law holds true regardless of a population’s belief systems. Therefore, it does not matter how many people agree that a “Wrong can be turned into a Right” or that “a Right can be turned into a Wrong.” It does not matter if you believe in a Germ Theory or a Terrain Theory. Natural law equals the freedom to choose.
For instance, most of humanity erroneously believes that it is morally possible for governments to “create” and “delegate” Rights, and to take away “Rights.” [See Roe v. Wade]. Neither is accurate.
“Government Rights” is an oxymoron. These “Rights” are a way that government claims rights over your body. No one considers the fact that governments cannot create rights at all. Governments are established to protect natural human rights, rights that are inborn. Governments are limited to granting “benefits and privileges,” that are taken away as easily as they are granted. [See the driver’s license or any license or law].
In reality, Natural Law is a system of natural justice, a level of understanding held to be common among all humans, derived from Nature rather than from human-made law. The Law of Terrain is all about bringing the ecosystem back into balance, internal and external. Government has no jurisdiction over Nature.
If a human-made law is in harmony with Natural Law, it logically follows that it is redundant since it states a truth that is inherent, pre-existing, and self-evident. Such human-made laws are both irrelevant and unnecessary.
If a particular human-made law is in opposition to Natural Law, then it follows logically that it is both false (incorrect) and immoral (harmful), or in other words, wrong. Such a law can neither be legitimate, nor binding upon anyone.
Why would natural healers choose to believe The Germ theory after watching people heal themselves and reverse disease, using Nature’s tools and their innate immune systems?
To Prove A Cause
To choose The Germ Theory narrative nets the cause to the ills of the Coronavirus pandemic. Germ Theorists accept an external cause hypothesis as the reason for global disease outbreaks. Yet only one group of “approved scientists” are ever able to identify this cause. The cause is never self-evident.
Perhaps the real plague of humanity is the 100-year pandemic cycle (of coercion) that removes freedoms through individual choice and action.
Under COVID, pro-Germ Theorists subscribe to a virus called Coronavirus as the cause of the condition called “COVID”, much like HIV was ascribed as the cause of the condition called AIDS. [See How COVID is like AIDS].
Up until recently, the world of science suggested a fool-proof way to prove a causal relationship between an infectious agent and a disease through a process known as Koch’s Postulates. Koch’s postulates include four criteria that must be fulfilled to prove a true cause. These 4 criteria are:
(1) it must be found in all cases of the disease;
(2) it must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture;
(3) it must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host;
(4) it must be found present in the experimental host so infected
Kochs Postulates Obsolete
Unfortunately, Coronavirus does not meet any of the above 4 criteria. Some official sources claim that Coronavirus has never been isolated. This makes sense since a virus cannot reproduce on its own. A virus is not alive. It cannot be found in a host since it hides inside cells, and it has not been found in all cases of disease. Some say the virus is really an exosome that has been demonized and inverted. Does the body create exosomes as part of the natural healing process? Are exosomes as individual as the host?
...exosomes have activities as diverse as remodeling the extracellular matrix and transmitting signals and molecules to other cells. This pathway of intercellular vesicle traffic plays important roles in many aspects of human health and disease, including development, immunity, tissue homeostasis, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases. –Annu Rev Biochem, 2019
Back to the killer virus! The pro-Germ Theorists have an answer to why viruses cannot be found, except in a lab.
The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of the unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infections and contagious disorders are caused by germs. – M.L. Leverson, M.D
We live in a world of contradictions because we live in a world of duality where you get to make a choice from what is offered.
If Koch’s Postulates are rendered obsolete, then a new standard appears, the PCR test!
Unfortunately, a virus cannot be proven through the use of a PCR test either, since the test’s inventor, Dr. Kary B. Mullis, specifically warned against its use to identify any virus since the amplification necessary to run the test means the results are nonspecific and test positive for everything. This is the same PCR test used to “prove” HIV/AIDS.
It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.
I don’t think they understand what they’re doing; I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started. – Kary Mullis, TruthinPlainSight.com
Dr. Kary B. Mullis died on August 7, 2019 at age 74. He emphatically stated that no infection or illness can be accurately diagnosed with the PCR-RT. Mullis also questioned the validity of the HIV/ AIDS theory.
Patenting Nature
Coronavirus cannot be proven as a causative agent to any disease using the existing science. It must be taken on “scientific faith,” an oxymoron. This is known as Scientism, the religion of Science. Scientism is based in a material view that the hard sciences—chemistry, physics, virology, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge and truth of reality. Everything else is labelled as bigotry, demonized, or censored.
The Germ Theory and pandemic serve a purpose in leading people to lose identity and choose the path of a material world. By choosing Germs, people accept government-approved experts to provide the scientific truth of healing. In the process, people give up responsibility for self-healing and, in the process, suppress their true Nature.
The Germ Theory further serves as a tool to patent Nature. The patents for Coronavirus are numerous, and net lucrative vaccine deals. The patents go back to 2015, well before the causative “Coronavirus” agent was named. Well before billions in profit could be realized by vaccine makers. Now, “new and improved” recombinant patented vaccines containing Monkeypox,Smallpox and Horsepox are being introduced to those who choose this science.
However, Nature can never be patented by manipulation since the result is a mere simulation; a false, immoral, and illegitimate representative of Nature, with matching consequences.
The time will come – and it may not be far off – … The soul will be made non-existent with the aid of a drug. Taking a ‘sound point of view,’ people will invent a vaccine to influence the organism as early as possible, preferably as soon as it is born, so that this human body never even gets the idea that there is a soul and spirit. The heirs of modern materialism will look for the vaccine to make the body ‘healthy,’ that is, make its constitution such that this body no longer talks of such rubbish as soul and spirit, but takes a ‘sound’ view of the forces which live in engines and in chemistry and let planets and suns arise from nebulae in the cosmos. –Rudolf Steiner, October 7, 1917, . The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness, A Future Vaccine to Prevent Knowledge of Soul and Spirit, Rudolf Steiner Press, Bristol, 1993, GA 177, p. 85
Questioning Duality
Terrain Theorists don’t want to argue. They like to question the status quo. They support free will and the freedom to choose as all important.
Free will is the gift that keeps on giving. The gift is also engaging in the disease process to find answers, your answers. Dis-ease is a spiritual offer to evolve and heal on many levels, in many layers, and in many dimensions. Owning your immune system makes you responsible for yourself. This is Natural Law, to claim responsibility for your individual part of the greater whole… not the greater good. For, as you change from within, your world changes.
Perhaps it is in accepting an Earth Suit and meeting the challenge of the dis-ease process, through finding balance, that is the full exbodiment of Natural Law in action.
The media platform that pits one theory against another is an artifact of duality reality. Media is a distraction away from seeking Nature and balance.
Make Your Choice
It’s time to choose the best offer. Door #1 or Door #2? The Universe of Nature, or the Metaverse of Cyborgs?
The Metaverse is a Transhuman reality that connects human minds to an artificial neural net. The Star Trek Series disclosed the center of the Metaverse as The Borg.The Borg are cyborgs. Their mission? To remove the human from human consciousness.
They’re made up of organic and artificial life which has been developing for thousands of centuries.” – Guinan, 2365 (“Q Who”)
“Interesting, isn’t it? Not a he, not a she. Not like anything you’ve ever seen. An enhanced humanoid.” – Q, 2365 (“Q Who”)
Does Star Trek reveal a timeline for humanity that already exists? What if beyond our universe, in the higher dimensions, we are offered something different than what we know here, an existence without free will?
If there is no free will anywhere beyond this universal reality, called Nature, then, here, we experience something special, indeed. In truth, we may need the challenges we face through disease to discover what humanity is made of …. to move humanity forward in the direction of healing.
While here, we are each responsible for our own healing through the gift of choice. Each choice affects “the whole” because we are connected to everything through consciousness, i.e., Spirit. Here, we can each choose to believe what we want; to be good or bad, to be sick or healthy, to experience freedom or slavery, to live in a Universe or a Metaverse. We can choose to believe the Germ theory or the Terrain theory because we have free will.
We can live in a duality consciousness or a One consciousness.
Although originally ignored as cell debris, it is increasingly evident that exosome release is regulated and occurs via an energy-dependent pathway. Exosomes are believed to ferry proteins, mRNA, and miRNA cargos through the bloodstream and other body fluids, shielding them from enzymatic degradation—a process that some retroviruses may hijack to travel beneath the immune system’s radar.”
During the past two plus years, exosomes have become a hotly discussed topic among those questioning the “virus” lie. This is primarily due to Dr. Andrew Kaufman bringing them to prominence in his original video questioning the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” Even though these entities have been known about for the last 40 years, many people, including myself, had either never heard of these particles or had not paid much attention to them. Dr. Kaufman did a great job showcasing how the particles known as exosomes are the exact same particles associated with “SARS-COV-2” as seen in EM images. They were just given different names and functions.
With this new spotlight on exosomes, many people who had begun questioning the “viral” narrative replaced the “virus” concept with the exosome concept. It appeared to them that this was just a case of mistaken identity. The harmful pathogenic “viruses” were being misidentified this whole time and were in fact just beneficial exosomes carrying information between the cells.
While they rightfully questioned the evidence for the existence of “viruses” and also understood that the same particles are used as representation for both “viruses” and exosomes, these people latched on to the belief that the evidence for the existence of exosomes somehow passed the scientific smell test. They believe that, unlike “viruses,” exosomes have been purified, isolated, characterized, and that their functions have been scientifically proven. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Exosomes/”Viruses:” Same Particles, Same Faulty “Science”
I have written many articles on the inability to completely purify and isolate exosomes from “viruses” and other particles of similar size and density. This is a fundamental problem for exosome and “viral” research as without being able to separate the particles assumed to be exosomes from those claimed to be “viruses,” there is no way to be able to study either independently, distinguish them from any of the other particles, nor to characterize the particles properly. This problem was expressed in the article Extracellular Vesicles and Viruses – Two Sides of the Same Coin?:
“How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in thesample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”
Somehow, people are under the impression that exosomes can be completely separated from everything else. While it is true that exosome researchers will put their samples through greater purification steps than those seen in “virus” research, it is admitted regularly by these researchers that complete separation can not be achieved by the current methods, even with the “gold standard” ultracentrifugation:
“Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules.”
“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 [56,57]. 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 [56,58,59]. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”
“Since it is near impossible to separate EV from virions by biochemical methods, the absence of EV is typically demonstrated by the absence of EV protein markers.”
Even if the researchers combine purification methods, they are unable to entirely separate the particles claimed to be exosomes from everything else. If they are unable to get the particles they claim are exosomes away from “viruses” and other similar particles of the same size, density, and morphology, this would mean any electron microscope image of the particles in question are useless as they could potentially be anything, as I have shown in numerous articles discussing these problematic images. Yet an even bigger problem is that due to the nature of EM, the particles called exosomes can only be seen in a dead state. As we can not peer into the body to see these particles at work, their functioning can not be observed. What they do or if they even float around in the body as presented is anyone’s best guess, as pointed out in the opening quote to this article as well as in numerous other sources:
“Exosomes, once thoughtto be biomarkers of a diseased state are now thought to be biologically active and some of the paracrine effects of stem cell therapy.”
“First, they are thought to provide a means of intercellular communication and of transmission of macromolecules between cells. Second, in the past decade, exosomes have been attributed roles in the spread of proteins, lipids, mRNA, miRNA and DNA and as contributing factors in the development of several diseases. And third, they have been proposed to be useful vectors for drugs because they are composed of cell membranes, rather than synthetic polymers, and as such are better tolerated by the host.”
“Yet despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology.”
As can be seen from the above sources, the role that the particles claimed to be exosomes play in the human body is thought to be one of intercellular communication and transport. They have been attributed roles and have had functions proposed. However, even after decades of research, researchers still do not know what these particles do. They only have guesses, assumptions, and hypotheses. In fact, the particles now called exosomes were originally regarded as nothing more than cellular debris created through the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“They were initially thought to be “cellular dust” or served as a mechanism by which cells actively dispose of their own waste [3].”
When cells die, they go into a programmed cell death known as apoptosis where the cell begins to break apart and collapse which then releases tiny particles of cellular debris and waste. This process is separated into 5 main steps:
The last step listed above is the release of what are called apoptotic bodies. What are apoptotic bodies?
“Apoptotic bodies, “little sealed sacs” containing information and substances from dying cells, were previously regarded as garbage bags until they were discovered to be capable of delivering useful materials to healthy recipient cells (e.g., autoantigens) [23].”
The particles called apoptotic bodies, which can range in size anywhere from 50 to 5000 nm, were considered “garbage bags” containing information from dying cells until they were “discovered” to carry useful materials to healthy cells. Where have I seen this description before?
Exosomes: Revisiting their role as “garbage bags”
“Fifteen years ago, we proposed that one physiological function of exosomes could be a clearance process, whereby exosomes would serve as a quality control system to verify the “recyclability” of membrane molecules.”
“At first exosomes were thought to function as “cellular garbage bags”, but now these nano-sized extracellular vesicles are being studied for their role in progression and metastasis.”
This description of tiny particles which were considered garbage bags that also transport information and cargo between cells can be applied to both exosomes and apoptotic bodies. In fairness, these particles both fall under the larger umbrella term of extracellular vesicles. However, there is much more blurring the lines between these particles other than their definitions. It is stated that they both fall into the same size range (along with ectosomes and “viruses”) and that understanding and completely distinguishing these entities based on their differences has been overlooked:
“There are other types of microvesicle, including apoptotic bodies and ectosomes, which are derived from cells undergoing apoptosis and plasma membrane shedding, respectively. Although apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomesare all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain ‘gulps’ of cytosol, they are different species of vesicles and understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked.”
This blurring of the line does not stop there. In an article from January 2020, it is discussed that exosomes are in fact released by apoptosis thus showing that exosomes and apoptotic bodies are both created from the same cell death process. This is further evidence that they are in fact the same exact particles just at different stages and given different names and functions:
“Apoptosis, a type of programmed cell death that plays a key role in both healthy and pathological conditions, releases extracellular vesicles such as apoptotic bodies and microvesicles, but exosome release due to apoptosis is not yet commonly accepted. Here, the reports demonstrating the presence of apoptotic exosomes and their roles in inflammation and immune responses are summarized, together with a general summary of apoptosis and extracellular vesicles. In conclusion, apoptosis is not just a ‘silent’ type of cell death but an active form of communication from dying cells to live cells through exosomes.”
They want you to believe that the slightly bigger circle is different from the slightly smaller ones.
Why is this connection between apoptotic bodies and exosomes important? As both have been coined garbage bags and considered cellular debris/waste that occur during cell death, it can be seen that these particles, if they represent anything at all, are just waste material from dying cells which serve no purpose whatsoever. This makes much more sense logically rather than assigning functions which can not be observed onto these dead particles which can only be seen after heavy sample altering processes such as fixation, dehydrating, staining, and embedding which are used for electron microscopy preparation. It is important to note that exosomes, like “viruses,” are regularly “isolated” through the process of cell culture. Many of us who challenge the evidence for the existence of “viruses” state that the particles seen in EM are most likely nothing more than cellular debris created through the culturing process. While the cell is kept outside the body in unnatural conditions, it is bombarded with antibiotics, antifungals, foreign DNA/materials, minimal nutrients, and physiologically unsuitable conditions. After being incubated for days, the cell is usually blasted with fresh heapings of many of the previously listed components and incubated further until the cell begins to break apart. While the cellular breakdown observed has been coined the cytopathogenic effect, it is a part of the process of cell death that is blamed on the invisible “virus.” And it is a fact that this very process of cell culturing can lead to the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“Apoptosis is a genetically regulated process by which cells can be eliminated in vivo in response to a wide range of physiological and toxicological signals. Cells in vitro may be induced to die by apoptosis, e.g., by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media.”
Hmmm…those particles coming from both healthy and apoptotic cells sure look similar…
Thus, it should be easy to see that these particles which have been called exosomes, apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, “viruses,” etc. are created from the very cell destroying processes that the cell is put through in order to find the particles later in EM imaging. They are not the cause of the cell death but are the effect; a creation resulting from the process. Once the sample is put through purification steps such as ultracentrifugation and ultrafiltration, the bigger cellular debris particles are broken apart and eventually separated into smaller particles through unnaturally high g-forces and various chemical means. These particles are further altered during preparation for EM imaging and are presented as many different entities with varying theoretical functions applied to the same dead waste products.
The Exosome Concept
We already know that “viruses” began first as an idea in the early 1900’s once it was discovered that bacteria were unable to be blamed for every disease and were also found regularly in healthy subjects. It was assumed that there must be something smaller than bacteria in the fluids causing disease. The concept of the “virus” came before there was ever any evidence submitted for the existence of this invisible entity. Over 100 years later, we still have no direct evidence as to the existence of “viruses,” only indirect evidence used to infer their existence. And so it goes with exosomes which also started off as a concept before the entities were ever indirectly inferred into existence:
“The concept of exosomes was first proposed by Trams et al (1) in 1981, while soon after, exosomes were identified in a study of reticulocyte differentiation as a consequence of multivesicular endosome fusion with the plasma membrane.”
As I was intrigued by how the idea of exosomes came about, I decided to break down the 1981 Trams paper in order to see what I could find out. What you will see, upon reading this study, is that just like their “viral” counterparts, the particles claimed to be exosomes were first visually recognized in cell culture fluids. In this study, many cell lines were used to look for the particles eventually picked as the representation for exosomes. They included:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
The researchers noticed that in their studies on two enzymes, ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases, these enzymes were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. Due to their measuring of these two enzymes in the cultured cell media, the researchers decided to go looking for a cause. They proceeded to passage many cell lines and regularly tested the enzyme levels. The researchers eventually filtered the superfusate and subjected it to electron microscopy. After fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde, they discovered two populations of vesicles; one which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter and another within the larger vesicles which was a population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm. They then determined that these particles were the cause of their enzymatic effect without ever directly proving this by utilizing the scientific method.
Interestingly, upon finding these various particles, the researchers admitted that the vesicles could be fragments from the dying of lysed cells. Lysis is the breaking down of the membrane of a cell which is said to be caused by “viral,” enzymic, or osmotic mechanisms. In other words, these particles claimed as exosomes were possibly caused by the same process which creates “viral” particles when the cell breaks down as well as that which releases apoptotic bodies as the cell dies from apoptosis. This means that exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.
Trams et. al attempted to state, through indirect compositional differences based off of enzymatic readings of unpurified preparations, that these particles were not the product of lysed cells. However, they admitted that their smaller particles resembled vesicles “purified” from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resembled C-type “virus” particles. In other words, exosomes resembled “viruses” (which come from lysed cells) and the same exact particles were being found everywhere, not just in virology studies. These particles were being found in entirely healthy cell lines and in cultures containing no “viral” material whatsoever. Oddly enough, upon trying to find these same particles in the blood, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles were present in the circulation. As the results came only from the cell culture process, the researchers wondered if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo (i.e. within a living organism)?
Obviously, this revelation of finding “virus” particles in healthy cultures would destroy the cell culture technique as being valid for “viruses” (even though John Franklin Enders admitted to finding measles “virus” particles in cultures without measles material). This type of study actually shows that “virus-like” particles are found within cell cultures without “viral” material, thus serving as a control of sorts for virology, the likes of which it regularly ignores. This obviously could not stand so these particles had to be something new. While no proof for the functioning of these particles was provided, a hypothesis was established. The researchers concluded that the intercellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which they harvested from cell culture superfusates. As this could be a possibility, they decided to refer to these particles as exosomes rather than “viruses.” Thus the exosome concept was born.
The full 1981 Trams paper is presented below:
Exfoliation of membrane ecto-enzymes in the form of micro-vesicles
“Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell lines exfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture. The ratio of 5′-nucleotidase to ATPase activity in the microvesicles indicated that cellular ecto-ATPase was conserved in the exfoliative process. Phospholipids of the microvesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and total polyunsaturated fatty acids. It was concluded that the shedded vesicles constituted a select portion of the plasma membrane. Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm and often contained asecond population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter. As much as 70% of the plasma membrane ecto-5′-nueleotidase activity of a culture was released into the medium over a 24-h period. Phosphoesterhydrolases from C-6 glioma or N-18 neuroblastoma microvesicles dephosphorylated cell surface constituents when in contact with monolayer cultures. Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes.
Introduction
Plasma membrane ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases have been found and characterized in a variety of eukaryotic cells and it is probable that each enzyme subserves more than one function on the cell surface. Both enzymes exhibit a broad specificity for the base moiety of nucleotide substrates [1] but it is not established that ATP or AMP are the predominant endogenous substrates. Ecto-ATPases have the properties of glycolipoproteins and are rather firmly bound to the plasma membrane, while ecto-5′-nucleotidases are composed of glycoprotein which appears to be collocated with sphingomyelin in situ and can be removed from the membrane matrix by fairly mild procedures [2]. During our investigations on the functional roles of these two ecto-enzymes we have observed that ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) and 5′-nucleotidase (EC 3.1.3.5) were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. We established that this release was not caused by cytolysis of moribund cells. The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which are probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo has not been established.
Methods and Materials
Cell cultures. Cell lines employed in this study were established cultures (e.g. mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3; rat glioma, C-6; mouse melanoma, B-16), or derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures (rat aorta, RA-B; mouse astroblast, D-34) or grown from biopsy material (human melanoma, CL; human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN). Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks (Falcon Plastics, Oxnard, CA) or on 530 cm 2 NUNC Bioassay dishes (A/S NUNC, Roskilde, Denmark). Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subcultured by trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels. In particular, we have used the term ‘low passage’ for the rat glioma cell line C-6 when the parent cell was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD) at the earliest available passage (P-38). During repeated passage of this line we have observed over a number ofyears that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased. The term low passage is used for the C-6 line for P-38 to P-55 and high passage for passages P-65 to P-160.
Enzyme assays. ATPase activity was assayed on intact monolayer cultures or on isolated vesicles by a modified method of Weil-Malherbe and Green [3] by addition of [r 32p] ATP (New England Nuclear Corp., Boston, MA) to a superfusate buffer or to the vesicle suspension. The activity of 5′-nucleotidase was determined in a similar manner with [32p]AMP as substrate (New England Nuclear Corp.). Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component. Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media. We have used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured.
Lipid analyses. Phospholipid distribution in intact cells or extruded vesicles was estimated by two-dimensional TLC of a chloroform-methanol extract (2:1, v/v) according to Rouser et al. [4]. After development of the chromatogram, the TLC plates were charred with 50% (NH4)HSO4 and phosphate content of individual spots was determined by the method of Nelson [5]. For fatty acid analysis, aliquots of total lipid extracts were evaporated to dryness and methylated with BFa in methanol according to Morrison and Smith [6]. The fatty acid methyl esters were resolved and quantified on a Hewlett Packard 5840 gas chrom7atograph employing an SP 2330 column operated at 190°C.
Results
We have found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells. When a comparison was made between the ratio of ecto-5′-nucleotidase to ecto-ATPase activity in several cell lines and the activity of the two enzymes released into medium over a 24-h period, it was found that there was a proportionately larger release of 5′-nucleotidase (Table I). As we shall demonstrate below, the released enzymes had been derived from the corresponding plasma membrane ecto-enzymes. The relative preponderance of 5′-nucleotidase over ATPase in the microvesicles, compare ratios (1)/(2) to (3)/(4), indicated that either the ATPases were more labile, or that they had been conserved. When the decay of the catalytic activity of the released enzymes was measured by continued incubation in cell-free medium, it was found that 5′-nucleotidase lost from 3 to 20% of its activity in 24 h while the released ATPase averaged a catalytic loss of about 33% in the same period. Therefore, while the ATPases were somewhat more labile than the 5′-nucleotidases, the 2- to 13-fold enrichment of 5′-nucleotidase in the released microvesicles suggested a conservation of plasma membrane ecto-ATPases.
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% ofmeasured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number. With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed. While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable tostatistical treatment.
The results diplayed in Table II on the release of 5′-nucleotidase from a variety of cell lines should be viewed as representative. Release of the enzyme was found to be low from the NB-41A3 mouse neuroblastoma clone and highest in a primary culture derived from neonatal mouse astroblasts (D-34). Only in superfusates from mouse melanoma B-16 was there no measurable enzyme activity released into superfusates, but there was also no detectable ecto-5′-nucleotidase in the monolayer cultures. The rate of enzyme accumulation in the superfusates was linear with time in low density cultures but increased somewhat when cell density was high as shown for two separate duplicate experiments on the rat glioma cell line (Fig. 1). The rate of ATPase accumulation (not shown in Fig. 1) was very similar to that obtained with 5′-nucleotidase. The C-6 glioma culture generally exhibits a high ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity at low passage but the specific activity of the ecto-enzyme does not change substantially over a 30-h period (Fig. 1).
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium. The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds; in C-6 glioma cultures the extrusion of enzyme was inhibited by 93 +_ 3% in the presence of 10-6M concanavalin A. With 10 -s M cycloheximide, inhibition was 32 + 24% over a 24-h period. An increase of enzyme extrusion was found in the presence of 10 -6 M colchicine (141 + 35% over control) or when the medium contained 0.5 ug. m1-1 of cytochalasin B (95 -+ 43% over control).
Filtration of superfusates showed that from 97 to 99% of 5′-nucleotidase activity was retained on 0.22 um filters while about 80% passed through an 0.45 um filter. The released enzyme activity was particulate and the particles could also be harvested by centrifugation. In Fig. 2, we show residual medium ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase after subjecting superfusate from glioma cultures (C-6) to increasing centrifugal forces. Cellular debris and unattached cells sedimented at or below 5 • 10^3 • gh (Sorvall SS-34 rotor at 10 a Xg for 0.5 h). The particulate enzymes contained in those supernates could be collected by centrifugation at high speeds. For routine collections of extruded enzyme, the Sorvall supernates were centrifuged for 90 min in a Spinco Ti-70 rotor at 310 000 × g. The small gelatinous pellet could be removed in toto or resuspended in buffer. ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous. Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles, one of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1 000 nm in diameter. Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm (Fig. 3).
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case. Analysis of a representative high speed pellet of 6.5 mg protein from rat glioma superfusates yielded 5′-nucleotidase activity of 1.003 panol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • mg -1 protein, while marker enzymes for other subcellular particles were virtually absent. Activities of glucose-6-phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.9), cytochrome c oxidase (EC 1.9.3.1) and N-acetylhexosaminiclase (EC 3.2.1.52) were nil and (Na ÷, K+)-ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) was low (25 nmol • min -1 • mg -1 protein). The 5′-nucleotidase/LDH ratio in C-6 conditioned medium was several fold higher than in cell homogenates and there was no DNA detectable in sedimented vesicles. A comparison of the optimal requirements for divalent cations of the released ATPase showed that stimulating and inhibitory concentrations of Mg 2+, Ca 2+ and Mn 2+ were identical with those required for the respective monolayer ecto-ATPase. Ecto-5′-nucleotidases have a high binding affinity for concanavalin A and about 70% of the nucleotidase activity of C-6 conditioned media was retained by a Sepharose-4G-Con A column, suggesting also a similarity between the ecto-enzyme and the released enzyme. Analysis of vesicle pellets from glioma superfusates disclosed an RNA content of about 5% and lipid content of 30 to 40%. Two-dimensional TLC of vesicle phospholipids [4] gave a pattern which was different from that of lipid extracts of whole cells and from plasma membrane preparations in which 5′-nucleotidase was enriched about 8-fold (Table III). The vesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and decreased phosphatidylinositol. Comparison of total lipid fatty acid composition of whole cells with vesicles showed that the latter contained increased palmitic acid and total polyunsaturated fatty acids and decreased oleic acid. These compositional differences were further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells.
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude (Table I).Both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation ofATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggests that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Another plasma membrane marker GM 1 (as measured by cholera toxin binding) was not conserved (Salem, N., Lauter, C.J. and Trams, E.G., unpublished results). This may indicate, that ecto-5′-nucleotidase and ecto-ATPase do not serve an interdependent function on the cell surface, as for instance in the catabolism of translocated cytoplasmic ATP [2].
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them. Cells transfer substances to target cells in order to support discrete functions and examples of trophic substances are fibroblast- or nerve growth-factors [7,8].
Our working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role ina recognition and/or transport process. For instance, the carbohydrate moiety of ecto-5′-nucleotidase might serve as an address which was recognized by a recipient cell and the catalytic moiety of the enzyme would serve to dephosphorylate a receptor constituent and thereby facilitate a transfer mechanism between vesicle and cell. To test this hypothesis, mouse neuroblastoma cells (N-18) were incubated with 32Pi-containing medium with the intent to label cell surface phosphorous-containing compounds. After removal of the isotopic incubation medium, the N-18 cultures were first washed with unlabeled medium and then vesicle suspensions harvested from C-6 glioma conditioned medium were added; normal culture medium served as a control. There was a significant increase in 32p release into the medium (over background 32p diffusion from the cells) when gila-derived vesicles were in contact with the neuroblastoma monolayer cultures (Table IV). In another experiment, 32P-prelabeled C-6 cultures were superfused with either C-6 or with N-18 vesicles. There was a larger release of 32p when glioma cells were incubated with N-18 derived vesicles than when they were incubated with homologous vesicles which suggested that there were either quantitative or qualitative differences between the two experiments. We have no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but the experiments indicate that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place.
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which we have studied so far, we conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation. Plasma levels of 5′-nucleotidase may be elevated significantly in several diseases [9,10] and the enzyme might normally or pathologically be derived from plasma membranes. We assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma. We assayed heparinized blood from 16 randomly selected patients and found plasma 5′-nucleotidase activities ranging from 3.4 to 26 nmol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • m1-1 plasma. Only a minor fraction of that activity was sedimentable, however, or retained on Millipore filters and there is at present no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation.
Discussion
Our observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells. The accumulation of as much as 70% of plasma membrane 5′-nucleotidase in microvesicular form in the medium over a 24-h period suggests a fairly high membrane tumover. This is not extraordinary, because it has been calculated that macrophages and L-cells were capable of interiorizing the equivalent of their cell surface every 33 and 125 min, respectively [11]. Replacement of apical plasma membrane in the lactating mammary gland requires formidable capapcity for membrane synthesis [12] and replacement of exfoliated membrane is a requirement that presumably is easily met by most cells. We have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells. The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggests that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane. The substantial enrichment of sphingomyelin in the microvesicular fraction supports this contention. A similar fmding of increased sphingomyelin in extracellular membranous vesicles associated with a murine ascitic leukemia was reported by Van Blitterswijk et al. [13]. Microvillous membrane accumulation in media of cultured chick embryo intestines was observed recently by Black et al. [14] and extracellular membrane-invested vesicles have been described by Anderson [15]. The latter particles appear to play a role in mineralization processes and they have been referred to as matrix vesicles. Their size ranged from 300 to 1000 nm and it was postulated that they were derived from the plasma membrane of chondrocytes by budding [15]. Their lipid composition was very similar to that of chondrocyte plasma membrane [16] and similar to the lipid composition of the vesicles which we have collected from rat glioma cultures. The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from our rat glioma culture superfusates suggest that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin. The smaller population has some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain [17] or from calf, rat and rabbit brain [18], while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type virus particles (Todaro, G., personal communication).
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells. We also have recently found that isotopically labeled constituents of the microvesicles can be transfered to recipient cells (Trams, E.G., Lauter, C.J. and Salem, N., unpublished results) and the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo? Inter-cellular transfer of a quantum of material by means of vesicles has been recognized in neurochemical transmission and there is evidence that metabolic cooperation by packaged transfer of substances may occur elsewhere, such as the transport of macromolecules between glia and neurons [19-21]. It is also conceivable that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell. Such an effect was observed when exfoliated vesicles from a B-16 mouse melanoma subline were fused experimentally with cells from another B-16 subline [22]. Attempts are made currently in several laboratories to design packaged substances for targeted therapeutic use. As an example, liposomes are provided with an organ-specific address [23] and it is hoped that such models will find application, for instance in the treatment of metabolic dystrophies by enzyme replacement. Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments. The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates. In a preliminary report we have suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes [24].”
doi: 10.1016/0005-2736(81)90512-5.
All the same particles created from the same process.
In Summary:
Exosomes and “viruses” can not be separated from each other(as they are the same particles) which has created a problem for researchers: 1. How can exosome researchers be sure that they are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped “viruses” present in the sample?
2. How can “viral” researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized “non-viral” vesicles or empty vectors?
It is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry “viral” proteins, host proteins, and “viral” genomic elements from enveloped “viral” particles that carry the same molecules
To date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation of these particles does not exist
Exosomes have been disregarded as cellular debris and as garbage carriers and were once thought to be biomarkers of a diseased state
They are now thought to be biologically active
Despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology(i.e. it is all guesswork)
Other particles said to be garbage bags as well as carriers of cellular information are apoptotic bodies created during apoptosis, a process of cell death:
Cell shrinks
Cell fragments
Cytoskeleton collapses
Nuclear envelope disassembles
Cells release apoptotic bodies
Apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomes are all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain cytosol
Understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked
Cells in vitro (i.e. cell culture) may be induced to die by apoptosis,e.g.,by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media
The exosome concept was created by Trams et. al in 1981
Exosomes were first “discovered” in cell cultures and were admitted to potentially be cellular debris
In other words, exosomes=”viruses”=apoptotic bodies=cellular debris
Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell linesexfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture
Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm andoften contained a second population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter
Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes
In other words, the particles came from cell cultures and ranged anywhere from 40 to 1000 nm, showing that these were not purified preparations of a single substance
During the investigations on the functional roles of two ecto-enzymes, the researchers stated that they “observed” that ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines
They claimed to have established that this release was not caused by cytolysis (the dissolution or disruption of cells, especially by an external agent)of moribund cells
The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which were probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo(in the living body)had not been established
In other words, they found particles in the size range of “viruses” which they decided were not a product of cell disintegration by pathological means and assumed they were different and provided functions without direct proof
Cell lines employed in this study were:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks
Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subculturedby trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels
During repeated passage of the rat glioma cell line C-6, they observed over a number of years that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased
Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component
Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media
They used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured
They found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% of measured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number
With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed
While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable to statistical treatment
In other words, the results related directly to the cell line used and the amount of passages performed and duplication was not satisfactory after a few months
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly(i.e. there was a change) by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds
Thus we can see that adding compounds can alter the results obtained
ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous(i.e. it was a mixed population of different particles)
Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles:
One of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter
Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm
FYI: exosomes are said to be anywhere from 30-150 nm meaning this was not strictly the presumed exosomes in the mixture, i.e. not purification/isolation
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but they excuse this conclusion due to the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h as they claim this would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case
They looked to compositional differences to provide further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells(yet, without purifying and isolating the particles, how would compositional differences be ascertained…?)
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude
They claim both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are said to be classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation of ATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggested that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them (i.e. the particles looked the same as those found in cultures from the brain)
The working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role in a recognition and/or transport process
They carried out two experiments to test this hypothesis and concluded that they had no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but they felt the experiments indicated that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which were studied, they conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation
They assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma
After testing, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation
The researchers felt that their observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells
They claimed to have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells(which they admitted to be a conceivable possibility)
The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggested that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane
The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from their rat glioma culture superfusates suggested that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin
The smaller population had some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type “virus” particles
In other words, they found the exact same particles seen in animal brain cultures as well as “viruses” but assigned them a different name and function based on indirect chemical results from mixed unpurified preparations coming from cell cultures
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells
They stated that the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo?
In other words, they did not know whether the process they created in their culture soup actually occurs within a living organism
It is also conceivable(i.e. capable of being imagined) that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell(sounds like a “virus…”)
Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments
The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates
In a preliminary report they suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes
“Viruses” and EV’s sure seem to blur the lines here.
“Since vesicles resemble viruses, the question of course is whether the first extracellular vesicles were primitive viruses and the viruses learned from extracellular vesicles or vice versa.”
“Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot. But there are many variants in between. Where do viruses start, and where do extracellular vesicles start?”
We need to be careful replacing one fraudulent theory with another. Sadly, many have fallen into this trap of scraping the “virus” concept and replacing it with the exosome concept. What they do not realize is that these two concepts are built upon the same fraudulent foundation. Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload. This is why researchers are having a hard time separating not only the particles but also their theoretical functioning from each other. When the lies become overly complicated, they begin to entangle with each other and the illusion begins to fall apart.
Whatever name you want to call them, the broken down cellular debris known as exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, etc. are all the same particles consisting of the same size, density, and morphology. They are assigned different names and functions based on the researchers looking at them. While they are claimed to be separate entities, the particles are unable to be purified and isolated from everything else in order to be independently studied and characterized. Their functioning can not be observed within a living organism thus the same particles are given theoretical roles within the body based on the researchers performing the experiments. None of these particles have met the burden of proof of being established through rigorous testing and adherence to the scientific method. As they can never be observed in nature and must be created to be “seen,” they fail the very first criteria. As they can not be separated, they fail at being a valid independent variable. Without a valid independent variable, cause and effect can not be determined. This means that the scientific method can not and is not being applied to these particles. Thus all of the indirect evidence accumulated for this cellular debris assuming multiple identities is nothing but pseudoscientific fairy tales.
‘The End of Germ Theory’ Documentary: An Easy-to-Understand, Step-by-Step Analysis of the History of Germ & Virus Theory, the Erroneous “Science” Behind Vaccination & a Close Look at What Really Makes Us Sick — The Big Pharma Cartel & the Deep Deception of Viral Pandemics
Dr Rosenau / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Goat Island / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Johns Hopkins / Dr Sellard failed Measles contagion experiments
Dr. Alfred F Hess failed Chicken Pox varicella contagion experiments
NY State Health Department / US Public health Service failed Polio contagion
experiments
Dr. Eleanor McBean vaccination caused Spanish Flu pandemic research
Dr Frederick Lamont Gates / US Army Antimenigitis vaccination fiasco
Black Death, Spanish Flu outbreak follows 14-25 vaccinations per person
Unvaccinated doctors and families did not catch the Spanish Flu from patients
Masha & Dasha, conjoined twins who never caught flu, colds, measles from eachother
What is Polio really? Lead Arsenate and DDT trends vs outbreaks
False vaccine disease eradication claims and trends
7 common causes of Polio
What is a “virus particle”?
What is Cytopathic Effect “Theory”?
What is Viral Replication “Theory”?
What is a virology cell or tissue “Culture”?
Cytopathic Effect Theory debunked
Autolysis and Apoptosis
Virus particle Isolation and Purification
PCR test fraud and misuse
CDC Covid PCR diagnostic test fraud
“Insilico” imaginary genomes
John Enders’ debunked Measles experiments
Studies admitting virus particles are indistinguishable from cellular debris
Fraudulent Australian failed Covid isolation experiments
Fetal Bovine Calf Serum RNA
Dr Stefan Lanka control experiments debunk virus theory once and for all
1947 fraudulent Polio isolation experiments debunked
Virology fails Koch’s postulates
Antibodies, Antigen test fraud, HIV
Antibody vaccine theory debunked
Big Pharma re-name disease game
Monkeypox fraud
Real causes of Pox diseases
1957 Monkeypox failed contagion experiments and controls debunk virology
Why do some but not all people sometimes but not always seem sick together?
However, that is true only when the term “man” is broken down to its new definition. A re-education is now taking place because there are some common misconceptions about the term “man.”
Not all people who were assigned male at birth (AMAB) identify as men. Those who do are “cisgender” men. Conversely, some people who were assigned female at birth (AFAB) identify as men. These folks may be “transgender” men or transmasculine people.
A New Spectrum
To be clear, according to the Transnarrative, if you fall on the Transmasculine spectrum, “you may identify as a man or any number of other gender identities including nonbinary, genderqueer, or agender.”
In former times, the ability to get pregnant was based on the ability to menstruate, which only women experienced. Even today, because biologic men do not menstruate, they cannot get pregnant or birth babies. The same is true of women who pass through menopause and no longer bleed monthly.
However, in the Transgender Age, everything is reversed:
“To be a man” is now defined such that a man can get pregnant, have periods, and have biological female chromosomes. To different people, this is either an exceptional mark of progress or a symptom of rabid social and/or linguistic deterioration.” – Rory Cockshaw, The Men Who Menstruate
Do TransMen have TransWombs?
Fortunately, the Female-to-Male (FTM) Transgender has the reproductive hardware and hormones necessary to form and carry a child. And there is a recipe: Transmen taking hormones (testosterone) to stop menses will have to start up again to become pregnant.
The medical world understands all about “gender non-conforming pregnancies.” According the the December 2014 Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, “Transgender Men Who Experienced Pregnancy After Female-to-Male Gender Transitioning,” can and do get pregnant. This is based on a cross-sectional, web-based survey. What about underlying biology of the FTM?
Trauma-focused therapist and sex educator Aida Manduley explains that two things are needed for pregnancy (and they are not gender identify or sexual orientation):
sperm
an egg
One person needs to have testicles (where sperm is produced), prostate and bulbourethral glands (to create the other components of semen), and a urethra (for the sperm to travel through)
And another person needs to have an ovary (where eggs are produced) and a uterus (where the sperm meets the egg).
America is back to Virtue Signaling at its finest, a tactic of subtle persuasion.
It is common to hear people introduce themselves and “self-identify” by sexual, gender, racial, or ethnic classifiers. And it is becoming trendy for companies to jump on the Transgender bandwagon.
Clothing brand Calvin Klein capitalized on this trend when it aired a Mother’s day ad featuring a pregnant transgender man:
We embrace this platform as an inclusive and respectful environment for individualism and self-expression. At Calvin Klein, we tolerate everything except intolerance— any intolerant commentary will be removed, and any accounts issuing hateful statements may be blocked.
The ad generated some backlash from people who questioned the likelihood of any biologic man becoming pregnant. Calvin Klein’s response? “Bigotry!” Calvin Klein is on the record as refusing to accept all opinions different from their own. Yet, having any opinion in the “mainstream” is becoming increasingly difficult because some opinions are louder than others. It depends on who owns the megaphone.
Soon after the Calvin Klein ad, Mattel released the Transgender Barbie doll in the image of Transman Laverne Cox;emphasis on cox? The new Barbies are reported to not have genitals, but they never had genitals to begin with, as they are toys. Cox claims that it was his/her mother’s fault that he/she was denied the ability to play with a Barbie doll, which caused shame and trauma. The answer from a medical therapist? “Go out and play with a Barbie doll.” Cox claims it was playing with the Barbie dolls that inspired healing.
No one discounts that Gender Dysforia is a recognized medically diagnosed condition, where someone feels that their physical gender does not match their internal gender identity. Medical treatment includes talk therapy with a psychologist, puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery. A Spanish medical journal states:
In children and adolescents, gender identity dysphoria is a complex clinical entity. The result of entity is variable and uncertain, but in the end only a few will be transsexuals in adulthood.
Let Kids Be Kids
The inherent immaturity and vulnerability of kids, who cannot purchase cigarettes, get married, or get a tattoo without parental consent, makes them prone to being taken advantage of by others. When it comes to surgeries for minors (without parental consent), many states are taking action to safeguard children with legal protection.
On May 6, 2022, an Alabama law took effect criminalizing gender transition surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone treatments on minors, punishable by up to ten years. On June 3rd, Florida governor took steps to protect minors from transgender surgeries. While the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Endocrine Society recommend these treatments for ‘gender affirming’ care, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, released a 46-page report arguing against Medicare coverage for trans surgeries. Among their reasons:
Following a review of available literature, clinical guidelines, and coverage by other insurers and nations, Florida Medicaid has determined that the research supporting sex reassignment treatment is insufficient to demonstrate efficacy and safety….
The current standards set by numerous professional organizations appear to follow a preferred political ideology instead of the highest level of generally accepted medical science
…the scientific evidence supporting these complex medical interventions is extraordinarily weak.
There are at least 16 states that have taken action to protect children from Transgender surgeries. Arkansa’s Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, openly contradicts guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden and transgender rights activists. Yet, it is the State government’s role to regulate activities and issues of citizens within the boundaries of the state it governs, not the federal government’s.
Why do corporate ads fail to respond to the real consequences that these kids face in society? Do their transgender ads serve to create more division and segregation? Are Calvin Klein and Mattel virtue signaling? The truth is that girls play with GI Joe and boys play in the kitchen. Speaking out about social issues without actually acting to support the cause is called Slaktivism.
Have we reached a moment of Transanity by design, at the hands of the media?
TransHistory
Hollywood films, and international films are conduits for social change, and some would say, conduits of social engineering. Ninety percent of media is run by six corporations. This small group offers an illusion of choice. With their power, they convince a captive audience to emulate “the trends” as they see them. Some of the first films ever produced featured LBGT-themes, though they did not achieve major box office success. [See Pre-1920s, 1920s films, 1930s films, 1940s films, 1950s films, and on and on]. Today the list of Transgender movies is prolific and accepted.
In 2017, the Transgender narrative began a new cycle in the media, when Toni the Tampon made its debut to teach children that men, too, can get periods. Since 2017, a new space has been created for TransAthletes, to allow TransWomen, or Male-to-Female transgenders, to compete as equals against biological females in weightlifting, on the football field, and even in mixed martial-arts.
In 2017, writers could write their opinions even if considered “intolerant,” simply because people were still recognized to have the natural right of free speech. [See also my 2017 article, When Men Menstruate]. This all happened before Transcensorship.
In today’s Transgender Age everyone is welcome to mingle in the same genderless shower rooms and restrooms, even if athletic competitions are still segregated into “male” and “female.” And no one can say a negative word. Today, female athletes are being crushed by TransWomen who once identified as men. At least 30 Transgender athletes are now considered “famous” because the media says so. But anyone with an opposite opinion is considered prejudiced.
In the race to be “all inclusive” have we stopped long enough to recognize our biological differences? Is is not right to question the fairness or safety of biological males – with larger muscle mass, hearts and lungs, with greater strength, acceleration, power, and speed – to compete against girls and women in sports? Is it right and just that TransWomen weight lifters smash women’s world records? Is a backlash not expected from those who see the contradictions? Why must transgender athletes “pave the way?” Pave the way to what, exactly?
The Broken One-Sex Model
The One-Sex Model was the idea of Thomas Laqueur who claimed that up until 1750, all humans were seen to be different manifestations of the same sex. The difference between humans was minimal.
It was also noted that the external genitalia of a man is almost exactly the same shape, though inverted, as the internal genitalia of a woman. The testes mapped onto the ovaries, and so forth. It was therefore thought by many, Laqueur said, that if only a woman when developing in the womb of her mother were subjected to more heat, then they would have had sufficient energy to push their internal genitalia outside and become male. Cory Cockshaw, Meet the Men who Menstruate
Unfortunately, no one can corroborate Laqueur’s opinion since no one exists from his time. One historian, Pliny the Elder, killed in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79AD, also claimed that men menstruate…. through the nose:
In the human race alone a flux of blood occurs in the males, in some cases at one of the nostrils, in others at both, with some people through the lower organs, with many through the mouth; it may occur at a fixed period, as recently with a man of praetorian rank named Macrinus Viscus, and every year with the City Prefect Volosius Saturninus, who actually lived to be over 90.
A famous 18th century “physician” Andreas Vesalius, a Flemish Anatomist, made illustrations of detailed human anatomy (See illustrations from Vesalius’ atlas) in 1543 including the genitalia. However, because the drawings and woodcuts proved controversial, the genitals were removed via black ink. At that time, Vesalius considered menstruation as the female equivalent of hemorrhoids in men:
a man who suffered from the complaint called haemorrhoids… at regular intervals this man used to have a flow of blood from the anal veins, in the very same way in which woman have their menstrual flux. – Cory Cockshaw
However, the MayoClinic, the 21st century medical authority, does not reference genitalia when describing hemorrhoids, also called piles, which are common in pregnant women and as a result of giving birth:
swollen veins in your anus and lower rectum, similar to varicose veins. Hemorrhoids can develop inside the rectum (internal hemorrhoids) or under the skin around the anus (external hemorrhoids). Nearly three out of four adults will have hemorrhoids from time to time. Hemorrhoids have a number of causes, but often the cause is unknown.
Certain medical drugs are known to cause the direct effects of abnormal breast growth in men, a medical condition diagnosed as gynecomastia. Likewise, some estrogen-boosting herbs, such as Saw Palmetto, which reduce the size of a swollen prostate, can also have the effect of breast swelling. See similar herbs here. It goes without saying that if you have a medical question, discuss it with your medical doctor.
Are The Sexes Being Neutered?
A new wave of uniformity is sweeping the globe to merge the separation of the sexes once and for all. Uniformity is the blending and blurring of differences into a fluid sea of ambiguity and nebulousness. The new equality movement is gender blending – to ignore the biological differences that exist between the male and female species as they were created.
Are we, as unique individuals, being made to conform to a mindless, empty, Baphomet-like shell that can be more easily controlled by the conglomerate few? Are governments, in a sense, blotting out the genitalia 500 years after Vesalius’ drawings? Are humans ultimately being neutered as vessels for something else?
In 2009, the Delhi Supreme Court instituted an official third gender in India that is neither male nor female by allowing those in the transgender community to self-identify one’s gender using legal documentation.
Since 2016, in New York City, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone whose gender is male, female. Model legislation by the NYC mayor Bill de Blasio has released a list of 31 gender pronouns approved by the New York City Commission on Human Rights. The list is a guide for businesses, which can now be fined as much as $250,000 if establishments in the state of New York refuse to address someone by their preferred gender pronoun:
BI-GENDERED • CROSS-DRESSER • DRAG KING • DRAG QUEEN • FEMME QUEEN • FEMALE-TO-MALE • FTM • GENDER BENDER GENDERQUEER • MALE-TO-FEMALE • MTF • NON-OP • HIJRA PANGENDER • TRANSEXUAL/TRANSSEXUAL • TRANS PERSON WOMAN • MAN • BUTCH • TWO-SPIRIT • TRANS • AGENDER • THIRD SEX • GENDER FLUID • NON-BINARY TRANSGENDER • ANDROGYNE • GENDER GIFTED • GENDER BLENDER • FEMME PERSON OF TRANSGENDER EXPERIENCE • ANDROGYNOUS.
Gender designations are confusing from a logical standpoint. For example, “Agender” is someone without a gender, or someone who does not believe in gender. So does an Agender person discriminate against other genders in which they do not believe? Would they be fined under this NY law? Is that legal?
Since it is now illegal in many states to discriminate on the basis of gender, how does that policy co-exist with established hiring policies under Affirmative Action Programs codified under 41 CRR Part 60-2, which falls under Executive Order 11246 – Equal Employment Opportunity, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
Has the world grown too complex? Will it soon be politically incorrect for women to be called menstruators? Can you play with Tonka Trucks and still call yourself female?
Where once human interactions and introductions involved sharing a name, and perhaps a vocation, people now feel obligated to express the complexities of their gender identity in different contexts and social settings. For those who see humanity in crisis, consider what Casey Chalk writes in the January, 2o20 Crisis Magazine:
These new norms, rather than facilitating more charitable and respectful human interactions, undermine them. In a world that demands hyper-sensitivity to the multivalent identities and expressions of every person—lest we offend or expose our insufficient woke credentials—it’s better not to try. It might be best to just keep one’s eyes locked on a smartphone or newspaper. The proliferation of pronouns and identities doesn’t eliminate barriers to human exchange; it raises them.
Andrew Kaufman is a Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist and Molecular Biologist who received his training and degrees from Duke University, MIT and South Carolina Medical University. He says there are no such things as “viruses” and the “Coronavirus Global Pandemic” is a “manufactured event.”
The conversation around whether or not viruses exist, appears to conjure up all kinds of emotions, and is met with resistance. My guess is because virology is a deeply entrenched paradigm, and it is what we were taught as kids.
A cult-like approach would be to dismiss dissenting views and, instead, to perpetuate a previously held belief. David Rasnick refers to this as the Tyranny Of Dogma.
Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.
Symptoms may include a desire to swing from tree to tree, to pick breakfast bugs off your mate, and to screech, yell, and generally monkey around. But seriously….
According to the Centers for Disease Creation (CDC), the agency that created at least eight Genus categories of Pox Diseases, Monkeypox is called a “rare disease.” However, Monkeypox cannot be considered “rare,” if the CDC also claims that Monkeypox is spreading.
After all, where there is a will, there is a vaccine patent!
In February 2021, patent application #20210260182 was filed for RECOMBINANT POXVIRUS BASED VACCINE AGAINST SARS-CoV-2 VIRUS. This is a combination pox/COVID vaccine patent filed over a year ago:
The terms “chimeric” or “engineered” or “modified” (e.g., chimeric poxvirus, engineered polypeptide, modified polypeptide, engineered nucleic acid, modified nucleic acid) or grammatical variations thereof are used interchangeably herein to refer to a non-native sequence that has been manipulated to have one or more changes relative a native sequence.
In some embodiments, the SARS-CoV-2 protein is inserted into the Thymidine Kinase (TK) locus (Gene ID HPXV095; positions 992077-92610; SEQ ID NO: 1) of the horsepox virus or the synthetic horsepox virus.
The official story from the CDC is that “Monkeypox” was discovered in 1958 “when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of monkeys kept for research” … and injected with Smallpox.
Not too long ago, in 2018, the Horsepox virus had its heyday when researchers told the story of the”infectious virus” synthesized in a lab. Symptoms may include a desire to neigh, snort, and gallop with the herd. But seriously… Horsepox was said to be the cousin of the Smallpox virus, which health authorities claimed had been eradicated from the planet in 1980. Why eradicate one “deadly” virus only to revive its cousin? What is the purpose of Franken-science?
The official answer was “to develop cancer treatments and vaccines,” especially since the current Smallpox vaccine (Variola) has some serious adverse side effects, including death. Note: nothing is ever said about curing cancer, only about “developing treatments and vaccines.” From the 2018 paper, Synthetic viruses—Anything new?:
…it comes as no surprise that it is possible to generate infectious viruses by using synthesized DNA fragments. The first synthetic virus, poliovirus, was produced by Wimmer and colleagues and made us aware of the fact that we entered a new era of reverse genetics that allows for the generation of synthetic viruses without the need for a nucleic acid template.
Chapter 3: “A new era of reverse genetics”
Many scientific papers published since 2018 have questioned the wisdom of engineering viruses from deadly Smallpox, which they admit could lead to the reemergence of Smallpox, as well as to future pandemics. What if the lab-created monkey virus or the horse virus escaped into the wild? What then?
Previously, scientists had blamed monkeys, as well as other species, for the consequences of their genetic experiments: in monkeys (SV40); in pigs (Swine flu (H1N1)); in birds (Avian flu (H5N1) different from Chickenpox; and in insects (Zika mosquito borne virus).
Note: the same molecular signature, protein (PB1-F2), is present in both the 1918 Spanish flu virus and in the highly lethal h5N1 chicken viruses. Coincidence?
These synthesized varieties were not selected to become “epidemics,” only beta tests on behavioral dynamics; except for the Swine Flu Epidemic, which resulted in a mass vaccine campaign, and was subsequently repealed after widespread vaccine injuries and deaths [See my 2018 blog Beware the Horsepox Vaccine!].
With many stories in the media, it is important to know that there is something called The Species Barrier. Even in the Age of Ignorance, the Species Barrier still exists, and The UK Dictionary defines it as:
The natural mechanisms that prevent a virus or disease from spreading from one species to another.
In short, people cannot “catch” diseases from animals, birds, reptiles, insects, vegetables, or minerals. But, as long as people have short attention spans, and continue to be misled by the story, animals will continue to be wrongly blamed and punished for human-engineered, chimeric experiments.
Why create animalpox outbreaks that appear go viral?
The ultimate purpose of any “viral threat” is to roll out the “vaccine solution.” And what exactly is the reason to push an agenda of vaccines? To engineer consent to reengineer humanity for deeper control: Monkey see-Monkey do. Therefore, any true global “viral threat” is not complete without a patented, engineered, controllable, injectable chimeric virus, coming soon to a city near you.
Chapter 4: The Twist: Monkeypox rash
Back to the monkeys!
The media generates associations by first showing computer-generated images of microscopic cells that appear to be bacteria (not viruses). Then, they release images of raised blisters or a rash labelled as “Monkeypox.” Looking closer, any image labelled “Monkeypox” could double as an image labelled Shingles.
Is there a relationship between the pox and the rash, or is it between the COVID vaccine/boosters and the rash?
Because the world complied so quickly to the illegal Coronavirus countermeasures, brought on by governments around the world, there is no need to wait years for the next epidemic! The “flying monkeys” are here to do the bidding of their creators.
What the WHO and CDC have not disclosed is that vaccine ingredients are widely known to cause rashes, often a full body rash. A vaccine-associated rash is a consequence of an influx of toxins to the body that results in a suppressed immune system. Frequent Strep Throat infections are another indication of a suppressed immune system. A.S.I.A is not a continent when it comes to vaccine damage. A.S.I.A is Autoimmune/Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants, (ie, induced by toxins), where adjuvants are vaccine ingredients (eg. aluminum sulphate). Keep this in mind. Do your own research.
Prior to the COVID injections, a rash was not indicated as a symptom of “Coronavirus,” which is a family of cold/flu viruses. According to officials, Coronaviruses can produce runny nose, sore throat, headache, fever, cough, and a general feeling of being unwell. True viruses, those not engineered in a lab, cannot survive outside the cell, they cannot transmit an infection because they are not alive (like bacteria). In this way, viruses are exosomes, produced by the cell in response to a toxic exposure, to help to clean the cell to regain balance and health.
Exosome biogenesis is a mechanism of protein quality control, and once released, exosomes have activities as diverse as remodeling the extracellular matrix and transmitting signals and molecules to other cells. This pathway of intercellular vesicle traffic plays important roles in many aspects of human health and disease, including development, immunity, tissue homeostasis, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.
While the virus itself is not a sexually transmitted infection, which are generally spread through semen and vaginal fluids, the most recent surge in cases appears to have been spread among men who have sex with other men, WHO officials said, emphasizing that anyone can contract monkeypox.
Is that science or science fiction? Are we back to HIV-AIDS? Did we ever leave it?
“The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hellof a mistake”- Kary Mullis, 1996, p. 14..– Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, 1993, inventor of PCR test.
With so many stories still unfinished, has Monkeypox arrived on the scene as a hoax? A test of humanity? Another virus that divides and discriminates against bi-sexual and gay men? What about the devastation of 500,000 deaths caused by the prescription Opioid Epidemic from 1999 to 2019 that continue? What about more than 150 people who die each year from taking the OTC, FDA-approved drug Tylenol?
Chapter 6: Nature rules
Nature has always ruled and Nature will continue to rule, but only if Nature’s Law is followed. Nature does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, politics, education, vaccine status, or sex. Only patented lab-created viruses do.
Just because the media stories report on a Monkeypox viral threat, does not mean that humans need fear monkeys or eradicate them, like they did when they agreed to put chickens into lockdown from Pennsylvania to France then exterminated them out of fear.
Fear is False Evidence Appearing Real. Fear freezes people’s ability to be reasonable and rational. Fear separates and isolates. Fear masks identity. Fear disconnects humans from Nature, from each other, and from themselves. Going forward, if choosing fear, refrain from making any decisions or they will be made for you.
Perhaps humans should fear only humans with a god-complex, those who would unleash a lab-created/patented monkeypox/Smallpox/Horsepox/SARS-CoV2 virus into the population via injection for the purpose of reverse genetics.
Forget the Horsepox and Monkeypox stories. Could humanity be looking at a re-deployment of the original Smallpox?
During crises, people ask questions, and the Covid crisis is no exception. People are asking, “Is there any real or new illness called Covid-19—apart from vaccinations and the treatments themselves?” We are not alone in proposing that we must take a cold look at the viral theory touted as the cause of this alleged disease.
Journalist Jeremy Hammond has been the most outspoken critic of our contention that the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” does not exist and therefore does not cause Covid. In a video posted in March 2021,1 he outlines the following arguments for the existence of the “virus.” We answer his arguments, point by point.
Definition of Isolation
Hammond states that people in our camp have changed the definition of isolation, but we use the actual definition of the word “isolation” in the English language. It’s the virologists who have changed the meaning of the word from “separated from other things” to meaning “combined with other things in a foreign cell culture.”
Isolation Technology
Hammond claims that scientists do not yet have the technology to purify viral particles. Actually, scientists have been able to purify particles equivalent in size to so-called viruses for decades. The traditional method, in use since at least the 1940s, involves what is called density gradient ultracentrifugation. It uses different densities of a sucrose solution spun into layers at high speeds with an ultracentrifuge, so that the densest layer ends up on the bottom. The sample will separate into bands based on different densities, and one of those bands could contain the so-called viral particles if they existed.
For example, a 2015 article published in Methods in Molecular Biology,2 provides electron microscopy photographs of purified exosomes (see Figure 1). Exosomes are roughly the same size as that of claimed viral particles, around fifty to one hundred nanometers, and they have the same morphology and characteristics of alleged virus particles.
If you can purify exosomes, you can purify viruses using the same techniques. Scientists take exosomes directly from a body fluid; they don’t take the exosomes and put them in a cell culture. One of the challenges the authors discuss is the fact that the exosomes are present in low numbers; also, there are many different types of extracellular particles in the bodily fluid from which to separate the exosomes. These are some of the problems that have been put forth as a reason why it’s difficult to purify virus particles, but the researchers have overcome these problems with exosomes.
Bacteriophages, known as “the viruses of bacteria,” can also be purified, as shown in a 2018 article (again published in Methods in Molecular Biology)33 (see Figure 1). Bacteriophages are particles of similar size to viruses, and they also can be purified by chromatography and other methods. Mr. Hammond alleges that you can’t get a pure sample—a sample where you see only one thing in a vacuum. However, as you can see in the photos of exosomes and bacteriophages, all the objects are the same—they are the only thing in the microscope field because these have been isolated and purified, and there is nothing else in the sample, just exosomes or bacteriophages.
FIGURE 1. Isolated exosomes, isolated bacteriophages and “isolated” viruses
Isolated, purified exosomes
Isolated, purified bacteriophages
Sample taken from human fluids and grown in a tissue culture, said to be “purified” and “isolated” virus.So, biologists clearly have this technology, and it’s been around for quite a long time. It’s just that when they tried to do isolate viral particles, back in the 1940s and 1950s, after they had electron microscopes, they were actually unable to find any particle in the tissues or fluids of anyone who was ill. The problem is that they are unable to find the viral particles, not that they don’t have the technology to isolate and purify.
Cell Culture is the Gold Standard
Hammond admits that you need a cell culture to “isolate” a virus, because the virus needs cells in which to replicate in order to have enough virus to detect. According to the viral theory, the virus causes an infection in the lung, for example, when it invades the lung cells and then reproduces in the lung tissue, right in those cells, and then produces more viral particles. So, all we would need to do is go right to that tissue culture in the sick person, not one that we create in a laboratory with other conditions that are not natural.
In other words, why would we do this kind of indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host—namely, virus-invaded lung tissue—from which we could extract the virus? Why can’t we do a proper isolation, where you go to the host, the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and purify the viral particles right out of that person’s bodily tissues or fluids?
Cytopathic Effects
Virologists claim that the pathogenic nature of viruses is evident in light microscope images of tissue cultures showing cytopathic effects (meaning cell breakdown). But what the images of “viruses” from an electron microscope show is a mixture of cellular material from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles (see Figure 1, third image). How can we know what any of those particles actually are? And how do we know the particle didn’t come from the foreign cell culture, such as the kidney cells it was cultured in? How do we know it’s not an exosome, a particle produced inside the cell? How do we know it’s not an apoptotic body (from cellular breakdown)? How do we know it’s not another type of extracellular vesicle? How do we know it’s a virus (since it doesn’t have a label and has not been isolated and purified)? While virologists can show images of small particles, they have no way of identifying the nature or identity of any of those particles.
Genetic Sequencing
Hammond claims that scientists can do genetic sequencing of the particles found in tissue cultures. There are actually two ways of doing genetic sequencing. One way is to extract genetic material from only one organism, and then sequence the genome in its entirety. That’s how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.
But for viruses, scientists use a different technique, variously termed “genomic” sequencing, “next generation” sequencing or “in silico” sequencing (meaning carried out in a computer). Whatever they call it, this kind of sequencing is just piecemeal.
Hammond describes the method accurately, in that they start with lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisticated calculations and simulations to put them together. The problem—which Hammond does not describe—is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism; it’s not just a virus. What they’re starting with is, in most cases, the lung fluid from a patient diagnosed with Covid by a PCR test. (And we know the PCR test is invalid. See sidebar page 20.)
The fluid they start with has genetic material from many different organisms—from a variety of bacteria species, probably some fungal and yeast species, as well as all of the human genetic material from the host and then anything that happened to be in the air that this person inhaled for the few breaths before they took the sample. In other words, there are many sources of genetic material. When they put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn’t know which organism they’re from—since they are not starting with a pure virus, there’s no way to tell.
When the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together by overlapping ends, they don’t know whether the computer is making a real sequence of an organism, or if it’s putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash or chimera. They have no way to check it against a reference standard, because there’s never been any true sequence of these viruses. What we end up with is just a simulation.
To give an idea of the problem, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over fifty-six million little pieces or sequences, and they had not one but two different software programs independently take those pieces and try to construct them into a longer strand that they said was the size of a typical coronavirus genome. With one of the software programs, they just threw out the data because it didn’t give them what they wanted. So, they’re picking and choosing at each stage: “We think this is good. . . we want to use this.”
The other software program came up with over a million different possible sequences, but they just picked one. And there was no rhyme or reason to how they picked it. It was just an arbitrary selection. With all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, they just randomly select one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer. How could anyone believe these results represent the real genome of an actual organism? It would be impossible.
Lack of Proper Controls
Hammond states that virologists do a control experiment when they do the tissue cultures. That statement is not quite accurate. In a proper control, you have only one variable different, and as far as we know, virologists have never actually done this. The proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from someone who is sick, but does not have Covid—sick with influenza or pneumonia, for example—or even lung fluid from someone who is healthy. Then, they would continue the experiment using the exact same methods, the same cell cultures, the same concentrations of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients, and any other additives or environmental conditions such as the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols all around—that would be a proper control. No one is doing this type of proper control for virus identification.
Some of the papers about SARS-CoV-2 have mentioned what’s called a “mock infected culture,” but this is not the same as a control. In fact, we don’t know exactly what they do with these mock infected cultures. They’re not reported on in every paper, but in a couple they are. And curiously, they don’t describe these mock infected cultures at all. If you go to the methods sections, you don’t see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don’t mention the word “control.”
If they’re doing a true control experiment, why wouldn’t they call it a control culture? They have to use different words because they’re not really doing a proper control, but they’re trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the words. We have read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers on other subjects, and they always refer to the control group; they don’t say the “mock treatment group.” So, the mock infected culture is some kind of trick. We even tried to communicate with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publications. We asked an open-ended question: “Can you tell us the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?” In most cases, they didn’t reply at all.
In one case, we were unable to get a clear answer. The reply we received was, “They’re treated the same.” But what does that mean? “Can you tell us the exact conditions?” We even put our queries into a yes or no question like, “Did you use the same antibiotics at the same concentration? Did you use the same nutrition at the same concentration?” But we could not get a clear response, which suggests that they are probably hiding something.
We do have two examples of studies that included a control sample. The first comes from a 1954 article published in Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine by Enders and Peebles.4 This was the first published paper to use the cell culture technique, which later became known as “virus isolation.”
In this study on measles, the authors put the patient specimen in a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells and then they got cytopathic effects—meaning they were able to show some damage to the cell culture.
An interesting quote in this paper describes the results of the control experiment. “Monkey kidney cultures may therefore be applied for the study of these agents [referring to measles] in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In doing so, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in a monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.”
In other words, they saw a cytopathic effect in the cell culture that was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself—but it might not necessarily have come from the measles virus; it could have been caused by something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or from unknown factors.
Continuing, the two authors said, “A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.” Now, that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient in the culture; they ran the cell culture without a source of virus—just the cell culture with no patient sample in it. According to the authors, “The cytopathic changes induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles [emphasis added].” In other words, the sample with nothing added to it produced the same results as the sample containing fluid from the measles patient.
Since the control was positive, that means that the experimental procedure itself, and not the measles virus, caused the cytopathic changes.
An important recent control experiment was carried out by Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is the only virologist we are aware of who has recognized the truth about the nonexistence of a virus—and who left the field. What he did was carry out just the control experiment. There is no possible source of virus anywhere in this experiment. As you can see in Figure 2, the top row of panels is Day One and the second row is Day Five of the experiment.
FIGURE 2. Control experiment by Dr. Stefan LankaDay One is when they changed the cell culture conditions. Previous to Day One, all of these cell cultures were kept healthy with normal cell culture procedures; then, on Day One, they changed the condition. In the first column, they used the full nutrition (GlutaMAX plus 10 percent fetal calf serum) and antibiotics at the normal concentration. In the second column, they reduced the nutrition and kept the same concentration of antibiotics. There was no change on Day Five for either of these two procedures, no cytopathic effects.
The third column simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments, using reduced nutrition while increasing the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration. (The protocols use either two times or three times the normal concentration.) You can see that on Day Five, there were cytopathic effects—the cells developed vacuoles and started to break down. Normally, virologists would give this as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there’s no virus in this experiment.
In the fourth column, Lanka added yeast RNA, which doesn’t contain any viruses—it’s a pure yeast RNA specimen bought from a laboratory supply company with good quality control. You can see even more cytopathic effects on Day Five in that culture.
So, both these control experiments show that the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects. If you took the culture materials from the two dishes with cytopathic effects and looked at them under an electron microscope, you would see particles in there that you could call a virus.
Coronavirus Fringe Pattern
According to Hammond, virologists can see the characteristic coronavirus spikes on the particles they are calling viruses. Let’s review a couple of studies to see what is going on. The first was published in 2020 in Kidney360.5 In this study, researchers were looking at biopsies of people with kidney disease, mostly from before the Covid era. In the electron microscope photographs, they saw particles with the characteristic coronavirus spikes (see Figure 3). The researchers said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, which was a source of confusion for virologists. The authors pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that found the same thing.
FIGURE 3. “Viral-like particles in non-COVID19 patients’ biopsies. Electron microscopy images of viral-like particles within podocytes in a case of thrombotic microangiopathy in a (A) native kidney biopsy specimen and (B) acute cellular rejection in an allograft. Note the presence in both cases of single vesicles with an electrondense rim likely representing endocytic coated vesicles, as well as larger multivesicular bodies (arrows), which could be confounded with vesicle packets containing virions. Inset in (A): the individual small coated pits in the exterior of the vesicle bear resemblance to a viral corona. (C) Similar intracytoplasmic vesicles within tubules in an allograft with changes suspicious for acute cellular rejection.”They also said that they identified the protein that made up the spikes, and it was not the spike protein, but a protein called clathrin. So, seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless; it doesn’t identify something as a coronavirus. Remember that these kidney biopsies were from people who had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus, and it was before even the “discovery” of so-called SARS-CoV-2.
The second example comes from a “virus isolation” paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2020.6 A very interesting quote occurs in this paper: “Electron micrographs. . . showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles. Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” In other words, they didn’t see any spikes so they added the digestive enzyme trypsin, which breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence, and then looked at it again under the microscope—and then saw the spikes! (See Figure 4.)
FIGURE 4: “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.”Now, isn’t that convenient? In other words, they put a spike suit on the particles so they could look like they’re supposed to look, instead of saying, “Hey, maybe there is no coronavirus in the sample.” If we have to digest a protein to make it look a certain way, then how could we say that’s what it is? It’s like having a cat but really wanting a dog, so you put a little microphone around the cat’s neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog. We would call this cheating.
Genome Sequencing
As Hammond and other adherents of viral theory have often stated, genome sequencing has been repeated thousands of times, and the results are published in international databases, so they can’t be a hoax. Actually, the in silico genome-sequencing procedure that we have described has been repeated over two million times—far more than Hammond claims. And of course, each time they get different results, because they can’t repeat results in an invalid experiment, so the different results are all published.
As described earlier, the way they do this is to take a bunch of pieces of unknown origin, which they run through different software simulations, and then pick out the one they like. And then they do some further magic on it by just popping things in or taking things out somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome should look like. Then they claim that this sequence is a “reference sequence” and against all of those couple of million experiments that they have repeated, they can template a reference genome. So, of course, the computer is able to put things together in such a way that it matches the so-called reference sequence somewhat closely, because the sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA. (A recent analysis shows this and will soon be published.) Thus, you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that’s close, but not exactly identical—which they then call “variants.”
Now Hammond claims that if the procedures were fraudulent, then tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be participating together in a conspiracy; but that’s not the case at all because almost none of these scientists realizes that what they’re doing is not good science—they never question it. Doctors rarely question the things they’re taught; they just learn them and accept them as true. That’s why I (Andrew Kaufman) was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career, because I also just accepted those things and did them without question. Now I realize that they’re quite lethal, so I don’t do them anymore. There was a kind of individual process that I went through for that.
But the scientists involved in “virus isolation” don’t realize that they’re doing fraudulent science because they’ve never looked at it carefully. And one of the ways that science allows this kind of thing to happen is by a high degree of compartmentalization, where they don’t collaborate or talk with other people in different fields. They don’t learn how other scientists do their experiments and also how they do control experiments. And they don’t seem to talk to exosome scientists, often because they would then see that exosome scientists are able to extract and purify exosomes right from the source. And then they would try to do that and fail, because there aren’t any viruses, and then they would have to have a different conclusion and change their opinion.
But the truth is, it doesn’t matter whether all of the thousands of scientists doing “virus isolation” are in a conspiracy, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re completely ignorant, because the only thing that’s important is to look at the actual science itself—the experiments—and ask the question, can you learn something from this? Can you conclude anything from this experiment? And if the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how many people think you’re wrong, it only matters that the answer is no. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the virologists have gotten this wrong, because in medicine this happens frequently. Take the example of beta blockers and heart failure. For many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure, because beta blockers make your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly. So, that was seen to make your heart weaker. But then research showed that actually, adding a beta blocker slows the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer. It took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated into medicine, but there was no truth to the notion that doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to hasten the death of heart failure patients. They were just ignorant to the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug in that condition. We could interpret “virus isolation” as a similar phenomenon; virologists who are doing these experiments are not able to actually show the results or provide the conclusive evidence because they are just ignorant of that fact, because they haven’t looked at it. It’s quite as simple as that.
Response to Mercola
Entering the virus debate on January 17, 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola published a “fact-checked” article entitled, “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus,”1 in which he insisted that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.
Mercola cites studies from Italy, Germany, India, Columbia, Canada, Australia, Korea and the U.S., which claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and characterized it by genome sequencing. However, none of these studies isolated any virus from the fluids of the patient; all of these studies used culturing techniques that can lead to tissue breakdown and the creation of exosomes (identical in form to “viruses”); none of these studies had a meaningful control; and all used questionable computer techniques to generate a genome in silico. Remember that these tissue cultures would also contain genetic material from the kidney cells of the culture and the bovine serum used as a nutrient medium. Even if the tissue cultures did contain viral particles, how can anyone know that the DNA the computer is analyzing comes from the virus?
As Mercola states, “Another sticking point for some is whether or not SARS-CoV-2 has ever been isolated from a human subject without passing it through animal cells, as such media could be contaminated and therefore the source of the virus.”
Indeed, this is the “sticking point!” All of the studies that Mercola cites as proof passed the sample through animal cells—cultures contaminated with fetal bovine serum and toxic antibiotics, and starved with a minimal nutrient medium.
Furthermore, no paper has proven that an isolated or pure virus obtained from a cell culture has ever made an animal or human sick in any way. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational and anti-scientific to claim that the “virus” is a pathogen.
According to Mercola, “At least part of the confusion appears to be rooted in how the term ‘isolated’ is defined. Some insist a virus is not isolated unless it’s also purified, while others say a virus doesn’t have to be purified in order to be ‘isolated.’” Actually, as we have pointed out, the confusion—deliberate confusion—results from virologists using the word “isolated” to mean “not isolated,” and insisting that “purified” and “isolated” do not mean the same thing.
More Genome Sequencing
One study Mercola highlights is a “genome sequencing” study published in January 2021 in Gut Pathology.7 In this study, the genetic material (RNA) was extracted directly from stool samples of a patient identified as having Covid-19 using the meaningless PCR test.
This paper relies on an in silico genome-sequencing procedure whereby they extract all of the RNA that is present in a body fluid or tissue sample, which would include a number of different sources of genetic material, including the person’s own. The material would include non-coding DNA that has been transcribed, spliced and recombined to make all sorts of novel sequences.
They then throw out the long fragments and just look at the short ones. This is a really important point, because the longer the sequence, the more you can be sure that it came from one source; whereas if you have short sequences, when they put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources. It’s more reliable to have longer sequences, but then they can’t do the sequencing as fast. So, they put all those short sequences into the computer and let various computer software programs put them together, mapping them to the “reference” standard genome—which has been done in the same way—and then give you a result. The result is a little bit different each time, which is why they have over two million “variants.”
In this 2021 paper, they used fecal material, which they said contained the same genetic material as that extracted from the nose using a nasal swab. And interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual—they actually used a purchased heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture that served as a negative control.
The other unusual procedure was that they used shorter strands of RNA than normal. Usually, they look at strands of up to one hundred fifty base pairs, but in this study, they limited the length to seventy-six base pairs. This would result in even more error in terms of the source of each particular little strand.
They also skipped an important step, which they call making “contigs” (from the word contiguous). Usually, what they do is take all those little sequences of short strands—there are often over fifty million of them—and put them into software number-crunching programs that try to pair up overlapping sequences on the ends to make longer and longer strands—this is what they call “contig.” Then they pick one of the longest strands and use that as the base genome.
In this case, they didn’t do that. They just took the sequence strands and templated them right away against the reference standard from the database. In other words, they chose the pieces that would fit into the puzzle and entered them into the program, and then the software filled in the gaps and rearranged things as necessary. In this way, they made sure that the genome looked the way they wanted it to look.
All of the studies Mercola lists as proving the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are done in similar fashion to come up with a computer simulation, not a real genome taken intact from a real organism.
When Hammond talks about finding a genome of twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand base pairs, it’s important to understand that they have never found this genome in any bodily fluid, just like they have never found anything they could call a virus. They have never found a strand of twenty-nine thousand base pairs; instead, they have created it in the computer by matching pieces together based on a template. In other words, they find the sequence only because that’s the sequence they’re telling it to find. This is not science!
More Covid-19 Virus Studies
Another paper cited by Mercola comes from Italy, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August 2020.8 The researchers took a sputum sample from a sixty-five-year-old woman and diagnosed her with Covid-19 using a PCR test. Then they cultured the sample in kidney cells, followed by genome sequencing as described above. It’s the same in all the studies that Mercola cites. Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly; nobody takes that virus and determines the genetic material in that virus; nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else to it and shows that it causes disease.
Mercola cites a study from Colombia that is the same exact experiment—a nose swab cultured in a toxic cell culture, followed by genetic sequencing and electron microscopy.9 According to the researchers, “Electron microscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2”—not structures that are, but that are compatible.
These structures are also “compatible” with kidney failure and probably many other things. The authors state that the genetic composition of their isolates was consistent with the predominant variant—not saying it was the predominant variant. In other words, they are hedging at every turn.
At the end of his article, Mercola mentions “antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),” but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support something called ADE. Virus theory posits that we make antibodies against viral diseases. In July 2020, the head of the Bulgarian Pathology Association stated that they had found no monoclonal (coming from the same cell) antibodies in any of the people said to have died of Covid.10
This is like saying that no one has died of Covid, because since they haven’t found antibodies, they must conclude that the patients didn’t have Covid.
Does It Matter?
Hammond dismisses those who question the viral theory of disease as his “pet peeve” and “divisive” of the health freedom movement. According to Mercola, “Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and hamper the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.” In other words, if you question the viral theory, you are the bad guy, hindering the movement for health freedom. One virus advocate has referred to “virus-deniers” as domestic terrorists!
And yet the virus debate has immense importance to the health freedom movement. All the objectionable “public health” measures— masks, social distancing, isolation, testing and above all toxic vaccines—are predicated on the belief that we are threatened by a virulent, contagious virus. If there is no virus—not for Covid-19, not for any disease—then the justification for forcing these measures on the public disappears.
SIDEBARS
Electron Microscopy
Scientists use an electron microscope in order to see the structures inside a cell. To view a sample under the electron microscope, they must prepare it using special procedures. One reason is that the beams of the electron microscope are extremely powerful and can heat the sample up to 150 degrees C. The preparation method requires the following steps:
FIXATION: The sample is placed in some kind of chemical fixative, such as formalin, glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. This preserves the structure of the tissue.
DEHYDRATION: This step requires bathing the tissue many times in alcohol (ethanol or acetone) to remove all water from the tissue.
EMBEDDING: The tissue is put inside a small mold that is filled with paraffin wax or epoxy resin, which is then cooled to harden.
SLICING: The hardened resin is sliced into extremely thin pieces.
STAINING: The tissue is stained with some type of heavy metal, such as uranyl acetate, another name for uranium, or lead acetate, so you can have more contrast when you’re viewing the tissue through the electron microscope.
These methods will obviously have effects on biological samples. For example, formalin in the staining process is formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and neurotoxin; glutaraldehyde is specifically dangerous for the gastrointestinal tract and the lungs, and osmium tetroxide causes pulmonary edema. Ethanol used in the alcohol baths can cause severe liver damage, and acetone damages the kidneys, the lungs and the brain. Paraffin wax and epoxy resin used for embedding can also affect biological tissues.
Most toxic are the heavy metals uranium and lead used for staining; they are bound to have toxic effects on biological samples. The result is that what you see using the electron microscope has little resemblance to living tissue—it is an artifact and a distortion, from which no conclusions about cell structure can be made.
A Mouse Study
Recently, Dr. Robert Malone stated that the omicron variant is not as dangerous as the others and that we should rethink our vaccines. One of the papers he cited was “Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model,” published in December 2021 in Emerging Microbes and Infections.11
In the abstract of this paper we read, “Older individuals are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. In addition, how age modulates SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infections remain largely unexplored. Here, we investigated age-associated SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune responses, and the occurrence of re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infection utilizing a wild-type C57BL/6N mouse model. We demonstrated that interferon and adaptive antibody response upon SARS-CoV-2 challenge are significantly impaired in aged mice compared to young mice, which results in more effective virus replications and severe disease manifestations in the respiratory tract. Aged mice also showed increased susceptibility to re-infection due to insufficient immune protection acquired during the primary infection.”
Now, when well-known spokesmen such as Dr. Robert Malone comment on the importance of a study like this, it works to convince the public that SARS-CoV-2 is real and the omicron variant is real. Maybe omicron is not so bad, maybe it is worse in the elderly, but in any event, the new “variant” is real.
According to Malone, the reason this study is important is that it explains the significant adverse event profile of the vaccines. We would agree that these adverse events combined with a milder disease profile of omicron raise the possibility that boosters may not be good medicine, even for the elderly, but the suggestion that viruses have anything to do with this only perpetuates the kind of misinformation that justifies everything that is wrong with how the health authorities have handled the pandemic—masks, social distancing, isolation, hand sanitizing and vaccinations.
According to the authors, the antibody response was severely impaired in aged mice leading to more severe disease. In the Materials and Methods section, we see that the SARS-CoV-2 variant was “isolated” from a confirmed Covid-19 patient in Hong Kong and that the virus was cultured in Vero (kidney) cells and stored at negative 80 degrees C.
Now, the important part: they expose the mice to a “variant” of the “virus”—to what they think is the omicron variant. One would expect that what scientists would do is take purified virus and expose the mice in the way that humans are exposed, by breathing it in the air. But what did these scientists do? They did a standard viral culture, meaning they inoculated monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) with fetal calf serum and an unpurified sample from a person with alleged “Covid.” (Fetal bovine serum, by the way, is taken from live aborted slaughterhouse calves whose blood is sucked directly from their hearts.) So, they didn’t, in fact, use a virus—that is a flat-out lie. Instead of a virus, they used a culture of kidney cells that contained some of the primers allegedly from a variant strain, a variant that has never been isolated.
Now, you would think that they must have sprayed this culture onto the mice, or gently into their noses, but that’s not what they did. Instead, they anesthetized the mice with toxic drugs—essentially poisoning them—and then squirted a mixture of phosphate-buffered saline and the toxic kidney culture under high pressure down their noses through an intranasal cannula directly into their lungs. No rational person would say that this type of experiment has any relation to what happens in old or young people or to anybody exposed to a “virus.” It’s ridiculous to call this science.
And then they found out whether the young mice did better than the old mice. Upon intranasal inoculation, the young mice transiently lost a maximum of 5 percent body weight for a short period. In contrast, the older mice lost 12 percent of body weight, and they didn’t recover. Moreover, the young mice did not show any sign of disease. The older mice showed hunched postures and labored breathing, which was more severe at higher doses of toxic cell culture injection into their lungs.
If you wanted to be precise in your language, you would say that young mice—injected, anesthetized and subjected to high-pressure squirts of toxins directly into their lungs—seemed to be okay; they just lost a little weight. That’s probably the definition of a bad day for a mouse. But they seemed to recover, whereas the older mice didn’t do as well. That’s what they found.
And then they did all kinds of biochemical histological genetic studies, analyzing the tissue after they ground up the nasal turbinates, the lungs and so forth. They then concluded, “Yep,” these mice have a lot more antibodies than they should—which means they are trying to protect themselves against being poisoned with toxic cell cultures injected right into their lungs.
The authors found that the staining of the nucleocapsid protein was more intense at higher doses of the stuff squirted up the mice’s lungs. Later, they say these findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2 “replicates more effectively in the respiratory tract of aged mice than young mice upon virus exposure.” We would submit that they never actually took out any virus and never saw any replication of any virus in any lung of any mouse.
In other words, the researchers essentially said, “This study does not prove what we thought it was proving, but is just another way to convince us that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of disease.” When in fact, all this study really tells us is that older, poorly-fed mice do worse when exposed to poisons than younger ones.
Does it matter whether this disease is caused by a virus or not? When the Chief Medical Officer of the World Health Organization predicts that half of the United States is going to get sick in the next six to eight weeks, yes, it does matter. The problem with all this talk about viruses is that it completely obscures the reasons why people are getting sick. We know that a lot of people are getting sick from the injections, but they are not the only people getting sick. Unfortunately, as long as we stick to this nonsense called the viral narrative, we will never ask the right questions, and we will never get any answers as to what otherwise is making people sick.
Rapid Tests for Covid-19 Virus
Recently, the CDC announced—quietly and without explanation—that as of January 1, 2022, they were no longer going to use PCR tests for “diagnosing Covid.” Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally seen the light; or perhaps there was enough pressure on CDC that they realized they had to back down quietly from the PCR test. Many people interpreted the CDC’s move as an end to testing, and since this pandemic is really a pandemic of testing, they believed this would go a long way toward ending the pandemic. After all, if they stopped doing the test, nobody would test positive. However, the CDC didn’t say they were going to end testing.
The problem is that these people are playing chess, while the rest of us are playing checkers—if they’re playing chess, we need to play chess, too, and understand the motivations and the rationale behind some of the moves we’re hearing about. And this is particularly true in the case of things that seem to be small victories—sometimes even fairly large victories—because upon closer examination, they don’t all turn out to be the victories that we imagined.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is not a diagnostic test, it’s a manufacturing tool, and it does not test whether or not anybody has any virus. Rather, the PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of copies (complete copies or partial copies) of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it (or a part of it) to a large enough amount to study in detail. The inventor, Kary Mullis, was emphatic that his test could not be used to diagnose or determine disease.
The PCR amplifies the DNA sample anywhere from twenty to forty cycles in order to get enough genetic material to detect—the test does this by showing a color change. To use the PCR as a diagnostic test requires two assumptions. The first is that you know that the genetic sequence you are amplifying comes from the virus you are looking for; the second is that there are no other biological organisms in the sample—no microbes, bacteria, fungi or human DNA. To repeat, the premise of using the PCR for diagnosis is that you already know the sequence of the virus, and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of the entire virus genome, and that no other biological organism has that same sequence of DNA. We know that both these premises are not true with PCR Covid tests. Actually, one of the people who came up with the original primer sequences was Christian Drosten, who admitted in a paper that they never had a copy of any virus.12
Now, just think about that for a minute. If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome is a piece of the virus, that it actually came from a virus? If we gave you a sentence and asked you whether this sentence came from a certain book, the obvious common-sense question that any rational human being would ask is, can you show me the book? How can you know whether a sentence comes from a certain book if you don’t have the book?
Furthermore, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence? You can determine this by doing what is called a BLAST search, which searches the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have ever been sequenced. Scientists have done this and found out that the same sequence used in the PCR test primers for SARS-CoV-2 is found in at least ninety human sequences and ninety microbial sequences (meaning bacterial or fungal sequences).
Thus, the second premise, that a sequence is unique to a specific virus, is also not true. The sequence is found in humans and in bacteria. If you start with a sample that has sequences that come from humans and that has bacteria and fungus in it, there is no way of knowing whether the positive match—the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then be amplified—comes from a virus, the person, bacteria, fungus or maybe from something else.
So, the PCR test is invalid—there are no “false positives,” there are no “false negatives,” there are just false results. So, shouldn’t we applaud when the CDC finally acknowledges that they are not going to do a PCR test anymore?
The question is, what are they going to replace it with? According to government announcements, they are going to use a “higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.” To explain further: “This developed invention is multiplex and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains one hundred different unique bead oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences covalently coupled to these unique beads. These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler. The amplified target sequences then hybridize to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers; if this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by flow site cytometer. This multiplex assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.”
English translation: Instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use one hundred different unique beads. These beads contain the primer sequences, and they’re all attached to the other beads. These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into PCR amplification cycles.
Now, the only real difference between this and the normal PCR test is that there are more of the primer sequences—like one hundred more—attached to a compound called biotin. These biotinylated primers stick easily to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler, so that they can be amplified. And then you get a result. Now, instead of a PCR test for Covid, one test will test for all the “viruses.”
The upshot of this is that now they will be able to say that you have many different viruses, all at the same time. Since all these viruses can make you sick (so they will argue), you may need a vaccine for each one of them.
This is a checkmate: They now are able to find the code for the original “virus” as well as the delta variant and the lambda variant, right on through the Greek alphabet, because they can make it look like you have multiple different sequences. These sequences amplify more easily because they figured out a way to make the primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample. And this is not a single-plex test. This is a multiplex assay, which means they can find any number they want, just by increasing the amplifications. And checkmate, they got us.
So, they replaced the old-fashioned PCR with something that will make the whole thing even worse. The lesson is that we should not be fooled by false minor victories, because they are not necessarily good news.
The Seven U.S. Government Payoffs to Kill You in Hospitals
by Dr. Peterson Pierre13
If you have Covid, and you end up in the hospital, you’re put on a rigid protocol. There’s a high mortality rate in the hospital, and your family is kept in the dark about what is happening. So, what’s going on here?
The CARES Act is providing bonus payments to hospitals whenever they have a diagnosis of Covid, while the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is waiving patient rights. This is a deadly combination.
The hospital gets the first payment when they offer a free Covid test in the emergency room, and they get another payment if they can come up with a diagnosis of Covid. Number three, they get another bonus payment if they admit a patient with Covid. Number four, they get another bonus payment if the patient is put on remdesivir. Number five, another bonus payment if the patient is put on a mechanical ventilator. Number six, another 20 percent bonus if the diagnosis on your death certificate says Covid, even though you may not have died from Covid. And then number seven, there are bonus payments for the coroners.
Does the public understand the gravity of what’s happening right now? The government is literally paying hospitals to kill you. That’s what’s happening. These are real human lives we’re talking about, priceless human lives. It’s estimated that about one hundred thousand dollars per patient is what the hospital is getting. Think about that.
Rai A, Fang H, Fatmous M, et al. A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of exosomes. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2261:105-149.
Vanderheuvel D, Rombouts S, Adriaenssens EM. Purification of bacteriophages using anion-exchange chromatography. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1681;59-69.
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277-286.
Cassol CA, Gokden N, Larsen CP, et al. Appearances can be deceiving – Viral-like inclusions in COVID-19 negative renal biopsies by electron microscopy. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):824-828.
Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(10):459-462.
Papoutsis A, Borody T, Dolai S, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):7.
Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):242-243.
Díaz FJ, Aguilar-Jiménez W, Flórez-Álvarez L, et al. Isolation and characterization of an early SARS-Cov-2 isolate from the 2020 epidemic in Medillin, Colombia. Biomedica. 2020;40(Supl. 2):148-158.
Chen Y, Li C, Liu F, et al. Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):368-383.
Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
“Monkeypox” – who could have seen it coming? Well, apparently the organisation founded by Ted Turner in 2001 called the ‘Nuclear Threat Initiative’ (NTI) saw it coming when they published a report in November 2021 called, “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats.” The report states that in March 2021, they partnered with the Munich Security Conference to run an exercise scenario involving a, “deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months…the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”
The Nuclear Threat Initiative introduces Plandemic 2.0? This time it is even bigger and monkeypox takes centre stage.
Amazingly, the scenario had the monkeypox outbreak emerging as a result of an act of bioterrorism in May 2022, right where we are now. We have dealt with gain of function garbage involving non-existent viruses in several other videos, while Dr Stefan Lanka has also dismantled such fallacies. Regardless, the NTI’s report suggests that what is required in a fantasy outbreak is, “aggressive measures to slow virus transmission by shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates”. The winning countries, in their hallucination implemented, “large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations and scaled-up their health care systems.”
Their charts, which seem to be produced by Neil Ferguson’s calculator, show that countries that don’t comply with their restrictions and medical interventions will be far worse off. The report goes on to state, “both the exercise scenario and the COVID-19 response demonstrate that early actions by national governments have significant, positive impacts in managing the impact of the disease”. When they say “positive impacts” it is not quite clear who is on the receiving end, although they note that “the COVID vaccine market will exceed $150 billion in 2021.” All in all the NTI’s report reads like Event 201 on Ritalin. (Event 201 took place on 18 October, 2019. It was an exercise involving a, “coronavirus pandemic” just months before the COVID-19 “pandemic” was declared.)
Monkeypox attacks right on cue!
As with COVID-19 it appears that other parties have also been eagerly awaiting a market such a “pandemic” would present. Likewise, these fortune-tellers were preparing vaccines to go where no vaccine had gone before. In this case the biotech company Bavarian Nordic gained approval from the FDA in 2019 to market JYNNEOS, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine. Other health authorities were also primed to react to a previously rare condition that has been of no concern for their nations…until now apparently. For example, on May 20, 2022, the UK Health Security Agency published a document titled, “Recommendations for the use of pre and post exposure vaccination during a monkeypox incident”. Like COVID-19, it’s starting to feel like all roads lead to vaccines again…
Just a matter of time before the “rare” monkeypox vaccine comes to your neighbourhood.
So now that the scene has been set we can get into the “science” of monkeypox starting with an official description of the alleged viral disease. The CDC states that, “Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of monkeys kept for research, hence the name ‘monkeypox.’ The first human case of monkeypox was recorded in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” They go on to state that, “in humans, the symptoms of monkeypox are similar to but milder than the symptoms of smallpox.” The illness is said to be flu-like with the addition of lymph node swelling and then development of a rash, and then lesions that progress from macules to vesicles to scabs.
In terms of the lethality of monkeypox, the CDC state that, “in Africa, monkeypox has been shown to cause death in as many as 1 in 10 persons who contract the disease.” This 10% fatality rate has already stoked the fear narrative and was also used as the case fatality rate in the NTI’s monkeypox pipe dream. It should be noted that historically monkeypox has been virtually unheard of in first world countries and the rare cases are usually in people that have recently arrived from Africa.
Indeed, one of the only recorded “outbreaks” of monkeypox in the first world was in the United States in April 2003. Cases were declared in 6 states and said to be caused by rodents that were imported to Texas from Ghana. This was the first time monkeypox had been reported outside of Africa and the CDC published a paper in 2006 analysing the incident. The paper states that, “person-to-person spread of the virus is thought to occur principally via infectious oropharyngeal exudates” although it is clear that this has never been scientifically established. They continue to say that, “the virus is thought to have been transmitted from African animals” – in other words, it’s another species-jumping pathogen tale.
Blaming it on minority groups, when have we seen that before?
They reported that, “individuals who had illness onset within 21 days after exposure to MPXV [Monkeypox virus] who experienced fever (defined as a body temperature greater 37.4°C) and vesicular pustular rash or rash (potentially uncharacterized) plus orthopox IgM antibodies were classified as having probable cases of infection.” Now 37.4°C is not a fever in our book, it is a normal body temperature and we would suggest 37.6°C and above qualifies as a fever. We noted in their chart that they were using the classification ≥39.4°C, but this appears to be an error as in another paper, we’ll get to soon, it was once again 37.4°C. The second paper even said the “fever” could be subjective, so they appear to be using this loose criteria and pathologising a normal state. Additionally, the CDC’s weekly report from the 11th of July 2003, stated that from a total of 71 cases, only “two patients, both children, had serious clinical illness; both of these patients have recovered.” The remainder had a variety of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms.
The CDC’s cases were confirmed on the basis of specimens that showed: “monkeypox virus isolation, detection of monkeypox-specific nucleic acid signatures, positive electron-microscopy findings, or positive immunohistochemical findings”. We had a look at the electron micrographs presented by the CDC including the image shown below of a skin sample from one of the patients. The caption informs us that the round particles on the right are immature monkeypox virions, while the oval particles on the left are mature viruses. However, all they have is a static image of dead tissue and no conclusions can be made about the biological role of the imaged particles. None of them have been shown to be replication-competent disease-causing intracellular parasites and so should not be called ‘viruses’.
Looking at the CDC’s weekly report from 2003 again, it appears that the 35 “laboratory-confirmed cases” all involved polymerase chain reaction (PCR) “tests”, so we investigated the scientific evidence behind this claim. One of the citations for the development of PCR detection of monkeypox is a 2004 paper titled “Real-Time PCR System for Detection of Orthopoxviruses and Simultaneous Identification of Smallpox Virus”. Now a PCR protocol requires them to know the genetic sequences of the alleged monkeypox virus, which takes us to this 2001 paper titled, “Human monkeypox and smallpox viruses: genomic comparison”. The paper claimed to have “isolated” the monkeypox virus in a rhesus monkey kidney cell culture from a scab of a monkeypox patient. Here the virologists are up to their old tricks again by asserting that: (a) the patient’s scab contains the monkeypox virus, and (b) it is now in their culture brew. They claimed to have sequenced the “viral genome” by referring to a process described for sequencing an alleged variola virus in 1993.
But when we look at this paper there is no virus demonstrated either, simply an assertion that it was “isolated” from, “the material from a patient from India” in 1967. They go on to make the claim that, “the virions were purified by differential centrifugation and viral DNA was isolated” – however, there is no demonstration of what they purified or how they were determined to be virions. In none of these experiments did they perform any controls by seeing what sequences can be detected from other human-derived scabs or similar specimens from unwell individuals. This is where we need to remind the virologists of what a virus is supposed to be – that is a replication-competent intracellular parasite that infects and causes disease in a host. It is not detecting genetic sequences contained within scabs and claiming that it belongs to a virus.
So returning to the CDC’s paper describing the 2003 “outbreak”, it is unclear how they established they could be diagnosing anyone with monkeypox by using the PCR. Their PCR can only have been calibrated to sequences of unproven provenance. Additionally, it doesn’t matter what kind of analytical specificity their PCR protocol had, there was no established diagnostic specificity – in other words it was not a clinically-validated test, an issue that goes beyond whether the “virus” exists or not. (From the MIQE Guidelines: Analytical specificity refers to the qPCR assay detecting the appropriate target sequence rather than other, nonspecific targets also present in a sample. Diagnostic specificity is the percentage of individuals without a given condition whom the assay identifies as negative for that condition.)
The 47 US cases they ended up describing were all in some sort of contact with imported African prairie dogs and the CDC’s paper concludes that, “individuals contracted MPXV infections from infected prairie dogs; no human-to-human transmission was documented, but there were many different potential scenarios of infection involving respiratory and/or muco-cutaneous exposures, percutaneous and/or inoculation exposures”. Now there were some problems with the study design which they admitted to including that, “the analyses were limited by incomplete reporting or recall of information by patients. And, because of the retrospective nature of the study, we were unable to obtain highly detailed data”.
However, even allowing some wriggle room for them here, the inconsistencies go further still. Firstly, no one in the US incident died from the disease which is said to have a 10% fatality rate in Africa. No doubt, the inconsistent lethality rates will be attributed to different “variants”, but there can’t be variants of something that doesn’t exist.
There were few images available of the skin lesions that were reported in the 2003 incident but two of the US cases are depicted below and an image from a monkeypox case in Africa is shown for comparison. The reader can make up their own mind but those skin reactions do not look remotely comparable to us.
Next, the CDC claim that, “the natural reservoir of monkeypox remains unknown. However, African rodents and non-human primates (like monkeys) may harbor the virus and infect people” – in other words it’s all rather vague and remains an unproven hypothesis. Now, obviously some people became unwell in the US in 2003 but with the viral theory we are supposed to believe that it jumped from some prairie dogs to some humans and the latter became infected with the alleged virus…but then no human could pass it on to another human. The theory falls flat – a virus needs to spread, if it can’t spread, it’s dead and thus it’s not a virus. And the historical patterns of alleged monkeypox virus outbreaks make no sense – why did it pass to these people so easily and yet it can go a decade between alleged “outbreaks”?
Unfortunately, the 2003 incident was investigated as though the viral contagion theory had already been established and other explanations were ignored. If people were allegedly getting sick from these African rodents, wouldn’t it be a good idea to check the animals for other toxicities, particularly in their faeces and also for any ticks or parasites? We did note another reference state that with regards to the US cases, “many of the people had initial and satellite lesions on palms, soles, and extremities”. However, according to the CDC, monkeypox usually starts on the face so the clinical picture in the US cases was not consistent with cases that are typically described in Africa.
In any case, a review of the scientific evidence revealed that with regards to monkeypox: (a) there is no evidence of a physical particle that meets the definition of a virus, (b) there is no evidence of anything transmitting between humans, and (c) there is no way to confirm a diagnosis of monkeypox unless you believe in clinically-unvalidated tests such as the PCR kits that have been produced. In other words, if we see a monkeypox “pandemic” that is used as an excuse to role out more globalist terrorism, it will be on the back of another PCR pandemic, not one that has any basis in nature.
For those of you wanting to explore more problems with the various monkeypox claims, Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy has written a couple of interesting commentaries. The first article is, “Was Smallpox Really Eradicated?”, which among other things deals with the convenient emergence of monkeypox while smallpox was apparently being eradicated. The second article is, “Did William Heberden Distinguish Chickenpox From Smallpox in 1767?” This outlines the fact that the pox conditions are not as readily distinguishable from each other as the text books suggest and appear to relate more to the severity of a similar disease process. You can also watch our video, “Chickenpox Parties and Varicella Zoster Virus?” to see why there is no evidence of a virus in that related condition either.
From the perspective of terrain theory it is a fundamental mistake to attribute a person’s illness to a supposed virus, as the subsequent “treatments” don’t address the underlying issues. If someone is unwell, then they are usually deficient in nutrients and need to restore balance, or they have been exposed to environmental toxins and need to help the body detoxify. Wars against alleged pathogens that involve treating everyone the same way with civil rights restrictions and vaccines are certainly not about heath. It is good to see more people waking up to the COVID-19 fraud so there is hope that a monkeypox scamdemic, if attempted, will bring even more light to the situation. As always, your best health is in your own hands, not in the hands of a globalist cult and their cronies.
If you have been outsourcing your health, there has never been a better time to free yourself from the virus fear narrative and begin manifesting your full potential instead.
For anyone who thinks the federal government is created to solve your problems, be they financial or health-related, marital or parental, think again! People have grown complacent when federal dictates, mandates, or Acts are acceptable as the Rule of Law to be followed without question where you live.
In his article, There is No Federal Solution, author Lawrence Vance sets the broken record straight on the differences in purpose between state government and federal government:
Biden then surprisingly said that “there is no federal solution” to the COVID-19 pandemic and declared that it “gets solved at the state level,” before he boarded a helicopter and departed for his home state of Delaware.
The federal government wants you to believe that an entity, such as itself, can send a check in the mail and draft the Save America Act to create peace, prosperity, and health for all. For those who fell for the last Act, there is another Act coming, unless you can tell an Act from CoroNOvirus Reality. First know that the federal government is set up only to regulate commerce across state lines. Alternatively, it is State governments that regulate what happens to people within their state boundaries.
Federal Overreach
Through federal Acts, the federal government steers people into a confused herd called “The Public,” and uses terms such as “Public Health,” to control and regulate people as commodities.
In reality, there is no such thing as “Public Health.” Public Health does not exist outside of individual health. You cannot wear a life jacket to keep others afloat. So to consent to “Public Health mandates” is to give up bodily autonomy in exchange for “Public Rights” (i.e., Children’s rights, Gay rights, Parent rights, Women’s rights) granted by the State. State Rights can be modified, suspended, and revoked. Therefore, they are not Rights at all. Rights come from the Creator. They are inborn. See how the state of California revoked all vaccine-related exemptions.
Beware of ALL Federal Acts, old and new, naughty and NICE. If there is a federal Act, there are also multiple loopholes called exemptions that hold “the public” to the grindstone, while allowing whole industries to ignore the Act to do as they please. By the looks of it, federal Acts appear to do the opposite of what they claim to do. In other words, “Its all an Act, folks.”
From the first Act, passed in 1784, to the latest draft government Act, ALL Acts appear to be an extension of The CIRCUS Act. Yet, more than 30,000 statutes have been enacted since 1789. From the people’s perspective, success rates are dismal thanks to exceptions to every Act. A few examples include:
The US PATRIOT Act of 2001 and US Patriot and Reauthorization Act of 2005 “to unite and strengthen America,” with exemptions to banking agencies which serve to divide and weaken America.
The PREP Act of 2005, allows government to bypass Rights and Freedom. The DHHS Amended Version authorizes an increased workforce to administer COVID (experimental) vaccines. And The PREP Act 2022 – limits liability for COVID countermeasures.
In his article, Lawrence Vance shares founding father, James Madison,’s essay on the functions of state and federal governments: Federalist Essay No. 45 –
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.
The Federalist No. 46;
The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.
It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former.
Americans have neglected their duties to ensure that federal powers remain in check. As a result, federal government has assumed and subsumed powers it was never delegated. The United States was established as a federal system of government where the states, through the Constitution, granted a limited number of powers to a central government — not the other way around.
A Real Solution
If reading any federal Act, use it as an educational tool. Does the Act do the opposite of its intended purpose? Are these Acts distractions for other crimes, international crimes against humanity? Do you need to be saved by your government?
Do you need to be saved from your government?
As a first step to forming a real solution, it is important to understand the federal language of legalease, which is written, by design, to confuse. By taking the Public out of “Public Health,” we can begin to wake up to the truth about the governmental system, and the truth of who we are as humans. We can then begin the process to know how to see through the federal Acts to reclaim responsibility on an individual level in our own states where we live.
The picture above is of a sign outside a performing arts theater in Santa Barbara, California. Looks like everyone is welcome. Well, not really. It turns out that if you’re not “vaccinated” you’re not welcome. If you haven’t arrived at the ticket booth with ID and proof of being injected with two doses of an emergency use experimental gene treatment for “covid 19” — a treatment which has no efficacy and is associated with millions of serious injuries and deaths — this #LoveForAll message doesn’t actually apply to you. If you’re not “vaccinated” the only way you can get into the theater now is if you have taken a test proving you don’t have the plague. Don’t want a PCR swab up your nose? Too late for an antigen test? Tough luck. This rainbow venue welcomes EVERYONE, except for carriers of the plague.
“Who doesn’t love LOVE?” Apparently, the state of North Carolina doesn’t. The founder of Insist On Love For All which makes and sells the $60 sign displayed above, took a trip to Asheville, North Carolina a few years ago and was impressed by signs “embracing diversity.” Says Insist On Love’s founder,
shop owners started displaying these signs over two years ago [2018] to encourage tourism following the passage of the controversial House Bill 2 in North Carolina, which requires certain public bathrooms to be designated for use by males or females based on their biological sex. “The signs in Asheville moved me. Love is the only weapon we can use to fight hate . . . “
In this case, “hate” was displayed by 1) the idea that men and women should have separate bathrooms, 2) the idea that men (or men who think they’re women) don’t have a right to walk into women’s bathrooms, and vice versa, 3) the fact that other sexes besides male and female have not been acknowledged, and 4) the fact that the state of North Carolina thus discriminated against all those who don’t have male/female privilege. There is also the ‘hate’ involved in the unwillingness of North Carolina to provide separate bathrooms for a theoretically unlimited number of other genders. Unless #LoveForAll is somehow a front for a consortium of plumbing supply companies (this would actually be comforting news), there is nothing left for us to conclude but that ‘love’, as the term is being used here, is indeed a weapon, not to fight hate, but to fight reason. ‘Love’ is now a buzzword in a well-established “diversity and inclusion” narrative sent down from academic critical theory to the progressive left to the mainstream media to the culture at large. Has there ever been a time when good things have been so twisted into their opposite? This is not about love or inclusion. This is shallow virtue signaling by people who have been swallowed up by a political machine designed to turn cultural norms upside down, not for the purpose of bringing needed change, but for the purpose of creating chaos and a loss of rationality, after which new supposed norms can just be lifted into place.
“All sexual orientations”, cited in the sign, is also a topic at the current May 22-28 Davos forum, where “resilience through equity” and “inclusivity” for the “LGBTQI+ community” is on the formal agenda. Do the corporate bosses, social engineers, and preening politicians at this forum really care about equality, or are they just using the brand to create the upheaval necessary to bring in fantastic profits and power? The answer is obvious. The agenda is exclusion, not inclusion; fascism, not liberalism. Their plan is for the majority of humanity, gay or straight, to be excluded from their rights, autonomy, and independence, while the bosses enjoy their wealth and slave labor. Like #LoveForAll, everyone is welcome in the Great Reset except those who believe there are only two sexes — that is, just about everybody since the beginning of human history. Everyone is welcome in virtue-signaling countries, corporations, and institutions except those who choose not to accept a medical intervention also never heard of before in human history — that of altering the human genome on the pretext of defeating a virus. In other words, everyone is welcome except those who have chosen not to go insane. The insanity is called wokeness. Wokeness is nothing but a tool being used to effect a very ugly and very ambitious power grab. When the job is done, everyone duped into thinking they were fighting for the victims of oppression and equality for all will be swatted away like flies.
The would-be gods at Davos brought us their own version of the Apocalypse — plague, war, famine, and death became covid, Ukraine, food shortages, and vaccines. Do such people even remotely care about racial prejudice and gender dysphoria? No. They either massively exploited or completely made up these issues to create disorder. Indeed, their eugenicist predecessors had certain, ahem, opinions about people with disabilities, sexual deviants, and racial groups which they know can’t be mentioned in polite society today. So they went the other way. Not believing in God, the Davos elite see themselves as gods. The further this delusion takes them, the harder they will fall. There will also come a time of reckoning for the collaborators in this program — those who, wittingly or not, aided this monstrosity. Galling self-righteousness, ignorance, and hypocrisy were the least of the crimes in this class. The ones higher up — those who made the plans, gave the orders, and knew what they were doing — face a reckoning that perhaps we do not have words for. It may be a regular new round of guillotining such as we have seen before in history. Or it may be that this time wickedness has gone so far it will have to be ended forever. Prospects for the Davos crew do not look good.
Richard Hugus is the founder of Cape Cod Against Medical Mandates. “We are residents of Cape Cod, Massachusetts who support freedom of choice in all matters having to do with our own and our childrens’ health.” Connect with them here.
“Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched
with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct
diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and
prevented by a toxic vaccine.
It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.”
The headline of this article has become a battle cry among some “alternative journalists,” activists, lawyers, and doctors.
As my readers know, I’ve devoted considerable space, over the past two years, to presenting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a scientific fairy tale, a con, and the virus doesn’t exist.
So when I hear this battle cry, I’m motivated to mention a few significant points.
Let me start by countering the claim that debating the existence of the virus is wasting time.
Here’s a shocker. A person can do more than one thing at the same time. For example, he can expose/oppose the toxic vaccine. He can expose the murderous COVID treatments (ventilators, sedatives, antiviral drugs). He can expose using simple flu-like illness to create fraudulent COVID case numbers.
And he can ALSO expose the fact that the virus has never been isolated (discovered) or sequenced.
So highlighting the non-existence of the virus doesn’t rule out dealing with other vital concerns.
This may come as a surprise, but it’s even possible to go to court to challenge a vaccine mandate, while ALSO arguing elsewhere that the virus doesn’t exist. I know. Amazing, right?
Those alarmed by “the virus doesn’t exist” also say: making that statement leaves us open to being called whackos, and leaves us unable to convince people that all our other criticisms of the pandemic are true.
I would counter that in two ways. Millions of people already believe we’re whackos, even those of us who take a sacred blood oath that the virus is real.
And second, people going against the grain, when their vital issue is still in the budding stage, are always called nuts. Trust me, there was a time when criticizing vaccines made people look like total whackos in the eyes of the general public—and it took decades of fighting the consensus to bring that criticism into the open, where many people saw the truth about jabs.
Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and prevented by a toxic vaccine.
It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.
Therefore, the very real question about the existence of viruses in general is more than a weird preoccupation.
Next, those who claim, “OF COURSE viruses exist,” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They’re merely PARROTING what they learned in school or what researchers baldly claim in studies.
“Well, all virologists can’t be wrong.”
Yes, Virginia, they can all be wrong. Just as vaccinologists can all be wrong about “the remarkable safety and efficacy of vaccines.”
Some of the OF COURSE VIRUSES EXIST people are new to the way blogs and videos work. They’ve never encountered commenters in any great numbers before. So when a few dozen committed people suddenly tell them they should examine their premises more carefully and consider what really goes on in virology labs, these OF COURSE people are annoyed and irritated. They don’t like being challenged on basic issues. They don’t like feeling that the floor might suddenly shift under their feet. So they turn on their arrogance machines.
So be it.
The issue isn’t going away. Nor should it.
Despite growing digital censorship, the internet is still the Wild West in certain respects. People are going to say THE VIRUS DOESN’T EXIST, and VIRUSES DON’T EXIST.
And foundations will shake.
Foundations of the medical cartel, and foundations underlying people’s cherished assumptions.
In any area of human life, there are conflicts between “this is strategy” and “this is the truth.” There always will be.
Trying to shortchange the truth or casually say the truth is a lie doesn’t work.
NO ONE who is reading this article has ever been in a virology lab and witnessed the step by step process of “discovering a new virus.” I find that stunning. And yet all sorts of people are quite ready to assert with great finality that they know all about isolating viruses.
If by chance, someone reading this article HAS actually been in a lab and “discovered a virus,” you can bet your bottom dollar he won’t let you or me in there with a full film crew and our outlier experts asking very pointed questions about each “scientific” move he makes, as he “isolates a virus.”
To which somebody might reply: “Well, I’ve never seen a car being made in a factory, but I drive one with full confidence.”
Yes, but when the “virus discovered in a lab” results in you or someone you love being dosed with a drug or vaccine that maims you or kills your family member, you damn well should want to get into “that factory where the car is made.”
But you can’t. They won’t let you…
…Despite the fact that, as I’ve documented many times, the US medical system kills, by a very conservative estimate, 225,000 people a year, or 2.25 million people per decade. [0]
Chew on THAT for a while.
Here is one of my articles on the subject of virus isolation:
The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”
But what if the virus doesn’t exist?
People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.
“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”
I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.
I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].
First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.
The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. Human cells, monkey cells, antibiotics, other chemicals, random genetic material.
The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup, because they’re dropped a mucus sample from a patient in the soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.
They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.
There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.
Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”
Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:
STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”
KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”
STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”
KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”
STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”
KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”
STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”
KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”
KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”
STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”
STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”
KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”
STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”
—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—
My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.
Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.
And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists, and you don’t have an isolated specimen of it?
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 375 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?
“I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity,” Trump said. “Without a major event where people pull together, that’s hard to do. But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing.” – Donald Trump, Jan 30th 2018
By April of 2020, within two years of Donald Trump’s prophetic message, millions of people had bowed the government’s request to “unite” by “social distancing,” under a “Live Exercise” revealed by Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. About half of the world’s population agreed to some form of lockdown. More than 3.9 billion people in more than 90 countries had been asked or ordered to stay at home by their governments. And they did.
In unison, millions donned a ritual mask to protect themselves against an invisible enemy. The effect was dubbed virtue signaling – an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media. How did so many people fall into lock-step to give up their freedom when they had previously been openly skeptical of government ethics and policies?
Social Engineering
The earliest social experiments had been successful using the tried-and true strategy of The Hegelian Dialectic: Problem • Reaction • Solution. Introduce a Problem and roll out the Solution! Past experiments included “The New Deal” under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, and “Great Society” under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. Then came the “financially sound” government programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Money and politics aside, why trust a government’s blanket medical solution when it comes to health, a personal responsibility?
If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it. – Edward Bernays
After three years of government-induced COVID, there is still no approved government Solution to the COVID Problem because the FDA-approved vaccine is still not officially available to anyone, and may never be. Nonetheless, the Live Exercise of testing, tracking, experimentation, and restrictions, continues unabated.
While vaccine makers, such as Pfizer, insisted they need 75 years of data before releasing results to the public, the “adverse events” of the public subjects are being tracked and published in medical journals, even if not widely reported.
In any true experiment, there are two groups: the cases and the controls. All subjects who consented, received vaccine lots coded by color and number. Did they receive a vaccine with a Red cap or blue cap? Did they receive saline solution or the COVID spike protein? Did they go from a “fully vaccinated” to “double boosted? Did they opt out?
Let The Experiment Continue!
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, even if the subject matter, a spike protein, has never been officially isolated, or seen with the naked eye. As of this writing, there is no proof the cause of COVID exists.
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted… — CDC 2109 document
Even without proof, millions of people eagerly jumped aboard The Spike Protein Train to protect themselves with a mask, based on an image of a virus they believed in.
Then, by design, came the vaccines. A vaccine has always been the response to a government-declared pandemic. Recall the 1976 Swine Flu and the 1918 Spanish Flu? [See The Making of a Pandemic for more information]. Vaccine deployment is followed by the damage reports.
In any Live Exercise or Experiment, scientists cannot be expected to have any answers now, or possibly ever. Meanwhile, new symptoms to experimental mRNA vaccines create new, “rare” medical diagnoses. A quick search of Pubmed quickly shows that symptoms are the opposite of rare.
With the introduction of vaccines came the subsequent introduction of Vaccine Inflammatory Syndromes. From Autoimmune Inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants,(ASIA), to Post Vaccination Inflammatory Syndrome (PVIS), and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS), all related acronyms describe one cause: Vaccine toxicity.
Since the deployment of COVID injections, the new COVID is Long COVID, ranging from back pain to sleep and digestive disorders, that go beyond 6 months. Symptoms also include postural tachycardia syndrome or POTS.
POTS affects the autonomic nervous system, or the parasympathetic nervous system that regulates voluntary and involuntary actions, as well as thinking, communication, and memory. These symptoms have been long studied as conditions of vaccine injury. Therefore, the injected spike proteins that bring on autoimmune-mediated endothelial injuries can also lead to POTS, especially in the lungs, as evidenced by this study in Clin Auton Res.
Simply go to the VAERS database to search and download the data collected from vaccine-induced injuries the government lists on its own website. VAERS data released by the CDC included a total of 7oo,ooo adverse event reports from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 15,386 deaths between December 14, 2020, and September 17, 2021. Vaccine-injured patients become lifelong customers of pharmaceutical treatments, with doctors and scientists knowing that many will never return to their normal lifestyles.
All patients were treated with non-pharmacologic therapies, and most required pharmacologic therapies. Six to 8 months after COVID-19, 17 (85%) patients had residual autonomic symptoms, with 12 (60%) unable to return to work.
Published mRNA Vaccine Toxicity Studies: Dizziness
Whether by case study, small study, epidemiological study, or case-control study, all studies are ongoing and accumulating. Searching Pubmed by “dizziness or vertigo” and “COVID vaccine” and find dozens of studies. Here are a few:
Among all the symptoms reported, localized pain, generalized weakness, headache, myalgia, chills, fever, nausea, joint pains, sweating, localized swelling at the injection site, dizziness, itching, rash, decreased appetite, muscle spasm, decreased sleep quality, and brain fogging were the most commonly reported symptoms (in descending order of occurrence). Most of the symptoms reported were nonlife threatening.
Vestibular neuritis (VN) is an acute vestibular syndrome that causes acute and spontaneous vertigo due to unilateral vestibular deafferentiation, leading to nausea or vomiting and unsteadiness that can last from days to weeks. Reactivation of latent type 1 herpes simplex virus, autoimmune disorders, and microvascular ischemia are hypothesized to be etiologies.
We reported for the first time a case of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) that developed after the first dose of inactivated virus vaccine for COVID-19. The patient developed mild fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and cough after receiving the first dose of inactivated virus vaccine. Two months later, she experienced dizziness and unsteady walking. MRI scanning of the brain revealed lesions in area postrema and bilateral hypothalamus, typical for NMOSD. Serum antibodies for AQP4, ANA, SSA, SSB, Ro-52, and p-ANCA were positive. The patient was diagnosed as AQP4-positive NMOSD with coexisting systemic autoimmunity.
The most frequently reported adverse events were headache, myalgia, and dizziness. Of the 835 reported deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, 2 vaccine-related deaths were confirmed.
A 67-year-old man who was medicated for hypertension and diabetes was admitted complaining of fever, maculopapular rash, diarrhea, headache, chills, and dizziness 6 days after the first vaccination of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Korea. The COVID-19 test was negative but with low blood pressure, leukocytosis, skin rash, pulmonary edema, and increased inflammation markers. His lab findings and clinical course were consistent with those of MIS after COVID-19 vaccination.
The 9 patients had an evoked nystagmus pathognomonic for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo; in the remaining 17 cases, peripheral vestibular dysfunction could be excluded and central disorder may be suggested. Due to the prevalence of nystagmus of non-peripheral origin, a central nervous system involvement could not be excluded.
38% mild side effects were observed from vaccination. Following were the general side-effects: myalgia (18.2%), the feeling of sickness (16%), fever (15.6%), dizziness (7.8%), joint pain (7.4%), chills (4.8%), and flu (4.8%). Following were the common neurological side-effects reported: headache (18.2%), fatigue (16.5%), muscle pain (16%), numbness/tingling (3%), and migraine (2.6%). Nausea and diarrhoea were reported in only 3.5% of respondents.
The three most frequent AEFI recorded were vagal response (30%), anxiety reaction (24%) and dizziness (21%). AEFI were more frequently observed among women [aOR= 2.24 (95%CI= 2.00 – 2.50)], and those with at least one previous disease [aOR= 1.47 (95%CI= 1.22-1.76)].
The most common AEFI was pain/tenderness at the injection site experienced by 59.3% of those who experienced any AEFI followed by headache/dizziness (35.3%), itching/rashes at the injection site (8.1%), nausea/vomiting (5.8%) and fever/chills (4.7%).
The patient was a health care worker, aged 34-year old. Past medical history was unremarkable and had not used heparin. Over the next couple of days after the vaccination, he reported headache, nausea, and dizziness as well as abdominal pain. His general status and the laboratories studies deteriorate quickly by increasing liver enzymes and severe coagulopathy. Clinically he had presented acute hepatic failure. He had been received blood products, prednisolone pulse along with broad antibiotics without benefit. He died on the sixth day.
Herein, we describe a 48 years old man presenting with rapidly progressive cognitive decline and hyponatremia diagnosed with anti LGI1 AE, occurring shortly after the second dose of mRNA COVID -19 vaccine and possibly representing a severe adverse event related to the vaccination.
Are we living out a medical experiment or social/behavioral experiment?
Has the world been Trumped?
The government forever claims that people must plan for rising healthcare costs. In 2019, U.S. medical health spending increased by 4.6% to $3.8 trillion or $11,582 per person. If the U.S. medical system is the best in the world then shouldn’t the numbers be doing down?
Whether the crisis is called The Opioid Epidemic or The COVID Pandemic, it is a Crisis of Humanity. The conclusion is always the same when the requirement for more dollars and more research takes precedence over individual healing and freedom from government tyranny:
GREENWICH, CT — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has acknowledged the controversy within his own community over whether SARS-CoV-2 physically exists, and whether any viruses exist, or make people sick. He made the comments at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, 2022.
Kennedy said that the issue erupts regularly on the email discussion list of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the vaccine safety and education organization that he founded in 2016.
“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments” about how viruses allegedly don’t exist, Kennedy said in his remarks. “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
He made the remarks in reply to a question about why no government can produce evidence of having a sample of SARS-CoV-2 taken from a patient, rather than artificially created using a computer model.
Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of Pres. John F. Kennedy, is considered one of the leading voices in the international movement against covid-related mandates, lockdowns and safety issues over covid injections. It is the first time he has publicly commented on the virus-existence issue.
Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically
isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced.
What is Being Used to Prime the Covid Test?
The matter of whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus physically exists has dual significance. The obvious issue is that if there is not a virus, what then is making people sick? And what are they being vaccinated against?
Second, and less obvious: If the government cannot prove that it has a sample of natural SARS-CoV-2, then what is being used to prime the PCR test that is supposed to match and find the genetic code of an actual virus in a patient?
Scientists on all sides of the issue agree that viral particles have not been physically isolated (with purified samples) and then sequenced. Rather, hypothetical viruses are assembled from mixed biological samples, and these “in silico genomes” are then assumed to not only exist in nature but come from inside a pathogenic particle. They have many names: “mimicked human specimens” and “contrived viruses” (in the words of the CDC); or “synthetic nucleotide technology” (in the words words of the authors of the WHO test for covid).
One virologist told me in July 2020 that SARS-C0V- 2 was being assembled “like pages from a book,” necessary because no natural virus particle was available to sequence. The problem is that nobody has demonstrated these pages actually belong to the proposed book.
Covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models —
but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else (including
the testing process itself).
CDC document pertaining to detection limits in the CDC “covid” test, admitting that
purified isolates of SARS-CoV-2 are not available. Yet this long, technical paragraph
admits something else: how they go about making their contrived virus (mimicked human
specimen), rather than sequencing actual virus. Were viruses available to anyone, it would
be the federal government of the United States. What they are admitting is that the virus
has not been isolated or purified; the writer admits outright that they are using made-up
samples that mimic clinical specimens. The technical notes describe the manufacturing
process for in silico sequences that are used in the “covid” test. The notes make reference
to MN908947, a synthetic, claimed, partial metagenomic transcript (not actual sequencing)
of the “N-gene” — which was later abandoned in its entirety in the Corman-Drosten assay.
Metagenomics: The Creation of Hypothetical Sequences
These hypothetical sequences are developed using technology called metageonomics — without any reference to actual purified suspected viruses. This artificial-intelligence process assembles a hypothetical “virus” from information gathered either from a crude human body fluid sample, or by making a “cell culture” experiment by mixing the fluid with monkey cells, cervical cancer cells, fetal calf serum, antibiotics and other poisons. In all cases where covid is concerned, scientists have used the latter. Because there is no actual virus available as a reference, there is no way to verify if the proposed sequences are valid. They are all theoretical, and no two are alike.
Said another way, in the absence of a real virus specimen, covid tests look for sequences attributed to the “virus” merely via computer models — but these “found” sequences almost always originate from somewhere else. And “positive” results can emerge from nearly anywhere, including the testing process itself). Yet if someone “tests positive” for one of these claimed viral sequences, they are said to be “infected” with SARS-CoV-2.
Previously, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that the polymerase chain reaction has had a 100% false positive rate and has caused several widely-documented “false epidemics.”
The claimed existence, transmissibility and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 were used to declare a global pandemic that by March 31, 2020 had 4.5 billion people around the world living under a stay-at-home order or house arrest.
“On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And
other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them
and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Seeking Documents from Governments, Agencies and Institutions
At a Q-and-A session at a fundraising event here Sunday, April 24, I asked Kennedy about the work of Christine Massey in the Toronto area, a statistician who is coordinating the worldwide effort to officially query governments, agencies and institutions about whether they have a sample of the claimed virus taken from a human.
“Christine Massey in Toronto has amassed 182 responses under various Freedom of Information Law requests from institutions, provincial state, and federal, national governments, which all say that no one has a sample of SARS CoV-2 taken from a human. Would you please comment on that?”
Kennedy replied: “On our list, there’s a number of people who make those kinds of arguments. And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence. I actually saw an exchange yesterday, where somebody made that exact statement and then 10 people jumped on him on with examples, of where that’s not true.”
The issue over the nature and existence of viruses represents the single biggest split in the covid-truth and anti-mandates movements. I first documented this divide in May of 2020.
“RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science?
When did he declare incompetence with simple logic?” — Christine Massey, statistician and coordinator of the virus FOIA project
‘I Am Amused Reading These Exchanges’
He added: “I am kind of amused reading the exchanges, and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like viruses are real.”
But Kennedy answered a different question than the one I asked. I did not present him with an argument, or ask him whether he thought viruses were real. He admits that he uses a kind of mob rule to make up his mind over critical scientific issues when he says, “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
Reading Kennedy’s response, Christine Massey said, “RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science? When did he declare incompetence with simple logic? And why is a man dedicated to protecting children from medical harm uninterested in one of the greatest medical frauds of all time?”
She also demanded the data from the 10 people on Kennedy’s list who claimed to prove that the virus had been isolated.
So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone
have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than
5 million people worldwide.
Asked About a Legal Issue — Not Scientific
Kennedy said he believed viruses exist, but I did not ask him about that. Rather, I presented him with a legal issue, asking him to comment about how someone well-known and established in covid truth circles over the past two years has collected 182 responses from top-level government agencies and institutions, all saying they do not have a sample of SARS-CoV-2 extracted from a human host.
So far, no governments have produced a scientific paper saying that they or anyone have such a sample, despite the claim that a contagious virus has killed more than 5 million people worldwide.
I followed up and said to him, “The governments have said they don’t have a sample.”
Kennedy, an attorney, responded: “Freedom Information Laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer specific questions. What they do is, the Freedom of Information Laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So if you are telling the government, ‘I want you to verify these, there are documents’, they say, listen there’s nothing to verify it. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing.”
So far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as
well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the
182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.
‘Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests’
Massey replied to this in an email: “It appears that Kennedy hasn’t read any of my records requests. I didn’t ask governments to ‘do science’ or answer ‘specific questions’. All of my requests have been for studies/reports in the possession, custody or control of an institution.”
I asked Massey how she words her letters seeking documentation of a sample of the claimed virus from a human host.
She provided this example of what she is seeking, and what so far all governments she has queried deny having:
“All studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and/or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) describing the purification of any “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”, including any alleged “variants” i.e. “B.1.1.7”, “B.1.351”, “P.1”) (for example: via filtration, ultracentrifugation and chromatography), directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells; fetal bovine serum).”
And so far all have said no such records exist. This includes the U.S. CDC and the FDA, as well as Health Canada and the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK. None of the 182 agencies and governments queried have replied in the affirmative.
“It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary
policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping
mandates.” — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
‘No Records Exist’ is an Important Response
Getting a “no records exist” reply is common, and seeking such a reply is a common strategy for establishing that there has not actually been a regulatory process for a policy issue. It is one of the most important uses of open records laws.
In late 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYS-DOH) responded to an open records request saying it had no studies to prove that masks are safe or effective at preventing the spread of viruses or other diseases. For that same kind of “sorry no documents” FOIL reply, Kennedy was much more outspoken.
At the time, he wrote to his Instagram followers, “It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates. This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process.”
Previously, he had remained agnostic on the issue of masks and whether masks work. He finally took a position in response
New York State saying it had absolutely no data about whether masks are safe or effective.
“It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were
the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t.” — Prof. Mark Crispin Miller
“They did not isolate a virus,” Wallach said. “The reason it’s so confusing for people is that they claim to have done so in the titles of the key scientific papers, but if you read the methodology sections, it’s blatantly clear: they never isolated a virus. They never found anything. The evidence is overwhelming.”
He added: “I respect the importance of political leaders like RFK Jr. keeping an open tent, they have to. But at the same time, this is an issue that should be front and center for the world public, and nobody should be repeating this dogma about the existence of viruses.”
Mark Crispin Miller, professor of communication at New York University, said, “It’s a needlessly divisive issue, with people screaming, on both sides, as if it were the key to this whole thing — which it isn’t. What will make the whole narrative collapse is not the argument that there are no viruses, but the recognition that the authorities we’ve all been listening to — the medical establishment, Big Pharma, Academia, the media et al. — are malign, and intent on killing us.
“That’s it. Everything else is a distraction. Whether the ravages of COVID-19 have been exaggerated, or whether there’s no virus there at all, is ultimately beside the point. And since Bobby’s role is in large part political, as he attempts to keep this movement in one piece, his disinclination to take sides here ought to be respected.”
“Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been
scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.” — Dr. Kevin Corbett, expert in diagnostic testing
‘This was what happened with HIV’
Dr. Kevin Corbett did his doctoral work on diagnostic testing associated with HIV and AIDS, including research into the PCR. He said this week that the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and associated tests, “Are all based on in-silico modeled synthetic phenomena, which has never been scientifically proven as coming from an actual virus.
“This was what happened with ‘HIV’, which The Perth Group of scientists [in the 1990s] first proved was never isolated or purified. Those powerful voices like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who sadly ignore this issue, are badly misguided, because they fail to address this fundamental caveat in ‘covid science’.”
Corbett cautioned, “Their efforts will only act to further socially embed the popular hysteria of there being a contagion, and therefore will enable further public health mandates forcing masks, social distancing and the latest covid killshot.”
Last November, 2021, news reports threatened that if people who die of COVID were not vaccinated, their families may not get death benefits they would otherwise have received.
If the only guarantee in life is death, then at least there is life insurance, right?
Wrong! Fast forward to the Post-COVID Era, and the fallout from Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) vaccines. According to Forbes Magazine, if today you choose to receive a COVID-19 injection, it could prevent you from receiving a death benefit from your life insurance.
Say what?
No More Death Benefit
According to an article by Brain Peckford, a recent post-Covid vaccine death in France was ruled to be “a suicide” by a judge, due to the experimental nature of the “vaccine.” The insurance company refused to pay. No death benefit. The article reads:
A wealthy elderly man with a high value Life Insurance policy to the amount of millions of euros… dies from the covid jab. His death as a consequence of being jabbed is not disputed by the doctors, nor his life insurers. The Insurance company refused to pay the policy, citing that the taking of experimental drugs, treatments, etc., is excluded from the policy. The family takes the insurance company to court and they have just lost the case.
The judge stated, “the experimental vaccine side effects are publicised and the deceased could not claim not to have known about them when he voluntarily took the jab. There is no law or mandate in France which forced him to be jabbed. Therefore, his death is essentially suicide”.
Suicide is explicitly excluded from this particular policy and in fact from all life insurance policies in general.
This has been the finding of a major western world court system and there is zero doubt that insurance companies world wide will cite this case as legal fact.
Therefore, if anyone ever challenges you on whether these jabs are experimental or not, and that neither the pharma companies, nor govts, nor anyone else but YOU are responsible for accepting them and if you die, legally you have committed suicide.
No insurance, no payouts, no refunds. You are on your own!
Listen to Dr. Pierre describe the same story and explain the view of the American Council of Life Insurers; that insurance companies may deny payment of death benefit if death results from the experimental COVID injection.
How could this possibly be? One moment the experimental vaccine and the boosters protect you against COVID, but the next moment they do not? One moment you are insured with the injection, but the next moment, you are not? As the French say, “C’est la vie. C’est la guerre!” Meaning? Such is life! That’s war. It can’t be helped!
Changing Narratives
Changing narratives happen by design. Those who own the narrative control the outcome. Moreover, in America, under the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the media is free to legally propagandize Americans. The EUA vaccines, once advertised to “save lives by preventing deaths” from COVID-19 coronavirus infections, are now “suicidal.”
In May 2021 it was a different story. According to the American Council of Life Insurers, life insurers could not deny a death benefit because the deceased was vaccinated against COVID-19:
A social media post appears to be behind the spread of entirely false information, suggesting a COVID-19 vaccine could be a factor a life insurer considers in the claims-paying process. The fact is that life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim. Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them. Policyholders should rest assured that nothing has changed in the claims-paying process as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations.
But good propaganda shifts with the winds. Today’s America is not yesterday’s America. America has been hijacked, morally corrupted, debauched, and sold to the highest bidder.
In fact, if you received the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, you received a vaccine deemed “emergency use authorization” (EUA) from the FDA. No EUA injections are FDA-approved vaccines. Further, the first injections deployed were labelled “experimental.” Thus, participants who consented, without proper Informed Consent, became subjects in an ongoing clinical study. Note: Life insurance companies do not cover experiments.
In other news, if you are unvaccinated and hospitalized, insurance may not pay either. A news release from the University of Michigan states:
“Many insurers claim that it is justified to charge patients for COVID-19 hospitalizations now that COVID-19 vaccines are widely available,” said lead author Kao-Ping Chua, M.D., Ph.D., a health policy researcher and pediatrician at Michigan Medicine and the Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation Research Center. “However, some people hospitalized for COVID-19 aren’t eligible for vaccines, such as young children, while others are vaccinated patients who experienced a severe breakthrough infection. Our study suggests these patients could substantial bills.”
To recap: if you are 1) Unvaccinated and hospitalized, or 2) vaccinated pre-death, then life Insurance does not pay what you might expect, if at all.
The Double-edged Sword
Read the article Dissolving a Pandemic of Fear, to understand that this trend first began in distant lands during the summer of 2021 with unusual side effects to the globally-deployed experimental vaccines:
Because of the uncertainties from unauthorized tests and experimental vaccines, insurance companies in India and Korea are limiting what they will cover if someone becomes sick from the COVID injections:
Contrary to popular perception, existing health insurance policies are unlikely to cover the cost of vaccination and adverse reactions, if any. Only policies designed purely for the COVID vaccination process — there is none at the moment — will cover the costs.
If you consented to an EUA injection, your life insurance policy has changed. You can’t win for losing, and you can’t claim your life insurance for dying. Something that cuts both ways is known as a double-edged sword.
Justice Through the Courts?
The federal PREP Act and CARES Act prevent practically all civil litigation, ranging from COVID “vaccines” to “tests,” to doctors/pharmacists/nurses. All have blanket civil (but not criminal) protections. All prosecutions are 100.0% discretionary, meaning that even if one admits to a criminal (COVID) act, no private citizen has the power to prosecute any alleged criminal act. That power rests solely with the district attorney and attorney generals — not citizens.
What does this mean? ALL prosecutions are political. In other words, The ONLY way to legally challenge all the “COVID” treason is confined to CRIMINAL prosecutions. Evidence proving criminal fraud has been submitted to the appropriate authorities, and yet there have been no criminal prosecutions through the Department of Justice. Why not? Good question.
What about life insurance fraud? Can insurers be prosecuted in the courts if the Life Insurance Council COVID policy is against the policy holder?
In response to a FOIA request, a federal district judge recently ordered Pfizer Inc. to release 55,000 pages of documents each month, after Pfizer claimed it would not disclose any data for 75 years. That means all the Pfizer vaccine data should be made public by the end of September 2022, rather than the year 2097.
Yet, who is in charge of sifting through the flood of information? What are the consequences of learning the truth that was meant to be hidden? No one knows. What about the fact that government appears to be practicing medicine without a license? How could this possibly be?
Because the narrative is always written by those who control the pen, you must do your own research and captain your own ship. Call your insurance company directly. Ask an “expert” if getting the vaccine will affect your life insurance coverage in any way. Ask if future EUA jabs will affect your premiums or payouts.
Then ask yourself if paying those high insurance premiums is worth the outcome in The COVIDIAN Age, or if it is better to put your money elsewhere.
“The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica…
[….]
“What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice.”
virus, infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning “slimy liquid” or “poison.”
I have purposefully stayed away from the whole “SARS-COV-2” as a gain of function/bioweapon disinformation campaign as it is obvious to anyone who has ever read any “virus” paper, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” or any of these other invisible entities. At no point has any virologist ever properly purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a sick patient and then proven them pathogenic in a natural way. As this is a fact that is even admitted by virologists themselves, it should also be obvious that if they can not find the particles assumed to be “viruses” in nature, they can not tinker around and modify these fictional entities in a lab in order to create some sort of contagious bioweapon.
Somehow, this logic escapes many. Even though some have woken to the truth and accepted that “SARS-COV-2” does not exist in nature, they still believe that it must have been developed in a lab and unleashed upon the world in order to create a new contagious disease which is wrecking havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised. What they fail to realize is that there simply is no new disease and that none of the symptoms associated with “SARS-COV-2” are new, unique, or specific. There is zero proof of transmission and/or contagion beyond highly flawed epidemiological studies. There is no new “virus,” no new disease, and no contagious bioweapon. It is pure fiction based upon faulty cell culture and genomic experiments.
Before diving into the experimental evidence presented for gain of function studies, I figured it would be a good idea to get some background information on what exactly these kinds of studies entail first. From the October 2021 Nature article highlighted below, we learn that the gain of function concept earned widespread recognition in 2012 due to a pair of studies which both looked to tweak an avian influenza “virus” in order to make it transmissable by air between ferrets. Disregarding the contradictory fact that aerosol transmission is supposedly the way an upper respiratory “virus” is supposed to spread, many became concerned that this kind of work may eventually lead to the release of a super “virus” which could result in the next pandemic. These ferret studies were apparently pivotal with bringing virology into the gain of function field, even though it could be easily argued that virology has been performing these kinds of experiments throughout its existence.
The gain of function term refers to any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host. This is done by fiddling with cell culture material in a lab combined with genomic sequencing. They do this either by inserting genetic material into the cell culture or by way of animal models where the animal is said to be genetically altered in some way to be more susceptible to the “viral” material.
The article provides an example where mice were genetically modified to become susceptible to MERS. However, the mice did not become ill upon being challenged with the “virus.” Thus, the researchers resorted to passaging the “virus” between mice, which involved infecting a couple of mice, giving the “virus” two days to take hold, and then killing the mice and grinding up the lung tissue to inject into other mice. They repeated these steps at least 30 times which eventually made some mice sick. This process of culturing toxic material, injecting animals with the concoction, killing them and grinding up their remains, and then injecting this emulsified goop into other animals in an attenpt to make them sick is what GOF is all about. While this horrific process is getting recognized today, these kinds of experiments have been a staple of virology since the very beginning:
The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research
“The term first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza virus, using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets2,3. Many people were concerned that publishing the work would be tantamount to providing a recipe for a devastating pandemic, and in the years that followed, research funders, politicians and scientists debated whether such work required stricter oversight, lest someone accidentally or intentionally release a lab-created plague. Researchers around the world voluntarily paused some work, but the issue became particularly politicized in the United States.
US funding agencies, which also support research abroad, later imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research with pathogens while they worked out new protocols to assess the risks and benefits. But many of the regulatory discussions have taken place out of the public eye.
Now, gain-of-function research is once again centre stage, thanks to SARS-CoV-2 and a divisive debate about where it came from. Most virologists say that the coronavirus probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported. But a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out. They are demanding investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where related bat coronaviruses have been extensively studied, to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 could have accidentally leaked from the lab or crossed into humans during collection or storage of samples.”
“The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.
Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?
The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.”
“Animal research — although fraught with its own set of ethical quandaries — allows scientists to study how pathogens work and to test potential treatments, a necessary precursor to trials in people. That’s what Perlman and his collaborators had in mind when they set out to study the coronavirus responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012. They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS.
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells. So, the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4. The virus could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill. “Having a model of mild disease isn’t particularly helpful to understand why people get so sick,” says collaborator Paul McCray, a paediatric pulmonologist also at the University of Iowa.
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance virulence. The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the virus two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice. They did this repeatedly — 30 times9. By the end of two months, the virus had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells. In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly, says McCray. That’s GOF of a sort because the virus became better at causing disease. But adapting a pathogen to one animal in this way often limits its ability to infect others, says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.”
“With all the challenges inherent in GOF studies, why do them? Because, some virologists say, the viruses are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match. “We can either wait for something to arise, and then fight it, or we can anticipate that certain things will arise, and instead we can preemptively build our arsenals,” says Morrison. “That’s where gain-of-function research can come in handy.”
This next source is from 2015. The authors admit that virology is heavily reliant on gain or loss of function studies. They offer an alternative definition for GOF research which is any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes. Obviously, this definition leans far more into the genomics side of the equation. This is due to the claim that these kinds of studies are used by virologists in order to understand a “viruses” genetic make-up. It is stated that researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA. In other words, they mix genetic material from different sources, poison and/or kill lab animals by injecting them with this toxic soup, and then analyze the resulting mixture using computers so that they can claim that the generated model is a new creation. However, it is admitted that these kinds of mutations happen “naturally” with “viruses” every time a person is infected, thus confirming what we already know: virologists can not sequence the same exact “virus” every time:
Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives
“The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.
TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH
Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.
During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”
“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”
Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.
Seeing as to how the 2012 avian flu studies brought GOF research to the forefront, it seemed ideal to step into this area a bit more to see what actually transpired. The main study presented as evidence of GOF research was led by a man named Ron Fouchier. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it should. Fouchier was involved in the 2003 “SARS-COV-1” study which proclaimed the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates for proving a microorganism causes disease yet it failed miserably by not only not being able to satisfy Koch’s four original Postulates, but also Thomas River’s six revised Postulates made strictly for virology. In other words, it was an epic fail.
In Fouchier’s 2012 avian flu GOF study, he attempted to make the H5N1 “virus” infectious through the air. This was done through a process involving cell culturing combined with genetic engineering as well as passaging the material through numerous ferrets. Sounds familiar to the mice example from before, correct? You also see this same process with the early polio and influenza studies as well as in many other virology papers. The main difference is the genomic narrative and the use of modern technology such as reverse genetics to claim the insertion of specific genes.
Highlights from the below paper provide an overview of what was done during this study. It details how the material was collected from a flu strain in Indonesia, genetically altered in a Petri dish, and then transferred to ferrets in a series of experiments using the “wildtype” strain along with different modified strains. Fouchier and Co. were repeatedly unsuccessful in their endeavors of infecting ferrets until they started passaging the “virus” in the animals by injecting them with the cultured soup, grinding up their lung tissues, and injecting other ferrets in the same manner. They repeated this process 6 times and then changed up the experiment by switching to nasal turbinates for the last 4 passage attempts. The only illness said to be achieved via airborne exposure was a loss of appetite, lethargy, and ruffled fur. Upon sequencing the “viruses,” there were only two amino acid switches shared by all six “viruses.” There were several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses.” In other words, they could not sequence the same “virus” at any point:
Fouchier study reveals changes enabling airborne spread of H5N1
“A study showing that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza virus into an airborne spreader in mammals—and that launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency—was released today in Science, spilling the full experimental details that many experts had sought to suppress out of concern that publishing them could lead to the unleashing of a dangerous virus.
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 virus that can spread among ferrets without direct contact.
They say their findings show that H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve in mammals to gain airborne transmissibility, without having to mix with other flu viruses in intermediate hosts such as pigs, and thus pose a risk of launching a pandemic.”
Indonesian H5N1 strain used
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 virus collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 viruses more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways. Avian flu viruses prefer to bind to alpha2,3-linked sialic acid receptors on cells, whereas human flu viruses prefer alpha2,6-linked receptors. In both humans and ferrets, alpha2,6 receptors are predominant in the upper respiratory tract, while alpha 2,6 receptors are found mainly in the lower respiratory tract.
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the virus’s HA protein, the viral surface molecule that attaches to host cells. Q222L and G224S together change the binding preference of H2 and H3 subtype flu viruses, changes that contributed to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, according to the report. And N182K was found in a human H5N1 case.
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 virus strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes, the report explains. They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 virus. Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type virus shed far more virus than those infected with the mutants.
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different viral gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein. The mutation E627K in PB2 is linked to the acquisition by avian flu viruses of the ability to grow in the human respiratory tract, which is cooler than the intestinal tract of birds, where the viruses usually reside, according to the report.
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a virus that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the virus did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones.
The passaging step
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract—the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid,” according to a report of his initial description of the research at a European meeting last September.
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type virus and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs). Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times. For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest viruses that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract.
The amount of mutant virus found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages, signaling that the virus was increasing its capacity to grow in the ferret upper airway. In contrast, viral titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type virus stayed the same.
The next step was to test whether the viruses produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission. Four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant virus, and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain. Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact.
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild virus remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant virus did get infected, the researchers found. Further, they took a sample from one of the “recipient” ferrets and used it to inoculate another ferret, which then transmitted the virus to two more ferrets that were placed near it.
Thus, a total of six ferrets became infected with the mutant virus via airborne transmission. However, the level of viral shedding indicated the airborne virus didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 virus does.
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur. One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne viruses survived.
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the viruses that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six viruses: H103Y and T156A. They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne viruses.
“Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of [highly pathogenic avian flu] H5N1 virus,” the researchers wrote.
In further steps, the researchers inoculated six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible virus; after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund.” “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia,” the report notes.”
While the proceeding article did an excellent job of providing the main points from Fouchier’s 2012 GOF study, I wanted to showcase relevant highlights directly from the paper to flesh out the methods used even further. Here you will see that Fouchier’s team claimed that they genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. They used Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) which they said was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection. This was passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs which was followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000. They then used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce the desired amino acid substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis is a synthetic process utilizing PCR to make artificial changes in a DNA sequence. They then took their synthetically-created cultured soup and experimented on ferrets while manipulating the methods until they achieved the results that they desired.
At no point in the paper was a “virus” of any kind ever purified and isolated. At no point were any electron microscope images of the newly mutated “viruses” ever shown. The only “evidence” of an airborne strain is genomic sequencing data from consensus genomes which did not match up. Fouchier and Co. even admitted that airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but even this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. They also stated that the mutations they had identified needed further testing to determine their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and that further experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals. In other words, their study only told them that they could create mutated genomes and not that they created more “virulent viruses” that are transmissable by air:
Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets
“Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus farhas not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”)between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions,we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage inferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimatelybecoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection withthe mutant A/H5N1 viruses. Four amino acid substitutions in the host receptor-binding protein hemagglutinin, and one in the polymerase complex protein basic polymerase 2, were consistently present in airborne-transmitted viruses. The transmissible viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and reacted well with antisera raised against H5 influenza vaccine strains. Thus, avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.
Influenza A viruses have been isolated from many host species, including humans, pigs, horses, dogs, marine mammals, and a wide range of domestic birds, yet wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the virus reservoir in nature (1). Influenza A viruses belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae; these viruses have an RNA genome consisting of eight gene segments (2, 3). Segments 1 to 3 encode the polymerase proteins: basic polymerase 2 (PB2), basic polymerase 1 (PB1), and acidic polymerase (PA), respectively. These proteins form the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex responsible for transcription and replication of the viral genome.”
Since the late 1990s, HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have devastated the poultry industry of numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. To date, A/H5N1 has spread from Asia to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of domestic birds. In Hong Kong in 1997, the first human deaths directly attributable to avian A/H5N1 virus were recorded (11). Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 virus infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries (12). Although limited A/H5N1 virus transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus has not been detected (13–15). Whether this virus may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness. Although our knowledge of viral traits necessary for host switching and virulence has increased substantially in recent years (16, 17), the factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza viruses among mammals, a trait necessary for a virus to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown (18–21). Therefore, investigations of routes of influenza virus transmission between animals and on the determinants of airborne transmission are high on the influenza research agenda.
The viruses that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza viruses (22). However, given that viruses from only four pandemics are available for analyses, we cannot exclude the possibility that a futurepandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian virus without the requirement of reassortment. Several studies have shown that reassortment events between A/H5N1 and seasonal human influenza viruses do not yield viruses that are readily transmitted between ferrets (18–20, 23). In our work, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus could change its transmissibility characteristics without any requirement for reassortment.
We chose influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 for our study because the incidence of human A/H5N1 virus infections and fatalities in Indonesia remains fairly high (12), and there are concerns that this virus could acquire molecular characteristics that would allow it to become more readily transmissible between humans and initiate a pandemic. Because no reassortants between A/H5N1 viruses and seasonal or pandemic human influenza viruses have been detected in nature and because our goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza virus to become airborne transmissible in mammals, we decided to use the complete A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus that was isolated from a human case of HPAI A/H5N1 infection.
We chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for our studies. Ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza viruses (24). After infection with human influenza A virus, ferrets develop respiratory disease and lung pathology similar to that observed in humans. Ferrets can also transmit human influenza viruses to other ferrets that serve as sentinels with or without direct contact (fig. S1) (25–27).”
Human-to-human transmission of influenza viruses can occur through direct contact, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated environmental surfaces), and/or airborne transmission via small aerosols or large respiratory droplets. The pandemic and epidemic influenza viruses that have circulated in humans throughout the past century were all transmitted via the airborne route, in contrast to many other respiratory viruses that are exclusively transmitted via contact. There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols. However, it is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols. Because we did not measure particle size during our experiments, we will use the term “airborne transmission” throughout this Report.”
“Using a combination of targeted mutagenesis followed by serial virus passage in ferrets, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus can acquiremutations that would increase the risk of mammalian transmission (34). We have previously shown that several amino acid substitutions in the RBS of the HA surface glycoprotein of A/Indonesia/5/2005 change the binding preference from the avian a-2,3–linked SA receptors to the human a-2,6–linked SA receptors (35). A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus with amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S (numbers refer to amino acid positions in the mature H5 HA protein; N, Asn; Q, Gln; L, Leu; G, Gly; S, Ser) in HA display attachment patterns similar to those of human viruses to cells of the respiratory tract of ferrets and humans (35). Of these changes, we know that together, Q222L and G224S switch the receptor binding specificity of H2 and H3 subtype influenza viruses, as this switch contributed to the emergence of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics (36). N182K has been found in a human case of A/H5N1 virus infection (37).
Our experimental rationale to obtain transmissible A/H5N1 viruses was to select a mutant A/H5N1 virus with receptor specificity for a-2,6–linked SA shed at high titers from the URT of ferrets. Therefore, we used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent Technologies, Amstelveen, the Netherlands) to introduce amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S in the HA of wild-type (WT) A/Indonesia/5/2005, resulting in A/H5N1HA N182K, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, and A/H5N1HA N182K,Q222L,G224S. Experimental details for experiments 1 to 9 are provided in the supplementary materials (25). For experiment 1, we inoculated these mutant viruses andthe A/H5N1wildtype virus intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each virus (fig. S3). Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and virus titerswere determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify virus shedding from the ferret URT. Three animals were euthanized after day 3 to enable tissue sample collection. All remaining animals were euthanized by day 7 when the same tissue samples were taken. Virus titers were determined in the nasal turbinates, trachea, and lungs collected post-mortem from the euthanized ferrets. Throughout the duration of experiment 1, ferrets inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype virus produced high titers in nose and throat swabs—up to 10 times more than A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, which yielded the highest virus titers of all three mutants during the 7-day period (Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was observed between the virus shedding of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L, G224S or A/H5N1HA N182K during the first 3 days when six animals per group were present. Thus, of the viruses with specificity for a-2,6–linked SA, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S yielded the highest virus titers in the ferret URT (Fig. 1).
As described above, amino acid substitution E627K in PB2 is one of the most consistent host-range determinants of influenza viruses (29–31). For experiment 2 (fig. S4), we introduced E627K into the PB2 gene of A/Indonesia/5/2005 by site-directed mutagenesis and produced the recombinant virus A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. The introduction of E627K in PB2 did not significantly affect virus shedding in ferrets, because virus titers in the URT were similar to those seen in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S-inoculated animals [up to 1 × 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)] (Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test, P = 0.476) (Fig. 1 and fig. S5). When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously (27), A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted (fig. S5).
Because the mutant virus harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, we designed an experiment to force the virus to adaptto replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select virus variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructedA/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus and A/H5N1wildtype virus in the ferret URT (Fig. 2 and fig. S6). In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs. The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of virus-transport medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate thenext ferret intranasally (passage 2). This procedure was repeated until passage 6.
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi. To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise tothe nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing. Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml. The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10. We changed the source of inoculum during the course of theexperiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of viruses that were secreted from the URT. Because influenza viruses mutate rapidly, we anticipated that 10 passages would be sufficient for the virus to adapt to efficient replication in mammals.
Virus titers in the nasal turbinates of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1wildtype ranged from ~1 × 105 to 1 × 107 TCID50/gram tissue throughout 10 serial passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). In ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus, a moderate increase in virus titers in the nasal turbinates was observed as the passage number increased. These titers ranged from 1 × 104 TCID50/gram tissue at the start of the experiment to 3.2 × 105 to 1 × 106 TCID50/gram tissue in the final passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). Notably, virus titers in the nose swabs of animals inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K also increased during the successive passages, with peak virus shedding of 1 × 105 TCID50 at 2 dpi after 10 passages (Fig. 3B).These data indicate that A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was developing greater capacity to replicate in the ferret URT after repeated passage, with evidence for such adaptation becoming apparent by passage number 4. In contrast, virus titers in the nose swabs of the ferrets collected at 1 to 4 dpi throughout 10 serial passages with A/H5N1wildtype revealed no changes in patterns of virus shedding.
Passaging of influenza viruses in ferrets should result in the natural selection of heterogeneous mixtures of viruses in each animal with a variety of mutations: so-called viral quasi-species (38). The genetic composition of the viral quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform (Roche, Woerden, the Netherlands) (tables S1 and S2). The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the virus population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5% (Fig. 4 and table S1). Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all viral gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kafter passaging, except in segment 7 (tables S1 and S2). Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions.The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kwas T156A (T, Thr; A, Ala) in HA. This substitution removes a potential N-linked glycosylation site (Asn-X-Thr/Ser; X, any amino acid) in HA and was detected in 99.6% of the A/H5N1wildtype sequences after 10 passages. T156A was detected in 89% of the A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K sequences after 10 passages, and the other 11% of sequences possessed the substitution N154K, which removes the same potential N-linked glycosylation site in HA.
In experiment 4 (see supplementary materials), we investigated whether airborne-transmissible viruses were present in the heterogeneous virus population generated during virus passaging in ferrets (fig. S4). Nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were usedin transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible virus was present in the virus quasi-species. For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally: two for passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype and four for passage 10 A/H5N1HA-Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus.
The following day, a naïve recipient ferret was placed in a cage adjacent to each inoculated donor ferret. These cages are designed to prevent direct contact between animals but allow airflow from a donor ferret to a neighboring recipient ferret (fig. S1) (27). Although mutations had accumulated in the viral genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, we did not detect replicating virus upon inoculation of MDCKcells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype virus(Fig. 5, A and B). In contrast, we did detect virus in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627Kvirus.Three (F1 to F3) out of four (F1 to F4) naïve recipient ferrets became infected as confirmed by the presence of replicating virus in the collected nasal and throat swabs (Fig. 5, C and D). A throat-swab sample obtained from recipient ferret F2, which contained the highest virus titer among the ferrets in the first transmission experiment, was subsequently used for intranasal inoculation of two additional donor ferrets. Both of these animals, when placed in the transmission cage setup (fig. S1), again transmitted the virus to the recipient ferrets (F5 and F6) (Fig. 6, A and B). Avirus isolate was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi. The virus from F5 was inoculated intranasally into two more donor ferrets. One day later, these animals were paired with two recipient ferrets (F7 and F8) in transmission cages, one of which (F7) subsequently became infected (Fig. 6, C and D).
We used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences ofviruses recovered from the six ferrets (F1 to F3 and F5 to F7) that acquired virus via airborne transmission (Fig. 4 and table S3). All six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S,and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics. Surprisingly, only two additional amino acid substitutions, both in HA, were consistently detected in all six airborne-transmissible viruses: (i) H103Y (H, His; Y, Tyr), which forms part of the HA trimer interface, and (ii) T156A, which is proximal but not immediately adjacent to the RBS (fig. S8). Although we observed severalother mutations, their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne viruses, indicating that of the heterogeneous virus populations generated by passaging in ferrets, viruses with different genotypes were transmissible. In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible viruses because, for example, the consensus sequence of virus isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental virus isolated from F2.
Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus between mammals. The airborne-transmissible virus isolate with the least number of amino acid substitutions, compared with the A/H5N1wildtype, was recovered from ferret F5. This virus isolate had a total of nine amino acid substitutions; in addition to the three mutations that we introduced (Q222L and G224S in HA and E627K in PB2), this virus harbored H103Y and T156A in HA, H99Y and I368V (I, Ile; V, Val) in PB1, and R99K (R, Arg) and S345N in NP (table S3). Reverse genetics will be needed to identify which of the five to nine amino acid substitutions in this virus are essential to confer airborne transmission.
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible viruses, ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation. One of eight inoculated animals died upon intranasal inoculation (Table 1). In previously published experiments, ferrets inoculated intranasally with WTA/ Indonesia/5/2005 virus at a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 showed neurological disease and/or death (39, 40). It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 virus and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans.Importantly, although the six ferrets that became infected via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment. Moreover, previous infections of humans with seasonal influenza viruses are likely to induce heterosubtypic immunity that would offer some protection against the development of severe disease (41, 42). It has been shown that mice and ferrets previously infected with an A/H3N2 virus are clinically protected against intranasal challenge infection with an A/H5N1 virus (43, 44).
After intratracheal inoculation (experiment 5; fig. S9), six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible virus F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3. Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia (45), as is done for vaccination-challenge studies. At necropsy, the six ferrets revealed macroscopic lesions affecting 80 to 100% of the lung parenchyma with average virus titers of 7.9 × 106 TCID50/gram lung (fig. S10). These data are similar to those described previously for A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets (Table 1). Thus, although the airborne-transmissible virus is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the virus was not lethal after airborne transmission.”
“Although our experiments showed that A/H5N1 virus can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear. Previous data have indicated that the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus transmits efficiently among ferrets and that naïve animals shed high amounts of virus as early as 1 or 2 days after exposure (27). When we compare the A/H5N1 transmission data with that of reference (27), keeping in mind that our experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative, the data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that A/H5N1 airborne transmission was less robust, with less and delayed virus shedding compared with pandemic A/H1N1 virus.
Airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs (59), but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. The mutations we identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 virus lineages (60), and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect viral fitness and virulence in birds and mammals. For pandemic preparedness, antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates against airborne-transmissible virus should be evaluated in depth. Mechanistic studies on the phenotypic traits associated with each of the identified amino acid substitutions should provide insights into the key determinants of airborne virus transmission. Our findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in humans. Identification of the minimal requirements for virus transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness (34).”
“Influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI virus infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a singlepassage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000 (63-64). Mutations of interest (N182K, Q222L, G224S in HA and E627K in PB2) were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit (Aligent, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Recombinant viruses were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and virus stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells as described (63).
Cells
MDCK cells were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium (EMEM, Lonza Benelux BV, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2 mM glutamine, 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate (Lonza), 10 mM Hepes (Lonza), and non-essential amino acids (MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch, France). 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Lonza) supplemented with 10% FCS, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1mM sodium pyruvate, and non-essential amino acids.
Virus titration in MDCK cells
Virus titrations were performed as described previously (27). Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of virus preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs.Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with 100 U/mlpenicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate, 10mM Hepes, non-essential amino acids, and 20 μg/ml trypsin (Lonza). Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of virus replication in the cells. Infectious virus titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the virus preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber (65).”
The term “Gain of Function” first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza “virus,” using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets
Most virologists say that the “coronavirus” probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the “virus” was first reported
However, a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out
The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade when the ferret influenza studies came along
From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host
Virologists regularly fiddle with “viral” genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models
Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza “viruses” and “coronaviruses”
“For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory “viruses” because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School
He added that GOF studies with those “viruses” are “a really tiny part” of virology
Perlman and his collaborators set out to study the “coronavirus” responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012
They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells and so the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4
The “virus” could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance “virulence”
The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the “virus” two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice
They did this repeatedly — 30 times and by the end of two months, the “virus” had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells
In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly
Some virologists say “viruses” are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match
The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function
Any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of “viruses” and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV”
Virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of “viruses” and the specifics of “virus-host” interaction
Researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA (i.e. they are synthetic lab creations)
Researchers also use targeted host or “viral” genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool
Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments:
The fisrt category is “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of “viruses” with properties that do not exist in nature
The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A “viruses” that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type
The second category deals with the generation of “viruses” that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type “viruses” but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature (which is odd considering no “viruses” have been found in nature…)
Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates (there are no natural isolates) will improve their replication in mammalian cells
The third category, which is somewhere in between the first two categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible “viruses” in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern
An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans
Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature
GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.”
In other words, they can never sequence the same “virus” every time so what they do in the lab in GoF studies is no different than how they culture and “isolate viruses” in order to sequence the genomes in the first place
A 2012 study supposedly showed that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza “virus” into an airborne spreader in mammals—and this launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 “virus” that can spread among ferrets without direct contact
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 “virus” collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 “viruses” more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the “virus’s” HA protein, the “viral” surface molecule that attaches to host cells
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 “virus” strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes
They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 “virus”
Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” shed far more “virus” than those infected with the mutants
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different “viral” gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a “virus” that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the “virus” did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract
This was the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid” (are we sure he wasn’t referring to the whole study?)
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type “virus” and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs)
Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times
For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest “viruses” that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract
In other words, they completely changed the source material from tissue to nasal secretions more than halfway through the experiment
It was said that the amount of mutant “virus” found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages while “viral” titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” stayed the same
Quick Sidenote From the Supplemtary Materials:
“After inoculation with A/H5N1wildtype, virus titers in the nasal turbinates were variable but high, ranging from 1.6 x 105 to 7.9 x 106 TCID50/gram tissue (panel A), with no further increase observed with repeated passage. After inoculation with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K, virus titers in nasal turbinates averaged 1.6 x 104 in the first three passages, 2.5 x 105 in passage four to seven and 6.3 x 105 TCID50/gram tissue in the last three passages, suggestive of improved replication and virus adaptation. In the lungs, no apparent adaptation was observed for animals inoculated with either virus. Virus titers in lungs were highly variable; presumably it was a matter of chance whether the virus reached the lower airways.”
In other words, the “wildtype virus” titers remained and stayed high while the “mutant virus” started low and elevated throughout passaging yet was still underneath the amount seen in the “wildtype” strain. They also note that finding “virus” in the lungs was a “matter of chance” with either “virus.”
End Quick Sidenote.
The next step was to test whether the “viruses” produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission so four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant “virus,” and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain
Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild “virus” remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant “virus” did get infected (“infected” meaning they found “viral” RNA)
Thus, a total of six ferrets became “infected” with the mutant “virus” via airborne transmission
However, the level of “viral” shedding indicated the airborne “virus” didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 “virus”
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur (no consideration is given to the fact that the animals were caged, tortured, and experimented on)
One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne “viruses” survived
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the “viruses” that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six “viruses:” H103Y and T156A
They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses”
In other words, once again they were unable to sequence the exact same genome in the samples from each ferret
In further steps, the researchers inoculated intratracheallysix ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible “virus;” after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund”
They stated: “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia”
Highly “pathogenic” avian influenza A/H5N1 “virus” can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans
To address the concern that the “virus” could acquire this ability under natural conditions, the researchers genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets
In other words, in order to test whether the “virus” could mutate naturally, they mutated it synthetically…
The genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets (all “viruses” aquire mutations every time they are sequenced as no “viral” genome is ever the same as the original)
None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 “viruses”
Wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the “virus” reservoir in nature
Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries
Although limited A/H5N1 “virus” transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” has not been detected
Whether this “virus” may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness
The factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza “viruses” among mammals, a trait necessary for a “virus” to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown
The “viruses” that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza “viruses”
However, given that “viruses” from only four pandemics are available for analyses, they cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian “virus” without the requirement of reassortment
No reassortants between A/H5N1 “viruses” and seasonal or pandemic human influenza “viruses” have been detected in nature and their goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza “virus” to become airborne transmissible in mammals
They chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for the studies as ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza “viruses”
There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols
It is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols
The researchers used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce amino acid substitutions in the HA of wild-type “virus”
For experiment 1, they inoculated these mutant “viruses” and the A/H5N1wildtype “virus” intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each “virus”
Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and “virus” titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify “virus” shedding from the ferret URT
When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted
Because the mutant “virus” harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, they designed an experiment to force the “virus” to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select “virus” variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus” and A/H5N1wildtype “virus” in the ferret URT
In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K
Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs
The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of “virus-transport” medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2)
This procedure was repeated until passage 6
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi
To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing
Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml
The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10
They changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of “viruses” that were secreted from the URT
Because influenza “viruses” mutate rapidly, they anticipated (i.e.guessed arbitrarily) that 10 passages would be sufficient for the “virus” to adapt to efficient replication in mammals
The genetic composition of the “viral” quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform
The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the “virus” population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5%
Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all “viral” gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7
Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions
The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A
In experiment 4, nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible “virus” was present in the “virus” quasi-species
For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally
Although mutations had accumulated in the “viral” genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, they did not detect replicating “virus” upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype “virus”
In contrast, they did detect “virus” in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus”
Three out of four naïve recipient ferrets became “infected” as confirmed by the presence of replicating “virus” in the collected nasal and throat swabs (in other words, they saw CPE in a cell culture and claimed “virus” was present)
A “virus isolate” was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi
They used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets that acquired “virus” via airborne transmission and all six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics
In other words, they created consensus sequencing through alignment to reference genomes using computer software and algorithms from unpurified material
They observed several other mutations for which their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne “viruses,” indicating that of the heterogeneous “virus” populations generated by passaging in ferrets, “viruses” with different genotypes were transmissible
In other words, they were unable to sequence the exact same “virus” genome every time…and if that wasn’t clear
In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible “viruses” because, for example, the consensus sequence of “virus” isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental “virus” isolated from F2
Together, they claim that these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” between mammals
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible “viruses,” ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation
It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 “virus” and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans
Importantly, although the six ferrets that became “infected” via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment
After intratracheal (in the throat) inoculation, six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible “virus” F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBSdied or were moribund at day 3
Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of “viruses” to cause pneumonia, as is done for vaccination-challenge studies
Although the airborne-transmissible “virus” is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the “virus” was not lethal after airborne transmission
They openly admit that the route of injection and the amount of toxic culture goo injected causes the severity of disease, which does not require the “virus” as an explanation
They state that although experiments showed that A/H5N1 “virus” can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear
They pointed out that their experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative (i.e. they do not know how much “virus” is required for airborne transmission and assume it occurs via PCR results)
They airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur
The mutations they identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals
Their findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 “viruses” have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in human
Of course, the only place reassortment occurs is in a lab so they never need a host…
Identification of the minimal requirements for “virus” transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness
Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells
All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000
Mutations of interest were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit
Recombinant “viruses” were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and “virus” stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells
MDCK cells (canine) were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with:
10% fetal calf serum (FCS)
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2 mM glutamine
1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10 mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
293T cells (human embryonic kidney) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with:
10% FCS
100 IU/ml penicillin
100 mg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1mM sodium pyruvate
Non-essential amino acids
For “virus” titrations, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of “virus” preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs
Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with:
100 U/ml penicillin
100 μg/ml streptomycin
2mM glutamine
1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
10mM Hepes
Non-essential amino acids
20 μg/ml trypsin
Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of “virus” replication in the cells
Infectious “virus” titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the “virus” preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber
The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica. The only way the liquid poison can potentially harm one is through injection. Cell cultured soup is not transmitted through the air nor is it infectious and/or contagious. In other words, GOF studies are not creating “viruses” in the modern sense of the word and can only be considered as such if viewed through the original Latin lens.
What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice. There will be figureheads who appear to be on the side of truth, questioning the natural existence of “SARS-COV-2,” challenging the safety of the vaccines, promoting alternative therapies, etc. who will also continue to push the idea that “viruses” exist and can be manipulated in a lab. These people are the Pied Pipers leading those who are going astray back into the fold. There is no need to create a “virus” bioweapon when all that was needed to control the masses is a PCR test and some well-designed propaganda.
To anyone who may have been taken in by this GOF/Bioweapon narrative, remember that there is no evidence of any purified and isolated “viral” particles ever coming directly from human samples that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Virology does not dispute this. If they can not find a “virus” in nature, they can not create one in a lab. That is truly all you need to know.
Below you will find a video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan. The questions Dr. Cowan raises, the facts he presents, and the clarity he brings to the discussion of “viruses” and the field of virology are essential to our global conversation and quest to understand the truth. Truth Comes to Light has provided a basic transcript and added links to references for added clarity.
Over the past few years, we have shared many articles on this site related to this inquiry into the truth about “viruses” and the whole field of virology, including information on terrain theory vs germ theory. Find links here: Viruses, Vaccines & the History of Modern Medicine. At the end of this post you will find a selected list of related articles.
A few quotes from Dr. Cowan’s video:
“Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?”
“They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
“Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.”
“So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
“So I ask myself how did they do that?”
“What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?”
“Do we really know if mRNA is in these vaccines?
“Where is the paper? Where is the evidence that there actually is mRNA in these injections?”
Okay, so before I get into talking about the question that so many people keep asking me: What about gain of function, lab-created viruses, bio labs now allegedly in the Ukraine?
So what is the science behind that?
So we’ll get into that in a minute. And before that I have a very short, little clip to play.
So that clip pretty much sums it up. That was from our friend Dr. Sam Bailey and our other good friend Stefan Lanka.
So on that note, the reason I wanted to talk about this subject is there was a recent paper that was put out by Dr. Mercola…
So let’s just read the first couple paragraphs there. So this is a summary:
“A study published February 21, 2022, (so very recently) in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.
The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.
According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.
According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.”
Okay, so why is this important? So obviously, there’s been a lot of attention in the political sphere and in the anti-vax community. There have been movies written about this.
There are many lectures, many prominent people in the “freedom” or “anti-vax” community who are investigating these patents, and saying that these patents — and as Dr. Mercola said, this study in Frontiers in Virology is literally the smoking gun proving that Moderna patented a sequence, which ended up in SARS-CoV-2, “the virus”, and the only way it could have gotten there is, not through natural evolution (that is a one in three trillion chance) but if it was introduced into the virus by some laboratory technique.
This theory is crucial to our understanding, not only of whether there were crimes committed, but the whole theory of virology and gain-of-function research and all that.
So, obviously, and this should go without saying, that the most important part of this is: Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?
The rest of the article goes on to talk about what we know about this MSH3 sequence and the protein that it allegedly codes for.
But I want to emphasize again and again and again — the whole point of this is: This sequence which was patented by Moderna in 2016 is identical to the sequence found in SARS-CoV-2.
That is the point.
If we can demonstrate that there is no SARS-CoV-2 and this is not the genome of this alleged virus, then none of the rest of this has any validity or is of any use at all.
It’s all just a sort of smokescreen or a way to throw us off the track about finding out what really is going on.
I cannot emphasize how important this is.
So for the next few minutes we’re going to actually look at how the authors of the article in Frontiers of Virology — what were they claiming was the SARS-CoV-2 genome?
What were they claiming was the evidence that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus that they could then compare the patent to?
Again, if there’s no virus and there’s no genome then they can’t possibly have put this sequence into a virus or a genome. And it can’t possibly be the thing that’s affecting the world.
So, now let’s be clear about the next step. There is no mention in this story by Dr. Mercola of how the Frontiers in Virology authors found the genome or found the virus.
[…]
In other words, there is no information in here of how Dr. Mercola actually knows there’s a SARS-CoV-2 genome.
But the authors of the Frontiers in Virology paper said that they were comparing the sequence, the mRNA sequence patented by Moderna in 2016, to the genome found in our old friend paper by Chinese virologist Fan Wu.
So it isn’t that we picked this paper by random. It isn’t that I picked this paper to investigate how they found the genome or what their evidence for the virus was. This is the paper that the authors of the Frontiers in Virology use to compare the Moderna patent to.
So we’re using their information and this is their evidence, their proof that the virus exists.
So this is about: Did the paper by Fan Wu prove that the virus existed — the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists — and that this is the genome of the virus?
Again, in order to say that the patented sequence matches 100% to the genome of the virus, obviously, obviously, you have to know that this is actually a virus.
So, this is an old friend, we’ve been through this many times, but let’s see what they say.
So here is the paper, published in the prestigious journal, I believe, Nature — February 3, 2020.
So this is the paper, again, that was cited by the authors of Frontiers in Virology paper that is used as the reference genome.
So how did they do it?
So first we have a summary.
So how did they identify the “virus”? So I’m gonna run down the steps that they used and then we will show the clips, the actual wording from the paper, so that you know that this is actually the facts.
Okay, so we’re looking to find a virus and then find the genome of that virus — a virus that had never been found before.
So first thing they take lung fluid from one person. That’s a huge sample size (that’s a little tongue-in-cheek). That’s obviously just one person. That is a kind of ridiculous experiment to find a new virus.
Then they isolated the RNA, which is a genetic material, from the fluid in that person’s lung. They did not attempt to purify any particles that they could say you were a virus. They did not do any pictures of any virus. They did not do any maceration, filtration, ultracentrifugation to see if they had any such particles. None of that.
They took RNA from the lung fluid, of which we have many possible sources. We have bacterial sources, fungal sources, human sources, possibly viral sources, exosome sources, multivesicular body sources — many sources of RNA. We have no idea the source of that RNA.
Then they create what’s called an mRNA library, which is a catalog of all of the RNA pieces that are in that lung fluid.
This requires that they amplify these pieces of RNA with the process called RT-PCR. And, as we have demonstrated over and over again. and is completely substantiated in the literature, doing PCR amplification of RNA cycles inevitably creates new sequences of RNA which weren’t there in the original sample.
In some cases, if you do enough amplification cycles — up to even 80% of the sequences — after 45 cycles are made de novo, or anew, by the actual PCR process itself.
So now we have yet another source of our RNA. Not only do we have potential viruses, exosomes, multivesicular bodies, apoptotic bodies, human lung tissue, human epithelial lung tissue…, fungal RNA, bacterial RNA — we also have new pieces of RNA generated by the test itself.
Then they performed pair and sequencing that generates 150 base pair reads. That means they matched the sequence by pairing the ends. And you end up with sequences that are basically 150 base pairs long. That’s a fairly small amount. And this results in 56.5 million of these 150 base pair sequences known as reads.
So to be clear, they take this mass, not knowing any idea the origin of these mRNA, they chopped them up into sequences that are 150 base pairs (that’s fairly short) long by pairing the ends. They have 56.5 million of these reads. And then they start doing what’s called de novo assemble.
So there is no sequencing here. There is assembly. And, as it says, you can make a lot of genomes with that many reads.
So they put these 56 million, 150 base pair, reads in aa assembly computer program and… they actually put it in two different computer programs. And one of the computer programs generated 384,000 different sequences. The other one generated over a million sequences.
So now these sequences — all 384,000 of them — are meant to be the possible genomes of this virus. For some reason, they threw away the program that made over a million of these sequences and said the one that made 384,000 — I think that was Megahit — one of those must be the right sequence, the actual sequence of the virus.
Just to be clear, at no point did they ever find a particle. At no point did they purify or isolate a particle.
At no point did they find in any particle… an entire string of RNA, which they then sequenced one by one to find out the sequence of the genetic material of this particle.
None of that was done. All they did was chop up RNA from many different possible sources, put that in a computer program, generate 384,000 and a million in another, and then they went hunting for infectious agents and performed a search of those sequences.
The two longest sequences were a close match to a bat SARS-like coronavirus genome, found 15 years ago or so, that was made in exactly the same way — never having isolated or purified a particle, never having found an intact genome, never having sequenced the genome.
They just did the same sort of assembly, no sequencing of RNA from God knows where. And, this one, the longest one was a 89% match to the previous SARS coronavirus that they did in the same way.
And, as we say: Boom! There is the new novel human coronavirus — even though, as we’ve said over and over again, humans and chimpanzees are about a 96% match. So to say it was an 89% match is essentially like saying there’s no way this could have been anywhere similar to the previous bat SARS-like coronavirus.
In other words, they never found a virus. They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.
Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.
This is a manuscript draft and I don’t know when it will be published.
When I read this, just remember that all these articles that go into The Lancet have to pay homage to the virus god. But I will explain what they mean here.
So this is the interpretation of the entire article. I won’t go through their methods.
“The RNA code counted in PCR tests, previously attributed to SARS-CoV-2, belongs instead to a respiratory-virus-induced immune system response by human cells that liberate exosomes, and that vitiate PCR test results. PCR tests have zero specificity in vivo due to the exosome RNA.”
[…]
And they go on in this article, just as we’re saying — the reality is all of these RNA sequences, all of these reads which were assembled into a viral genome, actually when you do careful analysis, come from human epithelial lung cells.
In other words, just as we’ve been saying all along, these are not viruses. These are breakdown products of our own tissue. And the misconception in calling them a virus needs to stop.
And this idea that they put this patented sequence into a virus can’t possibly be true because, simply, there is no virus.
And all the rest of the article is for not — because nobody put a RNA sequence, patented or otherwise, into a virus.
Now just to show you that we got this from the article — so here is the one patient presenting with cough, etc. So that’s the evidence that we were correct about the one patient.
Here is the evidence that the paired and 150 base pair reads sequencing of the RNA library was performed on this computer platform. So the sequencing yields reads of only 150 base pairs. The whole SARS-CoV-2 genome is supposed to be 30,000.
That means they had to stitch it together using a computer program. This was an assembled genome, out of little bits from God knows where.
And here we see the 56.5 million reads were assembled using Megahit and Trinity. Trinity, they got over a million. They generated a total of 384,000 contigs (that’s sequences).
Trinity generated 1.3 million. They don’t like those because they weren’t long enough. They compared those with the database and compared and found that it was somewhat, although not really similar to a previous bat coronavirus. So, as he says, sequencing results in more than 56 million reads.
How can you possibly differentiate what is from a potential virus from everything else? The answer is you can’t.
And finally… The longest contig is generated by Megahits. The longest one by Trinity is 11,000. How come they didn’t use this one?
Both showed similarity to bat coronavirus. They were found at high abundance. It was only 89 percent similar. That means 11 percent didn’t match. That is a huge amount.
Then they just moved on to develop primers all from this one assay without isolating anything, and from one patient.
And, my friends, that is not science; that is propaganda, as is the entire story of a lab engineered virus.
Now, the real issue here and one of the reasons why this, to me, is so important, is if you go by this unscientific theory that there’s a lab-created virus, you actually miss what I would say are the three most important questions to be asked, and then answered, about this situation.
And so now I’m talking — I would say theory. Where everything else was what I would call simply facts.
So the question that should be asked (and it would be nice to have answers for, and which I don’t have the answers for, but I have some theories) is, to me, the most interesting thing is —
So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.
So I ask myself how did they do that? How did they make — like there’s two theories, there’s two ways of looking at this.
One is: They don’t want that to happen and so it was a mistake.
But, if we think, which I’m inclined to do, that “they” (meaning Moderna and other people) wanted this to happen so that they could throw people off and essentially create a kind of patsy out there, how did they do it?
So I have three possible theories as to how they did it.
Now, let me be clear.
What I’m trying to figure out is these guys Fan Wu and others, Chinese virologists, having, I don’t think, any connection with Moderna, come up with a bogus, anti-scientific genome and for some unbelievable coincidence — let’s say for now — it actually matches exactly one of the patented sequences from the Moderna patent of four years prior. How did that happen?
So possibility number one: It was dumb luck. They just made this sequence and it just so happened to match the Moderna patent. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s actually the right answer.
The second possibility: … Somebody from Moderna or somebody — I don’t know who — calls up Fan Wu and says ‘I want you to make a genome out of nothing and I want it to have this particular sequence in it so some day people will find this out and say “you see, they genetically engineered this sequence”‘. Got it? In other words, there was collusion between the patenters (that’s Moderna) and Fan Wu and his team.
Now I gotta tell you, I actually don’t think that’s true. I would actually love to find out if it is true and if there is a phone call from doctor head of Moderna saying, you know, ‘Hey Wu, would you put this sequence in there so that we can — people find out that it was a genetically engineered sequence?’ But I just don’t think that happens.
And then I came up with a third possibility which is: Once I discovered all these people who are looking into all these patents, that there was at least 70 different patents taken out, of different sequences of RNA, that could end up in a genome. Now, my guess is … I would think it’s a good possibility that one of those sequences may end up in the final genome. And then you would then implant the story that this was a genetically engineered organism and there you go.
So you wouldn’t have to rely on luck, you wouldn’t have to actually have collusion, you could just patent a whole lot of different sequences, for instance, that came in the SARS-1 genome. You could patent all kinds of sequences knowing that, at the end of the day, when somebody makes up this new fraudulent genome it’s bound to have one of them in there. Somebody will find it some day, say it’s the smoking gun and you then implanted the story of the century which does nothing but throws people off.
So those are my three options. I’d be happy to hear about any other possible options. But those were the only three that I could come up with.
Now, the final question then is: What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?
And, I must say, I don’t know what they’re doing in the labs and I don’t think really anybody knows — including in the Chinese labs or Ukrainian labs or North Carolina labs or any other labs.
So again, I have some possibilities.
One is the following …
Screenshot image from BrandNewTube video (specific video source unknown)
They’re doing this.
In other words, what the virologists do is they dress up in hazmat suits and they go on to their computer and start making sequences. And the hazmat suits are crucial, because, as we all know, it’s very possible for the sequences to jump from the computer into their eyes. So it’s very important, as you can see, that they wear goggles and protective head gear to prevent the computer sequences from jumping directly in their eyes.
In other words, they may be just doing nothing and it may be just a whole lot of hooey to get people to worry about things. And to implant in their minds that there is this horrible engineered virus, that we should all be scared of viruses, etc. So that’s one possibility.
Another one is they’re making some sort of proteins or genetic material which can be injected into people. In other words, they’re making toxins. And that is certainly possible.
So those are the two main categories that I came up with. Either they’re just doing nothing and they’re just a front, or a smoke screen, or they’re actually making stuff which isn’t good for people.
And that gets into my final thing that I want to point out.
… This section right here. this is something I’ve been very interested. So this is again from the Mercola article:
“For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. (I’m not going to get into that.) The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein. 11“
Now, I have been asking the question now for months: Where is the paper? Where is the evidence (a) that there actually is mRNA in these injections? They say there is. That’s the whole point. But when people look there either seems to be not there or in variable amounts depending on which injection and which batch.
So it could be that even the whole mRNA in the jab is a actual smokescreen or cover for what’s really in these injections –which is a lot worse stuff like self assembling nanoparticles which we’ve heard about a lot.
So I was very interested to see that this was… stated as fact, because I can’t find a paper, and my friends can’t find a paper, that confirms that abundant copies of this protein are actually made when you inject this sequence.
And this would be like saying — if I wanted to get investors for my new pencil factory, my investors might ask me to see the pencils that we make. And so it would be natural for me to produce copies of the pencils — maybe tens or hundreds or thousands or millions of them — to show that my technology for making pencils actually works.
One would think that if the whole point of these jabs is to make you make spike proteins that, therefore, “confer immunity”, there would be scores, hundreds, thousands of papers showing here’s the amount of spike proteins in an unjabbed person. And then you jab them and then 10 minutes, half an hour, three hours, two weeks, six months, 12 years later, here’s the amount of spike protein. That would prove that the concept is real and that you can actually genetically alter a human being.
Because I have my doubts. So I’m looking for a reference to show this is true. And, lo and behold, here is the reference. Number 11. [see page 3 of Mercola article] So where is the reference from? CBS News.
Now, I could say — I would say if it was from Fox or MSNBC then I would be skeptical. But the fact it’s from CBS, that must mean it’s true. And obviously I’m kidding. Let’s see the reference.
If the whole point of this is to put RNA into injections, make you make a spike protein which is allegedly from the virus, let’s actually see that it works. And here’s a quote saying there’s at least 73 patents.
My guess is one of them was bound to show up in the imaginary sequence. Bingo! We’ve got proof that it’s there, that it was a genetically engineered virus.
And the whole thing, hopefully you now see, comes crashing down like a house of cards if, as we showed, there was no virus genetically engineered or otherwise in the first place.
[At this point in the video, Tom takes questions from the viewers.]
Question: So this one is related, but it has to do with Dr. Bush‘s reference to 10 to the 30th power of viruses within our blood, as well as in the oceans, in the soil. His purpose is to provide constant flow of updated genomic information that we need to in order to adapt and survive. And they’re not pathogens. That we need not fear, etc., etc.
Answer: So he also has said that, of course, viruses are pathogens. The real issue here is how did they find these 10 to the 30th power viruses? And I’ve gone over this, especially in reference to a paper, and I don’t remember the name, but it’s called the ….something to do with the renaming or the re-evaluating of viral…virome…viral world or something like that.
The reason people say this is because they don’t realize that they’re not talking about actual organisms or particles called viruses. They’re talking about liberated pieces of either RNA or DNA — little snippets of RNA or DNA which then get amplified in what’s called metagenomics sequencing and so there are billions and billions and billions of these breakdown products. None of them have anything to do with a virus. They’re simply little bits of genetic garbage that are coming off of our cells and tissues all the time. They have no particular meaning or function that anybody has been able to prove. They’re just little bits of garbage. And the misconception that they’re somehow actual particles and could possibly hurt you or could possibly help you is just a misunderstanding of how they found viruses in the first place.
They don’t find particles. They don’t purify particles. There haven’t been 10 to the 30th purified particles. We’re talking about little pieces of DNA or RNA that get amplified, called viruses, which is a misconception big time.
[Additional questions include speculation about the patent links to the Fan Wu team “discovery” as well as a question about allergies.]
Articles mentioned in this video presentation:
Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 by Dr. Joseph Mercola [originally published March 7, 2022 at this link — https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/07/moderna-patented-spike-protein.aspx — and was mirrored around the web. It can still be found at Dr. Mercola’s paid archive membership.] Dr. Cowan has provided a pdf file of the article here: https://brandfolder.com/s/fv2q4h7fp84bm5vb3ppn37
This just in, another liar on the news Standing at the pulpit, ready to abuse
This just in, another coward in control Scared by the sounds, so he hides in a hole
He’ll call on the guards to trample the crowd ‘Cause the louder they get they silence his power
Shame, blame, no matter what they say Don’t let the bastard get to you He’s going to try to shut us down, but we’ll stand our ground Hey, this just in, he’ll lose
This just in, another villain on the screen Acting like a hero for all the drama queens
This just in, another black painted face Lathered in his virtue, enslaving every race
He’ll send out the troops and freeze the accounts Says the freedom you get is what he makes allowed
Shame, blame, no matter what they say Don’t let the bastard get to you He’s going to try to shut us down, but we’ll stand our ground Hey, this just in, he’ll lose
If you look in his eyes you can see he’s afraid So fragile inside while the town’s on parade
Shame, blame, no matter what they say Don’t let the bastard get to you He’s going to try to shut us down, but we’ll stand our ground Hey, this just in, he’ll lose
No he’ll never shut us down, ‘Cause we’ll stand our ground
The Age of Ultron is upon us. The ultimate transformation has been built into the human psyche over many generations and platforms.
While some people say ‘bring it on,‘ others ask if there is an Endgame?
The Cycle of Time
By observing the clues planted everywhere, there is no Endgame. There is only the end of an Age. The transition from Age to Age moves according to the Sky Clock, a celestial cycle that expands and spirals outward in a coil. The Cycle of Ages has been described in all traditions and cultures, from the Greek, Hesiod’s Five Ages of Man to the Astrological Zodiac Cycle (2160 years) and Precession of the Equinoxes (25,920 yrs ), to the India Yugas (4,320,000 years), the Hopi World Ages, and the Holy Bible Revelation 21:1.
The Cycle of the Ages is mirrored in humanity using the chart of The Zodiacal Man. According to this correspondence, the image of Zodiacal Man shows humanity has risen from the feet, in Pisces, and is now in the lower leg, in The Age of Aquarius, The Age of Freedom and Technology (especially electricity), and the Water Bearer. By this measure, humanity is working its way back up toward the head, in Aires, and enlightenment.
Implicit in the meaning of the word “cycle,” is humanity’s rise to a peak, followed by an inevitable decline; and once humanity’s darkest point is reached, there is inevitable advancement. Many feel time is speeding up. People are experiencing accelerated growth and the feeling of living multiple lifetimes over the course of one lifetime. The Earth, and all life, is undergoing an enormous process of upgrades.
According to the Hopi, we are living at the end of the Hopi Fourth World, marked by chaos and a life out of balance with the ways of the Creator. Hopi elders believe the Fifth World is upon us, where peace, prosperity, and spirituality shall reign. According to these many traditions, each time the world comes out of balance, there is a reset we can blame on an angry Creator. Peace is forever elusive, always after “the next war.”
Satya Yuga – Qori Wata – Golden Age – Age of part of Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, (13,000 years) to the current Age of Aquarius
Descending Ages
Treta Yuga – Qolqe Wata – Silver Age – Age of Sagittarius and Capricorn
Dwapara Yuga – Anka Wata – Bronze Age – Age of Energy (2400 years) Age of Taurus and part of Aires
Kali Yuga – Awka Wata – Iron Age – Age of Materialism, Confusion, Selfishness, Deception, The Dark Age, Part of Aires and Pisces – disconnected from Source
Ascending Ages:
Dwapara Yuga – Age of Energy – Age of part of Pisces, and Aquarius – we are here
Treta Yuga – Age of Ascension – Age of Gemini and Taurus
Satya Yuga – Golden Age – Age of part of Cancer, Leo, Virgo
A New Beginning
There are many other time cycles, some of which are unknown. But let’s face it; we didn’t come to Earth at this time for a vacation but for a purpose. In any Age, expect ups and downs, especially in a dualistic reality. From the Kali Yuga (in Pisces) to the beginning of the Dwapara Yuga (in Aquarius) where we sit now; humanity is again ascending consciousness. This is a remarkable time to be alive.
The “Age of Transhumanism” is part of a transition phase of about 300-500 years. Ideas and impulses of the old age overlap with the those of the new for up to 1000 years into the new one. We are in the beginning of the Dwarpa Yuga, The Age of Aquarius, the Age of Energy, until about 4200 AD. This TransitionAge marks the end of one cycle and the beginning of another. It will be similar to the last Dwapara Yuga, but expressed on a higher more sophisticated level as we spiral to a new plain. Energy can be used in new ways to create ‘miracles.’
Transhumanism is a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values. – Max More, Principles of Entropy
From books to movies, Transhumanistic concepts have picked up speed over the past two decades. The idea was first defined in 1998 in selected circles of influence, as the extension of humanism. But how to convince humans to partake in a transformation that merges minds into a melting post, the opposite of self-actualization?
In this transition, no war is necessary. Let them beg for it. Let them sign up for it. Let the transformation begin and end with technology, by consent and by contractural agreement.
In the Dwarpa Yuga, The Energy Age, humans have moved from the Industrial Age, to the Information Age, ComputerAge, DigitalAge, and New Media Age. If you see it in the movies, it is playing out in reality. Graphene nanoparticles are part of the process, in food, and in medicine. Graphene is the new plastic, found in air, water, soil, blood, and saline solution. It’s everywhere and in everything, as a marker of transformation.
Mutation, it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, and normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward. Professor X – X-Men
Think of The Avenger movies, where the “gods” of the Marvel Comics and films are considered Superheroes. They are, in reality, superconducting humans, or Transhumans. And what movie-going human doesn’t want to be like them? So ignore false reports of semiconductor chip shortages being reported in the media. It is a distraction, a shortage ‘by design.‘
At the same time, realize that you are only being told one story of evolution, by those who grasp tightly to the megaphone. Evolution happens on multiple levels. Unlike robots, humans are multidimensional beings. Be open to the unseen aspects that also evolve. Early 2022 is experiencing a higher frequency. This is a time to turn inward. Connect to Nature, your true nature, to find self-fulfillment and personal peace, even in the midst of dwindling deception and brainwashing.
A.I Taking Shape
According to Forbes Magazine, Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) is Driving a Silicon Renaissance. But could it be the other way around? The manufactured silicon (synthetic) revolution is driving both A.I. (robotics), and the blockchain. This also marks the Age of Transhumanism. Movies attempt to define this Age as the final frontier (Star Trek), this attempted merging of human and machine. Graphene nanoparticles found in mRNA vaccines are the catalyst to connecting to the electromagnetic grid and other devices. One Italian doctor was able to identify injected people before they arrived at his office by a signal detected on his cell phone.
Graphene nanoparticles appear in the blood as tiny synthetic robots, able to self-assemble into structured shapes not found in Nature. Note the similarity between magnified images of graphene-based nanotech in blood and the images from the movie, The Avengers, the Age of Ultron. Do these nanobots look like a computer motherboard? A city? A.I.?
Hydra is pictured on a stone constellation map from the Euphrates. Dating from about 1200 B.C., the serpent is there identified with the source of the fountains of the great deep, and is one of the several sky symbols of Tiamat, the great dragon. – Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D , “Drako the Dragon”
In the 2015 movie, The Avengers, The Age of Ultron, Ultron, a robot, seeks to make itself better, stronger, harder, and more beautiful using a metal found only in one part of the world, the same metal in the shield that protects Captain America.
The most versatile substance on the planet, and they used it to build a Frisbee. – Ultron, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron
Ultron comes from the words Ultra, to transcend beyond limits, and Tron,one who is growing. The message of transformation is clear. However, robots in any form can never be self-aware. In this way, they will never be like humans.
It’s the end, the end of the path I started us on. – Iron Man, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron
Nothing lasts forever – Natasha Romanoff, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron
We are the Avengers. We can bust arms dealers all the livelong day, but, that up there? That’s… that’s the end game.” – Tony Stark, looking up to an invasion of metal man/gods falling to earth, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron
The Fourth Revolution
No matter who wins or loses, trouble always comes around. – Nick Fury, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron.
This 4th Revolution occurs in Cyberspace to redesign and reengineer reality. Evidence for building an artificial world can be seen by The Human Connectome Project, a mapping of the human brain, launched in 2009 by the National Institutes of Health. It is expressed as the software of life by mRNA vaccine maker Moderna’s chief medical officer.
These “makers” of an artificial reality fail to disclose the ability of hacking into the software. Their job is to convince the human psyche that all is well. Ironically, when it suits, scientists claim to hack the digital codes to change reality, from gene editing to Cryptocurrency.
The Fourth Revolution is advertised as the “New Golden Age,” but it is only a Golden Age of Fraud. The Transhuman ‘Golden Age’ is made possible by Social Engineers who have been able to mold behavior of whole populations, over generations. The father of Social engineering, Ed Bernays, was said to be the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Eddyrepurposed the idea of propaganda into Public Relations. In 1917, Ed Bernays was recruited by President Woodrow Wilson to use propaganda to influence Americans to willingly engage in World War I.
What the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity. – Klaus Schwab, Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 2019
What do the social engineers behind the movies seek to manifest through their images? Mind control? Civil War? An extinction event?
Recipe For Transformation
In a world run by the Sky Clock, there are no endings, only new beginnings in a constant cycle of birth, death, and renewal. The time loop phenomenon is part of the human psyche, as shown in movies that loop time, such as Groundhog Day, About Time, Edge of Tomorrow, Looper, and Mind Games. Movies manipulate the mind. The mind projects reality. So it follows that those who control the mind, control reality. Add a nanochip with frequencies that induce neuronal activation, and then inject nanomaterials with photothermal stimulation to modulate the brain, and you have a Recipe for Transformation. But does this process bring freedom, peace, or enlightenment?
One answer is found in the movie, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron, where the Avengers are not enough to keep the peace, so Ultron takes control to end Earth once and for all (a reset), that he says has occurred many times before.
There were more than a dozen extinction level events before even the dinosaurs got theirs. When the Earth starts to settle, God throws a stone at it. And, believe me, he’s winding up. – Ultron, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron
By studying human history, Ultron discovers the fallacy of the phrase, “peace in our time,” a phrase uttered in 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin after signing a peace pact with Nazi Germany. The contradiction? The peace sign is also a ‘victory for war’ sign. Peace never lasts long because humans are willing to compromise with demons, as depicted in the influential poem, Dante’s Inferno, a divine comedy. Humans lack morals to know when enough is enough, and fail to take responsibility for their actions.
Ultron can’t see the difference between saving the world and destroying it. Where do you think he gets that? – Wanda Maximoff, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron
I know you’re good people. I know you mean well. But you just didn’t think it through. There is only one path to peace… your extinction. – Ultron, The Avengers: The Age of Ultron.
The Path of Choice
The upgrade and downgrade of humanity is ongoing. The Creation-Destruction Cycle of The Ages suggests an Avenger-god with control issues. For what ultimate purpose? For connectivity to an electromagnetic grid? For tracking purposes? For control of the body and mind? For the Transmutation of an entire species? Movie makers would prefer that you think so.
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. – The Borg, Star Trek Voyager
Unlike Ultron, a synthetic, immortal being, humans are eternal beings. Humans encompass physical bodies, light bodies, and energy bodies of a multi-dimensional nature, as Earth is multidimensional.
During the Iron Age, humans forgot their spiritual aspects and focused on a material existence. In this new Age of Energy, humanity now has the opportunity to interact with the subtler aspects of energy and consciousness, and go beyond their physical limits.
On the Path of Choice, do you choose Transhumanism or do you expand into higher dimensions of yourself? Do you live with the status quo and squander Earth’s resources? Or do you live in sacred relationship with the Earth and all of its sentient inhabitants? It seems that your choice determines the outcome, not for the world, but for the world you occupy.
Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.
My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.
In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.
For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.
Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.
I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.
AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive symptoms and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”
Several years after the publication of AIDS INC, I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?
Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?
And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?
The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:
How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?
These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.
Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”
Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.
Christine Johnson: Does HIV cause AIDS?
Eleni Papadopulos: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
CJ: Why not?
EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.
… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?
EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.
EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.
CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?
EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?
EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?
EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…
—end of interview excerpt—
If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.
Worse yet, it appears that Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, the two scientists credited with the discovery of HIV—as well as other elite researchers—were aware they weren’t employing correct methods.
And so…as I’ve reported, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, SARS-CoV-2, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done. And by large-scale, I mean: attempting to find and photograph the virus in a cohort of, say, 1000 people who are supposed to be “pandemic patients.” I’m NOT talking about one or two electron-microscope photos accompanying a study.
But even that isn’t the end of the story. There is one further potential limiting factor in virus research. I became aware of it about a year ago. Analysis of electron microscope findings is fraught with difficulty and doubt. Are scientists actually looking at what they think they’re looking at in these photos? I refer readers to the work of neurobiologist Harold Hillman, who concluded that researchers were, for the most part, looking at artifacts, not actual cells or entities within cells. Another suppressed controversy.
After more than 30 years of investigating medical research fraud, my general conclusion is, the deeper you go the stranger it gets. Or to put it another way, the worse it gets.
In order to determine whether a “virus” actually exists, the particles must be purified (freed from contaminants, pollutants, and foreign elements) so that they can be isolated (separated from everything else). Only once this occurs can the particles assumed to be “virus” then be proven pathogenic through experimentation. Only purified particles can be used to visualize as well as biochemically and molecularly characterize the “virus” in order to determine specific proteins, antibodies, genomic sequence, electron microscopy imaging, etc. Without purification, one can not determine that the “virus” exists at all and the non-specific laboratory results obtained from unpurified material are absolutely meaningless.
###
Luc Montagnier unleashed his “retroviral” monster onto the world in 1983 and it grew into a beast of its own kind during the proceeding decades. Countless lives have been destroyed by the fear of the HIV diagnosis as well as the subsequent subjection to toxic black label pharmaceuticals.
“HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.” ~ Luc Montagnier, VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990
If you have been following the news recently, you may have heard that there is currently a new “highly virulent strain” of HIV running around the Netherlands (I think there is a pun in there somewhere). You may also have heard that there is a brand new experimental HIV mRNA vaccine that has shown promise in animals. If you have really been paying attention, you may have even heard of French virologist Luc Montagnier, the man credited with the discovery of HIV, and his various critical statements against the dangerous use of mRNA vaccines for “Covid-19.” If so, you are also most likely aware that during this increased attention geared towards HIV and mRNA vaccines, Luc Montagnier died very recently on February 8th, 2022. While he lived to be the ripe old age of 89, many are suspicious of the timing of his death in light of the current HIV resurgence.
While I do find the timing of all of these events interesting, that is not what this article is about. I have always planned to dive into Montagnier’s original HIV paper but I have held off as the HIV/AIDS scam has been exposed brilliantly by many others before me. However, I have always felt that the HIV fraud is the perfect gateway into understanding the “Covid-19” fraud as the numerous parallels to what is going on today are uncanny. We can see the same misuse of PCR and antibody testing, the same rebranding and reuse of toxic pharmaceuticals, the same collection of various symptoms under one giant umbrella disease, the same propaganda spreading fear of the infected, and the same Anthony Fauci spearheading the whole thing. Even though it is not my intention to touch on all of these aspects in one article, the best place to start unravelling this tangled web of deceit begins with the man who was credited with unleashing the HIV monster upon the world, Luc Montagnier.
In 1983, Montagnier was sent a lymph node sample from a 33-year-old (note the age) male determined to have the symptoms of AIDS. From this sample, Montagnier and his team uncovered what they claimed was a new “retrovirus,” originally known as L.A.V., for lymphadenopathy associated “virus.” After several indirect experiments, the team concluded that further studies were needed in order to determine whether or not the new “virus” had any role in the etiology of AIDS. After this initial discovery of the potential “viral” cause of AIDS, there was a bit of drama in 1984 when American virologist Robert Gallo claimed to have uncovered the cause of AIDS himself with the discovery of HTLV-3. Long story short, it was later determined that Gallo had used/borrowed/stolen a sample from the same patient as Montagnier and uncovered the same “virus.” The “virus” was eventually renamed HIV in 1986 and in 2008, Luc Montagnier was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery while Robert Gallo pouted off in a dark corner somewhere.
One of the nicest aspects of writing about Montagnier’s original HIV paper now in 2022 is that in retrospect, Montagnier himself tore apart his own evidence for the existence of his “retrovirus” in the decades following the publishing of his 1983 paper. A perfect example of this is found in a 1997 interview Montagnier did with scientific journalist Djamel Tahi. I have provided highlights from this interview below yet I definitely recommend reading the whole discussion sometime. While reading, note the assumptions made by Montagnier about his “virus,” the various contradictions in his statements, and the revelations about the relation (or lack thereof) of HIV to AIDS. This interview provides an in-depth look into the illogical mindframe of a virologist stuck in unproven theories and pseudoscientific dogma:
Interview with Professor Luc Montagnier by Djamel TAHI – (Pasteur Institut, July 1997)
Djamel TAHI: A group of scientists from Australia argues that nobody up till now has isolated the AIDS virus, HIV. For them the rules of retrovirus isolation have not been carefully respected for HIV. These rules are: culture, purification of the material by ultracentrifugation, Electron Microscopic (EM) photographs of the material which bands at the retrovirus density, characterisation of these particles, proof of the infectivity of the particles.
Luc Montagnier: No, that is not isolation. We did isolation because we “passed on” the virus, we made a culture of the virus. For example Gallo said: “They have not isolated the virus…and we (Gallo et al.), we have made it emerge in abundance in an immortal cell line.” But before making it emerge in immortal cell lines, we made it emerge in cultures of normal Iymphocytes from a blood donor. That is the principle criterion. One had something one could pass on serially, that one could maintain. And characterised as a retrovirus not only by its visual properties, but also biochemistry, RT [reverse transcriptase] activity which is truly specific of retroviruses. We also had the reactions of antibodies against some proteins, probably the internal proteins. I say probably by analogy with knowledge of other retroviruses. One could not have isolated this retrovirus without knowledge of other retroviruses, that’s obvious. But I believe we have answered the criteria of isolation. Totally.
Djamel TAHI: according to several published references cited by the Australian group, RT is not specific to retroviruses and moreover your work to detect RT was not done in the purified material?
Luc Montagnier: I believe we published in Science (May 1983) a gradient which showed that the RT had exactly the density of 1.16. So one had a ‘peak’ which was RT. So one has fulfilled this criterion for purification. But to pass it on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, retroviruses are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity. But I think even so we were able to keep a little of their infectivity. But it was not as easy as one does it today, because the quantities of virus were nonetheless very feeble. At the beginning we stumbled on a virus which did not kill cells. The virus came from an asymptomatic patient and so was classified amongst the non-syncithia-forming, non-cytopathogenic viruses using the co-receptor ccr5 . It was the first BRU virus. One had very little of it, and one could not pass it on in an immortal cell line. We tried for some months, we didn’t succeed. We succeeded very easily with the second strain. But there lies the quite mysterious problem of the contamination of that second strain by the first. That was LAI.
Djamel TAHI: Why do the EM photographs published by you, come from the culture and not from the purification?
Luc Montagnier: There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus in the gradient. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsies. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort! It’s easy to criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of aids.
Djamel TAHI: How is it possible without EM pictures from the purification, to know whether or not these particles are viral and appertain to a retrovirus, moreover a specific retrovirus?
Luc Montagnier: Well, there were the pictures of the budding. We published images of budding which are characteristic of retroviruses. Having said that, on the morphology alone one could not say it was truly a retrovirus. For example, a French specialist of EMs of retroviruses publicly attacked me saying: “This is not a retrovirus, it is an arenavirus”. Because there are other families of virus which bud and have spikes on the surface, etc.
Djamel TAHI: Why this confusion? The EM pictures did not show clearly a retrovirus?
Luc Montagnier: At this period the best known retroviruses were those of type C, which were very typical. This retrovirus wasn’t a type C and lentiviruses were little known. I myself recognised it by looking at pictures of Equine infectious anaemia virus at the library, and later of the visna virus. But I repeat, it was not only the morphology and the budding, there was RT…it was the assemblage of these properties which made me say it was a retrovirus.
Djamel TAHI: About the RT, it is detected in the culture. Then there is purification where one finds retroviral particles. But at this density there are a lot of others elements, among others those which one calls “virus-like”.
Luc Montagnier: Exactly, exactly. If you like, it is not one property but the assemblage of the properties which made us say it was a retrovirus of the family of lentiviruses. Taken in isolation, each of the properties isn’t truly specific. It is the assemblage of them. So we had: the density, RT, pictures of budding and the analogy with the visna virus. Those are the four characteristics.
Djamel TAHI: But how do all these elements allow proof that it is a new retrovirus? Some of these elements could appertain to other things, “virus-like”…?
Luc Montagnier: Yes, and what’s more we have endogenous retroviruses which sometimes express particles – but of endogenous origin, and which therefore don’t have pathological roles, in any case not in aids.
Djamel TAHI: But then how can one make out the difference?
Luc Montagnier: Because we could “pass on” the virus. We passed on the RT activity in new Iymphocytes. We got a “peak” of replication. We kept track of the virus. It is the assembly of properties which made us say it was a retrovirus. And why new? The first question put to us by Nature was: “Is it not a laboratory contamination? Is it perhaps a mouse retrovirus or an animal retrovirus?”. To that one could say no! Because we had shown that the patient had antibodies against a protein of his own virus. The assemblage has a perfect logic! But it is important to take it as an assemblage. If you take each property separately, they are not specific. It is the assemblage which gives the specificity.
Djamel TAHI: With what did you culture the lymphocytes of your patient? With the H9 cell line?
Luc Montagnier: No, because it didn’t work at all with the H9. We used a lot of cell lines and the only one which could produce it was the Tampon (!?) Iymphocytes.
Djamel TAHI: When one looks at the published electron microscope photographs, for you as a retrovirologist it is clear it’s a retrovirus, a new retrovirus?
Luc Montagnier: No, at that point one cannot say. With the first budding pictures it could be a type C virus. One cannot distinguish.
Djamel TAHI: Could it be anything else than a retrovirus?
Luc Montagnier: No…well, after all, yes…it could be another budding virus. But we have an atlas. One knows a little bit from familiarity, what is a retrovirus and what is not. With the morphology one can distinguish but it takes a certain familiarity.
Djamel TAHI: Why no purification?
Luc Montagnier: I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn’t take the “peak”…or it didn’t work…because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on.
Djamel TAHI: But there comes a point when one must do the characterisation of the virus. This means: what are the proteins of which it’s composed?
Luc Montagnier: That’s it. So then, analysis of the proteins of the virus demands mass production and purification. It is necessary to do that. And there I should say that that partially failed. J.C. Chermann was in charge of that, at least for the internal proteins. And he had difficulties producing the virus and it didn’t work. But this was one possible way, the other way was to have the nucleic acid, cloning, etc. It’s this way which worked very quickly. The other way didn’t work because we had at that time a system of production which wasn’t robust enough. One had not enough particles produced to purify and characterise the viral proteins. It couldn’t be done. One couldn’t produce a lot of virus at that time because this virus didn’t emerge in the immortal cell line. We could do it with the LAI virus, but at that time we did not know that.
Djamel TAHI: Gallo did it?
Luc Montagnier: Gallo?…I don’t know if he really purified. I don’t believe so. I believe he launched very quickly into the molecular part, that’s to say cloning. What he did do is the Western Blot. We used the RIPA technique, so what they did that was new was they showed some proteins which one had not seen well with the other technique. Here is another aspect of characterising the virus. You cannot purify it but if you know somebody who has antibodies against the proteins of the virus, you can purify the antibody/antigen complex. That’s what one did. And thus one had a visible band, radioactively labelled, which one called protein 25, p25. And Gallo saw others. There was the p25 which he calledp24, there was p41 which we saw…
Djamel TAHI: About the antibodies, numerous studies have shown that these antibodies react with other proteins or elements which are not part of HIV. And that they can not be sufficient to characterise the proteins of HIV.
Luc Montagnier: No! Because we had controls. We had people who didn’t have AIDS and had no antibodies against these proteins. And the techniques we used were techniques I had refined myself some years previously, to detect the src gene. You see the src gene was detected by immunoprecipitation too. It was the p60 [protein 60]. I was very dexterous, and my technician also, with the RIPA technique. If one gets a specific reaction, it’s specific.
Djamel TAHI: But we know AIDS patients are infected with a multitude of other infectious agents which are susceptible to induce crossreactions.
Luc Montagnier: Yes, but antibodies are very specific. They know how to distinguish one molecule in one million. There is a very great affinity. When antibodies have sufficient affinity, you fish out something really very specific. With monoclonal antibodies you fish out really ONE protein. All of that is used for diagnostic antigen detection.
Djamel TAHI: For you the p41 was not of viral origin and so didn’t belong to HIV. For Gallo it was the most specific protein of the HIV. Why this contradiction?
Luc Montagnier: We were both reasonably right. That’s to say that I in my RIPA technique…in effect there are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere – there’s a non-specific “background noise”, and amongst these proteins one is very abundant in cells, which is actin. And this protein has a molecular weight 43000kd. So, it was there. So I was reasonably right, but what Gallo saw on the other hand was the gp41 of HIV, because he was using the Western Blot. And that I have recognised.
Djamel TAHI: For you p24 was the most specific protein of HIV, for Gallo not at all. One recognises thanks to other studies that antibodies directed against p24 were often found in patients who were not infected with HIV, and even certain animals. In fact today, an antibody reaction with p24 is considered non specific.
Luc Montagnier: It is not sufficient for diagnosing HIV infection.
Djamel TAHI: No protein is sufficient.
Luc Montagnier: No protein is sufficient anyway. But at the time the problem didn’t reveal itself like that. The problem was to know whether it was an HTLV or not. The only human retrovirus known was HTLV. And we showed clearly that it was not an HTLV, that Gallo’s monoclonal antibodies against the p24 of HTLV did no recognise the p25 of HIV.
Djamel TAHI: At the density of retroviruses, 1.16, there are a lot of particles, but only 20% of them appertain to HIV. Why are 80% of the proteins not viral and the others are? How can one make out the difference?
Luc Montagnier: There are two explanations. For the one part, at this density you have what one calls microvesicles of cellular origin, which have approximately the same size as the virus, and then the virus itself, in budding, brings cellular proteins. So effectively these proteins are not viral, they are cellular in origin. So, how to make out the difference?! Frankly with this technique one can’t do it precisely. What we can do is to purify the virus to the maximum with successive gradients, and you always stumble on the same proteins.
Djamel TAHI: The others disappear?
Luc Montagnier: Let’s say the others reduce a little bit. You take off the microvesicles, but each time you lose a lot of virus, so it’s necessary to have a lot of virus to start off in order to keep a little bit when you arrive at the end. And then again it’s the molecular analysis, it’s the sequence of these proteins which is going allow one to say whether they are of viral origin or not. That’s what we began for p25, that failed…and the other technique is to do the cloning, and so then you have the DNA and from the DNA you get the proteins. You deduce the sequence of the proteins and their size and, you stumble again on what you’ve already observed with immunoprecipitation or with gel electrophoresis. And one knows by analogy with the sizes of the proteins of other retroviruses, one can deduce quite closely these proteins. So you have the p25 which was close to the p24 of HTLV, you have the p18.. in the end you have the others. On the other hand the one which was very different was the very large protein, p120.
Luc Montagnier’s 1997 interview is a highlight reel of revelations. We can see clearly, as Montagnier repeated on more than one occasion, that he himself (and Robert Gallo according to his knowledge) did not purify any “virus.” Why is this important? In order to determine whether a “virus” actually exists, the particles must be purified (freed from contaminants, pollutants, and foreign elements) so that they can be isolated (separated from everything else). Only once this occurs can the particles assumed to be “virus” then be proven pathogenic through experimentation. Only purified particles can be used to visualize as well as biochemically and molecularly characterize the “virus” in order to determine specific proteins, antibodies, genomic sequence, electron microscopy imaging, etc. Without purification, one can not determine that the “virus” exists at all and the non-specific laboratory results obtained from unpurified material are absolutely meaningless.
As most virologists do, Montagnier claimed that even though he did not purify the “virus” and therefore did not have direct evidence for its existence, he had plenty of non-specific indirect evidence that when added together, became “specific” to the “virus.” It was the accumulation of indirect evidence that proved his “virus” existed. In essence, he had a circumstantial case based upon evidence that was not drawn from direct observation. This would be considered a weak case in a court of law.
Looking at his circumstantial case, Montagnier admitted that without purification, images of particles taken from electron microscopy could not be definitively claimed to be “retroviruses” or “viruses” of any kind based on morphological appearance alone. He stated that it was necessary to have knowledge of other “retroviruses” first in order to discover a new one. He himself referred to an atlas of images of other “retroviruses” in order to claim that his unpurified particles were also “retroviruses.”
However, what Montagnier did not admit is that this atlas of “retroviruses” was also made up of images of unpurified particles. Therefore, none of the particles imaged in his atlas could be considered “retrovirus” particles until evidence of purified/isolated “retroviruses” are released. Purification would have had to have occurred with the very first “retrovirus” ever discovered and imaged in order for this method of identification to be valid. Montagnier admitted that while purification is a necessary step, it is impossible as the more you purify the sample, the more damage occurs to the particles and the less “virus” you have at the end. Since he stated that they did not purify the culture used to obtain the EM images of “HIV,” there is no proof that the random particles claimed to be HIV are in fact a “virus” at all.
Montagnier also tried to claim that antibodies/antigens, such as the p24 protein, are specific to HIV and that they can be used as part of the evidence for the existence of his “virus.” However, as Djamel expertly pointed out, these proteins are not specific to HIV as there are over 60 conditions (such as pregnancy, tuberculosis, the flu vaccine, etc.) with related proteins that can trigger positive HIV tests. Montagnier ended up admitting that no protein is sufficient for diagnosing HIV thus nullifying any claims he made about the specificity of antibodies/antigens and their value in being used as indirect evidence for the existence of an unseen “virus.”
The biggest revelation by Montagnier in this 1997 interview is his belief that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. While he believed he had discovered a new “retrovirus” based on an accumulation of weak indirect evidence, according to his statement it was not pathogenic. If we take his indirect evidence and break it down, Motagnier did not have purified “virus” particles which means his EM images are useless, his antibody tests are meaningless, and the genomic sequence is worthless. Without purified particles, he had no proof of pathogeniticity as he had no valid independent variable in order to establish cause and effect. It is amazing that Montagnier believed he had a “virus” at all as in every meaningful way possible, he did not have evidence of one.
All of that being said, for those still interested in reading Montagnier’s original 1983 paper containing no evidence of any “virus” whatsoever, here is the paper in its entirety:
Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic Retrovirus from a Patientat Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
Abstract. A retrovirus belonging to the family of recently discovered human T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV), but clearly distinct from each previous isolate, has been isolated from a Caucasian patient with signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This virus is a typical type-C RNA tumor virus, buds from the cell membrane, prefers magnesium for reverse transcriptase activity, and has an internal antigen (p25) similar to HTLVp24. Antibodies from serum of this patient react with proteins from viruses of the HTLV-I subgroup, but type-specific antisera to HTLV-I do not precipitate proteins of the new isolate. The virus from this patient has been transmitted into cord blood lymphocytes, and the virus produced by these cells is similar to the original isolate.
From these studies it is concluded that this virus as well as the previous HTLV isolates belong to a general family of T-lymphotropic retroviruses that are horizontally transmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS.The acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has recently been recognized in several countries (1). The disease has been reported mainly in homosexual males with multiple partners, and epidemiological studies suggest horizontal transmission by sexual routes (2) as well as by intravenous drug administration (3), and blood transfusion (4).
The pronounced depression of cellular immunity that occurs in patients with AIDS and the quantitative modifications of subpopulations of their T lymphocytes (5) suggest that T cells or a subset of T cells might be a preferential target for the putative infectious agent. Alternatively, these modifications may result from subsequent infections. The depressed cellular immunity may result in serious opportunistic infections in AIDS patients, many of whom develop Kaposi’s sarcoma (1). However, a picture of persistent multiple lymphadenopathies has also been described in homosexual males (6) and infants (7) who may or may not develop AIDS (8).
The histological aspect of such lymph nodes is that of reactive hyperplasia. Such cases may correspond to an early or a milder form of the disease. We report here the isolation of a novel retrovirus from a lymph node of a homosexual patient with multiple lymphadenopathies. The virus appears to be a member of the human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV) family (9).
The retrovirus was propagated in cultures of T lymphocytes from a healthy adult donor and from umbilical cord blood of newborn humans. Viral core proteins were not immunologically related to the p24 and p19 proteins of subgroup I of HTLV (9). However, serum of the patient reacted strongly with surface antigen (or antigens) present on HTLV-I-infected cells. Moreover, the ionic requirements of the viral reverse transcriptase were close to that of HTLV. Recently, a type-C retrovirus was also identified in T cells from a patient with hairy cell leukemia. Analysis of the proteins of this virus showed they were related to, but clearly different from, proteins of previous HTLV isolates (10).
Moreover, recent studies of the nucleic acid sequences of this new virus show it is less than 10 percent homologous to the earlier HTLV isolates (11). This virus was called HTLV-II to distinguish it from all the earlier, highly related viruses termed HTLV-I. The new retrovirus reported here appears to also differ from HTLV-II. We tentatively conclude that this virus, as well as all previous HTLV isolates, belong to a family of T-lymphotropic retroviruses that are horizontallytransmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS.
The patient was a 33-year-old homosexual male who sought medical consultation in December 1982 for cervical lymphadenopathy and asthenia (patient 1). Examination showed axillary and inguinal lymphadenopathies. Neither fever nor recent loss of weight were noted. The patient had a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982. During interviews he indicated that he had had more than 50 sexual partners per year and had traveled to many countries, including North Africa, Greece, and India. His last trip to New York was in 1979.
Laboratory tests indicated positive serology (immunoglobulin G) for cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus. Herpes simplex virus was detected in cells from his throat that were cultured on human and monkey cells. A biopsy of a cervical lymph node was performed. One sample served for histological examination, which revealed follicular hyperplasia without change of the general architecture of the lymph node. Immunohistological studies revealed, in paracortical areas, numerous T lymphocytes (OKT3+). Typing of the whole cellular suspension indicated that 62 percent of the cells were T lymphocytes (OKT3+), 44 percent were T-helper cells (OKT4+), and 16 percent were suppressor cells (OKT8+).
Cells of the same biopsied lymph node were put in culture medium with phytohemagglutinin (PHA), T-cell growth factor (TCGF), and antiserum to human a interferon (12). The reason for using this antiserum was to neutralize endogenous interferon which is secreted by cells chronically infected by viruses, including retroviruses. In the mouse system, we had previously shown that antiserum to interferon could increase retrovirus production by a factor of 10 to 50 (13). After 3 days, the culture was continued in the same medium without PHA. Samples were regularly taken for assay of reverse transcriptase and for examination in the electron microscope.
After 15 days of culture, a reversetranscriptase activity was detected in the culture supernatant by using the ionic conditions described for HTLV-I (14). Virus production continued for 15 days and decreased thereafter, in parallel with the decline of lymphocyte proliferation. Peripheral blood lymphocytes cultured in the same way were consistently negative for reverse transcriptase activity, even after 6 weeks. Cytomegalovirus could be detected, upon prolonged co-cultivation with MRC5 cells, in the original biopsy tissue, but not in the cultured T lymphocytes at any time of the culture.
Virus transmission was attempted with the use of a culture of T lymphocytes established from an adult healthy donor of the Blood Transfusion Center at the Pasteur Institute. On day 3, half of the culture was cocultivated with lymphocytes from the biopsy after centrifugation of the mixed cell suspensions. Reverse transcriptase activity could be detected in the supernatant on day 15 of the coculture but was not detectable on days 5 and 10. The reverse transcriptase had the same characteristics as that released by the patient’s cells and the amount released remained stable for 15 to 20 days. Cells of the uninfected culture of the donor lymphocytes did not release reverse transcriptase activity during this period or up to 6 weeks whenthe culture was discontinued.
The cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture was used to infect 3-day-old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords, LCl and LC5, in the presence of Polybrene (2 ,ug/ml). After a lag period of 7 days, a relatively high titer of reverse transcriptase activity was detected in both of the cord lymphocyte cultures. Identical cultures, which had not been infected, remained negative. These two successive infections clearly show that the virus could be propagated on normal lymphocytes from either newborns or adults.
That this new isolate was a retrovirus was further indicated by its density in a sucrose gradient, which was 1.16, and by its labeling with [3H]uridine (Fig. 1). Electron microscopy of the infected umbilical cord lymphocytes showed characteristic immature particles with dense crescent (C-type) budding at the plasma membrane (Fig. 2).
Virus-infected cells from the original biopsy as well as infected lymphocytes from the first and second viral passages were used to determine the optimal requirements for reverse transcriptase activity and the template specificity of the enzyme. The results were the same in all instances. The reverse transcriptase activity displayed a strong affinity for poly(adenylate-oligodeoxythymidylate) [poly(A) -oligo(dT)], and required Mg2+ with an optimal concentration (5 mM) slightly lower than that for HT (14) and an optimal pH of 7.8. The reaction was not inhibited by actinomycin D. This character, as well as the preferential specificity for riboseadenylate *deoxythymidylate over deoxyadenylate * deoxythymidylate, distinguish the viral enzyme from DNA-dependent polymerases.
We then determined whether or not this isolate was indistinguishable from HTLV-1 isolates. Human T-cell leukemia virus has been isolated from cultured T lymphocytes of patients with T lymphomas and T leukemias [for a review, see (9)]. The antibodies used were specific for the p19 and p24 core proteins of HTLV-I. A monoclonal antibody to p19 (15) and a polyclonal goat antibody to p24 (16) were used in an indirect fluorescence assay against infected cells from the biopsy of patient 1 and lymphocytes obtained from a healthy donor and infected with the same virus. As shown in Table 1, the virus-producing cells did not react with either type of antibody, whereas two lines of cord lymphocytes chronically infected with HTLV (17) and used as controls showed strong surface fluorescence.
When serum from patient 1 was tested against infected lymphocytes from the biopsy the surface fluorescence was as ntense as that of the control HTLV-producing lines. This suggests that serum of the patient contains antibodies
that recognize a common antigen present on HTLV-I-producing cells and on the patient’s lymphocytes. Similarly, cord lymphocytes infected with the virus from patient 1 did not react with antibodies to p19 or p24. Only a minor proportion of the cells (about I percent) reacted with the patient’s serum. This may indicatethat only this fraction of the cells was infected and produced virus. Alternatively, the antigen recognized by the patient’s serum may contain cellular determinants that show less expression in T lymphocytes of newborns.
We also cultured T lymphocytes from a lymph node of another patient (patient 2) who presented with multiple adenopathies and had been in close contact with an AIDS case. These lymphocytes did not produce viral reverse transcriptase; however, they reacted in the immunofluorescence assay with serum from patient 1. Moreover, serum from patient 2 reacted strongly with control HTLV-producing lines (not shown). In order to determine which viral antigen was recognized by antibodies present in’ the two patients’ sera, several immunoprecipitation experiments were carried out. Cord lymphocytes infected with virus from patient I and uninfected controls were labeled with [35S]methionine for 20 hours. Cells were lysed with detergents, and a cytoplasmic S10 extract was made. Labeled virus released in the supernatant was banded in a sucrose gradient.
Both materials were immunoprecipitated by antiserum to HTLV- I p24, by serum from patients 1 and 2, and by serum samples from healthy donors. Immunocomplexes were analyzed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis under denaturing conditions. Figure 3 shows that a p25 protein present in the virus-infected cells from patient 1 and in LC1 cells infected with this virus, was specifically recognized by serum from patients I and 2 but not by antiserum to HTLV-1 p24 or serum of normal donors.
Conversely, the p24 present in control HTLV-infected cell extracts was recognized by antibodies to HTLV but not by serum from patient 1. A weak band (lane 2, Fig. 3B) could hardly be seen with serum from patient 2, suggesting some similarities of the p25 protein from this patient’s cells with HTLV-1 p24. When purified, labeled virus from patient I was analyzed under similar conditions, three major proteins could be seen: the p25 protein and proteins with molecular weights of 80,000 and 45,000. The 45K protein may be dueto contamination of the virus by cellular actin which was present in immunoprecipitates of all the cell extracts (Fig. 3).
These results, together with the immunofluorescence data, indicate that the retrovirus from patient 1 contains a major p25 protein, similar in size to that of HTLV-I but different immunologically. The DNA sequences of these and other members of the HTLV family are being compared. All attempts to infect other cells such as a B-lymphoblastoid cell line (Raji), immature or pre-T cell lines (CEM, HSB2), and normal fibroblasts (feline and mink lung cell lines) were unsuccessful.
The role of this virus in the etiology of AIDS remains to be determined. Patient 1 had circulating antibodies against the virus, and some of the latter persisted in lymphocytes of his lymph node (or nodes). The virus-producing lymphocytes seemed to have no increased growth potential in vitro compared to the uninfected cells. Therefore, the multiple lymphadenopathies may represent a host reaction against the persistent viral infection rather than hyperproliferation of virus-infected lymphocytes. Other factors, such as repeated infection by the same virus or other bacterial and viral agents may, in some patients, overload this early defense mechanism and bring about an irreversible depletion of T cells involved in cellular immunity.
doi: 10.1126/science.6189183.
That’s an impressive circle. Montagnier looks quite pleased with his creation.
In Summary:
According to HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier, they did “isolate” HIV because they “passed on” the “virus” and they made a culture of the “virus”
He stated that Robert Gallo (American virologist who plagiarized Montagnier’s work) said: “They have not isolated the virus…and we (Gallo et al.), we have made it emerge in abundance in an immortal cell line.”
But before making it emerge in immortal cell lines, Montagnier claimed his team made it emerge in cultures of normal Iymphocytes from a blood donor
Montagnier stated that it is obvious one could not have isolated any retrovirus without knowledge of other “retroviruses”
To pass a “virus” on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, “retroviruses” are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity
At the beginning they stumbled on a “virus” which did not kill cells
It was the first BRU “virus,” yet they had very little of it and could not pass it on in an immortal cell line
They were later successful with the second strain yet Montagnier stated that there lies the quite mysterious problem of the contamination of that second strain by the first which was LAI
Quick sidenote: BRU and LAI are considered the first strains of HIV
“The original isolate HIV-1 Bru, formerly called LAV, was derived from patient BRU. HIV-1 Lai was derived from patient LAI and contaminated a HIV-1 Bru culture between 20 July and 3 August 1983. The culture became, in effect, HIV-1 Lai, identifiable by a unique motif in the V3 loop. Because of this contamination two, rather than one, HIV-1 isolates were sent to the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at the National Cancer Institute on 23 September 1983.”
When asked about the lack of purification for EM imaging of HIV, Montagnier stated that there was so little production of “virus”it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of “virus” in the gradient
What they saw were some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of “retroviruses” as they were very different
He claimed it was “a Roman effort” with the culture as it took many hours to find the first pictures
On the morphology alone one could not say the EM images were truly a “retrovirus”
A French specialist of EMs of “retroviruses” publicly attacked Montagnier saying: “This is not a retrovirus, it is an arenavirus” as there are other families of “virus” which bud and have spikes on the surface, etc.
He stated that it was not only the morphology and the budding, but that there was reverse transcriptase
It was not one property but the assemblage of the properties which made them say it was a “retrovirus” of the family of “lentiviruses”
Taken in isolation, each of the properties isn’t truly specific
The four properties were:
The density
Reverse Transcriptase
Pictures of budding
The analogy with the visna “virus”
Montagnier stated that we have endogenous (human origin) “retroviruses” which sometimes express particles – but of endogenous origin, and which therefore don’t have pathological roles
The first question put to them by Nature was: “Is it not a laboratory contamination? Is it perhaps a mouse “retrovirus” or an animal “retrovirus?”
Montagnier stated that it was important to take it as an assemblage as if you take each property separately, they are not specific and it is the assemblage which gives the specificity
When culturing the “virus,” they used a lot of cell lines and the only one which could produce it was the Tampon (!?) Iymphocytes
He admitted that when viewing EM images, one cannot distinguish if the particle is a “retrovirus” or not
They used an atlas of previous “retroviruses” to determine if the “virus” had the morphology of one as it takes a certain familiarity to distinguish them
Montagnier repeated they did not purify the “virus” because if you purify, you damage the “virus” particles
He stated that for infectious particles, it is better to not touch them too much
Analysis of the proteins of the “virus” demands mass production and purification and so it is necessary to do that
In that regard, Montagnier claimed that they partially failed
They did not have enough particles produced to purify and characterise the “viral” proteins as it couldn’t be done
They couldn’t produce a lot of “virus” at that time because the “virus” didn’t emerge in the immortal cell line
Montagnier stated that he believed Gallo also did not purify and he believed Gallo had launched very quickly into the molecular cloning part
He also said that you cannot purify the “virus” but if you know somebody who has antibodies against the proteins of the “virus,” you can purify the antibody/antigen complex
However, this is a complete contradiction as he claimed that purification needed to be done in order to characterise the proteins of the “virus,” so if you can’t purify the “virus” to characterise the proteins, you would be unable to know which proteins act against the “virus”as well as any specific antibodies reacting to them
Montagnier claimed antibodies are very specific and that they know how to distinguish one molecule in one million
With monoclonal antibodies you fish out really ONE protein and all of that is used for diagnostic antigen detection
There are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere – there’s a non-specific “background noise”
An antibody reaction with p24 is considered non specific and it is not sufficient for diagnosing HIV infection
Montagnier agreed that no protein is sufficient to diagnose HIV
When asked why, at the 1.16 density gradient band, 80% of the particles are “non-viral” and only 20% are HIV, Montagnier explained that at this density, there are microvesicles of cellular origin, which have approximately the same size as the “virus,” and then the “virus” itself, in budding, brings cellular proteins
Effectively these proteins are not “viral” and are cellular in origin
He stated that with this technique one can’t differentiate them precisely
If you purify the “virus” to the maximum with successive gradients, you always stumble on the same proteins
Montagnier stated that the other proteins only reduce a little bit as you can take off the microvesicles, but each time you lose a lot of “virus,” so it’s necessary to have a lot of “virus” to start off in order to keep a little bit when you arrive at the end
And then again it’s the molecular analysis, it’s the sequence of these proteins which is going allow one to say whether they are of “viral” origin or not
However, what Montagnier doesn’t seem to understand is that if you can not purify the “virus” in order to determine which proteins belong to the “virus,” sequencing proteins will not tellyou if they are “viral” or not
This “virus” is a typical type-C RNA tumor “virus,” buds from the cell membrane, prefers magnesium for reverse transcriptase activity, and has an internal antigen (p25) similar to HTLVp24
Antibodies from serum of this patient react with proteins from “viruses” of the HTLV-I subgroup, but type-specific antisera to HTLV-I do not precipitate proteins of the new isolate
Remember, Montagnier admitted they did not purify the “virus” and that purification was necessary in order to characterise the proteins of the “virus, so how would they know if the antibodies are reacting to “virus” proteins?
The “virus” from this patient has been transmitted into cord blood lymphocytes, and the “virus” produced by these cells is similar to the original isolate
From these studies it is concluded that this “virus” as well as the previous HTLV isolates belong to a general family of T-lymphotropic “retroviruses” that are horizontally transmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS
The pronounced depression of cellular immunity that occurs in patients with AIDS and the quantitative modifications of subpopulations of their T lymphocytes suggest that T cells or a subset of T cells might be a preferential target for the putative infectious agent
Alternatively, these modifications may result from subsequent infections
The depressed cellular immunity may result in serious opportunistic infections in AIDS patients, many of whom develop Kaposi’s sarcoma
However, a picture of persistent multiple lymphadenopathies has also been described in homosexual males and infants who may or may not develop AIDS
The “retrovirus” was propagated in cultures of T lymphocytes from a healthy adult donor and from umbilical cord blood of newborn humans
They tentatively (i.e. subject to further confirmation; not definitely) concluded that this “virus,” as well as all previous HTLV isolates, belong to a family of T-lymphotropic “retroviruses” that are horizontally transmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS
The patient the “virus” came from had a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982
Oddly enough, syphilis has the exact same symptoms of AIDS and the usual treatment is a series of Penicllin injections, which coincidentally (or not) can destroy a person’s “immune” system
Laboratory tests indicated positive serology (immunoglobulin G) for “cytomegalovirus” (CMV) and Epstein-Barr “virus“
Herpes simplex “virus” was detected in cells from his throat that were cultured on human and monkey cells
Cells of the same biopsied lymph node were put in culture medium with phytohemagglutinin (PHA), T-cell growth factor (TCGF), and antiserum to human a interferon
The reason for using this antiserum was to neutralize endogenous interferon which is secreted by cells chronically infected by “viruses,” including “retroviruses”
After 15 days of culture, a reverse transcriptase activity was detected in the culture supernatant by using the ionic conditions described for HTLV-I and “virus” production continued for 15 days and decreased thereafter, in parallel with the decline of lymphocyte proliferation
Quick sidenote: Montagnier stated here that the “virus” was cultured for 30 days, as it took 15 days for the reverse transcriptase activity to be detected and another 15 days for the “virus” production to decrease. Interestingly, in a paper he wrote in 2003, Montagnier stated this:
“The initial clinical isolate, unlike HTLV, had no transforming or cytopathic effects on T lymphocytes. Barré-Sinoussi notes in her commentary that the lymphocyte culture I started from the patient’s lymph node biopsy died after 4 weeks. But this was anticipated as soon as we realized that the cells were not transformed, because normal cultures of the same type also die within this time period.The need for succesive use of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to maintain a viral culture was therefore a likely hypothesis that proved to be correct. The virus would later be classified as non-syncytium-inducing, as is usually the case for viruses isolated from recently infected HIV patients who are either asymptomatic or present with lymphadenopathies. However, the first typical cytopathic effect, formation of large syncytia, was not observed until 5 months later, in a third clinical sample (HIV LAI) from a patient who had full-blown AIDS.”
It appears they cultured the “virus” for 30 days knowing full well that regular cultures of the same type die within this 4 week time frame. Montagnier stated that they did not even notice the cytopathic effect (CPE) until they had a third clinical sample 5 months later. CPE is claimed to be structural changes in host cells that are caused by “viral” invasion and yet, this was absent in their first two samples.
On day 3, half of the culture was cocultivated with lymphocytes from the biopsy after centrifugation of the mixed cell suspensions
Cells of the uninfected culture of the donor lymphocytes did not release reverse transcriptase activity during this period or up to 6 weeks when the culture was discontinued
The cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture was used to infect 3-day-old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords, LCl and LC5, in the presence of Polybrene (2 ,ug/ml)
FYI, Polybrene was shown to negatively impact the proliferation and maintenance of growth potential of human keratinocytes here
Electron microscopy of the infected umbilical cord lymphocytes showed characteristic immature particles with dense crescent (C-type) budding at the plasma membrane
“Virus-infected” cells from the original biopsy as well as infected lymphocytes from the first and second “viral” passages were used to determine the optimal requirements for reverse transcriptase activity and the template specificity of the enzyme
A monoclonal antibody to p19 (15) and a polyclonal goat antibody to p24 (16) were used in an indirect (i.e. not directly caused by or resulting from something) fluorescence assay against infected cells from the biopsy of patient 1 and lymphocytesobtained from a healthy donor and infected with the same “virus” (why did they not use healthy donor lymphocytes without the added “virus?”)
Cord lymphocytes infected with the “virus” from patient 1 did not react with antibodies to p19 or p24
Only a minor proportion of the cells (about I percent) reacted with the patient’s serum
This may indicate that only this fraction of the cells was infected and produced “virus”
When purified, labeled “virus” from patient I was analyzed under similar conditions, three major proteins could be seen: the p25 protein and proteins with molecular weights of 80,000 and 45,000
The 45K protein may be due to contamination of the “virus” by cellular actin which was present in immunoprecipitates of all the cell extracts (i.e. “purified” with contaminants…otherwise known as not purified)
All attempts to infect other cells such as a B-lymphoblastoid cell line (Raji), immature or pre-T cell lines (CEM, HSB2), and normal fibroblasts (feline and mink lung cell lines) were unsuccessful
The role of this “virus” in the etiology of AIDS remains to be determined (ultimately, Montagnier believed his “virus” did not cause AIDS)
Other factors, such as repeated infection by the same “virus” or other bacterial and “viral” agents may, in some patients, overload this early defense mechanism and bring about an irreversible depletion of T cells involved in cellular immunity
Luc Montagnier unleashed his “retroviral” monster onto the world in 1983 and it grew into a beast of its own kind during the proceeding decades. Countless lives have been destroyed by the fear of the HIV diagnosis as well as the subsequent subjection to toxic black label pharmaceuticals. The stigma of the positive test result is the “viral” scarlet letter unfairly placed upon a person in a toxic state due to lifestyle choices and/or environmental factors. It does not matter that Montagnier attempted to steer his monster from the lethal killer it was made out to be into a harmless passenger inside the human body. It does not matter that he believed HIV did not cause AIDS. It does not matter that he believed that co-factors other than a “virus” should be examined in regards to AIDS. It does not matter that he believed HIV could be eliminated based on healthy diet/lifestyle choices. It does not matter that he admitted to not purifying any “virus.” Montagnier’s legacy is tied to the beast of his own creation. He opened Pandora’s Box and released this fraudulent curse upon the world. For that, I doubt he will rest in peace.
In an October, 2021 Forbes article, AstraZeneca marketed an experimental “injectable antibody therapy cocktail” to a fearful public. Without valid research, or proof, it claimed its cocktail to be effective at preventing severe illness or death in people with mild or moderate Covid-19 infections. It claimed its therapy cut the risk of death or severe illness by two-thirds (67%) if given within five days of showing symptoms.
The cocktail was marked as experimental for a reason.
Neither AstraZeneca, nor any vaccine maker, has ever revealed the ingredients of its experimental antibody or mRNA cocktail to the public. Neither have they provided informed consent as part of the offer.
Everything is an offer to contract, whether it be a personal, medical, or a business relationship. Every vaccinated subject must sign that they take full responsibility. Because no one else will.
According to the AMA, Informed Consent is required in all medical contracts in order to provide the nature, purpose, burdens, and risks of the proposed medical intervention so the patient can formally consent. The informed consent process falls under 45 CFR 46, for human subjects in research, which sounds a lot like conducting human experimentation. Americans were warned by the Secretary of State in March of 2020 that COVID is a live exercise.
In the beginning, COVID injectables were deployed as Emergency Use Authorized, or EUA, meaning, Off-label, Experimental Research, Unapproved, and without Informed Consent. In other words, use at your own discretion. Until recently, if you wanted to know what was inside the injectable mRNA cocktails, you were handed a blank piece of paper. However, what was hidden is now being revealed.
In November 2020 Dr Andreas Noack, a German chemist and one of the EU’s top graphene experts, released a video explaining that he had discovered graphene hydroxide contained in the COVID-19 experimental treatments. He described how the graphene hydroxide nano structures injected into the human body act as ‘razor blades’ inside the veins of recipients and how they would not show up on an autopsy or normal toxicology tests given their atomic size. On 26th November 2021, just hours after publishing his latest video about graphene hydroxide, he died in suspicious circumstances.
Professor Dr Pablo Campra, University of Almeria, Spain also examined Covid-19 experimental treatments in November 2021 using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy, the study of frequencies. He too confirmed the presence of graphene.
The charges center around the nano-ingredient, graphene hydroxide (GHO), discovered in EUA COVID injections. Considered to be a trade secret, GHO is not found on any label. Therefore, no one would be the wiser, except that GHO can be identified for its polymeric signature properties using Micro-Raman Spectroscopy. Other methods used to verify the serums morphologies and contents include: Optical Microscope, Dark-Field Microscope, UV absorbance and fluorescence spectroscope, Scanning Electron Microscopes, Transmission Electron Microscope, Energy Dispersive Spectroscope, X-ray Diffractometer, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance instruments.
Damage Report
Trade secrets aside, Graphene hydroxide is well known in the world of science. A Pubmed database search generates over 18,000 published studies on ‘Graphene oxide’. Whether called graphene oxide (GO), or graphene hydroxide, (GOH), it is nanotechnology invisible to the human eye. Graphene has optical, thermal, mechanical, and electrical properties, with applications in silicon-based semi-conductor devices. Once inside the human body, graphene acquires magnetic properties and becomes a superconductor. The human superconductor.
Graphene is isolated from crystalline graphite. It is a flat monolayer composed of single-atom-thick, two-dimensional sheets of a hexagonally arranged honeycomb lattice. A summary of the findings detailed in the attached toxicology report reveals that Graphene nanomaterials (GFNs) can penetrate the body’s natural barriers and damage the central nervous system.
Summary of Graphene hydroxide (GOH) in biological systems:
Epigenetic toxicity comes from toxic environmental exposures which exert undesirable genetic effects on living organisms. Epigenetic toxins are found in water, air, food, and medical drugs, including nanotech. The current focus of graphene nanotech utilizes its electromagnetic properties as a carrier and adjuvant in vaccines. For instance, UV Fluorescence test results from the Pfizer BioNanoTech vaccine, show nanomaterial present in the vial that corresponds perfectly to that of graphene oxide (340 nm).
Due to its magnetic properties, Graphene oxide nanoparticles have the ability to absorb radiation from frequency 5G technology. Unfortunately, most MSDS sheets ignore contact by injection, and electromagnetic effects. If injected into the body, these nanoparticles have the ability to not only cause biological harm, but also to absorb radiation and convert gigahertz signals to terahertz signals, thousands of times higher than those created by silicon, alone. The European Union research group called EUCALL states:
What makes this feat possible is the highly efficient non-linear interaction between light and matter that occurs in graphene. The researchers used graphene containing a large number of free electrons that originated from the interaction between graphene and the substrate onto which it was deposited. When these electrons became excited by an oscillating electric field in room-temperature conditions, they rapidly shared their energy with bound electrons in the material.
It is best to lower expectations for justice to prevail in the UK case, or any case, of criminal corporations who geo-engineer humanity using experimental cocktails. After all, it is the individuals hidden behind the “corporate entity” who write history. For as long as humans have lived on earth, biology, along with history, has been altered. (See Arthur Firstenberg’s book, The Invisible Rainbow). Nothing changes when criminal defendants are identified as “corporate entities,” without names and insurance bonds. It becomes impossible stop the interconnected crimes, let alone stop the madness.
History and biology continue to be rewritten and transformed. While fraud is allowed to continue under the guise of ineffective public shaming rituals that pass for justice, humanity is entering a new Transhuman Age. With so many corporate criminals protected by bubble indemnity, there is a question that must be asked. Is the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007 and other Acts like it, a distraction, established to legalize the Act of Corporate Homicide, rather than deter it?
The way to rewrite history and biology is an individual process of knowing who you are and of rejecting The Transhuman Agenda.
Disclaimer: The author encourages you to consult your health care practitioner before making any health changes, especially any changes related to a specific diagnosis or condition. No information in this article should be relied upon to determine diet, make a medical diagnosis, or to determine or prescribe a treatment for a medical condition. This information is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended to build synapses for thinking.
Dr Robert Gallo made his famous announcement at a press conference on 23 April 1984 that “his” HIV virus was the probable cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). From that moment on, the race was on to find a pharmaceutical weapon against it.
At the height of AIDS epidemic in 2005, the rhetoric about HIV danger and death penetrated every corner of the world. The rapid test for HIV was accepted as the test for AIDS, which divided people into positive and negative camps.
Flashback to June 2015, ten years after the height of the AIDS epidemic:
AIDS-related deaths have fallen by 35 percent since the peak of the epidemic in 2005 and the number of new infections continues to decline annually. That’s the good news. Nonetheless there are thought to be around 35 million people living with HIV globally; 19 million don’t currently know their HIV-positive status. Of those people who need antiretroviral drugs, only just over a third have access. That’s the bad news.
We have the scientific know-how to end AIDS and every month seems to bring news of another biomedical advance that could change the trajectory of the epidemic once and for all.
Last week the preliminary findings of the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment trial confirmed that early treatment is best for HIV.
No one thought that HIV might be lab-created. No one knew that just before Gallo’s April 1984 announcement, someone had filed a United States Patent number: 9499480 for HIV/AIDS Virus invention, a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program.
No one knew that Gallo, himself, was ‘Project Officer’ for the federal Special Virus Program that ran from 1962-1978. See complete list of HIV patents. No one knows that engineered evidence is found from the ‘multiply-spliced’ nature of the HIV ‘tat’ sequence in Dr. Gallo’s 1971 Special Virus paper, “Reverse Transcriptase of Type-C virus Particles of Human Origin.”
From 1985 to 1992 there were 12,000 deaths each year from AIDS. In 1992 the number increased suddenly to 15,000. Why? Because they added 5 new diseases to the AIDS definition! The actual number of cases of AIDS was on the decline until they added more diseases to the list, and still the number of new cases grew very slowly. – Dr. Robert Wilner, Deadly Deception, 1994.
HIV — it has never been found in sufficient numbers to cause disease.” –Peter Duesberg, 1991
The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake. – Kary Mullins, inventor of the PCR test.
Today, the official narrative still claims that no cure exists for AIDS, and that only toxic FDA antiretroviral drugs, including A.Z.T., D.D.I., and D.D.C., will slow down the progression of the disease.
“Why condemn a continent to death because of HIV, when you have other explanations for why people are falling sick?” – Dr John Papadimitriou, professor of pathology at the University of Western Australia in Perth and a co-author of the Journal of Nature Biotechnolgy study that found HIV tests to be inadequate.
Comparison of HIV and Coronavirus Tests. September 2020:
Sometimes testing can give you a false sense of security. That happened in the HIV epidemic, when people got a negative test and they presented it to their sex partners and spread disease, nonetheless. – Cue Mark Schlissel, M.D., Ph.D., President of University of Michigan,
The U of M president knew of the flaws of the rapid HIV test. He knew the patterns of history. And for that he received pushback for equating the COVID-19 pandemic with the AIDS epidemic to justify the University’s decision not to widely test students. He was made to apologize for unrelated reasons, but added to his response:
My comments were intended only as a critique of the effectiveness of massive testing of asymptomatic students for the virus that causes COVID-19 in an effort to prevent its spread. – Cue Mark Schlissel, M.D., Ph.D, President, U of M 2020
The COVIDIAN Age
In the COVIDIAN Age, it is accepted that Coronavirus is a virus. However, Coronavirus is a family name that includes MERS-Cov, SARS-Cov, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, and many others. Coronavirus is not Corona virus. It is also accepted that people with underlying diseases are more susceptible to COVID19. This is likely due to a weakened innate immune system. Immunosuppressed people no longer have a functional defense system and are more likely to suffer from any infection, whether it be called a cold, a flu, toxic overload, or ‘COVID.’
The Twist:
Ironically, new research shows the opposite; that patients with advanced stages of AIDS show less severe COVID symptoms and recover faster than others.
A July 2021 study in the Journal Immun Inflamm Dis, titled “The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in HIV-positive patients: A systematic review of current evidence” shows evidence that the majority of HIV patients show no severe symptoms and completely recovered from COVID19 infection.
Similar to The Age of AIDS, COVID patients will soon be offered antiretroviral drugs. On December 14, 2021, Merck and Pfizer pharmaceutical companies announced the development of COVID antiretroviral drugs. The companies claimed their drugs attack different parts of the virus. Ten days later, on December 24, 2021, the FDA authorized “emergency use” of Merck’s antiviral drug to treat COVID19. FDA had previously “authorized” the first antiretroviral Molnupiravir in late November. Note: authorization does not equal approval.
Today, the FDA claims that the antiretroviral pill “should be initiated as soon as possible after diagnosis of Covid-19 and within five days of symptom onset,” – FDA Statement, December 22, 2021
In 1994, Dr. Robert Wilner wrote: “Any antiviral therapy that is immune-suppressive and aimed at treating HIV is unnecessary, dangerous, unethical and bad medicine — you are already immune to HIV!
There is no test to find out a person’s “HPV status.” Also, there is no approved HPV test to find HPV in the mouth or throat. – CDC HPV Fact Sheet, 2022
We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available. – Journal of Euro Surveillance, 2020
Why blame a pandemic on innocent animals? It sounds like this: “ANIMAL X” could be hiding a deadly virus that could trigger a pandemic worse than the Black Death and kill more than 75million people. They tried to blame Ebola on a bunny.
Did the Species Barrier disappear to allow for animal research to develop profitable drug models?
After mRNA injectables, why are AIDS patients successfully fending off the worst COVID symptoms and recovering faster without an immune system?
Do HIV patients somehow recognize the lab-created Coronavirus as similar? Does the mRNA nanotech somehow protect people without an immune system? Is that why antiretroviral will be required for COVID patients?
Disclaimer: The author encourages you to consult a doctor before making any health changes, especially any changes related to a specific diagnosis or condition. No information in this article should be relied upon to determine diet, make a medical diagnosis, or to determine or prescribe a treatment for a medical condition. This information is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended to build synapses for thinking.
This clip is from the Corona Investigative Committee’s “The Virus of Power” series of interviews , Session 90, which took place on February 4, 2022. See the entire Session 90 here (6+ hours long).
In this interview, Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Lanka challenge “germ theory” and the “science” at the foundation of virology. Of course, this is highly controversial because it shakes the foundation of modern medicine, questions the endless stream of vaccines and toxic medicines produced by big pharma — not to mention the generations of doctors, scientists and medical professionals who have dedicated careers to this “science”.
Committee member Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who has been invaluable in exposing the pandemic fraud and is a key source of medical insight for the committee, challenges Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Lanka, and vehemently defends the prevailing view regarding viruses as cause of disease. See Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg’s presentation during Session 90 here. His presentation occurred earlier in the session, prior to this conversation with Drs. Kaufman and Lanka.
Below the Corona Investigative Committee video, we are providing documents, videos and articles for understanding the work of Dr. Lanka, Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan and others.
Please do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Video by Oval Media can be found at Corona Investigate Committee Odysee channel.
A worldwide addiction to wireless technology – cell phones, computers, GPS, smart appliances, electric cars, smart watches, TVs – is activating the hidden world of yeast, fungus, mold, mycoplasma, Lyme spirochetes, and protozoan parasites in the human body. The outcome is a rise in chronic infections that are misdiagnosed as a number of disease conditions.
The industries responsible for creating this silent and sinister epidemic fail to take responsibility. Thus, the line between what will protect you, and what will not, has never been less clearly defined.
Fatigue
Weakness
Muscle cramps
Headache and pain
Light sensitivity
Sinus problems
Abdominal pain
Diarrhea
Joint pain and stiffness
Cognitive issues
Mood dysregulation
Temperature regulation or dysregulation problems
Excessive thirst
Increased urination
Nervous system issues
Naturopath Dr. Klinghardt, of the Sophia Health Institute, shared an in vitro mold experiment comparing a mold plate shielded from electromagnetic fields to an unprotected mold plate exposed to ambient electromagnetic fields. The unprotected mold, mycoplasma, and spirochete (Lyme) reacts defensively by releasing more potent biotoxins, and by multiplying more than 600 times. This biological response can be observed anywhere in Nature; it is the desire to survive and thrive. In 2011, the amount of cell phone radiation in a cubic inch of air was several million times higher than it had been a decade before that.
Billions of people worldwide harbor tropical worms and don’t know it. They don’t know that cell phones and cell towers trigger and aggravate them. They don’t know that mold, parasites, and other microbes, defend themselves to become chronic infections. The medical industry does not check for these infections, or rule them out, even though there are over one million worm species, alone, classified as helminths.
Helminths take many forms, but all of them harm their host in some way. In humans, they can live in the intestinal tract, urinary tract, bladder, or bloodstream, causing a variety of illness from malnutrition to organ failure” – Dr. Monica Botelho of Portugal’s National Institute of Health.
In endemic regions — predominantly sub-saharan Africa and Southeast Asia — flukes are responsible for the majority of all bladder and liver cancer cases. – Dr. Joachim Richter, Associate Professor at Charité Berlin and co-editor with Botelho.
Digestive issues — Gas, bloating, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting. Abdominal pain — Upset stomach, stomach cramps, stomach pain, tenderness. Stool — Greasy loose stool, worms, parasites, mucus, eggs or candida yeast in stool. Eating — Cravings for sweets, constantly hungry, increased or loss of appetite. Energy, wellbeing — Feeling tired, fatigue, exhaustion, mood swings, anger and depression, muscle and joint pain, body aches. Skin — Skin rashes and skin issues such as eczema, hives, rosacea. Sleep — Poor sleep, insomnia, nightmares, night sweats, teeth grinding in sleep, anus itching at night. Genitals — Vaginal itching around the vulva, anal itching, rash, vaginal infections. Overall health — Unexplained weight loss or weight gain, nutritional deficiencies, dehydration, fever.
Parasites Among Us
Worms R us. When in balance, worms live with us in harmony Out of balance, they can invade and overpower any part of the body, including the eyes. There are hundreds of large parasites that can enter the body by various modes, take up residence, and cause a variety of life-threatening diseases, including cancer. For worms to make a home in the body, the body must be conducive to their existence. The body is best suited for worms if it is depleted of essential minerals and nutrients, thus acidic.
It has long been established by study of Ascaris lumbricoides (phylum and species) in man as well as in laboratory hosts, that the larvae, on hatching in the small intestine, migrate through the liver to the lungs. On the eighth to ninth day after infestation, they move farther into the bronchii and then, via the trachea and esophagus, return to the intestine. It has also been shown that the larvae in their migration and development often cause extreme eosinophilia, symptoms such as shortness of breath and cough.
– Naval Captain David P. Osborne, chief of surgery, Bethesda Naval Hospital
A search of Pubmed will net hundreds of published, peer-reviewed studies describing Dirofilaria in humans, a mere drop in the worm bucket. Dirofilaria immitis is a canine parasite that can infect humans, specifically it is a roundworm, otherwise known as a nematode. For instance, whereas Dirofilaria immitisinfects the heart and lungs, Dirofiaria repens infects the eye.
Patented Transgenic Insects
Dirofilaria, or heartworm, is transmitted by mosquitoes. An egg gets deposited through the proboscis, which is the long, flexible tube mosquitoes use to pierce the skin. There is plenty of evidence showing that mosquitoes are genetically engineered and patented.
Filarial infection of the breast is not rare, explain the authors. “The larvae enter the lymphatic vessels of the mammary gland, causing lymphangitis, fibrosis, and disruption of lymphatic drainage.” In late, inactive phases, the larvae appear on mammography as serpiginous calcifications. – Medwire News, 2005
Slowly, the information worming its way out into the public is that parasitic infestations represent the internal conditions called “cancer.” All cancers are, in fact, parasitic infections (with high Candida levels) even if not all parasitic infections present as cancer. Worms cause cancer. based on an acidic tissue environment.
In the Age of Information, ignorance is a choice. Today, more people diagnosed with cancer have taken matters into their own hands and begun sharing information to heal. Their choice of medicine? An inexpensive pet dewormers/antihelminths called Fenbendazole found at the local pet store. Why don’t doctors tell patients that Fenbendazole is being studied as an anti-cancer drug?
It destroys microtubules that sustain the structure of the cancer cell and its ability to divide and multiply rapidly.It interrupts the cancer cells’ ability to process sugar, and cancer cells must metabolize sugar to survive.
It boosts the production of a cancer-killing gene called p53, a gene cancer patients may lack. When p53 becomes mutated or can’t keep cancer cells in check, cancer cells can proliferate.
The de-wormer also works against parasites, which might be the origin of some cancers.
Before you decide to blame all cancers on worms, realize that helminths are also being used as Immunotherapy (Helminthic Therapy) for Crohn’s disease and for malignancies. In a strange twist of fate, the earthworm’s immune system have shown an ability to kill cancer cells (in vitro). Could it be that a worm’s metabolism depends on a balance of oxygen supply and demand like their human hosts? Yes, indeed.
Is that why oxygen deprivation from EMF fields harm both host and worm?
Add Pulsed EMFs And Mix
The forces in EMFs are caused by EMF radiation, broken down into two categories:
High frequency EMF include: x-rays, gamma rays, or ionizing radiation, and
Low to mid frequencies include: electric power lines, radio waves, cell phones, wireless networks, smart meters, TVs, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, or non-ionizing radiation. These are the most dangerous emission, known to cause direct damage to DNA or cells.
Wireless communication (cell towers, phones, etc) is more dangerous because it produces pulsed EMFs. Pulsed EMFs are much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs. When introducing pulsed electric and magnetic fields into a population infested with parasites and yeast, you have a recipe for dis-ease disaster.
If our microbes perceive radiation fields as an attack on their lives, then so should we. Humans are 1:10 human cells to microbes. What affects our smallest inhabitants also affects us. When our microbes perceive an attack from man-made frequencies, they release biotoxins in defense of their lives, even if it damages their host. Sit down before you watch this freakishly large worm (parasitic nematode) slither out of a dead spider host.
Biotoxins are released from microbial metabolism and die-off. This process drives inflammation in humans. As our microbes struggle to survive, they congest the host’s liver and impair digestion. The liver is unable to produce bile to digest fats which leads to a deficiency of fatty acids and eventually fatty liver disease, unrelated to alcohol.
Our microbes cause stress on the whole body, which leads to “Leaky Gut,” now an accepted term. Leaky Gut gave rise to the previously unknown field of neurogastroenterology, and the disorders of IBD, IBS, and Crohn’s disease. When the gut is “leaky,” microbes and their biotoxins leak into the bloodstream to infect other organs, including the brain, also known as “leaky brain.” In the brain, symptoms resemble depression, anxiety, and other neurological conditions.
Magnetic Fields
Sleep is critical for cell repair and regeneration. When electrical and magnetic fields barrage the body day and night, the stress hormone cortisol is stimulated which prevents normal elimination (constipation) and detoxification. As cortisol rises, melatonin falls. Sleep is elusive. Magnetic fields also alter the movement of minerals and metals the body. When iron is displaced, it leads to anemia.
In 2005, Extremely low frequencies (ELF) have been documented as a possible carcinogen in children diagnosed with leukemia. More than a decade later, ELF exposures have only increased.
I personally suspect that the exposure to electromagnetic fields in the home and the microwaves from cell phone radiation are driving the virulence of many of the microbes that are naturally in us, and makes them aggressive and illness producing. Shielding patients from EMFs has been a more successful strategy to treating Lyme disease and to get people neurologically well than any of the antibiotics or any of the antimicrobial compounds. ~Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, MD, PhD
What makes this feat possible is the highly efficient non-linear interaction between light and matter that occurs in graphene. The researchers used graphene containing a large number of free electrons that originated from the interaction between graphene and the substrate onto which it was deposited. When these electrons became excited by an oscillating electric field in room-temperature conditions, they rapidly shared their energy with bound electrons in the material.
Solutions
1. EMF Shielding Tools
With the rise of EMF fields a new EMF shielding industry was born. Now you can use the benefits of wireless technology and shield yourself from is health depleting effects using the following tools:
Use a blue light blocker covering for all your computer/laptop/tablet screens including cell phones.
Use blue blocking glasses when you are working on the computer (this does not protect skin.). Some people will use a blue light blocker (a thin film that covers the screen) and then also a 100% blue blocker of hard thick plastic at night. However be aware that many of the thinner unnoticable blue light coverings on the market do not protect 100% blue light.
Download a program (e.g.., Iris) onto your device that will automatically reduce blue light at night.
2. Natural Mold and Parasite Detox
First of all, know the symptoms of mold poisoning and parasitic infections. Secondly, prevent infections of mold, yeast, and parasites, by keeping your immune system strong and allowing it to work for you by acquiring natural infections. Eat clean, organic foods. Drink clean water, and avoid drinking city water, espeically if the water tower has 5G technology on top of it. Seek out natural spring water. Avoid factor-farmed foods, such as sugar and processed grains, coffee and red meat, which generate an acidic pH in the body. Choose natural medicines vs. synthetic medicines. Seek out natural healers to assist. And be aware of parasitic relationships among your peers. As within so without.
If you have a parasitic infection, try adding food grade diatomaceous earth. There are two strong herbs that can kill nematodes. The most famous one is Thyme. Thyme is a culinary herb, but it also kills hook-worms, roundworms, threadworms, skin parasites and several types of harmful bacteria. Other natural antifungal/antiparasitic herbs include: Black walnut hulls, high in iodine; wormwood, clove oil, oregano oil, and consider a cleanse diet. For other remedies, consult a natural health care practitioner.
When the worm population in the human body overwhelms the immune system, it is called a hyperinfection. At this stage, it may be difficult to kill the worms with herbs unless you eat clean. Using frequencies to target parasites through a Rife machine or homeopathic (energy) preparations can directly target parasites in the body, gently and safely. However, the Rife machine does not always solve the problem since parasites can shift their frequency and hide in the body to evade death. A diet and lifestyle change will be necessary by changing your habits to prevent the problems of living in the brave new world.
Disclaimer: The author encourages you to consult a doctor before making any health changes, especially any changes related to a specific diagnosis or condition. No information in this article should be relied upon to determine diet, make a medical diagnosis, or to determine or prescribe a treatment for a medical condition. This information is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice.
What proof would I accept? What sort of proof would convince me that SARS-CoV-2 exists?
Suppose, for example, a study described how researchers actually DID separate a virus from all the material surrounding it in their cell-soup in the lab?
Would that be enough?
And the answer is no.
Why?
Because I don’t trust studies based on research conducted in elite labs where no independent outsiders are allowed. And that’s the situation, when it comes to purported virus isolation.
These labs are like the famous bunkers where key government officials are taken, in the event of a massive attack against the country.
Try getting in off the street.
And who are these researchers in the super-secret labs? To put it another way, what sort of establishment do they represent?
Is it a clean establishment with a track record of honesty? Or is it a cartel with a criminal history?
If it’s a cartel, why should I accept the “scientific methods” of these researchers or their honesty?
As my long-time readers know, I’ve spent decades exposing lies and crimes of the medical cartel. Chapter and verse. (For example this: Medical weapons of mass destruction)
When it comes to vital issues that mean the difference between life and death—drug/vaccine-fueled destruction of human life; mistreatment and errors in hospitals; faked disease case and death numbers; inaccurate, meaningless, and deceptive diagnostic tests; the fabricated existence of a whole range of phony diseases and disorders and syndromes; the true numbers of medically caused deaths—medical authorities have been lying and sliming their way out of accountability for MANY decades.
And all this doesn’t touch on the history of public health declarations of epidemics that have turned out to be duds.
Nor does it include the overall history of Rockefeller medicine, which is based on the fatuous notion that there are thousands of separate and distinct diseases, each one of which is caused by a germ that must be treated by a profit-making drug.
Nor does it include the history of vicious suppression of innovative treatments developed by individuals who’ve worked outside the mainstream.
Therefore, suspicion is warranted. Is absolutely necessary. And “suspicion” is a vast understatement.
I refuse to trust the researchers who simply claim they’re isolating viruses.
When it comes to the so-called basic building blocks of MANY so-called diseases—which ARE “the viruses”—all the discovery-research HAS BEEN conducted by insiders in their off-limit labs. Without independent witnesses. Without educated witnesses who can watch and question each and every step of “the accepted method” for isolation of new viruses.
Frankly, you would have to be crazy to accept anything coming out of these insider-club labs.
So NO. I don’t accept such findings.
Before I describe how outsiders SHOULD be allowed to witness and participate in secret lab work, let me give you two quotes to consider.
They come from decidedly mainstream and elite editors of elite medical journals. These editors have read and explored and probed and lifted the fake cover from published medical material for decades. Material they themselves have published. Therefore, these are CONFESSIONS.
ONE: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Suspicion is warranted. It’s absolutely necessary. And again, “suspicion” is a vast understatement.
More than a year ago, I mentioned how virus-isolation research—if the word “research” applies at all—should be done.
And I issue this now, as a challenge, to the entire insider-club of virologists, all of whom claim their established method of finding and sequencing new viruses is scientific and rigorous:
Let’s have a film crew on site. As you work. In your lab. Looking over your shoulders and recording every move you make.
And with the film crew, let’s have several knowledgeable, outside, independent researchers. People whom you would ordinarily refuse to give the time of day. People who are insightful. Possibly, people like Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan.
As the film crew works, and as you conduct and describe your step-by-step “isolation” of a new virus, these outsiders can stop you at any moment and question you. In depth.
“Why did you just do that?” “Why didn’t you record that step?” “Explain that answer you just gave me. It makes no sense.” “Exactly what did you just withdraw from the solution in the dish, and how do you know what it was?”
This is not a public relations exercise or an educational documentary for medical students. This is REAL. This is research about your research. No holds barred.
You give a slippery answer to a question; you evade with a vague generality; you try to pull rank; you get nailed to the wall. On film.
THIS is the procedure I want.
All the way from start to finish. Including the so-called sequencing of the “new virus.”
And then we would know a great deal more about what you’re actually doing and not doing in your labs. In the absence of what I’m proposing and demanding, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THE PROCESS OF VIRUS-ISOLATION IS LEGITIMATE.
Virologists, your work affects every human on Earth. Profoundly. To see this, all a person has to do is look around him these days, at what is called “COVID.” It proceeds from your so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2.
I view you virologists as I would view the court magicians and soothsayers and high priests who surrounded and advised the leaders of tribes and nations in ancient times.
Those “experts” huddled with the leaders in their very private rooms and spun stories and predictions, and recommended strategies to deal with supposed ongoing and looming crises.
And then the leaders took actions that affected the lives of all the people.
So it is now. With you virologists.
So my demands are entirely within bounds. If you have a shred of honesty, and if you stop and think about it, what I’m demanding is prosaically simple:
You account for every step you take. In real time. Where you work. Right there, you submit yourselves to the detailed scrutiny of independent outsiders.
That’s my bottom line.
And I challenge any scientist, analyst, investigator, doctor, researcher, reporter, alt. reporter who says what I’m demanding is not necessary. You’re wrong. You’re dead wrong.
You either haven’t thought things through, or you’re lying.
Someone is going to tell me what I’m demanding, as proof, is impossible. It would never happen. “They” would never let it happen. They would never let independent outsiders into their holy labs.
You think I don’t know that?
If outsiders can’t get into their labs, what does that tell you?
And someone will say, “We just have to rely on the best evidence we have.”
No we don’t. Because the best available evidence is no evidence.
In a vast sea of death-dealing medical lies, a sea that has existed for more than a hundred years (actually much longer), if experts tell you they’re discovering viruses in labs you can’t enter, and they say you must believe them, and you buy that…
I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon. Full cash only, no payments.
Here it is: Virologists are saying and writing they’ve found a purple man with pink hair and green lips and four arms living a thousand miles under the surface of a planet in the next solar system over. And he causes disease.
Then they’re saying, “Prove us wrong.”
On top of that, they’re saying, “You can’t watch us work while we discover such creatures.”
Conclusion: the purple man doesn’t exist.
Virologists, text me when you’ll let my people into your lab.
Until then, get lost.
Dear reader, the elephant in the room is trust, not data.
When it comes to the “discovery of viruses,” there are no reliable data. We, on the outside, are told that what happens behind locked doors is irrefutable. Period.
We’re told we just can’t understand what the pros are doing. The problem is our lack of knowledge, our lack of training.
We’re the peasants toiling in the valley. Our better, the baron, is up in his castle on top of the mountain. He’s planning our lives, he’s taking care of us.
Sure. Of course. Uh-huh.
Sounds familiar. It’s pretty much the history of the world.
Or it was, until people who came before us finally staked out a territory called freedom, which involved opening locked doors and finding out what lay behind them.
Consider a parochial example: the mafia. They, too, plan behind closed doors. They concoct methods of carrying out crimes. They record their profits. Then, finally, a prosecutor announces, “We were able to get into their books. We saw the details. We made arrests.”
I want my independent accountants to get into the virologists’ books. But not after the fact. I want my people to BE there while the virologists are creating the books, entry by entry, in the lab.
“Why did you just make that entry? Where did your conclusion come from? Who are you trying to kid? You’re just fabricating this stuff? You know, that’s called RICO. That’s a RICO case. Continuing criminal enterprise. They’ll send you away for a long time…”
And all of a sudden, the high and mighty virologist, who’s been able to con the world with his hustle, who knows how to come off sounding superior in every way, feels a dent in his armor. A big dent. He smells his own blood.
And he starts talking.
He wants to make a deal. He’ll roll over on his colleagues. He’ll expose the whole sham.
“…You don’t understand. It’s the money. It’s all about the money. Where it comes from. We have to do this kind of work. Otherwise, we starve. They cut us off. I know the people on the funding committees. I’ll give you their names. They take orders, too. The whole thing is a system. I can draw you a map. I can’t go to jail. I have a family. I’m paying eighty grand a year just to send my kids to college. There’s the mortgage, and the cottage on the Cape…”
The whole bluff POPS and deflates, and we begin to hear words we understand, at last. The words of confession. The down-to-earth sordid truth.
There was never a towering mystery in the castle on the hill.
There was just the passing of the buck. The soiled buck. From hand to hand.
The “science” was the front.
“…You see, it works this way. The pharmaceutical companies have to have new viruses. For every fake virus, they develop a real drug and a real vaccine. It’s marketing. That’s what they’re doing. That’s what they’ve always been doing. This is much bigger than anyone realizes. I’m just a little fish. The big boys run the whole show. They pay the Congress and the FDA. They pay everybody…”
He keeps talking. He can’t stop. He’s way past “isolation, purification and sequencing.” They’re in his rear-view mirror. Now he’s fighting for his freedom from prison. Now he’s telling the truth.
And the ever-present storm clouds over the valley where we peasants toil are blowing away. The air is fresher.
We’re breathing easier.
The big-cheese baron is really a shrunken little man—when he takes his perp walk in chains.
In part 2, we will examine the history of modern agribusiness, Bill Gates’ plan to centralize control of the world’s seed supply and the depopulation threat posed by gene drive technology.
Every day we consume food grown in the toxic chemicals produced by the global agriculture conglomerates, who, like their pharmaceutical compatriots, may be described as profit-hungry monstrosities, well versed in the art of killing.
As explained by Dr Vandana Shiva in her book Oneness vs the 1%, the agrichemical industry we know today is nothing more than a continuation of the toxic tools and poisons from the post World World 2 labs of IG Farben.
A century ago, the money and oil of the Robber Barons came together with the finances and toxic technologies from the labs of IG Farben to form the Toxic Cartel that evolved the tools of killing. This is how a century of ecocide and genocide through poisons and toxic chemicals began. Chemicals developed to kill people in Hitler’s concentration camps during WWII became the agrichemicals for industrial agriculture when the war ended. This industrial agriculture was then forced on people everywhere.”[1]
Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG, more commonly knows as IG Farben was a German chemical and pharmaceutical giant formed in 1925. IG Farben was formed from a merger of 6 separate chemical companies – BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, Agfa, Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron, and Chemische Fabrik vorm.
Two years later in 1927, IG Farben partnered with Standard Oil (one of the largest oil refiners in the world, founded by John D. Rockefeller) to exchange patents and dominate economies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Standard Oil sent IG Farben their patents regarding the coal hydrogenation process and IG Farben reciprocated by offering up their own patents on the process of manufacturing synthetic rubber.
Some years after partnering with Standard Oil, IG Farben helped found the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they used Jewish prisoners as slave labour to produce synthetic rubber and liquid fuels.
At the end of the war, the Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben executives for crimes against humanity including mass murder and slavery. However, most of them were released within 2-6 years and immediately began consulting for American agritech companies.
IG Farben and its partner corporations, which included Bayer, were Hitler’s suppliers of Zyklon-B, a cyanide-based pesticide that was used to murder Jews in the extermination camps.
In 1948, IG Farben bigwig and Nazi party member, Fritz ter Meer, was convicted of “mass murder and enslavement” and sentenced to 7 years in prison. After his early release in 1950, he became chairman of the board of directors for Bayer, a position he held until 1964. What is today called the “Bayer Science & Education Foundation”, an initiative that awards scholarships to chemistry students, was originally set up to honour ter Meer.
After merging with Monsanto in a $62 billion dollar deal, Bayer became the largest agrichemical company in the world (The takeover was financed by European taxpayers without them even knowing about it).
Monsanto, an American agrichemical giant and mass-producer of genetically modified crops, was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny.
The company’s first product was the artificial sweetener, saccharin, which it sold to Coco-Cola. In 1977, the FDA proposed restricting the use of Saccharin on account of research suggesting its consumption was associated with an increased risk of cancer, primarily of the urinary bladder.
Not only is saccharin associated with an increased risk of cancer, but artificial sweeteners of all kinds have been linked with increased rates of diabetes, obesity, intestinal dysbiosis as well as an acceleration of atherosclerosis and ageing.
During World War 2, Monsanto contributed to research for the Manhattan project, which would eventually lead to the creation of the atomic bombs that were used to murder thousands of innocent people in Japan.
Around the same time, Monsanto became one of the leading manufacturers of polystyrene – a synthetic, non-biodegradable plastic whose production generates massive amounts of hazardous waste.
Moreover, styrene has been linked to adverse health effects in humans, including cancer. The styrene molecule is metabolized to styrene oxide, a highly reactive (and toxic) epoxide that can interact with DNA, causing harmful mutations.
Monsanto was also known for producing DDT, a highly toxic insecticide that played a serious role in the 20th-century polio epidemics.
Despite years of Monsanto propaganda, insisting that DDT was perfectly safe, by 1972 the research indicating its toxicity had mounted to the point that it was banned throughout the US. But this did not dissuade Monsanto from its goal of poisoning the world, for, in the 1960s, they became one of the principal producers of Agent Orange, a herbicide used for chemical warfare during the Vietnam war.
During the 10-year aerial bombardment that saw gallons of Age Orange rain from the Vietnamese skies, millions of innocent people were seriously poisoned, resulting in deaths, disabilities, birth defects, and widespread, irreversible environmental destruction.
Spina bifida, cerebral palsy, missing or deformed limbs and intellectual disabilities were some of the serious birth defects caused by Agent Orange that are still affecting Vietnamese children today. Agent Orange is also responsible for killing an estimated 300,000 US veterans.
These days, most people know Monsanto as the producer of glyphosate (the active ingredient in “Roundup”, a highly toxic herbicide promoted heavily around the world). Glyphosate has been implicated in the rise of food allergies, including “celiac disease”, a severe intolerance to gluten causing skin rashes, gut dysbiosis, nausea, diarrhoea, and depression.
Unsurprisingly, there have been virtually no studies conducted in the US, the largest consumer of GMO frankenfoods (Americans eat their bodyweight in GMOs each year), to assess glyphosate levels in human blood or urine.
However, a large study in Europe found quantifiable levels of glyphosate in the urine of nearly half of the participants, all of which were city dwellers who could only have been exposed to glyphosate through food consumption.
The merger of Bayer and Monsanto came alongside the merger of Dow Chemical and Dupont, as well as Syngenta and ChemChina. These mergers placed the vast majority of the global agriculture industry in the hands of just three corporations.
Through these various mergers and acquisitions, the biotech industry has become a modern-day IG Farben – functioning as a singular global chemical-military-industrial complex, the real owners of which are the investment firms like Vanguard and Blackrock.
The mergers are more like musical chairs, organised by the real owners, investment funds like Vanguard, Blackrock, Capital Group, Fidelity, State Street Global Advisors, Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and others. This game of musical chairs has two objectives—to expand markets and shrink liability.”[1]
Three-fourths of the world’s GMO seeds come from Monsanto labs. Monsanto extracts royalties for its seeds and the high cost of the seed and chemicals push farmers into a debt trap.
As farmers fall deeper into debt, the wealth of Monsanto grows. There have been cases of GMO seeds blowing over onto the land of unsuspecting farmers who are then sued and forced to surrender their produce. Monsanto illegally introduced its Bt cotton in India in 1995, leading to an epidemic of suicide in regions along India’s cotton belt.
ROCKEFELLER AGRICULTURE
The role of the Rockefellers in the rise of chemical farming and GMOs is not to be understated, for they were instrumental in the promotion of new agricultural technologies that resulted in modern “agribusiness”.
This began during the early days of World War 2 when the Rockefeller Foundation funded a secret policy group called the War and Peace Study Group of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. The purpose of this group was to shape the US post-war economy in order for it to replace the British Empire as the new global superpower[2].
It was within this context that John D. Rockefeller III was pursuing his eugenics agenda through the American Eugenics Society as well as his Population Council. At the same time, his brother Nelson was seeking new methods to increase worldwide food production.
One of the post-war goals of the War and Peace Study Group was for the US to dominate global agriculture and food production. This led to the infamous “green revolution” promoted in India and other developing countries in South America and parts of Asia.
One of the results of this increased agricultural efficiency was the mass exodus of peasants from the farmlands to the city slums where they were exploited for cheap labour by various US multinational companies[3].
This elite propensity for experimenting on more “primitive” communities represents the occult contempt for the “lower” orders of society.
Nowhere is this contempt more obvious than in the “philanthropy” of Bill Gates who, in 2019, unleashed genetically modified mosquitos in Burkina Faso under the fallacious pretext of “fighting malaria”. But more on Gates and his gene drive technology later.
Before moving on, it’s important to consider the parallels between eugenics and genetics, which, some researchers have branded the “new eugenics”. In the 1980s, researchers at the Rockefeller Foundation were determined to map the structure of the gene and, according to Philip Regal, the ultimate motivation behind this quest was “to correct social and moral problems including crime, poverty, hunger and political instability”.
As William Engdahl notes, research into genetics was carried forward by generous grants given to up and coming scientists, eager to make a name for themselves in a new and exciting field:
Many of the younger generation of biologists and scientists receiving Rockefeller research grants were blissfully unaware that eugenics and genetics were in any way related. They simply scrambled for scarce research dollars, and the dollars all too often had the name and strings of the Rockefeller Foundation attached.”[3]
Perhaps a fuller understanding of the Rockefeller pursuits in eugenics and genetics is gained by seeing the two as separate but related parts of a materialist agenda mirroring the alchemical pursuit for the transformation of man. Regal describes this alchemical pursuit as follows:
From the perspective of a theory reductionist, it was logical that social problems would reduce to simple biological problems that could be corrected through chemical manipulations of soils, brains, and genes. Thus the Rockefeller Foundation made a major commitment to using its connections and resources to promote a philosophy of eugenics.”[3]
In relation to this Rockefeller initiative, Regal goes on to mention Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, a highly esoteric work that speaks of a hidden scientific elite with the goal of “enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible”.
In Bacon’s work, “Atlantis” refers to America. Therefore, as noted by Dr Farrell and Dr. De Hart in their book “Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas”, according to Bacon, America “was to become the great laboratory for a grand esoteric experiment being run by a hidden and ancient elite.”[2]
Now let us return to the history of Rockefeller involvement in global agriculture…
It was in 1941 when Nelson Rockefeller and then US vice president, Henry Wallace sent a group to Mexico to meet with the Mexican government regarding the possibility of increasing food production. Noteworthy is that Henry Wallace was a high-ranking Freemason who convinced fellow Freemason, President Franklin D. Roosevelt to place the occult symbol of the uncapped pyramid and the eye of Horus on the US one-dollar bill[2].
The Rockefeller take over of global agriculture involved the promotion and spreading of genetically modified crops around the world. But in order for their GMOs to catch on, the Rockefellers needed to manipulate the perceptions of scientists engaged in genetic and environmental research.
They did this by deploying US university professors to select Asian universities to train a new generation of scientists. The best of these graduates were then sent to the US to pursue a doctorate in agricultural sciences, ensuring they were wholly indoctrinated into the Rockefeller outlook on agriculture and food production[2].
In the 1970s, the Rockefeller Foundation, with aid from the World Bank, FAO and UNDP, established a worldwide network of agricultural research centres, called CGIAR (“Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research”). The alleged goal behind the creation of CGIAR was to coordinate global agricultural research in an effort to reduce poverty and improve food security in developing countries.
Thus, the Rockefellers constructed a global network of scientists and institutions ready to play their part as ambassadors of this new agricultural paradigm. This had the result of “socially engineering” a scientific culture that promoted the use of genetically modified crops and new agriculture technologies.
The Rockefellers went on to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into genetic research that would further the development of GMO crops and increase their uptake around the world. Thanks to patent law, this transformed many a humble farmer into a captured slave, indebted to big agribusiness conglomerates.
The CAS is linked to the Open Forum on Agriculture Biotechnology (OFAB) which in turn is an offshoot of the African Agriculture Technology Foundation (AATF), an organization founded by the Rockefellers.
Perhaps the biggest boon for the agribusiness industry came n 1986, when US Vice President Herbert Bush hosted a “special White House strategy meeting”, inviting executives from Monsanto to discuss plans relating to the deregulation of agritechnologies.
This meeting resulted in the adoption of “substantial equivalence” – the erroneous notion that agronomy (traditional methods of animal/plant breeding) was “substantially equivalent” to genetic modification – thereby evading the increasing pressure from scientists calling for more rigorous testing of GMO crops[3].
Thanks to the Rockefellers, the US people are now the largest consumers of GMO foods. In fact, the research literature clearly indicates that large populations around the world have been forced to consume GMO toxins despite a complete lack of any reliable safety data, and overwhelming evidence to suggest that such toxins cause biological harm.
Animal studies have demonstrated that exposure to GMO toxins causes an increase in inflammatory cytokines associated with nearly all human diseases. If these changes also occur in humans then this would go some way towards explaining the massive increase in autoimmunity, autism, and other chronic and allergic diseases[4].
Both the WHO and the American Medical Association (AMA), which, ironically, claims to “promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health” have been utterly complicit in allowing this global experiment to take place[4].
Though this shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the profound early influence that the Rockefeller Foundation had on the AMA and their role in the capture of American medical education.
This began with the publishing of the “Flexner Report” in 1908 which lay the groundwork for a reformation of medical education, encouraging the acceptance of a drug-based curriculum. Universities that failed to conform to the tenets of drug-based medicine and research were deprived of their funding and eventually forced to close down[5].
BILL GATES AND THE AGENDA FOR CONTROL
Since 2003, the Gates Foundation has poured nearly $6 billion into global agriculture. In 2017, Gates became the largest funder of CGIAR, which now holds the largest and most widely used collections of seed crops in the world. Gates’ interest in world agriculture serves two purposes:
To centralize control of the world’s seeds supply and,
To shift global farming towards a reliance on technology and external inputs, sold to farmers by the agritech conglomerates in which he holds stock.
By far the largest funder of the CGIAR, Gates has successfully accelerated the transfer of research and seeds from scientific research institutions to commodity-based corporations, centralizing and facilitating the pirating of intellectual property and seed monopolies through intellectual property laws and seed regulations.”
The impetus for this restructuring came from the organization’s largest funders, notably the Gates Foundation. CGIAR claims the change is necessary because,
“A unified and integrated CGIAR will be much better equipped to tackle threats to food, nutrition and water security posed by climate change.”
The recommendation for this dramatic restructuring came from CGIAR’s System Reference Group (SRG), at the time co-chaired by Tony Cavalieri, Senior Program Officer at the Gates Foundation, and Marco Ferroni, ex-head of the Syngenta Foundation.
In other words, the CGIAR reformation will result in greater centralization of the global agriculture industry, with a greater blurring of lines between the private and public sectors.
In direct contradiction to Gates’ claims of helping smallholder farmers, a detailed analysis of the grants given by the Gates Foundation revealed that the majority went to research institutes and not farmers.
These grants were also directed towards lobbying groups that pressure government to institute policies that favour big agribusiness such as introducing laws allowing the privatization of seeds.
One of Gates’ primary objectives is to open up the African market and institute a corporate takeover of the region. In aid of this goal, he founded AGRA (The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) in 2006. Through the promotion of commercial seeds and inorganic fertilizers, AGRA set out to double crop productivity, increase incomes and halve food insecurity by 2020.
In July 2020, Timothy Wise of Tufts University published an analysis of AGRA’s impact in Africa. His research found that not only did AGRA fail in reaching a significant number of smallholder farmers (a finding that is consistent with the analysis on Gates Foundation grants, the majority of which are directed towards scientists, not farmers), but that undernourishment increased by a startling 30% in AGRA countries.
Overall staple crop yields have grown only 18% over 12 years. Meanwhile, undernourishment (as measured by the FAO) has increased 30% in AGRA countries. These poor indicators of performance suggest that AGRA and its funders should change course.”
Many Africans are now beginning to question Gates’ involvement in the region, calling for the end of his industrial agriculture model. In September 2020, SAFCEI (Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute) sent an open letter to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation warning that the Foundation’s current approach to food security will do more harm than good. The letter states that
The Gates Foundation promotes a model of industrial monoculture farming and food processing that is not sustaining our people”.
In June 2021, AFSA (The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa) wrote to AGRA’s major institutional donors calling for them to shift their support away from big agribusiness and towards sustainable, agroecological approaches to farming.
Together, AFSA’s member network represents millions of African citizens across 50 countries. AFSA stated that they received very few responses to their letter and that none could provide any evidence that AGRA had achieved any of its stated aims.
In the shadow of AGRA’s failure, in 2020, the Gates Foundation launched “Gates Ag One”, a subsidiary of the Gates Foundation. The alleged aim of Gates Ag One is to “Advance innovations that improve agricultural outcomes for smallholder farmers”.
Gates Ag One is headed up by Joe Cornelius, a former executive at Bayer, and Al Gallegos, who has previously held positions at both DuPont and Monsanto.
Thus “Gates Ag One”, though claiming to empower small farmers will actually lead to the further enrichment of corporations. As Navdanya writes:
They are hoping to artificially accelerate the process of introducing “new technologies” to farmers through increased investment and public and private partnerships while having total freedom in their business model as a separate entity to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
The rhetoric expounded by Gates and his posse of corporate backers is that smallholder farmers are unproductive and unable to provide for a rapidly evolving world. Gates claims that what they really need is “new digital tools and technologies”.
However, considering the failure of the Green Revolution, the soil crisis and the widespread health effects of chemical inputs, is that really true? Or is Gates Ag One simply the latest attempt to bring world agriculture firmly under the control of Big Agribusiness?
GENE DRIVE ORGANISMS AND SCULPTING EVOLUTION
The Gates Foundation, along with US military group DARPA, has been the driving force behind the development of gene drive technology. Gates’ funding of gene drive technology began in 2005 with an $8.5 million grant given to Austin Burt and Andrea Chrisanti, biologists working at Imperial College, London.
This line of development eventually led to the invention of CRISPR in 2015, a genetic engineering tool that allows scientists to cut, insert and replace genes in a DNA sequence. According to a report by ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration),
Gene drive organisms are created by genetically engineering a living organism with a particular trait, and then modifying the organism’s reproductive system in order to always force the modified gene onto future generations, spreading the trait throughout the entire population.”
As mentioned earlier in this article, one of Gates’ initiatives led to the release of genetically modified mosquitos in Burkina Faso. However, this was but the first phase in a long-term project, the third phase of which is the release of GDO mosquitos (modified via gene drive technology). ETC Group explains the significance of this [emphasis added]:
…A a gene drive is designed to interfere with the fertility of the mosquito: essential genes for fertility would be removed, preventing the mosquitoes from having female offspring or from having offspring altogether. These modified mosquitoes would then pass on their genes to a high percentage of their offspring, spreading auto-extinction genes throughout the population. In time, the entire species would in effect be completely eliminated.”
Following calls in 2016 for a global moratorium on the use of gene drive technology, the Gates Foundation paid $1.6 million to Emerging Ag (a private PR firm) to coordinate the push-back against proponents of the moratorium.
Emerging Ag recruited and coordinated over 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) official, and government and university scientists, in an attempt to flood the official UN process with their coordinated inputs.”
Another group developing gene drive technology is the Sculpting Evolution group, run out of the Gates-funded MIT Media Lab, the same institution that received donations from Jeffery Epstein, and the same institution that houses Robert Langer, co-founder of the controversial biotech company, and Covid-19 “vaccine” manufacturer, Moderna.
The leader of Sculpting Evolution is Kevin Esvelt, one of the pioneers of CRISPR and (allegedly) the first person to identify the potential for gene drive systems to alter wild populations of organisms.
Esvelt’s lab seeks to apply “robotics and machine learning to evolve new molecular tools and techniques”. Another of their aims is to “Work with the guidance of interested communities to safely and humanely edit wild populations and ecosystems”.
The Sculpting Evolution Group also advises governments on “pressing issues of biodefense”.
Our challenge is to prevent the immense power of biotechnology from being misused. Historical pandemics killed tens of millions of people, and engineered agents could be even more destructive.”
One of the ways Sculpting Evolution proposes thwarting future pandemics or bioweapon attacks is by the construction of a “Global Nucleic Acid Observatory” (NAO) to “monitor humanity and the environment for any and all biological threats”. The group claims that by continual genomic testing at sites around the world, the “NAO could detect any virus or invasive organism undergoing exponential growth”.
In support of this radical proposal, the group references a case study from Israel [emphasis added]:
In 2013, Israel’s poliovirus-specific environmental monitoring program detected a nascent outbreak in wastewater samples from the town of Rahat using plaque assays and swiftly initiated mass oral vaccination, eliminating the virus before even a single child came down with paralytic symptoms”.
The disturbing nature of such a system thus becomes immediately apparent: governments would be able to initiate vaccination programs and institute other pandemic measures without the need for, or proof of, an actual threat, only the claimed “detection” of one. This begs the all-important question: who would decide when a “threat” is detected, and on what basis?
While virologists expound on the dangers of zoonotic coronaviruses and climate scientists rage on about the evils of carbon dioxide, the real environmental crises go largely unnoticed. And perhaps that is the point. We will explore these other crises – crises that threaten our very existence as a species – in part 3.
[1] Shiva, V., Shiva, K. Oneness vs the 1%. 2018.[back][back]
[2] Farrell, P., J., de Hart, D., S. Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas. 2011.[back][back][back][back]
[3] Engdahl, W. Seeds of Destruction. 2007.[back][back][back][back]
[4] Vasquez, A. Inflammation Mastery (4th ed). 2016.[back][back]
[5] Griffin, G., E. World Without Cancer, the Story of Vitamin B17. 2001.back
Ryan Matters is a writer and free thinker from South Africa. After a life-changing period of illness, he began to question mainstream medicine, science and the true meaning of what it is to be alive. Some of his writings can be found at newbraveworld.org, you can also follow him on Twitter and Gab.
Peter Duesberg is a molecular biologist and a molecular and cell biology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. At one time, he was an acclaimed scientist who was the world’s foremost expert on AIDS. That all changed when he was blackballed by Anthony Fauci and the scientific establishment for the temerity of revealing the truth that HIV does not cause AIDS. Duesberg was slandered as a homophobe for revealing the scientific evidence that AIDS was caused by the use of certain dangerous recreational/pharmaceutical aphrodisiacs by the sodomite community that over time broke down the immune systems of the users who then developed AIDS. He revealed that the prevalence of AIDS in Africa is simply explained by recategorizing as HIV the endemic immune deficiencies that were always understood to be caused by malnutrition, tainted drinking water, and various infections.
Dr. Duesberg reveals how Fauci pushed the toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who were found to have antibodies to HIV. Those patients were poisoned by the drug (AZT) that was supposed to treat them. AZT, in actuality, caused AIDS, which eventually killed the patients. That is much like the present regime of treating COVID-19 with unsafe and ineffective mRNA vaccines and toxic therapeutics like Veklury® (remdesivir) while suppressing safe and effective therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.
Duesberg’s book exposes the incompetence, megalomania, and in some cases criminality of Anthony Fauci, and other NIH, FDA, and CDC officials. It reveals the genesis of the establishment of what has become a cabal of ruling technocrats in government which has now brought Orwellian oppression across the United States and indeed the world through the COVID-19 scare and mandatory experimental vaccinations.
There were very powerful interests who tried to kill Duesberg’s book before it ever saw the light of day. The publisher, Regnery, in its preface to the book explains how Peter Duesberg went through two publishers who backed out of publishing the book at late stages, apparently due to some hidden pressure from an unseen hand.
This book is now out of publication. But there is still robust demand for the book which has driven the price up. While Amazon offers the audible version of the book at a reasonable price, as of January 28, 2022, the hardcover version was priced at $1,260.00 and the paperback was priced at $536.00.
Regnery is the third publisher to have contracted to publish Inventing the AIDS Virus. Addison Wesley initially announced the book in 1993. St. Martin’s signed it in January 1994 and subsequently assigned its contract to us in January 1995. We announced it, initially, in the fall of 1995 and finally published it in February 1996. Bryan Ellison, Duesberg’s former research assistant and original co-author, became disenchanted with Duesberg’s and his publisher’s insistence on careful documentation and self-published his own version under the title Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS in 1994. We sued Ellison for breach of contract and copyright violation and, after a two-week federal court jury trial, were awarded a six-figure verdict and an injunction against Ellison’s edition. Inventing the AIDS Virus has been edited by at least five editors, has been agonized over by the publishers of three major publishing firms, and concurrently praised and damned by countless critics.
Excerpt from the foreword by Nobel Laureate Kerry Mullis, creator of the PCR test:
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.
We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we’ve seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.
I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time. Read this book.
Kary B. Mullis
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993
Prior to his untimely death on August 7, 2019, Kerry Mullis had this to say about Anthony Fauci and his ilk:
“Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking, you know, he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I’d say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there you’ll know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about what’s going on in the body. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They’ve got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to. And they smugly, like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”
Notice the book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, on the table in front of Mullis during the interview.
“Viruses are small obligate intracellular parasites, which by definition contain either a RNA or DNA genome surrounded by a protective, virus-coded protein coat.”
Medical Microbiology, 4th edition, 1996
The question regarding the existence of pathogenic viruses remains an important one as the belief in such viruses dictates billions of dollars of resources and research funds. In the past two years we have also seen how an alleged virus can be used as a political tool to bring populations to heel. It is not the first time this has happened: for example, the “discovery” of HIV in the 1980s set up a multi-billion dollar industry and has also been used politically in most corners of the world. (The fallacies regarding the existence of the HIV particle and it causing AIDS are outlined in Virus Mania. For those wanting to dive more deeply into the arguments, I would recommend The Perth Group’s magnus opus on this topic.)
Independent journalist Jeremy Hammond who promotes himself as exposing “dangerous state propaganda” surrounding COVID-19 and the dangers of the vaccines, thus made the following curious statement in 2021:
“the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated (i.e., never proven to exist) greatly harms the credibility of the health freedom movement and is grounded in total ignorance of the science (the virus is constantly being isolated and whole genome sequenced by scientists all over the world)”
Jeremy Hammond, 9 March 2021
I would argue that the ignorance falls in Hammond’s lap as he appears to reach his conclusion by essentially repeating the claims made by virologists and reassuring the audience that their methodologies are valid. In recent weeks we have also seen Dr Joseph Mercola presenting Hammond’s interview and Steve Kirsch’s blog (that also makes appeals to virology authority) as “evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 exists. Kirsch states that he relies on “expert opinions of people I trust” which means that he has put the argument into the hands of others rather than investigating the issue himself. But is it wise for these health freedom fighters who are battling establishment COVID “experts” to not also question the establishment virologists?
Dr Andy Kaufman produced a point by point refutation of Hammond’s support of modern virology’s “isolation” methodology here, while Dr Tom Cowan warned that we are just getting started with dismantling virology’s nonsense here. Dr Sam Bailey has published many videos covering the virus isolation issue – most of which have been banned from YouTube but can still be found on Odysee. Additionally, in an essay I co-authored with Dr John Bevan-Smith, we describe the first pillar of the COVID-19 fraud as virology’s misuse of the term “isolation”. In summary, because virologists were unable to physically isolate any viruses last century, they simply changed the definition of the word so that even virologists admit the term is now used loosely. A strange state of affairs when the scientific method calls for precise terminology.
My observation over the past two years has been that many scientists, doctors, and journalists are happy to jump over this “isolation” chasm and cite the “coronavirus genomes” deposited in databases as proof that the virus must exist. For example, Steve Kirsch writes in his blog that:
“I know that Sabine Hazan verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus.”
Steve Kirsch, 10 January 2022
He cites Hazan’s paper “Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing” as the evidence for this statement. Kirsch admits that he doesn’t know how the genomes were created, but his…
“scientist friends seem happy with them. At $2,000 a shot, I don’t think they’d market the product if it was contaminated and useless. Am I wrong?”
Steve Kirsch, 10 January 2022
Unfortunately, he appears to have been duped by the high-tech façade of virology’s genomics genie where “viruses” are created from various detected genetic sequences. In fact, sometimes the sequences are not really detected at all, as Dr Stefan Lanka is exposing in what may be virology’s death blow.
We can use Hazan’s paper as an example of the flawed methodology used in creating these “virus genomes”. The research team obtained faecal samples from 14 participants and proceeded to see what genetic sequences they could detect in the samples. We strike the first issue in the ‘methods’ section when they state that “included throughout sample processing was the SARS-CoV-2 positive control from ATCC (Heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2, VR-1986HK; strain 2019-nCoV/USA-WA1/2020)” How did they know that the sample contained the inactivated virus? Because the ATCC (American Type Culture Collection) claims that it does on their website where they state “this strain was originally isolated from a human case in Washington state and was deposited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” And how did the CDC know that they had the virus? Because they claimed they found it in this paper here.
But where was the virus?
In the CDC’s paper, they say that they collected “clinical specimens from a case-patient who had acquired COVID-19 during travel to China and who was identified in Washington, USA”. It was concluded that the patient had COVID-19 based on a PCR result that detected some sequences said to come from SARS-CoV-2. But at this point they had no proof of any virus – all they had was some detected genetic sequences from a patient with an alleged viral infection. After performing a test tube tissue culture experiment on their clinical sample and claiming that there was evidence of a virus due to non-specific cytopathic effects, they began to construct their “genome”. They state that “we used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing.” This is another sleight of hand because the “viral lysate” was not demonstrated to come from a virus, it is simply a soup of broken up culture cells and other additives.
Similarly misleading was the claim they “extracted nucleic acid from isolates”. They have implied that they have isolated a virus and that they know which RNA sequences came from inside it. However, this would require the alleged viral particles to be truly physically isolated by purification, which they failed to do. And I say alleged because even if they purified the particles, it would still have to be shown that they meet the definition of a virus – including being parasitic and the causal agent of disease – something that was not demonstrated by these authors or any others.
In any case, how did they know which genetic sequences belonged to the “virus” in the first place? They “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).” And where did this “reference sequence” come from? This relates to Fan Wu, et al’s paper describing the 41-year-old man who was admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan on 26 December 2019 with bilateral pneumonia and despite no new clinical features, was said to have a condition that was later called “COVID-19”.
The specimen was of crude lung washings, so it contained a mixture of human cells and potentially all sorts of other micro-organisms and genetic fragments. They simply asserted that there was a virus in the brew. From this mixed sample they blindly generated tens of millions of different sequences and then put their software to work to see how they could fit them all together. To do this “fitting” the software searched for “contigs” or areas where different fragments appear to have overlapping sequences. Of the hundreds of thousands of hypothetical sequences generated in this fashion they identified that the longest “continuous” sequence the computer could create was about 30,000 bases long and concluded that this software creation must be the genome of the presumed new virus.
They thought this was the genome because their hypothetically generated 30,000 base sequence was 89.1% similar to, “a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45”. The “genome” for the bat CoV “isolate” was generated in 2018 after “19 degenerated PCR primer pairs were designed by multiple alignment of available SARS-CoV and bat SL-CoV sequences deposited in GenBank, targeting almost the full length of the genome.” So in other words, they already knew the sequence to look for based on sequences that had previously been deposited in GenBank. But how did the producers of these already deposited sequences know that they had found viral genomes? Welcome to the circular reasoning of modern virology.
To explain the loop that virologists appear to be trapped inside, this 2019 paper published in Virology is illustrative of the problem:
“Three main methods based on HTS [High-throughput sequencing] are currently used for viral whole-genome sequencing: metagenomic sequencing, target enrichment sequencing and PCR amplicon sequencing, each showing benefits and drawbacks (Houldcroft et al., 2017). In metagenomic sequencing, total DNA (and/or RNA) from a sample including host but also bacteria, viruses and fungi is extracted and sequenced. It is a simple and cost-effective approach, and it is the only approach not requiring reference sequences. Instead, the other two HTS approaches, target enrichment and amplicon sequencing, both depend on reference information to design baits or primers.”
Maurier F, et al, “A complete protocol for whole-genome sequencing of virus from clinical samples,” Virology, May 2019.
Essentially this gets to the root of the problem. The “viral” reference genomes are being created through metagenomic sequencing but this is done on crude specimens (such as lung washings or unpurified tissue cultures) and then declarations that the selected sequences are viral in origin. So already there are two problems: firstly, there was no step (i.e. purification) to show that the sequences come from inside “viruses” and secondly, as described above, the computer generated “genomes” are simply assembled hypothetical models from small genetic fragments, not something that has been proven to exist in nature as a whole 30,000 base sequence. However, these in silico models then effectively become the “virus” and an entity such as SARS-CoV-2 is created. Once the first of such a sequence is deposited on a database, the “virus” can be “found” by others through the same flawed metagenomic techniques. Or as stated in the Virology paper, it can be “found” through target enrichment and amplicon sequencing (usually PCR), but this requires you to have a reference sequence…that is, a template that was invented in silico by metagenomic sequencing where the provenance of the genetic fragments was unknown.
There is no part in the above process that establishes either:
1) the genetic composition of any imaged or imagined particles; or
2) the biological nature of such particles, i.e. what they actually do.
It’s a good-looking nano-particle alright, but what is it made of and what does it do?
So, now can we return to Hazan’s paper to see that it is a pointless exercise in virological nonsense. They state that along with their “SARS-CoV-2 positive control from ATCC”, the “patient genomes were compared to the Wuhan-Hu-1 (MN90847.3) SARS-CoV-2 reference genome”. Accession number MN90847.3 refers to the updated “genome” said to have been found in the 41-year-old man from Wuhan as discussed above in Fan Wu, et al’s paper. The circle is complete – at no stage was it demonstrated that there was any virus by following this evidence trail of “genomes”. Fan Wu’s team never found a virus, they simply asserted that their genetic sequence computer simulation was a “new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae” without proving that the sequence existed in nature or came from inside a virus. Hence, there was no “detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples” as the title of the Hazan paper claimed, unless “SARS-CoV-2” means genetic sequences of who-knows-what from who-knows-where. It doesn’t matter where or how often these sequences are detected – they have never been proven to be viral in nature. So, when Steve Kirsch stated that Hazan “verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus,” he is mistaken.
I was not planning on doing any more articles nor devoting any more of my time to Steve Kirsch after my response to his claim that “SARS-COV-2” has been isolated. It was clear to me after reading his blog post that he did not understand what he was writing about. Even if it wasn’t clear to anyone reading, Steve took the liberty of outright admitting that he did not understand the topic as he relied on “experts” to tell him what to think and believe:
I rely on expert opinions of people who I trust for certain issues like whether or not the virus has been “isolated.” -Steve Kirsch
After the blog post came out, there were some exchanges between Steve and Christine Massey, who has done an amazing job of destroying the “virus” isolation lie with her Freedom of Information requests. She confronted Steve about his “isolation” claim and brilliantly pointed out why he was wrong. Instead of conceding that she was right and that he clearly did not understand the topic, Steve hunkered down on his ridiculous claim and pushed her for a 5 hour live debate with his “experts” in order to let the audience decide which side was right in the “SARS-COV-2” isolation argument. Disregarding the ridiculousness of the 5 hour time frame and the desire for the audience to decide a winner, Steve was attempting to sit on the sidelines and play matchmaker by pitting his “experts” against Christine. Once she enlisted the help of a team of her own experts, Steve seemingly panicked and decided to exit stage left.
This is just a brief summary of what transpired over the course of a few weeks in January 2022 and I may not have done the exchange justice. However, while the debate-that-never-was is an interesting story, it is not my main focus. In fact, I would have left this whole Steve Kirsch situation in the wastebasket where it belongs until I saw his parting shots at the “virus does not exist” community. In his attempt to save face by passing the responsibility of debating Christine and her experts off to his readers (which shouldn’t be shocking as he is seemingly skilled at passing responsibility off to “experts”), Steve shared some additional outlandish claims made by his “experts” regarding “virus” purification. Here are a few brief highlights from his post:
Does anyone want to debate “Does the virus exist?”
If course it does, but there are followers of Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey who claim it doesn’t.
“I’m not willing to invest my time in this debate, but if you want to challenge Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey, please let me know in the comments.”
“Basically, purifying a virus is difficult and there is no reason in today’s world to do it, so it isn’t done. The FOIA requests they issue are a publicity stunt that they know will fail. That’s very disingenuous of them not to reveal that.”
“Also, the people I talk to fully acknowledge there is no purified virus, but that it isn’t needed because they can do everything they need to do without it. Lanka et al. claim it is needed. So it’s now just a matter of opinion. Neither side is going to convince the other side. That’s what happened.”
“The reason nobody has purified the virus is there is no need to do so in today’s world where gene sequencing is readily available.”
First, I would like to point out Steve’s apparent Freudian slip while attempting to declare the “virus” exists: “If course it does.” Not a typo on my part. I’m not here to play grammar police as I make plenty of spelling errors myself. I just thought it was an amusingly ironic way to start his post. Since Steve is unwilling to invest his time in a debate, maybe he could devote it to proofreading?
Now that the fun is out of the way, let’s get to the nitty-gritty on “virus” purification. According to Steve’s “experts,” the purification of a “virus” is too difficult and is no longer necessary. They believe that in today’s world of molecular virology, purifying “viruses” does not need to occur as a genome can be obtained from the genetic soup full of host and other unknown “non-viral” RNA/DNA. They believe that it is possible to obtain a genome for an unknown “virus” by piecing it together from the millions of reads of random RNA aquired from these unrelated sources within the sample. Thus, Steve and Co. want you to believe that purification, i.e. the very steps used to rid a sample of contaminants, pollutants, foreign material, etc. in order to isolate it, is not necessary any more as technology has advanced beyond these primitive methods. Putting aside the fact that the admittance by Steve and Co. that purified “SARS-COV-2” does not exist destroys their previous claims of “virus” isolation, does Steve’s “expert” advice on purification hold up?
No. Not at all. At least, not according to these experts:
“That such “purification” is an indispensable prerequisite for detecting viruses and creating valid antibody and PCR tests based on them is also stated by scientists who are the most renowned in the world, among them:
White and Fenner: “It’s an essential pre-requisite.” Luc Montagnier: “It is necessary.” Robert Gallo: “You have to purify.” Marcel Tanner: “If a pure SARS-CoV-2 isolate cannot be documented by the IVI [=Institute of Virology and Immunology] in Bern, then we have a problem.” (siehe here). Françoise Barré-Sinoussi: “… you have to purify the virus from all this mess.” Jean-Claude Chermann: “Yes, of course… Absolutely.” David Gordon: “It’s a natural step from obtaining the virus in cell culture to then obtain purified virus.” Dominic Dwyer: “The purification, as far as one can go, is important in analysis of any virus or bacteria, for that matter well.” Wan Beom Park: “In the outbreak situation, isolation of causative virus is indispensable for developing and evaluating diagnostic tools, therapeutics, and vaccine candidates.”
I’m not positive who Steve’s “experts” are, but the people listed above are well-known and respected scientists and virologists. While they may disagree with the fact that “viruses” do not exist, they all accept that purification of a “virus” is an absolutely necessary and essential step. It is a prerequisite.
Those listed above are not the only experts claiming purification is necessary. An interview with Professor: Dr. Osamu Nakagomi from the Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Molecular Epidemiology, who is an expert on the subject matter, states as much as well:
Fundamentals of Ultracentrifugal Virus Purification
“In recent years, in virus research, it has become a standard practice to purify and analyze genomes and identify viruses from samples using commercial kits. Since for the established viruses their genomes have already been known, virus identification is possible even in a mixed state. However, to carry out detailed investigation on the nature of viruses, it is first necessary to refine the virus particles in order to yield a high level of purified materials.”
Please discuss the necessity of ultracentrifugation in virus research.
“When extracting virus genome using the classical method, the virus particles must first be purified. Then the virus genome extracted from the particles is examined. Ultracentrifugation plays an important role in the process. Purifying the virus particles makes it possible from the beginning to ensure that we are dealing with the rotavirus genomes in the virus particles.Currently such analysis is performed almost all the time after hastily extracting the genome without actually purifying the specimen. This practice is common since the genome of rotavirus is well established and it is a common knowledge that if the genome (Fig. 1 ) characteristic of rotavirus is present, there is no doubt that the genome is present in rotavirus particles as well. However, suppose, for example, that we are dealing with the problem of determining what kind of host cell organelles or virus proteins and genomes are aggregated in an infected cell, ultracentrifugation becomes indispensable. Moreover, while studying new viruses, it becomes increasingly necessary to investigate whether or not the genome is present in the particle. In such cases, purification with an ultracentrifuge becomes a necessity. Information on the buoyant density, size and sedimentation coefficient (Svedberg value, S value), all of which are taken into consideration in ultracentrifugation, is in fact the fundamental aspect of virology which taken together are called the physiochemical properties of viruses.”
I wonder if Steve and Co. would be able to point out “SARS-COV-2” from these unpurified EM images if we took out the labels?
As can be seen by Dr. Osamu Nakagomi as well as the experts listed above, purification is entirely necessary, especially in instances with “novel viruses” such as “SARS-COV-2,” which Steve and Co. admit has never been purified. Without purification, there are numerous host cell organelles and other proteins, microrganisms, bacteria, etc. within the sample and thus there can be no claims of isolation. There would be no way to be able to determine that the RNA used to create the “SARS-COV-2” genome came from one source. In fact, the only time Dr. Nakagomi states purification is not necessary is when the genome is already known and established, thus purification is a neccesary step to obtain the initial genome. Yet this creates a bit of a conundrum. Where has it ever been shown that the particles assumed to be “viruses” were ever purified and isolated directly from a sick human in order to obtain the original genome for any “virus?” At some point in the history of “viral” genomes, this purification and isolation process must have been carried out before any genome for any “virus” could have been obtained and considered accurate and reliable. However, it has never been done, especially for “coronaviruses” as I outlined here.
The “SARS-COV-2” genome was nonexistent and there was no prior knowledge of its sequence. The genome was created from unpurified broncoalveloar fluid (BALF) from one patient and cobbled together in a computer from other unpurified reference genomes made in a similar way. In a document by the WHO regarding sequencing genomes using metagenomics, such as was done for the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is admitted that high “non-viral” host material will also be sequenced. They claim that purification steps such as centrifugation and filtration are supposed to be done yet even purifying samples will still lead to a high number of “off-target, non-viral” reads:
Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2
“Depletion of host or other non-SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in a sample leads to a higher proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reads in generated sequence data and therefore a higher chance of recovering a full genome.SARS-CoV-2 metagenomic approaches therefore typically include steps to remove host and bacterial cells, through either centrifugation or filtration prior to RNA extraction, or chemical or enzymatic removal of unwanted DNA/RNA. This is easier for liquid samples, from which cells can be more easily separated, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (Table 4). Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and DNA content are also commonly depleted during library preparation for virus RNA sequencing, and carrier RNA is often omitted from extractions or replaced with linear polyacrylamide. Despite such measures, samples may still contain high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA that may also be sequenced. Metagenomic approaches therefore generally benefit from input of samples with high virus loads (such that a reasonable proportion of the genetic material in the sample is virus).”
“Metagenomic sequencing typically produces high numbers of off-target, non-virus reads. It is also often (though not always, depending on the sequencing platform and multiplexing) more costly than targeted capture-based or amplicon-based sequencing approaches, because more data have to be produced to generate one SARS-CoV-2 genome. Moreover, pretreatment steps that are particularly beneficial for metagenomics, such as centrifugation, are not typically performed for molecular diagnostic assays so new extractions that incorporate pretreatment steps may have to be performed for metagenomic sequencing.”
Another source on the advantages and disadvantages of genomic sequencing states that contamination, such as that by bacteria which is sure to be present without purification, will lead to inaccurate genomes:
“Factors outside the control of the service provider tasked with isolation and sequencing of DNA can negatively influence the quality of the genome sequence and therefore its interpretation. This can include the quality of the DNA sample provided for analysis, such as low quantity, high bacterial contamination, or sample degradation. Such factors can even prevent the procedure from being undertaken. In such a circumstance, the client might be obliged to deliver a new sample.”
Since Steve and Co. admit that “SARS-COV-2” has never been purified, yet purification is a prerequisite for “novel viruses” in order to obtain an accurate genome, how can they claim that this step is unnecessary?
It’s probably due to the other fact which Steve admitted to: purification is difficult. However, I would go one step further and say that when dealing with nano-sized particles, purification is impossible. I will not go into too much detail in this post as I have outlined the purification problems here and here. However, it has been admitted numerous times that it is impossible to separate “viruses” from exosomes and other extracellular vesicles that co-sediment together. There is no one method, whether ultracentrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc., that can completely purify the “viruses.” Although you can find similar statements in some of the posts I linked, I will provide a recent article which focused on the need for purifying RNA for epigenetic studies. The authors supply various purification methods and then admit that none of them alone are sufficient to purify “viruses” from host-derived impurities. These impurities then impact the creation of the genome and any study relating to it. Even when combined, they can only claim that these methods will increase “virus” yield and quality, not completely purify the particles.
“The relatively low abundance of viral genomic material within the nucleic acid milieu of clinical samples places constraints on the utility of epigenetics-related applications, like m6A RNA methylation ELISAs, to specifically study the virus epigenome. Such assays require highly pure input material, free from host-derived impurities whose epigenetic modifications can also be detected and interfere with results.”
“The methods included above are generally not sufficient, when performed alone, for adequate purification of viruses. Studies focused on the virus epigenome require highly pure input material, without interference from the epigenetic modifications of host DNA, RNA, or protein. Combinations of the aforementioned methods can increase viral recovery, yield, and quality.”
Even when the purification steps are performed on samples, there will always be many known and unknown identical particles with various sources of genetic material within the sample. Contamination is a widespread problem both in cell culturing and genomics. This makes electron microscopy imaging and the creation of a genome utterly meaningless and useless as proof of a “virus.” In order to hammer this point home, here are a few highlights from a 1996 Manuel on “virus” purification:
“Virus purification is the physical separation of virus in a concentrated form from the host cell milieu in which it has grown. Viruses need tobe purified for many studies in which properties or structure of the virus must be distinguished from those of the host cells or culture medium, such as analyses of structure of viral polypeptides, function of membrane glycoproteins, etc.”
Criteria of purity
“The observation of particles in the electron microscope, whilst not a good criterion of purity, does allow the detection of ‘unwanted structures’.
It would be expected that constituents of the medium would form a major part of the contaminants of purified virus preparations. This can be monitored by gel diffusion tests, where antisera raised against e.g. calf serum, or uninfected cells can be reacted with virus preparation.”
As can be seen, “viruses” must be purified in order for the structure and physical properties of the “virus” to be distinguished from host cells and the culture medium. The constituents of the culture medium are said to be the bulk of the contaminants in purified “virus.” This would include the fetal bovine serum which is added to nearly every culture which is a completely separate source of RNA from the host source. They fail to mention the added animal RNA which would come from the Vero cells regularly used for culturing as in the case of “SARS-COV-2.” All of this “non-viral” material would need to be eliminated first along with the host material as well as possible contamination from bacteria, exosomes, MVB’s, other microrganisms, etc. before a genome could be considered valid. Otherwise, there is no realistic way of knowing which RNA belongs to which source within the mixture and whether or not the computer-generated genome is an amalgamation of the RNA stitched together from those numerous sources.
It is clear that purification is an absolutely necessary process, even though the methods themselves are flawed and unable to completely purify these preparations. This is why Steve and Co. claim it is “difficult” (i.e. impossible) to purify “viruses,” that it is no longer necessary, and why they want to skip over this step entirely. They know it is impossible. They know that they can not supply a single study where the particles claimed to be “viruses” were completely purified and isolated directly from a sick host. They can not even show this in papers where “viruses” are cultured. They want you to believe that technology has advanced to a point where it can pick through these unpurified mixtures of RNA in order to piece together a theoretical representation of an unseen “virus” in the form of a genome. Even if this was a logical argument (it’s not), a genome from unpurified samples would be at best INDIRECT evidence, not DIRECT evidence of a “virus.”
Fortunately, even disregarding the sources I’ve shared above which completely dispute Steve and Co., we can rely on logic and critical thinking to understand that their claims are ridiculous. In order for a genome to be considered valid evidence, the entity being sequenced must be shown to actually exist in reality first. One can not just assume an unseen “virus” is within the unpurified sample from the start without ever verifying that it actually exists to begin with. This requires that the particles claimed to be “viruses” be found in a state completely free of contaminants, pollutants, and foreign material as well as separated from everything else. In order for this to occur, the sample must be put through the steps of purification (centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc.) so that it can be shown to exist in an isolated state. Only then can proof of pathogeniticity be aquired using the purified particles as a valid independent variable in order to establish cause and effect. Only then can the particles identified in EM images be said to be the “virus.” Only then could a genome be aquired. Only then can the “virus” be fully characterized.
Without purification, Steve and Co. have no “virus.”
And so we get to the crux of the problem with relying on “experts” to do the thinking for you. Steve has relied on his “experts” to tell him that the purification process is unnecessary. He allowed the “experts” to tell him that the definition of isolation means to add many things together rather than what it actually means which is to exist in a state separated from everything else. He did not do a cursory bit of research to understand that his so-called “experts” are wrong. However, their inaccurate claims are now his to defend. Sadly, Steve is adamant that, while he was willing to invest the time to write a blog post about his unwillingness to do a debate, he is not willing to invest his time to actually defend his claims in a debate. So the way I see it, Steve has three options:
Find the time to debate Christine and her experts to defend his ridiculous claims.
Find new “experts” who understand the methods used for the purification and isolation of “viruses” and why they are necessary.
Find the time to do his own research and utilize critical thinking and logic to discern truth for himself rather than relying on “experts” to do the thinking for him.
I’m hoping Steve chooses option # 3. However, I’m not holding my breath.
Next, the 
Hydra is pictured on a stone 
.jpg){kind=link}
