It’s Bird Flu Season in Russia (Time to Kill All the Chickens, for Public Health)

It’s Bird Flu Season in Russia (Time to Kill All the Chickens, for Public Health)

A poultry farm in Yaroslavl has been ordered to cull 800,000 chickens, as regions introduce arbitrary “public health” measures to stop the spread of “bird flu”

by Edward Slavsquat, Edward Slavsquat substack
May 25, 2023

 

On May 12, Russian media reported that an “infected” gull had been discovered near a pond in a village in Moscow Oblast.

What happened next was practically preordained.

Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin—the poster boy for New Normal Russia—issued a decree on May 18 imposing “quarantine” measures on 11 districts in the capital.

The order placed restrictions on public events where birds might be congregating, and also banned the transportation of feathered creatures in the aforementioned districts.

Of course, birds could always just, you know, fly into one of these “quarantined” districts, and spread their devilish flu, but that’s neither here nor there.

Moscow’s friendly mayor dreams of “genetic passports” by 2030
If you like UN Agenda 2030, you’ll love Moscow 2030!

Read full story…

Moscow is the trend-setter when it comes to enterprising public health policy in Russia, so of course other regions have been eager to follow suit with their own arbitrary bird flu edicts.

Kaliningrad was the first to play copy-cat.

source

Just hours after Sobyanin’s decree was published, Kaliningrad imposed its own “quarantine” on a 10km perimeter around another bird flu Ground Zero.

The restrictions, which will remain in place until August 1, included a ban on the “import and export of birds and hatching eggs, the relocation of birds, procurement and export of bird feed, as well as holding agricultural fairs, exhibitions, auctions and other events.”

source

A week later, the discovery of dead, flu-riddled gulls in Nizhny Novgorod prompted officials to introduce a 30-day quarantine in one of the region’s districts.

Health authorities “seized poultry within a radius of five kilometers [from where the dead gulls were found], and poultry farms in the region were transferred to enhanced security protocols.”

Locals were also advised to only buy poultry from “verified” sources—the good, factory-farmed corporate stuff; don’t even think about buying poultry from your unverified neighbor!

But confiscating all chickens in a 5km radius is amateur hour compared to the health-boosting measures adopted in Yaroslavl.

source

The Romanovskaya poultry farm in Yaroslavl has been instructed to cull its livestock, and destroy all animal products on its premises, following an alleged bird flu outbreak:

All birds, more than 800 thousand in total, will be killed … The destruction of the carcasses, along with poultry products (eggs), will be carried out via incineration at a specially designated site. […]

The poultry farm has not disclosed any details about the order. When a 76.RU correspondent tried to contact company representatives, they declined to comment.

“We are in quarantine. That’s all,” a receptionist said, before hanging up.

The region is a major agricultural hub, so there’s no reason to believe that this bird-liquidation will cause a shortage of poultry or eggs. But…it’s also 800,000 chickens?

Finally, like a bad omen, Tatarstan (which was arguably the most Virus Crazy region in Russia after Moscow/St. Petersburg) is already bracing for the bird flu apocalypse:

source

Please just stop. Please.

It was clear that the COVID grift was rapidly losing its potency when Virus Nanny Anna Popova announced an imminent wave of “Arcturus”.

How many waves of severe-sounding Greek letters and words are possible, before people stop paying attention? Or worse, starting asking questions?

Well, now Russia is sacrificing 800,000 chickens to the Global Health Gods.

By the way: Where did this scary outbreak of bird flu begin? Hard to say for sure, but China recorded the world’s first human death from the new and improved “H3N8 avian influenza strain” in mid-April.

The bird flu scam actually predates COVID by many years. In fact, many of the trusted experts who demanded large-scale chicken slaughter (for public health) later went on to become celebrated “coronavirus experts” who championed worldwide house arrest for the proles—resulting in another mass culling.

Have you ever heard of a psychopath named David Nabarro?

source / source (to be fair to Nabarro, he later described lockdown as a “last resort”, which makes him slightly less disgusting than the typical WHO-certified Neanderthal.)

Let’s not deceive ourselves, friends. Global Biosecurity Theater is forever.

 

Connect with Edward Slavsquat

Cover image credit: CDD20




John O’Sullivan & Dr. Saeed Qureshi Discuss the Lies That Are the Foundation of Virology: Slaying the Virus & Vaccine Dragon

John O’Sullivan & Dr. Saeed Qureshi Discuss the Lies That Are the Foundation of Virology: Slaying the Virus & Vaccine Dragon
Interview: Slaying the Virus & Vaccine Dragon (Part 1)

by John O’Sullivan with Dr. Saeed Qureshi, The PSI Podcast
May 15, 2023

 



In this episode, a successful career government pharmaceuticals and vaccines testing expert with Health Canada explains why COVID-19 is not proven to exist in applied science. As such, no vaccine will treat a nonexistent pathogen.

Dr. Qureshi has a Ph.D. in fundamental science (chemistry) specializing in analytical chemistry, which covers the science of substances, isolation, identification, characterization, purification, tests developments, validation, and their uses.

For over three years Dr Qureshi has collaborated with other independent scientists and researchers at Principia Scientific International to provide objective, independent analysis to expose the most significant medical fraud in history.

Working with Dr Judy Wilyman – Australia’s most prominent qualified expert in vaccine injury – co-authors, Qureshi, Beatty, and O’Sullivan have compiled an important new book that among other things shows how corrupt policymakers, a controlled media and government ‘experts’ combined to scare us onto surrendering our freedoms – all premised on junk science.

Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon reveals how a coordinated international medical hoax – just like the climate scare – is a dystopian population control strategy implemented by a psychopathic billionaire cult pursuing UN Agenda 21(Agenda 2030) to depopulate the planet.

About Dr. Saeed Qureshi

As a senior research scientist for 30 years with Health Canada, Dr. Qureshi conducted experimental studies relating to drug applications for product marketing—undertaking hands-on experimental (scientific) studies for both in vitro and in vivo (animal/human) evaluations.

He has extensively published in peer-reviewed journals and made numerous invited national and international presentations on these topics.

For his scientific accomplishments he has received several high-profile awards including the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Indus Foundation, India); from the Deputy Minister’s Award of Excellence in Science at Health Canada) plus the Excellence in Science Award also at Health Canada

Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon identifies that modern democracies commonly suffer from a fatal weakness, in that they rely on politicians and government scientists to maintain high ethical standards, indefinitely.

Links referenced in podcast:

The book: https://amzn.to/3W6AECr
www.Pharmacomechanics.com
www.tntradio.live
www.principia-scientific.com

 

Connect with John O’Sullivan

Cover image based on creative commons work of GDJ




The Healthy Sick: Mike Stone on the Pseudoscience Behind the Idea of Asymptomatic Carriers of Disease

The Healthy Sick: Mike Stone on the Pseudoscience Behind the Idea of Asymptomatic Carriers of Disease

 

“…This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness…

Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests.

[…]

The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.”

The Healthy Sick
Fear the walking healthy. 

by Mike Stone, ViroLIEgy
May 5, 2023

 

“In areas where there are limited number of new cases, State or local public health officials may request to test a small number of asymptomatic ‘healthy people,’ particularly from vulnerable populations”

-CDC Revised Guidelines August 2020 (source)

In the not so distant past, when we walked around feeling healthy without any symptoms of disease, most of us would consider that we were, in fact, free of any disease. There would be no thoughts about going to the doctor for a PCR test in order to determine whether or not we were unknowingly a walking talking “virus” spewing host harboring billions of “infectious” particles capable of transmitting disease to our loved ones. We would not subject ourselves to quarantines and daily testing due to the remote possibility of being around someone who tested positive with symptoms, let alone for anyone testing positive without any signs of disease. We did not go around covering our faces with masks out of fear that those around us may be silent spreaders. We didn’t bust out our rulers in order to measure 6 feet of distance between us and another living soul. None of these irrational actions were ever even a glimmer of a thought until the well-orchestrated fear propaganda campaign promoted the pseudoscientific concept of the asymptomatic carrier of disease and catapulted it into the public consciousness.

Even though this idea has been effectively weaponized against us over the last few years, it is not a new one. In fact, as will be shown later, the notion of the asymptomatic carrier began at the same time germ theory was born. The idea is that one can be silently harboring and able to transmit a pathogen without displaying any symptoms of disease whatsoever. This has resulted in the highly illogical creation of asymptomatic disease:

What Does it Mean to Have an Asymptomatic Disease?

“Asymptomatic disease is where a person is infected with a disease (or develops a disease; diagnosed) but fails to display any noticeable symptoms.”

Asymptomatic until symptomatic – silent diseases

“Many diseases and infections can be asymptomatic, including those that may be potentially fatal in some people. These include (but are not limited to): tuberculosis, breast cancer, endometriosis, HIV/AIDS, herpes, hepatitis, chlamydia, hypertension, common colds/flu, and type-2 diabetes mellitus. Many of these conditions remain largely asymptomatic until very advanced disease stages when they suddenly become symptomatic. Others can remain more or less asymptomatic throughout their disease course.”

“Infectious diseases can also be completely asymptomatic (with no symptoms ever manifesting), particularly in younger and healthier individuals. For example, hepatitis (hepatitis C) infections can take up to 6 months to develop, and even then, approximately 80% of infected individuals may not experience any symptoms. Other examples include cholera, herpes, measles, and rubella which can be completely asymptomatic.”

“In summary, asymptomatic disease refers to diseases and infections which do not lead to any symptoms in patients (subclinical) for the whole disease course or until they develop symptoms in which the asymptomatic phase is referred to as pre-symptomatic.

In many respiratory infections including COVID-19, asymptomatic disease is common and may be a source of transmission within the community, though more research is needed to establish the exact contribution asymptomatic transmission has on the community rates of infection.”

(source)

As can be seen, many so-called “infectious diseases” are said to be asymptomatic. If one is labelled as asymptomatic, one never develops the disease at any point in time even though they are diagnosed with asymptomatic disease. This is a pseudoscientific concept that is also an oxymoron as two entirely contradictory terms were put together in order to create this illogical state. Asymptomatic is characterized by a lack of signs and symptoms of illness, whereas disease is characterized by signs and symptoms of illness. One can not have disease if one is not displaying signs of disease:

Asymptomatic carriers are nothing but healthy people who have been labelled with disease minus signs of any disease who are then told that they can infect others. They are treated as a sick individual based upon results generated using fraudulent tests. In the past, most would have scoffed at this idea and never willingly subjected themselves to quarantines and further testing. In fact, they would have never tested to begin with. However, in the face of a “pandemic” with a “novel virus,” many lined up for the mass testing agenda in order to ensure that they were amongst the “uninfected.” This willingness to subject to testing despite a clear lack of symptoms was primarily driven by fear. This old concept was thrust onto a frightened population and then ramped up in a way that had never been done so before.

In order to understand why there was never any reason to ever participate in this irrational belief of such a ridiculous concept, let’s examine how the asymptomatic carrier first came about at the dawn of germ theory. We will then examine how this idea was weaponized against the public during the “pandemic” despite a complete lack of any scientific evidence in support of the asymptomatic disease carrier.

When German bacteriologist Robert Koch was looking for the causative agents of certain diseases in the late 1800’s, he formulated a series of four logical requirements that needed to be met in order for anyone to claim that a certain microbe caused a specific disease. These were as follows:

  1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all hosts suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy hosts.
  2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased host and grown in pure culture.
  3. The cultured microorganism should cause the same symptoms of disease when introduced into a healthy host.
  4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and shown to be identical to the original causative agent.

While these logic-based postulates were accepted by and large within the scientific community, Koch quickly discovered a problem with his very first criterion. Whether it was tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria, or cholera, the microbe that he was claiming as causative agents were regularly found in healthy individuals. Thus, Koch was unable to satisfy his very own first Postulate. However, rather than realize that his criteria had worked as he had envisioned and had actually ruled out bacteria and other microbes as a causative agent of disease, Koch allowed for himself and others to bend not only his first postulate, but the others as well. Allowing for the bacteria and other microbes claimed to be causative agents of disease to be found in those without disease lead to the creation of the illogical concept that became known as the asymptomatic carrier of disease. Koch’s entire claim to fame rested entirely on the perception that he was a microbe-hunter. Bending his own rules saved Koch from giving up his prestige, kept his findings intact, and helped to establish the germ theory on unfalsifiable pseudoscientific grounds.

Koch’s idea of asymptomatic “infection” received a big push shortly afterwards when the media released propaganda promoting the idea of an asymptomatic carrier in 1907 by targeting an Irish immigrant by the name of Mary Mollen. Mary was a cook for wealthy families and ended up employed by banker Charles Henry Warren when he rented a summer home for himself and his family. When 6 of the 11 family members came down with the symptoms of typhoid fever over the last week of August, the property owners feared that no one would rent the house again if they believed that the property was the source of the outbreak. A man named George Roper was hired to investigate the situation and he came to the conclusion that it was Mary who had passed on the bacteria to the family through her cooking. This led to a modern day witch-hunt for Mary who refused to believe that she was the source of illness. Sadly, Mary was eventually involuntarily quarantined for the majority of the rest of her life. This ordeal led to Mary being notoriously and unfairly known by the moniker Typhoid Mary, even though many of her stool samples came back negative for the bacterium:

Typhoid Mary: the Tragedy of Mary Mallon

“On 11 November 1938, a 69 year old Irishwoman died on North Brother Island, New York. She had been held in isolation for 23 years, yet she had not been charged or convicted with any criminal offence.

Mary Mallon was born in Cookstown, Ireland in 1869. She immigrated to America when she was a teenager and found employment in domestic service. She developed an aptitude for cooking, and as this paid more than basic service, Mary accepted several jobs as a cook for the wealthy. In 1906, Charles Henry Warren, a New York banker, rented a summer home for himself and his family on Long Island. Mary Mallon was engaged as a cook for the duration of their stay. From the end of August, one by one people began to fall ill with typhoid fever, in all, six of the eleven occupants of the house developed typhoid fever.

The owners of the property feared that they would be unable to secure further tenants if the public believed that the source of the outbreak was their property and so hired Dr George Soper to investigate the cause. Soper came to the conclusion that Mary Mallon was to blame for the spread of disease. Hindering his efforts, Mary had left their employment three weeks after the outbreak. Soper started to investigate the previous situations held by Mary Mallon. From 1900 to 1907 there had been seven jobs where, it was reported, somewhere between twenty-three and thirty-eight people became ill and one person, a child, died. Soper believed that Mary was the source of typhoid fever that had followed her employment history, but he needed biological samples to affirm his hypothesis.”

“The Greater New York Charter allowed for ‘all reasonable means for ascertaining the existence and cause of disease’. It essentially gave health officials the authority to remove Mary Mallon and quarantine her against her will. After two years of isolation, with only a dog for company, Mary sued the health department. They had tested her stools approximately weekly and 120 out of 163 samples proved positive. Yet Mary countered with her own private analysis, sampled over the preceding year, all coming back negative. Mary’s laboratory results proved for her, her healthy status and she failed to understand that she was diagnosed a healthy typhoid carrier. She was arguably the first person identified as such, and having not been charged with a criminal offence she felt it was barbaric to be treated like a criminal (and a ‘leper’) when she was innocent of any crime.”

(source)

Mary was falsely quarantined against her will due to one man’s suspicion and hypothesis that rested solely on correlation equaling causation. No scientific experiments were ever carried out proving that Mary was spreading disease to her patrons. As with all claims of asymptomatic transmission, it was a circumstantial case built upon faulty epidemiological data. George Roper is the man who ultimately condemned Mary by labeling her as the cause without any scientific evidence proving his hypothesis. Based upon his own words presented below, he assumed certain premises, such as the bacterium should be in the urine (which it was not) and in the feces. He claimed that stool examinations only failed twice over the course of two weeks to find the bacterium. However, he later recounted several instances of failure to detect the bacterium over the course of several months. In the summer months, few bacterial colonies were found and in the month of July, there were five consecutive negative tests. During the month of August, no typhoid was ever found in Mary’s stools. In September, they began to appear again. However, from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the stools failed to yield any typhoid bacilli. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools showed anywhere from 25 to 50 percent “typhoid-like” colonies on the culture plates. There were two instances within that period where no bacilli were found. Taking into account that Mary’s own independent lab results showed that no bacilli were found within her stools, Soper’s consistently contradictory evidence should have been questioned.

After recounting these failures, Soper shared his thoughts on how Mary transmitted the bacterium through having not washed her hands properly while preparing the food. He based his conclusion upon his interviews where he stated that no housekeeper ever told him that Mary was a clean cook. He did not say whether he asked them or not or rather just assumed that their lack of addressing it was proof that Mary was unsanitary. Soper then stated that, in the most thorough “investigation,” he believed that the bacterium was carried from Mary’s hands to the people who ate ice cream containing cut-up peaches that she had prepared.  Again, no evidence was provided beyond his belief. Soper was amazed that no one had ever discovered an asymptomatic carrier in America before him. Interestingly, Soper revealed that he was long interested in the transmission of typhoid fever and knew of Robert Koch’s work. He stated that his interest in this area was longstanding and that Koch’s work was the basis for his own investigation. He admitted that he had read several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. Soper was made aware by Dr. Simon Flexner, of the infamous Flexner report, to some of these references after he had concluded his work on the Mary Mallon case. It is very clear that Soper went looking for evidence to fit his preconceived conclusions as to what the cause was. He was also potentially guided along the way:

The Military Surgeon Vol. XLV July, 1919 Number 1 Original Articles Typhoid Mary
By Major GEORGE A. SOPER

“It was expected by me that the germs might be found in the urine, but more probably in the stools. None was found in the urine. The stools contained the germs in great numbers. Daily examinations made for over two weeks failed only twice to reveal the presence of the Bacillus typhoid and on these occasions the sample taken was perhaps too small to reveal them. The blood gave a positive Widal reaction. The cook appeared to be in perfect health.

The feces were examined on an average of three times a week from March 20 to November 16, 1907, and in only a comparatively few instances did the investigators fail to find the bacilli. During the summer months the culture plates contained only a few typhoid-like colonies. In July there were five consecutive negative tests followed by a positive one.

During August the stool showed no typhoid; in September they began to appear again; from September 11 to October 14, 1907, the feces failed to yield typhoid bacilli. During this time the patient’s diet was carefully regulated and she was receiving mild laxatives.  On October 16, 1907, a very thorough test showed that the germs were again present. From October 16, 1907, to February 5, 1908, weekly examinations of the stools gave, with only two exceptions, from 25 to 50 per cent typhoid-like colonies on the culture plates. These exceptions were on November 13 and December 4, when no typhoid was found. The implication was plain. The cook was virtually a living culture tube in which the germs of typhoid multiplied and from which they escaped in the movements from her bowels. When at toilet her hands became soiled, perhaps unconsciously and invisibly so. When she pre-pared a meal, the germs were washed and rubbed from her fingers into the food. No housekeeper ever gave me to understand that Mary was a particularly clean cook. In the Oyster Bay outbreak, which was studied with more particularity than the others, the infectious matter is believed to have been carried from the cook’s hands to the people who were later taken sick by means of ice cream containing cut-up peaches.  Mary prepared this herself. In this instance no heat sterilized the washings from her hands. Mary Mallon was kept virtually a prisoner by the Department of Health for three years. At first she was held at the hospital for contagious diseases at the foot of East 16th Street, Manhattan; later she was removed to Riverside Hospital on North Brother’s Island in the East River, between Hell Gate and Long Island Sound.”

“The case is least remarkable for the reason that it was the first of its kind to be worked out in America. It is surprising that nobody bad discovered a carrier before. They are now known to be rather common.

Somewhat similar investigations bad been made in Germany) and I make no claim of originality or for any other credit in her discovery. My interest and experience in the epidemiology of typhoid had been of long standing. I had read the address which Koch had delivered before the Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademie, November 28, 1902, and his investigation into the prevalence of typhoid at Trier 3 and thought it was one of the most illuminating of documents. In fact it had been the basis of much of tile epidemic work with which I had been connected.

Koch’s address was not the only one printed about this time to show that healthy carriers might exist and give rise to typhoid.  Conradi and Drigalski4 had anticipated Koch and it was probably on the suggestion contained in their paper to the effect that with their new culture medium they had found typhoid bacilli in the stools of several well persons that Koch’s flying laboratory was sent to Trier and the ground prepared for his Kaiser Wilhelm’s Akademic address.

In the Festschrift Zum SeclizigstenGeburstag von Robert Koch, which appeared in 1903, there are several papers on the probable role of healthy carriers in producing typhoid. About this time Kayser, Klinger and others were publishing in Arbeiten aus dem Kaiserlichen Gesundheit-smate reports of cases which they found to be due to persons whose condition was much like Typhoid Mary’s.  Dr. Simon Flexner kindly called my attention to some of these references after I had concluded my work on the Mary Mallon case.”

(source)

After the highly publicized Typhoid Mary case, this idea of asymptomatic carriers simmered in the background over the next century. While there were claims of such a state in certain diseases, this has never been scientifically proven. However, that did not stop Koch’s escape clause from taking a prominent role in the “Covid crisis,” primarily due to a mass testing campaign that was bound to identify positive cases in healthy people using fraudulent tests never calibrated and validated to purified and isolated “virus.” Although all PCR results are false-positives, we can see that even the CDC noted that testing people without symptoms generates false-positive cases. They stated as much under their PCR guidelines for pertussis when recommending not to test those without symptoms:

Diagnosis PCR Best Practices

“However, only patients with signs and symptoms consistent with pertussis should be tested by PCR to confirm the diagnosis. Testing asymptomatic persons should be avoided as it increases the likelihood of obtaining falsely-positive results. Asymptomatic close contacts of confirmed cases should not be tested and testing of contacts should not be used for post-exposure prophylaxis decisions.”

(source)

Thus, we can see that the CDC were well aware that testing people without symptoms will lead to an influx of cases labelled as asymptomatic “infections” when they are, in fact, not “infected” or diseased at all. This massive amount of asymptomatic cases of “SARS-COV-2” based upon fraudulent test results has cemented the illogical concept of the asymptomatic carrier into the minds of the populace. A timely December 2020 review, while reiterating the history of the asymptomatic carrier described above, pointed out the fact that even though asymptomatic infection and transmission has always been a concept waiting it the wings, it has only recently been thrust into the limelight with this “pandemic:”

Invisible epidemics: ethics and asymptomatic infection
History

“Dr Robert Koch was one of the founders of modern microbiology, and his work is particularly well known for a set of postulates (first published in 1890) linking microbes with the causation of infectious disease (Gradmann 2010). Though variously expressed, one of Koch’s initial postulates was that the microbe putatively responsible for a disease should be found in all people suffering from the disease, but not in healthy individuals (Gradmann 2010). Koch soon realised that this did not hold true in all cases, since many potentially pathogenic organisms are frequently found in healthy people. For example, Koch observed that asymptomatic carriers of cholera, typhoid, and malaria could spread these diseases to others, and he is credited for inventing the concept of the carrier state (i.e., in which healthy people asymptomatically carry an infection) (Gradmann 2010).

Public awareness of asymptomatic carriage of infection increased, especially in English-speaking countries, with media reporting of the case of Mary Mallon (known as “Typhoid Mary”) beginning in 1907. Mallon was a cook working in New York who, although showing no signs of typhoid disease herself, spread typhoid bacteria to many other people, resulting in several deaths (Brooks 1996; Soper 1939). For the general population, this revealed an important truth: that “persons, rather than things” (Soper 1939) were the source of many infectious diseases. Despite this Copernican revolution in public health (an epidemiological parallel of the microbiological revolution of germ theory), Mary Mallon and many others found it difficult to believe that healthy people could spread disease. Mallon repeatedly resisted public health restrictions and refused to believe she was infected or posed risks to others. She spent the latter years of her life living in public health confinement on North Brother Island, working as an assistant in the local infectious disease laboratory (Soper 1939).”

Implications for outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics

“Asymptomatic infection was recognised to be a significant factor in the 2015–2016 Zika virus epidemic, particularly because many of those who were infected—including some women who acquired infection during pregnancy and gave birth to children severely affected by congenital Zika syndrome—showed few or no symptoms (Jamrozik and Selgelid 2018). Although less well recognised, transmission of asymptomatic Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infection (perhaps both camel-human and human–human transmission) may play an important role in the epidemiology of MERS—which is all the more remarkable because people who develop symptomatic MERS infection have a high fatality risk of around 35% (Grant et al. 2019). Asymptomatic infection has also been reported for viruses closely related to the coronavirus that caused the earlier severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic. In one study from 2003, around 40% of Chinese wild animal traders had serological evidence of having been exposed to coronaviruses that closely resembled SARS-coronavirus, raising questions about whether people in high risk occupations should be screened for asymptomatic infection to detect potential “spillover” events of pathogens with epidemic potential (Guan et al. 2003). We initiated the November 2018 Brocher Foundation workshop upon which this Special Issue is based partly in light of the growing awareness of such cases of asymptomatic infection—and their ethical implications for policy and practice.

Since that time general awareness of asymptomatic infection has skyrocketed in light of its role in the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid19) pandemic, in virtue of which the term ‘asymptomatic infection’ has become highly familiar to ordinary members of the general public. Early data, which were later widely confirmed, suggested that asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 occurs both in cases where the individual transmitting the virus goes on to develop symptoms later (i.e., they were “pre-symptomatic” at the time of transmission) and in cases where they never develop symptoms (Hu et al. 2020). Asymptomatic individuals can, under certain conditions, transmit to large numbers of other people (e.g., one person was shown to infect 71 others) (Liu et al. 2020). The overall degree to which asymptomatic transmission contributes to local Covid19 epidemics likely varies in different contexts and has not always been well-characterised (in part because of the difficulties of identifying all asymptomatic infections during an epidemic). In any case, asymptomatic transmission of Covid19 raises a number of ethical issues similar to those discussed above, including those related to the justification of public health interventions such as screening and isolation for asymptomatic cases.”

(source)

While the asymptomatic carrier was made a star of the “Covid” show in order to generate fear and drive compliance towards quarantines, lockdowns, social-distancing, and masking, the message has been entirely inconsistent throughout, and the lack of any valid scientific evidence proving such a carrier state was on full display from the very beginning. At a White House press briefing on January 28th 2020, the idea of asymptomatically transmitting the “novel coronavirus” was floated out there as a possibility. The CDC claimed to have heard reports about asymptomatic cases but had not seen any of the data. At the time, poster boy Anthony Fauci stated that, based upon past evidence from respiratory “viruses” of any type, asymptomatic transmission was never a driver behind any outbreaks or spread of disease:

Asymptomatic transmission

“There’s a difference between someone who has the virus and is about to show symptoms and someone who gets it and never has any noticeable sign. The second type is purely asymptomatic and there was a lot of uncertainty on this point at a Jan. 28 White House briefingThe CDC said there were reports of it, but they hadn’t seen the data.

Fauci put the question into the context of past coronaviruses.

“We would really like to see the data because, if there is asymptomatic transmission, it impacts certain policies that you do regarding screening, etc. But the one thing historically people need to realize is that, even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”

(source)

However, a few days later on February 3rd, 2020, Anthony Fauci had changed his tune and stated that, based upon a single paper, he had no doubt that asymptomatic transmission was occurring and that the study he had read had laid the case to rest. Unfortunately for Fauci, the conclusive evidence that asymptomatic transmission occurred was based upon false information. The study in question claimed that a woman, who had been in a meeting in Germany with four people who later became ill, was an asymptomatic carrier as she had no symptoms at the time of the meeting and became ill upon her flight home to China. For some reason, the authors of the paper failed to actually speak to the woman and wrote the paper solely based upon what the four patients told them. Ironically, the Robert Koch Institute actually spoke to the woman and confirmed that she was symptomatic at the time of the meeting, thus giving Fauci a nice serving of egg on his face:

“Chinese researchers had previously suggested asymptomatic people might transmit the virus but had not presented clear-cut evidence. “There’s no doubt after reading [the NEJM] paper that asymptomatic transmission is occurring,” Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told journalists. “This study lays the question to rest.”

But now, it turns out that information was wrong.

The letter in NEJM described a cluster of infections that began after a businesswoman from Shanghai visited a company near Munich on 20 and 21 January, where she had a meeting with the first of four people who later fell ill. Crucially, she wasn’t sick at the time: “During her stay, she had been well with no sign or symptoms of infection but had become ill on her flight back to China,” the authors wrote. “The fact that asymptomatic persons are potential sources of 2019-nCoV infection may warrant a reassessment of transmission dynamics of the current outbreak.

But the researchers didn’t actually speak to the woman before they published the paper. The last author, Michael Hoelscher of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich Medical Center, says the paper relied on information from the four other patients: “They told us that the patient from China did not appear to have any symptoms.” Afterward, however, officials at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal public health agency, and the Health and Food Safety Authority of the state of Bavaria did talk to the Shanghai patient on the phone, and it turned out she did have symptoms while in Germany. According to people familiar with the call, she felt tired, suffered from muscle pain, and took paracetamol, a fever-lowering medication. (An RKI spokesperson would only confirm to Science that the woman had symptoms.)”

(source)

In March 2020, a top Chinese health official completely contradicted Fauci by stating that there was no evidence that asymptomatic carriers could spread illness to others:

‘No evidence’ asymptomatic carriers spread coronavirus, Chinese health official claims

“A top Chinese health official sought to allay growing fears over asymptomatic coronavirus carriers on Monday, saying there was “no evidence” they could spread the illness but medical workers should remain alert to the risk.”

(source)

Not one to be made the fool, in April 2020, Fauci suggested that there were millions of silent spreaders in the US. In fact, he claimed that asymptomatic infections made up anywhere from 25 to 50% of the infections. He backed his figures up by confidently stating that they were just guessing as they had no scientific data to support these guesstimates. Fauci stated that he wouldn’t have any “scientific” data until mass antibody testing was carried out. He said that it was impossible to know who is infected without symptoms until you test everyone who has no symptoms. This lends credence to the fact that testing people without symptoms will, as the CDC stated with pertussis, create nothing but false-positives:

Fauci once dismissed concerns about ‘silent carriers’ of coronavirus. Not anymore.

At Sunday’s White House briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggested that hundreds of thousands — or even millions — of “silent carriers” may be unwittingly spreading the coronavirus across the United States because they don’t realize they’re infected.

The idea that at least some coronavirus carriers don’t feel sick isn’t new. But the scale of Fauci’s estimate was.”

“It’s somewhere between 25 and 50 percent” of the total, Fauci said. But “right now,” he went on, “we’re just guessing.”

“The first thing to note is that Fauci himself expressed a high degree of uncertainty about his own numbers. “I don’t have any scientific data to say that,” he admitted Sunday. “You know when we’ll get the scientific data? When we get those antibody tests out there and we really know what the penetrance is. Then we can answer the questions in a scientifically sound way.”

“Fauci was right to be cautious. As he noted, it’s impossible to say how many carriers never showed symptoms until you’ve tested a bunch of people who never showed symptoms — something that will only happen after the worst of the pandemic is over and scientists start trying to determine, en masse, who does and doesn’t have immunity. (More on that later.)”

“Last week Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield told NPR that “one of the [pieces of] information that we have pretty much confirmed now is that a significant number of individuals that are infected actually remain a asymptomatic.”

(source)

In June 2020, the WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove disagreed with Fauci’s assessment of asymptomatic transmission by claiming that it appears to be rare based upon the data that was seen. In fact, she claimed that investigators were not finding any cases of secondary transmission from an asymptomatic carrier to anyone else:

Coronavirus spread by asymptomatic people ‘appears to be rare,’ WHO official says

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Van Kerkhove said on Monday.

“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing. They’re following asymptomatic cases, they’re following contacts and they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It is very rare — and much of that is not published in the literature,” she said. “We are constantly looking at this data and we’re trying to get more information from countries to truly answer this question. It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.”

(source)

However, by November 2020, Fauci was defiant against the WHO’s admittance that no secondary transmissions were occurring and stated that he was certain that 40-45% of the transmission was due to asymptomatic carriers. Fauci hammered home the point as to why masks, which he had claimed offered no protection in March 2020, were now essential in November 2020:

Anthony Fauci’s Thoughts on Covid-19 Transmission, Treatments, and Vaccines

“Speaking of asymptomatic spread, Fauci says that 40–45% of transmission is due to asymptomatic people unwittingly infecting others. This is why masks are so essential — by wearing one, you protect other people even if you don’t know that you’re infected.”

(source)

In December 2021, Fauci was defeated yet again when the “discoverer” of Omicron, Dr. Angelique Coetzee, questioned whether such a thing as an asymptomatic carrier even existed at all. She stated that they had seen no asymptomatic cases of Omicron and then recommended that those without symptoms need not test:

‘There’s no reason to test if you have no symptoms,’ and 2 other findings from the woman instrumental in first identifying omicron

“Notably, Coetzee suggested that asymptomatic cases of the omicron variant are rare, if such a condition exists at all.

Asked during a Christmas Eve interview on MSNBC if “there was not such a thing as an asymptomatic case of omicron,” Coetzee responded: “We haven’t seen it.”

Secondly, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association also told MSNBC on Friday that she doesn’t recommend testing by individuals until, and if, symptoms arise from the variant. “There’s no reason to test if you don’t have symptoms,” she said.”

(source)

In another blow to the ego of “Science,” an April 2021 study published by the CDC saw Fauci’s statements contradicted yet again when the researchers found no asymptomatic transmission. In fact, they stated that their findings were in line with other studies and that asymptomatic transmission was unlikely to contribute to the spread of “Covid,” which torpedoed Fauci’s claims of 40-45% of transmission being due to those without symptoms:

Analysis of Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic Transmission in SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak, Germany, 2020

“We determined secondary attack rates (SAR) among close contacts of 59 asymptomatic and symptomatic coronavirus disease case-patients by presymptomatic and symptomatic exposure. We observed no transmission from asymptomatic case-patients and highest SAR through presymptomatic exposure. Rapid quarantine of close contacts with or without symptoms is needed to prevent presymptomatic transmission.”

Conclusions

“In this cluster of COVID-19 cases, little to no transmission occurred from asymptomatic case-patients. Presymptomatic transmission was more frequent than symptomatic transmission. The serial interval was short; very short intervals occurred.

The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies (9–11).”

“In conclusion, our study suggests that asymptomatic cases are unlikely to contribute substantially to the spread of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 cases should be detected and managed early to quarantine close contacts immediately and prevent presymptomatic transmissions.”

(source)

While Fauci’s claims of asymptomatic transmission were obviously unfounded, there were many asymptomatic cases being generated due to the fraudulent testing, as predicted by the CDC with pertussis. Thus, the perception that asymptomatic people were spreading a “virus” was easily conveyed to the public based upon unscientific data. We can see evidence of the massive amounts of healthy people testing positive for a “virus” by way of the mandatory mass testing data that came out of China throughout the “pandemic.” For instance, in March of 2022, Shanghai reported that over 70% of their cases were asymptomatic.

Why is Shanghai seeing so many asymptomatic Covid-19 infections?

“China is in the grip of an Omicron wave, but about 70 percent of cases reported in March have not had any symptoms.”

“Of the 103,965 locally acquired cases reported in March, only 3,046 had symptoms, according to National Health Commission data. And most of the asymptomatic infections were reported in Shanghai.”

(source)

By November of 2022, China was seeing upwards of 90% of their reported cases described as asymptomatic.

China Reports Third Consecutive Daily Record for New COVID Cases

“China reported 35,183 new COVID-19 infections on Friday, of which 3,474 were symptomatic and 31,709 were asymptomatic, the National Health Commission said on Saturday, setting a new high for the third consecutive day.

That compared with 32,943 new cases a day earlier — 3,103 symptomatic and 29,840 asymptomatic infections, which China counts separately.

Excluding imported cases, China reported 34,909 new local cases on Friday, of which 3,405 were symptomatic and 31,504 were asymptomatic, up from 32,695 a day earlier.”

(source)

By December 2022, China had given up on reporting their overwhelming amount of asymptomatic cases in their daily Covid counts:

China stops publishing asymptomatic COVID cases, reports no deaths

“China’s National Health Commission (NHC) will as of Wednesday stop reporting new asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as many people without symptoms no longer participate in testing, making it hard to accurately tally the total count, it said.”

(source)

There were many reasons provided for why China had so many asymptomatic cases but it easily boiled down to their untargeted mass surveillance testing of the entire population. It is clear that if one goes looking for cases, one will find them whether symptomatic or not. In China, it was very much the latter as they were seeing over 98% asymptomatic rates in Shanghai based upon their testing data. This goes against the idea that mass testing would find more symptomatic cases. As more healthy people were subjected to a fraudulent test, the more “healthy sick” people that could be added to the overall totals:

Explainer-Why are Shanghai’s COVID infections nearly all asymptomatic?

“The number of new confirmed community transmitted cases in the major financial hub of Shanghai reached 4,477 on Tuesday, a record high, but only 2.1% showed symptoms. The share of symptomatic cases over the previous seven days was around 1.6%.”

“Following are some explanations for why the rate of asymptomatic cases is so high.

Surveillance Testing

China is also the only major country to do mass, untargeted surveillance testing, which is bound to uncover more asymptomatic cases, although it could also be expected to reveal more symptomatic cases.

“Surely, high levels of testing will pick up more rather than less asymptomatic cases,” said Adrian Esterman, an expert in biostatistics at the University of South Australia.”

(source)

Mass testing with fraudulent tests led to a surge in healthy people being fraudulently labelled as asymptomatic carriers. It doesn’t matter that this very act of mass testing, as the CDC stated, increases the likelihood of false-positives (even though they are all false-positives). This perception of a massive number of “infections” of a “virus” regardless of any disease being present only helped to further solidify this illogical concept into the minds of a fearful public as if it were a scientifically proven fact when it is anything but. Ironically, despite their “test, test, test” mantra, the WHO actually claimed that its guidelines never recommended mass testing of asymptomatic people as was being done in China due to high costs involved and the lack of data of its effectiveness:

Analysis: Test, test, test? Scientists question costly mass COVID checks

“WHO guidelines have never recommended mass screening of asymptomatic individuals – as is currently happening in China – because of the costs involved and the lack of data on its effectiveness.”

(source)

Thus, we can see that there truly is nothing behind the claim of an asymptomatic carrier of disease other than the fraudulent label provided by technology never meant for diagnostic use, especially on such a massive scale as we witnessed during this “pandemic.” PCR can find anything in anyone and the result is utterly meaningless, as stated by inventor Kary Mullis:

“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”

“[PCR is] just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, it doesn’t tell you that the thing you’ve ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

The asymptomatic excuse was created in face of conflicting evidence by a man who wanted nothing more than to protect his prestige and his findings. Robert Koch was under pressure from a growing field of researchers who were either contradicting his own findings or making new discoveries of their own. Koch needed a way to ensure that his own research would stand up to scrutiny. Bending his own logical postulates in order to allow for the asymptomatic carrier to exist allowed for his contradictory findings, as well as those put forward by later researchers, to persevere in the face of any further challenges by opponents:

“Whatever I undertake these days, there will be a bunch of the envious and jealous at hand. They will try to challenge me and if they don’t succeed, try to make me turn away from my work in disgust.”

“Those happy days are gone when the number of bacteriologists was small and each of them could research wide areas in an undisturbed manner…So now in making the most modest and most careful delineation of a research area you will step on the first colleagues’ toes or bump into a second one unintentionally, or come too close to the third’s field of work. Before you even realise it, you are surrounded by opponents.”

-Robert Koch

(source)

It is clear to anyone looking at the idea of an asymptomatic carrier of disease logically that this very notion does not stand up under scrutiny. This nonsense was summed up brilliantly by the late great Canadian researcher David Crowe:

“Someone who believes in the virus can explain this conundrum to me.

“It has been strongly stated that asymptomatic people can be infectious for quite a long time (I can provide references if you don’t believe me, but this has been widely stated). This means that for quite a long time their body has a large quantity of virus particles, otherwise infection wouldn’t be possible. But their body doesn’t react to these particles, an immune reaction would at least result in a fever. But without an immune reaction they can never get rid of the virus particles. And how is it that virus particles running around the body of some people don’t do anything, whereas other people get seriously ill and die? How do all the virus particles in one person know that they shouldn’t mess with the cells to cause symptoms, whereas in another person they all go crazy and cause devastation?

“So we can conclude that (1) Asymptomatic people never get rid of the virus and therefore must be quarantined forever; (2) It’s the virus that’s deficient, not the person, which must mean there are multiple dramatically different strains; or (3) the viral theory is a load of BS.

“Please help me.”

-David Crowe March 31st, 2020

It is obviously number 3. The “viral” theory is a load of BS, and there is no such thing as a healthy sick person capable of transmitting disease. We have no reason to fear the walking healthy.

 

Connect with Mike Stone

Cover image credit: Prawny




Three-Day Light Microscopic Analysis of the Dried Drop of Hepatitis B Vaccine

Three-Day Light Microscopic Analysis of the Dried Drop of Hepatitis B Vaccine

by La Quinta Columna
May 5, 2023

 

 

3-day light microscopic analysis of the dried drop of hepatitis B vaccine. Large amounts of graphene oxide are observed.




Light Microscopic Analysis of the Calendar Hepatitis B Vaccine

Light microscopic analysis of the calendar hepatitis B vaccine. It also contains graphene.

Look for the channel on telegram: https://t.me/miraalmicroscopio



 

Connect with La Quinta Columna

 


See related:

La Quinta Columna: The Game is Over — Putting It All Under the Microscope: The Transhumanist Agenda, ‘Covid-19’, Graphene Oxide & The Human Brain Project, WiFi Radiation… & the Hidden, Historical Manipulation of Humanity

La Quinta Columna: Pfizer Vaccine Under a Microscope | Strange Structures & Their Movements

 




Why Pathogens Don’t Exist

Why Pathogens Don’t Exist

by Dr. Sam Bailey
April 29, 2023

Many of us who can see that viruses don’t exist, find it easier to do so as virology is an off-shoot of germ theory.

If germ “theory” is wrong, there is no sense in pursuing alleged disease-causing sub-microscopic organisms. That’s why the germ theorists don’t want us scratching beneath the surface of the so-called ‘science‘ involving bacteria either.

Let’s have a look at why the concept of “pathogens” is a complete fail on their own terms from Koch’s Postulates through to some modern day animal experiments.



Connect with Drs. Sam (Samantha) & Mark Bailey

 


See related:

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

Drs. Tom Cowan, Mark & Samantha Bailey, Andrew Kaufman: Why Are We Doing This?

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.”




Jeremy Nell With Andrew Kaufman: A Beginner’s Guide to Germ Theory

Jeremy Nell With Andrew Kaufman: A Beginner’s Guide to Germ Theory

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
May 1, 2023

 

I’ve had a number of conversations about viruses.

Some guests have challenged Germ Theory.

Some guests have argued why there is no such thing as an immune system.

Some guests have thought about alternative causes of illness.

The point is that there are good reasons to question the conventional model of “Rockefeller medicine”. Much of it doesn’t make sense and desperately requires critique.


Blindly believing what the pharmaceutical industry, governments and media preach from their pulpits, after observing the Covid™ scam, is utterly ludicrous. I have become an allopathic atheist. An apostate.

Climate science is drowning in pseudoscience and so is virology.

Andrew Kaufman, who has been on my show a few times before, joined me for the following conversation of conversations.

A beginner’s guide to Germ Theory.

He approached important concepts, including

  • virus definitions, isolation and fake existence claims;
  • understanding contagion and “catching” something from somebody;
  • bacteria and germs in general;
  • why all vaccines are toxic;
  • what is disease, actually;
  • shifting paradigms about health and wellbeing and
  • the significance of bringing down this house of germs cards.



 

Connect with Jerm Warfare

Connect with Andrew Kaufman

All images are original artwork of Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare

 




Dangerous Nanoparticles Hidden in Vaccines & Our Environment”: “Nanoparticles Are Extremely Reactive, Can Hardly Be Degraded, and Disrupt and Destroy All Tissues They Come in Contact With.”

Dangerous Nanoparticles Hidden in Vaccines & Our Environment
“Nanoparticles Are Extremely Reactive, Can Hardly Be Degraded, and Disrupt and Destroy All Tissues They Come in Contact With.”

 


TCTL editor’s note: As a service to our readers, this article, written in German, has been translated to English with the aid of translation software. Please understand that this is not a perfect translation. I do not speak German. However, the key concepts come through very clearly.

The work of Stefan Lanka and ‘Next Level – Knowledge Reconsidered’ challenges the entire paradigm around western medicine’s understand of biology (and the make-believe “science” of virology).

It is vitally important that we come to understand the danger of this long-planned, destructive transformation and total control of humanity and all living beings. We need to awaken to the truth about our own biology and the totality of our multi-dimensional existence. The quality of life for all who inhabit earth depends on sharing real knowledge, questioning the old paradigms built on lies, and the rise of empowered humanity. ~ Kathleen


 

Nanoparticles: So Small and Yet So Dangerous

by Next Level – Knowledge Reconsidered

 

As has already been learned, the new corona vaccines come with accompanying substances declared as “additives”, the so-called nanoparticles.

Although their high risk potential has already been sufficiently investigated in the past, this is accepted with approval. No consideration is given to the health of the individual, and even possible long-term consequences for those affected are accepted.

By means of continuously running the epidemic mind-frame through clever propaganda, expensive advertising and the generation of social pressure, one pulls out all the stops to get each individual to “roll up their sleeves”.

Yes – to indulge in this vaccine!

One protects even scarcity, in order to awaken needs in the people. And all this despite the fact that it cannot be called effective, let alone safe.

In this article, I share with you various information revolving around the issue of nanoparticles, and can only appeal to your sanity to keep your hands (arm 😉 )  off this vaccine and let others know this as well.

In a nutshell:
Real biochemistry: nanoparticles are extremely reactive, can hardly be degraded and disrupt and destroy all tissues they come in contact with. The body reacts to this disruption for repair purposes by forming globulins, which are misinterpreted by conventional medicine as antibodies.
Why do those responsible claim that nanoparticles are necessary as an additive?

Of special importance are the RNA vaccines, which are additionally equipped with nanoparticles.

So it says in Focus-Arztsuche:

Nanoparticles as mini-transporters. But making the right RNA molecule does not mean you have a working vaccine.

” It is difficult to get the RNA into the human body cells,” says Cichutek.

Gene shuttles with nanoparticles are supposed to solve the problem. Measuring only a few millionths of a centimeter, they carry the packaged strands of genetic material through the cell wall and prevent the vaccine from degrading too quickly in the body.

One of the problems in the preparation and administration of mRNA vaccines is the natural instability of mRNA.

In order to prevent, or at least delay, the degradation of mRNA and to deliver the administered (e.g., injected) mRNA to the site of the claimed effect (i.e., into the cells where the ribosomes then carry out the desired protein synthesis), a variety of highly complex additives are used.

So far, meaningful safety studies are available for very few of these additives (Roier S. 2019. Trillium Immunology 3/2019. Retrieved 03.05.2020), and some of the most commonly used adjuvants are related to nanotechnology (e.g., lipid nanoparticles/LNPs), for which in any case only very limited and contradictory experience in human use is available.

The danger of nanoparticles used in food, vaccines and others

The fact that these nanoparticles are extremely controversial and known to pose a high risk is strangely swept under the rug.

But what shocks me personally the most: How can scientists, whose job it is to check how dangerous the use of these nanoparticles and other toxins is in a person’s organism, completely play this down and even endorse it, as if we were dealing with the most normal thing in the world?

-In Der Spiegel it says:

Federal Environment Agency warns against nanotechnology, quote:

“In animal experiments, the particles have migrated right into the nucleus of body cells and damaged the genetic information there,”

or

“Their tininess, however, also poses the risk that they are much more likely to overcome natural barriers in the body – such as the blood-brain barrier.”

-The mdr – Nanoparticles can cause cancer reported:

“It has already been established that when nanoparticles are inhaled, they cause inflammatory reactions in the lungs.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]

[…]

“You always have to ask yourself the question: what happens to it in the organism then? That’s why we are particularly skeptical.”
[Rolf Buschmann, Technical Environmental Protection Officer, BUND]

-In a study published in the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON).

Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma” states:

“Using transmission electron microscopy, nanoparticles were observed to settle in the cytoplasm and karyoplasm of lung epithelial and mesothelial cells, but were also found in the mammary fluid. These cases raise concerns that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles can cause severe damage to human lungs without protective measures. Pulmonary fibrosis and foreign body granulomas of the pleura.”

The Federal Ministry of Education and Research – BMBF knows about their dangerousness and writes itself:

“Can these substances also make us sick?

“There is increasing evidence that nanoparticles in polluted air can have a negative effect on our brains.

“Observational studies have shown, for example, that people who live near busy roads and breathe this air permanently have an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Toxicological studies must now prove whether there is a direct causal relationship.

“We are currently investigating this at our institute. But we are also wondering whether nanoparticles in products can have harmful effects on our brains.”

[…]

“We have studied several nanomaterials. We were able to detect conspicuous features in nanosilver. This substance is used for detergents or toothbrushes, for example, because it kills bacteria.”

[…]

“Of course, we can’t yet say whether this can lead to illness.”

[…]

“Too little is known yet about whether nanoparticles are toxic to nerve cells and tissue. We would like to help close this knowledge gap.”

[…]

“Toxicological tests unfortunately cannot always provide one hundred percent certainty. We are dealing here with complex mechanisms of action, some of which have not yet been elucidated. So it can’t be ruled out that a new substance comes onto the market that only afterwards proves to be harmful to health.”

This article from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research is dated 04/06/2019.

The Federal Government has knowledge of all this and yet – without regard for just one single life – has approved the new mRNA vaccine and is vaccinating people with it at this very moment and intends to use it on our youngest children as well.

Please forgive me, but the deliberate ignoring of such clear facts, which are known to all involved, can only be glossed over with a heavy heart as an oversight on the part of those responsible.

In this context, I would like to refer to the vaccine Pandemrix, which was used in the so-called “swine flu” pandemic and caused considerable side effects. [Cf. WDR]

Dr. Stefan Lanka (molecular biologist, virologist and winner of the measles trial [See our video]), had already warned in 2009, before the use of the then vaccine Pandemrix, shortly before its market launch:

“The strong destructive power of cells by nanoparticles, such as the so-called “auxiliary substance” (adjuvant) MF59 in the flu vaccine for the elderly, is based on the known fact that transport between cells in organs and tissues occurs with particles of this size and the cell cannot distinguish between ‘foreign’ and ‘own’.

“The penetration of the nanoparticles into the cell envelopes damages them and destroys the cells.

“Due to the fact that these nanoparticles are also very stable in the body, it is known that, for a longer time, cells in the body are destroyed. And this reacts with the formation of globulins as a sealing substance of the cells. And this increase of the globulin concentration is claimed by vaccine [manufacturers], against better knowledge, as antibodies and as protection against freely invented pathogens.

“When globulins are present in greater concentration, their binding to all kinds of proteins is detectable.”

The Paul Ehrlich Institute suppressed as long as possible the devastating and inconceivable fact that nanoparticles were already present in other vaccines. Only after diverse pressure was exerted, the PEI had to admit this fact.

The Paul Ehrlich Institute indirectly admits that this is the case, stating there:

“Even if some of these components are located in a size range that is in the nanometer range, they are not technologically targeted nanoparticles, especially not nanoparticles made of metals or plastics.”

Regulatory agencies, including the German Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), completely ignore this issue.

Measles vaccine genetically contaminated: PEI refuses to investigate

Note: Amazing that they first denied that nanoparticles were present at all and then, caught, manipulatively tried to wriggle out of it by pretending that they were “not purposefully” manufactured.

Let me tell you something: The task of the Paul Ehrlich Institute is to check from the outset whether harmful substances are present in a vaccination and not to determine only after the child has fallen into the well!

How can we continue to believe such institutions when it comes to our precious health? It is best to leave it alone. I don’t even want to mention the other outrages of the PEI, such as the concealment of the many dead vaccinated babies by the vaccine Hexavac (How safe are vaccines really? – Dr. med [medical doctor] Klaus Hartmann) …

The BioNTech mRNA vaccine is a danger for mankind, for whose side effects including death. Uğur Şahin is personally responsible.

From the point of view of orthodox medicine, the vaccination should not be used.

  • Because RNA is transformed into DNA by several mechanisms and damages chromosomes.
  • Because it will hit the body’s own enzymes, which are misinterpreted as components of the virus.

Strictly speaking, the BioNTech RNA vaccine is even more dangerous than nanoparticles themselves, because the RNA to be vaccinated is encased in lipid nanoparticles, and here we find a double-reactive mixture that will accumulate mainly in the brain and cause much more narcolepsy than was the case with the swine flu vaccine.

The vaccine from Mainz (mRNA) contains fats in their non-dissolvable and constantly-very-reactive nano-particle form, including the known allergen, the solvent PEG (polyethanol glycol).

In addition, the vaccine will cause chromosome strand breaks in an unknown number of people, resulting in energy depletion, infertility and disability of offspring if the chromosome breaks also happen in the “germ line” of males and females.

This is the shortest possible description of the vaccine damage for which Uğur Şahin is personally responsible. For sure, there will be an observable number of deaths, which will then be said to have happened as a result of the virus.

With the engrained belief in an evil biology (orthodox medicine), coupled with the collective compulsion for return on investment, one might almost assume that medical professionals actually believe that vaccination could help.

Most practicing physicians have never studied this information and trust the responsible scientists themselves and [do so] completely blindly.

So our task should not be to demonize those responsible, but to point out to them their error.

One of the simplest ways is to look to see if any studies at all have been done on the so-called pharmacokinetic properties.

“Pharmacokinetics describes the totality of processes that a drug undergoes in the body. This includes the drug’s uptake (absorption), distribution in the body (distribution), biochemical conversion and degradation (metabolization), and excretion (excretion).”

In short, what happens to all toxins (disguised as additives) within the organism?

 

We see that a simple “not applicable” was noted in the SUMMARY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDICINE.

These studies are omitted for just about all vaccines. A statement about whether this vaccine potentially harms the body and how the mixture of the injected material behaves in the body is simply left to fate by those responsible!

If this information does not take your breath away, then I suspect you are not taking it very seriously in other respects either :).

New studies confirm: Various vaccines are contaminated by micro- and nanoscale particles and described as non-biodegradable and non-biocompatible.

Unknown to most people is the fact that today’s vaccines are already contaminated with nanoparticles, as random tests have shown:

New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. [This article was published in English. Download the PDF here.]

Among other things, it states:

“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.”

[…]

“After injection, these microparticles, nanoparticles, and aggregates can remain at the injection site and form swellings and granulomas … However, they can also be transported through the bloodstream, eluding any attempt to guess their final destination … As with all foreign bodies, especially those so small, they trigger an inflammatory response that is chronic because most of these particles cannot be broken down. In addition, the protein corona effect can … due to a nano-bio interaction … generate organic/inorganic composite particles that can stimulate the immune system in undesirable ways…It is impossible not to add that particles of the size commonly observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with DNA …”

“After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas.17 But they can also be carried by the blood circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination…

“As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect (due to a nanobio-interaction can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable ways.  It is impossible not to add that particles, the size often observed in vaccines, can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA.”

Several important questions arise from the results of this 2017 study that demand answers:
  • Are some of these nanoparticles intentionally introduced into vaccines?
  • Does the standard manufacturing process for conventional vaccines UNFORTUNATELY lead to dangerous and destructive nano-contamination?
  • New nanotechnology is already being used to manufacture several vaccines – ostensibly to “improve efficacy.” In fact, the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine may be a nano-vaccine. Does this manufacturing process bring with it the inevitable effect of a hurricane of nanoparticle contamination?
  • How many cases of brain damage and autism in children can open the door to [seeing] nanoparticle contamination?
  • Finally, where are these contaminated vaccines being manufactured?
    The above study did not attempt to find out. It was outside the scope of the research. It is common knowledge that, for example, in the case of the U.S., vaccines or their ingredients are not domestically produced in many cases. Where does this lead to control safety? For example, in China, where there have been numerous pharmaceutical scandals related to product contamination?
  • The vaccine company is not showing the slightest interest in answering any of these questions. They are busy pretending that the questions do not exist.
  • It would be suicidal to trust the establishment.

Even more explosive in connection with RNA and nano-vaccines is the reference to the Gene Drive Files, which the Heinrich Böll Foundation uncovered a few years ago. These show that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation commissioned a PR firm to secretly undermine an important UN process on the subject of synthetic biology.

Although all this is well known, Christian Drosten (Berlin Charité) comes up with the following words: “Gene-based vaccines have potential“.

The only conclusion can be: Prof. Drosten does not know what he is talking about!

The Medical Research Center for Prophylaxis and Health Protection in Industrial Workers confirms “nanotoxicity” on human health
Combined subchronic toxicity of aluminum (III), titanium (IV), and silicon (IV) oxide nanoparticles and their alleviation with a complex of bioprotectors

Summary

“The use of nanoparticles-including metallic nanoparticles-has exploded in industry, commerce, and medicine in recent decades. A Russian research team studied the ‘nanotoxicity’ of three types of metal nanoparticles (titanium, silicon, and aluminum oxide) alone and in combination. Repeated injections in rats showed that all three were “toxic to multiple target organs.”

“For the majority of these effects,” however, the alumina nanoparticles were found to be “most harmful,” even though the aluminum dose was only half that of titanium and silicon. No other publications have reported on the combined toxicity of these metal nanoparticles, despite their ‘potentially hazardous nano-effects on human health’.”

Source: IA Minigalieva, BA Katsnelson, LI Privalova et al. International Journal of Molecular Sciences , March 2018; 19 (3): 837.

The HELMHOLTZ Center for Infection Research has been exploring other avenues for years: Vaccination without a syringe via nanoparticles through creams to be applied to the skin or application via nasal spray.

Quote:

“The nanoparticles penetrate the skin through the hair follicles and trigger an immune response in the body,” says Hanzey Yasar of HIPS. “Such a vaccine would be very easy to administer and would certainly be well received by the population.”

Veteran physician Dr. Larry Palevsky confirmed to Connecticut’s Public Health Committee on Feb. 19, 2020, that the aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines cause massive damage.

In it, he describes not only how the safety claims of pharmaceutical manufacturers are made without any scientific study, but also how they can be completely refuted based on scientific evidence.

It is known from medicine that a high concentration of nanoparticles leads to fibrotic changes in lung tissue.

There is also evidence that these particles are associated with respiratory diseases as well as an increase in inflammatory markers and an increased tendency to blood clotting disorders, which can increase the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias, heart attacks and strokes.

Nanoparticles cross the blood-brain barrier and it is unexplored what may be triggered by this.

With the background knowledge that all vaccines are based on a false foundation and do little harm at best — adding to the fact that the dangers of the nanoparticles used are known to the entire science bench as well as to critical colleagues — these dangers must be addressed and cannot continue to be ignored, or suppressed.

Act. If not for yourself, then for the children!

The entire NEXT LEVEL – Knowledge Reconsidered team will support you and answer your questions.

NEXT LEVEL – Knowledge Reconsidered is present on various social media platforms, including. Telegram, Youtube, Odysee, Twitter and Facebook.

 

Connect with Next Level (German language)

Cover image credit: waldryano




Marvin Haberland & Katie Sugak: On the Court Case Against Virology — April 26, 2023 in Hamburg, Germany

Marvin Haberland & Katie Sugak: On the Court Case Against Virology — April 26, 2023 in Hamburg, Germany

by Katie Sugak
April 23, 2023

 

Dear friends, here is the recording of my very interesting conversation with Marvin Haberland. Marvin is an engineer and he comes from Germany. As a result of a tragedy in his family, he decided to investigate the subject of medicine. This investigation led him to virology, and he eventually discovered that the foundations of virology were based on anti-scientific misconceptions. After realizing this, Marvin decided to act.

Our conversation today will focus on his upcoming trial in Germany on April 26, 2023, in Hamburg. This trial will be the second trial in history designed to disprove virology and demonstrate the lack of real science behind it.



References cited in the interview with Marvin Haberland.

Marvin’s letter to the court and his Freedom of Information request: 

English

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15VkP5pouOE5uQ2c4ivOoRwUf6j4-lFQm17q424Jxn80/edit 

Russian https://docs.google.com/document/d/11ulOf18ZCMgPbkQ1oNpdtzeAUIEGt1EG7Pdjqq2CAbQ/edit 

German
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MKGo6-0ltZ4_1airsQ6eDzkuKmijd0rE/view?usp=drivesdk   

Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7228321/  

Interview with Stefan Lanka from 2022 – Measles virus trial, control experiments and the final exposure of the coronavirus farce https://rumble.com/vmqkff-measles-trial-control-experiments-and-the-final-exposure-of-coronavirus-far.html 

Video on the Measles Virus Trial (2016)
https://rumble.com/vsla5a-stefan-lanka-measles-trial.html 

Other videos, interviews and articles can be found on Kate Sugak’s telegram channel https://t.me/katesugakofficial 

Tehran Next Level channel (German)
https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal   

Next Level website https://www.wissen-neu-gedacht.de/ 

Connect with Kate Sugak


Transcript of first 25 mins. prepared by TCTL editor:

 

Katie:

Hello everyone. My name is Katie and today my very special guest is Marvin Haberland.

Marvin is an engineer and he comes from Germany.

As a result of a health tragedy in his family, he decided to take a deep look at medicine. That exploration led him eventually to virology and, as a consequence, he discovered that the foundations of virology are based on anti-scientific misconceptions.

Marvin decided to do something about this realization.

Our today’s conversation will revolve around his upcoming court case in Germany, which as far as I am aware, will be the 2nd court case in history that aims to disprove virology and demonstrate the lack of real science behind it.

So, Marvin, I think it would be great to talk about your story.

What got you interested in the subject of virology and how did you start noticing there is something wrong with it?

Marvin:

Yes, thank you for the invitation.

Katie:

You’re welcome. Thank you for coming.

Marvin:

So, like you said, basically due to a tragedy in my family. So my grandmother, she died when I was studying in the US.

And that got me quite interested in the topic; as she, before she was diagnosed with the cancer, she always asked me, ‘Marvin, you’re always so smart. You’re always researching things. Can you help me?’.

And I was always saying, which I now regret, ‘Grandmother, look, I don’t know. I have no knowledge on this topic. Please go consult the doctors.’ And so on.

I was kind of ignorant, which from today’s perspective, of course, I regret. But this is the way it is.

So when she died, this triggered something in me and I started to then really research the topic of chemotherapy. And I found out that basically it’s not really based on evidence. There are very, very low-quality studies without any control groups. There is always comparing chemotherapy to another chemotherapy, or chemotherapy to chemotherapy plus a new drug. But there is never the zero control group, without any therapy, or very rare to find that.

And actually if you research the real figures, the efficiency of the five-year survival rate is about 2.3% only, which is basically zero because the statistical fluctuations.

So when I found this out it was very surprising to me. And then from that point, I also looked right and left of this topic to nutritionist sciences where I found very, very similar results. And also infectious disease and germ theory. And that got me interested in the field.

Katie:

From when you started your research, what was the first thing that you started to research the virology topic?

Marvin:

Yeah. So first was basically chemotherapy/ cancer, then nutritional sciences. And from that I moved on to virology and I found out about Stefan Lanka’s work.

So basically, first was the measles virus and the early scientific practices, or unscientific practices, of Enders and Peebles in 1954. And then I also researched, of course, Pasteur and Robert Koch, from the really early beginnings of germ theory and vaccinations.

And then from there I moved on to HIV.

I bought the book — I have it here — the ‘Virus Mania’ book from Engelbrecht… and other authors, which got me very interested in HIV also.

And then I discovered there is a pattern in virology. It’s always the same.

So, measles, HIV, SARS-CoV-1… These are repeating patterns which I found very interesting.

And then when covid or corona came up, I immediately did the research.

I remember in January 2020 when this came up, I went to GISAID [China National GeneBank] and other platforms where they upload the genomes. And I tried to figure out — OK, maybe this time they did the correct isolation, the correct scientific procedures.

And I figured out, OK, this is the same like with the swine flu, with the bird flu, with the SARS-1.

So from very early on, I was interested again.

I decided to start to be more active in speaking out and do work in this field to spread the misconceptions and the scientific fraud, basically.

I thought this was important because many people don’t know about this and I felt responsible to share.

Katie:

Let’s talk about the court case and what motivated you to go there, to do it. And what did you do?

This is important. What did you do to get there? And why are you doing it? And what is your goal?

Marvin:

First of all, I got motivated to do it, basically, also by Stefan Lanka who had a court case in 2015 about measles virus.

So little different strategy than mine, but pretty similar.

And he was saying in the beginning of covid, ‘OK, people of Germany, if you get these fines because you’re not wearing the mask or because you are meeting with other people during the lockdown, and so on, just…’. He laid out the basic strategy how to go to court.

And what I did is I just didn’t wear the mask. I had a mask zone directly in front of my house, so I couldn’t even exit my door without wearing a mask, which I didn’t want to do.

And after receiving the fine, I just objected it and I sent the court specific abstract from the law, which is basically the first paragraph, in Germany, of the infectious disease law, which says that every virologist, every institutional authority, has to work according to the status quo of science, scientific practice.

And I am basically saying that in virology this is not at all the case. And they are not following the scientific method. And not any sort of scientific method that is required.

And I sent proof to the court from several different Freedom of Information acts…

I sent one to the University of Melbourne in Australia and several others.

So my argumentation is basically the law is is not fulfilled, and these are my proofs. And this is why I am not willing to pay the fine.

Basically this is just the strategy. And we will see how this goes.

It will be on the 26th of April.

After my first invitation got cancelled. It was originally scheduled the 19th of October last year, but then I received a cancellation letter because the judge apparently got sick.

And now I have the second invitation. So we will see.

And there are many others that do this in Germany, so I have already consulted three other people with the same strategy and all three of these cases got closed.

So basically the people didn’t have to pay anything. But the court did not really issue a official statement. They just closed the case.

So what I want to achieve is official statement by the court. Because if they close my case, basically I cannot do anything about it. I have to accept it. But it has not the effect that I would like to have — basically to have an official statement ‘Yes, indeed, paragraph one of the infectious law of diseases is broken. Virologists are not working according to the scientific method.’
This would be my goal.

Or something else they could say, which is also possible, they could say that the law states that they should work according to the scientific method, but they don’t have to, right?

If the court says something like this and I have to pay the fine, it’s OK for me.

But then I have the official statement ‘Virologists are not obliged to work scientifically’. Which would be fine. This is just about our goal to to share the the situation — how it is.

Katie:

So let’s talk a little bit more about the main problem of virology, so people who are completely new to this, they can understand better the lack of scientific method behind it.

Let’s talk about all of this — about controls and about your Freedom of Information requests.

Marvin:

Sure. So basically, in science how it works is, you observe something in nature and then you come up with a hypothesis on how this could work. And then you try to come up with an experiment to test this hypothesis. And if the experiments support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis turns into a theory, and the theory gets tested over and over and over again. And all experiments support it. OK?

But if the experiment, the outcome, is against the hypothesis, then you falsify the hypothesis. This is basically how it works.

And in virology the hypothesis is fair. OK?

You say that you get sick from some viruses infecting you, coming from the outside. Infectious disease are being spread and so on.

And the experiments should be that you bring together sick and healthy animals or people and you show that you can really transmit this.

Or you try to extract these particles, these viruses, and then you take them and put them in the food or you spread them in the air of the animals or of the humans. And you show, by doing that, that you can replicate the symptoms.

That has never been done in virology.

What they are doing instead of doing it in the way I just stated, is they try to come up with some sort of excuse. They say that they cannot really do it in the correct way because the viruses are too small. Or too little in quantity. Or they only can live inside the cell and so on.

So they try to find excuses why they cannot extract the particle. And then they do some experiments in the lab.

So they never do it in a real ‘in vivo’. They only do it ‘in vitro’ in the lab. They take cell cultures and then they mix a lot of different chemicals, antibiotics and other substances together with fetal bovine serum, cell cultures from monkey kidney cells and so on.

They have a big brew of different components and then they observe that this cell culture basically disintegrates or dies. And they say, ‘OK, this is the proof for a virus’.

But this is impossible scientifically because there are so many variables. There are the toxic antibiotics, the fetal bovine serum.

Then they take off the fetal bovine serum so they remove the nutrition.

Then there is different other chemicals involved — trypsin sometimes and several different steps along the way.

So it’s impossible to say that the result is caused by a virus.

And what is on top of that unscientific — and everyone can understand this: They don’t have the control experiment.

So they are just running all these steps and they are doing what is called circular reasoning. And they don’t have any control.

They are trying to find causative results, cause and effect, but it’s impossible to do it. This is just a correlation. They observe that something happens, but they are not really using the scientific method to come up with the cause/effect relation.

The control experiment would be — for the viewers. You do the exact same experiment. You do the cell culture experiment with the chemicals, same antibiotics, same steps, everything the same. But you don’t add the so-called virus. This would be the only variable that should be different from the other experiment.

And the outcome then should be different.

If the virus would exist, and would be the cause of this cell culture disintegration, thy so-called cytopathic effect, then, only then you would prove that this is the determining variable.

But, of course, as they never have isolated the virus in the first place, they cannot even do this control experiment. It’s impossible.

And this is the big scientific problem.

I am willing to say that on some levels this is also fraud because they know. Because we asked them.

The virologists. Most of them know that the control experiments are missing and are important. They are trying to find excuses why they are not doing them, so they know exactly they should do them.

It’s not that they are unconscious. So I can say that this is basically fraud. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for many virologists. They know exactly about this this issue.

Katie:

So in the court, you are going to point at this exactly — the lack of controls.

Marvin:

The center of the argumentation is the lack of control. And this is the reason why the first paragraph which states that everything should be done according to the scientific method, the recent scientific techniques and so on. And we have the German Association of Science which says that in order to work according to the scientific method, everything has to be controlled, right? Every experimental step has to be controlled and so on.

So this is very easy to then demonstrate to the judge that it has not been done in virology ever.

And I have many proof. Not not only me, many people have done that.

But for my case I have asked the University of Melbourne, in the Doherty Institute, which is their virology institute, basically, and they have published one of the first SARS-Cov-2 isolation publications. And it was the first publication outside of China.

And I asked them very early on if they did the control experiments for every step, including the genome sequencing. And they clearly answered that they did not do it. Very clearly. No excuse. Very, very straightforward. They said no, we didn’t do it for any of the steps.

And then I asked them why did you not perform the controls. And they told me very, very straightforward again. ‘We didn’t have the resources to do it. We were just focusing on the positive culture. And we had to work quickly. And we had no time.’ Basically, this was their answer.

So everyone can see that this is extremely unscientific. And the German Association of Science even clearly states quoting — I’m quoting them basically that they say that nobody should issue any sort of scientific paper, unless they have followed all the scientific steps, even if economic factors, monetary factors or the economic pressure is high. So you should not publish anything before following all the scientific steps.

And I think everyone would agree. So this is, as a proof, is a very good proof. Because usually if you ask virologists around the world, if you ask the official institutions — CDC, RKI, Pasteur Institute and so on — it is very unlikely to to get a straightforward answer like this. It’s very rare to get it. I was very lucky to get this straightforward answer. And this is what I’m using as a main proof. But then I use other proofs as well.

Katie:

Yes. Another question that I had is that there is this group you are working with that is called The Next Level and they help you.

Could you talk a little bit about them, who they are?

Marvin:

So, basically, next level is like a joint venture. We are basically coming out of two different telegram groups or channels that have evolved during covid and we are now working together with different scientists, doctors, engineers (like I am), mathematicians, computer scientists, and so on.

So we are quite a diverse team and what our main focus is basically health topics. So we try to dig deep into virology, germ theory, medications, disease in general, biology and so on. And our focus is the scientific area.

So we try to be very scientific in our articles and our work. And we try to read through papers and explain to the audience why a certain paper, or why a certain scientific document, is methodically not good, or what is the problem with it, why is it not scientific. Or we try to also educate on other health topics. This is what we are doing.

Katie:

This sounds amazing. And I also noticed that Germany specifically, and German-speaking countries are extremely active in this area.

Like there are so many knowledgeable people, a lot of activists, a lot of channels and people talking about it.

I really noticed in Germany, I even had one of my videos, that was translated in German… I think, around 1,000,000 people watched it in German.

I noticed how this topic is really popular and a lot of people are working towards solutions. So we really need to also take example from them.

Marvin:

I’m not really sure why that is in Germany. As in every other country, in Germany you have a lot of people that are just following the western medicine blindly. But you have a lot of people also that are very critical and trying to dig deep into the topics, and educate themselves, and doing the research.

So I think we have just had a history. Many, many scientists — so-called scientists of the past — of these areas came from Germany. Or from Europe basically.

And, we had — with Doctor Stefan Lanka we had a very prominent biologist/virologist who came out to the public and tried to educate and spread the truth basically about the practices, scientific practices, in virology. So that gave the whole movement a boost, I would say, in Germany.

And also he was working together with the Perth Group in Australia, which in the 80s, 90s, were very, very clearly doing a lot of good work in HIV research. So I think this is also part of the reason why, specifically in German-speaking countries, many people are already aware of these topics.

Katie:

So how people can support you and what you are doing this court case and everything that you require to do?

Marvin:

So one support would, of course, to be there at the day. So for everyone maybe who is around Hamburg could come there and just — at the 26th of April — think it’s at 10:45 am. I can share the address later, but that would be great for sure.

And then, of course, you can support our Next Level, so our work what we are doing. We have a website and we also have a magazine that comes out regularly. So you can do any sort of donation.

You can buy the magazine and you can also interact with other critical thinkers in the online forums — telegram — and just support this community. That would be also very great because we are doing a lot of work.

Basically all of us do this in our free time. So we have all our main jobs, and apart from that, we do this in our free time because we are very passionate about this.

We don’t want a future for our families and friends and children and so on that is continuing with this craziness basically. And with these pandemics over and over again, with vaccinations and medical drugs and so on.

It is all going against, basically, our health and is not based on science.

This people really should understand that this is not really scientific.

If you take your time, some hours, weeks, and you really try to figure it out, you will quickly understand that this is not based on science.

This is based on fraud. Sometimes on misinterpretation. OK? Misinterpretation. Very often, due to lacking control experiments, they misinterpreted the results they get. They don’t know what exactly is cause and effect because they don’t have any controls. So they just take it for granted; and this is also unscientific.


See Related:

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions


The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology


Part 1: The New Body Soul Biology (English voice over) Dr Stefan Lanka

 




In 2021 Interview, RFK Jr. Reveals How Former Pres. Trump, Who Was Very Aware of the Serious Injuries Caused by Vaccines, Asked RFK Jr. to Lead a Commission on Vaccine Safety. Trump Changed His Mind Following Pfizer’s  Million Dollar Contribution to His Inauguration

In 2021 Interview, RFK Jr. Reveals How Former Pres. Trump, Who Was Very Aware of the Serious Injuries Caused by Vaccines, Asked RFK Jr. to Lead a Commission on Vaccine Safety. Trump Changed His Mind Following Pfizer’s  Million Dollar Contribution to His Inauguration

 

TCTL editor’s note:  In 2021, Theo Von interviewed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  Clips from this interview are found mirrored around the internet. In this interview, RFK Jr. talked about his meetings with Donald Trump wherein Trump asked RFK Jr. to head a vaccine safety commission. Trump was well aware of the serious dangers and great harm caused by vaccines as he personally knew people whose children developed serious health issues following vaccination. However, Trump changed his mind about the vaccine safety commission following a million dollar contribution from Pfizer to Trump’s inauguration. RFK Jr. was pushed aside and Scott Gottlieb, who was a Pfizer consultant, was selected by Trump to run the FDA. ~ Kathleen



Partial transcript:

Theo Von:

…Trump almost gave you a position… Wasn’t there talk of that? And then it kind of went away…

RFK, Jr.

Well, what happened was he … over the Christmas vacation… 2016, he’s elected right? And obviously the election is in November.

So I was skiing and with my kids in Colorado over Christmas vacation and I got a call from his chief of staff saying the president-elect wants to meet and he wants to talk about vaccines.

So, you know, I’ve been an activist on trying to get safer vaccines for a long time. And, of course, I agreed to meet with him.

So…immediately after getting home, I went … to New York and met with him at Trump Tower. It was about a two hour meeting.

Theo Von:

Had you ever met with him before?

RFK Jr.

I had sued him twice before successfully. And I had met him. And, you know, the lawsuit was not something that had hurt our relationship. I stopped him from building two golf courses in the New York City watershed. And those lawsuits were about two or three years apart.

And he knew me, and he knew my family… When my sister ran for governor of Maryland, he made a big contribution to that.

He contributed to my brother, who was then in Congress. And I had a cousin who was a congressman from Rhode Island, and he made a contribution. He was a big democratic donor at that point.

He called me. He asked me to come in. I had, as I said, about a two hour meeting with him. At that meeting, people were coming in and out of that meeting.

So Steve Bannon was there. Reince Priebus. You remember him? Hope Hill was there. Kellyanne Conway. And Jared Kushner. And both the president’s sons at various times were in that meeting.

Theo Von:

A lot of people.

RFK Jr.:

I had a lot of time alone with President Trump too.

He said that he believed that vaccines were making people sick. Specifically, he had three women friends who were mothers, one who was in the building that day, who had perfectly healthy kids who had gotten … their wellness visits. And they were around two years old.

And the children never were the same after those visits. And they all had been subsequently diagnosed with autism. And he believed that it was linked to vaccines.

And… because he had been open about that during the campaign, hundreds of women had — the same thing that happened to me, that got me into this, you know, this career killing advocacy, vaccine safety advocacy…

People start coming up to you and saying… “This happened to me. This happened to my son.”

“I had a perfectly healthy child who exceeded all his milestones. And I took him in at 16 months and he, you know, he was speaking, he was toilet trained, he had social interactions. And I took him in and he had a shot or a series of shots usually — could be up to nine — and that night, he’s like fever 103.”

I mean the stories were usually all identical. They had a seizure. And then over the next three months, they lose all of their capacity to… their social interactions, their eye contact…

I go in there and he tells me these stories. He wants to do something about it.

Theo Von:

And does he seem serious when he’s saying that?…

RFK Jr.:

Yeah, he was dead serious. And he asked… whether I would run a vaccine safety commission. And then he asked what I would do.

And I said, listen, I don’t think you have to do a big political lift. All I think you need to do is open up the databases and allow independent scientists in there to actually look at the science. Because the HMOs have all the vaccine data down to batch for every child in America. And they also have the medical records.

So all you have to do — in fact… AI can do machine counting and you can do cluster analysis.

And you can figure out very, very quickly whether all of these epidemics — not just of neurodevelopmental diseases like all the ADD, the ADHD… Tourette’s syndrome, narcolepsy… Autism. The allergic diseases, food allergies, peanut allergies… Asthma and then all the autoimmune diseases…

And they’re all listed, by the way, on the vaccine inserts, as vaccine side effects.

Because the only way that you can sue — you know, they passed this law in 1986 and made it illegal to sue a vaccine company for injury.

You still can sue them if they know of an injury that’s caused by their vaccine and they don’t list it on the side effects.

So they list 400 injuries…

But they’re not allowed to list it unless there is significant evidence that it is actually being caused by the vaccine.

FDA is not allowed to allow them to list it unless FDA believes it’s being caused by the vaccine.

Theo Von:

So you have this meeting with Trump, just to get back to that… Did you leave out of the meeting kind of hopeful about it?

RFK Jr.:

Well, I said to him, what do you want me to do? And he said we want you to announce it. Jared Kushner escorted me to the press scrum…

So then I went down and announced it. Talked to the press.

And then a week later, Pfizer made a million dollar contribution to Trump’s inaugural.

And then Trump comes in. And we continue to have some meetings with Fauci — that he had set up, were part of this process and we’re rolling, to get this thing started.

Theo Von:

Did Fauci seem legit when you talked to him?…

RFK Jr.:

Oh, he’s very, very charming…

Listen, Fauci — I’m about to publish a book on Fauci [see “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health”, published by Children’s Health Defense in November 2021]… He’s been there for 50 years, so he’s like J. Edgar Hoover.

And the only way that you last at that agency for 50 years is by carrying water for the pharmaceutical industry.

And under his watch, he’s supposed to prevent autoimmune and allergic diseases. Under his watch, chronic disease has gone from affecting 12% of the American population to 54%. And we take more pharmaceutical drugs than anybody in the world. We pay the highest prices.

He’s made this country Pharmaceutical Nation.

Theo Von:

My brother is allergic to sesame seeds.

RFK Jr.:

…And the way that you get allergies is from the aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine, which is meant — is put in that vaccine to initiate an allergic response.

So if you have sesame seed oil as an excipient in the vaccine, or if you’re eating sesame seeds when you have that aluminum adjuvant in you, it can provoke a permanent allergy…

So anybody who was born after 89 — I think it’s one in 12 now. Autism went from one in 10,000, in my generation, to one in every 34 kids. And it’s the same with all these chronic diseases that are all listed as side effects.

Theo Von:

So the proof seems to be right there.

RFK Jr.:

Well, that’s correlation, which isn’t actually proof. But if you actually go into the scientific literature, the proof is there.

Theo Von:

… So whenever you talked to Trump, you said, okay, let’s open up this database, right, this information…

RFK Jr.:

Yeah… I said you don’t have to do any heavy lifting. You don’t have to go to Congress. You don’t have to change regulations. All you have to do is open up the vaccine safety data link, which is the medical records for the top nine HMOs, and allow independent scientists to go in there. And just open it up so they can start publishing.

Theo Von:

And did he do it?

RFK Jr.:

No, he didn’t. It’s still… locked down.

Tony Fauci makes sure nobody can get in there.

And you know, even when Congress ordered these two scientists … to go in there, and they let them into the place, they gave them one study room. They would not allow them near a copy machine. They allowed them pencils and they had to write down the data. And they cranked the heat in the room up to 105…

So anyway, so Big Pharma stepped in and Trump appoints Pfizer’s lobbyist to run FDA (Scott Gottlieb) and Eli Lilly’s lobbyist is Alex Azar to run HHS. And as soon as they came and they shut us down.

 

Connect with RFK Jr. — substack telegramCHD

Connect with Theo Von

Cover image credit: geralt




Mike Stone: On the Excuses Virologists Give for Not Being Able to Scientifically Prove the Existence of Viruses

Mike Stone: On the Excuses Virologists Give for Not Being Able to Scientifically Prove the Existence of Viruses

 

“With hundreds of billions of “viruses” at peak infection, there is absolutely no reason that virologists should not be able to purify and isolate the assumed “viral” particles directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal.”

 

Just One Particle
No more excuses.

by Mike Stone, ViroLIEgy
originally published April 7, 2023

 

Last week, I took a look at the very illogical excuse that virologists make in regard to why they are unable to purify and isolate the particles that are claimed to be “viruses” directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal. As a reminder, below is the response I received from biologist Thomas Baldwin, who studies “pathogenic” plant “viruses” and goes by the Twitter handle Sense_Strand:

 

It is claimed that there are just not enough of these “viral” particles within the fluids and thus, the purification procedures will result in too little of the “virus” remaining after these steps are performed. Due to this lack of particles, it is claimed that the “viruses” can not be found in electron microscopy images, and it is for this very reason that the “virus” particles must be grown in cell culture so that the “virus” can replicate to a large enough number in order to be visualized and studied. While I won’t rehash my counterargument here, I will allow Debunked to help me demonstrate why this is a ridiculous excuse:

 

When virologists claim incredible numbers like that, it is pretty reasonable to conclude that there should be plenty of “viral” particles within the fluids of a sick animal or human in order to purify, isolate, visualize, characterize, and study. Alas, virologists defiantly cling to their laughable excuse in order to cover up for the fact that they just cannot find the assumed “viral” particles anywhere directly within the fluids. While this statement clearly defies logic, the lack of “virus” is only one aspect of the excuse. There is another component that is used to explain why, even if they could purify and isolate the particles, it wouldn’t ultimately matter. Beyond the lack of enough “viral” particles within the fluids, virologists claim that there are not enough “infectious” particles present after purification in order to be able to “infect” an animal or human on order to prove pathogenicity. It is stated that this purification process damages the “virus” and causes it to lose “infectivity.” This excuse was illustrated in a response interviewer Djamel Tahi received from HIV “discoverer” 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.”

“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.”

https://viroliegy.com/2022/02/13/montagniers-monster/

As can be seen, if the particles are purified, it is assumed that they lose their “infectivity.” Thus, virologists must not touch their fragile little “virus” particles too much or they will be damaged and will not work properly. With statements like this, it makes the story about how these non-living entities somehow survive the harsh environmental conditions of the great outdoors in order to invade a body, bypass the hosts “immune system,” and hijack the cells so that it can create more copies of itself, seem rather ridiculous. According to virologists, in order to retain “infectivity,” the “virus” particles must remain unpurified and proceed to be mixed into a foreign animal or cancer cell with toxic antibiotics, antifungaks, fetal calf blood, chemicals and “nutrients,” etc. and incubated for days. However, this is normally not enough to create the necessary “infective” particles, so virologists will remove the top layer of one culture and then add it to another culture with a fresh round of toxic compounds mixed in. This new culture is then incubated further until signs of cell death are observed. Only then can there be enough “infectious viral” particles to visualize and establish pathogenicity.

To the outside observer who looks at this critically and logically, it is clear that all virologists are doing is creating a toxic soup of many foreign and chemical elements in which they get to claim a “virus” resides within. This sludge is then forcefully and unnaturally inoculated into animals in many disgusting ways, either through the nose, the skin, the muscles, the eyes, the throat, the stomach, the brain, or even the testicles. Virologist then determine what is an “infectious” dose based upon how much of this toxic soup is used as an injection into the animal at the time any symptoms appear. Virologists will determine how much “virus” is present in the soup by utilizing either one of two methods: the tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) and the plaque assay. Let’s examine these methods briefly and then see, according to virology’s own theoretical narrative, how many “viral” particles it takes to cause infection and disease. We can then determine whether or not it is reasonable to believe that there are not enough “infectious” particles present after purification and isolation in order to determine pathogenicity.

Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50)
This first method for estimating how many “virus” particles are necessary for “infection” relies on the observation of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) that is created during the cell culture experiment. CPE is an effect that is observed when the cells start to die and break apart during the cell culture process after the cell has been starved and poisoned. To calculate how many “viruses” they believe are present and “infectious,” virologists will use varying “virus” dilutions that are added as an endpoint dilution to host cell populations in a 96 well plate format. They will then incubate these mixtures until a cytopathic effect can be observed. The wells are either inspected by visually counting the CPE in the affected wells or by using assay readouts. Once 3 of the same CPE readings in separate cells for the same dilution are observed, the dose is calculated using one of various mathematical equations. The dilution at which 50% of the cell cultures are “infected” is determined and used to mathematically calculate a TCID50 result:
Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) Assays: How to determine virus infectivity?
TCID50 assays: How do they work?

“50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) assays are virus titration experiments which can be used to quantify virus titers by investigating the cytopathic effects of a virus on an inoculated host cell culture4Compared to the widely used plaque assays, which are also used in virus quantification, TCID50 assays offer the advantage that even viruses that do not form plaques or infect cell monolayers can be quantified.

In TCID50 assays, varying virus dilutions are added as an endpoint dilution to host cell populations with the same number of cells and incubated until a cytopathic effect can be seen. Here, the TCID50 value represents the amount of virus dilution required to induce cytopathic effects in 50% of wells containing the inoculated cell culture after a defined period of time.

TCID50 assays assess this threshold either by visually counting the number of affected wells or by using cell viability assays as readout. The TCID50value is determined when the cytopathic effect or cell viability assay read-out appear the same for a dilution in 3 separate readings. An example of the application of cell viability/toxicity assays for the evaluation of viral cytopathic effects can be found in the AN 363: Viral cytopathic effects measured in a drug discovery screen.

TCID50 calculation

The results of 50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) assays can be analysed by different calculations 5Several mathematical approaches have been developed for this purpose, including the Reed-Muench 4, Spearman-Kärber or Weil method. The formula after Reed-Muench is depicted as an example below.

Where I is the interpolated value of the 50% endpoint and h is the dilution factor.

Since most often, the exact 50% endpoint is not observed in TCID50 assays, an approximate value can be obtained factoring in the dilutions closest below and above the 50% threshold. Independent of the method, the dilution at which 50% of the cell cultures are infected is determined and used to mathematically calculate a TCID50 result which is expressed as 50% infectious dose (ID50) per millilitre (ID50/mL) after a defined period of time. For example, if 0.2 mL of a 1:10,000 virus dilution infects 50% of the cells in 2 days the titer is expressed as 104 TCID50/0.2 mL in 2 days.”

https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/tissue-culture-infectious-dose-tcid50-assays-how-to-determine-virus-infectivity/

As can be seen, this method relies on the observation of CPE as evidence of a “virus” and then attempts to calculate how many of these invisible entities reside within the fluids. However, as should be expected when dealing with attempts to count something that can not be seen, this method has its drawbacks. For one, the Poisson distribution that is utilized, which takes the TCID50 value and multiplies it by 0.7, is admittedly only an approximation and is said to not always be true. The serial dilution method itself is also a source of error by its very nature. If any fluid remains at the end of the pipette used to suction out the “virus,” it is said that this can greatly influence the quantification results. Another issue is attempting to keep all of the variables exactly the same across all cultures, which is admitted to not always be the case. Thus, there is a lot of guesswork and assumption involved in calculating the infectious dose of the unseen entity:

Timeless TCID50: One solution to many viruses
From dilutions to titres

“TCID50 values give an indication of how many viruses is needed to have CPE in 50% of the cells. But how to go from this to the actual amount of virus per ml? The formula is quite simple, and it consists in multiplying the TCID50 value by 0.7. This comes from the Poisson distribution applied to viral infection which states that, in a fully permissive cell line, the probability of reaching 50% infection is achieved by a multiplicity of infection of approximately 0.7. This is not always true, but it’s a good approximation for most applications.

The troubles of counting viruses

As accurate as one can be, counting viruses is never easy. First, serial dilutions are -by their own nature- a source of error. Second -and this is particularly relevant for high titres of virus- even the tiniest volume that remains attached to the very end of a pipette tip can carry enough viral particles to make a substantial difference in the quantification. Third, the biological variation of the system is high. Plate the same amount of cells, add the same amount of virus, stop the infection at the same time, and the percentage of infection may be close, but never exactly the same.

Finally, when assessing a treatment that (as you would hope!) decreases virus titres, the amount of virus may fall below the assay detection threshold.”

https://virologyresearchservices.com/2019/03/29/timeless-tcid50-one-solution-to-many-viruses/

Plaque Assays
However, if relying on an indirect effect and spotty mathematical equations to calculate how many “viruses” it takes to “infect” a cell is not to your liking, you may appreciate this next method even less. Plaque assays also rely on the observation of CPE in cultured cells. As the cells break apart and die, the “viral” particles are assumed to travel to neighboring cells, infecting them and creating plaques, or holes, in the dish. The cells are then fixed and stained, killing everything in order to be observed. It is said that the cells that remain adhered to the surface are assumed to be uninfected, and any observed plaques are assumed to arise from cell death caused by “viral infection.” Virologists will look for the dilution that led to the optimal observed plaques; too little dilution leads to too many plaques while too much dilution yields none. The titre is then calculated using arithmetic based on the volume of the aliquot added to the cells and the sample dilution the aliquot was drawn from. The assay is designed so that each plaque represents infection by only a single “viral” particle:
Measuring infectious virus: the plaque assay

Infection and plaque formation

Plaque assays require cultured cells susceptible to infection by the virus of interest. The cells are first seeded onto a surface they can adhere to and grow on, then left overnight to form a confluent monolayer (a cohesive sheet of cells covering the entire growth surface). A virus sample is then diluted several times, and an aliquot of each dilution is added to a dish or well of cells. An incubation period allows the virus to attach to target cells before removing the inoculum. The culture is then covered with a medium containing nutrients and a substance, such as agarose or methylcellulose, forming a gel or semisolid overlay. Infectious virus particles that enter cells and replicate can then trigger the release of progeny virions. The gel restricts particle movement so that newly produced viruses can only infect neighbouring cells. If the virus kills infected cells, the dead (or dying) cells detach and create a hole in the monolayer through lysis or other means. This space – now devoid of cells –is called a plaque and appears as circular spots on the growth surface.

The plaques are allowed to grow until visible to the naked eye. The cells are then fixed with formaldehyde to lock cellular structures while killing the cells and virus. Dyes that stain cells are added for contrast, making plaques easier to see. Purple violet stains the cells purple, while plaques, lacking cells, remain clear. Cells that remain adhered to the surface are assumed to be uninfected, and apparent plaques are assumed to arise from cell death caused by infection. That is why the virus dilutions must be added to confluent monolayers with no gaps that might later be mistaken for plaques.

Viral titre: PFU/ml

Multiple dilutions of the stock sample are analysed to identify one or more dilutions that give rise to a countable number of plaques. At the lowest dilutions, too many infectious particles will destroy large swaths of the cell monolayer or create plaques too numerous and overlapping to distinguish. At the highest dilutions, there may be no plaques at all. At the optimal dilutions, plaques are counted to determine the titre of the original stock sample, typically reported as the number of plaque-forming units per millilitre (PFU/ml).

For a given plaque count, the stock titre can be calculated by simple arithmetic based on the volume of the aliquot added to the cells and the sample dilution the aliquot was drawn from. As a basic example, if 35 plaques were counted when a 0.1 ml aliquot of the 10-5 dilution was added to the cells, the titre of the undiluted stock is 3.5×107 PFU/ml. For reliable titres, each sample dilution should be plated multiple times, at least in duplicate and preferably in triplicate. Furthermore, multiple dilutions may result in countable plaques. More elaborate formulas incorporating all relevant plaque counts are typically used to calculate titres.

PFU/ml vs IU/ml

The assay is designed so that each plaque results from infection by multiplying a single infectious virus particle. As such, PFU/ml is considered a measure of the number of infectious units per millilitre (IU/ml), with the caveat that one cannot be certain of a one-to-one ratio of plaques to infectious particles in the applied aliquot. Also, be aware that the titre of a sample is specific to the assay conditions used to determine it, as infectivity is influenced by many factors, such as the type of host cell, pH, and culture medium. Titres can differ by several orders of magnitude by changing key assay parameters.”

https://virologyresearchservices.com/2022/08/10/the-plaque-assay/

As with the TCID50, there are some definite drawbacks when trying to “accurately” estimate how much of an invisible entity can cause infection and disease using the plaque assay. For starters, as noted above, the “infectivity” is said to be influenced by many factors within the culture itself. This includes the type of host cell, the pH level, as well as the culture medium used. Thus, the calculated titres can vary wildly by several orders of magnitude just by changing the assay parameters. The determination of what exactly constitutes a plaque is very subjective as well, which can mislead the results. In other words, plaque counting is prone to human error.

Beyond these issues, as noted before, both TCID50 and plaque assays rely on the observation of a cytopathogenic effect in order to claim the presence and infectivity of any “virus.” However, CPE is not specific to “viruses” as there are many known factors that can result in this effect being observed that do not require the presence of a fictional entity in order to explain, such as:

  • Bacteria
  • Parasites
  • Amoebas
  • Chemical Contaminants
  • Age of the Cell
  • Incubation Temperature
  • Length of Incubation
  • Antibiotics/Antifungals

It is entirely unscientific to rely on an effect in order to presume a cause. However, this pseudoscientific concept is central to the cell culture method as well as to the processes utilized to guesstimate how many “infectious viruses” are present. In other words, there is no direct evidence any “viruses” are present in any sample used to determine an “infectious” dose. All of these results claiming how much “virus” is present and can ultimately cause an infection are entirely hypothetical and calculated based on the presence of cell death. It is nothing but guesswork.

However, if it wasn’t clear that these numbers are pseudoscientific fraud, a 2003 OSHA White Paper looking at the determination of the infectious dose (ID) may help to sell the fact that virologists honestly have no clue what an infectious dose is. While this refers to calculating ID using animals, the same criticisms can apply to utilizing lab-created cell cultures as a surrogate. The White Paper concluded that there is no clear definition of what an infectious dose is and that there is no single standardized method for determining ID. The extrapolation of data to humans is unreliable and is a poor surrogate for human responses. There are various secondary interactions that can impact the estimates. The “pathogens” vary wildly in “virulence” and data on the ID via route of exposure is unavailable. In other words, virologists just make things up as they go along:

OSHA Infectious Dose White Paper

“In summary, the studies described above support ABSA’s position that attempts to develop quantitative values for human infectious dose are not currently feasible. Infectious dose values developed using past studies would not accurately characterize the relative hazard of pathogenic organisms in humans. The reasons for this conclusion are:

• Lack of a clear and universally acceptable definition of the term “infectious dose.”

• There is no single standardized protocol for testing infectious dose in animals, making legitimate controlled comparisons ofstudy results very difficult.

• Extrapolation of infection and toxicity data among animal species and from animals to humans has proven to be unreliable for most biological (and chemical) agents.

• Inbred animal strains are a poor surrogate for predicting human response, as humans are a highly variable outbred population.

• Infectious dose is affected by numerous, complex secondary interactions to include condition of the host, its genetics, and previous exposure to the biological agent or vaccine. Risk estimates must take these and many other factors into consideration.

• Bacteria of a single species can vary widely in virulence and infectious dose. It is not possible to make a broad or generalized statement about the infectious dose of a species of bacteria.

• Infectious dose in part depends on the route of exposure. A complete picture of a single pathogen’s infectious dose profile requires inhalation, percutaneous, oral, im, ip, iv, etc. data. These data are currently unavailable.”

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153567600300800401

Now that we know that this process for counting the invisible “viruses” is fraught with drawbacks that leave the “accuracy” of these results extremely questionable, let’s take a look at some of these wildly varying estimates in order to see how many particles are necessary to cause an infection according to virology’s fictional narrative. As “SARS-COV-2” is the soup du jour at the moment, here are a few key highlights from a systematic review of many studies attempting to find the minimal ID for the “novel coronavirus.” What you will see from the August 2022 review is that there is absolutely no experimental data for humans, with one study admittedly presenting a hypothetical estimate (technically, they are all hypothetical). The minimal ID for “SARS-COV-2” is extrapolated from animal studies with estimates that vary wildly between the papers:

Minimum infective dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 based on the current evidence: A systematic review

“The main methods for reporting the infective dose were through tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) and by counting plaque-forming units (PFU).33

In TCID50, the viral dose in 5% of inoculated tissue culture made pathological changes or cell death. PFU is estimated of viral concentration in plaque-forming units by measuring the number of particles that form a plaque.34 The minimum infective doses have been summarized in Table 2.

Human studies on infective dose of SARS-CoV-2

“We found no experimental studies that assess the infective dose in human, so we included observational human studies.”

“Finding the minimum infective dose of the virus can be extremely useful in determining the transmission pattern. This represents itself in inconsistent results across the included studies; similar viral load did not cause the same outcome. This indicates that despite having a similar minimum infective dose, the infection rate could differ so this minimum is not the same across the same population. On the other hand, there are some human studies which have shown some hypothetical infective viral dosages.”

Conclusion

“The results of this review suggest that one of the key factors to control the pandemic could be the study of virus transmission. The minimum infective dose is one of the main components of virus transmission. In this study, we have presented a range of minimum infective doses in humans and various animal species, yet such numbers can possibly vary between the individuals based on numerous factors. Measuring the minimum infective dose can provide a clearer overall understanding of the disease and its transmissibility and help better halt its spreading.”

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20503121221115053#table2-20503121221115053

While it is fun to see how much their guesstimates can range between studies, the above paper doesn’t give us a great idea as to what this minimal ID is for “SARS-COV-2” in terms of an actual number of particles it may take in order to cause infection. Let’s see if we can put a number to it based upon what the “experts” are saying:

SARS-CoV-2 Infectious Dose

“Some experts estimate that exposure to as few as 1000 SARS-CoV-2 viral particles can cause an infection. This dose of virus could occur by inhaling 1000 infectious viral particles in a single breath, 100 viral particles in 10 breaths, or 10 viral particles in 100 breaths.”

https://www.clinlabnavigator.com/sars-cov-2-infectious-dose.html

According to the “experts,” as little as 1000 “SARS-COV-2” particles are enough to cause infection. Where did they get this magical number from? Who knows? However, a separate study gave an even smaller estimate of just 100 “viral” particles:

Review of infective dose, routes of transmission and outcome of COVID-19 caused by the SARS-COV-2: comparison with other respiratory viruses

“An accurate quantitative estimate of the infective dose of SARS-CoV-2 in humans is not currently feasible and needs further research. Our review suggests that it is small, perhaps about 100 particles.”

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/review-of-infective-dose-routes-of-transmission-and-outcome-of-covid19-caused-by-the-sarscov2-comparison-with-other-respiratory-viruses/8607769D2983FE35F15CCC328AB8289D

It appears that virologists have the ability to just pull any ID number that they want out of thin air. When we factor in their other imaginary numbers, such as those who are at “peak viral infection” harboring 10 to 100 billion “viral” particles while breathing out 10 million “viruses” per breath, it seems rather illogical to claim that there would not be enough “infectious virus” after purification in order to prove pathogenicity.

Examining the issue a bit further, let’s look at a few other sources and see just how little “virus” is said to actually be necessary in order to cause an infection. According to virology’s pseudoscientific narrative, would you believe that just one airborne particle can cause you to become infected? That is exactly what we are told by this next source which dealt a fatal blow to mask supporters everywhere. The researchers based their claim upon theoretical modeling (aren’t they all), and concluded that only one airborne particle is enough to cause infection and disease:

What if just one airborne particle was enough to infect you?

“For some diseases, exposure to just a single airborne particle containing virus, bacteria or fungi can be infectious. When this happens, understanding and predicting airborne disease spread can be a whole lot easier.

That’s the result of a new study by a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientist who developed a new theory of airborne infectious disease spread. This research, which appears in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology, demonstrated good agreement with data from Q fever, Legionnaire’s disease and Valley fever outbreaks. The authors hope to use it to understand and mitigate COVID-19 spread.”

https://www.llnl.gov/news/what-if-just-one-airborne-particle-was-enough-infect-you

Unfortunately, the authors did not give us any idea as to how many “viral” particles would be in one airborne particle. Hypothetically, it could be one “virion” or it could be quite a few more. Let’s see if we can get some concrete guesstimates as to how many of the “viral” particles it may take to cause infection and disease. According to the CDC, “norovirus” only requires a few particles in order to cause infection and disease:

About Norovirus

“People with norovirus illness can shed billions of norovirus particles. And only a few virus particles can make other people sick.”

https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/about/index.html

This works out to as little as 10 “viral” particles per the European CDC:

“Noroviruses are highly contagious and 10-100 viral particles may be sufficient to infect an individual.”

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/norovirus-infection/facts

When looking to insect “viruses,” researchers set up an experiment with two “marked virus variants.” They exposed a population of caterpillars to both variants, and based upon these results, established a probability model to determine that it is theoretically possible for just one “virus” particle to cause infection and disease:

One Virus Particle Is Enough To Cause Infectious Disease

“Can exposure to a single virus particle lead to infection or disease? Until now, solid proof has been lacking. Experimental research with insect larvae has shown that one virus particle is theoretically enough to cause infection and subsequent disease.”

“Based on the assumption that every virus particle operates independently from all other virus particles, the researchers set up a probability model. This model predicts how many virus particles have caused an infection and how many different virus genotypes are present in infected hosts, such as plants, insects or people. The results of the infection experiment with the susceptible insects are in agreement with the model predictions. From this it can be derived that the virus particles have an independent effect, and that a single virus particle can indeed cause infection and/or disease.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090313150254.htm

We have now officially gone from 1000 “viral” particles to just one particle. Let’s see if any other sources make such a bold claim. In a CDC study that looked to establish a quantifiable estimation of how many “variola” (a.k.a. smallpox) particles are necessary to cause infection, the researchers concured that only one “virus” particle was sufficient to cause infection and disease:

The infectious dose of variola (smallpox) virus.

“Quantitative estimation of an individual’s risk of infection due to airborne pathogens requires knowledge of the pathogen’s infectious dose, in addition to estimates of the pathogen’s airborne concentration and the person’s exposure duration. Based on our review of the published literature on poxvirus infection, we conclude that the infectious dose of variola (smallpox) virus is likely one virus particle and that infection can be initiated in either the upper respiratory tract or pulmonary region. Studies of airborne transmission of poxvirus in monkeys and rabbits show that primary infection can occur in both regions of the respiratory tract. A quantitative study of poxvirus inhalation transmission in rabbits indicates that the deposition of one pock-forming unit (PFU) carried on respirable particles can cause infection. Findings in both in vitro and in vivo studies of the number of virus particles comprising a PFU are consistent with a “one-hit” phenomenon–namely, the cellular uptake of just one virus particle can lead to infection of a cell or an area of cell growth, creating a pock (an infected area of cells). Variability in virulence among different virus strains may involve differences in the probability of infection per virus particle, where a highly virulent strain has a probability close to one of successful infection for each virus particle.”

“On balance, we believe there is adequate in vitro and in vivo evidence that infection can be produced by a single particle of variola virus. Across different experimental systems the number of poxvirus per infectious unit has been found to vary, but it appears that favorable conditions enable all virus particles to infect (Overman & Tamm, 1956; Parker, Bronson, & Green, 1941; Sprunt & McDearman, 1940).”

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/20037359.html

The CDC has also stated that only one “viral” particle from rabies is enough to cause infection and disease:

Rabies

“During clinical disease, millions of viral particles may be found intermittently in the saliva. In theory, only a single rabies particle or virion is required to result in a productive infection.”

https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/diagnosis/accuracy.html

This one “viral” particle is supported as well by OSHA in regard to the Ebola “virus:”

Ebola

“In areas of Africa where Ebola viruses are common, suspected reservoirs include primate and bat populations. While there are no known animal reservoirs of the disease in the U.S., there is concern related to possible spread of EVD among human populations due to the availability and reach of global travel. Under certain conditions, exposure to just one viral particle can result in development of EVD. Depending on the strain and the individual infected with the disease, EVD may be fatal in 50-90 percent of cases.1

https://www.osha.gov/ebola

And finally, the measles “virus” is also considered so virulent that only one “viral” particle can cause infection and disease:

Measles

https://microbeonline.com/infective-dose-and-lethal-dose/

It is clear that, according to virology’s own pseudoscientific narrative, only one “viral” particle is theoretically necessary in order to cause infection and disease. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to assume that there are not enough infectious “viral” particles remaining after purification and isolation directly from the fluids to be used in order to prove pathogenicity. The reason this excuse is presented is because virologists are unable to recreate disease using just the fluids from a sick host. In order to even attempt to show pathogenicity, they claim that the unpurifued fluids must be added to a foreign animal or cancer cell along with antibiotics, antifungals, fetal calf blood, chemicals, “nutrients,” etc. and then injected unnaturally into an animal either through the nose, the blood, the throat, the skin, the brain, the stomach, the eyes, the feet, and/or the testicles. There is nothing natural or scientific about this process.

However, as virology is pseudoscience, it falls back on unfalsifiable concepts in order to excuse away the lack of scientific evidence. Instead of being able to find the “virus” particles directly in the fluids, they get to claim that there is not enough “virus” there despite their own numbers making this an impossibility. As virologists know that they can not prove pathogenicity using nothing but the assumed “viral” particles, they get to claim that the purification process creates a yield loss and that the “viruses” lose infectivity. Therefore, virologists get to excuse away that they can not show that the particles created after the cell culture experiment ever existed within the fluids of a sick host to begin with. They get to explain away that they can not prove pathogenicity using nothing but the assumed “viral” particles without culturing. Yet, despite their excuses, the numbers supplied by virologys own pseudoscientific narrative fail them. With hundreds of billions of “viruses” at peak infection, there is absolutely no reason that virologists should not be able to purify and isolate the assumed “viral” particles directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal. If only one “viral” particle is necessary theoretically in order to cause infection and disease, there is no reason virologists cannot use a purified sample to prove pathogenicity naturally via the scientific method. By their own admission, all it takes is just one particle to cause infection and disease. One particle from a sea of billions.

 

Connect with Mike Stone

Cover image credit: ArtTower




Drs. Tom Cowan, Mark & Samantha Bailey, Andrew Kaufman: Why Are We Doing This?

Drs. Tom Cowan, Mark & Samantha Bailey, Andrew Kaufman: Why Are We Doing This?

 

~~~

“It is also clear that the dramatic events of the past three years, events that have devastated the lives of many people all over the world, are based on this very misconception that so-called pathogenic viruses exist. This misconception has been around for a very long time, and it has led to damaging public health measures, the most notorious being vaccines, which have themselves harmed and killed millions of animals and people during their long and sordid history.

~~~

TCTL editor’s note:

In the video below, Samantha Bailey reads the written statement “Why Are We Doing This?” which was signed by Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Mark and Samantha Bailey.

Following that reading, each of the four makes a brief personal statement about why they continue to speak out about lies at the foundation of virology.

The written statement, shared below, can be found at Tom Cowan’s website.

Transcript of the individual statements is provided by Truth Comes to Light.

 



Why Are We Doing This?: The Written Statement

Sadly, the level of rancor between those in the “freedom” community taking the “no-virus” position and those taking the “pro-virus” position has reached higher and higher levels.

Videos, Instagram posts and tweets are put out by both sides claiming to “debunk’ the other side or sometimes to just call names.

Mikki Willis, the producer and director of the documentary series Plandemic, has created a new video urging unity among those who claim to be on the side of freedom, along with a subtle accusation that dissenters against this unity are classic disinformation agents.

Given this background, we, as some of the recognized leaders of the “no-virus team,” thought it would be a good opportunity to reconnect and even restate why we are doing this.

Why we will not just be good team players and participate in the growing worldwide movement fighting for the universal principles of freedom, bodily autonomy and the ability to guide one’s life based on one’s own beliefs and decisions? Why keep speaking out?

It seems obvious to us and, in fact, has been a guiding principle throughout our entire lives that a life based in freedom and integrity must have a solid, factual foundation. In other words, if the foundation is not based on the truth, as best we can see it, our entire lives are based on mistruths and are in danger of collapse at any moment.

Imagine building a relationship, a family, a homestead based on love between two people when the reality is that, rather than love, there is distrust, suspicion and even ill will. Sooner or later, that life will collapse into ruins.

This is the same with a financial system based on fiat currency, an agricultural system based on inattention to the health of the soil, or a medical system based on anti-scientific medical hypotheses.

After careers of examining medical research and theories and three years of intensive investigation into the question of whether particles or, perhaps better said, entities known as viruses actually exist, it is our clear conclusion that no such particle has ever been shown to exist, let alone cause any disease in plants, animals or people. For us, this conclusion stands as a clear fact.

It is also clear that the dramatic events of the past three years, events that have devastated the lives of many people all over the world, are based on this very misconception that so-called pathogenic viruses exist. This misconception has been around for a very long time, and it has led to damaging public health measures, the most notorious being vaccines, which have themselves harmed and killed millions of animals and people during their long and sordid history.

This carnage needs to stop.

People need to experience the world with new eyes and with a new concept of life, biology and health. This new conception can begin only when we realize, once and for all, that the idea of contagious, pathogenic viruses, or viral-like entities of any sort — natural, lab created, clones or otherwise —is simply a scientific misconception, or possibly a fraud.

Why we are doing this is straightforward: It’s so that no woman, man, child or animal ever has to be subjected again to abuse based on a long, bankrupt theory of biology and medicine.

We have nothing personally to gain from this quest. No prestigious awards are coming our way, and we likely will get nothing but further scorn and derision from colleagues, public institutions, and the general media.

Yet, when we think of our children, grandchildren, our friends, our families, our beloved animals, and animals in labs who are tortured and killed in this clearly futile effort to demonstrate the “reality” of viruses, everything in our being cries out, “this must stop.”

Therefore, we ask all people of good will to accept the following challenge. Please send us any genuine scientific information that demonstrates that viruses exist and cause disease.

We are not interested in any comments about our motivations or the consequences of our quests for us personally. Absent that evidence, we and our good friends will keep going. We believe that the future for all of us depends on it.

Dr. Thomas Cowan

Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Drs. Samantha & Mark Bailey


Time marker 5:03 — Dr. Tom Cowan:

So we’ve been talking a fair amount about why we’re doing this. The this being talking about the fact that there’s no virus, never had a virus that’s been shown to exist or cause any disease.

So what difference does it make?

So there’s obviously a whole lot of reasons including all the social distancing and the masks and the viral vaccines and the devastation of the adults and the lives of children.

But one thing that we haven’t, unfortunately, talked about much is its effect on the animals and the widespread frank torture and mutilation of millions of animals in labs and so-called science experiments all over the world.

And for whatever reason, I hadn’t appreciated this so much until I actually have animals of my own. And I think you could see our three cats and six chickens and we’re getting three goats this week.

When you realize all the mutilated animals, the ferrets with the cell culture stuffed down their throats, the 15,000 monkeys that were allegedly killed by Sabin to make an ineffective and dangerous polio vaccine.

When you realize all the mutilated dogs that have been left in dumpsters, which I’ve heard from many people who actually witnessed this themselves, the mice who’ve been injected with debris into their brain.

And you realize that all these experiments have no possible benefit. They’re just basically sadistic, torturing of innocent animals.

And at some point in your life, everything cries out to say this has to stop.

Time marker 7:04 — Dr. Andrew Kaufman:

Hello, I’m Dr. Andrew Kaufman. And today I’m here to answer the question why is it important to me to tell the whole truth about viruses? Meaning that they don’t actually exist or cause disease.

When faced with a lot of opposition and resistance to this message, you know, why am I communicating this over and over and sticking to this position.

And my answer is simple and I can answer in one word which is justice. But let me explain.

So if we look up the definition of justice, it means the maintenance or establishment of that which is just.

And I have here the definition of the word just from Merriam Webster: “Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason.” Fact or reason.

So those are the two principal aspects that need to be established and known in order to bring about justice. Fact and Reason.

Now justice, for me, is a guiding factor in my life’s work or my mission.

What I would want to achieve and leave as my legacy on earth at the end of my life is related to bringing about justice.

So earlier in my career, this led me to the specialty of forensic psychiatry because I had learned that there was a great injustice perpetrated on the mentally ill individuals of the world. And this was so-called the deinstitutionalization movement which took people out of mental institutions — which at least were established with some purpose of helping and supporting and bettering those individuals — into the homeless crisis as well as jails and prisons.

So I was specifically going to try and help those mentally ill individuals who were essentially warehoused in jails and prisons, even without perpetrating any immoral crimes.

So many of them are there for things, because they were homeless, for example. So when it was really cold out, they went inside a storage facility to stay warm and escape frostbite. But that was trespassing so they ended up incarcerated, for example. And I’ve seen individuals in that scenario.

So this principle of justice has been a guiding force for me in my life. And it’s no different in the era of covid, where as I wanted to use fact and reason to make an opinion and see what is just with relationship to the announcement of this pandemic which occurred in 2020. And so, of course, I used my reasoning abilities to establish what are the facts.

And that led me to look at the initial fact, which was the establishment of this so-called virus that was causing this pandemic. Everything downstream of that was based upon this assumption.

And what I found out was that this assumption did not have a factual basis. And I simply applied logic and reason, and application of the scientific method to see that the experiments used to establish this basis of a new disease were simply unscientific and false.

And this helped me, of course, have a unique understanding of everything that occurred over the past several years. And I could easily look through the lens of judgment and see what was just and what was unjust in terms of people’s reactions, especially the government and various industries.

And this leads ultimately to holding the perpetrators of this tyranny accountable.

And one of the criticisms that has come from some of the health freedom leaders have been that if we look at the truth that there was no virus, that somehow that lets people like Anthony Fauci off the hook. But it’s actually the opposite because until we establish a factual basis of the crimes that were committed — and namely, in my opinion, they were the complete fabrication of an imaginary new disease that allowed justification of tyrannical policies that reduce freedom and inhibited commerce and allowed all types of manipulation to occur.

And we, to this day, don’t really know who are the main leaders behind this psychological operation that established this false disease, not based on fact. But perhaps if we hold people like Anthony Fauci accountable for participating in this charade that we can extract information and find out who the originators are. And that would be the only way to establish a true justice and accountability for what we’ve experienced.

And I know that going forward it continues to be the utmost important element in our analysis is to establish the facts and to use reasoning to understand what’s going on.

And of course this is true, especially with respect to our health.

So I hope this provides some inspiration to see how important it is to really get to the bottom of this issue.

Time marker 13:10 — Dr. Mark Bailey:

For more than three years I have researched the virus hypothesis, digesting virology textbooks and thousands of publications — from Ivanovsky’s claimed tobacco mosaic virus in 1903 through to Fan Wu’s claimed novel coronavirus in early 2020.

Virology’s world is arcane and most people have barely scratched the surface, content to believe viruses exist and often outraged that we would question such a thing.

However, we did question and haven’t stopped after we broke away from our conventional training and examined this issue for ourselves.

When I completed A Farewell to Virology, even I was surprised at the patent lack of evidence for these alleged infectious particles. It wasn’t just a few areas where the virologist evidence was lacking. It was in every area.

The techniques have shifted over the past century as their own experiments have consistently refuted themselves.

Now their remaining “evidence” lies in inadequate methodologies, uncontrolled studies and media releases.

Some time ago, we witnessed a move away from genuine experimental studies and into what I suspect is their final resort — genomics and proteomics.

But as I wrote in A Farewell to Virology, this approach is built on bankrupt foundations and will only delay the wider realization that the virus model is done for.

In the meantime, the carnage will continue for those still inside the viral paradigm. Experiencing disease, detecting genetic sequences, looking at electron microscopy images or obtaining test results — whether they be through the PCR or alleged antibodies — do not require the existence of viruses, as we and others have repeatedly exposed.

Mankind can make up stories to explain these various phenomena, but cannot change the underlying principles, no matter how sophisticated the technology.

I don’t know how much of the virus fallacy is a misconception, and how much is outright fraud.

It probably doesn’t matter because what is important is that more people are waking up to the fallacy and rejecting the virus and germ theory models outright.

Like our family, they have worked out that none of the touted solutions, whether they be public health measures, vaccines or drugs, offer any benefit to our well-being.

They can see the destruction to humanity, the animals and the environment based on this fraudulent war against imaginary infectious particles.

The real enemy is fear and ignorance, something each of us must overcome. Our world does not need to be feared, with the insight that nature does not make mistakes. And this divine biology is always pro-life and for our benefit.

We may still be in the minority, but we are already victorious as we share this new freedom, wisdom and prosperity with the next generation.

Time marker 16:10 — Dr. Samantha Bailey

In 2020, I first started questioning the covid-19 fraud because I could see that people were fearing for their lives.

The public were being told to stay indoors, to obtain food only from corporate outlets, to avoid relatives and neighbours, all while staying close to their phones and TVs to keep up to date with government announcements.

The fear of the supposed virus was clearly out of proportion with reality. My gut feeling was that I had to try to reduce people’s fear by researching the science honestly and presenting my findings to anyone that would listen.

Our research into SARS-CoV-2 quickly morphed into searching for evidence for the existence of any virus. By mid 2020, it was apparent to us that the key scientific evidence was absent and the level of the fraud was massive.

The powers that shouldn’t be had been building up to the staging of a huge pandemic like covid-19 for decades. Finally, they had their formula correct and almost everyone was complying with the new totalitarian rule under the mistaken belief of contagion.

The key to unravelling the fraud lay with explaining the viral delusion as well as the lies of germ theory to allay the public’s fear.

I investigate the science and follow the trails wherever they may lead. I then release my findings to the public so that I can sleep at night.

I want my children to have a life where they do not live in fear of nature, where they can understand the true causes of disease and how to be healthy through right thinking and right living.

It is a joy to watch them grow to their full potential and I hope that many more people will share the benefits of ignoring the virus model and its associated carnage.

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Connect with Drs. Samantha & Mark Bailey

Cover image credits: Bohun_pl & PublicDomainPictures




The SARS Epidemic: Are Viruses Taking the Rap for Industrial Poisons? [Article First Published in 2003]

The SARS Epidemic: Are Viruses Taking the Rap for Industrial Poisons? [Article First Published in 2003]

by Jim West, Weston A. Price Foundation
originally published December 7, 2003
as found referenced at Medic Debate

 

On March 15, 2003 the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a global alert warning of a new virus spreading through Asia and causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), a potentially fatal disease, similar to pneumonia. Photos from China depicting ballet dancers and bridal parties wearing white masks appeared in western newspapers while health departments across the country issued notices to hospitals detailing the symptoms of the new virus and asking for immediate notification of suspect cases. Until the global alert, reports referred to an “unknown virus” first striking in Guangdong Province, China, although some reports place the origin in the Philippines. With the March 15 WHO report, the SARS virus became official and reports of new cases came flooding in.

By late May, officials had reported over 8,000 cases worldwide, with almost 700 deaths.1 Of the 65 suspected SARS victims in the US, all but a few had traveled by airplane to areas where the outbreak has been most severe, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. The Chinese economy has taken a hit and some Chinese airline routes were virtually empty due to SARS fear.2

Serious Drama

The SARS outbreak has revived discussion of forced quarantine. According to a study by the American Public Health Laboratory Association and quoted by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, few cities have enough hospital space to quarantine patients in the event of a large-scale outbreak of an infectious disease like SARS. According to Lawrence O. Gostin, director of the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown University’s Law Center, public health laws date back to the 19th century and are “wholly inadequate to deal with an emergency.”

“The need for public health law reform is urgent,” said Mr. Gostin. “It should have provisions for surveillance, vaccination, treatment, isolation and quarantine in a way that gives decisive powers to health authorities while respecting the Constitution.” So far, all but one of the SARS victims has submitted to voluntary isolation. The one exception, a New York man, was involuntarily contained until his symptoms passed. Federal quarantine law now includes SARS among its disease guidelines.

Mr. Gostin was the author of the draconian Emergency State Health Powers Act, which has been adopted (fortunately in softened form) by 22 states. According to Gostin, “The need for effective state compulsory power is beyond doubt. But that’s not a given in our country, which is now so tied to the rhetoric of individual rights. It seems we’ve lost the tradition of the common good.”3

Kill the Carrier

In China, a country where the “rhetoric of individual rights” is lacking, the government has announced it would kill SARS carriers who refused quarantine.4 Malaysian officials threatened imprisonment.5 In Hong Kong, officials motivated by the “tradition of common good” have suggested that “families of SARS patients be rounded up, and sent to quarantine camps.”6 In Nanjing, China, 10,000 have been quarantined, and in Beijing 16,000 as of May 6, 2003.7

Official Disease Definition

SARS means “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.” This wide-open definition encompasses many diseases common in the affected regions. Symptoms range from flu-like to pneumonia.8 Dr. Frank Plummer, director of the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada stated, “Of course, the case definition of SARS is a little loose.”9

The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined SARS in the following way: a) a person presenting after 1 November 2002 with history of high fever (greater than 100.4° F) and cough or breathing difficulty; or b) a person who was not autopsied but with acute respiratory disease and who has been in close contact within 10 days of someone who had SARS.10

This definition alone should give thoughtful readers cause to question the SARS phenomenon. Firstly, is a temperature of 1.8 degrees F over normal really a “high fever”? The CDC used “mild fever” in their case definition. Secondly, should WHO install a historical bias before the history of SARS is even written? WHO has made it impossible to place the discovery of SARS before November 2002, or even think of it as preceding that date, thus guaranteeing its status as an “emerging epidemic.”

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines SARS differently: a) Illness of unknown aetiology [cause not already ascertained] and onset after February 1, 2003, AND, b) Temperature over 100.5 degrees F, AND, c) respiratory illness, AND, d) Recent contact with a SARS patient or travel to epidemic region.

This defines the new epidemic as an arrival from southeast Asia, China or Toronto. This definition obviates any need to test for the SARS virus in patients who contracted pneumonia before February 2003, AND, who had not traveled to the Orient or met such a traveler. With this definition, the diagnosis of any SARS-like case, determined previously to be of non-viral origin, would be secured from contradictions. The usual one-disease, one-cause theme for epidemics is thereby maintained.

SARS Virology

Due to the wide-ranging definition, the only unique quality of SARS is the associated virus. But association is not enough and a single association is not a rigorous, convincing proof.

On April 16, 2003, WHO announced that SARS virus, a member of the coronavirus family, was definitely causative for the disease. The report referred to a study carried out by a team led by Dr. Albert Osterhaus, the director of virology at Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam. Media reports used the terms “unequivocal,” “definite,” and “beyond a doubt” to describe the work at Erasmus.

Osterhaus reported that his team infected one group of monkeys with SARS virus, a second group with the metapneumonvirus (also found in some SARS patients), and a third group with SARS virus and then the metapneumovirus. The monkeys infected with the metapneumonvirus alone developed mild symptoms, compared to the “full-blown disease” seen in the first group. The third group “did not develop a more serious version of SARS.” From this Osterhaus concluded, “the coronavirus alone is capable of causing the typical symptoms…”11

Virology in Doubt

Press releases about the “definitive” Erasmus study, distributed by AP, WHO, Nature Magazine and others, cannot be taken seriously without further details. Here are a few unanswered questions:

a) Since laboratory virus stocks are poisoned with antibiotics, or are derived by a process that utilizes poisons, then which poisons were present in Erasmus University virus stocks?

b) Were the toxicities of virus stocks included in the assessment of the study results?

c) How was the virus stock obtained?

d) Was a comprehensive test for other viruses performed on the experimental stock?

e) Are the laboratory-produced viruses chimeric viruses, that is, synthetic viruses?

f) What quantity of virus medium was applied to each monkey; that is, what multiple of real-world conditions?

g) What concentration of viruses were applied; that is, what multiple of real-world conditions?

h) How was the medium applied; would the application method be possible in real-world conditions?

i) Which chemicals were added to the medium in addition to antibiotics? Do these interact or promote the toxicity of other chemicals in the virus stock?

j) How many monkeys were in each group? Were there enough for a valid assessment?

k) What was the condition of each monkey prior, during and at the conclusion of the experiment? Monkeys have been regarded as poor experimental subjects because of their intelligent sensitivity, and maltreatment received from handlers and distributors. Stress alone, incurred by the monkeys due to cruelty, cage conditions and poor nutrition, can cause illness or susceptibility.

l) Was the virus used in the experiment actually “isolated”? The word, when used by virologists, means something entirely different from the meaning assumed by non-virologists (including doctors), and this word serves as the basis for misinformation regarding virus proof. The details of “isolation of the virus” need to be explained.

m) Were any of the experimental animals, or tests, rerun after unexpected results occurred? What were the circumstances?

At this writing, one further detail of the Erasmus study has been obtained, “Osterhaus and colleagues completed the final ones [Koch Postulates] when they infected two macaque monkeys with the virus from a SARS patient and isolated it from the animals.”12

So, the “definite” proof is based on two monkeys injected with the supposed SARS virus. What happened to independent confirmation, randomized controls, and probability analysis that determine the possibility that a test on two monkeys is valid? The hyped language, the major institutions and funding sources involved, juxtaposed against the meager number of monkeys in the experiment, point to extreme bias in the search for a microbial demon. I look forward to more details of the Erasmus study.

As of late May, tests for the virus in Toronto “failed to spot a targeted virus in 30% to 50% of infected patients.”13 This was attributed to inaccurate testing methods, not the absence of the virus. Nevertheless, no matter how often SARS virus is found, the virus is present only in trace amounts and not in quantities large enough to cause disease, leaving infection and pathology in doubt.14

Convenient Scapegoats

In spite of the nagging inconsistencies in the viral theory for SARS, scientists and the press have gone one step further with reports that SARS originated in a live meat market in China’s Guangdong province in November, 2002. Researchers in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China found a virus that is “almost identical” to the human SARS coronavirus in six masked palm civets (cat-sized animals) and a raccoon dog sold in these open air markets,15 a convenient discovery that will bring official pressure on China’s traditional farmers and food-sellers, now in competition with new, “sanitary” western-style supermarkets.

Viral demons are fair game for the media. Dramatic realities merge with scenes from class B sci-fi movies, as doctors and nurses scream through hospital wards, airports are closed and police round up infected carriers. In China, such dreadful acts are all too real. In addition to the proposed human executions, millions of cats, dogs, farm animals and wildlife may be slaughtered to stop the deadly viral plague. Precedent is found in Britain’s Mad Cow and Hoof and Mouth epidemics, and supposed viral epidemics in Malaysia and Taiwan during 1997-1998. In this scenario, medical workers come to the rescue like soldiers, heroically primed to save lives with deadly force.

The pharmaceutical companies, of course, are playing a leading role. Roche, “the global leader in the $22-billion-a-year clinical-diagnostics market” is developing a test that should be able to “flag SARS in the first days of an infection, possibly even when the virus isn’t causing symptoms.” This will allow officials “to identify superspreaders (patients whose SARS infections are highly transmissible) before they become superspreaders,” says a Roche executive.16 As all diagnostic tests generate false positives, anyone suffering from a fever and a cough risks being branded as a modern Typhoid Mary should he or she submit to such a procedure.

SARS Critics

In spite of the fearful headlines, the SARS paradigm has met widespread criticism.

An insider, Dr. Frank Plummer, spilled the beans: “The director… told The Scientist yesterday (April 10) that the new coronavirus implicated as the cause of the disease is certainly around in the environment but is unlikely to be the causative agent. Frank Plummer is director of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.”17

Plummer stated, “we are finding some of the best-characterized [SARS disease] cases are negative [for the SARS virus]. So it’s puzzling. As is the fact the amounts of virus we are finding, when we find it, are very small–only detectable by very sensitive PCR.

“That’s what the majority of labs [nasopharyngeal swabs] around the world are testing, it’s where you find most respiratory viruses. It’s strange [that there’s so little virus there] because it seems to be transmitted by close contact.”

After the announcement of the Erasmus study, Plummer stated, “Once you conclude that this coronavirus is the sole cause of SARS then you move into a different phase and you move to test only for it. . . to the exclusion of other things. And I think. . . at least based on what we’re seeing in Canada. . . it’s a little early to do that. We are in many ways behaving as if this is the cause.”18

According to a CBC news report, “No classic respiratory or bacterial respiratory pathogen was consistently identified. Scientists have not definitively shown the new coronavirus causes SARS. To do that, they need to see the virus in infected lung samples from all patients and show the virus causes SARS in an animal model.”19 Implicit in this statement is the fact that SARS symptoms are not unique to the disease, or that tests were finding other (non-SARS) pathogens in the victims, or tests were not consistently performed for other pathogens.

Jon Rappoport, an independent journalist who has written for CBS Healthwatch, writes, “This [SARS] insanity is multiplied beyond all sense when you consider that, in Canada, they are now finding the [SARS] coronavirus in ZERO PERCENT of diagnosed SARS cases.”20

Nicholas Regush, veteran journalist of ABC News, admits no contact with Rappoport, yet writes, “We’re in very deep trouble… the COMING OF SARS. Having been a member of the reporting classes for many years, I can’t say that I’m surprised. More like disappointed. Disgusted. Outraged.”21

Fintan Dunne, who edits a website entitled www.SickOfDoctors.com, is also critical: “More of the hype machine and further global economic damage, over a spurious syndrome which is a drop in the disease ocean.”22

Dr. Donald Low, one of Canada’s leading infectious disease experts and a key member of the SARS containment team, described WHO’s policies for Toronto as “a bunch of bullshit” and “inappropriate.”23

According to Peter Duesberg, the well-known microbiologist at the University of California at Berkeley, the list of badly diagnosed, yet strongly hyped epidemics is lengthy: Ebola, Hepatitis C, AIDS, SMON, and others.24 According to the German virologist Stefan Lanka, the list of pseudo-epidemics is nearly endless.25

Toxicology

The orthodox SARS paradigm completely omits and avoids toxicology for good reason: SARS disease symptoms are identical to pesticide and air pollution disease symptoms. And these poisons correlate in time and place with SARS epidemics.

Only virology holds SARS together, and by including toxicology, the virus theory of SARS can be entirely rebutted.

Airline Pesticides

As the SARS syndrome “appears to be spreading via air travel, the CDC advised travelers to postpone any non-essential travel to affected areas, which include China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to WHO.”26

What most travelers don’t realize is that airlines routinely apply pesticides to airplanes, especially those on Asian routes. Airlines call their pesticide application “disinsection.” A US Department of Transportation memo describes two methods of application: “Either spray the aircraft cabin, with an aerosolized insecticide, while passengers are on board or treat the aircraft’s interior surfaces with a residual insecticide.” 27

On August 2, 2001, CNN reported on a lawsuit filed by United Airlines stewardesses for damages caused by pesticides sprayed in United Airlines planes on Australian and New Zealand routes.28 No further mention of the lawsuit has appeared in the press.

However, on March 17, 2003, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) announced: “An airline flight to the tropics may involve greater health risks. . . pesticides are routinely sprayed in aircraft cabins by US airlines, sometimes over the heads of passengers during flight.”29

Details on airline pesticide protocols for southeast Asian airline flights emerge from the US Department of Transportation memo: “Guam requires disinsection, but permits the residual method, of all flights from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Thailand, Philippines, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands and, during certain months, of flights from Taiwan, Korea and Japan.”30

The pesticides used in airlines are synthetic pyrethrin pesticides (pyrethroids), which in some countries have been banned from agricultural use.31 SARS symptoms are nearly identical to those of pyrethrin pesticides, as shown in the table on Page 19.

There are other chemical risks found in aircraft. Diana Fairechild, who worked decades for the airline industry and spent years litigating against that industry over issues related to pesticide protocols, describes the liabilities of airline travel on her website.46

Airport Pollution

Airports are notoriously air polluted. A single airliner at take-off emits tremendous volumes of pollutants.47 JFK airport in New York City, has its own oil refinery on the airport grounds, nearly two football fields in area. How common is that practice? Oil refinery emissions correlate exceedingly well with recent so-called viral disease epidemics. The West Nile virus epidemic was first noticed in the neighborhoods beneath one of the busiest take-off lanes in the US, La Guardia Airport, New York City.48

Industrial Emissions

The greatest SARS epidemic region in the world is the Guangdong province of China. That heavily populated province also vies for position as the most highly polluted region on earth, due to the presence of oil refineries, metal smelters and other chemical industries in a country with lower environmental standards.

Writing for The Atlantic Monthly, Mark Hertsgaard describes Guangdong province as “A fiendish laboratory experiment that was mushrooming beyond control. . . . Shanxi, a day’s journey west of Beijing. . . the land. . . scalped, the water poisoned, the air made toxic and dark. . . . At least five of the cities with the worst air pollution in the world are in China. Sixty to 90 percent of the rainfall in Guangdong. . . is acid rain. . . people’s lungs and nervous systems are bombarded by an extraordinary volume and variety of deadly poisons. One of every four deaths in China is caused by lung disease.”49 Hertsgaard found that total suspended particulates (an air pollution index) can be, in some cities in China, 12 times higher than in New York City. Obviously, non-viral forms of SARS exist in Guangdong. SARS is far from atypical.

Deforestation by fire can also cause the respiratory problems associated with SARS. Huge fires are set or occur accidentally in Singapore, Malaysia and China. Major fires ravaged southeast Asia in September 2002, just two months before officials announced the SARS epidemic.50

Tan Ee Lyn (Reuters) describes the air environment in Hong Kong and southern China, the major SARS epicenters: “[Title:] CHINA: September 9, 2002, Thick smog shrouds Hong Kong, health warning issued. [Text:]Hong Kong–Thick smog blanketed Hong Kong last week, a clear sign that the territory and southern China are still a long way from cleaning up their bad air. The government urged people with respiratory problems to avoid heavily congested traffic areas and cut back on outdoor physical activity.”

Toxicology = Virology

Even if a perfect (according to the rules of virology) laboratory proof for virus causation existed, such proofs still involve high use of artifice, far from the reality of everyday life. Even if SARS virology could have isolated and properly identified a real virus, questions still remain. A SARS virus may be a natural endogenous virus (from within) serving a normal adaptive function. It might not be the infectious, exogenous virus (from without) as described by media hype.

Not well known, but well established, is the fact that virus-like genetic material (RNA) is often expressed from poisoned cellular tissue as an adaptive and defensive response to poisoning.51 Expressing virus-like genes is part of the cellular “SOS response” of cells engaged in accelerated genetic recombination.52 The so-called SARS virus can be interpreted as such a genetic expression occurring in humans, as well as the exotic animals, palm civet cats and raccoon dogs sold in Guangdong live animal markets and recently found positive for SARS.

Virus Is Us

The cutting-edge biochemist, Howard Urnovitz, views SARS virus as human genes rearranged by pollution stress: “I do not see a virus.  I see a unique and complete rearrangement of genomic elements. For example, when I look at what is believed to be the gene sequence coding for the spike protein of this coronavirus, I see a complicated gene rearrangement of a region of human chromosome. As I did in our studies of Gulf War Syndrome, when I see gene rearrangements like this, I immediately search for an associated catastrophic environmental event that could have caused such genomic rearrangement.”53 (Emphasis added.)

SARS epidemics correspond strongly with such “catastrophic environmental events.”

SARS Redefined

SARS is not a unique disease, since its symptoms coincide with pyrethrin poisoning and air pollution diseases.

Orthodox science damns itself by beginning with a virus hypothesis when toxicological evidence is plentiful. Orthodox journalism promotes the discovery of the “SARS virus” with little criticism of the virology and a deafening silence regarding toxicology.

Apparently the virus paradigm is a necessary cover for industrial pollution. WHO’s promotion of the virus disease paradigm is a tremendous boon for industry, which requires free disposal of industrial wastes into the lungs. . . correction. . . the atmosphere.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that SARS is the direct result of regional industrial pollution, airport pollution, with an optional coup de grace from pyrethroid pesticides applied directly upon the passengers or as a residue vapor. Essentially, airlines are enclosed, fabric-filled containers where air is circulated several times before it is vented to the outside. They are not the kind of chamber that environmentalists would prefer to enter following “disinsection.” SARS, like St. Louis virus (SLE), West Nile Virus (WNV) and non-toxicological asthma definitions guarantee spin control for emerging epidemics.

Neenyah Ostrom discusses the general relationship between pollution in China and the SARS virus– and the relation between poisoning and cellular RNA: “But Guangdong and Hong Kong share another distinction: They are in perhaps the most polluted area on the planet. Should we be asking questions like, what new types of pollutants have been introduced into this gene-swapping microenvironment? So, the question becomes: Is pollution a causative agent in SARS?”

If SARS disease is another semantic flag for industrial pollution, then SARS functions by punishing the economy of polluting regions without specifically placing blame on powerful industries. Military groups have long employed such a method–where the group is punished to correct individual behavior. Within industry, SARS will bring about a reassessment of economic priorities (industrial need versus human worth) without the complications of public blame games.

Sidebars


West Nile Virus

West Nile Virus (WNV) arrived in New York City in 1999 and soon grew into an “epidemic” characterized by a sea of contradictions.54 Medical press agencies proclaimed the “first arrival of the West Nile virus to the Western Hemisphere”55 but a more accurate description of the situation would be the “first testing of the West Nile virus in the Western Hemisphere.”

Mayor Giuliani personally announced the epidemic. He also announced the immediate commencement of a six-week pesticide spray campaign over the city, dispensed by helicopters. Meanwhile, the TV and newspaper headlines chanted, “The Deadly Virus.” The disease was at first attributed to the St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLE) but a few weeks later blame shifted to West Nile virus.

The United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) issued a press release one year later “confirming” the pathological effect of WNV on crows. This was hyped and widely distributed. Having read many other virological studies, I found the USGS results incredibly odd. The crows were injected intramuscularly with a virus extract and a few days later all met death. The filter used to separate the virus from tissue extract was nearly six times the diameter of the virus.56 Nearly all non-injected crows in the same cage also died. The success of the experiment was too convincing to be true, especially for a study that did not employ the common, harsh, intracranial injection method. The study outcome was also odd because WNV had been considered a mild virus and not especially dangerous to birds. The USGS laboratory ignored my repeated inquiries for the published details. After going through another scientist, who contacted the USGS, I received an emailed response from the USGS indicating low confidence for their study. The agency indicated their study would not be published or discussed and they expressed an intention to perform a better experiment in the future. I doubt they would want to take a chance on another such experiment.

SLE and WNV epidemics occur annually in air-polluted petrochemical regions (such as eastern New Jersey and St. Louis) during the warm spring and summer months, with an apex in July and August. The incidence correlates daily with air pollution brought to ground level by warm air and loss of convection efficiency for exhaust sources.  SLE epidemics have a long history in the US (in petrochemical regions) and these epidemics don’t spread infectiously to other regions. The two great epicenters for WNV/SLE disease are the two great petrochemical industrial regions in the US–southern Louisiana and New Jersey.

During the summers of 1999 and 2000, air pollution levels reached record levels, correlating with the incidence of “West Nile virus” cases, both human and avian. The gasoline additive MTBE represents perhaps the greatest production volume for any industrial poison in the US, yet it has received little publicity. The public became aware of its dangers only when the EPA suggested that MTBE be phased out on July 27,1999. That date also represents the apex of the West Nile virus avian epidemic for 1999.63

Like so many widely dispensed industrial poisons, the physiological effects of MTBE have only become known through usage on the public. However, Dr. Peter Joseph correlated MTBE with neurological disease in his 1997 study, “Changes in Disease Rates Following the Introduction of Oxygenated Fuels.” Neurological symptoms also characterize West Nile virus disease. Avian mortality further distinguishes this “viral” disease. Yet, avian mortality is an early warning system for human air pollution disease, as evidenced by the traditional air assay test, the “miners’ canary.”


Legionnaires’ Disease

Another acute respiratory disease is Legionnaires’ disease, also characterized by sloppy science. The disease was claimed causative for 182 casualties and 29 deaths within a few days in 1976 at the bicentennial celebration of the American Legion at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia.

After several months of study, CDC scientists announced the discovery of Legionella bacteriumas as the cause for Legionnaires’ disease. Virologists Peter Duesberg and Brian Ellison relate the story.57 “One month before the CDC isolated the bacterium, a US House of Representatives Investigative Committee held hearings excoriating the CDC for not having looked for toxic chemicals as a possible cause of the 1976 epidemic. Chairman John Murphy of New York sharply attacked the investigation because ‘The CDC, for example, did not have a toxicologist present in their initial team of investigators sent to deal with the epidemic. No apparent precautions were taken to deal with the possibility, however remote at the time, that something else might have been the cause.’”

According to Duesberg, “The evidence indicates Legionella is actually quite harmless. Since 1976, CDC and public health investigators have found the bacteria all over the country, in water cooling towers, condensers, shower heads, faucets, humidifiers, whirlpools, swimming pools and even hot-water tanks, assorted plumbing, mud, and lakes. The bacterium is so universal that between 20 percent and 30 percent of the American population has already been infected, yet virtually no one ever develops Legionnaires’ disease symptoms.” Calling the organism Aguanella–indicating it is simply water-borne–wouldn’t serve the CDC’s purpose. Quite by chance, the CDC’s interpretation happens to protect the chemical industry, which sells poisonous deodorants, pesticides, antibiotics, carpets, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and beverages to hotels–and airlines.


Two SARS Disease Paradigms:
Comparison of Symptoms
Symptom As SARS Virus32-35 As Airline Pesticide Poisoning
(mostly Pyrethrin formulations)36-45
Coughing Yes Yes
Malaise Yes Yes
Fever Yes Yes
Headaches Yes Yes
Nausea Yes Yes
Vomiting Yes Yes
Rash Yes Yes
Respiratory distress Yes Yes
Respiratory failure Yes Yes
Neurological dysfunction Yes Yes
Cardiac dysfunction Yes Yes
Irritability Yes Yes
Diarrhea Yes Yes
Pneumonia Yes Yes
Lung damage (as measles symptoms, see below) Yes Yes
Dyspnoea (breathing difficulty related to hypoxemia) Yes Yes
Hypoxemia (low oxygen level) Yes Yes
Proteinaceous pulmonary edema Yes Yes
Leukocyte inhibition Yes Yes
Increases sodium ion permeability in tissue Not Listed Yes
Affects nasal, windpipe and lung surfaces Yes Yes
Shock Not Listed Yes
Seizures Not listed Yes
Salivation Yes Yes
Neurological damage Yes Yes
Muscular stiffness Yes Not listed
Like measles (Syncytial lung) Yes Yes*
Like flu Yes Yes
Like common cold Yes Yes
Like mumps Yes Yes*

*In terms of listed symptoms


SARS – Other Theories

Len Horowitz, PhD, author of Emerging Viruses: SARS is simply the flu, which kills 36,000 people annually in the US. Death comes to those whose immunity has been compromised by drugs and vaccines.58 The media has created great fear among the public by grossly overstating mortality rates and exaggerating the danger to healthy individuals.

Mae-Wan Ho, PhD, president of the London-based Institute of Science in Society: SARS is a highly infectious disease caused by a new bacterium of the Chlamydia family that was created accidentally through genetic engineering. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools of genetic engineering. The artificial constructs created by genetic engineering are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes, creating the possibility of new, highly virulent micro-organisms.59

Marshall Smith, Editor, BroJon GazetteThe SARS virus, like all flu viruses, is a variant caused by the rural Chinese custom of raising flocks of geese side-by-side with herds of swine. If a pig is ill with a porcine flu and then eats droppings from an avian-virus-infected goose, the result is a new cross-species flu virus with the outer lining of a pig and the inner viral core of a goose. Whether or not this theory is correct, Smith’s advice is sound: Do not suppress a fever. Fever is the body’s way of preventing the invading virus from reproducing and spreading massively throughout the body. Unfortunately, most cold and flu medications reduce fever, setting the stage for massive viral proliferation. Unfortunately, the current definition of SARS may cause many people to take drugs to suppress fever, in order to avoid quarantine.

Linda Saif, professor of food animal health at Ohio State University: Coronavirus causes cough and pneumonia, so-called shipping fever, in animals packed together in cattle cars. The stresses of air travel–large numbers of people together in small spaces, being away from home, being close to other strangers, moving across time zones, rushing to catch flights–are conditions that make the coronavirus dangerous to humans as well.60 (Saif does not explain why airline travel, which has been a fact of life for millions of people for the last 40 years, has not caused SARS until recently.)

Richard Fisher, senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington-based think tank: “. . . there are compelling reasons. . . to at least ask whether there might be any linkage between SARS and China’s biological-warfare efforts.”61

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University: The SARS virus comes from outer space, hitched a ride on a comet and then drifted down to earth.62


References:

  1. Washington Post, May 24, 2003
  2. AP, May 15, 2003. “SARS has caused more damage to the global airline industry than the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq combined, the world’s airline association said Thursday.”
  3. NY Times 5/5/03
  4. “China has threatened to execute or jail for life anyone who breaks SARS quarantine orders and spreads the deadly virus intentionally.” Beijing (Reuters), May 15, 2003
  5. “Malaysia ordered a quarantine for 203 citizens, mostly low waged earners, who had visited a SARS-infected produce market in Singapore and warned that it would imprison those who would break the orders.” www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/24sars1.htm
  6. “Devastating Epidemic In Hong Kong”, CBS NEWS, 4/15/03, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/15/eveningnews/main549528.shtml
  7. “10,000 quarantined in Nanjing, China”, CBC News, www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/06/sars_china030506
  8. Maggie Fox, “Scientists Identify Virus Behind Deadly SARS”, Reuters 4/10/2003
  9. Robert Walgate, “Cause of SARS disputed. Head of Canadian lab not convinced that coronavirus causes SARS,” www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030411/04
  10. W.H.O. case definitions for SARS: www.who.int/csr/sars/casedefinition/en
  11. “Rotterdam-led scientists confirm virus as cause of SARS”, Bio Aspects Newsletter, Vol 6, April 24, 2003, www.geneyous.nl/docs/BioASPects20030424.html#article-marktontwikkeling1
  12. “Tests Confirm Coronavirus Is Sars Source”, Patricia Reaney, May 15, 2003, NIH/Reuters, MedlinePlus
  13. Fortune Magazine, 5/26/03
  14. www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030411/04
  15. Washington Times, February 24, 2003
  16. Fortune Magazine, May 25, 2003
  17. Walgate 4/11/03, Ibid
  18. “Containment Controversy”, Global Sunday, 4/25/03, an interview by Troy Reeb with Dr. Frank Plummer, Global Sunday, www.canada.com/national/globalsunday
  19. “Scientists make small steps in identifying cause of SARS”, CBC NEWS, April 10, 2003, www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/10/sars_sci030410
  20. Jon Rappoport, “More SARS Madness”, 5/52003, www.nomorefakenews.com
  21. Nicholas Regush, www.redflagsweekly.com
  22. Fintan Dunne, www.sarstravel.com
  23. Helen Branswell,  “Irate officials blast SARS warning”, Canadian Press, April 21, 2003 www.thestar.com
  24. Peter Duesberg, and Bryan Ellison, Inventing The AIDS Virus, 1996, p3-129
  25. Stefan Lanka’s work may be found on www.virusmyth.com
  26. Neenyah Ostrom, “Why is SARS Such a Mystery? Virus, Bacteria, Fungus, Parasite – Why Can’t Researchers ID the Bug?”, March 20, 2003, www.chronicillnet.org
  27. Aviation Policy, U.S. Dept. of Trans., http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/safety/disin.htm
  28. “United Sued Over Pesticide In Planes”, August 2, 2001, CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — Flight attendants are being sickened by exposure to pesticides that are sprayed on airplanes serving Australia and New Zealand, a lawsuit filed against United Airlines claims,” www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/02/unitedairlines.pesticides.ap/index.html
  29. “Airline Passengers Are Sprayed for Bugs”, March 17, 2003: “An airline flight to the tropics may involve greater health risks… pesticides are routinely sprayed in aircraft cabins by U.S. airlines sometimes over the heads of passengers during flight.” PANNA mentions Asian routes as specifically at risk for this procedure.
  30. “Aviation Policy”, U.S. Dept. of Trans., http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/safety/
  31. Cynthia Olsen, “A Safe Alternative Treatment for Head Lice”, Alive Magazine, October 2000, “Pyrethrins have been banned from agricultural use as a pesticide.”
  32. CDC Case Definition for SARS (March 22, 2003): Measured temperature > 100.5F; cough; hypoxia; shortness of breath; pneumonia; acute respiratory distress.
  33. Gavin Joynt and Charles Gomersall, “Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)”,
  34. Tamer Fouad, M.D., SARS Symptoms: “headache, muscular stiffness, loss of appetite, malaise, confusion, rash, and diarrhea. Early laboratory findings include low platelet and white blood cell counts. In some cases, those symptoms are followed by pneumonia in both lungs, sometimes requiring use of a respirator.” The Doctor’s Lounge.NET. http://thedoctorslounge.net/medlounge/articles/sars
  35. Maggie Fox, April 10, 2003 (Ibid). Early SARS symptoms: like flu, measles, mumps.
  36. Olsen, 2000, Ibid. Symptoms listed for permethrin (a type of synthetic pyrethrin used on airlines): “Side effects include vomiting, respiratory failure, pneumonia and asthma.”
  37. Becky Riley, “Flyers Beware: Pesticide Use on International and U.S. Domestic Aircraft and Flights”, Northwest Coaltion Against Pesticides (NCAMP), 1998, “… “in-flight spraying, Airosol Aircraft Insecticide, says that acute health hazards of exposure to the product include dizziness, skin irritation, and frostbite, and that overexposure due to inhalation may cause temporary central nervous system effects: dizziness, headache, confusion, stupor with the exclusion of oxygen and with grossly excessive overexposure. Additional warnings state that individuals with preexisting diseases of the cardiovascular system may have increased susceptibility to the toxicity of excessive exposures, and to heart irregularities (Airosol Company, 1992).”
  38. Ibid, “Two other U.S.-registered permethrin-containing products with labeled aircraft uses, but theoretically not for use in passenger cabins (though this is far from clear from reading the product labels), are Dragnet FT Termiticide/Insecticide and Flea Insecticide. According to information provided by the FMC Corporation, manufacturer of the above products, symptoms of overexposure to both of the products include hypersensitivity to touch and sound, tremors, and convulsions. Overexposure of animals via inhalation has also produced symptoms such as squinting eyes, irregular and rattling breathing, and ataxia (loss of muscular coordination). Inhalation of stoddard solvent vapors [present in both of the above products] may cause dizziness, disturbances in vision, drowsiness, respiratory irritation, and eye and skin and mucous membrane irritation (FMC, 1998; FMC, 1993).
  39. Ibid. Airline pesticides: “Organophosphates are efficiently absorbed by inhalation, ingestion, and skin penetration. Symptoms of acute exposure to organophosphates include: headache, nausea, dizziness and anxiety, followed by muscle twitching, weakness, tremor, incoordination, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, tightness in the chest, and coughing. Severe organophosphate poisonings can lead to incontinence, paralysis, unconsciousness, convulsions, and life-threatening respiratory failure (US EPA, 1989).”
  40. Ibid. “Bendicarb: Highly toxic carbamate nerve poison (US EPA, 1989). Causes eye irritation. Exposure (poisoning) symptoms include tightness in chest, sweating, stomach pains, vomiting, and diarrhea (US EPA, 1979).”
  41. Ibid. Piperonyl butoxide (used on aircraft): “Classified by EPA as a possible human carcinogen (US EPA, 1998-3). In animal tests, causes liver tumors and lung damage, hemorrhages, and anemia (Takahashi, 1994).”
  42. “MSDS: Permethrin,” Universal Crop Protection Alliance LLC, “…moderate eye and skin irritation… Eye:  There may be moderate stinging, tearing and redness… mild skin irritation… Disturbances in vision, drowsiness, respiratory irritation… High oral doses can result in damage to the liver and kidneys… Long term feeding studies in animals resulted in increased liver and kidney weights, induction of the liver microsomal drug metabolizing enzyme system, and histopathological changes in the lungs and liver.”
  43. Shirley A. Briggs and Rachel Carson Council, Inc., “Excerpts From Basic Guide To Pesticides”, Pyrethroid symptoms: “tremors; exaggerated startle response; hyperthermia [fever]”
  44. Lance C. Villers, MA, NREMTP, “Managing organophosphate exposures”, Texas Dept. of Health, EMS Management, OP Symptoms: “respiratory depression, bronchospasm, bronchial secretions, pulmonary edema, muscular weakness, resulting in hypoxemia.” www.tdh.state.tx.us/hcqs/ems/MJCEPesticideExp.htm
  45. INCHEM, “Pyrethrin”, Symptoms: “cough, wheeze, dyspnoea, bronchospasm or pulmonary oedema.”, Chemical Safety Information From Intergovernmental Organizations. www.inchem.org
  46. Diana Fairechild, Flyana.com
  47. “Airports create smog; a single 747 arriving and departing… produces as much smog as a car driven more that 5,600 miles, and as much NOx as a car driven almost 26,500 miles (source: Natural Resources Defense Council).” Queens College School of Earth and Environmental Science www.qc.edu/EES/ENSCI111/Air/air.html
  48. Jim West, “The Dangers of MTBE-Gasoline Additive: Its Connection to the West Nile Virus”, Townsend Letter For Doctors And Patients, July 2002, v228, p64-76.
  49. Mark Hertzgaard, “Our Real China Problem”, The Atlantic Monthly, November 1997.
  50. “South East Asia: Regular Fire and Weather Update”, March 2003.Sources: NASA/EO and OSEI/NOAA. http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/summit-2003/introduction.htm
  51. Ralph Scobey, M.D., “Is Human Poliomyelitis Caused By An Exogenous
    Virus?”, Archive Of Pediatrics (April/May,1954) v71, p111. From Jim West’s
    analysis of Scobey, www.geocities.com/harpub/scobexog.htm
  52. Mark Ptashne, A Genetic Switch (1992), p62. Cell Press and Blackwell Scientific Publications, 50 Church St., Cambridge, MA 02138
  53. “Dr. Urnovitz rejects the theory of a coronavirus as being the cause of SARS”, May 14, 2003. www.chronixbiomedical.com/Research/press_release3.html
  54. Jim West, “The Epidemiology Of Air Pollution”, www.geocities.com/noxot
  55. Eric Ammerman , Senior Public Health Sanitarian, Monroe County Department of Health. “Experts agree that WNV most likely arrived in the Western Hemisphere as some ‘accidental tourist’ aboard a ship or in an airplane.”
  56. David Crowe, “West Nile Virus — Does It Exist?”, 2001 www.mercola.com/2001/oct/3west_nile_virus.htm
  57. Peter Duesberg, 1996 ( Ibid), p56
  58. http://www.tetrahedron.org
  59. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BioTerrorismAndSARS.php
  60. Reuters, May 20, 2003
  61. Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2003
  62. Ibid.
  63. “A panel appointed by the EPA is set to report on Tuesday that use of the much-debated ingredient M.T.B.E. . . should be ‘reduced substantially’. .. ” The New York Times, July 27, 1999.

 

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2003.

 

Connect with Weston A. Price Foundation

Cover image credit: SD-Pictures




Dawn Lester: On Ticks, Germs, Viruses, Pathogens and the Fear of Things We Don’t Understand

Dawn Lester: On Ticks, Germs, Viruses, Pathogens and the Fear of Things We Don’t Understand

 


“It is abundantly clear that the incessant reporting about so-called ‘pathogens’ that can ‘infect’ us, continues to promulgate the idea that ‘viruses’ are not only real, but they are also pathogenic and therefore pose a risk to our health. This serves to keep many people confused and fearful – which is of course part of the intention of such reporting.”


 

Here we go again…..

by Dawn Lester, Dawn’s Writings
April 6, 2023

 

An article posted on the BBC website on 5th April caught my eye because it provides yet another example of why it is so important to not only expose the lies about ‘viruses’ being pathogens, but to also refute the claims by many voices in the ‘alternative health movement’ that the ‘no virus’ position is divisive and of no real importance.

I strongly disagree that it is divisive and of no importance.

In fact, I would say that it is absolutely central to our ability to live in freedom that we understand that there is no evidence for the existence of a pathogenic ‘virus’ – or any other so-called ‘germ’ for that matter – because it enables us to live without fear and to take responsibility for our own health.

The aforementioned BBC article, entitled Rare tick disease found in England, health officials say, begins with the following claim,

“A virus carried by ticks, which is common in many parts of the world, is now present in the UK and health officials are reminding the public how to avoid bites from the tiny bugs.”

The idea that it is ‘now’ present in the UK would seem to be contradicted by a later statement in the article,

“But the tick species which carries the virus is widespread in the UK.”

There are similarities with the claims about this tick and those about the mosquitoes that are claimed to cause malaria, because they are also said to be widespread in the UK; a situation that raises the obvious question: Why are there no cases of malaria in the UK? Maybe they have not yet added malaria to their list of ‘diseases’ to scare us with!! But if they do, rest assured I am ready with my rebuttal!

The problem with ticks is claimed to be that they could cause tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), although the BBC article states that the risk is ‘low’. Which raises the question of what is the purpose of this article if the risk of health problems is low? I would suggest it is merely another fear-mongering exercise!

There are other similarities with these ticks and mosquitoes, one of which is that they are not born with ‘viruses’, but, according to a page entitled The Lifecycle of a Blacklegged (Deer) Tick on the TickTalk website,

“Ticks do not hatch with any diseases or infections, however the smaller animals that they typically feed on at this stage of their life can carry disease-causing pathogens.”

Note the use of the word ‘can’ with respect to the ability of the animals they feed on to carry pathogens.

The web page also makes the statement that,

“If a larva feeds on an infected animal, the pathogen can be transmitted to the tick and they become a carrier.”

It is interesting that a so-called ‘infection’ can happen in both directions because, according to the BBC article,

“While feeding, they can transmit viruses and infections that cause disease, with the most common being Lyme disease – a bacterial infection which can be treated with antibiotics.”

The vital question that needs to be asked is: Where is the evidence that animals carry the ‘pathogens’ in the first place and that these ‘pathogens’ are passed to ticks during a blood meal?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for the answer.

However, it should be noted that there is to be increased ‘testing’, as the BBC article states,

“The UK Health Security Agency has recommended changes to testing in hospital so that any new cases can be picked up quickly.

Enhanced surveillance for the virus is now being carried out in England and Scotland, where there is one probable case of tick-borne encephalitis.”

Unsurprisingly, the types of ‘test’ used seem to be either PCR or antigen tests, neither of which have been proven to be able to detect the existence of a pathogen or to show that a pathogen was the cause of a person’s health problem.

Another really interesting question that does not seem to be asked – or answered – is: How can the tick transmit a virus that is said to cause serious health problems to a human but not be adversely affected itself? To simply state that the tick is a ‘carrier’ is woefully inadequate and parallels the nonsense of ‘asymptomatic carriers’, which I have discussed in earlier articles.

Furthermore, there is no explanation for the claim that the tick is able to receive a ‘virus’ from the few drops of blood it draws from an ‘infected’ animal. Surely the odds of that happening are minuscule – unless the animal is riddled with ‘viruses’, in which case the animal would be extremely ill, according to the mainstream view of ‘infections’. This clearly makes no sense.

Nor is there proof for the claim about the process by which the ‘virus’ passes to a human host when the tick is drawing blood, because this would involve the virus travelling to the human body from the tick’s body, which is in the opposite direction to the flow of blood.

There is an attempt at an explanation of this process in a 2013 study article entitled Tick salivary compounds: their role in modulation of host defences and pathogen transmission, which states that,

“Pathogens exploit tick salivary molecules for their survival and multiplication in the vector and transmission to and establishment in the hosts.”

The answer to the question about transmission is that no ‘virus’ does this; because, as I have repeatedly shown, there is no evidence for the existence of ‘pathogenic viruses’.

I am not denying that tick bites cause reactions and can make some people feel unwell and experience various symptoms.

Although I cannot possibly speculate on what does cause these problems, I can share some information I have found.

The first piece of information involves the use of ‘insect repellants’, such as DEET, which is recommended by the NHS. Interestingly, it is claimed that scientists do not know how DEET works to repel insects. Although DEET has not been found to be particularly toxic, it has been found to be an irritant, which may explain why some people react to this substance.

I would strongly suggest, therefore, that people research the ingredients of insect repellants before using them, as it is possible that these chemicals enter the body through the open wound of the tick bite and thereby cause a reaction.

It is also reported, such as in the 2013 study article mentioned above, that ticks inject ‘salivary molecules’ into the host to ‘modulate’ the response. Maybe some people react strongly to these ‘molecules’ for various reasons, which may depend on the overall health of their body.

There is, however, another aspect to this fear-mongering about ticks, which is an alleged connection to ‘climate change’, as can be seen in this comment in the BBC article,

“They speculate that infected ticks may have been brought into the UK by migratory birds because of climate change.”

This is nonsense!

I am NOT denying that the climate changes. What I am denying is the claim that human activities are driving changes in the climate as the result of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is no evidence to support such a claim.

What I would also like to emphasise is that the environment has been and is still being damaged; but a substantial proportion of that damage is due to pollutants, none of it is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, carbon dioxide is essential for life – without it, plants would die; and so would we.

Do people who are making every effort to reduce their ‘carbon footprint’ not understand this?

I will return to the topic of ‘climate change’ at some stage because again we are being made to fear the wrong ‘enemy’.

Back to the ‘ticks’. The most important point to make is that they are not ‘infected’ with any virus or bacterium that can be transmitted to humans or animals and make them ill.

Bacteria, which are claimed to be the cause of Lyme disease, another ‘tick-borne disease’, have similarly never been proven to be the cause of any disease. This is important because the NHS website advises people, if bitten, to,

“…clean the bite area with antibacterial wash/soap and water, and monitor it for several weeks for any changes.”

Antibacterial products are, by their very nature, toxic and therefore harmful. The application of antibacterial substances is another likely cause of health problems after a bite.

It is abundantly clear that the incessant reporting about so-called ‘pathogens’ that can ‘infect’ us, continues to promulgate the idea that ‘viruses’ are not only real, but they are also pathogenic and therefore pose a risk to our health. This serves to keep many people confused and fearful – which is of course part of the intention of such reporting.

And it is for this reason that people need to recognise that they are being made to fear ‘germs’ – an invisible ‘enemy’. But, in the case of a ‘virus’, this enemy has never been proven to exist in the way it is described.

I would dearly love to write about other topics, but the ‘germ theory’ lie needs to be dismantled – once and for all – a task that I do not accept is unimportant or ‘divisive’.

I hope you agree.

 

Connect with Dawn Lester

Cover image credit: Nel_Botha-NZ
(Photo of oxpeckers, native to sub-Saharan Africa. They feed on ticks, larvae
and other parasites that infest large mammals such as the giraffe shown in the image.)




Bombshell Vax Analysis Finds $147 Billion in Economic Damage, Tens of Millions Injured or Disabled

Bombshell Vax Analysis Finds $147 Billion in Economic Damage, Tens of Millions Injured or Disabled

by Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge
March 28, 2023

 

A new report estimates that 26.6 million people were injured, 1.36 million disabled, and 300,000 excess deaths can be attributed to COVID-19 vaccine damages in 2022 alone, which cost the economy nearly $150 billion.

Research firm Phinance Technologies, founded and operated by former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd, Yuri Nunes (PhD Physics, MSc Mathematics) and Carlos Alegria (PhD Physics, Finance), split the impact of the vaccines into four broad categories to estimate the human costs associated with the Covid-19 vaccine; no effect or asymptomatic, those who sustained injuries (mild-to-moderate outcome), those who became disabled (severe outcome), and death (extreme outcome). Data on vaccine disabilities and injuries comes directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), while the excess death figures are derived from official figures on deaths in the US via two different methods (methodology here).

It’s important to note that people in one category (injured, for example) can move into latter categories of severity – which this analysis does not take into consideration.

“We need to remember that not only are these groupings an attempt to characterize different levels of damage from the inoculations, they are not static and could interact with each other,” reads the report. “For instance, there might be individuals who had no visible effects after vaccination but nonetheless could still be impacted.”

Individuals with mild injuries from the inoculations could, over time, develop severe injuries to the extent of being disabled, or an extreme outcome such as death.”

 

Estimating the economic cost

In analyzing each of the above categories, Phinance used absolute excess lost worktime (see previous report) to determine that the direct economic cost of vaccine injuries was $79.5 billion in 2022, and $52.2 billion for those with severe disabilities.

For deaths, Phinace used the average yearly absolute rise in excess deaths since 2021, which was 0.05% for the 25-64 year-old demographic, which amounted to $5.6 billion in lost productivity.

In total, they found a total “economic cost” of $147.8 billion in 2022 due to the Covid-19 vaccines.

 

As Dowd notes, these figures are just what can be currently measured, as things like “The knock effects such as lost productivity due to a worker being present but working at say 50%-75% of capacity is missed plus burn out from those picking up slack.”

“The multiplier effects are massive.”

 

Now imagine the impact worldwide…

 

Connect with ZeroHedge

Cover image credit: Thevialstore

;




Dr. Mike Yeadon: Why I Don’t Believe There Ever Was a Covid Virus

Why I Don’t Believe There Ever Was a Covid Virus

by Dr. Mike Yeadon, TCW UK
March 22, 2023

 

I’ve grown increasingly frustrated about the way debate is controlled around the topic of origins of the alleged novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, and I have come to disbelieve it’s ever been in circulation, causing massive scale illness and death. Concerningly, almost no one will entertain this possibility, despite the fact that molecular biology is the easiest discipline in which to cheat. That’s because you really cannot do it without computers, and sequencing requires complex algorithms and, importantly, assumptions. Tweaking algorithms and assumptions, you can hugely alter the conclusions.

This raises the question of why there is such an emphasis on the media storm around Fauci, Wuhan and a possible lab escape. After all, the ‘perpetrators’ have significant control over the media. There’s no independent journalism at present. It is not as though they need to embarrass the establishment.  I put it to readers that they’ve chosen to do so.

So who do I mean by ‘they’ and ‘the perpetrators?  There are a number of candidates competing for this position, with their drug company accomplices, several of whom are named in Paula Jardine’s excellent five-part series for TCW, Anatomy of the sinister Covid project. High on the list is the ‘enabling’ World Economic Forum and their many political acolytes including Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern.

But that doesn’t answer the question why are they focusing on the genesis of the virus. In my view, they are doing their darnedest to make sure you regard this event exactly as they want you to. Specifically, that there was a novel virus.

I’m not alone in believing that myself at the beginning of the ‘pandemic’, but over time I’ve seen sufficient evidence to cast strong doubt on that idea. Additionally, when considered as part of a global coup d’état, I have put myself in the position of the most senior, hidden perpetrators. In a Q&A, they would learn that the effect of a released novel pathogen couldn’t be predicted accurately. It might burn out rapidly. Or it might turn out to be quite a lot more lethal than they’d expected, demolishing advanced civilisations. Those top decision-makers would, I submit, conclude that this natural risk is intolerable to them. They crave total control, and the wide range of possible outcomes from a deliberate release militates against this plan of action: ‘No, we’re not going to do this. Come back with a plan with very much reduced uncertainty on outcomes.’

The alternative I think they’ve used is to add one more lie to the tall stack of lies which has surrounded this entire affair. This lie is that there has ever been in circulation a novel respiratory virus which, crucially, caused massive-scale illness and deaths. In fact, there hasn’t.

Instead, we have been told there was this frightening, novel pathogen and ramped up the stress-inducing fear porn to 11, and held it there. This fits with cheating about genetic sequences, PCR test protocols (probes, primers, amplification and annealing conditions, cycles), ignoring contaminating genetic materials from not only human and claimed viral sources, but also bacterial and fungal sources. Why for example did they need to insert the sampling sticks right into our sinuses? Was it to maximise non-human genetic sequences?

Notice the soft evidence that our political and cultural leaders, including the late Queen, were happy to meet and greet one another without testing, masking or social distancing. They had no fear. In the scenario above, a few people would have known there was no new hazard in their environment. If there really was a lethal pathogen stalking the land, I don’t believe they’d have had the courage or the need to act nonchalantly and risk exposure to the virus.

Most convincingly for me is the US all-cause mortality (ACM) data by state, sex, age and date of occurrence, as analysed by Denis Rancourt and colleagues. The pattern of increased ACM is inconsistent with the presence of a novel respiratory virus as the main cause.

If I’m correct that there was no novel virus, what a genius move it was to pretend there was! Now they want you only to consider how this ‘killer virus’ got into the human population. Was it a natural emergence (you know, a wild bat bit a pangolin and this ended up being sold at a wet market in Wuhan) or was it hubristically created by a Chinese researcher, enabled along the way by a researcher at the University of North Carolina funded by Fauci, together making an end run around a presidential pause on such work? Then there’s the question as to whether the arrival of the virus in the general public was down to carelessness and a lab leak, or did someone deliberately spread it?

I also need to point out that the perpetrators have hermetic control of the mass media via a Big Tech and government stranglehold documented in part herehere and hereThat’s why they’ve found it so easy to censor people like me. If a story appears on multiple TV networks, it’s because they’re either OK with it or it has been actively planted. It won’t be genuine. They never tell the truth. I don’t think they’ve told the truth since this coup began and probably much earlier. Most so-called journalists have lost sight of what truth ever was.

I believe that the perpetrators (who could be all or any of Gates, Fauci, Farrar, Vallance, CEPI, EcoHealth Alliance, DARPA and numerous others) planted the controversy about the origins of SARS-CoV-2  because a little embarrassment of the establishment was a small price to persuade most of us that there surely must be a novel virus when there isn’t. (And they have got away with it to date.)

I have colleagues who do not believe what we’ve been told (i.e. that a virus has been experimentally constructed) is even possible technologically. I don’t have the background to assess that idea. But the rest hangs together for me in a way that no other explanation does.

To this point, an ex-pharmaceutical industry executive Sasha Latypova, speaking with Robert F Kennedy Jr on his podcast of last Thursday, March 16, describes the extensive evidence of the contracts and relationships that were in place before the Covid era. Contracts were signed for billions of dollars in February 2020. Not only would the required production never happen (from a standing start, to sign such a large commitment is ridiculous) but it cannot be done. She estimated that approximately one kilogram of DNA was required. There isn’t that much medicinal grade DNA on the planet at any one time. That’s because it’s hard to do, very expensive, wholly bespoke and difficult to store for long periods. Also, the amounts of any specific DNA sequence required and held in store by commercial suppliers would be milligrams or perhaps grams at a stretch. So it was always completely unfeasible, regardless of how much money was thrown at the problem, to have accomplished what they claim to have done in a short time.

Consequently, no other conclusion is supported by the facts than that it’s a huge crime, extensively planned. In itself, that rules out a natural emergence of a pathogen, unless divine providence occurred. Logically we’re left with a leak or, as I argue, a lie plus a PsyOp. The former may or may not be possible, but what isn’t arguable is that something like this could be done and would be likely to run smoothly, with a real pathogen. Almost any outcome but the one presumably wanted is likely if a pathogen is released. I can reach no other conclusion than that it’s fake.

In closing, I’m not saying people weren’t sick or that they didn’t die in huge numbers. I’m arguing only about the causes of illnesses and deaths. People were made sick and some killed by all the pre-existing causes, amplified by fear, resulting in immunosuppression and then a host of revolting actions. Note even the official overlap of signs and symptoms of ‘Covid-19’ and existing illnesses. Notably, they chopped antibiotic prescriptions in the US by 50 per cent during 2020. They ensured large numbers of frail elderly people were mechanically ventilated, a procedure which, in such subjects, is close to contraindicated. Some were administered remdesivir, which is a poison for the kidneys. In care homes, they were given midazolam and morphine, respiratory depressant drugs which in combination are all but contraindicated in patients with breathing difficulties. If used, close monitoring is required, most usually automated alarm systems attached to vital cardiorespiratory monitoring, including fingertip monitoring for blood gases. That didn’t happen in care homes.

I believe the main reason for the lies about the novel virus is a desire for total predictability and control, with the clearly articulated intention of transforming society; beginning by dismantling the financial system through lockdowns and furlough, while the immediate practical goal of lockdown was to provide the causus belli for injecting as many people as possible with materials designed not to induce immunity, but to demand repeat inoculation, to cause injury and death, and to control freedom of movement. I’m sure they’re pretty content with getting at least one needle into 6,000,000,000 people.

Note that though an estimated 10-15million have been killed with poisonous ‘vaccines’, these are the but first of many mRNA injections to come. The indications are that ways to force you to accept ten more have been anticipated, because that’s the number of doses your government has agreed to purchase. Purchasing what? Well, it’s already been mooted that all existing vaccines are to be reformatted as mRNA types. If this happens, I don’t believe anyone injected ten more times is likely to escape death or severe, life-limiting illnesses. Inducing your body to manufacture non-self proteins will axiomatically induce an autoimmune attack by your own body. Your disease will be related to where the injected dose goes and of course the consistency of that injected product. They’ve been horribly erratic so far. It’s not certain they ever could have been made and launched if they had been subject to the usual quality requirements and not granted ’emergency use’ authorisations. Of course, as we now know, the regulators played an important role beyond lying for the US military, the organisation which made the original orders for ‘vaccines’, and set all the contractual conditions for companies such as Moderna and Pfizer.

The chickens are coming home to roost right now in the banking system.

As I always say, I cannot know much for sure. I don’t have a copy of the script of this, the greatest crime in history. But, whatever Covid actually is, I don’t believe that what was called influenza disappeared conveniently in early 2020. It’s another lie. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.

To those who sense that all is not well but are unwilling to make the psychological leap to the diabolical world I believe we’re now living in, I point out the asymmetry of risk. If you follow the official narrative and I’m right, you and your children will lose all your freedoms and probably your lives. If you believe what I’m saying and I’m wrong, you’ll be laughed at. These options aren’t faintly balanced. A rational actor should cease believing what we’re being told. It’s not a safe position, keeping your counsel and your head down. It’s the most dangerous thing you could do.

 

Connect with Dr. Mike Yeadon at Telegram

Connect with TCW (The Conservative Woman) UK

Cover image credit: othebo




Don’t Be Lured by the ‘Lab Leak’ Trap

Don’t Be Lured by the ‘Lab Leak’ Trap

 


“The cabal of pandemic fraudsters must be laughing. As cartoonist Bob Moran quipped, gain of function is really gain of fiction. To date, there is no actual evidence that viruses can be made more lethal, despite the huge amounts of research grant money awarded and theoretical reports.”

 


 

by Niall McCrae, 21st Century Wire
March 21, 2023

 

Why Wuhan? For the most deadly pandemic since the Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, an enormous but hardly known metropolis from the Chinese interior was the source. The official story was zoonotic transmission of a bat coronavirus, blamed on poor hygiene at the city’s wet market.

While I saw from the outset the malevolent plot of Covid-19 to erect an authoritarian regime through an exaggerated threat to lives, I was temporarily drawn to the alternative explanation. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded by the US government for ‘gain of function’ viral research, seemed an obvious origin. While the lab leak was dismissed as conspiracy theory by political leaders and most mainstream media, investigative journalism by Ian Birrell in the Mail on Sunday reported lax practices and broken seals in the Wuhan laboratory, despite its intended operation at the highest level of biosecurity.

I suggested a laboratory accident in my report Year of the Bat, written for Civitas think-tank during the first lockdown. But months later I changed my mind, having listened to the likes of Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire, doctors Sam Bailey and Tom Cowan, Jeff Berwick of Dollar Vigilante, and seasoned conspiracy theorist David Icke. In his Perceptions of a Renegade Mind, Icke argued that it was easier to enact a technocratic coup with a fake rather than real virus. A released pathogen would be unpredictable, likely to lose lethality, and scientific analysis would soon diverge from an initially contrived consensus.

Why didn’t medics and scientists see the scam? Covid-19 was, in my view, a carefully planned emergency, in which normal standards of science and ethics would be overridden. As the new virus began to spread in January 2020, Christian Drosten and colleagues in Germany provided the concrete foundation for the entire edifice, by identifying a genetic sequence through PCR testing, enabling screening for the disease. Incredibly, this paper was approved by peer review in 24 hours. Testing kits were already available in bulk supply across the world – one of many curious instances of readiness for a nasty viral surprise.

Doctors and health authorities uncritically accepted the existence of Covid-19 and its testing standard. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, emphasised that this tool should not be used for diagnostic purpose, and that with high level of amplification of samples, almost anything in the atmosphere could be found by the test. Perhaps too conveniently, Mullis died in August 2019.

Instead of the widely depicted CGI rendering of a sphere with spikes (like a naval mine, but typically coloured in a sinister deep purple), the reality of SARSCOV2 is a code for a genetic sequence generated with ‘next generation’ genomic sequencing software found in human beings here, there and everywhere. It may be merely dead cellular material, possibly more prevalent with seasonal respiratory infection. This code, rather than any viral sample, was all that Pfizer and Moderna used to produce their ‘vaccines’.

The origins of Covid-19 has become a major talking point recently, after the Department of Energy suggested that, after years of denial by the US government, that a lab leak was ‘possible’. The hypothesis was then elevated to ‘probable’ by FBI chief Christopher Wray. Cue a deluge of ‘told you so’ from the sceptical margins.

As lamented by Patrick Henningsen on UK Column News (3 March 2023), some of the most respected and influential dissidents are riding on the crest of this wave of sudden Covid-19 revisionism. Robert Malone, mRNA vaccine inventor, tweeted on the ‘narrative collapsing’, asserting that ‘the lab leak killed millions of people’. Stanford University professor of medicine Jay Bhattacharya, initiator of the Great Barrington Declaration, saw a belated shift ‘from putative conspiracy to legitimate science’. Fox News and Republican politicians such as Rand Paul renewed their calls for prosecution of Dr. Anthony Fauci and demand for reparations from China.

According to Henningsen, the lab leak is nothing but an official conspiracy theory. The narrative, far from collapsing, is unwittingly reinforced by halfway house sceptics. Everything reported on mainstream media is for a purpose, serving the ‘progressive’ agenda. What may appear as mea culpa is a staged performance involving well-remunerated fall guys such as Fauci, and British health secretary Matt Hancock.

Not only does the lab leak cause obfuscation and futile debate, it fools unwary sceptics into perpetrating the big lie. If you fall for this tale, you fall for everything founded on the fundamental falsehood of a ‘novel’ (and possibly manmade) virus. It diverts attention from the iatrogenic scandal of the vaccines, while also preparing the ground for a global pandemic treaty. Instead of fumbling politicians with their petty squabbles and egos, the unelected and unaccountable World Health Organisation will assume control of every nation’s public health response to any future threat of a contagion. This will be justified by the many ‘mistakes’ governments made with Covid-19, as now being highlighted in mass media. By the same token, it also serves to excuse any ‘mistakes’ by governments and the pharmaceutical firms, as they can simply say they were trying to react quickly to a potentially engineered pathogen from an unregulated lab in Wuhan.

The cabal of pandemic fraudsters must be laughing. As cartoonist Bob Moran quipped, gain of function is really gain of fiction. To date, there is no actual evidence that viruses can be made more lethal, despite the huge amounts of research grant money awarded and theoretical reports.

As the dust settles on Covid-19, even the sceptical community has much to learn. They are not always as ‘awake’ as they believe.

The stunning confluence of events and coincidences suggests that the Covid-19 global pandemic took years of planning. If so, it was the work of misanthropic geniuses who saw the potential for a power grab through a global campaign of fear and control, leading to a ‘new normal’ of digital surveillance and constraints on population and resources. The true sequence of events was in reverse. Rather than a virus leading to a vaccine leading to digital identity, the end point was achieved by mass vaccination, for which a virus was invented. Covid-19 arose not from a laboratory, but from a laptop.

 

Connect with 21st Century Wire

Cover image based on creative commons work of mohamed_hassan & LonelyCanopy




Are Doctors’ Strikes Really a Disaster for Our Health?

Are Doctors’ Strikes Really a Disaster for Our Health?

by Dawn Lester, Dawn’s Writings
March 17, 2023

 

The medical system in the UK, known as the NHS, is currently in crisis and I wholeheartedly agree!

But the real nature of the crisis is not how it is portrayed by the mainstream media, which is demonstrated by a January 2023 BBC article entitled The NHS crisis – decades in the making that states,

“The NHS is in the middle of its worst winter in a generation, with senior doctors warning that hospitals are facing intolerable pressures that are costing lives.”

The article adds that,

“The health service was already under pressure – the result of long-standing problems – but Covid, flu and now strike action by staff have all added to the sense of crisis this winter.”

Strike action by staff was not restricted to the early winter months, further strikes have occurred very recently. On 12th March, the BBC reported the then impending 3-day strike by junior doctors in an article entitled Why are doctors demanding the biggest pay rise?

“On Monday, thousands of junior doctors in England will start a 72-hour strike. They want a 35% pay rise. Yet doctors are among the highest paid in the public sector. So why do they have the biggest pay claim?”

A key concern will be that these strikes will cost lives.

A 13th March BBC article entitled I’ve never seen the NHS this bad – junior doctor refers to the conditions suffered by junior doctors that include workplace pressures and financial difficulties.

These conditions are not exclusive to junior doctors!

The point of these reports would seem to be to foster public sympathy and support for the junior doctors and deepen people’s concern for the future of the NHS.

The ‘official’ view of the pressures on the NHS is endorsed by a June 2022 opinion article entitled The steady crisis across the NHS published in the BMJ, which claims that the main issue is ‘chronic workforce shortages’ and states,

“The NHS has shown in the past that it can deliver rapid improvements to patient care when it has enough staff to tackle these challenges. If we want to break the cycle of consistently poor performance, the government needs a fully funded workforce plan for the whole health and social care system.”

The emphasis in these articles is clearly on the idea that doctors save lives and that they need better pay and working conditions, without which they would be unable to provide the proper level of care for their patients, as the 13th March article indicates,

“More pay and better working conditions would allow doctors to retain a work-life balance and would allow them to deliver the care they wanted to deliver, he said, adding taking industrial action was a “last resort” for doctors.”

The problem is that this is not an accurate view of the real problems and the inability of the NHS to provide adequate ‘healthcare’ to patients and enable them to be restored to health.

One of the alleged ‘problems’ that face the NHS, and every other ‘health service’ based on the practices of ‘modern medicine’, is expressed by the January BBC article, which states that,

“Advances in medicine over recent decades have meant people are living longer.

That is a success story. But it means the NHS, like every health service in the developed world, is having to cope with an ageing population.”

This is a misleading perspective – to put it mildly!

I must make it absolutely clear that I am not denying that there are some situations in which doctors absolutely do save lives – these situations mainly occur at the scene of accidents or emergencies or within the A&E (accident & emergency) department of hospitals. This is where the NHS provides an invaluable service.

However, can it really be claimed that the NHS and all other medical systems based on ‘modern medicine’ actually save lives in situations other than accidents and emergencies?

The evidence strongly suggests that this is not the case.

In response to a June 2000 article in the BMJ entitled Doctors’ strike in Israel may be good for health is a comment dated March 2001 with the intriguing title Doctor strikes, lowered mortality – Happens every time which includes the following,

“The 1960’s saw physicians in Canada go on strike and the mortality rate dropped.

Los Angeles physicians associated with a USC hospital went on strike in the 1970’s and the mortality rate dropped.

Physicians went on strike in South America (Columbia?) later that same decade and the mortality rate dropped.

Physicians have now gone on strike on 3 different occasions in Israel –in the 1950’s, again in the 1970’s or 80’s and now in the the year 2000. In all 3 occasions the mortality rate has dropped, on one or two occasions by 50%.”

In a December 2008 study article published on PubMed and entitled Doctors’ strikes and mortality: a review, the authors report their review of strikes around the world between 1976 and 2003 and state, with respect to the 7 studies they found that matched their criteria,

“All reported that mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike. None found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods.”

One of the ‘reasons’ given is that elective surgeries were halted during the strikes. But this does not explain why mortality reduced – surely a lack of doctors ought to result in higher mortality!

For an explanation of why mortality decreases when doctors strike, I would remind readers of the phenomenon known as ‘iatrogenesis’ and recommend the July 2000 JAMA article by Dr Barbara Starfield MD entitled Is US Health Really the Best in the World? In her article, Dr Starfield shows that Americans are by no means the healthiest in the world, despite the huge costs of healthcare in that country. (The links to all articles can be found in the References at the foot of this article.)

I would also recommend people read the Death by Medicine study by Gary Null et al. that includes the chart in the image below.

The conclusion, which may be unpalatable to many people – although that does not make it untrue – is succinctly stated by the author of the March 2001 BMJ article,

“Conclusion? I’m sorry to say, but conventional, allopathic, (drug and surgery happy) physicians remain very, very dangerous to our health…”

The sad truth is that ‘modern medicine’ is not a ‘healthcare system’. Instead, as more people are discovering for themselves, it is a ‘sick-care’ system that merely manages symptoms but never truly allows people’s bodies to heal. The reason for this is because ‘modern medicine’ is based on a faulty paradigm and relies on our continuing ignorance of this fact to perpetuate that flawed system.

The empowering truth, by contrast, is that the human body is an amazing living organism that has the ability to self-heal – but implementing this understanding within our lives requires us to reclaim responsibility for our health and not outsource our healthcare to flawed systems that have no understanding of the body’s innate self-healing abilities.

 

Connect with Dawn Lester

Cover image credit: cromaconceptovisual




Dr. Tom Cowan Responds to Derrick Broze and Dr. Peter McCullough Re McCullough’s Claim That Viruses Must Have Been Isolated Because They Use Them in Vaccines

Dr. Tom Cowan Responds to Derrick Broze and Dr. Peter McCullough Re McCullough’s Claim That Viruses Must Have Been Isolated Because They Use Them in Vaccines

video by Dr. Tom Cowan
March 8, 2023

 



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan Odysee, BitChute & Rumble channels.

 

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

 


Partial transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light. The video covers a number of subjects. This transcript is only of the first half of the video where Dr. Cowan addresses the comments made by Dr. Peter McCullough and Derrick Broze.

The introduction to this video includes a bit about Tom Cowan’s work with coherent water. He mentions dancingwithwater.com and will be doing additional interviews related to this topic in the future.

At approximately 4:58 marker he begins talking about the recent interview between Derrick Broze (founder of The Conscious Resistance and writer for The Last American Vagabond) and Dr. Peter McCullough.

At about 6:60, Tom Cowan plays a clip from the interview (find the interview here):

Transcript

Derrick Broze:

“…opinion on another topic that’s related to COVID that has become the hot button issue in some corners. I’m sure you’ve come across it. But folks who believe that there are no viruses, or particularly that the COVID virus, hasn’t been isolated?

I’m not sure how much time you put in your energy into that. You know I’ve interviewed Andrew Kaufman and some of the folks who are kind of promoting that idea.

Personally, I’m not 100% sold on this idea. You know, I think there’s there’s some research needs to be done.

I do think there’s some interesting data out there about FOIA requests that have been put out trying to get governments — ‘Can you provide me proof of isolation?’.

But in general, what are your thoughts on this? Is this distraction? Division? You know? What do you think about that topic?

 

Dr. Peter McCullough:

I think it’s distraction. And it may even be intentional distraction.

There are standard virology lab techniques that have been used for decades, that have been used — viruses are transferred into one cell culture versus another.

They’re isolated in order to be able to make vaccines. So of course they’ve been isolated.

We can see them on electron microscopy, so we can actually physically see the viruses and we we can basically determine the entire genetic sequence of the virus. We can understand every single protein within the virus.

So the viruses clearly exist. They have clearly been isolated because we make vaccines out of them.

If they couldn’t be isolated, we could actually never make a vaccine.

The Chinese actually have — the SinoVac corona vaccine is the isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus killed and given as a vaccine.

So these claims are just, they’re not useful, claims. I don’t think they’re helping us get to any solution and they’re just, I think distractions of people who just honestly don’t understand standard virology and vaccine techniques.

 

Derrick Broze:

So when someone says — this is one of the arguments I’ve heard — when their argument is, when you look into the word isolation and the way virologists use it, they don’t use it in the same sense that… So if I say I’m gonna isolate the coins out of your pocket, all I have in my hand is coins. And they’re saying that the the process that’s used to isolate viruses is not as clean cut as that. And that there’s other material in there. And this is their argument. Would you say that comes from a place of total lack of understanding?

 

Peter McCullough:

Yeah, it’s a lack of understanding. They’re clearly isolated. I mean, the viruses are isolated and it’s actually purified in order to give us a vaccine. So they have to be isolated.

 

Derrick Broze:

OK. Well, thank you. Thank for addressing that.

 

Dr. Tom Cowan:

OK. So I made a little bit of mistake here. Derrick Broze did not ask for more tests. He called for more research so that he could verify that the ‘no virus’ so-called claim was accurate. And so again, I asked him what research or testing he would like to see. And I haven’t heard back from him.

So as you heard, Dr. McCullough made the claim that I hadn’t heard before, which is that the Chinese are making vaccines. (I’ll tell you in a minute how they’re making them.) And that this proves that the viruses have been isolated and, in fact, purified.

So even though in all our requests and all our looking at papers, we’ve not come across one example of a purified pathogenic virus including SARS-CoV-2.

So maybe Doctor McCullough can send us the reference showing us a purified virus.

But again, we’ve gone over the electron microscopy evidence for the virus.

We’ve gone over the sequencing of the virus.

And we haven’t gone over this new claim, that because the Chinese are making a vaccine of SARS-CoV-2, that must prove that the virus has been isolated and purified– or else, how could they possibly have made the vaccine?

So let’s take a look at this claim. So I pulled this from somewhere but I think it’s sort of standard stuff. So I think we can basically rely on it because it’s pretty much accurate for the standard response.

[Here Tom reads from a paper by Anne Moore, a senior lecturer in biochemistry and  cell biology at University College Cork.]

So are all vaccines the same? So the answer is no.

And then they go on to say, the Chinese vaccines, which are ones he’s referring to from Sinovac and Sinopharm. Not sure if it’s Sino or Sino are the main ones using this platform.

This platform means they’re using an inactivated vaccine because it “contains a dead virus”. The virus is still whole. It has all its parts in the correct shape that can stimulate a response from the immune system, what we call antigens. The immune response can be against multiple antigens.

And so that is the platform that he’s referring to. It is an inactivated viral vaccine.

They say it’s a great technology. It works for human and veterinary vaccines, used for the seasonal flu vaccine some years ago.

And then they go on to talk about other types of vaccines. So we’re not so interested. And then of course, there’s the obligatory computer pictures.

So then we get down to the important point, which is how do you make these vaccines? And I’m going to read most of this.

It depends on the platform.

So we we’re not talking about the viral vectored vaccines. But let me just go over this because they say it’s the same for inactivated vaccines. The process is similar.

So then you have — you’ll have this bulking up of the virus over course of a few days, anywhere from four liters of cell culture to maybe 20 to 30 liters. Really high-scale production can be carried out in steel tank. The manufacturing environment can look a bit similar to super clean, sterile brewery. You have to make sure that your cells are in the best environment possible for them to live and to allow the virus to grow. This requires monitoring many environmental factors in and around the cell culture, temperature, oxygen, CO2 levels, acidity, and so on.

You end up with this liquid that is full of the virus you’re interested in, but it’s also full of materials you don’t want. So then you have what we call downstream processing, where you’re purifying the virus vaccine away from all the components that you’re not interested in.

This downstream process is very important and highly controlled and evaluated. It involves a lot of filtration and chromatography. In the end, you have a very safe and sterile product that contains only what you want.

There are multiple steps and in each step you’re taking samples and running experiments to show that you’re purifying your product as you go along. Even though it can take a few days to grow a batch of virus it can take a long time to purify it, and it’s pure, sterile and that’s what you say it is. The vaccine will only be released when you can prove that it’s the exact purity, sterility and composition you’re claiming.

So here we get to the inactivated vaccines. The process is similar. You grow up liters of the virus itself, and then you kill it in a specific way so that you maintain the structure of that dead virus. And then you take that and you inject it into people.

So again you grow liters of the virus. Then you kill it in a specific way.

As far as I can tell, the two usual ways that the “virus” is killed is by heat iactivation. In other words, you heat it up. Or they use a chemical called formaldehyde, which they say kills the virus, but it maintains the structure of the now dead virus.

And then you take that brew, that culture material, and you inject that into people, sometimes with some amount of filtration or centrifugation or so-called purification.

Now let’s go through these steps again.

And the question that I want to ask is:

At which step in this process did the people who are making the inactivated vaccine prove there was a virus in this and then prove that it was the virus that was growing in their cell culture?

That is actually the only question that we’re interested in right now.

At which step, which part of this method was there the proof, or even I would say the possible proof, that you’re dealing with an actual virus.

So let’s go through all the steps very clearly, and with that methodically, with those questions in mind.

Which step is showing us the virus?

So they take a person who is sick and they say this looks like whatever illness they’re talking about. In this case, we say that they have COVID.

Now you could say that the proof that they have COVID is — because we all know at this point that COVID has no particular pathognomonic symptoms.

Let me just show you that just to make sure everybody is on the same page. These are the symptoms of cold, flu, COVID and RSV. And you can see they’re basically identical. I won’t spend a lot of time on this.

Here’s another one that says from the CDC. No particular set of signs or symptoms can reliably discriminate COVID-19 from other respiratory viral illnesses, such as the flu.

So there is no possible way by looking at a person, examining the person, that you can say they have COVID.

Even if you could do that, which you can’t, that certainly doesn’t demonstrate that the reason they’re sick is because they have a virus.

I certainly hope everybody would agree with that. All you know at this point is this person is sick with a non-specific respiratory illness.

OK, so then you take a sample of liquid or fluid from that patient, either a bronchial sample or mucus from their nose, or maybe something else. But those are the usual ones.

And let’s look at that. So there’s no examination done on that specimen. So there’s no possible way that could show you that there’s a virus there, because actually nothing is investigated.

So then they put it through some, I would say not purification steps, but they clarify it by putting it either through a filter that filters out the dead cells and the bacteria. And so all you have then is whatever is liquid from the person’s mucus or lungs.

And I would think that there is nobody who knows anything about this who would say that is a purified virus or it even shows you the existence of a virus.

Sometimes they do a different clarification process which is called centrifuging it, again not looking for a virus but just to get rid of the cells and the bacteria.

And then they have the supernatant, the liquid part. And importantly, and this is a crucial part of this analysis, there is no test done on this that could demonstrate the existence of a virus.

They might do a PCR test, which is not a test. But we have to remember that these are PCR processes that can never show the existence of a virus. And the PCR process that is being used for SARS-CoV-2, we all remember was made by Christian Drosten who said “We made this PCR without having access to any viral material.”

So nobody could possibly claim that the PCR examination of this centrifuged or filtered fluid could possibly prove the existence of a virus.

There is no ultracentrifugation done at this step. There’s no electron microscopy analysis of the fluid. So we have no idea whether or not there’s a virus, a particle that you could call a virus, in this supernatant or filtered fluid.

And importantly, nobody at this point is looking for a virus or claiming that somehow these steps have found or demonstrated the existence of a virus.

So that should be clear.

So now let’s say they filtered it. So we have all the liquid parts that come from the mucus or lung fluid of a sick person.

We don’t know why they’re sick. We haven’t seen any virus. We have the liquid, which contains probably hundreds, maybe more types of things. It has proteins, nucleic acids, minerals, lots of maybe poisons, toxins if they’re in there.

Lots of things are in there. I dare say nobody would claim that is a pure virus.

So they take this fluid and they mix that into these big vats that contain cell cultures, mostly some type of Vero cells. Then they add antibiotics, like usually gentamicin, antifungals like amphotericin, both of which we have presented papers that are showing both of these are toxic to kidney cells and other types of cells. Therefore could be the reason for the breakdown of these cells.

They change the nutrient blend and they also add fetal calf serum to this. They change the temperature a little bit and maybe the pH. So they add some other chemicals. And then to this they add this mixture of many different substances, which may or may not include a virus — but the virus has never been seen.

Now, if you’re doing a scientific experiment, as we all again know by now, you have a dependent variable, which is the effect you’re looking for.

Which in this case then you’re looking for: Do these cells die? That’s called the cytopathic effect. And then you’re testing an independent variable, which is meant to be one thing that you’re trying to investigate whether it caused this effect that you’re looking for.

So if we’re trying to prove that only a virus caused the death of these cells, only the virus grew in this culture and caused the death of these cells, then by definition, the virus would have to be the independent variable.

But in fact, what is the independent variable here?

So the independent variable is a combination of antibiotics, change in nutrients and all the things that are soluble from the bronchial fluid of a sick person.

There is at no point up till now any even attempt to establish that there’s a virus. All we can say is that some component of that of that mix — the soluble part of what’s in somebody who’s sick, the antibiotics, antifungals, change in nutrients, fetal bovine serum — some part of that broke down the cells, made it so that these broken-down cells created, essentially, cellular debris, which as we’ve said over and over again are then misinterpreted as viruses. So the cells breakdown into all this debris.

No attempt is made by these Chinese manufacturers then to identify any virus or prove that any virus is in that vat of broken-down-now cells, antibiotics, filtrate from the person who is sick, et cetera. No attempt.

They put that into vials and that’s the vaccine.

So the question for Doctor McCullough is:

Which step in there proved the existence of a virus?

Which step in there was the so-called isolation of the virus?

Now let’s define isolation. As Derrick Broze said, isolation means to take something out of its environment so that you only have that single thing.

If I have a bunch of things on my desk and I take the pencil, I have now isolated the pencil and only the pencil from my desk.

In which step up till now did they “isolate” the virus?

Because, as far as I can see, not only did they fail to isolate the virus. At this point nobody has even attempted to demonstrate there’s even a virus in this process — at any point in the process.

The importance of this is, if you haven’t isolated and, therefore, seen and proven the virus to exist, any further evaluation — such as pictures with an electron microscopy or evaluating parts of it like proteins or nucleic acids — you have no idea the origin of those nucleic acids, proteins, antibodies or anything else in there, because at no point in this process did you obtain a pure sample.

So let’s be very clear what we’re asking you.

We’re asking you to present proof, evidence, that at some point in this process, you have obtained a pure virus. You’ve seen it on an electron microscopy. There’s nothing else in there but the virus. You’ve proven that that virus came from the original person. You’ve then proved that all of the nucleic acids come from that particle, which you have purified. That there’s no chance those particles came from the cells or the fetal bovine calf serum, or anything else part of that mix.

That’s what we’re asking you.

Not whether they say they isolated it. Not whether they say there’s electron microscopy pictures. Not whether they say that the PCR proves that there’s a virus even though they got the PCR test, essentially without even having an isolated or purified virus, which is their own words.

We are asking for validating the methodology of that vaccine production process which you stated should be considered proof that they isolated the virus.

I’m hoping that this is very clear. And in any future discussions we have about the existence of the virus, it has to start with:

Did you find the virus in its natural ecosystem?

The answer, of course, is no.

And then, if you isolate the virus, as you say, through the cell culture process, how did you prove that the virus existed in the first place in order to do an experiment with it?

And how have you proven that the cytopathic effect could have only come from the virus? 

Because every experiment that we’ve looked at has shown just the opposite.

 

See Related:

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

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.”




‘No Virus’ Is International

‘No Virus’ Is International

 

“Our instincts led us to go beyond our medical textbooks and establishment microbiology training, and we were soon immersed in the second English edition of Virus Mania.

“The book shocked us. Biology wasn’t just a bit dodgy, it was fraudulent.

“Pathogenic viruses were invented boogeymen that had never been shown to exist in scientific experiments, let alone cause disease.”

No Virus Is International

by Dr. Sam Bailey
March 7, 2023

 

People around the world are becoming more aware of the ‘no virus’ argument as the “science” of virology has been exposed. However, there is often a language barrier when it comes to reaching some countries. Many of the best-known critics of virology are in the English-speaking world and have developed strong alliances with large followings.

The good news is that the movement for truth is truly international and this video will look at some of the advancements being made in regions that are perhaps lesser known to most of our English-speaking audience.

And could the madness of COVID-19 end up bringing the world closer together?…



References

  1. Virus Mania, 3rd English edition, 2021
  2. HIV – A Virus Like No Other’ – The Perth Group
  3. https://viroliegy.com/
  4. FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world (212 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever’ – Christine Massey
  5. Spacebusters – Steve Falconer
  6. The Viral Delusion – Mike Wallach
  7. A Farewell to Virology’ – Dr Mark Bailey
  8. The ‘Settling the Virus Debate’ statement – 14 Jul 2022

 


Transcript and related links prepared by Truth Comes to Light:

I’ll be the first to admit that those of us in the English-speaking world can be in the dark when it comes to literature and interviews and other languages. This affects all manner of topics, of course. But this video will focus on the international spread of the ‘no virus’ issue. And while English material is often translated into other languages — for example, Virus Mania is now available in seven languages, with more in development — translations are often less available in the other direction.

I’m also going to give a shout out to perhaps one of the lesser-known teams that has been hammering their country’s government for years over the lack of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

Let’s find out who they are and how they have exposed their public office holders on every aspect of the alleged science of virology and pandemics.

For my husband Mark and I, our first introduction to the ‘no virus’ position was in early 2020. The COVID-19 production alerted us that something was badly wrong with virology. Our instincts led us to go beyond our medical textbooks and establishment microbiology training, and we were soon immersed in the second. English edition of Virus Mania.

The book shocked us. Biology wasn’t just a bit dodgy, it was fraudulent.

Pathogenic viruses were invented boogeymen that had never been shown to exist in scientific experiments, let alone cause disease.

Virus Mania led us to the work of the Perth Group and their detailed scholarship and essays — such as HIV: A Virus Like No Other — showed us that the ‘no virus’ arguments had not only been put forward decades earlier, but were very advanced.

To us, the question became ‘Why have we never seen this before?’ and the inspiration to start our own work into the virus existence issue, as well as going wider into the flawed germ theory and allopathic medical models.

In 2020, my online platforms grew quickly, as did those of Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman, across the ditch as we say in New Zealand.

Tom Barnett also called out the fraud in 2020 in Australia.

Seasoned campaigners such as Kevin Corbett, David Crowe, Jim West and Amandha Vollmer found a resurgence in interest in their work questioning viruses.

Meanwhile, Mike Stone’s pent-up issues with germ theory and so-called viruses came flooding out in the Viroliegy website.

Christine Massey paused her fluoride work and began publishing the FOIA requests, revealing that no institution in the world had isolated SARS-CoV-2 or any other “virus” for that matter.

Steve Falconer of Spacebusters, pivoted his channel in 2020, and his videos calling out the COVID fraud and contagion myth gained millions of views.

Documentary maker Mike Wallach had known for years that much of allopathic medicine was fraudulent and produced the massive Viral Delusion series in the middle of the scamdemic.

Mark decided to write a fully-referenced, formal refutation of the entire virus model and published the 29,000 word essay, A Farewell to Virology.

These examples show we are spoilt for choice in the English speaking world.

But there are, of course, other prominent members around the world.

In Germany we have the incomparable Dr. Stefan Lanka, the trained biologist who worked out in the 1990s that there were no pathogenic viruses.

Also in Germany are my original inspirations, Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr. Claus Köhnlein, the first person to be on the Dr. Sam Bailey channel.

I was honoured when they asked me to become part of the Virus Mania team in 2020.

Then in Italy, we have the 4th Virus Mania co-author, the one and only Stefano Scoglio.

And the Spanish-speaking world La Quinta Columna have been at the forefront of investigating the contents of the COVID-19 vaccines. And as far as I know, also take the ‘no virus’ position.

When the “Settling the Virus Debate” statement was launched in July 2022, we had an international alliance of doctors and scientists.

For most of our audience, three of the lesser-known names were likely to be Mufassil Dingankar, Jitendra Banjara, and Sachin Pethkar. These are our friends from India and they have been doing an incredible amount of work with their team to show to India and the world that the Emperor has no virus when it comes to COVID-19 or any other alleged viral disease.

They have collected hundreds of pages of documents with responses from so-called health institutions and politicians in India. They have documented the uncontrolled and unscientific experiments related to alleged virus isolation, electron microscopy and genome sequencing. Starting with Fan Wu, whose infamous 2020 paper they had pointed out that the PCR was not clinically validated, and couldn’t be in any case, Because of the failed biological science upstream from the test.

They have even pointed out the financial fraud with the government of India taking out a loan of 1 billion U.S. dollars on the 2nd of April 2020, in the name of the pandemic, placing a further burden on Indian citizens.

Not only this, but the public purse has been used to fund the necessary medical drugs and vaccines and run marketing campaigns of fear.

They have pointed out that cases of COVID-19 are defined by preposterous circular reasoning, due to its non-specific symptoms and flawed testing kits.

Of major concern to the team has been the suppression of natural therapies for illnesses. I love the way they reject the allopathic medical system and state:

“A serious issue is, if any disease/symptom cannot be cured by Allopathy (or the alternate) Medical System, it is declared an incurable disease/symptom or epidemic or pandemic by ignoring the other mainstream medicinal systems such as Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Homeopathy, Unani, Siddha etc. at the outset.”

I think we should all take up this approach and describe Rockefeller and Pasteur medicine as alternative rather than true medicine.

Much of the overall strategy from our Indian colleagues has been to focus on the legal aspects of COVID-19 in their country. For example, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on the government to establish the existence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus in human samples, and its pathogenicity with that sample.

It has become clear that, like virologists around the world, the Indian medical authorities cannot deliver the evidence with any papers that follow the scientific method.

The conclusion from our Indian colleagues and their politely-worded statement:

“This is nothing but a serious medical experiment which is likely a crime against humanity and this act clearly shows that health authorities may have no intention of public health and welfare of citizens of India.”

And while the highest level institution, the Indian Council of Medical Research, claimed they have proof of existence of SARS-CoV-2, they have yet to provide any document to back this up. Hence a demand letter is now being sent to them, as well as the National Institute of Virology and various politicians. It calls on them to provide a public demonstration showing the existence of a virus.

They’ve even opened it up further and have suggested that the demonstration could involve providing the evidence for ANY alleged disease-causing microbe.

So here’s how their demand letter reads.

SUBJECT:

Demand to prove the existence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus (or disease-causing virus). In other words, to prove that the alleged SARS-CoV-2 and the alleged variants (or disease-causing viruses) are real physical entities that are supported with real-time research via public demonstration and peer reviewed scientific papers. Additionally, to prove that there was a real scientific basis behind this COVID-19 pandemic.

Dear Public Servant,

At the outset, we are very disheartened and unsatisfied with your response. We are referring herewith to your response, which lacks sincerity and shows great negligence/disrespect towards the public. Moreover, it also lacks rationality and scientificity.

YOUR UNSATISFACTORY RESPONSE:

If you diligently read our Open Legal Notice, you would have noticed that we asked you for valid scientific experimental research papers/records/documents to prove the existence of alleged SAR-CoV-2 or disease-causing viruses. However, the scientific research papers that you provided against the RTIs and our correspondences fail to prove the existence of any ‘disease-causing virus’, including the alleged SAR-CoV-2 virus or its variants, that we showed in our Open Legal Notice (based on scientific principles/methods and rationality.

Furthermore, without providing any valid scientific papers/records/documents to prove your claim (i.e. existence of any disease-causing virus and/or the alleged SAR-CoV-2 virus), you have given a poor logical reply. This, to our surprise, was a kind of response never expected from an esteemed scientific institution such as yours. Therefore, we are now forced-obligated to mandate scientific, rational, and clear-cut answers to our questions.”

Therefore, unless you can provide us with a valid scientific proof and/or research papers to prove the existence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 or its alleged variants, we demand an explicit statement mentioning that you do not have any such evidence; as you clearly mentioned that you do not have any scientific evidence for disease-causing germs, i.e. disease-causing bacteria, fungi, protozoa, parasites, or any kind of disease-causing microorganism against the  RTI attached.

ONE. Your Reply Failed the Scientific Temperament:

As per our present observation/experience and doubt, the absence of valid scientific evidence and the lack of submission of proper science principles/methods in the research work of Virology show that: Through imagination, theory and fear-generating tools like the PPE kit, as well as masks and heavy sophisticated machineries/tools etc, an atmosphere has been created by the virologists fabricating an imaginary entity to be a real one for others.

Virologists are the victim of a misconception (i.e. existence of disease-causing virus), which has been conceived by them and is further spread/propagated by the medical doctors/professionals across the society/public. As a result, people are now suffering from the fear of an imaginary entity. This misconception has been made the basis of almost all the alleged epidemic and pandemics since hundreds of years.

The truth revealed through proper scientific investigation has never been done yet.

Also, after interacting with various scientists/experts from over the world their statements further clarified that existence of disease-causing virus is a misconception:

For instance:

“When cells die, they are broken down into submicroscopic particles, some of which biologists arbitrarily label viruses.”

“Anyone who closely analyzes what virologists actually do in the laboratory to ‘prove’ that these particles they call ‘viruses’ cause disease will easily see the absurdity of their conclusions”

~ Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist

[mention of paper COVID-19 the virus does not exist. It is confirmed. by Dr. Saeed A. Queshi, PhD.]

Secondly, regarding the PCR/RT-PCR, we already showed in our Open Legal Notice why and how the test is totally irrelevant for the purpose and it’s a misuse of this test that was/is being used for the alleged COVID-19 pandemic purpose. However, you could not clarify our inquiry in your response.

Additionally, we also present herewith excerpts of the laboratory experiment conducted by Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury and his team to validate the government- approved RT-PCR test for COVID-19.

Excerpts:

Recently from June 15-17, 2022, I and my medical team conducted an experiment wherein we took some fruits, some vegetables, and some animals like rabbit and dog and a few birds like chicken and pigeon. We collected samples of each of them and went to a government- authorised COVID Test Laboratory to run them through the test to understand which of the samples are COVID positive and which of them are COVID negative.

Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury demonstrated and explained the invalid and irrelevant usage of RT-PCR test kit to detect the unclear nucleic acid and proved that the RT-PCR testing is non-specific for the purpose of diagnosis.

Now it is your responsibility to prove your claim via practical demonstration. You have claimed in your response that you can prove practically the existence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus (or disease-causing viruses). Therefore, we are eager to participate and witness your practical demonstration, as it is the only way to prove your claim.

If you claim the existence of the disease-causing germ (microbes) we demand to prove your claim via practical demonstration by providing us with the below.

– Date, time and schedule of your practical experimental demonstration.

– Name and location of the laboratory (including wet and dry lab).

-Names of the virologist/scientist/committee who will perform and participate in the demonstration.

Please mention all details of the procedure(s)/steps that you will perform and demonstrate during the practical demonstration.

So, there you have it.

Rest assured that the ‘no virus’ arguments are being advanced in many countries around the world, including by our friends in India.

Keep the conversation going in the comments. And if you know of other individuals or teams around the world that are doing this work, then let us know.

One of the best things to come out of the plandemic was linking up with people around the world to make new alliances and often friendships.

Let’s see if waking more of the world up to the virus fraud might bring even more of us together.

 

Connect with Sam Bailey

Cover image based on two creative commons works by geralt


See related:

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

 




It’s All Getting So Ridiculous! (Pt. 2)

It’s All Getting So Ridiculous! (Pt. 2)

by Dawn Lester, Dawn’s Writings
March 5, 2023

 

(See Pt. 1)

1) Bird Flu

In part one I showed that the MSM had stated in early February that the ‘risk’ of people spreading ‘bird flu’ to others was very low because the ‘virus’ would have to mutate significantly in order for this to happen.

It is therefore extremely surprising – or maybe not so surprising – that, less than a month later in an article entitled Bird flu: UK health officials make contingency plans, the BBC states that an 11-year old girl has allegedly died from H5N1 – the ‘virus’ that is claimed to cause ‘bird flu’. But more importantly, the article states that, because her father also tested positive, there is a concern that person-to-person transmission is now possible,

“Investigators are working to establish if infected birds were the cause, rather than a case of human-to-human transmission.”

The main point to emphasise is that these claims about the girl and her father being ‘infected’ with H5NI are wholly reliant on the results of ‘tests’. But no ‘test’ has ever been proven to demonstrate the existence of any ‘virus’, because no particle that matches the establishment definition of a ‘virus’ has ever been observed as a distinct and completely separate entity; this was discussed in part one as well as many of my other articles.

The BBC article also states that the UKHSA is preparing for ‘a worst-case scenario’ – using modelling! But models are not reality. For any model to be useful it must be based on reality; therefore any model that is created on the idea that there are such entities as ‘pathogenic viruses’ must be regarded as irrelevant. Reality must precede the creation of a model; or the model will be utterly useless.

This therefore raises the question: What is going on?

There are reports that some birds, and even some animals, are displaying actual symptoms of ill-health and some are even dying in larger numbers than normal. However, these may be the only nuggets of ‘truth’ to be found in this story.

To discover why birds and animals are ill, if they are actually displaying symptoms, will require genuine investigations. But these investigations will require a full examination of the birds and animals as well as the environments they inhabit from the perspective of toxicology, NOT virology.

A more serious aspect of this story is that it is claimed that millions of domestic fowl have died as the result of H5N1 or ‘bird flu’. This is a false claim; no bird has died of ‘bird flu’ because there is no such ‘disease’. What has actually happened is that some birds have ‘tested positive’ and the rest of the flock has been destroyed, as indicated on the web page entitled Bird flu: what is it and could it affect your chickens? Under the heading Can avian influenza in chickens be treated? is the statement,

“There’s no treatment. Once bird flu is identified as active, the entire flock must be culled. There are no halfway measures here.”

The problem is that the identification of an ‘active’ case is through a ‘test’; but no test, whether PCR, antigen or antibody test, has any meaning with respect to an ‘infection’ with a ‘virus’.

The scale of the problem in the US is reported to be huge, as indicated by an an article entitled Avian Influenza Spread Wider and Wilder, which states that,

“The 2022-23 outbreak has hit 317 commercial farms and has hit domestic birds in 47 states. So far, more than 58.5 million birds have been infected or culled over the past 10 months. At least 15 states have reported cases over the last month.”

There are many reasons that factory-farmed chickens may exhibit symptoms of ill-health, not least of which is that millions of them are cooped up in extremely unhealthy conditions and subjected to all kinds of ‘treatments’, including antibiotics, all of which will adversely affect their health.

In his extremely interesting and informative interview for the German online newspaper Faktuell, Stefan Lanka discussed the first ‘outbreak’ of ‘bird flu’ in 2005 and explained that it had nothing whatsoever to do with any so-called ‘virus’; the link to his interview can be found in the references at the foot of this article.

It is obvious that the propaganda about ‘bird flu’ represents a clear effort to control and reduce the food supply; a situation that will be used to promote the false idea that there is insufficient food to feed the ever-growing world population, which is a whole other topic, but is very much connected to the fallacious ‘bird flu’ narrative.

But domestic fowl are not the only birds claimed to be affected. According to the RSPB (The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) web page entitled Avian Flu,

“Right now, avian flu is killing vulnerable and rare wild birds across the UK and worldwide. The disease has spread from Scotland, around England’s coasts, reaching Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland. You may have seen its devastating impacts in your area.”

The RSPB page also discusses the ‘signs’ of bird flu in wild birds, which include:

“Sudden and rapid increase in the number of birds found dead; swollen head; closed and excessively watery eyes; unresponsiveness; incoordination and loss of balance, tremoring; drooping of the wings and/or dragging of legs; twisting of the head and neck; haemorrhages on shanks of the legs and under the skin of the neck; respiratory distress such as sneezing or gurgling; discoloured or loose watery droppings. Some species (for example ducks and geese) may show minimal clinical signs.”

As has been repeatedly stated, there is no evidence that any ‘virus’ can cause these or any other ‘signs’. Nevertheless, there are many toxins that could be responsible for what is happening to various wild bird populations. Unfortunately, it is impossible to state what those toxins are, although I would suggest that environmental toxins, especially those being sprayed into the air, would be high on the list of likely candidates. But whilst the emphasis is on so-called ‘viruses’, the real causes will never be known, because they won’t be investigated. The deflection of attention away from these real causes is deliberate of course, because the ‘would-be controllers’ do not want people to have this information!

Therefore, unless and until toxicological investigations are conducted, we will never know for certain which harmful toxins are affecting the wild bird populations, but we can certainly hazard a few educated guesses – geoengineering activities and non-native EMFs for example, would certainly feature on that list!

2) Stomach flu

The ‘stomach flu’, which is sometimes referred to as a ‘stomach bug’, is claimed to be caused by ‘norovirus’, as discussed in part one. It is still reported to mainly affect the US at the moment, although this could quickly change if that would suit the ‘narrative’.

One aspect of this ‘story’ relates to the development of a vaccine, although it would seem that this ‘virus’ poses some difficulties for the research community, as indicated by a December 2021 article entitled Norovirus Vaccines: Current Clinical Development and Challenges, the abstract of which begins with the following,

“Noroviruses are the major viral pathogens causing epidemic and endemic acute gastroenteritis with significant morbidity and mortality. While vaccines against norovirus diseases have been shown to be of high significance, the development of a broadly effective norovirus vaccine remains difficult, owing to the wide genetic and antigenic diversity of noroviruses with multiple co-circulated variants of various genotypes.”

A thorough and very detailed analysis of the ‘science’, or rather lack thereof, behind the discovery of ‘norovirus’ was conducted by Mike Stone at Viroliegy; the link to his March 2022 article entitled The Notorious NoV is included in the references at the foot of this article.

The symptoms associated with ‘stomach flu’, especially vomiting and diarrhoea, are produced by the body for the purposes of expelling substances it recognises as ‘toxic’ and therefore harmful. A more correct name for this condition is ‘food poisoning’ – the clue really is in the title!

The question is therefore: What is the purpose of this story about increased cases of norovirus?

There would seem to be two reasons, although there may be others that are not obvious at the moment. One reason is simply to justify vaccine research and development, which attracts huge amounts of funding and provides ‘work’ for many people, as well as the development of new forms of technology. The equipment used in research laboratories is certainly impressive, but useless if the experiments for which they are utilised are based on an unproven theory.

The other possible purpose for the focus on a ‘virus’ is to deflect attention away from the many sources of ‘poisons’ that are the genuine contributory factors for illness, by maintaining the belief in invisible enemies that can attack people and cause them to be ill.

It is impossible to know what sources of ‘poisoning’ could be implicated for any single person because we are all exposed to various ‘toxins’, as well as different combinations of toxins, that could contaminate our food. These would include agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, food additives used in manufactured food products and toxic cleaning chemicals used for ‘disinfection’ purposes within the food and drink service industry, to name just a few. They may also include toxic substances that enter the food chain via the atmosphere.

A particularly interesting comment in the article cited in part one entitled Have YOU caught the stomach flu recently? Cases are rising across the US, CDC warns — here’s what to know about the symptoms and treatments is that,

“Norovirus can spread all year round, but cases tend to rise in the late winter driven by more social events spurred by the warming temperatures.”

Are they suggesting that ‘norovirus’ is connected to ‘climate change’?

It would seem so, but ‘warming temperatures’ do not cause illness. Furthermore, increased levels of CO2 are not the cause of ‘climate change’. Yes the climate changes, but CO2 is not the driving force, nor has it been proven to be a relevant factor. It is clear that there are efforts to associate ‘disease’ with ‘climate change’, but it requires a separate article to do justice to this topic.

3) Marburg

Strangely, Marburg ‘virus’, which is claimed to be related to the ‘Ebola virus’, is not allocated a disease label. Importantly, however, as discussed in part one, it is claimed to have a nearly 90% fatality rate.

According to a 17th February article entitled An outbreak of the deadly Marburg virus has been confirmed. Here’s what you need to know, the ‘Marburg virus’ is not airborne; however,

“The virus spreads between humans through direct contact with blood or other bodily fluids of an infected individual, or with surfaces contaminated with the virus, such as clothing or bed sheets.”

The article also makes an interesting comment that may indicate what lies behind this alleged ‘outbreak’,

“According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people can contract the virus through prolonged exposure in mines or caves where the bat colonies live.”

The point to focus on is not the ‘viruses’ or even the bats, but the mines themselves, because mining is recognised to be a very hazardous occupation. Of particular significance is that Equatorial Guinea recently signed a number of new mining contracts, as disclosed in a May 2020 article entitled Equatorial Guinea mines ministry signs first mining contracts. This region is reported to be rich in natural resources, such as gold, bauxite, precious metals and rare earth minerals, all of which feature in the mining contracts.

It should also be noted that, according to the 17th February article cited above,

“WHO said it is sending medical experts to help local officials in Equatorial Guinea, along with protective equipment for hundreds of workers.”

It seems appropriate to wonder whether these ‘medical experts’ will be the EIS officers of the CDC who are trained to only consider ‘infectious agents’ when dealing with so-called outbreaks and never to contemplate the hazardous materials involved in mining operations.

In addition, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that these sorts of interventions, which are implemented under the guise of assistance in matters of ‘public health’, may facilitate certain political agendas. For example, could it be possible that these teams of ‘medical experts’ may include other kinds of ‘experts’ that have an interest in the area that may not be related to ‘public health’? I would suggest that it is possible. Further discussion of this is outside the intended scope of this article, but it may be worth further investigation!

4) Syphilis

According to the CDC web page entitled Syphilis – CDC Detailed Fact Sheet,

Treponemal tests detect antibodies that are specific for syphilis. These tests include TP-PA, various EIAs, chemiluminescence immunoassays, immunoblots, and rapid treponemal assays. Treponemal antibodies appear earlier than nontreponemal antibodies. They usually remain detectable for life, even after successful treatment.”

This statement highlights a fundamental contradiction. The presence of ‘treponemal antibodies’ is interpreted to mean that the person has been ‘infected’. If this is the case, then how can the ‘treatment’ be regarded as ‘successful’ if these antibodies remain ‘detectable’? This situation would surely mean that any subsequent tests would always produce a ‘positive’ result, so a person can never be free of the diagnosis or treatment – or is that the intended outcome?

The truth is that ‘syphilis’ is not caused by a bacterium; it therefore cannot be ‘detected’ by any test. Furthermore, no antibodies have ever been proven to be specific to any disease or to any ‘pathogenic agent’.

The question to be asked is therefore: Why is syphilis receiving this increased attention?

Part one indicated that one reason may be to scare new parents into agreeing to allow their babies to be tested and, if the ‘test’ provides a ‘positive’ result, to be treated with toxic antibiotics. This is of course a good business model that ensures an ongoing customer base that starts from birth.

However, the CDC web page makes the comment that,

“During 2020, there were 133,945 new cases of syphilis (all stages). Men who have sex with men (MSM) are experiencing extreme effects of syphilis. They account for 43 percent of all primary and secondary syphilis cases in the 2020 STD Surveillance Report.”

This is clearly a direct assault on homosexual men.

As discussed in part one, there is no evidence that any ‘disease’ is caused by any bacterium and this includes what is called ‘syphilis’ – or any other so-called STD for that matter. The idea that any ‘disease’ can be transmitted sexually may be a way to discourage procreation, which would make it another facet of the ‘depopulation’ agenda.

In his long and extremely interesting essay entitled SYPHILIS: Is it a Mischievous Myth or a Malignant Monster, Herbert Shelton refers to the alleged origin of the disease as a condition that the Conquistadors brought back from the New World and spread within Europe. He states that,

“The point I want the reader to get firmly in mind is this: Today, after nearly four hundred years of intensive farming of the idea that there is a disease called “syphilis”, the best physician living cannot diagnose the disease without the aid of a serologic test; physicians of the past, who had no such tests and were equally unable to diagnose the disease, created the disease for us. They drew it out of their imagination—what they did not produce with their heroic drugging. Because it is a complex tissue of fallacy, no physician has ever dared to accept my challenge to prove that the disease exists.”

His essay was written in 1962, but nothing has happened in the intervening decades to prove that such a ‘disease’ exists. It is simply another fear-based propaganda weapon.

5) Cholera

In part one, I referred to the WHO claim that there are multiple ‘outbreaks’ of cholera; a situation that permits the use of the term ‘epidemic’.

In addition to the areas affected by the recent earthquake, one of the other areas claimed to be affected is Mozambique, as indicated by the WHO Disease Outbreak News page entitled Cholera – Mozambique, which states that,

“In Mozambique, an outbreak of cholera has been growing exponentially since December 2022 with geographic spread to new districts. Heavy rainfall in the first weeks of February threatens to further worsen the situation.”

Interestingly, Mozambique, which is described as a poor country, is nevertheless rich in resources, which begs the question: how can this be the case? How can a country so rich in resources be so poor? The methods by which ‘wealth’ are assessed are determined by the World Bank, an organisation that is part of what I call the ‘would-be controllers’. Details about Mozambique’s resources are provided on the Statista web page entitled Mining and mineral resources in Mozambique – statistics & facts, which states that,

“Mozambique’s primary mineral resources include graphite, bauxite, gold, and precious stones. The African country also holds significant reserves of coal and natural gas. Extractive resources have, therefore, the potential to unlock Mozambique’s economic progress, as the country remains one of the poorest nations in Africa.”

Could this be yet another case of the ‘would-be controllers’ using an alleged ‘health emergency’ to justify their intervention, in order to gain a foothold in a poor country and take control over their resources?

6) Fungi

The story discussed in part one about the Cordyceps fungus that parasitises wasps, clearly promotes the theory of evolution and the notion that living organisms can ‘mutate’ into monsters and kill us all. This is pure science fantasy of course, but the Cordyceps story serves to provide a ‘real life’ example of a parasite that kills the host, even though this situation is acknowledged to be rare.

The idea that fungi are ‘parasites’ and inherently ‘pathogenic’ is false. However, it was inevitable that fungi would join the list of the other so-called ‘pathogens’, in order to keep the fear-mongering narrative alive.

Although, as I showed in part one, it is acknowledged that fungi ‘rarely’ cause disease, there are claims that certain fungal species can do so. Unfortunately, the article entitled Could a parasitic fungus evolve to control humans? cited in part one claims that,

“There is one fungal species capable of infecting people that scientists think may have resulted from warming temperatures, called Candida auris.”

Notice that these ‘scientists’ only think that these infections are because of warming temperatures. I would like to see evidence of this claim and the experiments they performed to test this hypothesis! But I won’t hold my breath. It is important to note the persistent references to ‘warming temperatures’ in these stories; even though there is more than ample data that show the trend is moving towards a period of cooling.

Nevertheless, Candida auris is perceived to be a serious problem, as indicated by a December 2022 CDC web page entitled Candida auris that states,

“Candida auris is an emerging fungus that presents a serious global health threat.

The CDC web page entitled General Information about Candida auris, states that,

“Most C. auris infections are treatable with a class of antifungal drugs called echinocandins. However, some C. auris infections have been resistant to all three main classes of antifungal medications, making them more difficult to treat.

The real reason for this ‘difficulty’ is because the medical establishment is operating from a completely false basis; fungi do not infect the body and cause ‘disease’. Furthermore, as with most drugs intended to treat ‘infectious diseases’, anti-fungal drugs are developed as a method of killing the alleged ‘pathogen’ or blocking its perceived ‘harmful’ activity in the body. This means of course that these drugs are inherently toxic to ‘living organisms’; and fungi are definitely living organisms. Also, like bacteria, they are normal inhabitants of the human body, as stated in a May 2013 article entitled The emerging world of the fungal microbiome that states,

“Every human has fungi as part of their microbiota…”

Fungi perform an important function in the environment; like bacteria, they are decomposers, in other words, they break down dead and dying matter and wastes. And, again like bacteria, they perform the same function within the human body. The presence in the body of fungi, erroneously referred to as an ‘infection’, is an indication that there is an excess of waste matter that needs to be broken down and eliminated.

One of the contributory factors to the presence of excess waste matter in the body is tissue that has been damaged by toxic pharmaceuticals, including anti-fungal drugs!

It is obvious that there is an increased level of fear-mongering about ‘germs’ of all kinds that can attack and kill us, but there may be other reasons for the promotion of this story about ‘dangerous fungi’. One possibility is to promulgate the notion that the ‘natural world’ is a hostile environment that harbours these ‘pathogens’ that may be able to ‘mutate’, invade our bodies and make us all into zombies – so we need to be protected from them.

The ‘solution’ to this is to convince us that we need to be ‘kept safe’ – which means kept away from the countryside. This is of course the justification for herding us into ‘smart cities’, where we can be tracked, traced and controlled.

As with everything else in the agenda of the ‘would-be controllers’, their ideas are not for our benefit. The countryside is not hostile; it is beneficial for our bodies and minds and also for our ability to take and maintain responsibility for our lives.

In Summary

The purpose of this article, as with all my articles, is not to add to the fear-mongering but instead to provide information for people, because it is only when we have all of the information we need that we can make truly informed decisions.

 

Connect with Dawn Lester

Cover image credit: OpenClipart-Vectors




Astrid Stuckelberger on the Purpose of the World Health Organisation

Astrid Stuckelberger on the Purpose of the World Health Organisation

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
March 3, 2023

 

Astrid Stuckelberger is a former World Health Organisation (WHO) insider and currently whistleblowing its attempts to tighten its control over member states.

[Astrid is] a scientist, researcher and teacher for 25 years at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva and Lausanne (Switzerland) […] and worked with the WHO on International Health Regulation (IHR) and public health emergency management between 2009 and 2013.

To be clear, the WHO does not care about public health.

Who is the WHO?

The WHO (which is part of the United Nations) cares only about expanding its geopolitical grip over the world, citing “public health” as the vector. After all, it is the WHO that exploited and propagandised billions of unsuspecting people around the world throughout the fake “Covid pandemic“.

Dissolve the WHO

In my opinion, there is no need for the existence of the WHO.

And, by extension, there is no need for the existence of the UN. (Listen to my fascinating conversation with Călin Georgescu, a former high-ranking director in the UN.)

Astrid previously chatted to me about the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty which is an aggressive attempt to gain a lot more “public health” policymaking influence over countries. Put another way, the WHO wants to become an all-encompassing, all-powerful centralised global authority over all things “health”, removing the sovereignty and ability of countries to make their own decisions.

Of course, they wrap it up in nice words and slick marketing.

Our conversation

The following is a really good conversation with Astrid, including:

  • her background,
  • the history of the WHO,
  • the WHO’s clever wordplay and changing of the definition of “pandemic”,
  • the Pandemic Treaty and why it’s dangerous, and
  • Bill Gates’ vaccine group called GAVI and its immunity from investigation.



 

Connect with Jerm Warfare

Cover image credit: public domain


See related:






It’s All Getting So Ridiculous! (Pt. 1)

It’s All Getting So Ridiculous! (Pt. 1)

 

“The definition of a ‘virus’, as described by Dr Mark Bailey in his essay entitled A Farewell to Virology, is,
“a replication- competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human.”
Nothing that matches this description and possesses this ability has ever been observed as an isolated and distinct entity. There is no evidence that ‘viruses’ exist as described.
Although it is often said that this claim needs to be proven, that would be a burden of proof reversal logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies with those who propose a theory; but with respect to the theory relating to ‘viruses’, this proof does not exist.”
~~~
“Unlike ‘viruses’, bacteria do exist; they are living micro-organisms; however, they are also incorrectly described as pathogens. Bacteria are not ‘invaders’; the human body is one of their normal habitats where they perform various important functions. The idea that bacteria are ‘pathogens’ is based on observations of these entities within the tissues of people who were ill, but the presence of bacteria does not prove they caused the illness.
If an entity is the cause of a disease, it should always be found within every person with that disease and never be found in a person without that disease. This is logical; it is also the first of Koch’s Postulates. However, there are many examples of bacteria not being found in people with the relevant disease and of bacteria being found in people without the relevant disease. This alone demonstrates a lack of evidence that bacteria are pathogenic.”
It’s all getting so ridiculous! – Part One 

by Dawn Lester, Dawn’s Writings
February 18, 2023

 

It would seem from the recent slew of ‘news stories’ (translation = propaganda), that the ‘would-be controllers’ have reached a state of sheer desperation or maybe even hysteria or possibly both!

The level of fear-mongering on various topics, such as ‘UFOs’, so-called ‘climate change’, the rising cost of living, ‘spies’ or deadly diseases, to name just a few, has definitely increased lately. There are many reasons that ‘they’ may be intensifying their efforts to maintain fear about an array of different topics; however, we need to be aware that this tactic may also be used to distract us from something else; something ‘they’ want us not to notice or think about. We must therefore remain alert and continue to exercise discernment when discussing these topics, especially as ‘divide and conquer’ is a core aspect of their strategy.

I had originally intended to make this a single article but soon realised that there was so much to cover that I felt it best to make it into a 2-part ‘mini-series’. This first part will provide an outline of the latest nonsense about ‘deadly diseases’ that are claimed to be caused by ‘infectious agents’ of one kind or another. Part 2 will dive deeper into the claims being made.

1) Bird Flu

According to the UK Government webpage entitled Bird flu (avian influenza): latest situation in England,

“There have been 280 cases of (HPAI) H5N1 in England since the H5N1 outbreak started in October 2021.”

It should be noted that so-called ‘bird flu’ is not a recent phenomenon; the ‘virus’ is alleged to have been ‘discovered’ in 1996.

The severity of the situation is not restricted to the UK, as can be seen by a 3 February article entitled Bird flu detected in mammals but risk to humans low: experts,

“Since late 2021, Europe has been gripped by its worst-ever outbreak of bird flu, with North and South America also experiencing severe outbreaks.”

This latest ‘outbreak’ is described in the article – by a virologist of course – as constituting a “panzootic”: a term that means ‘a pandemic among animals’. It is clear that the narrative is intended to retain the notion of ‘pandemics’; as will also be seen in another ‘story’.

What is new within this recent spate of ‘reports’ is the promotion of the idea that this condition could spread to humans because it is claimed to have already spread to certain mammals’, as the article states,

“Experts have warned that the recent detection of bird flu in mammals including foxes, otters, minks, seals and even grizzly bears is concerning but emphasised that the virus would have to significantly mutate to spread between humans.”

The article also asserts that some of the mammals that have ‘tested positive’ have been affected by a mutated version of the ‘virus’. This leaves the question of what they mean by a ‘significant’ mutation, or is it intentionally left unclear so that people can speculate on whether that is possible?

There are many aspects to this story that will be covered in part 2, but suffice it to say that there is no such condition as ‘bird flu’, which means that it cannot ‘spread’ to other animals – nor can it mutate and ‘spread’ to humans.

2) Stomach Flu

This ‘disease’ also relies on the existence of ‘pathogenic viruses’, although in this instance, the ‘virus’ is claimed to affect the human digestive system. A 2015 study article entitled Norovirus refers to it as,

“…the first viral agent shown to cause gastroenteritis. Illness due to this virus was initially described in 1929 as “winter vomiting disease” due to its seasonal predilection and the frequent preponderance of patients with vomiting as a primary symptom.”

It appears that ‘stomach flu’ mainly affects the US at the moment, but that does not rule out the possibility that ‘news stories’ will start reporting this problem elsewhere. The typical style of reporting about this ‘disease’ can be seen in a 9 February article entitled Have YOU caught the stomach flu recently? Cases are rising across the US, CDC warns — here’s what to know about the symptoms and treatments that starts with these statements,

“Doctors are warning parents to be on the lookout for the ‘stomach flu’ in the coming weeks as infections rebound following years of lockdowns.
Official data shows norovirus infections are up 66 percent in 2023 compared to last year and are rising across the country.
Experts say the virus is taking off earlier than normal, and there are also concerns the illnesses could be more serious than usual after lockdowns robbed children of vital immunity for fighting viruses.”

The explanation for the claim that lockdowns have been a factor in the increased concern over this ‘disease’ is because,

“…lockdowns have stopped children from being exposed to germs they need to build up a strong immune system.”

It is amusing – or would be if the consequences weren’t so tragic – that they now seem to be claiming that ‘lockdowns’ may not have been such a good idea – except that the reason they provide is false; children do not need to be exposed to ‘germs’ to build their ‘immune system’.

3) Marburg

A 16 February article with the rather long title Race against time for a vaccine for Marburg virus: Fears over stealthy disease that masquerades as a cold for days then suddenly causes organ failure and bleeding from multiple orifices – as outbreak in Africa spreads claims that,

“An outbreak of the extremely deadly virus – which kills up to nine in 10 sufferers – was declared in Equatorial Guinea Monday after nine deaths and 16 suspected cases.”

A 90% mortality rate is definitely a worrying statistic! But that does not mean that a ‘virus’ is the cause of this disease.

The first symptoms are claimed to be ‘flu-like’, but can progress to include a ‘non-itchy rash’. However, there are other potential symptoms associated with Marburg, as the article states,

“Other, less common, signs of the illness within the first few days include jaundice, severe nausea, abdominal pain, pink eye, throat irritation, spots appearing within the mouth and extremely watery diarrhea.”

These are obviously more serious, but not the most worrying symptoms, as the article continues

“Usually, around the fifth day, the disease will progress to what doctors describe as the ‘early organ phase’.
At this point, a patient may start suffering bleeding out of their eyes, inflammation around the body, and visible swelling around their body – usually on the legs, ankles and feet.”

These are extremely serious symptoms; they may be accompanied by internal bleeding and may lead quite rapidly to death.

Strangely, Marburg does not feature as a disease of concern on the most recent WHO Outbreak News listings.

4) Syphilis

A 13th February article claims that Mississippi hit by 900% increase in newborns treated for syphilis. Although the article only refers to the situation in Mississippi, the CDC web page dated April 2022 and entitled Congenital Syphilis – CDC Fact Sheet refers to,

“…a sharp increase in the number of babies born with syphilis in the United States.”

The web page reports that cases of congenital syphilis have recently more than tripled.

Syphilis is claimed to be caused by the bacterium Treponema pallidum and, because it is said to be bacterial, the ‘treatment’ for this condition inevitably involves the use of antibiotics.

Syphilis is one of many conditions claimed to be sexually transmitted. The concern raised by the CDC web page refers to congenital syphilis (CS), which is claimed to impact a developing baby whilst still in the womb. The page states that CS can cause: miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, low birth weight, and death shortly after birth.

According to the CDC page, many US states routinely require screening tests for syphilis. These tests are described as follows,

“Serologic tests for syphilis require the use of two tests: nontreponemal tests that use a nonspecific cardiolipin antigen and confirmatory tests that use specific T. pallidum antigens. A nontreponemal test, such as VDRL or RPR, may be used for screening. Positive results on these nontreponemal tests should be confirmed using a treponemal test (e.g., FTA-ABS, TP-PA, EIAs, chemiluminescence immunoassays).”

It seems rather strange that the diagnosis of a disease claimed to be caused by Treponema initially involves a ‘nontreponemal’ test; although confirmation occurs via a treponemal test!

Many new parents are obviously going to be very concerned about this condition and will no doubt agree to the test, especially when the CDC claims that,

“For babies born with CS, CS can cause:
    • Deformed bones,
    • Severe anemia (low blood count),
    • Enlarged liver and spleen,
    • Jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes),
    • Brain and nerve problems, like blindness or deafness,
    • Meningitis, and
    • Skin rashes.”

Two points that need to be emphasised here are: that no tests have proven to be specific; and that no disease has been proven to be sexually transmitted.

5) Cholera

According to the WHO Disease Outbreak News web page entitled Cholera – Global Situation dated 11 February,

“Since mid-2021, the world is facing an acute upsurge of the 7th cholera pandemic characterized by the number, size and concurrence of multiple outbreaks…”

Here’s the other reference to a ‘pandemic’!

Strangely, however, the ‘news’ that there is a ‘cholera pandemic’ does not seem to be reported by the mainstream media, except for a few reports about cholera being a health problem in areas that were recently affected by the devastating earthquakes.

Interestingly, an article entitled Amid cholera outbreak, health fears grow in quake-hit Syria indicates that cholera was perceived to be a pre-existing problem in Syria. It claims that a cholera outbreak was reported in September 2022 and makes the usual assertion that this condition is caused by the bacterium Vibrio cholerae.

There is absolutely no doubt that ‘unsafe water’ can cause illness, especially symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhoea; but ‘unsafe’ does not demonstrate the presence of bacteria nor does the presentation of these symptoms prove that bacteria are the cause.

6) Fungi

It should not have been surprising that the example chosen for fear-mongering stories about fungi would be a rather extreme one, as can be seen by the January BBC article entitled The Last of Us: Could a fungal pandemic turn us all into zombies? It would seem that The Last of Us is the name of a video game that has been made into a TV series. The BBC article begins,

“Let me introduce you to something truly horrifying – the fungus that turns its victims into zombies.”

The BBC are not the only media outlet to discuss this, which just shows the effort being put into this ‘story’. An April 2019 National Geographic article entitled How a parasitic fungus turns ants into ‘zombies’ discusses an episode of their Hostile Planet documentary that features this parasitic fungus and states that,

“The Ophiocordyceps unilateralis fungus has just one goal: self-propagation and dispersal.”

The idea that they ‘know’ the goal of this fungus is pure speculation, although it could be said that self-propagation is a feature of all living beings, so why would this fungus be any different? The obvious answer is that claiming this is the intention of the fungus makes the story more compelling – but that does not make it true.

An important point to emphasise here is that these organisms, the fungus and the ant, must have always co-existed, otherwise how did Cordyceps survive before the ant came into existence? Interestingly, the article points out that the fungus does not kill all of the ants in a colony,

“For ecosystems to stay balanced, fungi have to keep host populations in check. In fact, only a few ants in a colony are infected at any given time.”

This raises serious questions about any suggestion that the fungus needs to ‘evolve’ to find new hosts to ‘infect’. If there is an adequate supply of ants, Cordyceps has no need to find another ‘host’.

The behaviour of Cordyceps as ‘invaders’ of the bodies of ants was first televised in the 2006 Planet Earth TV series narrated by David Attenborough; so this is not a new ‘discovery’. But it is clearly being used as a scare tactic to make people believe it could be possible for this fungus to ‘evolve’ to infect humans, as suggested by a January National Geographic article entitled Could a parasitic fungus evolve to control humans? The subtitle of the article reads The zombie-creating fungus in The Last of Us is real, but there are many other fungi to fear. Of the 5 million fungal species in the world, a few hundred are dangerous to people.

That article is certainly supporting the fear narrative!

The above stories can all be refuted by the simple statement that there is no evidence that any so-called ‘germ’ is the cause of any disease; however, a little more detail is provided below.

Virus

The definition of a ‘virus’, as described by Dr Mark Bailey in his essay entitled A Farewell to Virology, is,

“a replication- competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human.”

Nothing that matches this description and possesses this ability has ever been observed as an isolated and distinct entity. There is no evidence that ‘viruses’ exist as described.

Although it is often said that this claim needs to be proven, that would be a burden of proof reversal logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies with those who propose a theory; but with respect to the theory relating to ‘viruses’, this proof does not exist.

Bacteria

Unlike ‘viruses’, bacteria do exist; they are living micro-organisms; however, they are also incorrectly described as pathogens. Bacteria are not ‘invaders’; the human body is one of their normal habitats where they perform various important functions. The idea that bacteria are ‘pathogens’ is based on observations of these entities within the tissues of people who were ill, but the presence of bacteria does not prove they caused the illness.

If an entity is the cause of a disease, it should always be found within every person with that disease and never be found in a person without that disease. This is logical; it is also the first of Koch’s Postulates. However, there are many examples of bacteria not being found in people with the relevant disease and of bacteria being found in people without the relevant disease. This alone demonstrates a lack of evidence that bacteria are pathogenic.

Fungi

Fungi do not usually receive the same amount of media attention as ‘viruses’ and bacteria. One well-known ‘fungal infection’ is claimed to be caused by Candida albicans, which is described as a yeast, a ‘type’ of fungus. However, it is readily acknowledged by the CDC that,

“Candida normally lives on skin and inside the body, such as the mouth, throat, gut, and vagina, without causing problems.”

Clearly, this cannot be a pathogen, otherwise everyone with Candida in their bodies would be ill.

Furthermore, with reference to the whole group of fungi, the textbook Medical Microbiology states that,

“Fungi rarely cause disease in healthy immunocompetent hosts.”

This provides a strong demonstration that fungi have also never been proven to be fundamentally pathogenic.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, there is much more to be said about all of the above ‘stories’; Part 2 will follow soon…….

 

Resources for further information:

What Really Makes You Ill?

References:

Bird flu (avian influenza): latest situation in England

Bird flu detected in mammals but risk to humans low: experts

Norovirus

Have YOU caught the stomach flu recently? Cases are rising across the US, CDC warns — here’s what to know about the symptoms and treatments

Race against time for a vaccine for Marburg virus: Fears over stealthy disease that masquerades as a cold for days then suddenly causes organ failure and bleeding from multiple orifices – as outbreak in Africa spreads

Mississippi hit by 900% increase in newborns treated for syphilis

Congenital Syphilis – CDC Fact Sheet

Cholera – Global Situation

Amid cholera outbreak, health fears grow in quake-hit Syria

The Last of Us: Could a fungal pandemic turn us all into zombies?

How a parasitic fungus turns ants into ‘zombies’

Could a parasitic fungus evolve to control humans?

A Farewell to Virology

Cover image credit: geralt


See related:

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology

German Engineer Marvin Haberland Challenges the Existence of Covid Virus in German Court

Reiner Fuellmich & Hans Tolzin on the Shady History of Virology: Have Viruses Ever Been Isolated or Purified?

Why Nobody Can Find a Virus

The Contagion Myth: No Virus Has Ever Caused Disease

The Viral Delusion (2022) Docu-Series: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & the Madness of Modern Virology

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)




Dr. Tom Cowan Challenges Dr. Peter McCullough’s Statements on The Last American Vagabond & Answers “Why Does It Matter That People Come to Realize That There Are No Viruses?”

Dr. Tom Cowan Challenges Dr. Peter McCullough’s Statements on The Last American Vagabond & Answers “Why Does It Matter That People Come to Realize That There Are No Viruses?”

video by Dr. Tom Cowan
commentary by Truth Comes to Light
February 15, 2023

 



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan Odysee & Rumble channels.

 

In this video, Dr. Tom Cowan addresses the question “Why does it matter that people come to realize that there are no viruses?” He addresses comments made by Dr. Peter McCullough in an interview with The Last American Vagabond.

Excerpts:

“This is a historical misconception that, in a sense, has been weaponized or used against us – us being the people of the world — to our detriment.

And to put it another way, the virus theory, which is a subset of the whole germ theory, is a basic component of a worldview that is a domination worldview — that was espoused by such people as the Rockefeller medicine cabal.

And I, more and more, have come to the opinion that unless we get rid of this misconception and this whole domination worldview, that we cannot live the lives that humans were meant to live and create the world that we know we can create — because it’s based on a worldview which is a) wrong, and b) toxic.”

~~~

“So those of you who think this may be over and that we are done with the virus narrative, that is far from the case. We are as far away from that as you can possibly be. And that’s why I think I need to keep going here.”

~~~

“And the only thing I’m going to say in the beginning is one would think with the name like Last American Vagabond. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it connotes, at least to me, a kind of rebel organization populated by rebellious people who are not falling for the dominant narrative. And all I can say is the virus narrative is about as conventional domination, mainstream narrative as you can get.”

~~~

“So are blood clots a unique symptom to a virus? First of all, there is no evidence that the virus exists. So how would you know that the virus is causing the blood clots? I would love to hear Dr. McCullough trace those two and say that that is a new and unique symptom that couldn’t possibly be caused by something else.

In other words, if you don’t know why those buildings got bombed, then the default position is it must be the invisible exploding unicorns. That’s the thinking that’s going on here.

And we heard this in a debate the other day. ‘If you can’t tell me what else is causing people to get sick, then my default position is I go with the dominant narrative, which it therefore must be a virus’. That is magical thinking.”

~~~

“So is there any other possible reason why people have blood clots? Well, here’s two articles just on a cursory look that show that radiation sickness has all the symptoms, including damage to the endothelial lining and blood clots. You can see this in an article called The Commonalities between COVID-19 and Radiation Injury.

Forgetting about the fact that they had no way of knowing whether anybody had COVID-19 or not, so the paper is obviously flawed. All they can say is both conditions initiate a cytokine storm and both conditions have symptoms of blood clots.

Here’s another paper. Again, even though it’s very flawed paper, I’m sure some of you have seen this Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications 5G — even though there is no coronavirus disease-19. So the paper is flawed, but what they can tell you is that wireless radiation is a ubiquitous environmental stress, and it creates all the symptoms.

And they go on to say, including blood clots and all the rest of the symptoms, which we erroneously ascribe to — here’s hypercoagulation impairs the microcirculation.

So all this is clear. There is a clear correlation between a variety of environmental toxins such as pharmaceutical drugs, including some of the ones that apparently Dr. McCullough is recommending to those who he claims have the first infection, even though the test and the symptoms that he’s using to claim first infection have never been validated and are not even approved by the FDA except under the bogus emergency use authorization.

So the whole argument falls apart. There is no new symptom called blood clots, which is unique to a new “disease called COVID”. None of these tests, none of these studies have ever been correlated to an actual virus that is easy to demonstrate and easy to prove. And so the whole narrative just falls apart.

Now, what was the other part of this?

One of the things that is becoming more and more clear to me is that one of the biggest problems we’re having is that people who are in the “freedom community”, who go on to shows, podcasts, interviews, events, et cetera, and nobody seems to question them about the basic science.

I don’t know whether it’s a matter of politeness or whether they don’t know the science. They don’t know how to ask the questions. They don’t know how to ask a simple question. ‘Dr. McCullough I’m a rebel and a vagabond, and therefore I don’t believe in the normal narrative. I know that the current scientific paradigm is used to enslave people and tyrannize people and separate people. And I don’t buy it. And my whole show is based on we look at things in a different way here. Dr. McCullough, can you please explain how you know these people got infected with a virus? Can you follow that whole chain of events?’

Rather than nod and say they need pharmaceutical antivirals. ‘And by the way, how did you demonstrate that these so called nutraceutical antivirals or over-the-counter antivirals, how did you demonstrate that they actually kill viruses? And kill viruses in you?’

Because I know how they demonstrate that. They basically put it in a cell culture and the cell culture doesn’t die as quickly. And they somehow say the increased length of time before the cell culture dies somehow means they’ve actually killed a virus. This is crazy thinking.

But this should be the responsibility of all ethical, responsible, informed journalists and podcasters and interviewers to ask these people every single event. How do you know these things you are saying? Because I know this paradigm, this way of thinking, this victim mentality — that you’ve been dominated by this unseen virus and, therefore, have to separate and not go to events and not be around your loved ones and wear the face diaper thing, and the whole bit. And take toxic drugs. How do you know this is based on good science? And they never asked that.

…My call for help is– this is where I need all the people who listen to me, who also listen to various podcasts and interviewers and other things that they may also respect for different views on different things. They need to know that it’s time they start holding everyone, myself included, everyone’s feet to the fire and start asking the hard questions.

Because as I said in the beginning and the Marburg hoax is just one more example of that, as they’re now going apparently to target the African people who didn’t fall in line so much with the COVID thing.

We cannot build the world that we want while still believing in that domination-inspired paradigm of the germ theory. It just won’t happen.

We need to change the way we see the world. We need to change the way we think.

And everybody that we encounter who is is in the public sphere, who is speaking out of that paradigm, needs to be challenged. And the only way that’s going to happen is if all of you get involved and say to people — in a very cooperative, friendly, polite, respectful way — ‘Hey, Last American Vagabond people, here’s the science. It’s time for you to ask all these people who come on here, how do you know this is a virus? How do you know this is a first infection? What are the steps that they used? How do you know something is an antiviral? We need you to be our mouthpiece and our questioner and ask people this over and over again so that we finally see if they can stand up to scientific scrutiny. Because at the end of the day, we know that they can’t.’

That’s when things are going to change, people are going to realize that this emperor has no clothes and we don’t need an emperor in the first place.

We’re heading towards a kind of voluntary freedom society, I hope, or I think, or I’m expecting that to happen. And want to participate in the birth of something like that, which maybe we’ve never seen before. And these old ways of thinking, they just have to go.”

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan




The Pfizer Exec Who Confessed to Project Veritas Now Tells Me the Whole Truth

The Pfizer Exec Who Confessed to Project Veritas Now Tells Me the Whole Truth
And nothing but the truth about the virus and the vaccine—in the back room of an Irish bar after a few Bushmills 

by Jon Rappoport
February 1, 2023

 

Last Saturday, I woke up to the sounds of my pigs squealing out on the land. My wolves were herding them back into their pens.

I struggled out of bed and plowed through the 16 messages on my cell. FOX, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. They somehow knew I was on to The One, and they were clamoring and pleading for an exclusive.

No dice.

My agent and lawyer, Gloria Torquemada, showed up as I as was downing my 4th cup of coffee. Her CIA contacts had located Jordan Walker, the suddenly infamous Pfizer exec. He was now waiting in Mick Flaherty’s bar 16 miles away from my farm. I called Tucker and told him to hold on, I’d get back to him by nightfall.

I donned my white coat, hung a stethoscope around my neck, pinned an old Blockbuster member card to my chest pocket (“Jon Rappoport, MD”), and we were off in the Bentley.

An hour later, Jordan and I were sitting in Mick’s back room. We had a few drinks and chatted. Maybe more than a few.

Then this is what followed:

What about the virus, Jordan?

What about it?

The isolation problem.

Oh, THAT.

Yeah.

You get right down to it, Jon.

Time is money.

Of course. Well, you have to promise, first, that none of what I tell you in this conversation will go public. This is on background only.

Of course. I would never reveal your comments.

OK, good. So, the virus. Well, scientists never actually FIND a new virus. They INFER its existence.

Infer it from what?

A bunch of presumptions about their own lab procedures.

What they’re doing in the lab—

Is really just a hodge-podge of mumbo-jumbo. They don’t isolate anything. And then, using computer programs, they stitch together genetic sequences for “the virus.” These sequences are metaphors.

Metaphors?

Mythical science.

So there is no proof SARS-CoV-2 exists.

No more proof than, say, “demonstrating” there is a bath house on Mars. Or a gay caballero is roaming the galaxy singing Country and Western.

But—

But we need these metaphors. They satisfy so many interests.

Not least of all, vaccine manufacturers.

Right. If there are no viruses, why would we produce and sell vaccines?

Then all this talk about Pfizer intentionally mutating the virus and giving it more power…which is what you told Project Veritas…is sheer nonsense?

No, not nonsense. High level bullshit.

Explain.

It’s simple. 99.999 percent of virologists in the world believe their own bullshit. They really think they’re discovering new viruses. They really think they can increase the power of those viruses. They’re actually doing METAPHOR, but they think they’re doing LITERAL.

My, my.

Yes. It’s a WOW. And it works brilliantly. No one wants to rock that boat. Too many people are making too much money and exerting too much political power.

So there is no need for a COVID vaccine.

No. And it’s not actually a vaccine. It’s a shot of nanoparticles. They supposedly instructs cells of the body to produce a spike protein. The nanos contain RNA, which does the instructing. So I’m told.

A lot of rigmarole.

Right.

So why is the injection injuring and killing so many people all over the world?

I don’t know. There are all kinds of theories. The point is, when you screw around with the human body, forcing unnatural processes on it, with genetic material [RNA], there is a ripple effect down the line. Things happen.

Unpredictable things.

Yes. The processes of the body are interlocking. Disturb one process, and you get bad reverberations.

Does Pfizer understand this?

All legitimate researchers realize it. It’s not a secret. The COVID injection is experimental. The open medical literature is very frank about the dangers of putting nanoparticles in humans.

In a sense, Pfizer is a marketing firm.

I would call it a PR firm that is also injuring and killing huge numbers of people. We front for an operation that aims at political control of populations. Hence the lockdowns. The lockdowns were a prime political objective. The fake science—which Pfizer peddles—was the cover story.

So you’re personally corrupt.

Of course.

You don’t care?

I’m just trying to make a good living.

With no conscience.

Having no conscience helps.

It occurs to me that this claim Pfizer is doing gain of function research on the virus could send people up a blind alley.

Well, sure. Because legally, Pfizer can quite probably get off the hook. They can say they’re protecting the public by mutating the virus and developing new vaccines that prevent these more dangerous variants from harming everybody. Whereas, a real court case that attacks the VACCINE for the harm it’s causing…that would be a jackpot. A verdict against Pfizer THERE would be devastating. If you could ever get the case into court…

Then why did you tell Project Veritas about Pfizer mutating the virus?

I was speaking metaphorically.

In what sense?

I was telling Veritas what Pfizer is doing with an imaginary virus. Think of it this way. This is a rough analogy: At the end of World War Two, an exec at a major American corporation tells the New York Times his corporation supplied badly built weapons to US troops in Europe. There is no truth to that, because his company didn’t make weapons—but the real story is, his corporation was supplying vital parts to the US AND Germany. Parts used in factories that manufactured planes. Making money from both sides. But the exec says nothing about THAT.

He pointed the finger at his own company. But for the wrong reason.

Yes.

And that’s what you did when you talked to Project Veritas.

Sort of. Yes.

Why?

I was pissed off about a few things at work I don’t want to go into. And I might have been a little high.

On drugs?

Absolutely not. On one drug. Maybe.

You fucked up.

Obviously.

So what are you going to do now?

I think the question is, what are they going to do to me?

Will you testify in front of Congress?

I doubt they’ll invite me. Pfizer has a lot of clout. And several hundred Congressional legislators and other federal officials don’t want me in public under oath. But if I had to appear, I’d lie. I’d say my comments to Project Veritas were misinterpreted, with no context.

You’d try to bullshit your way out of trouble.

Yes. It’s a time-honored tradition. And think of how many journalists would come to my aid.

Pfizer is evil.

I thought we’d already established that.

Why do so many people work there? Some of them must know it’s a nest of evil.

They have bills to pay. They want to live a comfortable life.

It’s that simple?

For most people, it always is. Look, there’s a guy at Pfizer. He knows everything I’ve been telling you here today. He makes about 700K a year. He snitched to the head of security about a woman in his department who was about to go all whistleblower. He snitched because he wanted to protect Pfizer, the cash cow, who hands him his paycheck every month. That was the long and short of it for him. His paycheck. His standard of living.

The truth, the facts, the crimes meant nothing to him.

Less than nothing.

Were you always corrupt?

I’d say I went through three stages. As a child, I was pretty much like other children. After I went to work for Pfizer and gradually saw what was really happening there, I was troubled. But when I was promoted and got a substantial raise, I settled in. I experienced the perks of my new life.

“The banality of evil.”

Yes. Hannah Arendt’s phrase. To describe the Nazi bureaucrat, Adolph Eichmann.

Didn’t Arendt say Eichmann was unaware, detached? He was following orders in order to advance his career. You’re aware.

I am, but it doesn’t SINK IN. I’m like a researcher who’s designing a death ray shot from space, but focuses on the MATH problems in front of him. In a sense, he knows what he’s doing, but it doesn’t bite him.

The vaccine. It’s a killer.

Yes. But you have to remember, it’s the first vaccine given to so MANY people. I dare say if this was, say, the HPV [Human Papilloma Virus] vaccine, the results would be even worse.

If nobody from the company goes to prison—

We never do. We’re aliens.

Excuse me?

When you settle into one of the big pharmaceutical companies and work there for a decade or more, you’re not quite human anymore.

Is it cold in here? I just felt a chill.

You’re not the first person I’ve talked to who’s told me that.

— Jon Rappoport

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport — substackwebsite

Cover image based on creative commons work of tusch and GDJ




Artificial Intelligence Caught Lying About Viruses

Artificial Intelligence Caught Lying About Viruses

by Dr. Sam Bailey
January 28, 2023

 

“Viruses” have been used as a cover story for over a century now. There are so many vested interests and smoke screens that it can be difficult to get people to look into the “science” for themselves. They are content to believe second hand accounts from the media, governments and so-called health institutions.

Artificial Intelligence or AI platforms have been on the rise recently and millions of people are now engaging with them. We decided to put some questions about “viruses” to one of the most powerful chatbots currently in existence – ChatGPT. Are these platforms independent arbiters of truth or have they already been corrupted?

Is Artificial “Intelligence” even possible?



References:

  1. Secrets of Influenza”, Dr Sam Bailey, 21 Apr 2021
  2. Spanish Flu”, Wikipedia
  3. SARS-CoV-2”, PubMed search
  4. Human Action, Ludwig von Mises
  5. ChatGPT
  6. The Measles Myth”, Dr Sam Bailey, 9 Nov 2021
  7. Stefan Lanka: “Virus, It’s Time To Go.”“, Dr Sam Bailey, 12 Aug 2022
  8. FLASHBACK: The 5th Annual Fake News Awards! (2022)”, James Corbett 22 Jan 2023
  9. Nick Cave response on The Red Hand Files

 

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

Cover image credit: geralt




Refutation of Virology: There Is No Scientific Proof That Natural Pathogenic Viruses Exist

Refutation of Virology: There Is No Scientific Proof That Natural Pathogenic Viruses Exist

commentary sourced from Medic Debate
video by ALightOn
January 28, 2023

 

Refutation of Virology

There is no scientific proof that natural  pathogenic “viruses” exist.

Following the rules of thought and logic there can be no  mutation or gain-of-function of non- existent virus. There is no viral spike protein, etc.

One cannot mutate something in the labs that does not exist to start with.

 



[Video available at ALightOn bitchute and odysee channels]

 

Transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light:

Dear world, viruses don’t exist.

I know that sounds crazy, but sometimes we get things wrong, and it gets passed along for centuries and centuries until a few brave people try and change things.

See, they take a sick person and assume they have a virus without ever finding and isolating that viral particle and validating that it’s there.

So they take a sample of that sick person’s boogers and put it on some monkey kidney cells that are already be weakened and starved of nutrients.

In the same culture they add a number of ingredients. Two of those ingredients are amphotericin and gentamicin. These are nephrotoxic antibiotics.

Antibiotics kill life. Nephrotoxins specifically kill kidneys.

Now, the marker for proving any new virus is the cytopathic effect, aka cell death. When those monkey cells die, boom, you got yourself a new virus. At least according to mainstream science.

That’s like putting paper into fire and expecting it not to burn.

Yep. Viruses are an inside job.

The problem here, besides the fact that they never validated a virus to begin with, is that virologists don’t do a control experiment. How scientific.

Dr. Stefan Lanka, however, decided to actually do controls.

He did the same culture experiments without adding any sample from any sick person. And guess what? Those monkey cells still died.

So the marker for proving a virus is present with no virus, even if you believe there was ever one in there.

This can only mean that there is no such thing as viruses according to the process they use to prove them.

And, yes, all viruses are proven this way.

I know what you’re thinking. Well, if there are no viruses, then what’s making people sick?

Well, it’s not my job to figure that out. I’m refuting a theory.

Imagine your kid tells you he heard noises and there’s an evil butt gremlin under his bed. So you check under the bed, and there’s no evil butt gremlin anywhere in sight. You’ve refuted his theory of evil butt gremlins. And he says, well, if there are no evil butt gremlins, then why did I hear those noises?

Who knows? Could have been a drafty window. Could have been a creaky floor. But we do know it wasn’t an evil butt gremlin.

Just like we do know people aren’t getting sick from a floating submicroscopic particle.

Could have been common exposure to toxins, bad food, bad water, bad air, household cleaners, bad feelings.

It would be silly to continue to believe in evil butt gremlins when it was only ever an idea.

Just like it would be silly to continue to believe in viruses when they’ve never been proven.

 

Connect with Medic Debate

Connect with ALightOn — bitchuteodysee

Cover image credit: andremsantana




What’s Next for mRNA Vaccines?

What’s Next for mRNA Vaccines?

by Dr. Sam Bailey
January 17, 2022

 

One of the “goals” of COVID-19 appears to be convincing the public to accept minimally-tested pharmaceutical products. Not only that, but to accept them whenever they are told.

The “novel” mRNA vaccines have bamboozled both medical practitioners and the general public. What these injections do to the body remains largely speculative. However, there is a bigger issue at play and that is the ongoing gaslighting surrounding vaccines, whatever their supposed mechanism of action.

The medico-pharmaceutical industry and it’s cronies are trying to keep you on the plantation by keeping their cardinal narratives intact…



References:

  1. What’s next for mRNA vaccines”, MIT Technology Review, 5 Jan 2023
  2. PCR Pandemic: Interview with Virus Mania’s Dr Claus Köhnlein”, Dr Sam Bailey, 27 Oct 2020
  3. Dissolving Illusions, Suzanne Humphries MD, Roman Bystrianyk, 2013
  4. Ten Great Public Health Achievements — United States, 1900-1999”, CDC, 2 Apr 1999
  5. The Future of Vaccines”, Dr Sam Bailey, 9 Jun 2022
  6. Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt, 1946
  7. The 5 stages of vaccine development”, Wellcome Trust
  8. The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity”, Dr Mark Bailey & Dr John Bevan-Smith, 2021
  9. Denis Rancourt interview, GigaohmBiological
  10. Bayer President: The mRNA Vaccines Are Gene Therapy”, HoweStreet.com
  11. Stefano Scoglio on mRNA vaccines, 2 Nov 2022
  12.  WHO Tweet – Peter Hotez video, 15 Dec 2022

 

Connect with Drs. Samantha & Mark Bailey — websitesubstackodysee

 


Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light editor:

Video narrated by Dr. Sam Bailey:

 

There is nothing like a discussion about vaccines to end friendships, make your family doctor go red in the face, or result in millions of hours of wasted time and online debates.

The issue is not getting better, but the COVID-19 fraud probably had the unintended effect of waking up more people than ever before to the actual science of vaccination.

Additionally, only one of the effects of the new mRNA injections was to create a large group who were against these particular vaccines while simultaneously maintaining a belief in most other vaccines.

Let’s have a look at why this “novel technology” is simply another gambit to propagate infectious disease mythology and bamboozle the public, all the while keeping them trapped in the medico-pharmaceutical germ theory paradigm.

On January 5, an article was published on the MIT Technology Review website titled ‘What’s Next for mRNA Vaccines’. There was no question mark in the title, so perhaps it was intended as a statement, suggesting to the world what kind of “medicine” is in the pipeline.

The article began as follows: ‘Cast your mind back to 2020 if you can bear it. As the year progressed, so did the impact of COVID-19. We were warned that wearing face coverings, disinfecting everything we touched, and keeping away from other people were some of the only ways we could protect ourselves from the potentially fatal disease.’

Even for people who believe in the existence of viruses, this is a preposterous depiction of what happened in 2020. In fact, nothing happened in 2020 apart from a fraudulent narrative involving an alleged novel coronavirus that at various times has been said to either come from a wet market, a bat cave or, drum roll please, a laboratory.

In a way, COVID-19 did come from a lab, but only in the form of in silico, dry lab simulations that were used to make up the existence of SARS-CoV-2.

Similarly, the laboratory tests, such as the PCR and rapid antigen tests that were deployed, did not require the existence of a virus to be positive. They only required circular reasoning, based on the in silico models, with the sequences and proteins falsely claimed to be “viral”.

The MIT article claims there was a ‘potentially fatal disease’, at which point we would ask, what disease?

Even on their own terms, COVID-19 is simply confirmed on the basis of molecular detection assays that have no established diagnostic validity.

COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a global fraud sustained by a medical system that lost its way a long time ago.

As my Virus Mania [Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical … Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio] coauthor Claus Köhlein explained in 2020, it is a PCR pandemic. There was no new disease, only new tests and plenty of gullible people.

In any case, this MIT story sets the scene with the same picture-painting to make people believe there are infectious disease epidemics when in reality they don’t exist.

And of course, the establishment always has one end point in mind with the narrative — and that’s vaccines.

So the article continues by stating that: “Thankfully, a more effective form of protection was in the works. Scientists were developing all-new vaccines at rapid speed… By the end of the year, the US. Food and Drug Administration issued emergency-use authorization for these vaccines, and vaccination efforts took off.

“As things stand today, over 670 million doses of the vaccines have been delivered to people in the US.”

This has been the typical vaccine playbook for over a century. Alleged that people are getting sick because of microbes, whether they be real, such as bacteria or imagined, such as viruses, and then claim that vaccines are the best solution. Cover up the fact that contagion has never been demonstrated in a scientific study, and then, like this MIT article, imply that the success of a vaccine is based on how many of them are dished out.

In this regard. Dissolving Illusions [Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History by Roman Bystrianyk, Suzanne Humphries MD] is one of the best books dealing with this mythology.

Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk deliver a fatal blow to the theory that vaccines had anything to do with improving health outcomes last century. In particular, many of the charts they have put together are rather embarrassing. For anyone claiming that vaccines were the key to defeating diseases.

It doesn’t matter if you believe in pathogens or not, because as it stands, there is no scientific evidence that vaccines are useful to anyone apart from those that benefit from selling them.

However, the medical industry is a dangerous cult when it comes to vaccines. Only a tiny minority of doctors have the courage to point out the fraud, because doing so typically results in suspension or at least limited work opportunities. Most doctors prefer to keep their head in the sand and not question their overlords, especially if their incomes could be affected in any way.

As Aneurin Bevan explained in 1948, he persuaded British doctors to accept the National Health Service, not by any merits, but by stuffing their mouths with gold, and saying that many doctors seem to genuinely believe that vaccines are useful, although almost universally they have done none of their own research and just follow protocols.

They may come across something like the CDC’s ‘Ten Great Public Health Achievements — United States, 1900 to 1999’, see that vaccination is at the top of the list, and conclude it must be good.

However, we have dedicated a huge amount of time to following the links on the CDC’s website, and none of them lead to any scientific evidence that vaccines are beneficial to the recipients.

Similarly, our Virus Mania team has contacted many of the medical institutions around the world requesting they provide any papers that follow the scientific method and demonstrate overall health benefits of vaccinations.

To date, none have provided any.

That’s why the World Economic Forum, one of the biggest gaslighting shows currently running, reports that vaccination is one of the world’s most successful health interventions, saving as many as 3 million lives every year. The WEF is concerned about vaccine hesitancy and parroted the WHO claim that the reasons people choose not to vaccinate are complex.

We can stop them right there because there’s no point going further. The reason is actually simple. Many people can see that the products are dangerous and ineffective, and like my family, don’t accept any of them. The decision is based on reviewing the scientific literature as well as our own experience. None of us get these diseases despite not taking the vaccines.

Incredibly, the vaccine scam is building momentum, and in the last few years the number of them administered to the world has been enormous. And there are no signs of the jabs easing up, with mRNA vaccines being touted as solutions for all kinds of problems.

As the MIT article stated, while the first approved mRNA vaccines are for COVID-19, similar vaccines are now being explored for a whole host of other diseases. Malaria, HIV, tuberculosis and Zika are just some of the potential targets. mRNA vaccines might also be used in cancer treatments tailored to individual people.

The suggested wider use of vaccines in these conditions is not new, of course. In my video, The Future of Vaccines, I mentioned the 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers report ‘Pharma 2020: The vision — Which path will you take?*’ In this publication, they listed the potential development of vaccines for cocaine addiction, diabetes, hypertension, Alzheimer’s disease, psoriasis, food allergies, rheumatoid arthritis and nicotine withdrawal.

What has changed since then is the focus on not just vaccines, but mRNA vaccines. Before we move on to these products, PwC had warned Big Pharma that: “The shortage of good medicines in the pipeline underlies many of the other challenges Pharma faces, including its increasing expenditure on sales and marketing, deteriorating financial performance and damaged reputation.”

In the last few years, Big Pharma worked out that you don’t need good medicines in the pipeline. They simply arranged for governments to do the marketing and purchasing for them, all at the expense of the taxpayers.

The WEF, has also cheered on the highway robbery, stating on their website in 2020 that: “More than 140 world leaders have called for a COVID-19 vaccine to be made available free to everyone”‘ Anyone that has read Henry Hazlitt’s ‘Economics in One Lesson‘ knows that there is no such thing as a free product or service. Someone always has to cover the cost.

In the COVID era, there was a vast transfer of wealth. And all of us have had to pay in one way or another, with some people who accepted the injection paying with their lives as well.

The pharmaceutical companies are now all chomping at the bit to sell phenomenal quantities of vaccines to governments, either through these false pandemics or through their most-prized cash cow — getting a product onto childhood vaccination schedules.

The problem Big Pharma has with “regular vaccines” is that, for their liking, they take too long to develop. On that note, the Wellcome Trust had a graphic titled ‘The five stages of vaccine development’, which reported that: “A vaccine usually takes more than 10 years to develop and costs up to $500 million”. Interestingly, the page was removed from their website at some point in late 2020, just before a certain product was released onto the world’s population. And this is where mRNA vaccines come into play.

COVID-19 was used as an excuse to rush into distribution the “novel technology”. No more waiting ten years to get the products injected into people.

Part of the COVID scam has been to make people think that pharmaceuticals can be tested in a matter of months. It was fascinating in early 2020 to see the mantra ‘safe and effective’ being parroted by much of the medical community and the wider public.

Leaving aside the nonexistence of a virus and a new disease, how could there possibly be any long-term safety data? There wasn’t, of course. And pharmacovigilance was completely thrown out the door.

Once upon a time, I was a clinical trials physician, and I can assure you that no products were ever released in a matter of months. In fact, most spent years in development and never made it to the wider public, often because there were too many adverse reactions.

In ‘The COVID-19 Fraud and War on Humanity‘ Dr. John Bevan-Smith and my husband Mark wrote, at the start of the essay, that the plan to inject the masses with so-called mRNA technology was already in the pipeline prior to the declaration of the alleged pandemic.

All it took was a narrative featuring an imaginary coronavirus.

[Quote from ‘The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity’]

“The world was being prepared for a ‘pandemic’ and on December 4, 2019, Dr Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases stated that his agency was ‘conducting and supporting research to develop state-of-the-art vaccine platform technologies that could be used to develop universal influenza vaccines as well as to improve the speed and agility of the influenza vaccine manufacturing process. These platform technologies include DNA, messenger RNA (mRNA), virus-like particles, vector-based, and self-assembling nanoparticle vaccines.'”

Somewhat incredibly, the public have mostly gone along with the swindle and have allowed themselves to be injected as many times as they are told, even if it is making them sicker.

One would suspect that a major goal for the COVID Fear campaign was to normalize this complicit and illogical behavior while creating the infrastructure to repeat the process in the future.

Fellow COVID skeptic, Denis Rancourt, also commented on this very aspect in a recent interview:

“This is about putting into place a military system of injection that is globalized. That is, whenever they want, they can inject you with whatever they want under the pretext of health. That’s what this about. In my view, it’s that kind of a weapon that they’ve put into place. They now have the possibility, they’ve convinced you, that it’s a good idea to be injected whenever they like with whatever they say. And they’ve put into place all the procedures and all the mechanisms to do that. And they’ve bought out all the right people. And they can go into an entire continent and virtually inject everybody.”

The establishment became so comfortable with their “success” that they openly flaunted the mass compliance behavior where people had previously been much more skeptical.

Who could forget in November 2021, when president of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, Stefan Oelrich, admitted at the World Health Summit that COVID-19 had made all this possible?

[quote from Stefan Oelrich’s speech at World Health Summit]

“Ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, ‘Would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate.

“I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in a way that was maybe not possible before.”

And how does the MIT article finish?

Well, apparently: “In 2023, we can expect an updated COVID-19 vaccine. And researchers are hopeful we’ll see more mRNA vaccines enter clinics in the near future. ‘I really hope that in the next couple of years, we will have other approved mRNA vaccines against infectious disease,’ says Norbert Pardi.
‘He is planning ahead for the next global disease outbreak, which may well involve a flu virus. We don’t know when the next pandemic will hit, but we have to be ready for it,’ he says. ‘It’s crystal clear that if you start vaccine development in the middle of a pandemic, it’s already too late.'”

This is why we and our colleagues focus on exposing the fallacy of contagion in so-called infectious diseases. As all of us have explained, these are illusions propagated by the medico-pharmaceutical industry, illusions that are now used to control the population, and engineered to transfer vast quantities of wealth from the masses to crony corporations.

The only pandemics in the world are things like obesity and anxiety due to lack of purpose and exposure to fear narratives.

As Tom Cowan said, perhaps the biggest pandemic is an unprecedented pandemic of not thinking.

As a group, we do not spend a lot of time analyzing what the mRNA shots do in the body, because it is largely speculative.

My Virus Mania co-author Stefano Scoglio has explained that the literature surrounding the shots is full of assumptions. And only one thing is clear. They are toxic bombs that, once injected into a human, can potentially cause a variety of inflammatory responses and even death.

It is clear that vaccines are going to be used as a mechanism to control the population, maintain a fear narrative, and continue to enrich a tiny minority at the expense of the many.

However, as these filthy products are exposed for what they really are, expect an all out-propaganda campaign as they desperately try to claim that those not accepting vaccines are dangerous extremists.

[quote from Dr. Peter Hotez]

“We have to recognize that anti-vaccine activism, which I actually call anti-science aggression, has now become a major killing force globally. During the COVID pandemic in the United States, 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives because they refused a COVID vaccine, even after vaccines became widely available. And now the anti-vaccine activism is expanding across the world, even into low and middle income countries. It’s a killing force. Anti-science now kills more people than things like gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation or cyberattacks. And now it’s become a political movement. In the US it’s linked to far extremism on the far right. Same in Germany. So this is a new face of anti-science aggression. And so we need political solutions to address this.”

MRNA vaccines are just the latest chapter in this psychological war and I hope you don’t lose sight of the fraud taking place upstream. That is, the misplaced belief in germ theory.

“Is it any wonder that the public is getting a little suspicious of us and our vaunted ‘discoveries’? The wonder to me is that there are still seventy millions of them willing to submit to vaccination and serum treatment.

“How much good did we do these poor fellows? Ask Edward Jenner! He knows now, if so be that we know after death, and am willing to believe that he would gladly spend a part of his eternity in purgatory if he could undo the wrong he did the world by vaccination.”

~ ‘Who are the Quacks?‘ by William Howard Hay, 1940

 

Cover image based on creative commons work of: Dimhou

 


See related:

The Covid-19 Fraud & War on Humanity




Sally Fallon Morell on Measles: A Natural Treatment and the Role of Vitamin A

Sally Fallon Morell on Measles: A Natural Treatment and the Role of Vitamin A

 

Measles

by Sally Fallon Morell, Nourishing Traditions, Weston A. Price Foundation
January 11, 2022

 

With the Covid vaccination program now in shambles, officials are focusing their fear porn on the measles, as evidenced by a December 27, 2022 front page article appearing in the Washington Post.

“Diseases resurging as parents resist shots: Outbreaks of measles, chickenpox tied to rise in anti-vaccine sentiment,” places the blame on “parent resistance of routine childhood immunizations. . . intensifying a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases.”  The article does not provide any information on exactly how many of the children who contracted measles were not vaccinated and how many were, but consists mostly of quotes from hand-wringing public officials about children not getting their shots.

CBS news report tells a rather different story.  In an Ohio outbreak involving eighty-two children, 94 percent of whom were under age five, “all of the children impacted by the outbreak are at least partially unvaccinated, meaning they have only received one dose of the necessary two for the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, known as MMR, although four children still have an unknown vaccination status. Children are recommended to get their first dose between 12 and 15 months of age and the second between the age of 4 and 6.”

Since most of the Ohio children afflicted were under five, this means that all of them were in fact “fully vaccinated” since the second dose is recommended for children ages four to six. Vaccinated children who get the measles provide proof that measles is not “vaccine-preventable” at all.  In fact, we are justified in asking whether children getting the measles so young—normally the illness occurs in children around age seven or eight—is an indication that the vaccine may be causing children to contract the measles too early in life.

The cause of measles, according to public health agencies, is a “highly contagious virus” spread through the coughings and sneezings of the afflicted—or even viruses remaining on surfaces that measles sufferers have touched. The problem is that scientists have been unable to find said virus in these fluids.  Credit for the “isolation” or “discovery” of the “agent of measles” goes to John F. Enders, winner of the 1954 Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine.

Enders developed techniques of “propagating” the virus in a culture.  The procedure involved taking throat cultures from children sick with measles, mixing them with “sterile fat-free milk,” adding a high dose of penicillin or streptomycin and then centrifuging this goop.  The resulting supernatant fluid or sediments were again mixed with milk and used as inocula in different experiments, where they were added to various types of tissue including human kidney, human embryonic lung, human embryonic intestine, human uterus, rhesus monkey testes, human embryonic skin and muscle, human foreskin (!), rhesus monkey kidney and embryonic chick tissue.  You can’t accuse Dr. Enders of not being thorough! Only the rhesus kidney cells gave Enders the results he wanted—a breakdown of the cells in the tissues. And yet, the consensus is that animals don’t get measles!

The culture medium consisted of bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, eye of newt and toe of frog. Just kidding about the last two items.  To this mixture of biological materials (and they are calling this an “isolation”!) was added phenol red, antibiotics and—strangely—soy trypsin inhibitor. The monkey kidney cells broke down—cell boundaries were obliterated, the nuclei deteriorated and large and small vacuoles (empty spaces) formed. What caused this breakdown?  Enders claimed it was the “agent of measles” but a more likely candidate was the antibiotics, especially streptomycin, which is a kidney toxin.

Since Ender’s day, thousands of papers on virus “isolation” have cluttered up the scientific literature, using variations of his technique to claim the pathogenic effects of “viruses,” but Enders paper was unique: it included a control.  Enders looked at monkey kidney cells that had not received an inoculation of measles material, and the cells broke down anyway.  “The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.” After staining, the measles-cultured cells did look different, with more deterioration of the nuclei, but remember, there were antibiotics in the cultures as well.

If you think that the studies of Enders and the virologists who followed him prove the existence of a pathogenic measles virus—and remember, no one has been able to isolate said virus from the throat cultures, blood or even feces of afflicted patients—then there is a prize for you.  One hundred thousand Euros awaits the individual who can prove the existence of an infectious, pathogenic measles virus.

Symptoms of measles include a diffuse red rash, high fever, cough, runny nose and red, watery eyes (conjunctivitis), and occasionally abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhea. These symptoms usually subside in a few days but in malnourished children, measles can result in serious side effects such as blindness or seizures, and even can be fatal.

According to the “experts,” no treatment is available for the measles.  Acetaminophen and NSAIDS for pain and fever is a common recommendation, along with bed rest and plenty of liquids.

Actually, there is a treatment for measles, a treatment that can be lifesaving in cases of severe measles: vitamin A. I find it shocking that public health officials can turn their backs on the accumulated science about vitamin A and measles.  A literature search turns up over five hundred studies on this subject, such as this one entitled, “Low serum retinol is associated with increased severity of measles in New York City children,” in which the authors concluded “Children with no known prior vitamin A deficiency exhibited a significant decline in their serum retinol levels during the acute phase of measles. This decline in circulating retinol was associated with increased duration of fever, higher hospitalization rates, and decreased antibody titers.”

Or this one, entitled “Vitamin A Administration Reduces Mortality and Morbidity from Severe Measles in Populations Nonendemic for Hypovitaminosis A,” which concluded: “On admission to a public hospital in Cape Town, South Africa, children with measles complicated by pneumonia, diarrhea, or both were given either a placebo or 400,000 IU of vitamin A. Administration of vitamin A significantly reduced mortality, decreased morbidity, and shortened the period of overall hospital stay.”

Or this one: “Vitamin A for the treatment of children with measles–a systematic review,” which begins with the statement, “Vitamin A deficiency is a recognized risk factor for severe measles,” and concludes “that 200,000 IU of vitamin A repeated on 2 days should be used for the treatment of measles as recommended by WHO in children admitted to hospitals in areas where the case fatality is high.”

Recommended by WHO! But you aren’t reading about the miraculous results of vitamin A treatment for measles patients in publications like the Washington Post. Instead, there is the constant push for vaccinations, even though the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine can have serious side effects, including autism. Ingredients in the MMR vaccine include chick embryo cell culture, WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts, MCR-5 cells, vitamins, amino acids, fetal bovine serum, sucrose, glutamate, recombinant human albumin, neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin, monosodium L-glutamate, sodium bicarbonate, potassium chloride, potassium phosphate, sodium phosphate and sodium chloride. (Potassium chloride is used to cause cardiac arrest as the third drug in the “three drug cocktail” for executions by lethal injection.)

Instead of vaccinations: let your child get the measles!  The treatment is simple: bed rest in a darkened room (to avoid overstimulating the eyes); cold compresses for fever; and cod liver oil  (use an eye dropper), smoothies of egg yolk, cream and maple syrup, and a little liver pate for vitamin A. With vitamin A-rich cod liver oil and food, your child will be right in no time, and will have protection against the serious effects of high fever. One school of thought holds that having the measles strengthens the immune system and provides protection against cancer later in life.

So if it’s not a virus, what causes the measles?  Since measles is obviously an effort by the body to detoxify, environmental toxins, especially in the water, are a likely candidate.  The decline in measles in industrialized countries, especially deaths from measles, parallels the cleaning up of our cities and cleaner water for everyone. Diets also improved, especially up to the Second World War, when people still drank whole milk, ate butter and took cod liver oil.

Even so, children still get the measles and one theory holds that children go through a natural, even programmed, cleansing as they make the transition from early to middle childhood around age seven.  Children with measles may even “communicate” to other children of the same age that it’s time to go through this important process .  Certainly not everyone in a household gets the measles when one child has it, not even other children.

Once we throw off the “virus” theory of measles, we can explore the true causes of this and other childhood diseases. Meanwhile, a nutrient-dense diet is the best protection for your child.

 


Sally Fallon Morell is best known as the author of Nourishing Traditions®: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats. This well-researched, thought-provoking guide to traditional foods contains a startling message: animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels. 

 

Connect with Nourishing Traditions

Cover image credit: available from wellcomecollection.org under creative commons license




Reiner Fuellmich & Hans Tolzin on the Shady History of Virology: Have Viruses Ever Been Isolated or Purified?

Reiner Fuellmich & Hans Tolzin on the Shady History of Virology: Have Viruses Ever Been Isolated or Purified?

 

Isolation vs. Filtration

by International Crimes Investigative Committee (ICIC)
January 8, 2022

German with English subtitles:



[Video available at ICIC-Net and mirrored at TCTL Odysee and BitChute and channels.]

In this episode of ICIC, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and medical journalist Hans Tolzin explore the history virology, the studies upon which modern science relies, and the alleged “evidence” supporting the existence of invisible and dangerous viruses.

Hans Tolzin details the medical historical background of virology starting with the first trials and publications by scientists at the beginning of the 20th century. He reveals serious gaps in field research and points out that there are numerous significant insufficiencies that have never (officially) been pursued or corrected, such as the gross neglect of differential diagnosis.

It is not only the virus theory that gives rise to major criticism. The apparent lack of care and ignorance in professional circles is also worrying. For it is on these assumptions that organizations and institutions are based which are responsible for the health of the world’s population, which propagate medicines, therapies and vaccinations, and which people blindly trust and believe.

After these findings, valid questions arise: Is there really a so-called “isolate” of a virus, especially a “corona” virus or do the available images show something completely different, and if so what? Why is no attention paid to this question and why are discrepancies in the definition of terms tolerated in science?

Mr. Tolzin speaks not of an “isolate”, but rather, of a “high purification” in order to obtain indisputable proof of a “virus”. His findings raise further, controversial questions and have the potential to shed light on the shady history of virology.

 

Connect with International Crimes Investigative Committee

Cover image credit: geralt


See Related: 

Challenging the Foundations of Virology: Corona Investigative Committee With Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Mark Bailey With Jeremy Nell on Virus Hunting

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

The Viral Delusion (2022) Docu-Series: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & the Madness of Modern Virology

‘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




La Quinta Columna: Analysis of a Single Drop of the Pfizer “Vaccine” as of December 26, 2022

Analysis of a Single Drop of the Pfizer “Vaccine” as of December 26, 2022

Recorded December 26, 2022
Presenter: Richard Delgado, Biostatistician

by La Quinta Columna
December 31, 2022

 



Analysis of a single drop of the Pfizer «vaccine», as of December 26, 2022.

Graphene-based carbon nanotubes, graphene microfilaments, graphene sheets. Only and exclusively graphene.

There is no mRNA in the «vaccine». What is inside is not biological.

Full video:

https://www.laquintacolumna.info/videos-de-interes/nuevas-imagenes-de-la-vacuna-comirnaty-pfizer-26-diciembre-2022/

 

Connect with La Quinta Columna
website
odysee
rumble


Excerpts from transcript (prepared by Truth Comes to Light):

 

See here how that formation is dragged by a little dot. These are already single-walled carbon nanotubes, more elaborately shaped, which is graphene, geometrically arranged in a tubular fashion. It’s used in the field of neuroscience as branches or neural networks.

What it’s going to do is establish connections between one neuron and another. And from there, since this material absorbs radiation, the phenomenon of neuromodulation and neurostimulation is possible, as well as altering certain brain areas to obtain certain patterns of behavior in the population.

This isn’t science fiction, this is science. Neuroscience and nanotechnology that go hand in hand here.

[…]

We also have to count on the complicity of a series of individuals who called themselves to be dissidents and groups called for the truth. Not all of those who were part of these groups. Most of them had good intentions. But their heads were directed towards certain focuses of interpretation, such as certain nonexistent proteins, or even the official version of a biological pathogen such as SARS-CoV-2 etc. They’ve been people who are really part of the ruling party, and that the ruling party sends as the front line to directly battle with the real dissidents that was going to discover exactly what is inside the injectables. I’m referring to the famous groups for the truth, doctors for the truth, biologists for the truth. False dissidents. Criminals sent directly by the pro- government political forces to precisely combat the evidence in the face of their real misinformation. They’re the guardians of the truth, precisely to allow concealing the introduction of the interface. Remember that there’s a lot of money here — all they want and more — just to cover, cover and cover.

[…]

Notice how curious it is that indeed these quadrangular patterns are pulled by tiny particles, micro and nanoparticles and just towards one direction.

It is as if they knew exactly where they have to go and what they are going to form or assemble.

[…]

And these quadrangular patterns, well, they’re not crystals either, as someone else told us. Right?

[…]

Graphene would give intracorporal coverage, that is, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA damage, cancer, collapse of the immune system. Remember that this material is eliminated, among others, via the lungs. It also has a hepatic phase, generating hepatitis of unknown origin.

[…]

More graphene filaments. Now we have a view, let’s say a panorama with low magnification, only 100 magnification here. And these are single-walled carbon nanotubes, used in the neuroscientific field as neural networks. Here we see it at a wider wheel. Look at what’s going on. We’re looking at a single drop, right? Not ten drops, not four or five. A single drop of one half square centimeter under the Haxon Aquiles II optical microscope, an upper midrange microscope, but which would be visible under even a low end microscope…

We’ve looked at over 400 injectables already. We have over 1000 hours of observation with optical microscopy.

[…]

And now the question is: do you know what happens when you illuminate with ultraviolet blue radiation, graphene nanotubes and micro sheets? …

Well, the ultraviolet radiation — the one that they are placing all over the cities in the long-distance buses — what it does is degrade graphene oxide and convert it into nanoparticles of reduced graphene oxide.

Therefore, by miniaturizing the size, they already have the capacity to cross the blood-brain barrier and settle in neurons. Remember the article on the toxicity of the material, where from 45 nm it crossed the blood brain barrier, which is the barrier that separates the brain from the external pollution environment, both biological and inorganic and toxic chemicals, which in this case is graphene.

 


See related:

La Quinta Columna Issues Report on Microtechnology Found in Pfizer Vials

La Quinta Columna: Graphene Oxide in Covid Vaccines, Self-Assemblies and MAC Addresses

La Quinta Columna: Research Paper From 2015 — “CORONA: A Coordinate and Routing System for Nanonetworks”

Dr. Pablo Campra on Graphene, Weird Morgellons-Like Elements & Possible Microbiota in Covid Vaccines

Vaccines as Vectors for the Installation of Nanotechnology: Evidence That Nano Receiving Antennas Are Being Inoculated Into the Human Body




Dr. Sam Bailey: Highlights From Covid Era Interviews

Dr. Sam Bailey: Highlights From Covid Era Interviews

 

Interview Highlights – COVID Era

by Dr. Samantha Bailey
December 27, 2022

 

Sometimes it is hard to believe that the COVID narrative has been running for 3 years now! So much has happened over that time and one of the silver linings to all the insanity has been connecting with some of the most inspiring and freethinking individuals in the world.

One of my subscribers suggested that I produce a video with snippets from some of my interviews over this time. Even regular followers have missed the occasional interview, so here is my first interview highlights reel.



References:

  1. Dr. Claus Köhnlein: PCR Pandemic
  2. Dr. Kevin Corbett: We’re Falsifying The Hypothesis
  3. Jon Rappoport: The Virus Cover Story
  4. Baileys vs Spacebusters
  5. Dr. Tom Cowan: Pandemic of not thinking
  6. Eric Coppolino: The Digital Seduction of COVID-19
  7. Dr. Andy Kaufman: Hunting For Viruses
  8. David Parker & Dawn Lester Interview
  9. The Viral Delusion
  10. Prof. Tim Noakes: We Will Win

 

Connect with Dr. Sam and Dr. Mark Bailey:
website   substack   odysee   telegram

 


Transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light

 

Dr. Claus Köhnlein

And I was at the oncology department at the university at that time, and I came across my first AIDS patient who was suffering from a lymphoma. And I asked, and all of a sudden it was told he has AIDS now. And I asked, how comes he has AIDS now? Yesterday he was suffering from a lymphoma. Then they told me, well, he’s got a positive HIV test.

And then I stopped a while and said, well, okay, but that’s not a new epidemic. It might be an epidemic of a new test, because it was not a new clinical disease, this lymphoma.

And years later, I recognized that the whole thing was a test pandemic. It went around the world like COVID-19 today, via testing.

There were no new clinical diseases.


Dr. Kevin Corbett

I remember one HIV patient to me, said to me, he was on my caseload. I was a clinical nurse specialist, specialized in all this. And he said to me, Kevin, I was one of the first patients in 1984 diagnosed with the HIV antibody test at St. Thomas’ Hospital it was.

And he said it’s now, eight years later, 1992. He said, I’ve never been ill. I’ve never had a day’s sickness. But I was medically retired from my job. I was a teacher, and I’ve not worked in nearly nine years. I was told I’d be dead in a year. I’m in my late 30s. I’m not dead. But I’ve never really been ill.

He was able to escape the drugs because his blood results were a certain level. His T-cell counts never went below 200, so he didn’t get septra, Cotrimoxazol, another bad drug. And even when he was offered AZT, he turned it down. And he said, But I’ve never had a life. What is there for me except a lifetime of welfare payment and no career? Nothing.

We’ve created a sick role in society, and we’re doing it now with long covid, and covid. It’s the same thing. Long covid is just like the AIDS patients in the 80s and 90s.

You give people welfare payments, you create this false category, you stick them in it, and you make them redundant from society. And what happens to them? They become dependent on the state. They become psychologically disturbed, and it’s not good.


Jon Rappoport

And that’s something I’ve been harping on since 1988. It’s not one thing. Don’t look for one thing.

Because people would say to me, well, if it, if it isn’t the virus, then what is it?

And I’d say there is no it.

What about 5G maybe? That’s it. That’s what’s doing it.

So I’ve written and talked a whole lot about that. And that was one of the main breakthroughs in writing my book on AIDS — in 1988 it was.

I said, okay, what are the high risk groups according to the CDC? High risk for AIDS? Africans, Haitians, blood transfusion recipients, hemophiliacs, gay men. Okay, so what’s the common denominator? Collapse of the immune system. That’s what they say. Okay, I’ll buy that as a general term.

Now, what’s causing that to happen in different groups? Is it the same thing? No.

And when I started to dig into that extensively — okay, let’s look at the scene in Haiti, let’s look at the scene in Central Africa, let’s look at these transfusion recipients, let’s look at gay men in San Francisco. LA., New York.

In each one of these things — oh, so all of the so-called symptoms of AIDS can be produced in these different groups by different factors, none of which has anything to do with so-called HIV or necessarily any virus whatsoever.

Ah ha. That’s very interesting because, wow! So HIV becomes not only a lie, but a cover story. A cover story for all of these other things that are making people sick and killing them.


Steve Falconer, Spacebusters 

But here’s the genius of all this, because around that time, it switches to psychological warfare, as we’re seeing right now.

You don’t need the germ to cause disease or to exist. You need your target population to believe there’s a germ that causes disease and can kill you. And then you can get them to take stupid stuff like vaccines, which are real bioweapons.

You see what I mean? All you need is for them to believe.

Look what they just did to us. We believe in covid-19, and we locked down all our economies, decimated them, killed our elderly, locked our grandmas in homes, didn’t go to people’s funerals and weddings.

Look at what we just did to ourselves out of the belief.

So I don’t care. Even better than if there really was covid-19 is what they just did. They didn’t even have to have such a thing, and they just wiped out an entire population of the world with psychological warfare.


Dr. Sam Bailey

It’s deliberate. There’s confusion that’s put on to the population. Because, like you say, maybe it has been so people don’t think, because it’s so confusing.

Dr. Tom Cowan

That’s how cult leaders do it.

Dr. Sam Bailey

Yeah.

Dr. Tom Cowan

They humiliate you, they isolate you, they shame you, they bully you, and they confuse you with concepts.

And inevitably, to be part of the group, you have to stop thinking. So people do. They would rather give up thinking than be ostracized. For some people, that’s like death.


Eric Coppolino

Anyway, he says, by the way, did you know that the Woodstock festival was held during the Hong Kong flu in 1969? I said no, I hadn’t heard that. Hadn’t read that anywhere.

Here we are in 2020, and people are sitting in little circles in the park. In 1969, they’re piled in to a cow pasture. — 450,000 kids, okay? A cow pasture is made of cow shit. That’s what it means. And they’re basically — it rained the whole weekend. So you’ve got all these kids essentially swimming in cow poo, in the rain, passing joints around, and food and what little food they had, and sharing water out of canteens and swimming together in ponds.

What are the differences between 1969 and now? Today we live in a digital world. And in 1969, they did not. They lived in an analog world.

And so when you study covid, when you look at every facet of covid, what you come up with is a digital phenomenon.


 Dr. Sam Bailey

How did they get that if it’s not — could you talk a little bit more about what happens with the process of genomics, how they get genomics?

Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Well, Sam, you know there is a way to answer this in a very concise manner, and it is truthful. And the answer is they made it up.


David Parker

You know, yes, I have some very unpleasant experiences from vaccinations. But now as we started to educate ourselves, and realize, and looked into the history of vaccinations — if they’ve ever been proved to be safe and effective — and we realized that, no, they’re not safe and effective. No way can they confer immunity.

So we had to look into, does the body actually have this mythical thing, an immune system?

And we realized the body doesn’t it doesn’t work like that.

It has a repair and maintenance system. It doesn’t have an immune system where you can inject something into it and it will produce specific antibodies which then lurk around in your system, waiting for those horrible germs to attack you, and then they swoop in and kill them off. The body just doesn’t work like that.

And quite often we have a lot of difficulty with people when we have to talk about the myth of the immune system and say, well, it doesn’t actually work like that.


Mike Wallach (co-producer of The Viral Delusion)

It’s really like the big question on everybody’s mind. It’s like, okay, well, if it’s not a virus, then what is it?

I think that’s a great question. It’s a really important question. And I think that the most important answer to that is — and that hopefully people will take away from episode one, and really the whole series is, yes, let’s ask those questions as a society.

As a society, we need to ask, when people get sick, why are they getting sick? Because that question is a serious political question that our society gets to completely ignore when they ascribe sickness to viruses.

Dr. Sam Bailey

Exactly.

Mike Wallach

That’s the history of medicine, in many ways, especially when it comes to epidemiology and virology. And, we couldn’t possibly answer why everybody got sick on the face of the earth in 2019.

But everybody wants to know. They’re like… why did my sister have a really bad five days of a fever and feel really more exhausted than she’s ever been?

And the answer is, I don’t know, but let’s ask that question. I want to ask that question. As someone who’s sick, it’s really important to ask that question every time you get sick.


Prof. Tim Noakes

Yeah, you know, I think we’re going through the toughest times that I’ve ever experienced in my life. And I’m 72 years old, so that takes me back a bit.

But my parents went through the Second World War, and I’m sure your parents or your grandparents as well, went through the Second World War. And they were very brave, and they didn’t quit.

And I just think that this is our Third World War, what we’re going through. And people perhaps don’t understand what is at stake. But what is at stake is unbelievably worth fighting for.

And if we give away our freedoms, we’re in real, real trouble. 

 

Cover image based on creative commons work of ArtRose & GDJ


See related:

 

Read & download PDF of Eleanor McBean’s 1957 book ‘The Poisoned Needle’

 

The Viral Delusion (2022) Docu-Series: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & the Madness of Modern Virology

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines” 

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

‘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. Mike Yeadon: “I Don’t Think I’ll Ever Accept or Recommend Another Vaccine”

Dr. Mike Yeadon: “I Don’t Think I’ll Ever Accept or Recommend Another Vaccine”

by Dr. Mike Yeadon
sourced from Dr. Mike Yeadon Telegram channel
December 24, 2022

 

Folks,

I was just writing a briefing note for myself and it grew into this, which might be useful for some.

I don’t think I’ll ever accept or recommend another vaccine & sincerely wish I’d checked the facts on the established ones & didn’t wait for covid to point out to me how corrupt politicians are.

I do recognize that we mostly took at face value what was claimed for most products, pharmaceutical companies and non.

We’d have thought that a reasonable stance, because we know each industry sector is regulated and, in addition, surely ordinary people would stop companies deliberately harming others?

Well, yes. These assumptions rest upon other assumptions, that there isn’t such a thing as “regulatory capture” (where government employees are tempted to bend the rules in exchange for benefits, generally deferred).

Also, the assumption that there aren’t many people & organisations intent on accruing & using power over ever greater proportions of the population.
In fact, I don’t think that there are many truly terrible / evil people. There are probably only a few thousand people around the world who are, for reasons I’ll never understand, intent on seizing power at an extraordinary level.

The big problem we have is a very much larger group of people who are easily swayed by greed or fear to enact the wishes of the tiny group of evil perpetrators. Who are they, the enablers? This is MY personal take. They’re not in any particular order.

1. Pretty much all healthcare staff.

2. Those who create or communicate “content” for high-reach media entities, because people like to trust those they virtually invite into their homes every day on TV.

3. Politicians (almost all of them, whether active or passive).

4. Seniormost staff & a very small number of well-placed employees of huge pharmaceutical companies.

5. An analogously small number of decision-makers in the regulatory environment.

6. “Law enforcement”, not only police, judiciary & the covert services but also technocrats & civil servants, lying with statistics.

7. Only in the modern era have “Influencers” taken centre stage, but they’re oh so important now. In UK, people like “Professor” Devi Sridhar, TV Doctor Hillary, football pundit Gary Lineker & more.

8. *Philanthropaths everywhere, like Gates, Soros, Oprah Winfrey, who deploy billions of dollars of seemingly generous efforts to save the planet.

9. Some of your own friends and family, perhaps. Quite likely & tragically. They’re just aligning to what they believe is the right to do.

10. People I’ve missed out. Oh, like the WEF, the UN, the WHO, the EU, the Group of XX (most important nations), the Council for Foreign Relations, the IPCC, etc

Those who insist that we’re destroying earth’s climate through global warming (we’re definitely not) & that there are too many people (also not true) provide convenient partial excuses for the “unavoidably undemocratic processes, necessary to save the planet”.

Borderline genius, is this. It also offers a believable explanation for why we’re being subject increasingly authoritarian control. “Having tried democratic methods to accomplish a needed change, & failed, this is something we’ve just got to do”.

I forgot banks. Makes me realise that the ultimate movers & shakers are more or less out of site & certainly beyond reach. A large fraction of those above deserve whatever is the prevailing punishment for convicted murderers or accessories to the fact.

I don’t expect this lot to be brought before a justice system that’d beyond corruption. But we don’t need that in order to thwart their plans.

To defer, deflect or derail their intended future for us, “the little people”, that’s all we need to accomplish. In every dimension, be awkward, don’t follow their diabolical agendas. I expect they’ll have a flexible timeline, but it won’t be open-ended (“2030: you’ll own nothing & be happy”).

If we’re able to slow them down just a little bit, I expect they’ll have to move more quickly & that’s when their mistakes will become to be easier to see & opposition will grow.

Best wishes

Mike

*Philanthropaths: those who pretend to be doing good works with their own money. In fact, they’re using a charitable structure to disguise their malign intent. You know who I mean.

 

Follow Dr. Mike Yeadon on Telegram

Cover image credit: EvgeniT




Anthony Brink on Thabo Mbeki Being Right About HIV

Anthony Brink on Thabo Mbeki Being Right About HIV

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
December 15, 2022

 

former South African president Thabo Mbeki

Anthony Brink is an advocate of the High Court of South Africa and argues that former South African president Thabo Mbeki was right about HIV not causing AIDS. In fact, to be accurate, he did not say that HIV does not cause AIDS (as is often stated in the mainstream press); he said that HIV does not exist.

It’s an important distinction.

Attacking the foundation

For example, if I said that fire-breathing fairies don’t cause tornados, then I would be correct, but it leaves open the possibility that fire-breathing fairies cause snowfall. Obviously, both scenarios are absurd because fire-breathing fairies do not exist.

What does HIV-positive mean anyway?

As Anthony noted in our conversation below, the former president rejected the foundational premise and was scientifically correct. David Rasnick is a biochemist and explained why on my podcast.

The alleged virus associated with the syndrome called AIDS was never isolated.



 

I strongly recommend watching the award-winning documentary House Of Numbers which includes interviews with top scientists including Luc Montagnier (who won the Nobel Prize for “discovering” HIV).

And if you’re so inclined, then read through Thabo Mbeki’s 2001 AIDS Report. (Go to page 18 and stop yourself from feeling déjà vu after reading the critique of PCR tests.)

Our conversation

Anthony is also the national chairman of the Treatment Information Group, a voluntary association he founded in 2002 to promote research-based public debate of antiretroviral (ARV) drug policy, non-toxic treatment approaches to AIDS and HIV testing issues in South Africa.




Here We Go Again: Bill Gates, Johns Hopkins, and WHO Simulate Another Deadly Pandemic

Here We Go Again: Bill Gates, Johns Hopkins, and WHO Simulate Another Deadly Pandemic

by Amy Mek, RAIR Foundation
December 13, 2022

 

Marxist-tied WHO boss announced this week that WHO member states have agreed on the development of a legally binding pandemic treaty that will allow them to take over governmental power in the event of a pandemic.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated another deadly pandemic, this time in Brussels, Belgium, on October 23, 2022. Catastrophic Contagion is the ominous title of the project, reports Nine For News.

The guest list included ten current and former health ministers and officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India, and Germany. Billionaire and self-proclaimed ‘pandemic expert’  Bill Gates participated in the simulation of a ‘fictitious’ pandemic that would break out in the near future. One which, in the simulation, would be much more deadly than Covid, especially for children.

Participants discussed how to deal with an epidemic that emerges in a certain part of the world and then quickly spreads to become a pandemic, with a higher mortality rate than Covid. In this case, children and young people were particularly affected.

The Globalists completed a desktop simulation for a new enterovirus originating near Brazil. Every choice the participants made had far-reaching consequences.



Pandemic treaty

The WHO boss, Marxist revolutionary Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu, announced this week that WHO member states have agreed to develop a legally binding pandemic treaty. This treaty is supposed to ‘protect’ the world against future pandemics.

There is a lot of resistance to this pandemic treaty. MEP Christine Anderson (AfD) warned the treaty aims to give WHO de facto governing power over its member states in the event of a pandemic without involvement or consultation with national governments or national parliaments. The WHO can then restrict fundamental rights as it sees fit “almost like a world government,” explained the MEP.

According to WHO whistleblower Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, it is extremely dangerous. It will be a kind of global constitution, she said in the podcast Jerm Warfare. Individual countries can no longer determine how they fight the next ‘pandemic.’ She spoke of a centralization of power. “This is terrible.”

World Governance

The whistleblower pointed out that billionaire Bill Gates has been working on a global vaccination plan since 2012. The WHO has handed over leadership to GAVI (an international vaccine alliance), says Stuckelberger, who himself worked for the World Health Organization for many years. She pointed out that GAVI, is the second largest donor to WHO.

And now there is talk of global governance. “It’s organized tyranny in a golden cage,” she said. “We didn’t know how they were going to do it. They use health policies to create this global governance.”



[TCTL editor’s note: Watch full video “Astrid Stuckelberger on the WHO’s ‘Pandemic Treaty'” at Jerm Warfare]

Pandemic Simulation Games

These are not the first pandemic simulation games.  They have already been carried out regularly over the past few years by various groups ranging from politicians, scientists, financiers, and oligarchs. However, until recently, they have gone relatively unnoticed by the public.

Below are some of the previous “games” that have taken place (listed from oldest to most recent):

  • DarkWinter (2001) – The Dark Winter exercise, held at Andrews AFB, Washington, DC, June 22-23, 2001, portrayed a fictional scenario depicting a covert smallpox attack on U.S. citizens.
  • Global Mercury (2003) – The Department of State participated with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Health Ministries of seven other member nations of the Global Health Security Action Group in a tabletop Bioterrorism Exercise from September 8 – 10, 2003. The exercise, known as Global Mercury, simulated a smallpox bioterrorism attack on member countries.
  • Atlantic Storm (2005) – was a ministerial exercise simulating the top-level response to a bioterror incident. The simulation operated on January 14, 2005, in Washington, D.C. It was created to reveal the current international state of preparedness and possible political and public health issues that might evolve from such a crisis.
  • Clade X (2018) – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the Clade X pandemic tabletop exercise on May 15, 2018, in Washington, DC. The exercise aimed to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail.
  • The decisive event 201 (October 2019), based on the events of the past two years
  • The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 (May 2020)
  • Monkeypox: March 2021: The World Health Organization and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated the outbreak of a monkeypox pandemic. Also taking part in the exercise was the American, and Chinese RIVM, along with pharmaceutical giants Janssen and Merck
  • Leopard Pox – (May 2022) The World Health Organization and the health ministers of the G7 countries held pandemic simulation games based on a smallpox outbreak in 2023. The meeting featured a pandemic simulation, with the concept being that a new smallpox-like epidemic had suddenly emerged after someone was infected with the disease via a leopard bite.

 

Connect with RAIR Foundation

Cover image credit: Myriams-Fotos




Dr. Tom Cowan With Drs. Mark & Samantha Bailey: In Response to Kevin McKernan’s Statements to Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International Group

Dr. Tom Cowan With Drs. Mark & Samantha Bailey: In Response to Kevin McKernan’s Statements to Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International Group

 

 

Baileys & Cowan Respond to Kevin McKernan

by Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey with Dr. Tom Cowan
December 8, 2022

 

Recently, the CSO of Medicinal Genomics, Kevin McKernan spoke to the Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International group. He was challenged by journalist, Eric Coppolino, about the lack of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 and pathogenic viruses. McKernan made various claims that we believed needed to be addressed.

Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Mark Bailey join me to demystify the virological and biotechnological nonsense.



References:

  1. Kevin McKernan Bio
  2. Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Full Video Interview: Kevin McKernan
  3. Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Video Interview: Dr. Mark Bailey
  4. Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Video Interview: Dr. Kevin Corbett
  5. Airborne-transmission-of-SARS-CoV-2: The World Should Face The Reality
  6. Baric, R et al. SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Genetics Reveals a Variable Infection Gradient in the Respiratory Tract
  7. Consensus Statement: The species Severe acute respiratory syndromerelated coronavirus- classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2
  8. Follow Dr. Tom Cowan here

 

Connect with Drs. Samantha and Mark Bailey

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan


Referenced in the video:

  • Mark Bailey’s essay “A Farewell to Virology“.
  • Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio

Excerpts from video transcript (prepared by Truth Comes to Light):

Introduction by Sam Bailey:

In this video. Mark and I are joined by Dr. Tom Cowan to analyze the claims about “viruses” made by Kevin McKernan. Kevin is the CSO and founder of Medicinal Genomics and is a specialist in the areas of genetic sequencing and PCR technology.

He made the claims in a recent talk he gave to the Doctors for COVID Ethics International Organization.

This is the group headed by Dr. Stephen Frost and Charles Kovess, and I’d like to give credit to them for allowing all sides to the arguments to be presented through this forum. In fact, Mark spoke on their platform about the virus existence issue in October, as did Kevin Corbett a few weeks earlier.

Kevin McKernan has been promoted by Steve Kirsch as one of his proof of virus knights. So let’s find out if he is riding a horse or an imaginary unicorn.

The no-virus group has previously dismantled the claims of Sabine Hazan and Dr. Sin Lee, Kirsch’s other virus champions.

Kirsch has admitted that he doesn’t know the intricacies of virology and relies on “expert opinions” about where the viruses have been shown to exist. That’s not a wise move in my experience, because if you don’t understand what the so-called expert claims to understand, you are still in the dark.

Those promoting the virus narrative may want to reconsider where their plotlines are coming from.

Tom Cowan:

So the problem with all of this is, in a sense, it’s a philosophical problem. A sequence is a part of a whole, right? There’s this whole particle, which is a replication competent DNA or RNA encased in a protein which replicates in a cell and that causes lysis of the cell or cytopathic effect and therefore causes disease.

So they never found that whole, right?

They never referenced they find the whole. In fact, this guy actually says you cannot find that whole particle. So we’re going to skip that and we’re just going to take a piece of it and we’re going to say that represents this entity called a virus.

But as I said, you can’t say a piece of something belongs to a whole unless you had the whole first. You can’t say a paw is part of a cat unless you’ve had a cat first. They don’t have the cat first. So they say this sequence matches up to the sequence that has been published before that says it’s a coronavirus.

Well, where did that one come from?

That one came from the sequence that was published before that was said to be a coronavirus.

So where did that one come from?

That came from the sequence before. And that guy made it up.

Mark Bailey:

And once again, we’ve followed the trails back. So for coronavirus, specifically “coronavirus”, we followed the trail back to the 1980s when they claimed to have sequenced the very first “coronavirus genome”.

And I looked at all of those experiments, which were done with chicken embryos, and at no point did they demonstrate that they had anything that fulfilled the description of a virus.

They just started sequencing what they found in these experiments and then said, ‘well, we think there’s a virus in there’.

One of the experiments was fraudulent and said that they had purified the sample of variants and there was absolutely no evidence.

But unfortunately, since the 1980s, these genomes have just been put onto databases, And now we have people like Kevin McKernan saying it’s valid because we can check the sequences against what we find on a database.

And if we find them again, that means that we’re finding “viruses”, when absolutely no evidence that that’s what they’ve got.

Tom Cowan:

In some ways, after this two and a half, three year odyssey we’ve all been on, I almost wish we had never got into the thing about exosomes because the reality is, what they claim to be the proof of the existence of a virus is they take unpurified samples and inoculate those onto mostly vero cells, which are monkey kidney cells. And if it breaks down, they claim that is the proof of the virus.

Now, I was going to show you, and I think Sam will put up there’s the study of Enders, there’s three more studies from the 50s showing that vero cells break down without having any virus in the sample, any sample that could possibly have a virus.

So that’s a total of four from the 50s. Then Stefan [Lanka] did a study showing the same thing. You don’t need any sample with the virus to have the cells break down.

…Now, what, what happens when the cells break down, whether in a culture or in us, is it makes basically breakdown products, which is like garbage. And unfortunately, we started calling those exosomes as if they had some special importance, like messengers around the body or something. But the fact of the matter is, as far as I can see, while there may be something called an exosome, it’s just garbage. The cells break down, they make little things that you could see on an electron microscope, which are just typical normal cellular breakdown products.

So there are no exosomes circulating around the world. That’s nonsense. There are no viruses.

Now, the other thing that he doesn’t seem to understand, which is mind boggling, is the reason you get the same sequence all over the world is because you put this library of RNA into a computer and you give it a template which says ‘make SARS-CoV-2’. So, by God, it does!

It’s like ‘make a Volkswagen all over the world’. So they have Volkswagen plants all over the world. And oh, my God, the Volkswagens are traveling all over the world. No, they’re not. You’re telling each factory to make a Volkswagen. That’s the template. Each virology sequencing lab, it puts in the template to take these letters and make it into SARS-CoV-2 sequence. So it does. That’s not traveling all over the world. That’s just making Volkswagens at different factories all over the world. Nobody’s traveling anywhere.

Mark Bailey:

Well, exactly, Tom with his claim that something is traveling around the world. I mean, we were trying to point this out in 2020, and Sam’s co-author Claus Köhnlein was one of the first in the world to point this out. He said there’s nothing passing around apart from a PCR protocol. And he pointed out, he said, wherever you take the PCR protocol, you’ll find this “COVID-19” or the “virus”. It’s not something that’s necessarily passing around. It’s just — it’s literally a PCR pandemic. And if you set the protocols to find a certain sequence, you end up finding them.

Now, the other thing is that we’re not always saying that these sequences don’t change over time. So they might say, well, we got some samples from ten years ago and we couldn’t find these sequences. But that’s not how nature works. We know that genetic sequences have variations over time. I mean, our own genomes are not fixed, as we know if we take it from different parts of our bodies at different points in time, we’ll find different sequences. But the problem is, with this form of indirect evidence, they’re trying to say that if we find these sequences and at some stage someone declared that they’re viral, and if we find them again, that’s our evidence that we’re finding a virus that’s spreading around.

The other aspect that Kevin introduced there was the cycle threshold. Now, what he’s saying there is, he’s saying that if the cycle threshold is set too high, then it’s invalid. But if the cycle thresholds set at an appropriate low level, then it is valid. This is problematic because it comes back to our first point that these particular sequences that the PCR is amplifying have not been shown to be viral. So the cycle threshold is not an issue. I mean, that’s a technical issue and it relates to good laboratory practice. And we know that once you get to thresholds at about 35, it’s basically an artifact result. And we know they’re doing that a lot. But I think he misses our point. We’re not saying it’s a cycle threshold issue, we’re saying it’s a provenance issue and it’s a proof of these sequences actually belonging to a virus.

And it is difficult because for a lot of lay people, when they get presented with epidemiology or a news story and they get a headline that this thing is spreading around the world, they don’t understand that simply all that spreading is a PCR protocol.

And I think the other issue is that someone like Kevin would say, well, everyone in the household, we detected the same sequence. And again, that’s evidence of nothing in particular.

I mean, it would be like saying that you isolated strep pneumonia from someone in the family and then a week later you’ve found that you could isolate it from every member of the family. But it doesn’t mean anything. That’s just particles. In this case, that would be bacteria, something that we can actually see passing around between people, but it’s not a pathogenic process.

So again, to claim that we can use the protection of sequences to claim that there’s a virus spreading, it’s simply that’s a logical fallacy, pure and simple.


See related:

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

‘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

Jon Rappoport With Dr. Sam Bailey: The Virus Cover Story

Jim West: The Toxicology Taboo

Bioweapon BS — The Lab Leak Narrative & Virology’s Ongoing, Cruel, Pointless Torture & Massacre of Animals

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”

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology

Dr. Tom Cowan: Lab Created Viruses? Gain of Function Research? Bio Labs? — Smoking Gun or Bad Science?

The Viral Delusion (2022) Docu-Series: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & the Madness of Modern Virology

Why Nobody Can Find a Virus

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Andrew Kaufman: A Challenging Response to Dr. Mercola’s Article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus”

The Emperor Has No Corona




CoroNo Virus: A No Show

CoroNo Virus: A No Show

by Rosanne Lindsay, Traditional Naturopath
December 11, 2022

 

Where’s Waldo?

Yet, after continents have been shut down, economies and lives destroyed, illegal mandates invoked and revoked, and millions of people made to be inoculated with experimental “authorized” products, over 211 health science institutions, and 32 countries, cannot provide or even cite one proof of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever. 

Why has the majority of the world been duped? Have people trusted politicians who practice medicine without a license? Have governments that, until now, never agreed about anything, suddenly agree on a virus that does not exist? The question that still exists in the minds of many is this:  The Virus: To Be or Not to Be?

In actuality, scientists have known that a virus does not exist as a life form outside a cell. Viruses function without sensory organs and without a means of locomotion. A virus is incapable of entering the cell membrane because a virus cannot detect it. In the 19th century, when Pasteur was promoting his theory, German biologist Dr. Rudolph Virchow stated:

If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat—diseased tissue—rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue; e.g., mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but do not cause the pool to become stagnant.

Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908) explained that “The characteristic microbe of a disease might be a symptom instead of a cause.” In his book, Mycrozymas, Béchamp laid the foundation for the concept of pleomorphism. Why bring up Béchamp now? Because this foremost pioneer of science, medicine, nutrition and genetics, along with his discoveries, could have saved humanity a whole lot of misery and suffering. It was “by design” that Louis Pasteur’s “Germ Theory of Disease was promoted; to build and profit a colossal pharmaceutical/medical empire.

Several people have attempted to prove that the Waldo of viruses, SARS-Co-2, is the causal agent for COVID-19. However, according to Canadian citizen, Christine Massey, a former statistician who has compiled a paper trail of official responses, the virus is an imposter. It simply does not exist. See an interview with Christine here. Her main conclusions can be found at this website and are excerpted here:

  • There is no way to claim scientifically that the alleged “novel coronavirus” (blamed for widespread death/disease/lockdown measures) actually exists.”
  • “In their responses, numerous institutions have made it explicitly clear that isolation/purification is simply never done in virology, and that “isolation” in virology means the exact opposite of what it means in everyday English. This is also evidenced in every “virus isolation” paper we have ever seen, for any alleged “virus”.

Ruh-roh! Isolation of viruses is not done by virologists?

See Christine Massey’s collection of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses grouped by country:

As of September 11, 2022: 211 institutions and offices in over 35 countries have responded thus far, as well as some “SARS-COV-2 isolation” study authors, and none have provided or cited any record describing actual “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification.

Response from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 A search of our records fail to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.

Response from Health Canada:

Response from Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Taiwan:

The realtime RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, does not “isolate” the virus but rather detects short target sequences of the virus in clinical samples. If these target sequences are detected in clinical samples, these can be amplified and detected through the test. 

Response from Public Health Wales:

…. has not produced any of the above mentioned material. 

Response from the UK:

I confirm that we do not hold this information.

On and on, no one has validation of the cause of a global pandemic? In cases where officials claim to I.D. SARS-Cov-2, they point to modeling studies and gene sequencing (See the NIH GenBank Website), all of which are tied to patents.

Fake “Isolates” Used in Vaccine Development

Several research teams claimed isolation of the virus, which they call versions of a virus.  Can versions be an original? Researchers at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization-International Vaccine Centre (VIDO-InterVac) at the University of Saskatchewan tried to claim, early in 2020, to have isolated a version of the virus. See the March 202o Press Release:

On Friday, Paul Hodgson, associate director of business development at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization-International Vaccine Centre in Saskatoon, confirmed to The Globe and Mail that the joint federal-provincial facility had quietly reached the same milestone a few weeks earlier and is now using its version of the virus for a vaccine development effort.

Samples of the Saskatoon-derived version of the coronavirus are now available for approved research groups through the National Microbiological Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Ontario group also plans to generate its version for distribution.

In reality, viruses are exosomes.  In the paper titled, Is Complete Purification/Isolation of a “Virus” Even Possible? The medical literature summarizes the challenges of purification and isolation:

  • In order to claim a particular particle is a “virus” and can cause the symptoms of disease associated with it, logic dictates that it must be completely separated from all other potential variables/factors in order to prove that particular particle is indeed the cause of disease. This is the only logical way to show that no other particles in the sample could have been the cause of disease and in the case of genomics, that the DNA/RNA sequences belongs to only that particular particle which is believed to be a “virus.”
  • Viruses” are considered exosomes in every sense of the word as they are identical in size, shape, and appearance.
  • Exosome isolation remains a challenge for biomedical research. There is still no consensus over which purification technique produces the best results.
  • There is no methodology providing enough robustness regarding purification yield, selectivity, and reproducibility.
  • Contamination from other vesicles, molecules or particles that overlap is expected.
  • The main difference is that exosome research regularly attempts purification using one or multiple methods whereas Virology does not…. the methods discussed all suffer from contamination from other particles.

An Abstract written by Drs Mark Bailey and John Bevan Smith demonstrates what a growing number of people have discovered for themselves: If SARS-CoV-2 is a fraud, then COVID-19 is a fraud.

In The case of the Missing Virus, the curtain has been pulled back to reveal the great deception of the foundation of medical science. Is Virology a science or a hoax? Are Virologists making claims without the ability to draw conclusions or provide proof?

Again, the CDC states the virus is not available. The July 13, 2020 CDC document titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [For Emergency Use Only] section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” p. 39 reads:

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA.

The germs are laughing.

It’s time to call out medical science for its false narratives and shaky foundations. Why not make world governments prove the basis for injections? Because it is impossible to prove the virus. After all these years, The Germ Theory appears to be a dud and virologists everywhere are having the last laugh as long as people believe in them.

 

Related Past Articles:

 

 


 

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and  Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network.  Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org.

 

 

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay

Cover image based in Creative Commons work of GDJ




The Deadliest Disease Known to Man Is Ignorance!

The Deadliest Disease Known to Man Is Ignorance!

by Gary D. Barnett
November 11, 2022

 

“A wise man makes his own decisions, but an ignorant man mindlessly follows the crowd.”

~ Chinese Proverb

We live in a world of lies, deceit, propaganda, staged narratives, and because this deceit has been widely accepted by the crowd, mass ignorance has been the result. This universal ignorance cannot be blamed solely on government, indoctrination centers called ‘public’ schools, politicians, or the media, except that these entities do advance every form of lie possible in order to fool the people into accepting storied fables leading them toward slavery. And as should be obvious at this stage of the game, the people have been thoroughly fooled, and have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, every bald-faced lie imaginable. The result sought and gained by the state, can be evidenced by the total submission and gross obedience to this heinous and politicized ruling class of psychopathic monsters.

This disease called ignorance, now consumes the minds of most all of this population, and is eating away entirely the ability to consider fact, to realize truth, to practice logic, to reason, and to muster any ability whatsoever to think critically as an individual. This state of being has been the common thread of this and other populations for a long time, but the complete lie of a fake disease called ‘covid,’ has exposed that mass ignorance is not only alive and well, but has infected almost to a man, this entire society and the world. There is no proven disease called ‘covid,’ there is no real scientific proof of ‘covid’ or any ‘virus’ whatsoever, but regardless of this truth, the whole world has fallen to its knees in a display of mass and pathetic gullibility so outrageous as to be insulting to any thinking individual.

This all comes down to the very unscientific false belief in germ theory, and the complete negation of terrain theory; a mistake of epoch proportion. There is no reason for one versus the other, but only the honest assessment of reality that is the human body. Even Louis Pasteur, the so-called father of germ theory idiocy, is said to have admitted on his death bed that the “pathogen is nothing, the terrain is everything.” But to this day, real medicine is ignored in favor of very harmful prescription drugs sold by huge pharmaceutical companies, and surgery, as the only ‘legitimate’ treatment for any illness. Not prevention or cure mind you, but constant and forever treatment and death; treatment that brings hundreds of billions of dollars each year to what is now mistakenly called modern medicine and ‘health care’ administered by state whores.

Considering just the past three years, the fundamental issue should focus on whether or not this so-called ‘covid’ virus even exists, and once it is established that no valid scientific procedures have been accomplished to prove without a doubt that this virus actually exists, then it is imperative to discuss the claim that any virus exists, as none have ever been properly isolated or identified. It is also important to scrutinize all those who profit at extreme levels due to the lie of ‘covid.’ Some of those would include the entirety of the medical field, the pharmaceutical companies, the politicians and all the ruling class who desire control, the large corporations who gain more monopoly due to the purposeful destruction of the lower and middle class economic capabilities, and the owners of everything by the big banks and investment houses that gain trillions due to the massive money printing based on this ‘covid’ lie.

There are still many who claim both sides of this argument, and that has helped greatly the expansion of the lies, because what might be people who would normally question the state narrative, have become supporters of that same narrative. This is very confusing to those people who have placed their trust in these hypocrites who are either acting as controlled opposition purposely, or actually are ignorant of the obvious truth. These people are certainly contradicting themselves, whether they are doing so intentionally or not. Many of those taking what is considered a ‘libertarian’ approach, are simply agreeing to both sides of the argument by claiming that ‘SARS-CoV-2 (‘covid-19’) is real and is a virus, and a massive threat to humanity. They are agreeing with the state’s false narrative, and at the same time, claiming to be against the bio-weapon ‘vaccine’ injection. You know who these people are, but do you doubt their pretended sincerity? I think, at least in most cases, you do not. This is just a recipe for more confusion, and confusion leads right back to ignorance.

The so-called ‘science’ that advocates perpetual treatment, perpetual ‘vaccines,’ and perpetual wealth building for its drug pushers, is the quackery labeled virology. Of course, as one might expect, this is the ‘science’ of viruses, but since no virus in history has ever once been separated, fully isolated, or identified, how can such a ‘science’ exist? If there are no viruses, how can there be virology?  One might also ask; if there is no direct threat, how can there be legitimate medical war against the people? In both cases, there is no legitimacy in virology or a ‘health war,’ but there is a valid and justifiable argument that virology is also a war against us; a war on humanity, because it is used to simply enrich the perpetrators of this fraud, to poison the masses, and to gain power and control over all.

The ‘covid’ and ‘vaccine’ frauds have been largely exposed, although the mainstream, and those in the alternative media as well, who continue to push the lie that ‘covid’ is real, was produced in a lab, and accidentally or purposely released on the world, are losing ground. Their next obvious move was to create the lie of variants; variants that came from a non-existent virus, and would be the next killer. This required even more poisonous injections, and ‘vaccine’ boosters. But these threats never panned out of course, so other threats were invented, such as the staged war in Ukraine, the lie of manmade ‘climate change,’ and then the threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, the tide has turned back to yet another falsely claimed dangerous ‘viral disease’ called respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV; a so-called sickness that is similar to a mild cold, but according to the drug-dealing medical establishment, it requires yet another killer ‘vaccine.’ The first toxic ‘vaccine’ used to ‘combat’ this same claimed affliction, was actually used and sickened and killed children in the 1960s who were said to have the very same RSV ‘sickness.’ You just can’t make up this degree of lunacy.

There is a massive amount of evidence available to discount virology and to completely expose the ridiculous notion of germ theory, but changing the minds of the entire population after many generations of lies and brainwashing, is a difficult task to accomplish. It requires individual thinking and scrutiny of the atrocious state ‘medical’ policy that has consumed the public. One only has to understand who gains from the fraud,  and which corporations and individuals control the medical field, in order to awaken to the fact that powerful criminal elements are involved.

As the never-ending idiocy of virology continues to rule the day, the Pfizer chief crows and brags to investors that the ‘covid’ fraud will continue to be a multi-billion dollar franchise for many years to come; and expects massive profits to continue. This is the thought process of those who profit from the false flag ‘virus’ fearmongering who desire to destroy humanity for money, power, and control; this as they increase the price of this poisonous bio-weapon injection  by astronomical amounts, all the while knowing of the deadly harm caused by this toxic killer.

Open your minds, do your own research, understand the horror of the U.S. medical establishment and its pharmaceutical masters, and take proper care of your health instead of allowing the criminal system to harm you. Turn away from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and all the other drug-dealing pharmaceutical companies, take responsibility for yourselves and your own health instead of relying on the evil state narratives that are only lies. Do not accept ignorance as the fall-back position; and instead inform yourselves about the terror of the state. The worthless election is over, nothing will change, except things will likely worsen, so abandon and negate this wicked state instead of hiding from the truth.

“The ignorance of the oppressed is strength for the oppressor.”

~ A.R. Bernard

 

Reference links:

Terrain versus Germ Theory

No virus has ever been proven to exist

Virology and pretenders

The virus that doesn’t exist

The lost history of medicine

Missing the unproven viruses

An idiot’s guide to germ theory–Pasteur and Bechamp

Bechamp had his finger on the magic of life

Pfizer chief brags that ‘covid’ is his multi-billion dollar franchise

 

Connect with Gary D. Barnett

cover image based on creative commons work of CDD20 & MiroslavaChrienova




Virologie Nights: “The Virus Fraud Is One of the Greatest Gaslighting Activities Ever Perpetuated on the Planet.”

Virologie Nights: “The Virus Fraud Is One of the Greatest Gaslighting Activities Ever Perpetuated on the Planet.”
Virologie Nights

by Dr. Sam Bailey
November 5, 2022

 

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.]

  1. SpaceBusters Bitchute channel.
  2. ’Viruses’ – Baileys, Cowan & Kaufman Respond To Del Bigtree” – 4 Sep 2022.
  3. The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement.
  4. Paul Thomas & James Lyons-Weiler, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” – Nov 2020.
  5. Roman Bystrianyk & Suzanne Humphries, Dissolving Illusionscharts.
  6. Dr Sam Bailey, “Gain of Function Gaslighting”, 30 Jun 2021.
  7. Dr Sam Bailey, “Gain of Function Garbage”, 18 Jan 2022.
  8. Dr Sam Bailey, “Bioweapons BS”, 1 Oct 2022.
  9. Mark Bailey, “A Farewell to Virology”, 15 Sep 2022.
  10. Role of spike in the pathogenic and antigenic behaviour of SARS-CoV-2 B.A.-One Omicron
  11. Mike Stone, “It’s Gain of Fiction Story Time with RFK Jr. and Friends!” – 24 Oct 2022.
  12. K18-hACE2 Mice: http://www.arc.wa.gov.au/?page_id=5637

See more articles and videos from the Baileys on Germ Theory

 

Connect with Drs. Samantha & Mark Bailey

 

See related:

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

 

cover image credit: pixabay




No Vaccine Has Ever Worked: Mike Donio on the Corrupt Pharmaceutical Industry

No Vaccine Has Ever Worked: Mike Donio on the Corrupt Pharmaceutical Industry

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
sourced from Jerm Warfare newsletter, November 3, 2022
interview recorded July 4, 2022

 

Before the “Covid” era I didn’t question the legitimacy of most vaccines.

Now I do.

It’s All Broken

Mike Donio is a pharmaceutical scientist who left the industry after pulling back the curtain on corruption, lies, and medical fraud.

Mike Donio holds a bachelor’s degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology with a Minor in Chemistry from the University of Massachusetts and a master’s degree in Biotechnology with a concentration in Biotechnology Enterprise from Johns Hopkins.

He is an accomplished scientist with 20 years of experience, including 15 years in the biotech and pharmaceutical industry.

He was fired after refusing the “Covid vaccine“, which is further evidence of what David Rasnick refers to as the “Tyranny Of Dogma“.

Fraud and lies

California State University’s Leemon McHenry published a superb book titled The Illusion Of Evidence-Based Medicine, in which he exposes the corruption of medicine by the pharmaceutical industry, from exploiting unsuspecting people for drug testing, to manipulation of research data, to disease mongering, and marketing drugs for imaginary health issues.

Del Bigtree has revealed how the American government (including the CDC and FDA) collude with Big Pharma for monetary gain, particularly where safety trials are concerned. Or rather, the lack of safety trials.

Roman Bystrianyk co-authored a book called Dissolving Illusions, in which they use official data to show how, over the last century, no vaccine has worked in the way promised by the pharmaceutical industry and governments.

The point is that Big Pharma is untrustworthy, and few scientists are as close to the action as Mike Donio.

Our conversation



 

Connect with Jerm Warfare

Connect with Mike Donio

cover image credit: 爪丨丂ㄒ乇尺_卩丨ㄒㄒ丨几Ꮆ乇尺




Dr. Tom Cowan: Viruses, Bacteria and Parasites Are in Our Body to Clean Things Up and Heal

Dr. Tom Cowan: Viruses, Bacteria and Parasites Are in Our Body to Clean Things Up and Heal

by Patrick Timpone, One Radio Network with Dr. Tom Cowan
October 31, 2022

 



Show Notes:

 

  • What responses has Dr. Cowan received regarding his stance on viruses?

 

  • What is needed to prove something exists?

 

  • They say there’s not enough virus in a person to measure, even in someone who is said to have died from it.

 

  • Supposed isolation of a virus by giving antibiotics and starving the cell sample.

 

  • Separating the snot from the person and putting it in a culture. Culture cells die, supposedly proving the virus exists.

 

  • List of structures or functions said to exist in human biology that haven’t been proven to exist or proven to not exist. They are actually artifacts of the way we find thing in cells.

 

  • Ribosome supposedly makes protein and means the rib of the body. They are mocking you.

 

  • DNA in nucleus makes RNA, which supposedly goes to ribosome and makes protein. How can RNA escape from the nucleus yet nothing can get into the nucleus?

 

  • Mitochondria supposedly located in endoplasmic reticulum. But the cristae lines look like cracks formed from freezing.

 

  • Can’t be receptors in membranes.

 

  • How does water make structure out of impulse?

 

  • Wedding ring image created in water in petri dish laid on top of a wedding invitation.

 

  • What is falling down? Water creates a London Bridge image.

 

  • Antenna on top of Taj Mahal dome structure, and other historical buildings, conveying information to water.

 

  • Thoughts or conceptions become actions which have consequences.

 

  • What was the cause of death of a HIV scientist dying after 4 COVID jabs? His belief that the jabs would help him.

 

  • Can’t treat anyone for an illness as long as their brain work is delusional.

 

  • Dr. Cowan doesn’t want to change the system. Instead, commit to finding reality. The world will give you clues and help you.

 

  • Trust senses, verify reality with others, then do science and validate every step. Keep looking to see if evidence is congruent with belief.

 

  • Guides or angels will help you in your quest for discovering reality.

 

  • How come all these smart people think something else? How smart are they really? Are they committed to not looking at the evidence?

 

  • No such thing as right or wrong. No objective reality – it’s only what I say that determines right or wrong. That is the path of nothing is real, of nihilism.

 

  • There is an ultimate reality. We don’t create reality, it is given in the world. We do create beliefs though.

 

  • Creating reality is where we went wrong.

 

  • Real food comes from nature. Eating fake or human engineered food is what makes people sick.

 

  • Is more meat and less carbs a species appropriate diet? There are no successful human cultures that only ate animal foods. They ate what was growing In abundance in their area.

 

  • You can’t live without killing things. Overly sentimental to think otherwise.

 

  • Parasites come in and eat the impurities in us. Stop poisoning yourself and the parasites go away. They recycle your dead and dying tissue. Parasites eat poisons.

 

  • What to do for someone that’s had the jab? Use it as a lesson in you’ve got to see the world differently. It’s a spiritual awakening.

 

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Patrick Timpone


[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: On a number of occasions, Dr. Tom Cowan references the work of Dr. Harold Hillman. See A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman. (PDF also available here.) Below, you will also find links to related articles.]

See related articles: 

Modern Medicine: A Castle Built on Sand?

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines” 

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Lee Merritt: Debunking Virus & mRNA Theory

Bioweapons: The Myth of Man-Made Pathogens

Challenging the Foundations of Virology: Corona Investigative Committee With Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman




Jim West: The Toxicology Taboo

Jim West: The Toxicology Taboo

by Dr. Sam Bailey
October 29, 2022

 

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)
  • Political vs Scientific Truth
  • What individuals can do to combat medical tyranny

and much more!



References:

  1. DDT/Polio: Virology vs Toxicology – Jim West’s Book
  2. Jim’s Website
  3. 6% Global Income Big Tech: How the EU is Forcing Twitter to Censor (and Musk Can’t Stop It)
  4. Jim’s Blog

 

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

cover image credit: CDD20




Vaccination Is the Opposite of Sustainability and Care for the Planet’s Limited Resources

Vaccination Is the Opposite of Sustainability and Care for the Planet’s Limited Resources

by Robin Monotti Graziadei, No Place Without Spirit
October 30, 2022

 

Vaccines are false virtue signalling symbols of mass consumerism. They are the epitomization of fraudulent overconsumption. In order to not reduce  transmission and to fail at reducing minor symptoms of a disease in one person, hundreds of people need to be injected with hundreds of vials and plastic syringes which required thousands of hours of energy production and close to millions of hours of refrigeration. All of that overuse of energy and resources is wasted, as a normally functioning healthy human immune system evolved precisely to overcome disease without any superfluous injection.

Add to that trillions of single use plastic masks which fail at preventing transmission of any disease carried by particles much smaller than the gaps where they meet the face, all along their edges, or the ones in the weave of the plastic fibres themselves.

Then add the amount of resources required to address the inevitable percentage of adverse events to vaccinations, in some cases lifetimes of extra treatment and extra production of again largely superfluous further factory energy consuming industrially produced medications.

Do we want to reduce overconsumption? Reduce the consumption of energy? Let’s start with ending the production of superfluous vaccines, and most of all let’s stop injecting healthy people with any energy consuming factory produced deep refrigerated single plastic syringe using vials of substances which will make a number of them ill some severely ill, even ill for the rest of their life in some cases, requiring further resources where none were necessary.

Vaccination belongs to another era, to an age of ignorance, it is not sustainable and not compatible with environmentalism and care for the planet.

Vaccination is in fact the most blatant symbol of superfluous overconsumption of the modern era.

Let’s “degrow” our economy by starting with ending all mass vaccinations, and heal ourselves and our planet outside of the fraudulent logic of industrial production.

 

Connect with Robin Monotti Graziadei

cover image credit: geralt




‘It’s Elementary My Dear Watson’ – Unmasking the Viral Paradigm

‘It’s Elementary My Dear Watson’ – Unmasking the Viral Paradigm

by Dr. Kevin Corbett, Christine Massey and Dr. Mark Bailey
sourced from drsambailey.com
October 21, 2022

 

The British nursing academic, Dr Roger Watson, recently cited a Canadian study by Banerjee et al as an example of adequate controls being used in “viral isolation”. Watson’s article appeared in Toby Young’s The Daily Sceptic which purports to exist for airing views others refuse to publish.

The cited study actually failed to prove any viral phenomenon because it did not use purified particles as independent variables. Only impure (crude) clinical samples from a patient were added to monkey kidney (Vero E6) cells without any suitable control. Subsequent phenomena were observed which were then claimed to be the actions of a ‘virus’ hence presumptively termed ‘cytopathic effect’. Similarly, the RNA used for sequencing the so-called ‘viral genome’ was extracted – not from any purified particles proven to be of viral origin – but from the contaminated supernatant of the Vero E6 cells used in Banerjee et al. The resulting ‘sequenced genome’ was no such thing. It was an in silico modelled confection created from the same contaminated supernatant. These unscientific claims inform the current ‘consensus’ on how to do ‘viral isolation and sequencing’, despite having been rebutted by The Perth Group of scientists decades ago.

All of these deviations from scientific method were pointed out to Dr Watson in e-mail messages by one of us (CM). Dr Watson was also asked to explain his stance in relation to this evidence which is anomalous viz a viz the scientific method and the paradigm of virology. Watson’s initial response sidestepped the question. On further probing, Watson politely indicated that he had not considered these particular anomalies and thus would need to give further thought to the lack of valid controls used by Banerjee et al. Watson further stated that this whole debate “was cue to an article on why those who believe in viruses will not be convinced by the evidence”. We fully agree.

These particular e-mail messages are one example of a messenger exposing the multiple anomalies of modern virology to those who are conceptually invested in that paradigm. Instead of being able to look at what has been presented with a fully detached eye, the usual recourse is to bolster that failing anomaly-stricken paradigm by trying to dismiss the message, either by side stepping the questions posed, or by attacking the messenger ad hominem.

Dr Watson attempted the former but (on this occasion) resisted doing the latter.

We respectfully argue that this response is still a strategy of deflection to cover up ignorance of the caveats in modern day ‘viral isolation’ which are axiomatic within virology. This sort of defensive manoeuvre was previously identified by both Thomas Kuhn (1962) and Stephen Cole (1983). Kuhn argued that scientists reject anomalous data which potentially break down the existing consensus as a means of trying to maintain certainty. These rejections, which (after Kuhn) were proved by Stephen Cole to occur within modern science, are essentially defensive actions similar to knee-jerk responses. 

In this case, highly convincing observational data was presented (by CM) casting grave doubt over the veracity of this accepted ‘consensus’ on viral isolation. Some scientists have even argued that these sorts of observations fatally damage the whole concept of ‘viral disease’. This so-called ‘consensus’ on ‘viral’ isolation is a necessary condition for both maintaining and advancing the current paradigm of virology and its claims of ‘viral isolation’. Following Kuhn and Cole, those like Watson who seem very heavily invested in this paradigm will inevitably provide a knee-jerk response to reject any anomalous observations. We argue that this e-mail exchange is a modest example of premature closure of debate on the observed anomalies about modern virology’s claims of ‘viral isolation’.

 

Dr. Kevin Corbett website
Dr Kevin Corbett, BA (Hons) MSc PhD is a health scientist and qualified nurse with over thirty years of experience in higher education, health care research and clinical practice.

Christine Massey website
Christine Massey, MSc is a former biostatistician collating virology-related freedom of information responses from around the world.

Dr. Mark Bailey website
Mark Bailey, MB ChB PGDipMSM MHealSc is a microbiology, medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades.

 

cover image credit:
Illustration by Sidney Paget from ‘The Adventure of the Crooked Man’, The Strand Magazine, Volume 6, 1893
(in public domain)




Funeral Director Reports ‘Massive Increase’ in Death Rate Exclusively in Young Jab Recipients

Funeral Director Reports ‘Massive Increase’ in Death Rate Exclusively in Young Jab Recipients

by Children’s Health Defense
October 18, 2022

 

Funeral Director John O’Looney has seen it all — he is no stranger to dead bodies. But something has changed, to the scale of mass-vaccination. Joining “Good Morning CHD” as today’s guest, John exposes the deep, dark occurrences that seem to be happening in mortuaries across the country. What does this unprecedented development mean for the world and our personal lives?

[View clip from full video below. View full video at source — CHD.TV):]

Connect with Children’s Health Defense

 


Transcript:
As a funeral director, I’m seeing a massive increase in death rate, exclusively in young jab recipients.
Do you know how many children I’ve had in that died from COVID? Have a guess. None. Not a single one.
Neither have any of my colleagues. None of them.
You’re putting your child at massive, massive risk of damage. People need to wake up. They’re euthanizing people in hospitals, in British hospitals, with Midazolam now, without even giving them a COVID test*.
They’re killing people with Remdesivir. They know what it does! And they still do it because they’ve got bills to pay.
Their body is so full of fluid where their kidneys are packed up, as you move them across from a stretcher to a stainless steel tray in the mortuary, you leave an imprint in them because they’re so full of fluid where the kidneys have failed due to Remdesivir — due to medicine.
This is an agenda. And I would have never believed. I was never into conspiracy. Never.
I left there knowing that they know. They know and they’re going to push on.
You’re committing murder. You’re being complicit in mass murder and hiding it.
I would like to see all of the nurses and doctors who know what’s going on to down toes and walk out.
I’m an undertaker! Why do they think I’m telling them?
You know, it’s not because I’m not putting people in coffins. It’s because I am!

 

*Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: It is well-known at this point in time that Covid tests are useless in detecting infectious disease and cannot possibly diagnose “covid”.   See here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here for starters.

 

View full video (also available at source — CHD.TV):



 

 




Why Nobody “Had, Caught or Got” COVID-19

Why Nobody “Had, Caught or Got” COVID-19

 

by Dr. Mark Bailey
October 16, 2022

 

Recently I spoke to an international consortium of doctors and researchers about the COVID-19 situation and the issue of virus existence. I was asked whether I thought COVID-19 cases were fictional in nature, which is an interesting question. It goes beyond the matter of whether pathogenic viruses exist and are the cause of disease. It also allows us to address the frequent claim people make that whatever COVID-19 is supposed to be, they “got it,” based on their experience or one of the so-called tests they took. Let’s examine why there is no “it” even though there are lots of “cases”…

When most people hear the word “case” in a medical context there is a natural tendency to think that the individual being counted has an actual disease. It may come as a surprise that this is not a requirement at all because in the field of epidemiology it can be defined as simply, “the standard criteria for categorizing an individual as a case.” ‘Standard criteria’ can be anything and this opens the door to all sorts of misuse and misinterpretation. In fact, it has been used to propagate outright fraud, as Dr John Bevan-Smith and I documented last year in “The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity.”

In 2020, Sam published a video “What is a COVID-19 case?,” which succinctly outlined the problems of the World Health Organisation’s COVID-19 ‘case’ definition. It is evident that the cases are “confirmed” by in vitro (outside the body) molecular detection assays – in 2020 that was mostly PCR kits and today we also have the widely-deployed Rapid Antigen Tests, which I have discussed in another article. Whatever tests are being used, they have been completely disconnected from the concept of disease. By mid-2020, it was more than apparent that COVID-19 was not a clinically defined condition. A Cochrane review published in July that year concluded that, “based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease.” In other words, COVID-19 cases can be solely determined by molecular “tests” such as the above-mentioned ones.

It is astounding that the vast majority of the medical community went along with this nonsense, including many of those who have been opposed to the “pandemic” responses. What does it mean to diagnose or treat a “case” of COVID-19? Even some PCR critics have been gaslit by debates about the “accuracy” of the PCR and appropriate cycle threshold limits in determining ‘cases’. However, this falls back into the same trap, being the belief that these particular tests are capable of telling them something useful about the condition of a person. They think the PCR just needs to be tweaked in a certain way so it can be used as a diagnostic tool. For clarity, I am not talking about clinically-validated molecular assays with known diagnostic specificity and sensitivity such as urine pregnancy tests. Sam has covered the pertinent differences in her video “COVID-19: Behind The PCR Curtain.”

Beyond the medical community, the public have been deceived by linguistic legerdemain where the PCR or Rapid Antigen Test results are then called, “cases of the virus,” or, “cases of infection,” by public institutions and the corporate media. This is a game of deception because the WHO’s own definition of a case has been completely misrepresented. If they were honest they would say, “cases of a detected chemical reaction in an assay.” However, this would have failed in the marketing department and nobody would have bought into the pandemic narrative in 2020.

In summary, there are indeed cases of COVID-19 but the case definition has been disconnected from the concept of disease. The Johns Hopkins “COVID-19 Dashboard” displays hundreds of millions of meaningless cases, which look impressive to the uninitiated viewer. However, knowledge of how these numbers have been produced brings an understanding that we have just witnessed a pseudo-pandemic, or what Virus Mania’s Dr Claus Köhnlein christened a “PCR Pandemic” in 2020.

The COVID-19 fraud and the concept of “cases” is illustrative of a wider problem concerning medical training and practice within the allopathic paradigm. It is one that I am acutely aware of, having been in the conventional medical system for two decades until my exit in 2016. The paradigm is based on claimed disease entities, many of which are allegedly caused by one “pathogen” and are supposedly treated with one “magic bullet.” Medicine was subverted in this way last century after the stifling implementation of the Rockefeller-backed Flexner Report (1910) and has never recovered. Dr Montague Leverson pointed out an example of this misguided thinking about disease around the same time:

“You here assume smallpox to be a thing, an entity. This blunder is committed by nearly all the followers of the self-styled “regular school”, and it will probably be a new idea to you to be told that neither smallpox nor any other disease is an entity, but is a condition.”

Dr. Montague Leverson, Bridgeport Evening Farmer, Connecticut USA, August 21, 1909

One of the worst things that can happen when visiting an allopathic doctor is being labelled with a disease entity. Medical practice has deteriorated into protocol-driven paradigms in which the practitioners blindly follow pathways and tick boxes. Hapless patients are given a tag and then subjected to prescribed “treatments” rather than being advised on how to help cure their body’s real problems. One silver lining to the COVID fiasco is that it blatantly exposed the nature of the medical system to many people and they could see that it cannot help them with achieving true health.

New Zealand’s Dr Ulric Williams (1890-1971) was another who understood the follies of attempting to classify disease “cases” through not only investigations but also through criteria involving symptoms and signs. Rather, he identified these patterns as healing crises and the body’s attempts to restore itself to health. On that note, we are pleased to announce that we will soon be publishing a book that will once again make Dr Williams’ wisdom and curative methods available to the world.

We are frequently asked about what really makes people ill if it is not “viruses” or other disease entities. It is a matter of changing our way of thinking from the misleading model of getting or suffering from “it” to a new understanding of what our body is trying to do to get well again. As well as addressing this in our free content, we explore these concepts further in our monthly Q&A sessions. Access to this bonus content is available through Dr Sam’s Community Membership. Please sign up for this membership if you would like to support our work and have even more of your questions answered. You can also sign up for Dr Sam’s free newsletter so you don’t miss out on any of the latest developments.

 

Connect with Drs. Mark and Sam Bailey

cover image credit: Dieterich01




Dr. Tom Cowan: Five Simple Questions for Virologists

Five Simple Questions for Virologists

by Dr. Tom Cowan
October 13, 2022

 

Hello, everyone. Almost three years into the “great virus debate,” we’re still awaiting answers to questions we have for virologists. I thought this would be a good time to put forward in one place the five most basic unanswered questions, with the hope that any virologist will reply with answers. I’m happy to share their answers with my audience.

Question One: When attempting to prove the existence of any “thing,” we follow certain procedures. First, we define the thing we are looking for, then we go to the natural habitat of that thing and attempt to find it. If we find it and we isolate it (meaning, separate it from its environment so we have it in pure form), this step allows us to find out what the thing is composed of and what it does. It works very well with trees, frogs, bacteria and even nanoparticles.

Can you give us a reference in which this step has been done for any pathogenic virus, and, if this reference doesn’t exist, explain why not?

Question Two: Virologists claim that the “viral culture” experiment proves the existence of the virus. In that experiment, an unpurified sample is taken from a sick person and mixed with fetal bovine serum, toxic antibiotics, and a starvation medium. It is then inoculated on a highly inbred cell culture, which results in the breakdown of the cells (called “cytopathic effect”). This process is called “isolation” of the virus.

Can you define what the term “isolation” means to you, and whether you agree that the above process is a scientifically based isolation procedure?

Question Three: The scientific method at its core means the choosing of an independent variable (that which you wish to study) and a dependent variable (the effect this independent variable causes). By this widely accepted definition of the scientific method, one would need to isolate and test the virus and only the virus as the independent variable. So, a proper experiment would be to isolate a pure virus from a sick person that you allege is made sick with this virus and inoculate this and only this virus onto the cell culture and see whether it causes the CPE. Then, of course, one would run a control experiment: The identical steps would be taken, except no virus would be added to the culture.

Can you point us to a study in which this clear experiment has been done? If it doesn’t exist, please explain why. If the reason is that you can’t find the purified virus in any fluid of any sick plant, animal, or human, then are you willing to acknowledge that the only experiment one could do to prove the existence of these viruses simply can’t be done? If you agree that this experiment can’t be done, could you please refer us to a paper that shows how a “viral culture” is experimentally validated with proper controls at every step of the experiment?

Question Four: It is often claimed by doctors and scientists that every nook and cranny of our bodies is teeming with viruses. These viruses, it is claimed, make up what is called a “virome.” Some claim there are 10 to the 48th number of viruses in our bodies.

If this is true, when you inoculate unpurified lung samples onto cell cultures, presumably containing gazillions of these viruses, why is the only virus that “grows” the one you’re looking for, i.e., SARS-CoV-2? Why aren’t these other viruses seen, photographed, and found in the broken-down cell culture?

Question Five: Finally, can you offer other examples of “things” that are claimed to exist solely through the finding of pieces of that thing? To be clear, if no records of a purified virus such as SARS-CoV-2 exists, by what logic or scientific principles can one claim to prove that any piece, such as an antigen or genome, has come from that “thing?”

All the best,

Tom

 

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

cover image credit: Rednic




German Engineer Marvin Haberland Challenges the Existence of Covid Virus in German Court

German Engineer Marvin Haberland Challenges the Existence of Covid Virus in German Court

 

Marvin vs Virology: COVID Taken to Court

by Dr. Sam Bailey
October 11, 2022

 

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.]

References:

  1. Dr. Mark Bailey – A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition)
  2.  Dr. Sam Bailey – Secrets of Virology “Control” Experiments
  3. Dr. Sam Bailey – The Truth About Virus Isolation
  4. Spanish Flu Video – Secrets of Influenza
  5. Corona Fakten Telegram Channel
  6. German Legislation: Law for the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Humans (Infection Protection Act – IfSG) Paragraph 1
  7. DFG Funding, Good Research Practice
  8. Wikipedia – German Research Foundation
  9. Measles Court Case Protocol Findings
  10. Virus Mania – 3rd Edition
  11. The Peter Doherty Institute
  12. Christine Massey FOIA
  13. COVID 19 Fraud & War On Humanity – Part 1 video
  14. The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

 

Connect with Drs. Samantha and Mark Bailey




Bioweapon BS — The Lab Leak Narrative & Virology’s Ongoing, Cruel, Pointless Torture & Massacre of Animals

Bioweapon BS — The Lab Leak Narrative & Virology’s Ongoing, Cruel, Pointless Torture & Massacre of Animals

 

“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’.”

~ Dr. Sam Bailey


 

Bioweapon BS

by Drs. Samantha & Mark Bailey
October 1, 2022

 

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. 



References
    1. Gain of Function Gaslighting”, Dr Sam Bailey, 30 Jun 2021.
    2. Gain of Function Garbage”, Dr Sam Bailey, 18 Jan 2022.
    3. Biohazard” in New York Times, 20 Jun 1999.
    4. Selling the threat of bioterrorism”, LA Times, 1 Jul 2007.
    5. Dr. Ken Alibek & Dr. Peter McCullough (C19: Origins & Intentions)”, 14 Sep 2022.
    6. The Best Decision Bill Gates Ever Made”, WSJ, 18 Feb 2021.
    7. Ebola: Last British man to survive deadly virus says public must be warned of danger”, 25 Aug 2014.
    8. A case of Ebola virus infection”, BMJ, 27 Aug 1977.
    9. Side effects of interferon-alpha therapy”, Pharm Work Sci, Dec 2005.
    10. Viral haemorrhagic fever in southern Sudan and northern Zaire. Preliminary studies on the aetiological agent”, Lancet, 1977.
    11. The Ebola “Virus” Part 1”, ViroLIEgy, 26 Sep 2022.
    12. Experimental Respiratory Infection of Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) With Ebola Virus Kikwit”, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1 Sept 2015.
    13. The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier”, by Dr David Martin, 2021.
    14. A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition)”, Dr Mark Bailey, 15 Sep 2022.
    15. 21st Century Wire – Patrick Henningsen with Dr. Mark Bailey”, 25 Sep 2022.
    16. Conversations With Dr. Cowan & Friends | EP 53: Dr. Mark Bailey”, 22 Sep 2022.
    17. Anthrax, Arsenic and Old Lace”, Sally Fallon Morell, 19 Oct 2020.

 

 

Connect with Drs. Mark & Sam Bailey

cover image credit: Syaibatulhamdi




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.”

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.”

by Dr. Tom Cowan
September 22, 2022

 

Dear friends,

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.

All the best,
Tom

 Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel. [Mirrored copies available at TCTL Odysee, BitChute & Brighteon channels.]

 

Read and download at the Bailey’s website (Mark & Samantha Bailey): https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

 

 

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Mark Bailey




Oracle Films Documentary: Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion (2022)

Oracle Films Documentary: Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion (2022)

by Oracle Films
September 28, 2022

 

Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion shines a light on Covid-19 vaccine injuries and bereavements, but also takes an encompassing look at the systemic failings that appear to have enabled them. We look at leading analysis of pharmaceutical trials, the role of the MHRA in regulating these products, the role of the SAGE behavioural scientists in influencing policy and the role of the media and Big Tech companies in suppressing free and open debate on the subject.



Video available at Oracle Films Odysee and YouTube channels.

 

Connect with Oracle Films

cover image is a screenshot from Safe and Effective documentary

The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Comes to Light. Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. Please do your own research, question everything and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.




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”

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!



©September 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Connect with Children’s Health Defense

 


[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.”

Watch the documentary “The Viral Delusion”: https://paradigmshift.uscreen.io/

 

References:

Books mentioned:

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.]

See related:

The Viral Delusion (2022) Docu-Series: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & the Madness of Modern Virology




Criticism of the Pharma Cartel and Its ‘Business With Disease’ Is Becoming Mainstream

Criticism of the Pharma Cartel and Its ‘Business With Disease’ Is Becoming Mainstream

by Paul Anthony Taylor, Dr. Rath Health Foundation
September 23, 2022

 

In his classic nineteenth century novel ‘War and Peace’ Russian writer Leo Tolstoy observed that “the strongest of all warriors are…time and patience.” I was reminded of these words recently when coming across an article in the Dutch newspaper NRC which called for the drug industry to be abolished. The article echoed words from a quarter of a century ago, contained in a speech given in the city hall of Chemnitz in Germany, in which physician and scientist Dr. Matthias Rath called for the pharma business to be outlawed. Explaining how its profits depend upon the maintaining and expanding of health problems on a global scale, Dr. Rath accused the ‘business with disease’ of being incompatible with the fundamental principles of human rights. Back in 1997, this type of open criticism of the drug industry and its unscrupulous business model was almost unheard of. Today, however, with the passage of time, the publication of the NRC article illustrates that it is becoming mainstream.

Authored by Dutch political scientist Joost Smiers, the NRC article describes how society is now at the mercy of the pharma business and its shareholders. “As far as I am concerned,” Smiers writes, “it is high time to break the societal feeling of powerless towards Big Pharma.”

Asking whether we still need drug companies, Smiers says that in his opinion the answer is “no.” Clearly, when such thoughts are published in a mainstream European daily newspaper, there can be no doubt that we are living in changing times.

Making pharma obsolete

Pointing out that research into medicines can be done separate from the pharma industry, at universities and other independent research institutes, Smiers argues that substantial research funds should be established, fed from public funds, with independent committees deciding which diseases and researchers funding should be directed towards. Smiers stresses the importance of these committees functioning at arm’s length from governments. Crucially, he also proposes that alternative health therapies such as vitamins could benefit from this approach.

Just as importantly, Smiers stresses that all knowledge resulting from medicines research should be publicly and freely available. Mirroring the long-time position held by Dr. Rath and our Foundation, he adds that there should be no more patents involved – thus avoiding the present situation whereby patent owners have a monopoly on the use, or non-use, of scientific knowledge.

Smiers further addresses another key barrier to the ethical functioning of healthcare systems, namely, the sale price of medicines. Here, he proposes that companies paid to manufacture medicines resulting from independently funded research should provide them at cost. A levy could then be added on top of this low price to help fund future research projects. In this way, Smiers explains, the commercial weight of pharma industry shareholders and marketing can be eliminated. Ultimately, he sees the pharma industry being bought out or expropriated, and essentially being made obsolete.

Smiers readily acknowledges that drug firms based in the major pharmaceutical manufacturing countries will not let any of these things happen silently. He points out however that today’s pharmaceutical companies are “horrifyingly powerful monopolists,” adding that “they are not loved, to put it mildly,” and that this creates opportunities.

“If we make Big Pharma obsolete,” writes Smiers, “we kill several birds with one stone. Healthcare becomes more affordable. All the knowledge needed to develop medicines will no longer be surrounded by patents but will return from private to public ownership. Moreover, access to medicine will once again become a human right, and no longer the plaything of Big Pharma shareholders. They have no business in our health care system. They should stay far away from it.”

A new era in medicine

Smiers’ article clearly echoes some of the key ideas and concepts contained in Dr. Rath’s 1997 Chemnitz speech. Prior to Dr. Rath giving this speech, it was practically unheard of for anyone to publicly accuse the drug industry of being the main obstacle to medical breakthroughs in the control of diseases. As a result, the fact that pharmaceutical companies have a direct financial interest in the continued existence of diseases was simply not widely appreciated at that time.

Not only did Dr. Rath’s Chemnitz speech open the floodgates to more widespread criticism of the drug industry and its business model, however, it also introduced people to the possibility that, by taking advantage of new discoveries in the field of cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and strokes were now preventable through natural health approaches based on the use of vitamins and other micronutrients. In doing so, this laid the foundations for a new system of healthcare in which, as a first step, the preservation and improvement of health should be declared an inalienable human right. Towards achieving this goal, Dr. Rath stressed the importance of subjecting medical research and the licensing of drugs to a comprehensive system of public control.

Following the publication of Joost Smiers’ article in the Dutch newspaper NRC it is now clear that, a quarter of a century after Dr. Rath gave his historic Chemnitz speech, we stand on the verge of a new era in medicine. Abolishing the pharmaceutical industry is a prerequisite for transforming healthcare and making access to it a human right. The sooner we can reach this worthy goal, the better it will be for all of humankind.

 

Paul Anthony Taylor is Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.

 

Connect with Dr. Rath Health Foundation




Secrets of Virology – “Control” Experiments

Secrets of Virology – “Control” Experiments

by Dr. Sam Bailey
September 17, 2022

 

Recently, there was a claim that virologists do carry out properly controlled experiments, which show that the “no virus” position is false. ?

Could it be that we missed this vital piece of evidence?

Let’s have a look at what was presented, break down the scientific method and see if there’s been any shenanigans…



References

  1. The “Settling the Virus Debate” statement.
  2. Mock-infection” definition.
  3. Tom Bethell on evolution, “Iconoclast: One Journalist’s Odyssey through the Darwin Debates
  4. Independent and Dependent Variables Examples
  5. Proteomics of SARS-CoV-2-infected host cells reveals therapy targets” Nature, 14 May 2020.
  6. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019” NEJM, 24 Jan 2020.
  7. Dr Sam Bailey Video, “What is a COVID-19 Case?” 13 Dec 2020.
  8. EM image: “Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Returning Travelers from Wuhan, China (SM)” NEJM, 26 Mar 2020.
  9. Dr Sam Bailey Video, “Electron Microscopy and Unidentified ‘Viral’ Objects”, 16 Feb 2022.
  10. Dr Mark Bailey, “A Farewell to Virology – Expert Only Edition”
  11. A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 Using Amplicon-Based Sequencing, Random Hexamers, and Bait Capture”, Viruses, 15 Aug 2020.
  12. Christine Massey’s website.

 

Connect with Drs. Samantha and Mark Bailey

cover image based on creative commons work of andremsantana & b0red




A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

 

[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.]

 

Read & Download the Full 67-Page Essay in PDF Format

 

A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)

by Dr. Mark Bailey
September 15, 2022

 

Abstract

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

 

Read & Download the Full 67-Page Essay in PDF Format

 

Connect with Drs Mark & Sam Bailey

image credit: nicolasdebraypointcom