“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.”
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 Sundayreported 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.
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.
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
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.
“…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.
“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.”
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?…
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.
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.
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 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 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…….
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 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.
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.”
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.
“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?
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.
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…
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
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.
A 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.
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: “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. View all posts by Sally Fallon Morell
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
“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.”
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.]
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.
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.
[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.]
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)
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.
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’sThe 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 onwhy 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 Corbettwebsite
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 Masseywebsite
Christine Massey, MSc is a former biostatistician collating virology-related freedom of information responses from around the world.
Dr. Mark Baileywebsite
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 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):]
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):
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.
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?”
Many of us know that the virologists have not been following the scientific method and have no evidence that viruses exist. One of their biggest problems is that they don’t perform valid controls in their experiments.
German engineer Marvin Haberland has worked out a way to get a public admission that SARS-CoV-2 has not been shown to exist. When Marvin broke “corona” legislation, the German authorities unwittingly took the bait.
If they want to convict him, they will have to justify the fraudulent nature of virology in a public court.
The virologists better come up with some decent excuses fast…
[Video available at Dr. Sam Bailey Odysee channel.]
“This cannot be called a contagious entity. It had to be pumped directly into their lungs and was never demonstrated to pass between animals. Furthermore, there was no control experiment where comparable monkeys were knocked out and assaulted by a similar nebulized biological brew, forced into their lungs for 10 minutes, as well as being bled multiple times, being surgically implanted with recording devices, and being confined in isolation chambers.
In other words, it wasn’t a scientific experiment. It was another of virology’s pointless animal massacres.
Those who promote the bioweapon and lab leak narrative are falling for the headlines and parroting the claims of the virologists on face value. They might also want to pause and think why these stories are promoted by the mainstream media.”
###
“Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, this bioweapon and biosecurity scam is a multi-billion dollar business. So, knowingly or not, those involved will act in a way to keep the gravy train going.”
###
“The bioweapon narrative relies on one thing. And that is getting the public to keep believing in both germ theory and the existence of viruses.
Sure, there have been many attempts to make bioweapons. But there is no evidence of any contagious product that can pass from human to human.
All they have are toxic products that can be injected into people or otherwise used to poison them through mechanisms that are not ‘infections’.”
Many people can see that there are problems with the “virus” model and the concept of contagion in general. However, the notion of “bioweapons” instills a sense of fear in the population. Along with the mainstream media, various members of the health freedom community are promoting “engineered pathogens” and “lab leaks.”
In this video, we take a look at the scientific evidence at the heart of these so-called “bioweapons” claims. Watch as we dismantle the most scary “virus” of them all – Ebola.
Dr. Tom Cowan With Dr. Mark Bailey: “SARS-CoV-2 Virus Could Never Have Been Leaked From a Lab Because No Such Particle Has Been Proven to Exist. Ever.”
As many of you know, economist Jeffrey Sachs, the head of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, dropped a bombshell recently when he announced his support for the theory that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 was most likely a leak from a virology lab in Wuhan, China. His assertion follows years of speculation — within the health-freedom community, the halls of Congress and in the popular and scientific press — that such an event took place.
After making this announcement, Sachs was interviewed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., about the circumstances and evidence for this lab-leaked virus. Kennedy is also releasing a new book that purports to lay out the evidence for this theory, and how it proves the duplicity of government officials such as Fauci, who they allege are accomplices in unleashing this plague upon the world.
Other prominent lawyers, doctors and researchers have also publicly endorsed the lab-leak hypothesis. Del Bigtree of the Highwire podcast has even claimed that it’s settled fact that SARS-CoV-2 was created through so-called gain-of-function research, largely funded by Fauci-led government labs. This act, they say, is allegedly the smoking gun, the proof that Covid was and is a “plandemic” organized and funded by the elites to create the conditions to enact the World Economic Forum’s The Great Reset.
While it is not my intention to denigrate the good work done by Kennedy and others in exposing the horrors of the Great Reset agenda and speaking out against restrictions on our freedoms, I strongly encourage them and anyone else to listen to today’s podcast with Dr. Mark Bailey. In doing so, they will hear that a SARS-CoV-2 virus could never have been leaked from a lab because no such particle has been proven to exist. Ever. Not only that, the alleged claim that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimeric virus made from portions of HIV mixed with previously discovered coronaviruses can’t possibly be true because, as you probably already know, neither HIV nor previous “coronaviruses” have themselves been shown to exist.
The most interesting question of all is not the science, as that is easy to demonstrate: No natural, chimeric, lab-created or any other type of SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist. The question is, why this story? The answer might have come from Sachs himself, who in a long follow-up article essentially came to the conclusion that, as a result of discovering this lab leak, whether purposeful or accidental, it is no longer possible to trust national governments or virology labs to police themselves. They have been proven to be corrupt, sloppy and untrustworthy. His solution? We must put the oversight of all virology labs and, perhaps someday, of all “science” labs under the gentle and careful guidance of the World Health Organization and related supranational bodies.
I was absolutely shocked to read this purported solution. To centralize control of scientific experimentation in the WHO, an unelected and unaccountable body that pushed the effort to vaccinate most of humanity and drove the disastrous lockdown policies worldwide, would create an even bigger monster to battle. It now feels urgent for the health-freedom community to rigorously investigate the whole story of SARS-CoV-2 in particular and virology in general. As Mark and I point out in this podcast, the health-freedom promulgators of the lab-leak theory now have two options. First, they can demonstrate how they know that HIV, the original coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 exist, and then show how this chimeric lab-created virus was spread throughout the world. Or, they can investigate further the scientific evidence of virology’s catastrophic and obvious lies.
Their response to this request will help demonstrate whether a “unity conference” as proposed by Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense is a real possibility. My sincere hope is that those in the medical-freedom community have simply misunderstood the science of virology.
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.
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”
by Children’s Health Defense Mary Holland, CHD president with David Rasnick, PhD biochemist and Mike Wallach, creator “The Viral Delusion”
September 26, 2022
Mary Holland takes on the controversial subject of whether the existence of the COVID virus + other viruses, like the HIV virus – have been thoroughly proven. She brings on two guests, David Rasnick, Ph.D. and filmmaker of the series ‘The Viral Delusion’ Mike Wallach, to discuss this topic and educate viewers on the truth behind ‘public health’ and those in power who control it. Don’t miss this episode!
[Mirrored copies of the video are available at TCTL Odysee, BitChute & Brighteon channels.]’
Excerpt from the documentary trailer:
“For two years, the world has wondered whether the virus that changed our lives emerged from nature or if it leaked from a lab. But a third perspective has been growing among doctors and scientists, that there never was a virus at all. That a host of various sicknesses were repackaged and sold to the public as virally caused without any such proof in scientific papers. Their perspective just might change everything we thought we knew. This is their shockingly compelling story.”
Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children by Louise Kuo Habakus, Mary Holland
Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries, Roman Bystrianyk
DDT/Polio: Virology vs Toxicology by Jim West
Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey
Also mentioned is the work of David Crowe in regards to the covid pandemic narrative and his prior work in exposing the erroneous AIDS narrative. See video: Rethink All Viruses, by David Crowe and Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory by David Crowe (available via Archive.org or view and download here.]
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.
[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Below you will find the abstract & the postscript for Dr. Mark Bailey’s essay entitled “A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition)“. Use the links provided to view the entire 67-page report at Mark & Samantha Bailey’s website.]
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
A viral particle must fulfil defined physical and biological properties including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human. However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions.
This essay contains three parts. Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.
Part Two examines the fraud used to propagate the COVID-19 “pandemic.” A breakdown of the methodology relied upon by the original inventors Fan Wu et al., shows how the fictional SARS-CoV-2 was “created” through anti-scientific methods and linguistic sleights of hands. It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates. Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle — the phylogenetic trees are fantasies. The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic. Part Three provides an analysis of how some key participants, “health” institutions, and the mainstream media maintain the virus illusion through information control and narratives that parrot virology’s claims. By way of happenstance, the virological fraud now finds itself front and centre of the COVID-19 fraud. From here, however, it can be critically appraised by those outside virology and the pseudoscientific paradigm virology has built around itself can finally be dismantled and laid to rest.
The aim of this essay is to provide refutations to various claims that pathogenic viruses exist and cause disease. SARS-CoV-2 has been used as the main example but the principles apply to all alleged viruses. What follows addresses virology’s often arcane literature on its own terms, which, it should be said, may make parts of this essay somewhat heavy reading. However, it is hoped that this contribution will fill a niche for the reader seeking a more technical understanding of the virus hypothesis as it seeks to expose the very foundation of purported pandemics and fraudulent medical practices. The threat of virology to humanity is increasing so it is time we bid farewell to these destructive pseudoscientific practices and free ourselves from unnecessary fears.
Postscript
No matter how long an essay covering this topic may be, there will always be more questions in the form of, “but what about…?” The desire to fit observed phenomena to the virus model is strongly programmed on many levels. It was not the intention of this essay to explain peripheral observations or the cause of various illnesses in organisms such as humans. As has been detailed, it only needs to be demonstrated that the viral hypothesis has refuted itself on its own terms. The virologists have provided no direct evidence of pathogenic viruses and instead have resorted to indirect observations that are invalided due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. Additionally, adhering to the scientific method places us under no obligation to provide an alternative explanation for these phenomena — when a hypothesis has been falsified, even once, it is done for. Tragically, the explanations to many of the “but what about…?” questions have already been answered elsewhere but the seduction of the “virus” and the juggernaut of surrounding interests have formed an artificial knowledge barrier for many people. In this light, I have endeavoured to serve the highest purpose I know and hope that my contributions will help humanity throw off the imaginary viral shackles once and for all.
Progress consists, not in the increase of truth, but in freeing it from its wrappings. The truth is obtained like gold, not by letting it grow bigger, but by washing off from it everything that isn’t gold. — Leo Tolstoy
“Keep in mind that…there are people who know a lot more about the way the world works…”
“This is a long-term program of controlling the way we are educated, to teach us the way to think, how not to question certain things…”
“They’ve not only got murderous technologies that we don’t completely understand, but they’ve also got psychological techniques that we’re not paying attention to…”
“They not only know things but they know how to manipulate us…”
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Getting to the Truth About “Viruses”: Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman & Tom Cowan Respond to Del Bigtree’s Statements in a Recent Interview With The Conscious Resistance
“I think realistically, we’re talking about the state of the science in virology. And these are facts that we can check within their own publications. So, we’re not presenting a philosophical view about how biology works necessarily. What we’re saying is that when we go to the scientific literature, we can see that they’ve not established that there are pathogenic particles called viruses.”
~ Dr. Mark Bailey
“…The way I see it right now is — the goal, I’d say, is to stop the tyranny… And the good thing, I would say, is that whoever is the perpetrators of this… in a sense they gave us a gift. And the gift is, they made this particular tyranny — focus of it — to be about a virus. And it turns out that if you actually go into how do you know whether these so-called pathogenic viruses exist, it’s very simple…
…With viruses, there’s no technical problem of finding them. We’ve been able to do this for over 70 years. And the fact of the matter is… you can’t find them in the habitat that they say they are. And so this becomes such a scientific truth — logical, rational way of understanding the world. And it becomes clear to just about everybody that they can’t prove that these viruses exist.
And since the goal is to stop the tyranny… if you show that there’s no evidence that they do exist, which is very easy to do, then all of the things in the tyranny — so-called vaccines, injections, social distancing, masking, closing businesses, restriction of travel — all that makes no sense. No sense. So you don’t have to fight about all those things…”
Dr Sam and Mark Bailey are joined by Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Andy Kaufman to analyse Bigtree’s strategy. We discuss why we believe the COVID-19 situation should be used to unravel not only the virus model, but the fraud of germ theory as well.
All-cause mortality is the most accurate and most reliable scientific data for analysing the “Covid pandemic” because it doesn’t discriminate and it has no bias. After all, a death is a death.
When time, age, and region, are used as additional variables, the correlations become (nearly) bulletproof.
For a detailed breakdown of the study, I recommend watching the presentation conducted by Denis and his co-authors (Marine Baudin and Jérémie Mercier). Their research includes “vaccination” data.
Our Conversation
For a simpler breakdown of the study, I recommend watching my conversation with Denis, in which he explains everything in layman’s language, and throws in some eye-opening geopolitics for good measure.
“What kind of world would it look like if we all knew there was no such thing as pathogenic viruses, and that we got sick because of some combination of poisoning our inner water and the field — the electromagnetic field, the ether, so to speak — that we’re all bathed in is giving us information that isn’t good for us?”
~ Dr. Tom Cowan
Discussed:
Asking foundational questions to find the truth.
What is the optimal diet for humans. He talks about the foundation question: “What happens when different people eat different diets?”. He referenced research done by Weston A. Price and that revealed the relationship between groups of people who had perfect teeth and their consumption of animal fats.
What is the appropriate way to engage in a logical, rational, scientific discussion?
Dr. Richard Flemming who claims to have proof that SARS-CoV-2 exists because of an electron microscopy image. Dr. Cowan references the video The Emperor’s New Virus? and the work of Luc Montagnier who said that you cannot prove the existence of a virus based on electron microscopy pictures.
‘Liberty Man’ Paul Wittenberger in conversation with Andrew Kaufman M.D:
Andrew Kaufman talks about his own path of questioning and discovery about how viruses are claimed to be identified. He goes over the key issues involved in the ongoing debate between those asserting official germ theory and those who are sharing the perspective of terrain theory.
They break down the scamdemic and share thoughts about their research into nanotech in the biomedical field.
One of the outcomes of the alleged new SARS Covid virus that publicly emerged in 2019 is that the medical specialization of virology has been raised to a stature almost Godlike in the media. Few understand the origins of virology and its elevation into a leading role in today’s medicine practice. For this we need to look at the origins and politics of America’s first medical research institute, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, today Rockefeller University, and their work on what they claimed was a polio virus.
In 1907 an outbreak of a sickness in New York City gave the director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, MD, a golden opportunity to lay claim to discovery of an invisible “virus” caused by what was arbitrarily called poliomyelitis. The word poliomyelitis simply means inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter. There were some 2,500 New Yorkers, mostly children, designated with some form of poliomyelitis, including paralysis and even death, that year.
Flexner’s Fraud
The most striking aspect of the entire polio saga in the USA during the first half of the 20th Century was the fact that every key phase of the business was controlled by people tied to what became the Rockefeller medical cabal. This fraud started with claims by the Director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, that he and his colleague, Paul A. Lewis, had “isolated” a pathogen, invisible to the eye, smaller even than bacteria, which they claimed caused the paralyzing sickness in a series of outbreaks in the US. How did they come to this idea?
In a paper published in 1909 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Flexner claimed he and Lewis had isolated the poliomyelitis virus responsible. He reported they had successfully “passaged” poliomyelitis through several monkeys, from monkey to monkey. They began by injecting diseased human spinal cord tissue of a young boy who had died, presumably from the virus, into the brains of monkeys. After a monkey fell ill, a suspension of its diseased spinal cord tissue was injected into the brains of other monkeys who also fell ill.
They proclaimed that the Rockefeller Institute doctors had thus proven poliomyelitis virus causality for the mysterious disease. They hadn’t done anything of the sort. Flexner and Lewis even admitted that: “We failed utterly to discover bacteria, either in film preparations or in cultures, that could account for the disease; and, since among our long series of propagations of the virus in monkeys not one animal showed, in the lesions, the cocci described by some previous investigators, and we had failed to obtain any such bacteria from the human material studied by us, we felt that they could be excluded from consideration.” What they then did was to make a bizarre supposition, a leap of faith, not a scientific claim. They took their hypothesis of viral exogenous agency and made it fact, with no proof whatever. They asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?
Simon Flexner simply asserted it “must” be a polio virus killing the monkeys, because they could find no other explanation. In fact he did not look for another source of the illnesses. This was not scientific isolation. It was wild speculation: “…not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.” They admitted this in a December 18, 1909 follow up in JAMA, titled, THE NATURE OF THE VIRUS OF EPIDEMIC POLIOMYELITIS.
The so-called “virus” they were injecting into monkeys was hardly pure. It also contained an undetermined amount of contaminants. It included “pureed spinal cord, brain, fecal matter, even flies were ground up and injected into monkeys to induce paralysis.” Until Jonas Salk won approval from the US Government in April 1955 for a polio vaccine, no scientific proof of existence of a virus causing poliomyelitis, or infantile paralysis as it was commonly known, had been proven. That is the case to this day. The medical world all took Flexner’s word that it “must” be a virus.
Rockefeller Institute, Flexner and the American Medical Association
The Rockefeller Institute was founded from the Standard Oil fortune of John D. Rockefeller in 1901, to be America’s first biomedical institute. It was modelled on France’s Pasteur Institute (1888) and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (1891). Its first Director, Simon Flexner, played a pivotal and most criminal role in the evolution of what became approved American medical practice. The Rockefeller goal was to completely control American medical practice and transform it into an instrument, at least initially, for promotion of medical drugs approved by the Rockefeller interests. By then they were looking to monopolize medical drugs produced from their petroleum refining, as they had done with oil.
As Rockefeller Institute head, Simon Flexner, was publishing his inconclusive but highly acclaimed studies on polio, he arranged for his brother, Abraham Flexner, a school teacher with no medical background, to head a joint study by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Rockefeller General Education Board, and the Carnegie Foundation founded by Rockefeller’s close friend Andrew Carnegie.
The 1910 study was titled, The Flexner Report, and its ostensible purpose was to investigate the quality of all US medical schools. The outcome of the report was, however, predetermined. Ties between the well-endowed Rockefeller Institute and the AMA went through the corrupt AMA head, George H. Simmons.
Simmons was also the editor of the influential Journal of the American Medical Association, a publication delivered to some 80,000 doctors across America. He reportedly wielded absolute power over the doctors’ association. He controlled the rising ad revenues for drug companies to promote their drugs to AMA doctors in his journal, a highly lucrative business. He was a key part of the Rockefeller medical coup that was to completely redefine acceptable medical practice away from remedial or preventive treatment to use of often deadly drugs and expensive surgeries. As head of the AMA Simmons realized that the competition from a proliferation of medical schools, including then-recognized chiropractic, osteopathy, homeopathy and natural medicine, was lessening income of his AMA doctors, as the number of medical schools had increased from around 90 in 1880 to over 150 in 1903.
Abraham Flexner, former headmaster of a private school, toured various US medical schools in 1909 and recommended that fully half of the 165 medical schools be closed, as what he defined as “sub-standard.” This reduced competition from other approaches to healing diseases. They ruthlessly targeted then-widespread naturopathic medical schools, chiropractic ones, osteopaths as well as independent allopathic schools unwilling to join the AMA regime. Then Rockefeller money went to the select schools with a proviso that professors be vetted by the Rockefeller Institute and the curriculum focus on drugs and surgery as treatment, not prevention, nor nutrition, nor toxicology as possible causes and solutions. They had to accept Pasteur’s germ theory of disease, which claims one germ to one disease reductionism. Rockefeller-controlled media launched a coordinated witch-hunt against all forms of alternative medicine, herbal remedies, natural vitamins and chiropractic–anything not controlled by Rockefeller patented drugs.
By 1919 the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation had paid out more than $5,000,000 to Johns Hopkins, Yale and Washington University in St. Louis medical schools. In 1919 John D. Rockefeller granted another $20,000,000 in securities, “for the advancement of medical education in the United States.” That would be comparable to about $340 million today, a huge sum. In short the Rockefeller money interests had hijacked American medical education and medical research by the 1920’s.
Creating Virology
This medical takeover, backed by the most influential doctors’ organization, the AMA, and its corrupt head, Simmons, allowed Simon Flexner to literally create modern virology under Rockefeller rules. The highly controversial Thomas Milton Rivers, as director of The Rockefeller Institute’s virology laboratory, established virology as an independent field, separate from bacteriology, during the 1920s. They realized they could manipulate far easier when they could claim deadly pathogens that were invisible germs or “viruses.” Ironically virus comes from Latin for poison.
Virology, a reductionist medical fraud, was a creation of the Rockefeller medical cabal. That highly important fact is buried in the annals of medicine today. Diseases such as smallpox or measles or poliomyelitis were declared caused by invisible pathogens called specific viruses. If scientists could “isolate” the invisible virus, theoretically they could find vaccines to protect people from harm. So their theory went. It was a huge boon for the Rockefeller cartel of pharmaceutical companies, which at the time included American Home Products which falsely promoted drugs with no proof of effect, such as Preparation H for Hemorrhoids, or Advil for pain relief; Sterling Drug,which took over the US assets including Aspirin of German Bayer AG after World War I; Winthrop Chemical; American Cyanamid and its subsidiary Lederle Laboratories; Squibb and Monsanto.
Soon virus researchers at the Rockefeller Institute, in addition to claiming discovery of the poliomyelitis virus, claimed to discover the viruses that caused smallpox, mumps, measles and yellow fever. Then they announced “discovery” of preventive vaccines for pneumonia and yellow fever. All of these “discoveries” announced by the Institute proved false. With the control of the research in the new area of virology, the Rockefeller Institute, in collusion with Simmons at AMA and his equally corrupt successor, Morris Fishbein, could promote new patented vaccines or drug “remedies” in the influential AMA journal that went to every member doctor in America. Drug companies refusing to pay for ads in the AMA journal were blackballed by the AMA.
Controlling Polio Research
Simon Flexner and the highly-influential Rockefeller Institute succeeded in 1911 in having the symptoms that were being called poliomyelitis to be entered into the US Public Health Law as a “contagious, infectious disease caused by an air-borne virus.” Yet even they admitted they had not proven how the disease enters the body of humans. As one experienced doctor pointed out in a medical journal in 1911, “Our present knowledge of the possible methods of contagion is based almost entirely upon the work done in this city at the Rockefeller Institute.” In 1951 Dr. Ralph Scobey, a critic of the Rockefeller rush to judgment on polio contagion, noted, “This of course placed reliance on animal experiments rather than on clinical investigations…” Scobey also pointed to the lack of proof poliomyelitis was contagious: “…children afflicted with the disease were kept in general hospital wards and that not a single one of the other inmates of the wards of the hospital was affected with the disease.” The general attitude at that time was summed up in 1911: “It seems to us despite the lack of absolute proof, that the best interests of the community would be conserved by our regarding the disease from a contagious standpoint.” (sic).
By having poliomyelitis symptoms classified as a highly contagious disease caused by an invisible, alleged exogenous or external virus, the Rockefeller Institute and the AMA were able to cut off any serious research for alternative explanations such as exposure to chemical pesticides or other toxins, to explain the seasonal outbreaks of illness and paralysis, even death, mostly in very young children. That was to have fatal consequences lasting to the present.
Enter DDT
In his 1952 statement to the US House of Representatives investigating the possible dangers of chemicals in food products, Ralph R. Scobey, M.D. noted, “For almost half a century poliomyelitis investigations have been directed towards a supposed exogenous virus that enters the human body to cause the disease. The manner in which the Public Health Law is now stated, imposes only this type of investigation. No intensive studies have been made, on the other hand, to determine whether or not the so-called virus of poliomyelitis is an autochthonous chemical substance that does not enter the human body at all, but simply results from an exogenous factor or factors, for example, a food poison.” Toxins as cause were not investigated, despite huge evidence.
During the 1930s with economic depression and then war, few new major outbreaks of poliomyelitis were noted. However, immediately after the end of World War II, notably, the polio drama exploded in dimension. Beginning 1945, every summer more and more children across America were diagnosed with poliomyelitis and hospitalized. Less than 1% of the cases were actually tested via blood or urine tests. Some 99% were diagnosed by merely the presence of symptoms such as acute pain in extremities, fever, upset stomach, diarrhea.
In 1938, with the support of presumed polio victim, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (March of Dimes) was founded to solicit tax-exempt donations to fund polio research. A German doctor and researcher, Dr Henry Kumm, came to the US and joined the Rockefeller Institute in 1928 where he stayed until joining the National Foundation in 1951 as Director of Polio Research. Kumm was joined at the National Foundation by another key Rockefeller Institute veteran, the so-called “father of virology,” Thomas M. Rivers, who chaired the foundation’s vaccine research advisory committee overseeing the research of Jonas Salk. These two Rockefeller Institute key figures thus controlled funds for polio research including developing a vaccine.
During the Second World War, while still at Rockefeller Institute, Henry Kumm was a consultant to the US Army where he oversaw field studies in Italy. There Kumm directed field studies for the use of DDT against typhus and malarial mosquitoes in the marshes near Rome and Naples.DDT had been patented as an insecticide by Swiss drug firm Geigy and their US branch in 1940, and first authorized for use on US Army soldiers in 1943 as a general disinfectant against head lice, mosquitoes and many other insects. Until war’s end almost all DDT production in the US went to the military. In 1945 the chemical companies looked eagerly for new markets. They found them.
In early 1944, US newspapers triumphantly reported that typhus, “the dreaded plague that has followed in the wake of every great war in history,” was no longer a threat to American troops and their allies thanks to the army’s new “louse-killing” powder, DDT. In an experiment in Naples, American soldiers dusted more than a million Italians with DDT dissolved with kerosene (!), killing the body lice that spread typhus. Rockefeller Institute’s Henry Kumm and the US Army knew that, as one researcher put it, “DDT was a poison, but it was safe enough for war. Any person harmed by DDT would be an accepted casualty of combat.” The US Government “restricted” a report on insecticides issued by the Office of Scientific Research and Development in 1944 that warned against the cumulative toxic effects of DDT in humans and animals. Dr Morris Biskind noted in a 1949 article, “As DDT is a cumulative poison, it is inevitable that large-scale intoxication of the American population would occur. In 1944, Smith and Stohlman of the National Institutes of Health, after an extensive study of the cumulative toxicity of DDT, pointed out, “The toxicity of DDT combined with its cumulative action and absorbability from the skin places a definite health hazard on its use.” Their warnings were ignored by higher officials.
Instead, after 1945, all across America DDT was promoted as the miracle new, “safe” pesticide, much like Monsanto’s Roundup with glyphosate three decades later. DDT was said to be harmless to humans. But no one in government was seriously scientifically testing that claim. One year later in 1945 as the war ended, US newspapers praised the new DDT as a “magic” substance, a “miracle.” Time called DDT “one of the great scientific discoveries of World War II.”
Despite isolated warnings of untested side effects, that it was a persistent, toxic chemical which easily accumulates in the food chain, the US Government approved DDT for general use in 1945. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), controlled by the Rockefeller-AMA-drug interests, established as “safe” a DDT content of up to 7 parts per million in foods, though no one had proven such. The DDT chemical companies fed the press with photos and anecdotes. Newspapers enthusiastically reported how the new miracle chemical, DDT, was being tested in the US against mosquitoes in the South believed carrying malaria, as well as “preserving Arizona vineyards, West Virginia orchards, Oregon potato fields, Illinois cornfields, and Iowa dairies.” DDT was everywhere in the USA in the late 1940s.
The US Government claimed DDT, unlike arsenic and other insecticides used before the war, was harmless to humans, even infants, and could be used liberally. Beginning 1945 cities like Chicago sprayed public beaches, parks, swimming pools. Housewives bought home aerosol spray DDT dispensers to spray the kitchen and especially childrens’ rooms, even their matrasses. Farmers were told to spray their crops and their animals, especially dairy cows, with DDT. In postwar America DDT was being promoted, above all by Rockefeller drug companies like American Home Products with its Black Flag aerosol DDT spray, and Monsanto. From 1945 through 1952 the US production of DDT increased tenfold.
As presumed cases of polio literally exploded across the USA after 1945 the theory was advanced, with no proof, that the crippling polio disease was transmitted, not by toxic pesticide chemicals like DDT, but by mosquitoes or flies to humans, most especially young children or infants. The message was that DDT can safely protect your family from the crippling polio. Officially listed polio cases went from some 25,000 in 1943 before US civilian use of DDT, to over 280,000 cases in 1952 at the peak, more than a tenfold increase.
In October 1945 DDT, which had been used by the US Army under supervision of Rockefeller Institute’s Henry Kumm as noted, was authorized by the US Government for general use as an insecticide against mosquitoes and flies. Dissenting scientists warning of toxic effects of DDT in humans and animals were silenced. Families were told DDT could save their children from the dreaded polio by killing the feared insects.
The US Department of Agriculture advised farmers to wash their dairy cows with a solution of DDT to combat mosquitoes and flies. Cornfields were aerial sprayed with DDT as well as fruit orchards. However it was incredibly persistent and its toxic effect on plants and vegetables were such it could not be washed off. Year-by-year from 1945 through 1952 the amount of DDT sprayed across the US increased. Notably, so too did the number of human cases of poliomyelitis.
Worst Polio Epidemic
By the beginning of the 1950s increasing attention was given in the US Congress and among farmers as to the possible dangers of such heavy pesticide use—not only DDT, but also the even more toxic BHC (benzene hexachloride). In 1951 Morton Biskind, a physician who had successfully treated several hundred patients with DDT poisoning, testified to the US House of Representatives on the possible link of paralytic polio to toxins, specifically DDT and BHC. He noted,
“The introduction for uncontrolled general use by the public of the insecticide “DDT” (chlorophenothane) and the series of even more deadly substances that followed, has no previous counterpart in history. Beyond question, no other substance known to man was ever before developed so rapidly and spread indiscriminately over so large a portion of the earth in so short a time. This is the more surprising as, at the time DDT was released for public use, a large amount of data was already available in the medical literature showing that this agent was extremely toxic for many different species of animals, that it was cumulatively stored in the body fat and that it appeared in the milk. At this time a few cases of DDT poisoning in human beings had also been reported. These observations were almost completely ignored or misinterpreted.”
Biskind further testified to Congress in late 1950, “Early last year I published a series of observations on DDT poisoning in man. Since shortly after the last war a large number of cases had been observed by physicians all over the country in which a group of symptoms occurred, the most prominent feature of which was gastroenteritis, persistently recurrent nervous symptoms, and extreme muscular weakness…” He described several case examples of patients whose severe symptoms including paralysis disappeared when exposure to DDT and related toxins was eliminated: “My original experience on more than 200 cases which I reported early last year has since been considerably extended. My subsequent observations have not only confirmed the view that DDT is responsible for a great deal of otherwise inexplicable human disability…” Also noted was the fact that polio cases were always most in summer months when DDT spraying against insects was maximum.
The Rockefeller Institute operatives and the AMA, via their agents in the US Government, created the 1946-1952 USA health emergency called polio. They did so by knowingly promoting the highly toxic DDT as a safe way to control the mythical insect spreaders of the feared disease. Their propaganda campaign convinced the American population that DDT was the key to stop spread of poliomyelitis.
Polio Suddenly Declines
Under leadership of the two Rockefeller Institute doctors, Henry Kumm and Thomas Rivers, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP) rejected critics such as Biskind and Scobey. Natural remedial treatment, such as using intravenous Vitamin C for the infantile paralysis, were rejected out of hand as “quackery.” In April 1953, leading Rockefeller Institute DDT consultant, Dr Henry Kumm, became Director of Polio Research for NFIP. He funded the polio vaccine research of Jonas Salk.
One courageous doctor in North Carolina, Dr. Fred R. Klenner, who had also studied chemistry and physiology, had the idea to use large doses of intravenous ascorbic acid—Vitamin C—on the hypothesis that his patients were victims of toxin poisoning and that Vitamin C was a powerful detox. This was well before Dr Linus Pauling’s Nobel Prize research on Vitamin C. Klenner had remarkable success within days for more than 200 patients in the summer epidemics of 1949 to 1951. The Rockefeller Institute and the AMA had no interest in the remedial prospects. They and the Rockefeller-controlled National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were only funding polio vaccine development, based on the unproven Flexner claim that polio was a contagious virus, not a result of environmental poison.
Then beginning sometime in 1951-1952, as polio cases were at an all-time high, something unexpected began to appear. The number of cases diagnosed as polio in the US began to decline. The decline in polio victims was dramatic, year by year until 1955, well before the National Foundation and Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was approved for public use and was widespread.
About a year before the sudden decline in polio cases, farmers, whose dairy cows were suffering severe effects of the DDT, were advised by the US Department of Agriculture to reduce DDT use. Rising public concern about how safe DDT was for humans, including publicized US Senate hearings on DDT and Polio in 1951 also led to a significant decline in DDT exposure into 1955, even though DDT was not officially banned in the US until 1972.
So-called “polio” cases fell by some two-thirds in that 1952-1956 time, in a remarkable parallel to the decline in DDT use. It was well after that decline, in late 1955 and 1956, that the Rockefeller-developed Salk polio vaccine was first administered in large populations. Salk and the AMA gave all credit to the vaccine. Deaths and paralysis as a result of the Salk vaccine were papered over. The Government changed the definition of polio to further reduce official cases. Simultaneously, cases of similar polio-like spinal cord nerve diseases– acute flaccid paralysis, chronic fatigue syndrome, encephalitis, meningitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, muscular sclerosis—rose notably.
Why it Matters
Over a century ago the world’s richest man, oil baron John D. Rockefeller, and his circle of advisors set about to completely reorganize how medicine was practiced in the USA and the rest of the world. The role of the Rockefeller Institute and figures like Simon Flexner literally oversaw the invention of a colossal medical fraud around claims that an invisible contagious extraneous germ, the polio virus, caused acute paralysis and even death in young people. They politically banned any efforts to link the disease to toxin poisoning, whether from DDT or arsenic pesticides or even contaminated vaccine poisoning. Their criminal project included intimate cooperation with the leadership of the AMA and control of the emerging drug industry, as well as of medical education. The same Rockefeller group financed Nazi eugenics at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany in the 1930s as well as the American Eugenics Society. In the 1970s they financed the creation of patented GMO seeds which were all developed by the group of Rockefeller chemical pesticide companies—Monsanto, DuPont, Dow.
Today this control of public health and the medical industrial complex is exercised by David Rockefeller’s protegé and eugenics advocate, Bill Gates, self-appointed czar over the WHO and world vaccines. Dr Tony Fauci, head of NIAID, dictates vaccine mandates without evidence. The fraud behind the polio virus scandal after World War II has been refined with use of computer models and other ruses today, to advance one alleged deadly virus after the other, from Covid19 to Monkeypox to HIV. As with polio, none of those has been scientifically isolated and proven to cause the diseases claimed. None. The same tax-free Rockefeller Foundation today, posing as a philanthropic charity, is at the heart of the global medical tyranny behind covid19 and the eugenics agenda of the World Economic Forum Great Reset. Their poliomyelitis virus model helped them create this dystopian medical tyranny. We are told, “trust the science.”
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
A groundbreaking new report reveals how billionaire Bill Gates has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into media outlets all over the world.
An investigation by the outlet MintPress reports that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has distributed the funds in the form of over 30,000 individual grants.
Big news organizations like CNN, NBC, The Atlantic, The Financial Times, BBC and others have all benefited from the funding.
NPR was the largest beneficiary receiving a whopping $24 million in funding. The Guardian follows with nearly $13 million.
Gates’ funding has even stretched into Germany, with the outlet Der Spiegel benefiting from $5 million in funding. Other international outlets that received millions from Gates include France’s Le Monde and South African outlet Bhekisisa.
In total, Gates has funnelled $166 million directly to media outlets while distributing the remaining money to various media centres and journalism organizations.
Here in Canada, the World University Service of Canada received $12 million from the foundation.
Gates’ money has even flowed into Chinese media, with Caixin Media receiving $250,000 from the mogul and Tsinghua University benefiting from a $450,000 grant provided by the foundation.
In June, it was revealed that Gates also gave tens of millions of dollars to various Canadian pharmaceutical and biotech companies.
The Gates Foundation provided a total of $23 million to facilities like the Institut de Cardiologie de Montreal to “provide effective, accessible, scalable treatment for COVID-19.”
Other projects under the initiative include grants to Emerging Ag Inc. to “increase awareness and understanding of possible gene drive applications for public good purposes within international policy forums.”
I remember early on in 2017, when I first started unraveling the “virus” lie through the examination of HIV/AIDS, to being introduced to the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka. If memory serves me correctly, my first encounter was through the brilliant House of Numbersdocumentary by Brent Leung. I was simply amazed that Dr. Lanka, an ex-virologist, was actually calling out the methods of his own profession. His testimony, along with that of Kary Mullis, the inventor of the misused and abused PCR technique, carried much weight with me in those early days. Their words lent credibility to the argument that the evidence for the existence of HIV and other “viruses” was entirely absent and fraudulent.
During that time of intense research where I was desperately seeking out any and all information that I could find, I fortunately stumbled onto a few of Dr. Lanka’s articles through the VirusMyth.com website. I was engrossed in his work and absorbed much of what he had to say on the subject, especially in regards to the lack of purification and isolation of any “viruses,” the faults of the cell culture method, and the problems related to electron microscope imagery. As it did for many others, Dr. Lanka’s work formed much of the foundation for my understanding of the lies of virology. It is rare to gain such critical insight from someone who was involved in the industry. It is even more rare for someone in his position to set out and actually prove what he was saying correct yet that is exactly what Dr. Lanka has done numerous times.
Without Dr. Lanka’s enormous contributions to unraveling the lies of germ theory, many of us speaking out today may not have been doing so. As his work was instrumental in helping me along on my own journey towards uncovering the truth, I want to highlight what I consider Dr. Lanka’s three biggest contributions to proving the fraud of virology along with many of the papers he has written on the subject. My hope is that you will be able to come away with a greater appreciation for Dr. Lanka’s monumental work as well as a clearer understanding of the deceptive practices used by virologists.
1. The Measles Trial
Early on in my journey, I found my way to the infamous measles trial saga while researching Dr. Lanka’s work. Back in 2017, it was difficult to find out much accurate information on what had really transpired. For those who are unaware, Dr. Lanka set forth a challenge in his own magazine calling upon anyone to come forward with a single paper providing the scientific evidence which proved the existence of a measles “virus.” If this challenge was met, the person would receive a $100,000 financial reward. A physician named David Bardens came forward with six papers spanning six decades which he claimed together proved the existence of the measles “virus.” Dr. Lanka refused to pay as he specifically requested one publication providing the entire proof necessary. Dr. Bardens sued and while Dr. Lanka lost the initial case in the lower courts, he won on appeal in the higher courts. At the time I originally came upon this story, the internet was (and still is) full of stories claiming that Dr. Lanka lost the case. However, to anyone interested in the truth, it is obvious that those lies do not hold up under scrutiny. Presented below is a great overview of how the events actually played out:
“On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.
In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.
The six publications are:
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85
Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.
Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–
Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.
Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.
On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.
On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.
On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.
Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.
According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.
Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.”
For an even more in-depth analysis of what really occured during the trial, I always recommend this article by Feli Popescu, who was actually present during the proceedings:
When I think of Dr. Lanka’s work, the measles trial stands out as the most significant moment and the most pivotal accomplishment. We had an epic head-to-head clash between he medical establishment and an ex-virologust taking place in a court of law over the legitimacy of the evidence for the measles “virus.” It was determined through this trial that the foundational paper claiming the existence and isolation of the measles “virus,” the 1954 paper by John Franklin Enders, was unworthy by itself for proving the existence of the “virus.” As all other papers and virology itself owe their evidence to the cell culture methods developed by Enders in that paper, it is an astonishingly damning admission that the evidence presented by virology is invalid.
2. The 7 Steps Proving “Viruses” Don’t Exist
More recently, Dr. Lanka put together what he felt were the main points that bring the house of cards known as virology tumbling down. These 7 steps were formulated over many years of painstaking research into the faults of virology. As he did with the measles trial, Dr. Lanka compiled a very convincing case for why “viruses” do not exist and why virology is a pseudoscience built upon fraudulent foundations.
The 7 steps to prove “viruses” do not exist:
1. Virologists interpret the death of cells in the laboratory as viral. Due to the lack of control attempts (experiments), they overlook the fact that they kill the cells in the laboratory themselves and unintentionally by starving and poisoning the cells. This misinterpretation is based on a single publication by John Franklin Enders and a colleague from June 1, 1954. This publication was ruled by the highest court in Germany in the measles virus trial that it contained no evidence of a virus. This publication became the exclusive basis not only for measles virology, but for all virology since 1954 and corona hysteria.
2. Virologists mentally assemble the shortest pieces of so-called genetic information from dying cells to form a very long genetic strand, which they output as the genetic strand of a virus. This conceptual/computational process is called alignment. In doing so, they did not make the control attempts, the attempt to conceptually/computationally construct the desired genetic strand even from short pieces of so-called genetic information from non-infected sources.
3. For the alignment of a virus, virologists always need a given genetic strand of a virus. For this, however, they always use a genetically/computationally generated genetic strand and never a real one, one found in reality. In doing so, they never attempt to check whether or not so-called genetic information could also be constructed from the existing data set, including “viral” genetic material strands of completely different viruses.
4. Virologists have never seen or isolated “viruses” in humans, animals, plants or their fluids. They only did it seemingly, indirectly, and only ever by means of very special and artificial cell systems in the laboratory. They never mentioned the control attempts or documented whether they succeeded in depicting and isolating viruses in and from humans, animals, plants or their fluids.
5. Virologists have never isolated, biochemically characterized or obtained their supposed genetic material from the supposed viruses that they photograph using electron microscope images. They have never conducted or published control experiments as to whether, after isolating these structures, it was actually possible to detect “viral” proteins (the envelope of the virus) and, above all, the viral genome, which is supposed to be the central component and characteristic of a virus.
6. Virologists report typical artifacts of dying tissue/cells and typical structures that arise when the cell’s own components such as proteins, fats and the solvents used are swirled, as viruses or viral components. Here, too, there are no control experiments with cells/tissues that were not infected but were also treated.
7. The so-called transmission attempts that virologists make to prove the transmission and pathogenicity of the suspected viruses refute the entire virology. Obviously, it is the experiments themselves that trigger the symptoms, which animal experiments provide as evidence of the existence and effectiveness of the suspected viruses. Here, too, there are no control attempts in which exactly the same thing is done, only with non-infected or sterilized materials.
Dr. Lanka explained the 7 steps himself in this short excerpt from an interview with Dr. Tom Cowan where he offered additional insight:
3. The Control Experiments
During this current “pandemic,” Dr. Lanka decided to carry out and recreate for “SARS-COV-2” the control experiments he had done during the measles trial. The experiments were conducted in three phases:
Phase 1 – The cytopathic effect
In the first control experiment, Dr. Stefan Lanka showed that what virologists attribute to the presence of a pathogenic virus can be achieved without infectious material.
Phase 2 – Construction of the SARS-CoV-2 genome
In the second control experiment, Dr. Lanka showed that what virologists call “viral genetic material actually comes from a healthy human tissue.
Phase 3 – Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
In the third control experiment, we show that with the same technique that virologists use and using nucleic acids, which are not from supposedly infectious material but from healthy human tissue, animals and plants, can construct the genome of any “virus.”
Phase 1 of Dr. Lanka’s experiments was designed to show that the cytopathogenic effect, the very criteria used to determine a “virus” is present in a cell culture, can be caused by the experimental conditions themselves without “infectious” material present. The article linked above contains the study by the independent laboratory testing the cytopathogenic effect for Dr. Lanka. It is in German but it can be easily translated into English. However, as it is a rather long study, I wanted to provide my favorite breakdown of the CPE experiments from Dr. Tom Cowan’s excellent book Breaking the Spell:
“Here is the essence of Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing. As seen in this series of photographs, each of the four vertical columns is a separate experiment. The top photo in each column was taken on day one, and the bottom photo was taken on day five.
In vertical column one, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics. As you can see, on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth.
In vertical column two, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium. Still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five.
The third vertical column shows what happened when Dr. Lanka’s group used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation experiment of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. Thisincluded changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration. As you can see, on day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.
The fourth and final vertical column is the same as vertical column three, except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added. This produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a virus—that is causing the CPE.”
For Dr. Lanka’s own breakdown of the phase 1 results, please see this interview with Dean Braus:
Phase 2: Construction of the “SARS-CoV-2” genome
Phase two of the control experiments looked to show that the “viral” material in the “SARS-COV-2” genome actually comes from healthy human tissue. Dr. Lanka joined Kate Sugak to discuss the findings in the below video:
Phase 3: Structural analysis of sequency data in virology
Phase 3 was designed to show that by using materials from many different sources (healthy humans, animals, plants, and synthetic nucleic acids), the PCR amplification process can create the genomes for any “virus.” I’ve provided the abstract from the study performed by the independent researchers working with Dr. Lanka to give a short overview of what was found:
Structural analysis of sequence data in virology: An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example
“De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat-nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.
We therefore examined the publication “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China” [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).
Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples.”
To hear Dr. Lanka’s explanation of this phase, please see this excellent interview once again with Kate Sugak:
Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey’s Tribute to Dr. Lanka
For an even greater in-depth look at the brilliant work of Dr. Lanka, please see this excellent video tribute by the Baileys. From an outline provided by Dr. Mark Bailey, in this 30 minute video they cover:
Dr. Lanka’s early discoveries that bacteriophages and giant “viruses” are able to be truly isolated but are not pathogenic
Dr. Lanka’s path as a virologist and the realization that the model was wrong
How Dr. Lanka spoke out from the very early stages against the HIV/AIDS dogma
Dr. Lanka’s discovery that the germ theory and disease entity models are incorrect
A look at Dr. Lanka’s 7 points that refute virology on their own terms
The 3 phases of the “SARS-CoV-2” control experiments performed in 2021 that were used to refute the “virus” hypothesis
And the optimism for the future as many of us are now standing on his shoulders to spread the knowledge he has given us
Sadly, it is often a lonely road for anyone willing to break away from tradition and speak out about the troubling state of their chosen profession, especially in a field with ties to a highly lucrative pharmaceutical conglomerate. More often than not, anyone who is willing to sound the alarm has their work smeared and their reputations tarnished by colleagues and the mainstream media in order to discredit the information and the charges that have been brought forth. We are fortunate enough that there were a few brave men and women who were able to see through the indoctrination of their training and push through the often painful cognitive dissonance which comes with having to change long held beliefs ingrained from birth.
Dr. Lanka helped to pave the path against virology and many of us are walking in his footsteps today. His refutation of the germ theory paradigm using their own history and methods was highly influential to myself and others. His status as an ex-virologist not only gave him an invaluable insiders look at the fraud the field is entrenched in but also the clout necessary for those hesitant about the information shared to actually listen up and to start asking the hard questions themselves. We are greatly indebted to Dr. Lanka for his trailblazing work. Without his herculean efforts, I highly doubt that we would be able to attack this fraudulent field as successfully as we are able to do so now.
Essential Reading:
I wanted to provide a list of Dr. Lanka’s work which I consider essential reading for anyone questioning the germ theory lies and/or looking to gain more knowledge of the foundational problems that the field of virology is built upon. Many of these were sources I read initially in my own journey which I found extremely helpful in broadening my own understanding. I am positive that this list will be a benefit to others as well:
A few days ago, I had the honor of being a guest on the Patrick Timpone show for the third time. As usual, the conversation was entertaining, even beyond the fact that I unknowingly wore the exact same shirt as when I was on the show a few months ago. We covered many topics in our hour long chat which was nicely listed in order on Patrick’s site:
How Can Monkey Pox Exist If the Germ Theory Is False?
Mike did video with Dr. Cowan about monkeypox. It’s on ViroLIEgy.com. Many articles there.
Monkeypox is more of the same. Nonspecific symptoms, unusual presentations, usually in genital areas, a targeted victim group, victims pegged with a faulty PCR test while presenting for other symptoms.
Monkeypox confused with herpes. Friction, sweat, stress, anxiety, immune-suppressing drugs will cause the lesions. Thin skin, lack of collagen related to herpes.
Had a drill before monkeypox outbreak similar to Event 201.
Initial victims had no travel or contact with anyone from the monkeypox endemic areas such as Africa.
Dr. Luc Montagnier said they never purified a virus.
AZT causes same symptoms as HIV/AIDs. Very toxic. Was a failed chemo drug in the 70s.
Contagion is a myth. Studies trying to transmit 1918 Flu couldn’t. Measles parties shown not to transmit measles to all exposed.
Epidemiological studies are subjective and often biased. Need to look at patient’s environment.
Bioresonance possibly explains “catching” a virus.
Virologists believe it. They don’t question because they have a lot invested in their education and position. We’re taught not to look at outside factors or to question the establishment.
Look at the information for yourself. They’re going to keep playing the same trick over and over again.
Culturing by putting in lots of other toxic substances that break down the cells, then isolating and saying it’s a virus.
7 main “coronavirus” now, and they all look the same. In a study, spikes created by a procedure that eroded the cell membrane. Can’t see a “live virus” in an electron microscope, it must be killed first. Which alters it and creates artifacts.
Can bioweapons be created? 99% of people survived COVID – it was a poor bioweapon. The real bioweapon is the jab. All they needed was the fear to induce people to get it. They can poison us though, and they are.
Gain of function – another fiction.
Shedding from the jab – another fear campaign.
Are viruses racist and homophobic? Those are identified as the target groups.
See the No Virus Challenge on viroliegy.com. Also see Debunking the Nonsense.
A photo isn’t enough because it says nothing about causality. A photo of hyenas eating a dead antelope says nothing about whether or not the hyenas killed the antelope. (A hunter might have killed it and the hyenas arrived later.)
Furthermore, reproducibility is critical, hence it being part of the Scientific Method. If the same results can’t be repeated, then the hypothesis is false. For example, if the claim that a certain type of plastic is heat resistant under certain conditions, but tests repeatedly reveal that it is not heat resistant under the said conditions, then the claim is false.
Similarly, if the claim that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19, then tests must be conducted and must be reproducible.
There is nothing unusual about such logic; it is precisely how proper science works.
TNT Conversation
Mark joined me for a conversation about viruses and the aforementioned challenge. It is well worth listening to.
Podcast Conversation
A few days after our TNT conversation, Mark joined me on my podcast for an overlapping, but more free-flowing chat with coffee, craft beer, and power failures.
While walking down the darkened street late at night, have you ever had that gnawing fear as to whether or not the posse of raccoons rummaging through the trashcans nearby, staring at you with their beady yellow eyes, are ready and waiting for the right moment to pounce? Or have you ever had your fingertip accidentally pierced by the sharp fangs of a squirrel while feeding it walnuts and had to rush to the hospital on a nurses advice only to be told by the doctor that squirrels do not carry the “deadly virus?” Have you ever been bit in the very tender thin space of skin in between your thumb and index finger by a baby penguin while feeding it fish at the Omaha Zoo? Ok, the last one is obviously not related to rabies as the “virus” discriminates as to which animals it infects. Whether or not the squirrel can get or transmit rabies depends upon who you ask. In any case, these are all true experiences for me and yes, I have been bitten by numerous animals while feeding them. Like many, I have encountered the fear of being infected by a bite from a potentially rabid animal and that if I waited too long to receive treatment, it would be too late to stop the “virus” before it invades my cerebral cortex and causes me to turn into a crazed barking dog-man. Fortunately, not one of my comedically unfortunate puncture wounds left me to succumb to any disease. As I would later find out, my fears were in fact as irrational as the myths surrounding rabies which are built upon a foundation of fraud and pseudoscience.
Still, rabies seems to be one of the diseases that those who cling to the “virus” narrative love to bring up as if it is the Holy Grail of proof that “viruses” actually exist. Over the decades, the images of the mangy frothing dog snarling and ready to attack has been deeply ingrained into our subconscious through effective media fear-based propaganda.
1870’s fear propaganda.
Atticus Finch taking aim to put down a rabid dog in 1962’s To Kill A Mockingbird.
The portrayal of angry diseased animals heightened peoples fear of anything wild and undomesticated and created in their minds the living walking embodiment of an invisible “virus” coming to infect the defenseless with a slobbery bite. The fear of aquiring the deadly disease was the perfect tool to use by Louis Pasteur in the late 1800’s to ensare people into the emerging germ theory narrative. All it takes is one bite for the sneaky “virus” to find its way into the bloodstream, attacking the brain and causing a painful death. It seems, upon first glance, to be an open and shut case. However, what you will find upon researching rabies is that the presented model of the rabid animal bite transferring an infectious “virus,” which in turn causes disease, is not an accurate portrayal whatsoever and was merely a frightening myth used to propagate the delusions of a madman looking to aquire fame, fortune, and prestige.
A few months ago, I looked at the unethical and fraudulent practices Louis Pasteur employed in the 1880’s in his attempt to prove a rabies pathogen exists and causes disease in order to sell his vaccines. Pasteur openly admitted to not being able to isolate any microorganism said to cause rabies but developed his vaccine against the invisible pathogen anyways. This is also openly admitted as well by the Institut Pasteur:
“Louis Pasteur’s initial efforts to isolate the rabies virus proved unsuccessful as the virus remained invisible. Viruses could not be seen due to the poor resolution of the microscopes used. The virus was not seen until almost a century later, in 1962, with the advent of electron microscopy.
But as rabies is a disease of the nervous system, together with Emile Roux, Louis Pasteur then had the idea of inoculating part of a rabid dog’s brain directly into another dog’s brain. The inoculated dog subsequently died.”
Thus, Pasteur never worked with any purified and isolated “virus” and did what virologists still do today, which is assume an invisible entity is floating freely in the unpurified solutions of diseased animals which are then inoculated into healthy animals in attempts to cause disease and prove pathogenicity. Interestingly, as stated in the 1930 paper below, Pasteur would fail many times in his attempts to infect animals with saliva from animals claimed to be rabid, the very fluids the “virus” is supposed to reside in. Even if deemed successful, the symptoms would not appear for months, which was unheard of for any pathogen. Thus, he sought other means of infecting animals by way of injecting dogs directly in the brain with the emulsified cranial goo from animals claimed to be rabid. Once the healthy animal died from the toxic brain injection, this was considered a success:
Pasteur’s Work with Rabies
“Inoculation with saliva was found to be a method which did not always produce rabies and symptoms did not declare themselves for months. The theory that the disease virus attacks the nerve centers had already been set forth by Dr. Dubous of Paris. Pasteur accordingly inoculated a number of animals subcutaneously with some of the brain substance from other animals which had died of rabies. Most of those inoculated developed rabies, but not all.
Pasteur then conceived the idea of introducing into the brain of experimental animals some of the nerve tissue from an animal which had died of rabies. This experiment was based on the principle of providing the causal organisms with the nutritive medium best suited to their requirements. Pasteur, obliged to sacrifice so many animals, had a real dislike for vivisection; if the animal cried out a little he was full of pity. The idea of perforating the skull of the dog was repulsive to him, he wanted it done but dreaded seeing it done. So it was done one day when he was away. The next day when he was told of the intra-cranial inoculation he was moved to pity for the poor dog.”
While the exact make-up of the inoculations remain a mystery due to Pasteur’s secretive nature, the vaccine’s he utilized contained a neurotropic agent which was known to cause the exact same neurological conditions as seen in rabid animals. While injecting anything into the brain would potentially cause neurological damage and death, it is not far fetched to believe Pasteur used the same neurotropic agents in his experimental inoculations to prove pathogenicity, especially as they were said to consist of emulsified brain and nervous tissue. This created an issue in determining whether it was the invisible “virus” or the injections themselves which caused neurological damage and/or death. However, it has been admitted that the vaccines themselves led to the majority of neurological conditions rather than “wild” rabies cases as this was considered a rare occurrence in nature. This is just another in a long history of cases where the vaccine created the disease it was supposed to be preventing.
Fortunately, we can learn a lot of interesting tidbits about rabies (or the lack thereof) from the work of Gerald Geison, a leading Louis Pasteur researcher and historian who was privy to his private notebooks. In a 1978 essay he wrote on the ethics of rabies vaccination, Geison pointed out some of the pecularities of rabies such as the fact that it has always been considered a rare disease in man as well as the fact that rabies can not be transmitted from person-to-person. He also noted that, as a pathogenic disease, rabies has an unusually long incubation period. While it is said to usually last 6 to 8 weeks, Geison claimed that it can actually last for a year or more. In fact, there have been reported cases with a rabies incubation period from 6 years all the way on up to 25 years. If that wasn’t outlandish enough to make one question the validity of what we are told of the disease, Geison stated that there was a high degree of uncertainty regarding the correlation between animal bites and rabies symptoms as well as the threat of death from being bitten by a clearly rabid animal:
Pasteur’s Work on Rabies: Reexamining the Ethical Issues
“Rabies has always been rare in man. It probably never claimed more than a hundred victims in any year in France, and Fiench estimates for the years immediately preceding Pasteur’s famous work indicate an annual mortality of considerably less than fifty. In addition, rabies is not an infectious disease in the usual sense; it is not transmitted from man to man. Because of these two features, generalor compulsory vaccination has never seemed appropriate with respect to rabies.
“An even more peculiar feature of rabies is its long incubation period in the absence of detectable symptoms. No other lethal disease of rapid clinical course even approaches rabies for length of incubation-usually six to eight weeks, but sometimes a year or more.
“Unfortunately for Pasteur and his successors, there is a very high degree of uncertainty in the correlation between animal bites and the subsequent appearance of rabies-even when the biting animal is certifiably rabid. While the mortality of clinical rabies is virtually 100 percent, the threat of death from the bite of a rabid animal is vastly less. The risk depends on several factors, including the species of attacking animal (wolf and cat bites, for example, pose a much higher risk than dog bites), the location and depth of the bites, and the application or timing of cauterization. Depending on these and other circumstances, estimates of the risk of contracting rabies from the bites of animals known to be rabid range from as high as 80 percent to as low as 0.5 percent. It is perhaps futile to try to settle upon a meaningful “average” figure within this range, but Pasteur himself estimated that 16 percent of those bitten by rabid dogs would eventually die of rabies unless they submitted to his new treatment.”
In his 1995 book The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, Geison pointed out that, according to the English Commission on Rabies, there was also much uncertainty in the rabies statistics. They had suspected that at least one man had died not from rabies but from Pasteur’s vaccine instead and they actually favored animal regulations over Pasteur’s vaccination approach:
“But the English commission also drew attention to the uncertainty of all statistics on rabies, citing the difficulty of establishing that the attacking animal had in fact been rabid as well as the variable effects of the location and depth of bites, of differences in the lethality of rabid animal bites in different species and races, and of the possible prophylactic effects of cauterization or other treatments applied to bitten victims before they submitted to Pasteur’s treatment. The commission also suspected that at least one man may have died as a direct result of the Pastorian injections, and in the end it favored strict regulations on potentially rabid animals (muzzling and quarantine) over Pasteur’s more drastic remedy.”
We also find out from Geison that, in great contrast to what we are told about rabies, the great majority of rabies victims could forgo any treatment and never have any ill effects whatsoever:
“In short, the great majority of the victims of rabid animal bites could forgo Pasteur’s treatment without experiencing any untoward consequences in the future. And they had to decide whether or not to submit to the treatment at a point when they had no symptoms of the disease. For the efficacy and very possibility of Pasteur’s vaccine depended on the peculiarly long incubation period that separates the infective bites of a rabid animal from the outbreak of symptoms.”
Geison even spotlighted what was known as “false rabies,” which were cases of the exact same symptoms of disease associated with rabies that occured despite a complete lack of the victim being bitten by a rabid animal. These symptoms were said to be either induced solely based on fear alone or by alcoholism. In other words, just the mere thought of rabies could create an intense enough reaction inducing the same disease, thus no invisible microscopic pathogen is necessary. Pasteur actually emphasized these cases in defense of his vaccine as there was a growing chorus of criticism that his vaccine did not protect the victims and in fact induced the symptoms of rabies which lead to their deaths. Pasteur therefore had a vested interest in showing that these same symptoms could occur outside of animal bites and vaccination:
“Pasteur himself later pointed out some of the uncertainties surrounding the diagnosis of rabies. Two years after I’affair Girard, for example, he spoke to the Academie des sciences about several cases of “false rabies.” Relying on the authority of one Dr Trousseau, Pasteur cited two cases in which symptoms of the disease had been induced solely by fear. In one case, a man suddenly displayed several of the classic features of rabies—including throat spasms, chest pain, extreme anxiety, and other nervous symptoms—merely because the disease had become the subject of a lunchtime conversation. And this man had never even confronted a rabid animal. Presumably more common was the second case, that of a magistrate whose hand had long before been licked by a dog later suspected of rabies. Upon learning that several animals bitten by this dog had died of rabies, the magistrate became extremely agitated, even delirious, and displayed a horror of water. His symptoms disappeared ten days later, when his physician persuaded him that he would already be dead had he been afflicted with true rabies.”
In this same address, Pasteur commented upon a recently published case history of “false rabies.” Partly because it includes an arresting account of the classic symptoms of rabies, his commentary deserves quoting at length. As recorded in the Comptes rendus of the Academie des sciences for 17 October 1887, Pasteur spoke as follows:
The patient to whom Mesnet refers in his brochure was an alcoholic who, having seen some sort of deposit m his glass during lunch, was seized by a feeling of horror toward the liquid and by a constriction of the throat, followed by headache and by lameness and fatigue in all his limbs. He spent Sunday in this state.
During that night and during the day on Monday and Tuesday, no sleep, a fit of suffocation, throat spasms, and a horror of liquids, which he pushed aside in his glass. His countenance expressed disquiet. His eyes were fixed, glazed, the pupils greatly dilated. His speech was brief, jerky, rapid. He had difficulty breathing. When he was offered a glass of water, he pushed it aside with terror, and suffered fits of suffocation and of constriction of the throat. Bright objects and light were particularly disagreeable to him. He was painfully affected when the air was agitated in front of his face. He died Wednesday night after having suffered from a violent delirium, with extreme agitation, howls and cries, extremely abundant salivation, spitting, biting his bedsheets, and trying also to bite the person taking care of him. In short, this man displayed all the features of furious rabies [I’hydrophobie funeuse]. But he did not die of rabies. He had never been bitten and on several occasions, at long intervals, had already displayed symptoms analogous to false rabies.This man was an alcoholic and belonged, moreover, to a family m which one member had died of insanity [alienation mentale].
By October 1887, when he gave this address, Pasteur had a vested interest in emphasizing the difficulty of diagnosing rabies. For he was then defending himself against allegations that his rabies vaccine not only sometimes failed to protect those who submitted to it, but in some cases was itself the cause of rabies and therefore death. A few hostile critics were insisting that some people died of rabies not only despite Pasteur’s vaccine but because of it, and they tried to make Pasteur and his treatment responsible for the death of anyone who displayed any symptoms of nervous disease. In defense of his vaccine, Pasteur now emphasized the extent to which symptoms like those of rabies could appear in patients who did not have the disease. He therefore insisted that a diagnosis of rabies could only be established with confidence by experiments in which tissue from the victim’s brain was transmitted to animals susceptible to the disease.”
There is good reason for the high degree of uncertainty over the correlation between animal bites and the development of symptoms, the actual rabies statistics, as well as the ability to accurately diagnose the disease. For starters, there are many other conditions that can cause the exact same symptoms as rabies in both animals and in humans. In animals, canine distemper, encephalitis, and poisoning are a few of the conditions which can mimic rabies. In humans, this includes polio, being drunk and/or intoxicated on certain drugs, having Guillain–Barré syndrome, and as stated previously, encephalitis derived from the toxic vaccine itself.
It has been stated that it is common not to even find bite marks in cases of rabies and often, the person has had no idea that they were ever bitten to begin with. One source stated that fewer than one third of human rabies victims show evidence of bite wounds. With the vast range of conditions that mimic rabies and the lack of bite marks, it’s safe to question the existence of a specific disease known as rabies. It would be logical to conclude that rabies is nothing but the same set of symptoms that has been given a different label numerous times.
This uncertainty in rabies cases and statistics boils down to the inability to accurately diagnose a rabies case. For much of the 1800s to the mid 1900s, rabies was diagnosed upon clinical symptoms which, as previously stated, were not specific to the disease. It is also noted in the WHO’s rabies laboratory manual that the histological diagnosis for rabies, which began in the late 1800’s, was also non-specific:
When factoring in the non-specificity in diagnosis, the uncertainty in the correlation between animal bites and disease symptoms, and the vast majority of victims never needing any treatment whatsoever, it leads one to conclude that the rabies myth is vastly overstated. It is fictitious fear propaganda rather than facts based in reality. We can break this deception down even further by looking at how rabies is diagnosed in the present versus how it was in the past. According to the CDC:
Diagnosis in animals
“A diagnosis of rabies can be made after detection of rabies virus from any part of the affected brain, but in order to rule out rabies, the test must include tissue from at least two locations in the brain, preferably the brain stem and cerebellum.
The test requires that the animal be euthanized. The test itself takes about 2 hours, but it takes time to remove the brain samples from an animal suspected of having rabies and to ship these samples to a state public health or veterinary diagnostic laboratory for diagnosis.”
In order to diagnose rabies, the animal must be killed and sections must be taken from the brain in order to try and detect the “virus.” We already have a few problems here as no “virus” was ever purified and isolated in order to determine how to detect it. There is also an issue with attempting to determine anything from dead tissue as the tissue, once removed, immediately starts to change through decomposition. Biologist Harold Hillman often pointed out the faults in trying to establish credible information about what occurs inside living beings from the study of dead tissues:
“Killing an animal changes its biochemistry grossly. For example, its blood carbon dioxide, phosphate, lactate, and potassium ion concentrations, rise, while its oxygen, sodium ion, adenosine triphosphate, phosphocreatine, concentrations go down. These changes affect much of the tissue metabolism. It is hoped and normally assumed that they will reverse during incubation. There is no realistic way of testing this, since the volume and chemistry of the tissue changes during incubation. In this circumstance, it is worth asking whether cell biologists should use tissues in vitro at all. Perhaps, they should confine their experiments to working on intact animals and human beings, tissue cultures, unicellular organisms and plants.”
The current “gold standard” used to study the dead brain tissue for the diagnosis of rabies is known as the direct fluorescent antibody test. As the name implies, the test looks to detect rabies antigens on the brain by using antibodies said to be specific to the rabies “virus:”
Direct Fluorescent Antibody Test
“The dFA test is based on the observation that animals infected by rabies virus have rabies virus proteins (antigen) present in their tissues. Because rabies is present in nervous tissue (and not blood like many other viruses), the ideal tissue to test for rabies antigen is brain. The most important part of a dFA test is flouresecently-labeled anti-rabies antibody. When labeled antibody is incubated with rabies-suspect brain tissue, it will bind to rabies antigen. Unbound antibody can be washed away and areas where antigen is present can be visualized as fluorescent-apple-green areas using a fluorescence microscope. If rabies virus is absent there will be no staining.”
According to the CDC, in the 50 years that the dFA test has been used to detect rabies, it has not failed to present reliable and accurate results. This indirect method is somehow said to be more sensitive and specific than actually “isolating” the “virus,” thus the “gold standard” label. It is also stated by the CDC that the saliva of an infected animal contains millions of “virions,” making the lack of any purified and isolated “virus” and the reliance on indirect antibody testing all the more glaring of an issue:
Accuracy of the Tests
“During the 50 years the direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test has been used in the United States, there has been no indication it has failed to provide accurate clinical information on the rabies status of an animal for the purposes of treating an exposed person.
Because of its high sensitivity and specificity,in comparison to virus isolation methods, the DFA test is the “gold standard” diagnostic method for rabies and has been rigorously evaluated by international, national, and state health laboratories. The DFA test is currently the only recommended diagnostic method for routine rabies determination in animals in the United States.
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.”
Returning to the WHO’s rabies manual, it shows us exactly how the dFA is used and how the diagnosis is determined based on the interpretation of the person reading the results. The interpreter uses an antigen fluorescence intensity and distribution scale from +4 on down to +1 to determine one of four conclusions: positive, negative, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive. Obviously, the subjective bias of the interpreter plays no role in the accuracy of the determination as humans rarely make interpretive errors, correct?:
In fact, there are many drawbacks to using the dFA as the “gold standard” test for rabies diagnosis beyond the aforementioned use of dead tissues. For starters, due to the lack of ever properly purifying and isolating the rabies “virus” directly from the saliva said to contain millions of “virions,” any antibody result is utterly meaningless as there is no “virus” to determine a specific reaction with. We also have this same purification/isolaton problem with antibodies as these entities have also never been taken and separated directly from the fluids of a host in order to be studied independently. There is also the issue that the theoretical antibodies themselves are entirely non-specific and are regularly said to bind to proteins that are not the intended target. Thus, we once again run into the problem where one fictional entity (the rabies “virus”) is said to be detected by another fictional entity (the antibody). It is very telling that the CDC believes that the interpretive results from this indirect circular test is more accurate than actually finding and “isolating” the supposed “virus.”
Thus, we must ask ourselves if these dFA tests really are as accurate as stated by the CDC. If we do so, we find out that this is most definitely not the case according to these next three sources. This first snippet comes from a study done on bacteria which points out the obvious fault of the subjective interpretation of the dFA test results which leads to poor sensitivity and a widely varying specificity, contrary to the claims made by the CDC:
“Direct fluorescent-antibody testing (DFA) provides a much more rapid result but also has the disadvantage of poor sensitivity, and its specificity varies widely due to the subjective interpretation of test results.”
This second study also points out the flaws of the subjective interpretation of the test results as well as the need for expensive equipment and quality-controlled reagents, the varied parameters utilized for succesful results and the issues relating to the incubation times and temperatures, as well as the necessity of having well-trained personnel running and interpreting the results:
“However, DFA has several drawbacks such as the need for an expensive fluorescent microscope, well-trained personnel, and quality controlled reagents (antibodies, conjugates), and varied parameters used during microscopy, and incubation times and temperatures, not to mention the subjectivity in interpretation of the test results [27,28,29,30]. In addition, acetone used as fixative in DFA does not completely inactivate the virus, as demonstrated by the infectivity of acetone-fixed tissue for neuroblastoma cells [31], posing a potential biohazard to laboratory personnel. Indeed, complete inactivation of cell culture-derived rabies virus appears to require >30% acetone [32].”
And finally, from this 2017 study published in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, we can once again see the problems with subjective interpretation of dFA test results in action. The study utilized 23 independent laboratories to aid in identifying “differences in the laboratory protocols that could explain discrepant laboratory results and provide baseline knowledge for regional standardization of protocols.” The labs were each sent 20 samples which included 17 test samples and 3 controls. The positive tissues contained major rabies “virus” variants that were circulating in the Americas while the negative samples consisted of tissues demonstrating complete absence of rabies “virus” antigen and artifacts. Each lab was asked to test the samples using their own standard protocols and to record their results (positivity, intensity, and distribution of the fluorescence staining) as well as the microscopic condition and impression quality of the tissues (Good, Acceptable, or Deficient) as evaluated by the laboratory operator. The results from this 2017 study indicated that there are substantial differences in the overall dFA results and test interpretation as the “level of concordance between the 23 participating laboratories and the CDC panel showed large variability.” Only two laboratories had 100% concordance, while 91% of the labs had at least one discordant sample, with a total of 26 false positive and 61 false negative results among all laboratories:
An inter- laboratory proficiency testing exercise for rabies diagnosis in Latin America and the Caribbean
“Our results indicate that although all laboratories can perform the direct fluorescent antibody test, there are substantial differences in the overall results and test interpretation. This study identified important gaps in standardization and/or harmonization between laboratories which could be overcome and corrected with appropriate DFA protocols standardized across the LAC, including its broad distribution and proper training.”
“Conclusive rabies diagnosis can only be achieved by appropriate laboratory testing. Clinical and epidemiological diagnosis is challenging and leads to under-reporting [1, 2, 3]. The Direct Fluorescent Antibody test (DFA) for detection of rabies virus antigen remains as the gold standard test for laboratory diagnosis of rabies in post-mortem brain tissues [3].”
“The agreement between the laboratory results and those of the CDC, as measured by the sensitivity, specificity, concordance and kappa values are shown in Table 2. Two laboratories correctly identified all samples tested (sensitivity and specificity of 1.0). However, 30% (7/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false positive and 83% (19/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false negative sample. The average sensitivity was 76% with a range of 40% to 100%. The average specificity was 88% with a range of 22% to 100%. While a majority of the laboratories had low false positive rates, there were considerable differences in the sensitivity (Fig 1).The mean concordance was 81% with a range of 50% to 100% and the mean kappa score was 0.56 with a range of 0.02 to 1.00.”
“The level of concordance between the 23 participating laboratories and the CDC panel showed large variability. Two laboratories had 100% concordance, while 91% of the labs had at least one discordant sample, with a total of 26 false positive and 61 false negative results among all laboratories.”
“The type of conjugate may also affect the sensitivity of the DFA test (monoclonal cocktail versus polyclonal, in-house made versus commercial). For the current exercise, laboratories used commercial (65%) or in-house (35%) conjugates. A study of 12 rabies reference laboratories in Europe demonstrated that the variability of conjugates could potentially lead to discordant results and influence assay sensitivity [19].”
A bunch of glowing green dots means…absolutely nothing.In answer to the claim by the CDC that “during the 50 years the direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test has been used in the United States, there has been no indication it has failed to provide accurate clinical information on the rabies status of an animal for the purposes of treating an exposed person,” we can safely conclude that this is obviously a false statement. The dFA test has been shown to have low sensitivity and a widely varying specificity as well as major issues relating to the subjective interpretation of the results based upon the person doing the interpreting. The 23 labs participating in the 2017 study had large variability in concordance with the CDC’s own panel. Anyone looking at this indirect test with a shred of intellectual honesty can easily see that the CDC’s “golden standard” rabies test does not look so golden anymore.
While the dFA test is the “go to” diagnostic measure in modern times, there are other methods available which can be used in an attempt to claim an animal is infected with the rabies “virus.” One of these is the “isolation” of the “virus” in tissue and cell cultures, which used to be the “gold standard” method for proving a “virus” exists and is infectious. Oddly enough, the CDC stated that the supposed “isolation” of the rabies “virus” is not as sensitive nor as specific as the dFA test. How could this possibly be the case?
For one thing, it is admitted that the rabies “virus” does not actually produce the desired cytopathogenic effect (CPE) when cultured:
Detection of rabies virus replication: inoculation tests
“The other group of available techniques aim at detecting the replication of the virus on living substrates, e.g. cells. Virus isolation may be necessary to confirm inconclusive results in FAT/dRIT and for characterization of the virus strain. In neuroblastoma cells, rabies virus grows generally without cytopathic effect; once again it is necessary to use FAT to confirm the presence of rabies virus.After intracranial application, rabies induces clinical signs in mice that are relatively typical but have to be confirmed by FAT. Since cell culture is as sensitive as the mouse inoculation test, units should be established in laboratories to replace mouse inoculation tests as it avoids the use of life animals, is less expensive and gives more rapid results.”
Why is this important to note? The cytopathogenic effect (CPE) is the structural and morphological changes to the cell that are claimed to be caused by the “virus” as it enters the cell, breaking it apart as the “virus” creates more copies of itself. This effect is supposed to tell the researchers that the “virus” is present within the culture. According to their stories, without this effect, it should be a clear indicator that the host was not infected by the “virus.” However, virology loves to bend their own rules and in a clear cut case of having their cake and eating it too, virologists claim that certain “viruses” do not cause CPE in their natural host cells. They state that there are different levels of CPE based on the cell type used:
Not permissive cell – virus cannot infect
Permissive cell – virus can replicate, but does not cause obvious CPE
Highly permissive cell – virus replicates and induces an obvious CPE
Anyone looking at this logically can see that “Not permissive” and “Permissive” cells are the exact same thing. Neither of these cells produce CPE when “infected” by the “virus.” However, virologists will resort to other indirect measures in order to claim the “virus” is present in spite of the lack of any CPE observed. In the case of rabies, the dFA test is used to confirm if a “virus” is present in a culture. However, if the dFA test is considered inconclusive, the cell culture is used to confirm the dFA result. A bit circular there, don’t you think? Another confirmation is done by injecting the toxic CPE-less cell culture soup into the brain of a mouse and seeing if symptoms occur. If so, the mouse is killed and the newly damaged brain is taken and tested by dFA for confirmation. Seeing the problem yet?
Toxic cell-cultured goo injected directly into the brain causing brain damage. It must be the “virus” and not the method… ?
If neither dFA and/or cell culturing is enough satisfactory indirect evidence to claim the existence of the rabies “virus,” one can turn to the old ways of histopathology to try and build a circumstantial case against the invisible entity. Along with attempting to diagnose someone based on clinical symptoms, which thanks to Louis Pasteur and “false rabies” we know is inaccurate due to the non-specificity of the symptoms, histopathology was the main method utilized for decades for determining if an animal was in fact rabid. This consisted of staining the brain tissues with chemicals such as hematoxylin and eosin and looking for patterns of encephalopathy as well as the presence of what are called Negri bodies. Negri bodies are round or oval inclusions within the cytoplasm of nerve cells of animals which were discovered by Dr. Adelchi Negri in 1903. At the time, he claimed that these inclusions were the etiologic agent of rabies. While the rest of the virology community disagreed with Dr. Negri, his discovery was considered a tell-tale sign of rabies infection in the brain and finding these inclusions served as the basis for a rabies diagnosis for over 60 years. However, there is rather big problem for these histopathological examinations. Signs of encephalitis and finding Negri bodies are both entirely non-specific and are seen in cases that have absolutely nothing to do with rabies. In fact, Negri bodies are said to only be found in half of the cases of rabies:
Histologic examination, General histopathology
“Histologic examination of biopsy or autopsy tissues is occasionally useful in diagnosing unsuspected cases of rabies that have not been tested by routine methods. When brain tissue from rabies virus-infected animals are stained with a histologic stain, such as hematoxylin and eosin, evidence of encephalomyelitis may be recognized by a trained microscopist. This method is nonspecific and not considered diagnostic for rabies.
Before current diagnostic methods were available, rabies diagnosis was made using this method and the clinical case history. In fact, most of the significant histopathologic features (changes in tissue caused by disease) of rabies infection were described in the last quarter of the 19th century. After Louis Pasteur’s successful experiments with rabies vaccination, scientists were motivated to identify the pathologic lesions of rabies virus.
Histopathologic evidence of rabies encephalomyelitis (inflammation) in brain tissue and meninges includes the following:
Mononuclear infiltration
Perivascular cuffing of lymphocytes or polymorphonuclear cells
Lymphocytic foci
Babes nodules consisting of glial cells
Negri bodies
Negri bodies
In 1903, most of the histopathologic signs of rabies were recognized, but rabies inclusions had not yet been detected. At this time, Dr. Adelchi Negri reported the identification of what he believed to be the etiologic agent of rabies, the Negri body.In his report, he described Negri bodies as round or oval inclusions within the cytoplasm of nerve cells of animals infected with rabies. Negri bodies may vary in size from 0.25 to 27 µm. They are found most frequently in the pyramidal cells of Ammon’s horn, and the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum.
They are also found in the cells of the medulla and various other ganglia. Negri bodies can also be found in the neurons of the salivary glands, tongue, or other organs. Staining with Mann’s, giemsa, or Sellers stains can permit differentiation of rabies inclusions from other intracellular inclusions. With these stains, Negri bodies appear magenta in color and have small (0.2 µm to 0.5 µm), dark-blue interior basophilic granules.
The presence of Negri bodies is variable. Histologic staining for Negri bodies is neither as sensitive nor as specific as other tests. Some experimentally-infected cases of rabies display Negri bodies in brain tissue; others do not. Histologic examination of tissues from clinically rabid animals show Negri bodies in about 50% of the samples; in contrast, the dFA test shows rabies antigen in nearly 100% of the samples. In other cases, non-rabid tissues have shown inclusions indistinquishable from Negri bodies. Because of these problems, the presence of Negri bodies should not be considered diagnostic for rabies.”
Whoever wants to point at random circles seen in fixed and stained dead tissues and then make wild guesses about their importance, raise your hand! ️
As the Negri bodies played such a substantial role in determining the diagnosis of rabies and building the case statistics used to sell the public on a “virus” in need of vaccination and eradication, let’s look at two more studies to find out a bit more about these non-specific diagnostic blobs. In 1942, it was already well known that the Negri bodies were not specific to rabies and could be mistaken for other inclusion bodies seen in the tissues upon examination. This is a rather big deal as the mass vaccination of dogs didn’t start for another 5 years in 1947. So we can already see that the main method used for diagnosis was faulty which casts doubt on any rabies statistics generated up to that time using this method. The authors go on to admit that there were deficiencies in the method used for examining these inclusions. It is stated that every experienced microscopist encountered difficulty in deciding whether or not the bodies observed were in fact Negri bodies or whether they were instead normal or possibly distorted cytoplasmic structures. In the study of 84 mice said to be given rabies by way of injection, Negri bodies were only found in the hippocampus 8 times as well as only 4 times in the cerebral cortex. The authors concluded that there are many rabies cases without Negri bodies present upon examination and that there are various structures which resemble Negri bodies commonly found in normal animals:
Problems in the Laboratory Diagnosis of Rabies*
“THE diagnosis of rabies in the laboratory is based entirely upon the microscopic demonstration of Negri bodies and upon animal inoculation. The demonstration of Negri bodies is the method of choice since the diagnosis can be thus made in a few minutes or hours. When the technic employed demonstrates typical bodies the result is highly convincing and satisfying. However, negative and doubtful results leave much to be desired, and animal inoculation must be resorted to. The difficulties in demonstrating Negri bodies arise from two sources of error which can be enumerated as inability to differentiate them from other inclusion bodies and cell structures, and inherent deficiencies in the methods of examination.”
“However, every experienced microscopist has encountered the difficulty of deciding whether the bodies observed in some preparations are Negri bodies or cytoplasmic structures normal to the cell or if not normal at least only distorted cellular structures. Goodpasture refers to the variation in size of Negri bodies and speaks of being able to demonstrate the smallest forms. When small bodies are associated with large ones, which show the typical inner structure, no confusion is encountered. When, however, only forms so small occur that the demonstration of the “Innenkorper” is doubtful, the diagnosis is doubtful. The brain of cats, particularly, offers difficulty because of the pink staining granular material in the cells and also because the Negri bodies in the pyramidal and Purkinji cells of this animal are often very small. The failure of the microscopic diagnosis of rabies as proved by mouse inoculation is shown in Table 1.”
“Above we have mentioned the occasional occurrence of what appear to be “lyssa bodies” or small Negri bodies in the brain of some animals which did not produce rabies when injected into mice. These bodies are found most frequently in the cerebrum and medulla. Since in the study of 84 cases of rabies proved by mouse inoculation we found Negri bodies only in the hippocampus 8 times and only in the cerebral cortex 4 times (Table 2), the finding of eosinophilic bodies in any portion of a brain from an animal suspected of having had rabies creates a doubt as to the diagnosis.”
“From these results it appears that by microscopic examination of sections and in some smears we are able to demonstrate eosinophilic bodiesresembling “lyssa bodies” and atypical Negri bodies which are not associated in the brain with rabies virus. Also the results show that brain specimens in which the microscopic examination leaves the diagnosis in doubt contain rabies. The bodies that cause this confusion in the microscopic diagnosis of rabies are similar to ones found in certain parts of the brain of normal cattle and other animals and to atypical or small Negri bodies.”
doi: 10.2105/ajph.32.2.171.
While the 1942 study should have been the end of the Negri body as a diagnostic indicator of rabies, this method carried on being used over the decades. In 1975, another study emerged casting doubts on the dogma surrounding these long-held markers of the rabies disease. It’s stated that there was a universal acceptance of the Negri body as a specific indicator of rabies and that due to this widely-endorsed dogma, every time a Negri body was seen, a rabies diagnosis was made irrespective of the circumstances regarding the case.
However, in this study, a case was reported of a person who was considered rabies free by way of dFA and electron microscopy but Negri bodies were still found upon examination. This finding was inconsistent with the idea of the specificity of these bodies to rabies. The author pointed out many flaws with the use of Negri bodies as a diagnostic tool as outside of finding them upon examination, rabies is non-specific and mimics other diseases such as smallpox. It is stated that rabies encephalitis does not have any pathognomonic clinical or pathologic features distinguishing it from other diseases. The absence of Negri bodies in a substantial number of fatal cases of rabies, the lack of any inflammatory response, the absence of any history of animal contact in more than 30% of fatal cases, and the lack of specific behavioral symptoms of rabies in animals led the author to the conclusion that any association between this diagnostic method and the rabies disease is unwarranted. Thus, it is easy to see that any and all rabies case statistics based upon the clinical diagnosis and findings of Negri bodies should be thrown out:
Is the Negri Body Specific for Rabies?
“Of all viral diseases affecting the nervous systems of humans and animals, rabies seems to be the only one in which light microscopy alone can provide a definitive etiologic diagnosis. This is based on the universally accepted conviction on the specificity of the Negri body for rabies. Thus, the presence of a Negri body in the brain of a patient who did not have rabies is a matter that deserves attention.”
“Neuropathologically, the exclusion of rabies in the present case is based on the negative immunofluorescent
study results for rabies and the absence of the rabies virus within the Negri bodies (light microscope) as demonstrated by electron microscopy. Such an observation, of course, is inconsistent with the specificity of the Negri body in signifying the presence of rabies. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask: What are the other inclusion bodies that occur in sites other than the nervous system that are morphologically similar to Negri body?”
“The result of a universally accepted dogma such as this is obvious; in every instance in which a “Negri body” has been seen, a diagnosis of rabies was made irrespective of the circumstances.
To delineate some of the related aspects of the problem the following points deserve etnphasis:
Except for the occurrence of theNegri body, rabies encephalitis does not have any pathognomonic clinical or pathologic features. Variola-vaccinia virus, for example, can produce the same clinical pictures. The cutaneous manifestations can be sufficiently scanty to be missed on the physical examination, or they can be absent altogether (variole sans eruptione). There is remarkable variability in the intensity of cellular inflammatory response in rabies encephalitis. This, to some extent, may reflect the vigor with which these reactions are searched for, since the diagnostic efforts in the past have been mainly directed to the “specific” finding of the Negri body. The absence of Negri bodies in a substantial number of fatal cases of rabies and the remarkable lack of inflammatory response in some instances of the disease signify the importance of obtaining a careful history. A definitive etiologic diagnosis of rabies, however, requires obtaining positive results with immunofluorescent or electron microscopical methods or both. The former method maps the occurrence of rabies viral antigen in any morphologic form (with or without the presence of the inclusions), and the latter defines the characteristic bullet-shaped virus.
Absence of history of animal contact has been reported in more than 30% of fatal cases of rabies. Here, also, it is the unquestioned association between the Negri body and rabies that constitutes the sole ground for a definitive etiologic diagnosis. The latter report is remarkable for the absence of history of animal contact and the occurrence of the fatal illness one week after vaccination for smallpox. Even in the presence of history of animal contact, it should be remembered that such an association is unwarranted as the behavioral alterations in the animals are not pathognomonic of any one disease.
It is conceivable that the failures of antirabies therapy and the occurrence of false negative immunofluorescent results are related to the non-specificity of the Negri body for rabies.
In no other viral disease is the light microscopy alone an accepted method for the definitive etiologic diagnosis of a disease.
The validity of the present observations needs confirmation by other observers and the answer will be found “not by dogma or skepticism but by open-minded uncertainty.”
doi: 10.1001/archneur.1975.00490440025002.
In Summary:
According to the Institut Pasteur, Louis Pasteur’s initial efforts to isolate the rabies “virus” proved unsuccessful as the “virus” remained invisible
The “virus” was not seen until almost a century later, in 1962, with the advent of electron microscopy
Louis Pasteur had the idea of inoculating part of a rabid dog’s brain directly into another dog’s brain, causing the inoculated dog to subsequently die
Inoculation with saliva (where the “virus” is supposedly found) was found to be a method which did not always produce rabies and symptoms did not declare themselves for months
Pasteur accordingly inoculated a number of animals subcutaneously with some of the brain substance from other animals which had died of rabies
Most of those inoculated developed rabies, but not all
Pasteur’s idea of introducing into the brain of experimental animals some of the nerve tissue from an animal which had died of rabies was based on the principle (i.e. assumption) of providing the causal organisms with the nutritive medium best suited to their requirements
There is a very high degree of uncertainty in the correlation between animal bites and the subsequent appearance of rabies-even when the biting animal is certifiably rabid
While the mortality of clinical rabies is “virtually 100 percent,” the threat of death from the bite of a rabid animal is vastly less
Estimates of the risk of contracting rabies from the bites of animals known to be rabid range from as high as 80 percent to as low as 0.5 percent
Pasteur himself estimated that 16 percent of those bitten by rabid dogs would eventually die of rabies unless they submitted to his new treatment
In 1887, the English Commission on Rabies drew attention to the uncertainty of all statistics on rabies citing:
The difficulty of establishing that the attacking animal had in fact been rabid
The variable effects of the location and depth of bites
Differences in the lethality of rabid animal bites in different species and races
The possible prophylactic effects of cauterization or other treatments applied to bitten victims before they submitted to Pasteur’s treatment
The commission also suspected that at least one man may have died as a direct result of the Pastorian injections, and in the end it favored strict regulations on potentially rabid animals (muzzling and quarantine) over Pasteur’s more drastic remedy
The great majority of the victims of rabid animal bites could forgo Pasteur’s treatment without experiencing any untoward consequences in the future
Pasteur himself later pointed out some of the uncertainties surrounding the diagnosis of rabies
Pasteur cited two cases in which symptoms of the disease had been induced solely by fearwithout any animalbite as well as another case which was induced by alcoholism
Pasteur had a vested interest in emphasizing the difficulty of diagnosing rabies as he was then defending himself against allegations that his rabies vaccine not only sometimes failed to protect those who submitted to it, but in some cases was itself the cause of rabies and therefore death
In defense of his vaccine, Pasteur now emphasized the extent to which symptoms like those of rabies could appear in patients who did not have the disease
According to the CDC, the diagnosis of rabies can be made after detection of rabies “virus” from any part of the affected brain, preferably the brain stem and cerebellum
The test requires that the animal be euthanized
According to biologist Harold Hillman: “Killing an animal changes its biochemistry grossly. For example, its blood carbon dioxide, phosphate, lactate, and potassium ion concentrations, rise, while its oxygen, sodium ion, adenosine triphosphate, phosphocreatine, concentrations go down. These changes affect much of the tissue metabolism.”
Hillman felt that “it is worth asking whether cell biologists should use tissues in vitro at all”
The current “gold standard” test used to detect the “virus” on the brain tissue is the direct fluorescent antibody test (dFA)
The dFA test is based on the “observation” that animals infected by rabies “virus” have rabies “virus” proteins (antigen) present in their tissues
Because rabies is present in nervous tissue (and not blood like many other “viruses”), the ideal tissue to test for rabies antigen is brain
When labeled antibody is incubated with rabies-suspect brain tissue, the story goes that it will bind to rabies antigen and unbound antibody can be washed away so that areas where antigen is present can be visualized as fluorescent-apple-green areas using a fluorescence microscope
According to the CDC, during the 50 years the direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test has been used in the United States, there has been no indication it has failed to provide accurate clinical information on the rabies status of an animal for the purposes of treating an exposed person
The CDC states that because of its high sensitivity and specificity, in comparison to “virus” isolation methods, the DFA test is the “gold standard” diagnostic method for rabies (way to shoot “virus” isolation in the foot there CDC…)
During clinical disease, millions of “viral” particles may be found intermittently in the saliva(which makes one wonder why they must kill an animal and do indirect antibody tests on decomposing brain tissue for diagnosis rather than properly purify and isolate the “virus” directly from the saliva supposedly containing millions of these entities)
In theory, only a single rabies particle or “virion” is required to result in a productive infection
The dFA results are based upon the opinion of an interpreter who uses an antigen fluorescence intensity and distribution scale from +4 on down to +1 to determine one of four conclusions: positive, negative, unsatisfactory, or inconclusive
The dFA test has the disadvantage of poor sensitivity, and its specificity varies widely due to the subjective interpretation of test results
The subjectivity in interpretation of the test results
According to a 2017 study testing and reviewing dFA with the help of numerous labs, the results indicated that although all laboratories can perform the direct fluorescent antibody test, there are substantial differences in the overall results and test interpretation
The authors stated that conclusive rabies diagnosis can only be achieved by appropriate laboratory testing as clinical and epidemiological diagnosis is challenging and leads to under-reporting
The agreement between the laboratory results and those of the CDC, as measured by the sensitivity, specificity, concordance and kappa values:
Only two laboratories correctly identified all samples tested (sensitivity and specificity of 1.0)
However, 30% (7/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false positive and 83% (19/23) of all laboratories reported at least one false negative sample
The average sensitivity was 76% with a range of 40% to 100%
The average specificity was 88% with a range of 22% to 100%.
While a majority of the laboratories had low false positive rates, there were considerable differences in the sensitivity
The mean concordance was 81% with a range of 50% to 100% and the mean kappa score was 0.56 with a range of 0.02 to 1.00
The level of concordance between the 23 participating laboratories and the CDC panel showed large variability
Two laboratories had 100% concordance, while 91% of the labs had at least one discordant sample, with a total of 26 false positive and 61 false negative results among all laboratories
The type of conjugate may also affect the sensitivity of the DFA test (monoclonal cocktail versus polyclonal, in-house made versus commercial)
A study of 12 rabies reference laboratories in Europe demonstrated that the variability of conjugatescould potentially lead to discordant results and influence assay sensitivity
Another method for diagnosing rabies is the “isolation” of the “virus” by tissue or cell culture
“Virus isolation” may be necessary to confirm inconclusive results in dFA/dRIT and for characterization of the “virus” strain
In neuroblastoma cells, rabies “virus” grows generally without cytopathic effect
In a bit of cirular reasoning, it is necessary to use dFA to confirm the presence of rabies “virus” by way of cell culture whereas cell culture may also be used to confirm inconclusive dFA results
After intracranial (in the brain…some things never change)application, rabies induces clinical signs in mice that are relatively typical but have to be confirmed by dFA (i.e. the mouse that has had toxic cell culture goo injected into its brain causing symptoms must then be killed to have its cell-culture damaged brain examined by dFA to confirm the infection)
Histologic examination of biopsy or autopsy tissues looking for signs of encephalitis is occasionally useful in diagnosing unsuspected cases of rabies that have not been tested by routine methods
However, this method is nonspecific and not considered diagnostic for rabies
Before current diagnostic methods were available, rabies diagnosis was made using this method and the clinical case history(i.e. non-specific and not suited for diagnostic methods were used to identify rabies for most of the 19th and 20th century)
Histopathologic evidence of rabies encephalomyelitis (inflammation) in brain tissue and meninges includes the following:
Mononuclear infiltration
Perivascular cuffing of lymphocytes or polymorphonuclear cells
Lymphocytic foci
Babes nodules consisting of glial cells
Negri bodies
In 1903, Dr. Adelchi Negri reported the identification of what he believed to be the etiologic agent of rabies, the Negri body
In his report, he described Negri bodies as round or oval inclusions within the cytoplasm of nerve cells of animals infected with rabies
While this was the main method of diagnosing rabies for over 60 years, the presence of Negri bodies is variable
Histologic staining for Negri bodies is neither as sensitive nor as specific as other tests
Some experimentally-infected cases of rabies display Negri bodies in brain tissue; others do not
Histologic examination of tissues from clinically rabid animals show Negri bodies in about 50% of the samples
In other cases, non-rabid tissues have shown inclusions indistinquishable from Negri bodies
Because of these problems, the presence of Negri bodies should not be considered diagnostic for rabies
Despite these problems, until the mid-1960’s the diagnosis of rabies in the laboratory was based entirely upon the microscopic demonstration of Negri bodies and upon animal inoculation
According to a study from 1942, the demonstration of Negri bodies was the method of choice since the diagnosis can be thus made in a few minutes or hour
However, the authors admitted that the difficulties in demonstrating Negri bodies arose from two sources of error which could be enumerated as theinability to differentiate them from other inclusion bodies and cell structures, and inherent deficiencies in the methods of examination
Every experienced microscopist has encountered the difficulty of deciding whether the bodies observed in some preparations are Negri bodies or cytoplasmic structures normal to the cell or if not normal at least only distorted cellular structures
In the study of 84 cases of rabies proved by mouse inoculation they found Negri bodies only in the hippocampus 8 times and only in the cerebral cortex 4 times
The authors determined that the finding of eosinophilic bodies in any portion of a brain from an animal suspected of having had rabies creates a doubt as to the diagnosis
From their results it appeared that by microscopic examination of sections and in some smears, they were able to demonstrate eosinophilic bodies resembling “lyssa bodies” and atypical Negri bodies which are not associated in the brain with rabies “virus”
Also the results showed that brain specimens in which the microscopic examination leaves the diagnosis in doubt contain rabies (i.e. they determined that injecting mice in the brain caused rabies without finding Negri bodies)
The bodies that cause this confusion in the microscopic diagnosis of rabies are similar to ones found in certain parts of the brain of normal cattle and other animals and to atypical or small Negri bodies
In a 1975 study, it is stated that rabies is the only “virus” that can be diagnosed by light microscopy based on the universally accepted conviction on the specificity of the Negri body for rabies
However, the authors presented a case of a patient without rabies as determined by negative immunofluorescent study results for rabies and the absence of the rabies “virus “within the Negri bodies (light microscope) as demonstrated by electron microscopy
Such an observation was inconsistent with the specificity of the Negri body in signifying the presence of rabies
The result of this universally accepted dogma led to every instance in which a “Negri body” was seen being diagnosed as rabies irrespective of the circumstances
Except for the occurrence of the Negri body, rabies encephalitis does not have any pathognomonic clinical or pathologic features (i.e. non-specific and overlapping symptoms associated with many diseases)
Variola-vaccinia(Smallpox) “virus,” for example, can produce the same clinical pictures
There is remarkable variability in the intensity of cellular inflammatory response in rabies encephalitis
The diagnostic efforts in the past have been mainly directed to the “specific” finding of the Negri body
The absence of Negri bodies in a substantial number of fatal cases of rabies and the remarkable lack of inflammatory response in some instances of the disease signify the importance of obtaining a careful history
Absence of history of animal contact has been reported in more than 30% of fatal cases of rabies
In these cases, it is the unquestioned association between the Negri body and rabies that constitutes the sole ground for a definitive etiologic diagnosis
Even in the presence of history of animal contact, it should be remembered that such an association is unwarranted as the behavioral alterations in the animals are not pathognomonic of any one disease (i.e. there are many diseases which are said to cause the same symptoms in animals)
It is conceivable that the failures of antirabies therapy and the occurrence of false negative immunofluorescent results are related to the non-specificity of the Negri body for rabies
In no other “viral” disease is the light microscopy alone an accepted method for the definitive etiologic diagnosis of a disease
The author concludes that the answers to the observations made will be found “not by dogma or skepticism but by open-minded uncertainty.”
When one looks into the history of rabies and the methods used to diagnose the disease, it becomes undeniable that the mythical status that surrounds this fear-based fictional narrative fed to the masses throughout the centuries is entirely unjustified and unwarranted. There is literally nothing there in support of rabies as a distinct disease caused by a specific “virus” that is transmitted to humans through the bite of a sick animal. If we were to lay out the facts in front of a jury, it would be an easy conviction:
The pivotal moments of discovery in the late 19th century were built upon the fraudulent foundations laid out by Louis Pasteur, a man who manipulated and massaged his own data in order to sell his theories and his vaccine for fame and fortune.
The supposed “isolation” of the “virus” didn’t even take place until nearly a century after Pasteur admitted to never identifying a causative agent and yet it missed the necessary requirement of showing any indirect evidence of the “virus” highjacking the cell as the culture lacked any evidence of the cytopathogenic effect.
The actual correlation between animal bites and symptoms of disease was considered highly uncertain and those who were attacked and bitten by clearly rabid animals could easily forgo any treatments without any ill health effects.
The incubation period for the disease is inconsistent and is said to range anywhere from 6 weeks on up to 25 years before the development of symptoms.
The severe symptoms associated with rabies are a rare occurrence in nature and are in fact seen most frequently as an adverse reaction to the vaccine said to contain neurotropic ingredients.
The acknowledgment by Pasteur of “false rabies,” which was said to be brought about solely by FEAR of aquiring the disease as well as alcohol and/or drug use, was used to take attention away from his vaccine causing injury and death.
The statistics regarding rabies cases were considered unreliable due to the lack of any specifuc disease-defining symptoms as many diseases in animals and humans mimic the clinical picture.
The diagnosis of rabies, for much of its history, relied upon clinical symptoms and the histopathological findings related to encephalitis and Negri bodies, all of which are non-specific and are not suitable as a diagnostic measure for the disease, thus calling into question any case statistics related to rabies.
The only way to claim pathogenicity of the “virus” is by way of the completely unnatural route of intracranial inoculation of diseased brain and nervous tissues directly into the brains of dogs and mice.
The more recent modern method of direct fluorescence antibody tests, considered the “gold standard” diagnostic test, is claimed to be highly sensitive and specific, yet the results of the tests are open to human interpretation and have been shown in reviews to have low sensitivity and varied specificity.
The narrative surrounding rabies is based upon many primal fears. It plays on the fear of death, the fear of the unknown, and the fear of mutilation. Just like the rabid animal lurking in the shadows ready to strike, the “virus” hides inside the body once infected, waiting for the right moment to unleash a painful and excruciating death unless the infected leaps for the miracle cure in time. If they are a moment too late and the symptoms set in, it’s game over. This same scenario is regularly sold to the masses in our daily entertainment with the recent zombie craze. One must be afraid of the bite. Once bitten, the “virus” takes hold and the victim is condemned to certain death.
However, just as Louis Pasteur recounted tales of the fearful succumbing to the exact same symptoms in absence of any animal bite, we must realize that the real enemy here is not a “virus” but an ingrained fear that stems from outdated and unproven fictional narratives. Moreso than any of the other more common diseases of the time such as smallpox and syphilis, rabies was the perfect mascot to convince the doubting public that disease-causing pathogens exist, can be transmitted, and can be prevented by way of vaccination. The imagery of the dirty mangled dog stumbling down the road, frothing at the mouth and seeking its next victim to transfer its parasitic contents into was a powerful visual tool for pathogens that remained nothing but formless thoughts at the time.
However, the evidence consistently shows us that there is no dangerous invisible entity waiting in the wings inside the saliva of a rabid animal looking to seep into the open wound of a bite mark. There is no reason for any victim of an animal attack to subject themselves to the toxic treatments based upon the fear of an impending gruesome death. Just as there are no zombies coming for your brains, there is no frothing rabies “virus” looking to do the same. The foundation for germ theory and vaccination established by Pasteur was never built from any purified and isolated “virus” shown scientifically to exist in nature. It was built upon the only “virus” that has ever truly existed: the “virus” of fear.
For an excellent breakdown of the rabies fraud, please see Dr. Sam Bailey’s What About Rabies? video:
I’m moving on from Part 1 into a completely different area.
There is lab work in the sciences that crucially affects populations. Two examples: virologists claiming they’ve isolated SARS-CoV-2; and researchers deciding they’ve found a way to adapt RNA technology to produce a COVID vaccine.
In the first case, the purported discovery of SARS-CoV-2 enabled the launch of the global pandemic announcement, which eventually led to the lockdowns and the crashing of economies. In the second case, the RNA-vaccine “breakthrough” led to the vaccination of billions of people, and massive numbers of injuries and deaths.
These are crucial effects, to say the least.
And yet, those on the outside, who have no access to these labs AS THE WORK IS BEING DONE, those who are independent scientists and analysts and can only read the studies once they are published—
—This is an unconscionable situation, when you stop and think about it.
The whole world is changed by the research, but we can’t watch it IN PROGRESS.
People have been brainwashed into thinking this lack of access to labs is normal. Standard. Non-official persons entering these labs and tracking the work step by step would amount to a criminal invasion. That’s what we’re supposed to believe:
“Just accept our statements about our findings and shut up and obey.”
“We’re the pros. You’re the idiots.”
“We’re certified. You’re the guinea pigs.”
“Call security, call the FBI, call DHS, terrorists are trying to break into our lab.”
“This is a holy sanctum, anointed by God. You’re a mortal sinner.”
Here’s my kind of debate on the existence of SARS-Cov-2. Here’s my bottom, bottom line.
Virologists are compelled to replicate, in the lab, the so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2. An outside team of truly independent scientists and journalists is present.
So is a camera crew. With many cameras. And many mics.
The team watches every single move the virologists make. Any member of the team can stop the work and ask a question or criticize a move.
The questions and answers and the criticisms and replies are all recorded. Ditto for every action the virologists take.
THIS is a REAL debate. The most real debate.
“Wait. That’s ridiculous. You can’t expect these highly trained virologists to submit themselves to this kind of…inspection.”
Of course I can.
For example: Our team member in the lab says, “All right, you’re observing that the monkey cells and the human cells in this soup you’ve created are dying off. You claim the killer must be ‘the virus’ in the patient’s tissue sample—the sample you dropped in the soup. You claim nothing else in the soup could be killing the cells. So let me ask you this? Where is the control experiment?”
“The what?”
“The control. My, my. You really forgot about that?”
“I don’t understand. Turn off the cameras.”
“Leave them on, boys. This is interesting. Let me explain, Dr. High Horse. You should have a second dish of soup that is absolutely identical to the first dish, except the second dish does NOT contain the tissue sample from a patient. You also keep an eye on that second dish and see whether the monkey cells and the human cells in it die off. If they do…then your contention that ‘the virus’ in the patient sample is killing those cells is worthless. And you have no evidence your virus is in the patient sample. Or that it exists.”
“Oh. Well…”
“Well, what? You don’t mean to say all those virologists in all those labs who claimed they found the new virus omitted the control experiment, do you?”
YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION.
On camera, in the lab, in person.
“That would never happen. They would never let you in there.”
Which proves what? I’m just stating what the MOST REAL DEBATE WOULD CONSIST OF, in a half-sane world. It would look exactly like that.
Here’s a parallel for you. A civilian no one ever heard of develops a car he says runs on water. He says he’s got a new process that VERY cheaply splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the car runs on the hydrogen.
Over years and decades, the legend grows. Finally, major media are starting to nibble around the edges of the story.
So one day, a bunch of Saudis and oil execs and scientists and men in suits show up at this man’s garage, and express great interest in his work. THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THIS CRAZY GUY HAS STUMBLED ON A REVOLUTIONARY WAY TO POWER A CAR.
So what would they ask him to do?
See, they’re the outsiders with no access, and he’s the insider.
Are they just going to ask him for assurances?
Hell no. They’re going to ask him to take the engine apart and put it back together again. They’re going to ask him to take the fuel system apart and put it back together again. They’re going to want to go through his whole car and his garage and his kitchen and his bathroom with a fine-toothed comb. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS SITUATION, SINCE IT COULD AFFECT THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION, AND THEIR PROFITS, AND SO ON.
They’re not screwing around.
And neither should we.
Our lives and futures and the lives of future generations are on the line with this “virus thing.”
We should be looking at every beaker and tube and slide and instrument in the virology lab. We should be looking over the shoulders of the virologists and watching every move they make and asking pointed questions and demanding answers.
So we really know whether they’re doing science or preposterous bullshit.
And of course we wouldn’t be paying attention to random assurances from “highly qualified and respected scientists” along the way. We’d be studiously ignoring them.
If you need another parallel to the real kind of investigation I’m demanding, think of bringing a team into the Vatican and inspecting every inch of space in every building, including the basements and caverns…to see what’s really there. The whole enchilada.
All right, you get the idea. You see what I’m asking for.
Now, short of that, what do we have? What can we get access to?
Well, it’s not entirely reliable, but here it is:
We can read published studies which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2. Those studies all have methods sections. In them, the researchers describe, step by step, what they did to “isolate the virus.”
We have that.
I’m now going to republish one of those methods sections, chunk by chunk, and have Dr. Andrew Kaufman make his criticisms as we go along. I published all this about a year ago.
I want to emphasize that Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of highly detailed analyses of these methods sections, from a number of other independent critics. We need much more of this.
The devil is in the details.
Here we go:
I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)”.
STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”
KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”
STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”
KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”
STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”
KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”
STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”
KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”
KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO). Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”
STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”
STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”
KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”
STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”
—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 500 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past two years) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?
The answer is no.
As I stated, Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of intense and detailed examination of studies that describe “how the virus was isolated.”
As opposed to a few hours of Zoom debate in which people summarize their opposing positions, and then submit to a vote from a panel of judges who descend from the sky with motives as pure as Superman and Wonder Woman. All this happens with Steve Kirsch in the background holding a million dollar prize. In Vegas, Steve would be called the house. And the house always wins.
One of the many unfortunate side effects of the attention which has been given to the covid-19 jabs is the fact that more traditional vaccinations (including the dozens routinely given to children) have been forgotten and are now largely administered without protest, controversy or a second thought.
There was always a danger that the justifiable outrage and fear engendered by the covid-19 jabs would push the wider issue of traditional vaccination into the background. The experimental and notably toxic covid-19 jabs have understandably and rightly captured the attention of those who aren’t prepared to accept the lies, the deceits and the manipulations at face value.
But it is important that we don’t forget the ever-growing hailstorm of vaccinations, aimed particularly at children, which have seemingly become an integral part of our relationship with health care in general and doctors in particular.
We all know that the establishment and the mainstream media refuse to debate the mRNA jabs.
But it is, I suspect, less widely known that there has for a long time been a blackout on any discussion of the more traditional vaccines or that the reputation of vaccines is built on a toxic mixture of myths, fallacies and plain, vanilla lies.
I’ve been writing about vaccines for over 50 years but rather to my surprise it was 2011 before I wrote a book entirely devoted to vaccines and vaccination.
I wrote the book (Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying. Here’s the proof.) partly to provide evidence proving that vaccines are often dangerous and don’t work but also to destroy the outrageous, manufactured myth that vaccination has extended life expectancy and eradicated diseases such as smallpox and whooping cough.
I’ll get back to that theme in a moment but first I think it is worth using the history of that book to illustrate the extent of the media blackout which exists to protect vaccines and vaccination.
Knowing that none of my usual publishers would touch a book about vaccines, I published it myself.
We sent out 600 review copies, hoping that one or two reviewers might be brave enough to consider the book on its merit. However, to the best of my knowledge, not one reviewed it. People I’d known for years wouldn’t discuss it. Moreover, quite a number of reviewers returned the book. It is usual practice for reviewers to sell books they don’t want to keep on their shelves. But journalists actually spent time and money returning the book!
I knew there were risks in writing a whole book about vaccines. It has always been a topic which has aroused anger within the medical establishment. In the Preface I wrote: ‘Experience tells me this book will bring me much trouble, a great deal of abuse, a number of threats and considerable professional and personal inconvenience’.
But even I was surprised at how quickly I became persona non grata. My questioning of official establishment policies had, for a long time, made me unpopular with the establishment. It quickly became apparent that vaccination is a taboo subject and that vaccines are protected from criticism in the way that film stars were protected in the 1930s.
Since its publication there have been concerted efforts to ban the book and have it removed from sale.
No one has ever questioned the science, the statistics or the conclusions in the book. Critics have, however, been upset by my criticism of ‘the establishment’s unquestioned enthusiasm for a practice which is of such doubtful value and which offers such potential for disaster’.
I described vaccination as `a massive confidence trick’ and predicted (in 2011 remember) that ‘vaccination will become compulsory in the West’. I have been lied about constantly by thousands of rabid supporters of vaccination.
It seems that the mainstream media has devoted itself to promoting vaccines and never allowing any aspect of vaccination to be questioned. The BBC actually has a policy of excluding all vaccine criticism from its programmes. Merely questioning the validity of vaccination draws a torrent of abuse down upon the questioner’s head.
The inevitable result is that vaccination programmes continue pretty well unhindered and millions of children are now regularly jabbed with products which have never been properly tested or evaluated either for safety or efficacy.
The most potent claim for vaccines is, as I’ve already mentioned, that they have saved millions of lives. (This claim is now being falsely applied to the covid-19 jab which cannot be proven to have saved any lives at all). The fraud is maintained by pointing to average life expectation but this is a false argument for the figures are skewed by the vast number of babies and infants who used to die of disease or malnutrition. Every infant death drags down life expectation dramatically.
All around the world, infants and children are now subjected to a seemingly endless series of assaults on their immune systems. The vaccines used have never been adequately tested to see how they might interact or how they might affect other medications. Very few long-term trials have been done though the few available confirm my scepticism. For example, in 2017, the Danish Government and a Danish vaccine maker, funded a study of the DTP vaccine. The WHO and the medical establishment claim that the DTP vaccine saves millions of lives but, after looking at 30 years of data, the scientists concluded that the DTP vaccine was probably killing more children than died from diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus prior to the vaccines introduction. The vaccine had ruined the immune systems of children rendering them susceptible to death from pneumonia, leukaemia, bilharzia, malaria and dysentery.
The results of that trial changed nothing. The vaccination continued unhindered.
The vaccines most often described as having changed the world are those for polio, whooping cough and smallpox. But look at the evidence.
With polio the truth is that with other infectious diseases the significance of polio dropped as better sanitation, better housing, cleaner water and more food were made available in the second half of the 19th century. Look at the evidence and it shows that the number of polio victims went up not down as a result of vaccination. In Tennessee, USA (chosen at random) the number of polio victims before vaccination became compulsory was 119. The year after vaccination was introduced the figure rose to 386. In America as a whole the number of deaths from polio had fallen dramatically before the first polio vaccine was introduced but the incidence of polio increased by around 50% after the introduction of mass immunisation.
Of even more significance (which I revealed in my book `Why Animal Experiments Must Stop in 1991) 17 million people who were given polio vaccines as children in the 1950s and 1960s are now at risk of developing cancer. This is because the first practical vaccine used monkey kidney tissue – which contains a carcinogenic virus. Moreover, the virus can be passed on to the children of those who were given the contaminated vaccine. Could this explain the ever rising number of people with cancer? We’ll never know. The doctor who first warned of this risk was ignored and her laboratory was closed down. The documents showing who had received the dangerous vaccine were destroyed by the Department of Health in 1987 though it seems likely that millions of doses of the dangerous polio vaccine were used despite the risk.
The smallpox story is equally startling.
The myth that smallpox was eradicated through a mass vaccination programme is just that – a myth. Smallpox was eradicated through identifying and isolating patients with the disease. One of the worst smallpox epidemics of all time took place in England between 1870 and 1872 – nearly two decades after compulsory vaccination had been introduced. The people of Leicester refused the vaccine and there was only one death. In contrast there were massive numbers of deaths in towns where people had been vaccinated.
German doctors are taught that it was the Reich Vaccination Law (making vaccination compulsory) which halted smallpox in their country. But the incidence of smallpox had dropped before the law came into action. Once again, a legally enforced national vaccination programme did not eradicate the disease.
Look at history and it is clear that the number of cases of smallpox has gone up each time there has been a mass vaccination programme.
It’s worth remembering too that Dr Jenner, a hero for pro-vaccine folk, refused to have his second child vaccinated after he’d tried his smallpox vaccination on his own son. Tragically, the boy remained mentally retarded until his death at the age of 21.
Everywhere you look the evidence is the same: vaccination doesn’t work. Moreover, it is not difficult to sustain the argument that it does more harm than good.
Sadly, the medical establishment and the media have for years conspired to suppress the truth and to demonise the truth tellers.
The suppression of the truth about the covid-19 jab is nothing new.
Now the people of South Africa need our help. Please see the instructions after this letter to learn how you can make your voice heard before the August 5 deadline (click here to see time remaining).
“We cannot trample upon the humanity of others without devaluing our own. The Igbo, always practical, put it concretely in their proverb Onye ji onye n’ani ji onwe ya: ‘He who will hold another down in the mud must stay in the mud to keep him down.’”
—Chinua Achebe, The Education of a British-Protected Child: Essays
“Apartness” in Afrikaans, “apartheid” is the institutionalized system of segregation. You can change the definitions of the targeted parties, but you cannot change the discriminatory rot underlying this vile legislation.
The People’s Lawctivist Sabelo Sibanda explains that under the proposed amendments:
“These regulations basically declare a scenario where everyone will end up in one of three categories where you are either deemed to be a case, or you are considered a suspect, or, alternatively, you are considered as one who has been in contact with someone who is a case.
“And once you fall into any one of those three categories, this is what this means to you. Government says, ‘You may not refuse to be medically examined,’ whereby the medical examination process is whatever government will determine.
“Second to that, you may not refuse to be put in quarantine or put in isolation. And the requirements for quarantine and isolation are such that the majority of the people of South Africa will not be able to self-quarantine so they have to be put in a state institution.
“Further to that, and most critical, is that you may not refuse to take whatever medication that the government says you should take. Your freedom—which is supposed to be guaranteed and protected by the same act in as far as the right to be informed—is taken away. You are caught in a situation whereby government has full control.
“Once you are put in this isolation space, this quarantine space, you don’t have the ability to determine when and how you get out. It will be up to government to decide.
“So now the country of South Africa will be under a permanent state of disaster where masking will be permanent, where social distancing is permanent, through the National Health Act.”
In case you’ve forgotten what it looks like for your government to discriminate against citizens under the guise of a “state of emergency” and to demand people’s papers, here are a couple of reminders:
Today, that passport looks like a QR code on your phone.
Please take a few moments to read the following articles to understand why there is no circumstance under which it is ethically or morally acceptable to deprive individuals of their freedoms and human rights in the name of the “public good,” which can be defined according to the whims of despots and demagogues:
And if you want to understand what it feels like to be institutionalized and have medication forced on you against your will, here’s a preview of the world you would be creating:
Nurse Pilbow: Mr. McMurphy?
McMurphy: Huh?
Nurse Pilbow: Your medication.
McMurphy: What’s in the horse pill?
Nurse Pilbow: It’s just medicine, it’s good for you.
McMurphy: Yeah, but I don’t like the idea of taking something if I don’t know what it is.…
Nurse Ratched: If Mr. McMurphy doesn’t want to take his medication orally, I’m sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way.
The people of South Africa poured decades of passion, blood, and song into eradicating apartheid:
Do not let that effort be for naught. As Chinua Achebe says:
“The damage done in one year can sometimes take ten or twenty years to repair.”
Do not let fear, hatred, panic, and intolerance win. Cast out those totalitarian demons and save your people by rejecting amendments 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885.
“Yet men were afraid, with a fear that was deep, deep in the heart, a fear so deep that they hid their kindness, or brought it out with fierceness and anger, and hid it behind fierce and frowning eyes. They were afraid because they were so few. And such fear could not be cast out, but by love.”
Dissolve the WHO
