Beware the Snake Oil Salesmen

“The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent
“SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and
animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the
random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated
into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place.
Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely
related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.

Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines,
the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have
a few purposes:

1. To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a
  singular cause.
2. To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
3. To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
4. To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
5. To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial
  evidence that is easily debunked.”

~ Mike Stone

Beware the Snake Oil Salesmen

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
April 18, 2022

“My story has never been to create fear, panic, and anxiety about water.” He said he told Peters that he believes “there’s actually a snake venom connection to all of COVID-19, and I think that’s the weapon.” – Dr. Bryan Ardis

https://www.thedailybeast.com

Summarizing his theory, Dr. Ardis said, “They are using Krait venom and Cobra venom, calling it Covid-19, you’re drinking it, it’s getting into your brainstem and it’s paralyzing your diaphragm’s ability to breathe.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/miamistandard.news/

I really didn’t want to write this article. I was hopeful that people would easily see right through the unsubstantiated claims of Dr. Bryan Ardis that snake venom is the cause of “Covid.” I was hopeful that people would take the time to research the information presented in support of the snake venom theory to see if it held any merit at all. I thought his whirlwind alternative media tour on the who’s who of questionable sources (including the likes of Stew Peters, Mike Adams, and Infowars) would have people questioning why this theory was allowed to be so heavily promoted so quickly. I thought that the fact that the man who created the “Covid” snake venom theory was actually selling his own anti-venom line of supplements would be enough grounds to be skeptical of his motive and his claims.

It seems I was wrong. Just like the baseless vaccine shedding and gain of function/bioweapons narratives, this new snake venom theory has sadly spread through the “Truther” community like wildfire, with many who rightfully challenge the existence of “viruses” clinging to the idea of a new invisible enemy to defeat. They believe that it must be a new toxin. It can’t possibly be the same factors we have seen each and every year leading to disease. This toxin must be hiding in the vaccines, the drugs, and/or even the very water we drink. What these “Truthers” do not realize is that this very line of thinking gives credibility to the idea of a new disease which requires new treatments in order to combat it. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical companies want you to believe.

However, there is NO NEW DISEASE. There is no need for any new or even existing pharmaceutical interventions to treat the same symptoms of detoxification people go through each and every year. In fact, the current treatments can easily be shown to have led to numerous unnecessary deaths. There is no new threat known as “Covid-19” which is being caused by any one factor. The factors leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing are multi-causal as they are every year.

Now this is not to say that the vaccines, the drugs, or even the water supply are free of toxins. These are all sources of toxicity and should be investigated as to their composition and effects on our health. However, the theory that there is one factor in all of these sources, i.e. snake venom, and this one factor is leading to the symptoms of disease people are experiencing is, at present time, completely baseless. And it all begins at the very foundation of the fraudulent genome.

The Fradulent Genome

You take that snake or that serpent and you figure out how to isolate genes from that serpent and get those genes of that serpent to insert itself into your God-given created DNA. I think this is the plan all along, was to get the serpents’, the evil one’s DNA, into your God-created DNA.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/covid-conspiracy-theorists-are-at-war-over-snake-venom

He also said genetic sequence testing done on sick patients in Wuhan found their genetic sequence matched two snakes, the Chinese Krait and King Cobra, not bats.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/miamistandard.news/

From Dr. Ardis’ interview with Mike Adams, he supplied the article “Snakes could be the source of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak” from CNN as his starting point for the “Covid”/snake connection. Within the article, you can see that this claim originates from the fraudulent genomes:

“The researchers used an analysis of the protein codes favored by the new coronavirus and compared it to the protein codes from coronaviruses found in different animal hosts, like birds, snakes, marmots, hedgehogs, manis, bats and humans. Surprisingly, they found that the protein codes in the 2019-nCoV are most similar to those used in snakes.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/

To anyone who actually researched the creation of the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is readily apparent that it is a fraudulent computer-generated creation stemming from the unpurified lung fluid of a single patient. The sequenced material could have come from multiple sources, including host DNA/RNA, bacteria, and microbes/microorganisms. It could have even come from outside contamination. There is no way to tell what the origin of the RNA is or even if it was a single source as no particles assumed to be “SARS-COV-2” were ever properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids of the sick patient before being sequenced. Thus, any relation this fabricated sequence has to any other sequence is invalid as the source was never identified to exist as a physical entity to begin with. Considering that the bat and snake “coronavirus” sequences for which the “SARS-COV-2” sequence was then compared to also come from unpurified sources, it is easy to see that any claims as to the origins of the sequenced material is a horrible foundation to build upon for an origin theory of a nonexistent “virus” and/or disease.

Even if this snake-venom connection was valid, the enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom. These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and yet they are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals. From his own source:

Like Venom Coursing Through the Body: Researchers Identify Mechanism Driving COVID-19 Mortality

“Researchers from the University of Arizona, in collaboration with Stony Brook University and Wake Forest School of Medicine, analyzed blood samples from two COVID-19 patient cohorts and found that circulation of the enzyme – secreted phospholipase A2 group IIA, or sPLA2-IIA, – may be the most important factor in predicting which patients with severe COVID-19 eventually succumb to the virus.

The sPLA2-IIA enzyme, which has similarities to an active enzyme in rattlesnake venom, is found in low concentrations in healthy individuals and has long been known to play a critical role in defense against bacterial infections, destroying microbial cell membranes.”

Thus, the snake enzymes are in fact normal human enzymes that are regularly found in healthy individuals. There is no mystery as to why these would be present in a sample. We should be able to put this “Covid” snake venom nonsense to bed right here. However, let’s press on a see what else we can uncover.

Antivenom = Monoclonal Antibodies

One thing I will give Dr. Ardis credit for is spotlighting the connection between the creation of antivenoms with the creation of monoclonal antibodies. The processes for both are very similar and the desired outcome is the exact same: the creation of theoretical antibodies. In the case of snake antivenom, it is normally created by a series of injections of the venom of a snake into an animal and then collecting the blood after a period of time. This is usually done through horses but other animals can be used as the host as well. Thus, the antivenom used for a snakebite victim is typically an injection of horse blood.

Monoclonal antibodies, on the other hand, are created by injecting mice with an antigen, extracting the resulting blood which contains the theoretical antibodies, and culturing it in myeloma (i.e. cancer) cells. For the creation of “SARS-COV-2” therapies, it is said that they are typically created either from the B cells of recovered “Covid” patients or by immunizing mice genetically modified to have a humanized immune system and harvesting the “effective” antibodies from them.

Both of these therapies have their basis in animal blood and the creation of the theoretical antibodies. Both are associated with toxic side effects. Sadly, while he was originally right about the fact that monoclonal antibodies are toxic and should not be used to treat the symptoms now collectively known as “Covid,” Dr. Ardis changed his tune when another doctor texted him asking if he would use antivenom for a snake bite:

“Last December, Dr Bryan Ardis received a text message from an Emergency Room physician friend of his that sent him down an unexpected and bizarre rabbit hole that may explain the adverse events from the vaccines that we’ve been reporting. The text read: “Hey Dr Ardis…If you got bit by a rattlesnake, would you go to a hospital and get anti-venom?”

“He says, “I realized, all of a sudden, monoclonal antibodies ARE anti-venom. The Federal Government doesn’t want us using anti-venom. Why are they fighting anti-venom and why are we finding anti-venom works against COVID? Is it not a virus? Is it a venom? This is what I want to know: Is COVID a venom and is this why they don’t want you using monoclonal antibodies?”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cairnsnews.org/

Do you see the trick? They want you to equate monoclonal antibodies with antivenom. This is supposed to be an “aha” moment where you realize that there is no way that you would not inject antivenom (i.e. horse blood) into yourself if bitten by a snake. It’s a no-brainer, right? We have all seen the movies where a person is bitten by a venomous snake and quickly dies if not given the antivenom.

If you are willing to accept the injection of horse blood into your body to survive a snake bite, why wouldn’t you also inject the cancer-cell cultured blood of genetically altered mice in order to combat “Covid?”

As Dr. Ardis points out, monoclonal antibodies are essentially antivenom. However, he wrongly states that monoclonal antibodies are an effective therapy. According to a September 2021 Cochrane review of the available studies, they found insufficient evidence to claim that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for “SARS-COV-2:”

Are laboratory-made, COVID-19-specific monoclonal antibodies an effective treatment for COVID-19?

“The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.”

https://www.cochrane.org/CD013825/

In other words, the evidence for the usefulness of monoclonal antibodies is non-existent. Unfortunately, the Cochrane Review failed to point out that there are various risks and adverse reactions associated with their use:

Do mAbs have risks?

“Therapeutic mAbs, typically administered by intravenous (IV) infusion, have been a valuable and generally safe treatment option for a variety of conditions for many years. However, they are also known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed. Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity.”

https://www.ecri.org/components/

In January 2022, the FDA restricted the use of some monoclonal therapies (Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab) that are authorized against “Covid-19” as they were shown to be ineffective:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Limits Use of Certain Monoclonal Antibodies to Treat COVID-19 Due to the Omicron Variant

“In light of the most recent information and data available, today, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.

Because data show these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant, which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States, these treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time. In the future, if patients in certain geographic regions are likely to be infected or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments, then use of these treatments may be authorized in these regions.

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens such as viruses, like SARS-CoV-2. And like other infectious organisms, SARS-CoV-2 can mutate over time, resulting in certain treatments not working against certain variants such as omicron. This is the case with these two treatments for which we’re making changes today.”

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/

On April 16th, 2022, the FDA revoked the use of Bamlanivimab alone as it’s benefits were shown not to outweigh its risks. Somehow despite this evidence, the FDA still allows for it to be used in combination with Etesevimab, even though they previously revoked their use together in January 2022:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Monoclonal Antibody Bamlanivimab

“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and certain pediatric patients. Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of SARS-CoV-2 viral variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure, the FDA has determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use. Therefore, the agency determined that the criteria for issuance of an authorization are no longer met and has revoked the EUA.

On Nov. 9, 2020, based on the totality of scientific evidence available at the time, the FDA issued an EUA to Eli Lilly and Co. authorizing the emergency use of bamlanivimab alone for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and pediatric patients (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) with positive results of direct SARS-CoV-2 viral testing, and who are at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19 and/or hospitalization. Importantly, although the FDA is now revoking this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone. The FDA believes that these alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain appropriate to treat patients with COVID-19 when used in accordance with the authorized labeling based on information available at this time.”

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/

If the FDA’s confusing revoking of the EUA’s of these monoclonal antibodies has you concerned that you will not be able to use them against an imaginary “virus,” don’t worry. The FDA authorized the use of a new “Omicron-specific” monoclonal antibody called Bebtelovimab on February 11th, 2022. Granted, it still carries the same risks, adverse side effects, and uncertainty over clinical worsening listed for the previously ineffective antibody therapies. From the FDA fact sheet:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant

“Possible side effects of bebtelovimab include itching, rash, infusion-related reactions, nausea and vomiting. Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other SARS-CoV2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab. In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19.”

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes New Monoclonal Antibody for Treatment of COVID-19 that Retains Activity Against Omicron Variant

Hypersensitivity Including Anaphylaxis and Infusion-Related Reactions: Serious hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been observed with administration of other SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and could occur with administration of bebtelovimab. If clinically significant hypersensitivity reactions occur, discontinue and initiate appropriate supportive care. Infusion-related reactions may occur up to 24 hours post injection. These reactions may be severe or life threatening. (5.1)
Clinical Worsening After SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Administration: Clinical worsening of COVID-19 after administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and may include signs or symptoms of fever, hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty, arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia), fatigue, and altered mental status. Some of these events required hospitalization. It is not known if these events were related to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of COVID-19. (5.2)
Limitations of Benefit and Potential for Risk in Patients with Severe COVID-19: Treatment with bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Monoclonal antibodies, such as bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation. (5.3)

http://www.fda.gov/media/156152/download

Mixed with cancer cells. Sounds healthy…

It should be fairly clear that, unlike Dr. Ardis’ claims, monoclonal antibodies are not effective, carry numerous risky side effects, and can actually worsen the disease they are supposed to treat. Interestingly, this same risk of dangerous side effects and worsening disease outcomes is associated with snake antivenom as well. From the fact sheet of a commonly used antivenom for rattlesnake bites, we find these admitted side effects:

Rattlesnake Antivenin Side Effects Center

“Rattlesnake Antivenin (antivenin crotalidae polyvalent) is an antivenin product used only to treat envenomation caused by bites of crotalids (pit vipers) including rattlesnakes, copperhead and cottonmouth moccasins, and others. Common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as flushing, itching, hives, swelling of the face/tongue/throat, cough, shortness of breath, blue color to the skin, vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction).”

“Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered. An immediate reaction (e.g. shock, anaphylaxis) usually occurs within 30 minutes. Symptoms and signs may develop before the needle is withdrawn and may include apprehension, flushing, itching, urticaria; edema of the face, tongue, and throat; cough, dyspnea, cyanosis, vomiting, and collapse. There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use.”

“Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered.³⁰ The incubation period may be less than 5 days, especially in those who have received horse-serum-containing preparations in the past. The usual symptoms and signs are malaise, fever, urticaria, lymphadenopathy, edema, arthralgia, nausea, and vomiting. Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis. Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms. Pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop.”

https://www.rxlist.com/rattlesnake-antivenin-side-effects-drug-center.htm

Maybe the use of antivenom to treat a snakebite isn’t the super cure it has been sold to be? Is it possible that, as with many pharmaceutical products and interventions, the antivenom itself is creating the very symptoms it is said to treat? For some further insight, let’s look at a few highlights from an paper from September 2019, right before this “crisis,” which reviewed the use of antivenom and had a few revealing claims about the “anti” toxin. You will see it reiterated that the injection of antivenom created from either horse, sheep, goats, and/or rabbits can cause immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis or a delayed “serum sickness” which can occur weeks after the treatment. It is stated that the antivenom has limited efficacy and can be entirely ineffective based on the geographic location. Improper use of antivenom contributes to increased servere outcomes and the production of antibodies in animals leads to a large number (70%) of immunoglobulins that do not react to snake venom:

Perspective on the Therapeutics of Anti-Snake Venom

3. Current Information in the Design of New Antivenoms

“Currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses [14,15]. Hyperimmunized animals produce antibodies against the venom proteins and serum is extracted from their blood for the treatment of envenomation [6,16]. Conventional serum therapy aims to bind and neutralize the snake venom proteins [17]. It is a fact that the antivenom allows the body to try to reverse the damage caused by the venom. However, it is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:

- Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia. Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects [18];
- Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability;
- Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
- Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes;
- Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both.

“Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom. Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins [26]. Despite the abovementioned facts, this is the only FDA approved therapy to treat snake venom.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6767026/

A few other studies also point out the severe reactions regularly attributed to the use of antivenom. The first is a study from 2016 which points out that not only are adverse reactions common, they occur at a high rate. It is stated that this is due to poor quality control and manufacturing problems:

Adverse reactions to snake antivenom, and their prevention and treatment

“Antivenom is the mainstay of treatment of snakebite envenoming. However, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent. Both acute (anaphylactic or pyrogenic) and delayed (serum sickness type) reactions occur. Acute reactions are usually mild but severe systemic anaphylaxis may develop, often within an hour or so of exposure to antivenom. Serum sickness after antivenom has a delayed onset between 5 and 14 days after its administration. Ultimately, the prevention reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom.”

“The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors. This highlights the importance of addressing issues related to poor quality and potentially unsafe antivenom. Ultimately, the prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom. Until these improvements take place, doctors will have to depend on pharmacological prophylaxis as well as careful observation of patients receiving antivenom in preparation for prompt management of acute as well as delayed reactions when they occur.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4767202/

This next source is from 2018 and it points out that early antivenoms were unsafe and caused severe life-threatening events. While they now have “acceptable” safety profiles, antivenoms still have varying quality and range from 10% adverse reactions to greater than 50%. This same variation in quality is seen in the production of monoclonal antibodies:

Antivenom therapy: efficacy of premedication for the prevention of adverse reactions

“However, in their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects [8]. The main reason was that first antivenoms were poorly purified preparations or crude sera. Over the years, for many of the original applications, heterologous serums were replaced by other drugs with better safety profiles, such as antibiotics, vaccines and homologous serums. However, in cases of envenomation by snakes, scorpions or arachnids, antivenoms remain the only effective treatment [4]. Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit acceptable safety profiles [1, 9, 10]. Nevertheless, antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50% [11, 12].”

https://jvat.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40409-018-0144-0

In is interesting to note that there are many factors that are said to influence the severity of a venomous snakebite including the age, sex, and health of the person bitten as well as the type of snake, the geographical location of the snake, the season the bite occurred in, what the snake ate, and how recently the snake released its venom. Antivenoms themselves have been shown to have varying effects in quality due to the geographical location of the snake which somehow renders the antivenom ineffective and even dangerous in different countries and continents, even against the same type of snake. It is said that this has kept locals from seeking out medical care and sticking to traditional healers:
“Snake venoms are highly complicated. At least 26 separate enzymes have been identified with 10 of these enzymes common to all snake venoms (though in different concentrations). All snake bites are not equal. The quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously.”

https://www.vin.com/apputil/content/

Antivenom’s fatal flaw

“A study led by Dr Fry has found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions.

Researchers tested the effectiveness of two African and two Indian saw-scaled viper antivenoms against saw-scaled vipers from 10 regions.

The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges.

One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers.

The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian regions. It failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers.

“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry says.

“In Kenya, snakebite deaths have increased dramatically after hospitals switched supplies of a very effective African antivenom with a cheaper Indian variety.”

“This creates a knock-on effect in these communities. It’s hard enough to convince people living in these regions not to go to traditional healers to treat snakebite. And if someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom, it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom.”

Viper venom’s lethal evolution

It’s the variety of the saw-scaled viper’s prey, from rodents to insects, that researchers say could be the reason why antivenom from one region might not work in another.

“Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes,” UQ PhD candidate in Toxinology Bianca op den Brouw wrote in an article for The Conversation.

“Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet.

“Different saw-scaled viper populations feed on different prey. The physiology of these prey animals differs, and this dictates what makes a toxin effective.

“From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom.”

http://uq.edu.au/research/impact/stories/antivenoms-fatal-flaw/

Maybe the proceeding information on how snakebite antivenoms are created as well as the high rate of adverse events from the antibodies used for antivenom now has you questioning that initial “no-brainer” thought: “Of course I would use antivenom if bit by a snake.” If so, you are on the right track as, based on information from the African Snakebite Institute, in most snake bite cases, antivenom is not used and many snake bites are often unattended and/or unreported. In fact, it is apparently a well-known “myth” (i.e. truth in this case) that the antivenom kills more people than the snake venom itself. Most people (over 80%) never receive antivenom as, like the previous sources stated, it can have disastrous side-effects. Most snake bites do not cause symptoms warranting the use of something so toxic. In fact, snake bite victims are not immediately injected with antivenom and typically are sent home after observation:

“Yet people often have a poor understanding of how it works and there are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself.”

“Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite) as most victims are not severely envenomated or the bite may be from a snake that is not considered potentially deadly or is not covered by the antivenom (Rhombic Night Adder, Berg Adder and Stiletto Snake). Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects. The biggest danger is an acute allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) or, to a lesser degree, serum sickness that can affect the immune system several days after treatment.”

“Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use. The majority of snakes have control over their venom glands and are quite reluctant to waste their venom on humans. They very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious. Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home.”

“As already mentioned, some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used. Some of those victims go into anaphylactic shock which is a life-threatening medical condition and must be treated with adrenaline. This has to do with the fact that our antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins.”

Bill Haast – repeated snake bite victim from the world’s deadliest snakes tragically died at the young age of 100 from natural causes. ?

If snake bites regularly do not cause symptoms and do not require the use of antivenom, are snake bites really as toxic and harmful as we previously thought? Are the dangerous side effects linked to snake bites really just the reactions to having horse blood injected into the body as treatment? Is this another case where the treatment causes the symptoms of disease it was supposed to prevent? If the examples of these next few individuals are taken into consideration, it’s entirely plausible to conclude that we have been misled about the dangers stemming from snakebites in order to cover for the toxic effects of the treatment:

Repeated snake bite for recreation: Mechanisms and implications

“There is a debate in the fatality/immunity due to repeated snake bites in human beings either accidentally or incidentally. Haast and Winer[11] reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus[11] and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883202/

This snake-man got himself bitten over 200 times to become immune to venom

“Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was fatally injured about 20 times.”

“In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times as per the report published in Today I Found Out.“

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/

Man makes deadly snakes bite him 160 times in hunt for human antidote

“An amateur scientist has deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom.

Tim Friede is obsessed by finding a human antidote to poisonous snake bites, which kill an estimated 100,000 people every year.

Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra.

He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites.

“It really hurts and it swells but that’s it,” he said.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/

Poison pass: the man who became immune to snake venom

“A lot has been written about Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, and lately his life has turned into a non-stop frenzy of international journalists and film crews revelling in the seeming sheer insanity of it.”

“He’s been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years. “Snakes are fucking everywhere. The symbol for medicine is two snakes. They’re ingrained in our brain and DNA,” he tells me, proudly insisting that he hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”. And it’s tempting to believe him. He does look undeniably fit.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/

The Photographer Who Was Bitten by a Black Mamba… and Got the Shot
“After several minutes and then hours passed and Laita was still feeling fine — experts recommend heading straight for a hospital, by the way — the crew concluded that Laita didn’t have any venom in his system. The photographer believes that it was either a “dry bite,” when a snake doesn’t release any venom, or that his heavy flow of blood pushed out the venom.”

The Photographer Who Was Bitten By A Black Mamba… And Got The Shot

As can be seen, there are numerous examples of people being deliberately and accidentally bitten by the world’s deadliest snakes who are completely fine and do not require treatment from antivenom whatsoever. Are we to conclude that these people are the lucky few who somehow have amazing super-human “immune” systems that render snake venom ineffective? Or have snake bites and the associated symptoms of venom toxicity been blown out of proportion? Could this be a case where some have had bad reactions to a snake bite just as there are those who have severe allergic reactions to bee stings while the majority of snake bite and bee sting victims come away unscathed? Could this be similar to the supposed rabies cases where the majority of those who were bitten by “rabid” animals actually went on to be just fine without getting the rabies vaccination?

The Treatments Are Worse Than the Disease

It’s very apparent that in the case of monoclonal antibodies and anivenom, the adverse effects of the drugs are actually worse than the supposed diseases they are meant to treat. Could this be due to the fact that, like “viruses,” so-called antibodies have never been properly purified, isolated, and proven to exist? The results of studies using antibodies are regularly unreproducible and irreplicable. It is well-known that antibodies are in fact not as specific as are they are claimed to be and are said to regularly bind to the wrong proteins. Perhaps it is difficult to produce safe and effective products when the entities that are supposed to be produced and supplied in the animal blood are entirely theoretical? Maybe the ridiculous snake venom theory should be viewed in the context that it is a bad idea to be injecting anything, let alone animal blood, into our bodies in an attempt to make ourselves feel better when trusting the body and allowing it to heal is often times the best course of action we can take.

In Summary:

Dr. Bryan Ardis put forth a theory that snake venom is the cause of “Covid-19” primarily based on fraudulent genomic data
The snake connection stems from research linking proteins from the fabricated “SARS-COV-2” genome to bat and snake “coronavirus” proteins
The enzyme phospholipase A2 group IIA or sPLA2-IIA, which Dr. Ardis bases much of his claims on, only has similarities to rattlesnake venom
These peptides are “almost identical” to the venoms of animals and are regularly found in healthy humans and other mammals
Dr. Ardis pointed out that, based on a text, he uncovered the connection between antivenom and monoclonal antibodies and stated that they are the same thing
He wrongly concluded that monoclonal antibodies are an effective treatment for snake poisons that could be in the vaccines, Remdesivir, and water
According to a Sept 2021 Cochrane Review, their certainty in the evidence for the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of “Covid” for all non-hospitalised individuals was low, and for hospitalised individuals was very low to moderate
They considered the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with “SARS-CoV-2-neutralising” mAbs
Monoclonal antibodies are known to cause a range of side effects and reactions, which can be immediate or delayed
Serious adverse events associated with mAbs include infusion reactions, acute anaphylaxis, and serum sickness, as well as longer-term complications such as infections, cancer, autoimmune disease, and cardiotoxicity
In February 2022, the FDA revised the authorizations for two monoclonal antibody treatments – bamlanivimab and etesevimab (administered together) and REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab) – to limit their use to only when the patient is likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments
The data showed these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States
These treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-made proteins that mimic the immune system’s ability to fight off harmful pathogens
In April 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for the investigational monoclonal antibody therapy bamlanivimab, when administered alone, to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate “COVID-19” in adults and certain pediatric patients
Based on its ongoing analysis of emerging scientific data, specifically the sustained increase of “SARS-CoV-2 viral” variants that are resistant to bamlanivimab alone resulting in the increased risk for treatment failure, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits of bamlanivimab, when administered alone, no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for its authorized use
Importantly, although the FDA revoked this EUA, alternative monoclonal antibody therapies remain available under EUA, including REGEN-COV (casirivimab and imdevimab, administered together), and bamlanivimab and etesevimab, administered together, for the same uses as previously authorized for bamlanivimab alone
In other words, the use of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab was revoked as well as the use of Bamlanivimab but they can still be used together as an alternative to Bamlanivimab alone…
For the Omicron-specific Bebtelovimab authorized by the FDA in February 2022, possible side effects include
1. Itching
2. Rash
3. Infusion-related reactions
4. Nausea
5. Vomiting
Serious and unexpected adverse events including hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis and infusion-related reactions have been observed with other “SARS-CoV2” monoclonal antibodies and could occur with bebtelovimab
In addition, clinical worsening following administration of other “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody treatment has been reported and therefore is possible with bebtelovimab
The FDA claims that it is not known if these events were related to “SARS-CoV-2” monoclonal antibody use or were due to progression of “COVID-19”
Signs or symptoms of worsening outcomes include:
1. Fever
2. Hypoxia or increased respiratory difficulty
3. Arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, bradycardia)
4. Fatigue
5. Altered mental status
Treatment with Bebtelovimab has not been studied in patients hospitalized due to “COVID-19”
Monoclonal antibodies, such as Bebtelovimab, may be associated with worse clinical outcomes when administered to hospitalized patients with “COVID-19” requiring high flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation
Antivenom carries the same risks of severe side effects and worsening condition as monoclonal antibodies
The listing for common side effects of Rattlesnake Antivenin include allergic reactions such as:
1. Flushing
2. Iitching
3. Hives
4. Swelling of the face/tongue/throat
5. Cough
6. Shortness of breath
7. Blue color to the skin
8. Vomiting, and anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction)
Immediate systemic reactions (allergic reactions or anaphylaxis) can occur whenever a horse-serum-containing product is administered
There have been isolated reports of cardiac arrest and death associated with Antivenin (Crotalidae) Polyvalent (equine origin) use
Serum sickness usually occurs 5 to 24 days after administration and its frequency may be related to the number of Antivenin vials administered
The usual symptoms and signs are:
1. Malaise
2. Fever
3. Urticaria
4. Lymphadenopathy
5. Edema
6. Arthralgia
7. Nausea
8. Vomiting
Occasionally, neurological manifestations develop, such as meningismus or peripheral neuritis
Peripheral neuritis usually involves the shoulders and arms and pain and muscle weakness are frequently present, and permanent atrophy may develop
A 2019 review on antivenom stated that currently, the only accepted treatment for snakebite envenomation involves intravenous administration of conventional antivenoms comprising antibodies or antibody fragments derived from the plasma of large mammals (generally horses, but also sheep, goats, or rabbits) that have been previously immunized with non-lethal venomous doses
It is known that such therapy can cause problems related to different antivenom characteristics, such as:
1. Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to the alien immunoglobulins, including anaphylactic and pyrogenic reactions such as chills, rigor, headache, and tachycardia.
2. Delayed antivenom reactions or serum sickness is observed after 8 to 12 days of treatment; these are characterized by cutaneous eruptions, fever, and allergies, among other effects
3. Limited efficacy of antivenom therapy to protect the affected organ/s against immediate local tissue damage and low stability
4. Ineffectiveness of the antivenom due to significant geographic variation in the composition of the venom;
5. Antigenic reactivity due to the taxonomic diversity of the snakes
6. Improper use of the antivenom due to incorrect medical management, which contributes to a high incidence of adverse reactions, a low toxin neutralizing potency, or both
Current antibody production faces challenges during the immunization of the animal (equine or ovine), leading to the production of a huge number of antibodies that are not related to the snake venom
Around 70% of the immunoglobulins obtained do not act directly against venom toxins
According to a 2016 study, adverse reactions to snake antivenom that is available are common in many parts of the world where snakebite is prevalent
The high rate of acute adverse reactions to antivenom is an example of how poor manufacturing and quality control by antivenom producers cause problems for patients and their doctors
The prevention of reactions will depend mainly on improving the quality of antivenom
According to their initial applications, antivenoms did not exhibit good safety results and could even cause life-threatening side effects
Currently, after many improvements, antivenoms exhibit “acceptable” safety profiles yet antivenom quality still varies widely depending on the producer, while some antivenoms exhibit adverse reaction rates of less than 10%, others have values of greater than 50%
All snake bites are not equal and the quality of venom depends not only on the type of snake but on the season, the geographical region, the age of the snake, and how recently it has released venom previously
A study led by Dr. Fry found that antivenoms produced using snakes from one region may perform poorly or fail completely against the same species of snakes from other regions
The results showed that the two African antivenoms were only effective against snakes from restricted ranges
One antivenom performed well against West African saw-scaled vipers and the other performed best against the East African saw-scaled vipers
The Indian antivenom only worked against saw-scaled vipers from the region where the antidote was produced and failed against toxins from other Indian region and it failed completely against African saw-scaled vipers
“These antivenoms are being sold and used interchangeably to treat all saw-scaled viper bites, and in many cases they are not working,” Dr Fry said
If someone does seek proper medical care but dies because of ineffective antivenom, it will be even harder to convince the next victim to seek out antivenom
Antivenom is effective and reliable when venom composition does not vary greatly between individual snakes
Unfortunately, the venom composition from saw-scaled vipers varies between populations and is thought to be partly due to an evolutionary adaptation linked to their diet
From a medical perspective, this means that the antibodies in an antivenom may not be able to adequately recognise and fight all the harmful toxins in the venom
There are endless myths about antivenom killing more people than the snake venom itself
Few snakebite victims are treated with antivenom (less than 20 % of those hospitalised after a snakebite
Antivenom is relatively scarce, expensive and can have disastrous side-effects
Snakebite victims are not automatically injected with antivenom as most of them never experience symptoms severe enough to justify its use
Snakes very often give ‘dry’ bites with no subsequent symptoms of envenomation or the snake might inject a little bit of venom that will cause discomfort or some symptoms but nothing serious
Such patients are usually hospitalised for a day, carefully monitored and then sent home
Some snakebite victims quickly have an allergic reaction to antivenom and this happens in more than 40% of all cases where antivenom is used
This has to do with the fact that antivenom is made from horse blood and the allergy is basically an allergy to horse proteins
Haast and Winer reported complete recovery of a patient without any specific therapy even after bitten by a deadly snake Bangarus Caeruleus and the authors attributed it to cross protection of existing antibody between species of Bangarus and Indian, African and Egyptian cobras, as he had a history of bites from these snakes earlier
Bill Haast, a scientist turned snake-man from America, was bitten at least 173 times by poisonous snakes in his life till mid-2008 of which he was seriously injured about 20 times
In the 1950s, he had few ill-effects and didnt need any anti-venom in spite of the fact that he was bitten by the cobras about 20 times
An amateur scientist named Tim Friede deliberately endured more than 160 self-inflicted snake bites in a bid to become immune to venom
Mr Friede was recently bitten by a taipan and a black mamba, two deadly snakes he keeps at his home in Wisconsin, USA, in addition to his two rattlesnakes and water cobra
He said he experienced a “real throbbing sensation” but he “felt great” after the bites
Steve Ludwin, widely known as the man who injects snake venom, has been shooting, swallowing and scratching venom into his skin from some of the world’s deadliest snakes for 30 years
He hasn’t been ill for decades and has developed “a superhuman immune system”
A photographer was bit by the deadliest snake, a Black Mamba, and after hours passed, he was still feeling fine and needed no treatment

The snake venom theory by Dr. Bryan Ardis is built upon the interpretation of the unpurified fraudulent “SARS-COV-2” genome which is itself built upon references to other fraudulent genomes of human and animal “coronaviruses” created in the very same way. Attempting to claim any connections between the random A,C,T,G’s in a computer database is a useless and pointless exercise as the RNA that was fabricated into the genome of a “virus” was never purified, isolated, and proven to physically exist in the first place. Thus any connections between the protein codes said to belong to a “virus” which are then said to be closely related to supposed snake “coronaviruses” is immediately invalid.

Using this invalid premise to then claim that people have been poisoned by snake venom in the vaccines, the drugs, and the water supply is nothing but unsubstantiated science fiction that seems designed to have a few purposes:

To keep people engaged in the lie that a new disease known as “Covid-19” exists and that there is a singular cause.
To restore faith in monoclonal antibodies and other toxic alternative treatments.
To use the theory to promote and sell anti-venom supplements.
To divide and distract those questioning the official narrative.
To make the “Truther” community look foolish by falling for loosely tied-together circumstantial evidence that is easily debunked.

If we are to take the claims of Dr. Ardis seriously that the symptoms associated with snake venom is the true cause of a disease known as “Covid-19,” how does his theory explain for the fact that the antivenom and monoclonal antibody treatments cause the exact same symptoms of the disease they are supposed to treat? How would it be determined that the worsening clinical outcomes after injection are from the snake bites/venom rather than the antivenom/monoclonal antibodies given as treatment? How does his theory account for the numerous instances where people have been deliberately bitten by snakes, injected with the venom of snakes, and drank of the venom of the snakes with little to no harmful effects whatsoever? How does his theory account for the fact that the vast majority of “Covid” cases are asymptomatic and the vast majority of snake bite cases need no treatment at all? There are many holes in this theory which will easily be picked apart to make those who follow it look foolish for having done so.

There is no “SARS-COV-2.” There is no “Covid-19.” There is no new disease nor any new symptoms of disease requiring treatment from vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, NAC, nor any other treatment. There is no need for any anti-venom supplements.

Beware those who will sell you the cause of the disease and the solution.

Connect with Mike Stone

cover image is in the public domain: sourced from Christoph_Braun, Wikimedia Commons

Polio: Endemic Viral Disease or Mass Chemical Poisoning?

by Louize Small, 21st Century Wire
April 11, 2022

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have funded the development and distribution of polio vaccines in developing regions like Asia and Africa (Image Source: GRAIN)

Current NHS information describes it as a ‘serious viral infection’ but adds that most people won’t even know they are infected. While some will experience ‘flu-like’ symptoms, others may become temporarily or permanently paralysed.

The term ‘polio’ is a description of spinal pathology: an inflammation of the grey marrow (polio muelos) of the brain stem and spinal cord. Symptoms vary wildly from none to fever, vomiting, bowel irritation, back pain, neck stiffness, problems with swallowing and breathing, paralysis, and death.

Poliovirus is an enterovirus that is activated in the human gut. The corporate science machine maintains that it is a dangerous pathogen spread by infected faecal matter but Dr Suzanne Humphries explains in her book, Dissolving Illusions, that it is a naturally occurring common bowel irritant that existed for millennia before it began crippling people — which poses the question: what changed?

One factor is pesticide usage, which is implicated in other neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. Polio incidence and pesticide usage closely correlate; if you plot them on a graph, they follow the same lines.

What came to be known as polio was once called ‘summer diarrhoea’ because local outbreaks occurred after crop spraying had taken place in the spring. Children played in contaminated soils and ate unwashed fruit; their parents reported finding them paralysed in apple orchards.

High consumption of sugary foods in the summer lowered immunity by suppressing white blood cell activity, creating the perfect environment for toxic pesticides to interact with viruses in the gut and cause illness.

Doctors noted that symptoms of polio resembled food poisoning.

Poor diet increased susceptibility to poliovirus infection – especially a diet full of refined sugar, white flour, and processed foods, which were introduced to the public during the industrial revolution, around the time that polio began to emerge.

British physician Michael Underwood first observed ‘debility of the lower extremities’ in children in 1789. It was the height of the industrial and agricultural revolutions in Europe and pesticide use skyrocketed. Most pesticides contained toxic metals such as lead and arsenic.

Lead and arsenic bind tightly to soil and do not deteriorate; they remain within the first 12-18 inches of topsoil for generations and contaminate waterways. Redevelopment of former rural sites without proper clearance of toxic soil has the potential to poison whole areas of people.

Crops were heavily sprayed with pesticides that were designed to attack the nervous systems of insects — unfortunately they had the same effect on humans. They were inhaled and absorbed through the skin and oral cavity, causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, brain dysfunction, and bone malformation – all of which are common symptoms of heavy metal poisoning and polio.

Heavy metals were present in everyday products in the 18^th, 19^th, and early 20^th centuries. Arsenic was used in synthetic dyes and syphilis treatments; mercury was used in teething powders, dental fillings, and medical preparations.

Lead, arsenic, and mercury are neurotoxic environmental poisons – all are fat-soluble and therefore can affect fatty areas of the body such as the brain and nerves.

Orthopaedist Jacob von Heine observed ‘infantile spinal paralysis’ in 1840 and speculated that it was a contagious disease. It was named ‘acute anterior poliomyelitis’ by Wilhelm Heinrich Erb in 1875, by which time outbreaks had started to occur.

Regional patterns of disease led physicians to believe that polio was a contagious virus, but it was an unproven assumption. Scientists had no idea what a virus was in the nineteenth century — nobody had seen one because the electron microscope, which enabled observation of viruses, was not invented until 1931.

A study of 2,000 case histories carried out by Harvard Infantile Paralysis Commission concluded that tonsillectomies (introduced in 1909 and carried out routinely as a preventative measure) provoked respiratory paralysis due to bulbar polio. This was known at the time as authorities prohibited removal of tonsils and adenoids during epidemics. Bulbar polio was the type that required use of an iron lung and had the highest death rate.

The case fatality rate in the early 1900s was very high. England and Wales made polio a notifiable disease in 1912, and it was endemic from then on. The New York epidemic of 1916 saw patients experimented on with spinal injections of disinfectant and adrenaline. Roughly half of those treated died and were recorded as polio deaths.

A new pesticide, DDT — labeled ‘the killer of killers’ — was introduced just as WW2 began. People were led to believe it was good for them and even sprayed it on their children’s lunches. It is a cumulative poison and can be absorbed through the skin and mucosa. Governments started to ban DDT in the early 1950s, but the damage was done. The UK outlawed it in 1986, and it was banned worldwide in 2001, though it continues to be used in areas with high malaria incidence.

Epidemics peaked in the 1940s and 50s and physicians began to notice a correlation between certain medical interventions and polio paralysis. Children treated for congenital syphilis with arsenic-based Salvarsan often developed paralysis in their injected limbs.

Cases of polio rose in line with the expansion of vaccination programmes for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus.

The diphtheria vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1942 and was noted for its adverse effects. The British Medical Association published news on the 10^th of April 1950 that the diphtheria vaccine was responsible for childhood paralysis attributed to polio.

A doctor at Guy’s Hospital in London found that 80 children developed paralysis within a month of receiving the shots; a health ministry doctor reported that another 65 children had developed paralysis within a fortnight; the St. Pancras medical officer found 40 more cases. Some children recovered from the paralysis, but others were still paralysed 18 months after onset. Two of the cases followed injection of penicillin.

Anne McLaren, writing for Cambridge University Press in 1957, stated that, “It is now well established that intramuscular inoculation with combined diphtheria-pertussis prophylactics can affect the course of poliomyelitic infection in children. Localisation of paralysis in the limb injected with vaccines was reported by McCloskey, Martin, Geffen, Hill & Knowelden, and Benjamin in 1950.”

In 1951, Dr Ralph Scobey and Dr Mortind Biskind testified in front of the U.S Congress that the paralysis around the country known as ‘polio’ was being caused by industrial poisons, and that a virus theory was purposely fabricated by the chemical industry and the government to deflect litigation away from both parties.

The diagnostic criteria for polio were very loose prior to trials for the vaccine in 1954. Only after the vaccine was introduced was there any effort to distinguish polio from other types of paralytic disease.

The first polio vaccine, created by Jonas Salk in 1955, caused a great deal of controversy. The ‘Cutter Incident’ happened when 120,000 children were injected with a live virus instead of a weakened one: 40,000 developed polio, 200 were paralysed, and ten died. When the immunisation program was eventually rolled out to the public, a different, untested, rapidly approved formula was used.

Salk later admitted that live virus vaccines against influenza or poliomyelitis might produce the diseases they intended to prevent (Science, 4^th March 1977).

In 1956, the American Medical Association ordered that doctors could no longer diagnose paralysis as polio – it had to be called ‘acute flaccid paralysis’. This reduced polio statistics dramatically and gave the appearance that the vaccine programme had succeeded, when really the definition of the disease had just changed.

Simple, timely changes to diagnostic criteria meant the number of paralytic cases dropped irrespective of the vaccine programme.

Laboratory testing for polio wasn’t introduced until 1958. Before then, all manner of other diseases could be classed as polio, including other enteroviruses, lead, arsenic, and DDT poisoning, Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, post-polio syndrome, viral or aseptic meningitis, traumatic neuritis, and Reye’s syndrome. How many were misdiagnosed and put on the wrong path of treatment as a result?

It is claimed that the polio vaccine eradicated polio due to overblown, tightly controlled propaganda campaigns, but the truth is that cases plummeted because of changes in pesticide use, elimination of toxic metals in everyday products, improved diets and sanitary behaviour, and redefinition of the disease.

There is no convincing evidence of polio as a contagious viral disease. Naturally occurring polio is all but obsolete in the modern world and the only ‘polio’ we see nowadays is vaccine-induced, courtesy of immunisation programmes run by the World Health Organisation.

There has been a huge rise in vaccine-induced polio paralysis in India. In 2011 there were an extra 47,000 cases, which were directly proportionate to the amount of oral vaccines administered. In 2018 a vaccine tainted with eradicated type-2 polio was given to children in Uttar Pradesh. The country remains vulnerable to polio due to its continued use of DDT, intramuscular injection of antibiotics, and diets high in sugar and low in vitamins.

Research scientist Viera Scheibner says that modern day vaccine advocates have forgotten the ‘polio provocation’ of the past. She believes that vaccines represent a assault on the immune system, which seems to be clearly implicated in the shadowy history of polio.

Vaccines were not needed to combat polio. Dr Fred Klenner published results of a study that used intravenous vitamin C to cure polio and other viral diseases 73 years ago — six years before the vaccine was introduced. With a success rate of 100%, we have to ask why this simple, non-toxic, affordable cure was completely overlooked and ignored by the medical community. Why is it still ignored?

The answer may lie in the criminal deceptions peddled by medical-industrial-pharmaceutical cartels that control the narrative of disease in order to sustain their gravy train of ill-gotten gain. A customer cured is a customer lost and there is no profit to be made from a healthy population.

Gain of Fiction

“The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica…

[….]

“What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice.”

~ Mike Stone, Viroliegy

Gain of Fiction

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
April 7, 2022

virus, infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning “slimy liquid” or “poison.”

https://www.britannica.com/science/virus

I have purposefully stayed away from the whole “SARS-COV-2” as a gain of function/bioweapon disinformation campaign as it is obvious to anyone who has ever read any “virus” paper, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2” or any of these other invisible entities. At no point has any virologist ever properly purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from a sick patient and then proven them pathogenic in a natural way. As this is a fact that is even admitted by virologists themselves, it should also be obvious that if they can not find the particles assumed to be “viruses” in nature, they can not tinker around and modify these fictional entities in a lab in order to create some sort of contagious bioweapon.

Somehow, this logic escapes many. Even though some have woken to the truth and accepted that “SARS-COV-2” does not exist in nature, they still believe that it must have been developed in a lab and unleashed upon the world in order to create a new contagious disease which is wrecking havoc on the elderly and immunocompromised. What they fail to realize is that there simply is no new disease and that none of the symptoms associated with “SARS-COV-2” are new, unique, or specific. There is zero proof of transmission and/or contagion beyond highly flawed epidemiological studies. There is no new “virus,” no new disease, and no contagious bioweapon. It is pure fiction based upon faulty cell culture and genomic experiments.

Before diving into the experimental evidence presented for gain of function studies, I figured it would be a good idea to get some background information on what exactly these kinds of studies entail first. From the October 2021 Nature article highlighted below, we learn that the gain of function concept earned widespread recognition in 2012 due to a pair of studies which both looked to tweak an avian influenza “virus” in order to make it transmissable by air between ferrets. Disregarding the contradictory fact that aerosol transmission is supposedly the way an upper respiratory “virus” is supposed to spread, many became concerned that this kind of work may eventually lead to the release of a super “virus” which could result in the next pandemic. These ferret studies were apparently pivotal with bringing virology into the gain of function field, even though it could be easily argued that virology has been performing these kinds of experiments throughout its existence.

The gain of function term refers to any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host. This is done by fiddling with cell culture material in a lab combined with genomic sequencing. They do this either by inserting genetic material into the cell culture or by way of animal models where the animal is said to be genetically altered in some way to be more susceptible to the “viral” material.

The article provides an example where mice were genetically modified to become susceptible to MERS. However, the mice did not become ill upon being challenged with the “virus.” Thus, the researchers resorted to passaging the “virus” between mice, which involved infecting a couple of mice, giving the “virus” two days to take hold, and then killing the mice and grinding up the lung tissue to inject into other mice. They repeated these steps at least 30 times which eventually made some mice sick. This process of culturing toxic material, injecting animals with the concoction, killing them and grinding up their remains, and then injecting this emulsified goop into other animals in an attenpt to make them sick is what GOF is all about. While this horrific process is getting recognized today, these kinds of experiments have been a staple of virology since the very beginning:

The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research

“The term first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza virus, using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets2,3. Many people were concerned that publishing the work would be tantamount to providing a recipe for a devastating pandemic, and in the years that followed, research funders, politicians and scientists debated whether such work required stricter oversight, lest someone accidentally or intentionally release a lab-created plague. Researchers around the world voluntarily paused some work, but the issue became particularly politicized in the United States.

US funding agencies, which also support research abroad, later imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research with pathogens while they worked out new protocols to assess the risks and benefits. But many of the regulatory discussions have taken place out of the public eye.

Now, gain-of-function research is once again centre stage, thanks to SARS-CoV-2 and a divisive debate about where it came from. Most virologists say that the coronavirus probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported. But a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out. They are demanding investigation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where related bat coronaviruses have been extensively studied, to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 could have accidentally leaked from the lab or crossed into humans during collection or storage of samples.”

“The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall,a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.

Virologists do regularly fiddle with viral genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models. “People do all of these experiments all the time,” says Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. For example, her lab has made mouse viruses that are more harmful to mice than the originals. If only mice are at risk, should it be deemed GOF? And would it be worrying?

The answer is generally no. Morrison’s experiments, and many others like them, pose little threat to humans. GOF research starts to ring alarm bells when it involves dangerous human pathogens, such as those on the US government’s ‘select agents’ list, which includes Ebola virus and the bacteria responsible for anthrax and botulism. Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza viruses and coronaviruses. “For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory viruses because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. GOF studies with those viruses are “a really tiny part” of virology, he adds.”

“Animal research — although fraught with its own set of ethical quandaries — allows scientists to study how pathogens work and to test potential treatments, a necessary precursor to trials in people. That’s what Perlman and his collaborators had in mind when they set out to study the coronavirus responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012. They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS.

The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells. So, the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4. The virus could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill. “Having a model of mild disease isn’t particularly helpful to understand why people get so sick,” says collaborator Paul McCray, a paediatric pulmonologist also at the University of Iowa.

So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance virulence. The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the virus two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice. They did this repeatedly — 30 times9. By the end of two months, the virus had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells. In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly, says McCray. That’s GOF of a sort because the virus became better at causing disease. But adapting a pathogen to one animal in this way often limits its ability to infect others, says Andrew Pekosz, a virologist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.”

“With all the challenges inherent in GOF studies, why do them? Because, some virologists say, the viruses are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match. “We can either wait for something to arise, and then fight it, or we can anticipate that certain things will arise, and instead we can preemptively build our arsenals,” says Morrison. “That’s where gain-of-function research can come in handy.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x

This next source is from 2015. The authors admit that virology is heavily reliant on gain or loss of function studies. They offer an alternative definition for GOF research which is any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes. Obviously, this definition leans far more into the genomics side of the equation. This is due to the claim that these kinds of studies are used by virologists in order to understand a “viruses” genetic make-up. It is stated that researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA. In other words, they mix genetic material from different sources, poison and/or kill lab animals by injecting them with this toxic soup, and then analyze the resulting mixture using computers so that they can claim that the generated model is a new creation. However, it is admitted that these kinds of mutations happen “naturally” with “viruses” every time a person is infected, thus confirming what we already know: virologists can not sequence the same exact “virus” every time:

Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives

“The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research.

TYPES OF GAIN-OF-FUNCTION (GOF) RESEARCH

Subbarao explained that routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.

Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Subbarao introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to the three viruses of interest in the symposium (see Box 3-1). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.

During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”

“Imperiale explained that, with respect to the GoF terminology, whenever researchers are working with RNA viruses, GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.” He also commented that the term GoF was understood a certain way by attendees of this symposium, but when the public hears this term “they can’t make that sort of nuanced distinction that we can make here” so the terminology should be revisited.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

Hopefully the above two sources have shown that GOF studies are nothing more than the exact same cell culture experiments utilizing the exact same genomic sequencing technologies and tricks that virologists have always used. The only difference is that they are combining different culture supernatant and genetic materials together into one in order to create a brand new synthetic computer-generated sequence. At no point in time are any purified/isolated particles ever used in these studies. In fact, there are no EM images of the new “virus” of any kind. It should therefore not be surprising that we can see the exact same pattern of unscientific methods and illogical reasoning in GOF studies as found in any of the original “virus” papers.

Seeing as to how the 2012 avian flu studies brought GOF research to the forefront, it seemed ideal to step into this area a bit more to see what actually transpired. The main study presented as evidence of GOF research was led by a man named Ron Fouchier. If that name sounds familiar, that’s because it should. Fouchier was involved in the 2003 “SARS-COV-1” study which proclaimed the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates for proving a microorganism causes disease yet it failed miserably by not only not being able to satisfy Koch’s four original Postulates, but also Thomas River’s six revised Postulates made strictly for virology. In other words, it was an epic fail.

In Fouchier’s 2012 avian flu GOF study, he attempted to make the H5N1 “virus” infectious through the air. This was done through a process involving cell culturing combined with genetic engineering as well as passaging the material through numerous ferrets. Sounds familiar to the mice example from before, correct? You also see this same process with the early polio and influenza studies as well as in many other virology papers. The main difference is the genomic narrative and the use of modern technology such as reverse genetics to claim the insertion of specific genes.

Highlights from the below paper provide an overview of what was done during this study. It details how the material was collected from a flu strain in Indonesia, genetically altered in a Petri dish, and then transferred to ferrets in a series of experiments using the “wildtype” strain along with different modified strains. Fouchier and Co. were repeatedly unsuccessful in their endeavors of infecting ferrets until they started passaging the “virus” in the animals by injecting them with the cultured soup, grinding up their lung tissues, and injecting other ferrets in the same manner. They repeated this process 6 times and then changed up the experiment by switching to nasal turbinates for the last 4 passage attempts. The only illness said to be achieved via airborne exposure was a loss of appetite, lethargy, and ruffled fur. Upon sequencing the “viruses,” there were only two amino acid switches shared by all six “viruses.” There were several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses.” In other words, they could not sequence the same “virus” at any point:

Fouchier study reveals changes enabling airborne spread of H5N1

“A study showing that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza virus into an airborne spreader in mammals—and that launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency—was released today in Science, spilling the full experimental details that many experts had sought to suppress out of concern that publishing them could lead to the unleashing of a dangerous virus.

In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 virus that can spread among ferrets without direct contact.

They say their findings show that H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve in mammals to gain airborne transmissibility, without having to mix with other flu viruses in intermediate hosts such as pigs, and thus pose a risk of launching a pandemic.”

Indonesian H5N1 strain used

Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 virus collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 viruses more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways. Avian flu viruses prefer to bind to alpha2,3-linked sialic acid receptors on cells, whereas human flu viruses prefer alpha2,6-linked receptors. In both humans and ferrets, alpha2,6 receptors are predominant in the upper respiratory tract, while alpha 2,6 receptors are found mainly in the lower respiratory tract.

The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the virus’s HA protein, the viral surface molecule that attaches to host cells. Q222L and G224S together change the binding preference of H2 and H3 subtype flu viruses, changes that contributed to the 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics, according to the report. And N182K was found in a human H5N1 case.

The scientists created three mutant H5N1 virus strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes, the report explains. They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 virus. Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type virus shed far more virus than those infected with the mutants.

In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different viral gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein. The mutation E627K in PB2 is linked to the acquisition by avian flu viruses of the ability to grow in the human respiratory tract, which is cooler than the intestinal tract of birds, where the viruses usually reside, according to the report.

The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a virus that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the virus did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones.

The passaging step

Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract—the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid,” according to a report of his initial description of the research at a European meeting last September.

They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type virus and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs). Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times. For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest viruses that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract.

The amount of mutant virus found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages, signaling that the virus was increasing its capacity to grow in the ferret upper airway. In contrast, viral titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type virus stayed the same.

The next step was to test whether the viruses produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission. Four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant virus, and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain. Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact.

The ferrets exposed to those with the wild virus remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant virus did get infected, the researchers found. Further, they took a sample from one of the “recipient” ferrets and used it to inoculate another ferret, which then transmitted the virus to two more ferrets that were placed near it.

Thus, a total of six ferrets became infected with the mutant virus via airborne transmission. However, the level of viral shedding indicated the airborne virus didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 virus does.

In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur. One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne viruses survived.

When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the viruses that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six viruses: H103Y and T156A. They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne viruses.

“Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of [highly pathogenic avian flu] H5N1 virus,” the researchers wrote.

In further steps, the researchers inoculated six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible virus; after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund.” “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia,” the report notes.”

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2012/06/fouchier-study-reveals-changes-enabling-airborne-spread-h5n1

While the proceeding article did an excellent job of providing the main points from Fouchier’s 2012 GOF study, I wanted to showcase relevant highlights directly from the paper to flesh out the methods used even further. Here you will see that Fouchier’s team claimed that they genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. They used Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) which they said was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection. This was passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs which was followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000. They then used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce the desired amino acid substitutions. Site-directed mutagenesis is a synthetic process utilizing PCR to make artificial changes in a DNA sequence. They then took their synthetically-created cultured soup and experimented on ferrets while manipulating the methods until they achieved the results that they desired.

At no point in the paper was a “virus” of any kind ever purified and isolated. At no point were any electron microscope images of the newly mutated “viruses” ever shown. The only “evidence” of an airborne strain is genomic sequencing data from consensus genomes which did not match up. Fouchier and Co. even admitted that airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but even this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. They also stated that the mutations they had identified needed further testing to determine their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and that further experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals. In other words, their study only told them that they could create mutated genomes and not that they created more “virulent viruses” that are transmissable by air:

Airborne Transmission of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets

“Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans. To address the concern that the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions, we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets. None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 viruses. Four amino acid substitutions in the host receptor-binding protein hemagglutinin, and one in the polymerase complex protein basic polymerase 2, were consistently present in airborne-transmitted viruses. The transmissible viruses were sensitive to the antiviral drug oseltamivir and reacted well with antisera raised against H5 influenza vaccine strains. Thus, avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.

Influenza A viruses have been isolated from many host species, including humans, pigs, horses, dogs, marine mammals, and a wide range of domestic birds, yet wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the virus reservoir in nature (1). Influenza A viruses belong to the family Orthomyxoviridae; these viruses have an RNA genome consisting of eight gene segments (2, 3). Segments 1 to 3 encode the polymerase proteins: basic polymerase 2 (PB2), basic polymerase 1 (PB1), and acidic polymerase (PA), respectively. These proteins form the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase complex responsible for transcription and replication of the viral genome.”

Since the late 1990s, HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have devastated the poultry industry of numerous countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. To date, A/H5N1 has spread from Asia to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of domestic birds. In Hong Kong in 1997, the first human deaths directly attributable to avian A/H5N1 virus were recorded (11). Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 virus infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries (12). Although limited A/H5N1 virus transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus has not been detected (13–15). Whether this virus may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness. Although our knowledge of viral traits necessary for host switching and virulence has increased substantially in recent years (16, 17), the factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza viruses among mammals, a trait necessary for a virus to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown (18–21). Therefore, investigations of routes of influenza virus transmission between animals and on the determinants of airborne transmission are high on the influenza research agenda.

The viruses that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza viruses (22). However, given that viruses from only four pandemics are available for analyses, we cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian virus without the requirement of reassortment. Several studies have shown that reassortment events between A/H5N1 and seasonal human influenza viruses do not yield viruses that are readily transmitted between ferrets (18–20, 23). In our work, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus could change its transmissibility characteristics without any requirement for reassortment.

We chose influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 for our study because the incidence of human A/H5N1 virus infections and fatalities in Indonesia remains fairly high (12), and there are concerns that this virus could acquire molecular characteristics that would allow it to become more readily transmissible between humans and initiate a pandemic. Because no reassortants between A/H5N1 viruses and seasonal or pandemic human influenza viruses have been detected in nature and because our goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza virus to become airborne transmissible in mammals, we decided to use the complete A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus that was isolated from a human case of HPAI A/H5N1 infection.

We chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for our studies. Ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza viruses (24). After infection with human influenza A virus, ferrets develop respiratory disease and lung pathology similar to that observed in humans. Ferrets can also transmit human influenza viruses to other ferrets that serve as sentinels with or without direct contact (fig. S1) (25–27).”

Human-to-human transmission of influenza viruses can occur through direct contact, indirect contact via fomites (contaminated environmental surfaces), and/or airborne transmission via small aerosols or large respiratory droplets. The pandemic and epidemic influenza viruses that have circulated in humans throughout the past century
were all transmitted via the airborne route, in contrast to many other respiratory viruses that are exclusively transmitted via contact. There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols. However, it is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols. Because we did not measure particle size during our experiments, we will use the term “airborne transmission” throughout this Report.”

“Using a combination of targeted mutagenesis followed by serial virus passage in ferrets, we investigated whether A/H5N1 virus can acquire mutations that would increase the risk of mammalian transmission (34). We have previously shown that several amino acid substitutions in the RBS of the HA surface glycoprotein of A/Indonesia/5/2005 change the binding preference from the avian a-2,3–linked SA receptors to the human a-2,6–linked SA receptors (35). A/Indonesia/5/2005 virus with amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S (numbers refer to amino acid positions in the mature H5 HA protein; N, Asn; Q, Gln; L, Leu; G, Gly; S, Ser) in HA display attachment patterns similar to those of human viruses to cells of the respiratory tract of ferrets and humans (35). Of these changes, we know that together, Q222L and G224S switch the receptor binding specificity of H2 and H3 subtype influenza viruses, as this switch contributed to the emergence of the 1957 and 1968 pandemics (36). N182K has been found in a human
case of A/H5N1 virus infection (37).

Our experimental rationale to obtain transmissible A/H5N1 viruses was to select a mutant A/H5N1 virus with receptor specificity for a-2,6–linked SA shed at high titers from the URT of ferrets. Therefore, we used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit (Agilent Technologies, Amstelveen, the Netherlands) to introduce amino acid substitutions N182K, Q222L/G224S, or N182K/Q222L/G224S in the HA of wild-type (WT) A/Indonesia/5/2005, resulting in A/H5N1HA N182K, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, and A/H5N1HA N182K,Q222L,G224S. Experimental details for experiments 1 to 9 are provided in the supplementary materials (25). For experiment 1, we inoculated these mutant viruses and the A/H5N1wildtype virus intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each virus (fig. S3). Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and virus titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify virus shedding from the ferret URT. Three animals were euthanized after day 3 to enable tissue sample collection. All remaining animals were euthanized by day 7 when the same tissue samples were taken. Virus titers were determined in the nasal turbinates, trachea, and lungs collected post-mortem from the euthanized ferrets. Throughout the duration of experiment 1, ferrets inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype virus produced high titers in nose and throat swabs—up to 10 times more than A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S, which yielded the highest virus titers of all three mutants during the 7-day period (Fig. 1). However, no significant difference was observed between the virus shedding of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L, G224S or A/H5N1HA N182K during the first 3 days when six animals per group were present. Thus, of the viruses with specificity for a-2,6–linked SA, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S yielded the highest virus titers in the ferret URT (Fig. 1).

As described above, amino acid substitution E627K in PB2 is one of the most consistent host-range determinants of influenza viruses (29–31). For experiment 2 (fig. S4), we introduced E627K into the PB2 gene of A/Indonesia/5/2005 by site-directed mutagenesis and produced the recombinant virus A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. The introduction of E627K in PB2 did not significantly affect virus shedding in ferrets, because virus titers in the URT were similar to those seen in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S-inoculated animals [up to 1 × 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)] (Mann-Whitney U rank-sum test, P = 0.476) (Fig. 1 and fig. S5). When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously (27), A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted (fig. S5).

Because the mutant virus harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, we designed an experiment to force the virus to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select virus variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus and A/H5N1wildtype virus in the ferret URT (Fig. 2 and fig. S6). In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K. Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs. The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of virus-transport medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2). This procedure was repeated until passage 6.

From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi. To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing. Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml. The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10. We changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of viruses that were secreted from the URT. Because influenza viruses mutate rapidly, we anticipated that 10 passages would be sufficient for the virus to adapt to efficient replication in mammals.

Virus titers in the nasal turbinates of ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1wildtype ranged from ~1 × 105 to 1 × 107 TCID50/gram tissue throughout 10 serial passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). In ferrets inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus, a moderate increase in virus titers in the nasal turbinates was observed as the passage number increased. These titers ranged from 1 × 104 TCID50/gram tissue at the start of the experiment to 3.2 × 105 to 1 × 106 TCID50/gram tissue in the final passages (Fig. 3A and fig. S7). Notably, virus titers in the nose swabs of animals inoculated with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K also increased during the successive passages, with peak virus shedding of 1 × 105 TCID50 at 2 dpi after 10 passages (Fig. 3B).These data indicate that A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was developing greater capacity to replicate in the ferret URT after repeated passage, with evidence for such adaptation becoming apparent by passage number 4. In contrast, virus titers in the nose swabs of the ferrets collected at 1 to 4 dpi throughout 10 serial passages with A/H5N1wildtype revealed no changes in patterns of virus shedding.

Passaging of influenza viruses in ferrets should result in the natural selection of heterogeneous mixtures of viruses in each animal with a variety of mutations: so-called viral quasi-species (38). The genetic composition of the viral quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform (Roche, Woerden, the Netherlands) (tables S1 and S2). The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the virus population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5% (Fig. 4 and table S1). Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all viral gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7 (tables S1 and S2). Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions. The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A (T, Thr; A, Ala) in HA. This substitution removes a potential N-linked glycosylation site (Asn-X-Thr/Ser; X, any amino acid) in HA and was detected in 99.6% of the A/H5N1wildtype sequences after 10 passages. T156A was detected in 89% of the A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K sequences after 10 passages, and the other 11% of sequences possessed the substitution N154K, which removes the same potential N-linked glycosylation site in HA.

In experiment 4 (see supplementary materials), we investigated whether airborne-transmissible viruses were present in the heterogeneous virus population generated during virus passaging in ferrets (fig. S4). Nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible virus was present in the virus quasi-species. For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally: two for passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype and four for passage 10 A/H5N1HA-Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus.

The following day, a naïve recipient ferret was placed in a cage adjacent to each inoculated donor ferret. These cages are designed to prevent direct contact between animals but allow airflow from a donor ferret to a neighboring recipient ferret (fig. S1) (27). Although mutations had accumulated in the viral genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, we did not detect replicating virus upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype virus (Fig. 5, A and B). In contrast, we did detect virus in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K virus. Three (F1 to F3) out of four (F1 to F4) naïve recipient ferrets became infected as confirmed by the presence of replicating virus in the collected nasal and throat swabs (Fig. 5, C and D). A throat-swab sample obtained from recipient ferret F2, which contained the highest virus titer among the ferrets in the first transmission experiment, was subsequently used for intranasal inoculation of two additional donor ferrets. Both of these animals, when placed in the transmission cage setup (fig. S1), again transmitted the virus to the recipient ferrets (F5 and F6) (Fig. 6, A and B). A virus isolate was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi. The virus from F5 was inoculated intranasally into two more donor ferrets. One day later, these animals were paired with two recipient ferrets (F7 and F8) in transmission cages, one of which (F7) subsequently became infected (Fig. 6, C and D).

We used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets (F1 to F3 and F5 to F7) that acquired virus via airborne transmission (Fig. 4 and table S3). All six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics. Surprisingly, only two additional amino acid substitutions, both in HA, were consistently detected in all six airborne-transmissible viruses: (i) H103Y (H, His; Y, Tyr), which forms part of the HA trimer interface, and (ii) T156A, which is proximal but not immediately adjacent to the RBS (fig. S8). Although we observed several other mutations, their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne viruses, indicating that of the heterogeneous virus populations generated by passaging in ferrets, viruses with different genotypes were transmissible. In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible viruses because, for example, the consensus sequence of virus isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental virus isolated from F2.

Together, these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 virus between mammals. The airborne-transmissible virus isolate with the least number of amino acid substitutions, compared with the A/H5N1wildtype, was recovered from ferret F5. This virus isolate had a total of nine amino acid substitutions; in addition to the three mutations that we introduced (Q222L and G224S in HA and E627K in PB2), this virus harbored H103Y and T156A in HA, H99Y and I368V (I, Ile; V, Val) in PB1, and R99K (R, Arg) and S345N in NP (table S3). Reverse genetics will be needed to identify which of the five to nine amino acid substitutions in this virus are essential to confer airborne transmission.

During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible viruses, ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation. One of eight inoculated animals died upon intranasal inoculation (Table 1). In previously published experiments, ferrets inoculated intranasally with WTA/ Indonesia/5/2005 virus at a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 showed neurological disease and/or death (39, 40). It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 virus and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans. Importantly, although the six ferrets that became infected via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment. Moreover, previous infections of humans with seasonal influenza viruses are likely to induce heterosubtypic immunity that would offer some protection against the development of severe disease (41, 42). It has been shown that mice and ferrets previously infected with an A/H3N2 virus are clinically protected against intranasal challenge infection with an A/H5N1 virus (43, 44).

After intratracheal inoculation (experiment 5; fig. S9), six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible virus F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3. Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia (45), as is done for vaccination-challenge studies. At necropsy, the six ferrets revealed macroscopic lesions affecting 80 to
100% of the lung parenchyma with average virus titers of 7.9 × 106 TCID50/gram lung (fig. S10). These data are similar to those described previously for A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets (Table 1). Thus, although the airborne-transmissible virus is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the virus was not lethal after airborne transmission.”

“Although our experiments showed that A/H5N1 virus can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear. Previous data have indicated that the 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 virus transmits efficiently among ferrets and that naïve animals shed high amounts of virus as early as 1 or 2 days after exposure (27). When we compare the A/H5N1 transmission data with that of reference (27), keeping in mind that our experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative, the data shown in Figs. 5 and 6 suggest that A/H5N1 airborne transmission was less robust, with less and delayed virus shedding compared with pandemic A/H1N1 virus.

Airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs (59), but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur. The mutations we identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 virus lineages (60), and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect viral fitness and virulence in birds and mammals. For pandemic preparedness, antiviral drugs and vaccine candidates against airborne-transmissible virus should be evaluated in depth. Mechanistic studies on the phenotypic traits associated with each of the identified amino acid substitutions should provide insights into the key determinants of airborne virus transmission. Our findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 viruses have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in humans. Identification of the minimal requirements for virus transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness (34).”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4810786/#!po=70.4819

From the Supplementary Materials:

Materials and methods

Viruses

“Influenza virus A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI virus infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells. All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000 (63-64). Mutations of interest (N182K, Q222L, G224S in HA and E627K in PB2) were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit (Aligent, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) according to the instructions of the manufacturer. Recombinant viruses were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and virus stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells as described (63).

Cells

MDCK cells were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium (EMEM, Lonza Benelux BV, Breda, the Netherlands) supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2 mM glutamine, 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate (Lonza), 10 mM Hepes (Lonza), and non-essential amino acids (MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch, France). 293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM, Lonza) supplemented with 10% FCS, 100 IU/ml penicillin, 100 mg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1mM sodium pyruvate, and non-essential amino acids.

Virus titration in MDCK cells

Virus titrations were performed as described previously (27). Briefly, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of virus preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs. Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with 100 U/ml penicillin, 100 μg/ml streptomycin, 2mM glutamine, 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate, 10mM Hepes, non-essential amino acids, and 20 μg/ml trypsin (Lonza). Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of virus replication in the cells. Infectious virus titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the virus preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber (65).”

Click to access NIHMS764094-supplement-Supplemental.pdf

In Summary:

The term “Gain of Function” first gained a wide public audience in 2012, after two groups revealed that they had tweaked an avian influenza “virus,” using genetic engineering and directed evolution, until it could be transmitted between ferrets
Most virologists say that the “coronavirus” probably emerged from repeated contact between humans and animals, potentially in connection with wet markets in Wuhan, China, where the “virus” was first reported
However, a group of scientists and politicians argues that a laboratory origin has not been ruled out
The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade when the ferret influenza studies came along
From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host
Virologists regularly fiddle with “viral” genes to change them, sometimes enhancing virulence or transmissibility, although usually just in animal or cell-culture models
Other major concerns are ‘pathogens of pandemic potential’ (PPP) such as influenza “viruses” and “coronaviruses”
“For the most part, we’re worried about respiratory “viruses” because those are the ones that transmit the best,” says Michael Imperiale, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School
He added that GOF studies with those “viruses” are “a really tiny part” of virology
Perlman and his collaborators set out to study the “coronavirus” responsible for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV), which emerged as a human pathogen in 2012
They wanted to use mice, but mice can’t catch MERS
The rodents lack the right version of the protein DPP4, which MERS-CoV uses to gain entry to cells and so the team altered the mice, giving them a human-like version of the gene for DPP4
The “virus” could now infect the humanized mice, but there was another problem: even when infected, the mice didn’t get very ill
So, the group used a classic technique called ‘passaging’ to enhance “virulence”
The researchers infected a couple of mice, gave the “virus” two days to take hold, and then transferred some of the infected lung tissue into another pair of mice
They did this repeatedly — 30 times and by the end of two months, the “virus” had evolved to replicate better in mouse cells
In so doing, it made the mice more ill; a high dose was deadly
Some virologists say “viruses” are constantly mutating on their own, effectively doing GOF experiments at a rate that scientists could never match

The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function
Any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research
Subbarao emphasized that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of “viruses” and added that much basic knowledge is still lacking for “SARS-CoV” and “MERS-CoV”
Virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of “viruses” and the specifics of “virus-host” interaction
Researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant “viruses” from cloned cDNA (i.e. they are synthetic lab creations)
Researchers also use targeted host or “viral” genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool
Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments:
1. The fisrt category is “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of “viruses” with properties that do not exist in nature
  - The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A “viruses” that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type
2. The second category deals with the generation of “viruses” that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type “viruses” but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature (which is odd considering no “viruses” have been found in nature…)
  - Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates (there are no natural isolates) will improve their replication in mammalian cells
3. The third category, which is somewhere in between the first two categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible “viruses” in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern
  - An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans
Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature
GoF mutations are naturally arising all the time and escape mutants isolated in the laboratory appear “every time someone is infected with influenza.”
In other words, they can never sequence the same “virus” every time so what they do in the lab in GoF studies is no different than how they culture and “isolate viruses” in order to sequence the genomes in the first place

A 2012 study supposedly showed that it takes as few as five mutations to turn the H5N1 avian influenza “virus” into an airborne spreader in mammals—and this launched a historic debate on scientific accountability and transparency
In the lengthy report, Ron Fouchier, PhD, of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands and colleagues describe how they used a combination of genetic engineering and serial infection of ferrets to create a mutant H5N1 “virus” that can spread among ferrets without direct contact
Fouchier’s team started with an H5N1 “virus” collected in Indonesia and used reverse genetics to introduce mutations that have been shown in previous research to make H5N1 “viruses” more human-like in how they bind to airway cells or in other ways
The amino acid changes the team chose included N182K, Q222L, and G224S, the numbers referring to positions in the “virus’s” HA protein, the “viral” surface molecule that attaches to host cells
The scientists created three mutant H5N1 “virus” strains to launch their experiment: one containing N182K, one with Q222L and G2242, and one with all three changes
They then launched their lengthy series of ferret experiments by inoculating groups of six ferrets with one of these three mutants or the wild-type H5N1 “virus”
Analysis of samples during the 7-day experiment showed that ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” shed far more “virus” than those infected with the mutants
In a second step, the team used a mutation in a different “viral” gene, PB2, the polymerase complex protein
The researchers found that this mutation, when added to two of the HA mutations (Q224L and G224S), did not produce a “virus” that grew more vigorously in ferrets, and the “virus” did not spread through the air from infected ferrets to uninfected ones
Seeing that the this mutant failed to achieve airborne transmission, the researchers decided to “passage” this strain through a series of ferrets in an effort to force it to adapt to the mammalian respiratory tract
This was the move that Fouchier called “really, really stupid” (are we sure he wasn’t referring to the whole study?)
They inoculated one ferret with the three-mutation strain and another with the wild-type “virus” and took daily samples until they euthanized the animals on day 4 and took tissue samples (nasal turbinates and lungs)
Material from the tissue samples was then used to inoculate another pair of ferrets, and this step was carried out six times
For the last four passages, the scientists used nasal-wash samples instead of tissue samples, in an effort to harvest “viruses” that were secreted from the upper respiratory tract
In other words, they completely changed the source material from tissue to nasal secretions more than halfway through the experiment
It was said that the amount of mutant “virus” found in the nasal turbinate and nose swab samples increased with the number of passages while “viral” titers in the samples from ferrets infected with the wild-type “virus” stayed the same

Quick Sidenote From the Supplemtary Materials:

“After inoculation with A/H5N1wildtype, virus titers in the nasal turbinates were variable but high, ranging from 1.6 x 105 to 7.9 x 106 TCID50/gram tissue (panel A), with no further increase observed with repeated passage. After inoculation with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K, virus titers in nasal turbinates averaged 1.6 x 104 in the first three passages, 2.5 x 105 in passage four to seven and 6.3 x 105 TCID50/gram tissue in the last three passages, suggestive of improved replication and virus adaptation. In the lungs, no apparent adaptation was observed for animals inoculated with either virus. Virus titers in lungs were highly variable; presumably it was a matter of chance whether the virus reached the lower airways.”

In other words, the “wildtype virus” titers remained and stayed high while the “mutant virus” started low and elevated throughout passaging yet was still underneath the amount seen in the “wildtype” strain. They also note that finding “virus” in the lungs was a “matter of chance” with either “virus.”

End Quick Sidenote.

The next step was to test whether the “viruses” produced through passaging could achieve airborne transmission so four ferrets were inoculated with samples of the “passage-10” mutant “virus,” and two ferrets were inoculated with the passage-10 wild strain
Uninfected ferrets were placed in cages next to the infected ones but not close enough for direct contact
The ferrets exposed to those with the wild “virus” remained uninfected, but three of the four ferrets placed near those harboring the mutant “virus” did get infected (“infected” meaning they found “viral” RNA)
Thus, a total of six ferrets became “infected” with the mutant “virus” via airborne transmission
However, the level of “viral” shedding indicated the airborne “virus” didn’t transmit as efficiently as the 2009 H1N1 “virus”
In the course of the airborne transmission experiments, the ferrets showed signs of illness, including lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur (no consideration is given to the fact that the animals were caged, tortured, and experimented on)
One of the directly inoculated ferrets died, but all those infected via airborne “viruses” survived
When the scientists sequenced the genomes of the “viruses” that spread through the air, they found only two amino acid switches, both in HA, that occurred in all six “viruses:” H103Y and T156A
They noted several other mutations, but none that occurred in all six airborne “viruses”
In other words, once again they were unable to sequence the exact same genome in the samples from each ferret
In further steps, the researchers inoculated intratracheally six ferrets with high doses of the airborne-transmissible “virus;” after 3 days, the ferrets were either dead or “moribund”
They stated: “Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of viruses to cause pneumonia”

Highly “pathogenic” avian influenza A/H5N1 “virus” can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet (“airborne transmission”) between humans
To address the concern that the “virus” could acquire this ability under natural conditions, the researchers genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” by site-directed mutagenesis and subsequent serial passage in ferrets
In other words, in order to test whether the “virus” could mutate naturally, they mutated it synthetically…
The genetically modified A/H5N1 “virus” acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets (all “viruses” aquire mutations every time they are sequenced as no “viral” genome is ever the same as the original)
None of the recipient ferrets died after airborne infection with the mutant A/H5N1 “viruses”
Wild birds in the orders Anseriformes (ducks, geese, and swans) and Charadriiformes (gulls, terns, and waders) are thought to form the “virus” reservoir in nature
Since 2003, more than 600 laboratory-confirmed cases of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” infections in humans have been reported from 15 countries
Although limited A/H5N1 “virus” transmission between persons in close contact has been reported, sustained human-to-human transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” has not been detected
Whether this “virus” may acquire the ability to be transmitted via aerosols or respiratory droplets among mammals, including humans, to trigger a future pandemic is a key question for pandemic preparedness
The factors that determine airborne transmission of influenza “viruses” among mammals, a trait necessary for a “virus” to become pandemic, have remained largely unknown
The “viruses” that caused the major pandemics of the past century emerged upon reassortment (that is, genetic mixing) of animal and human influenza “viruses”
However, given that “viruses” from only four pandemics are available for analyses, they cannot exclude the possibility that a future pandemic may be triggered by a wholly avian “virus” without the requirement of reassortment
No reassortants between A/H5N1 “viruses” and seasonal or pandemic human influenza “viruses” have been detected in nature and their goal was to understand the biological properties needed for an influenza “virus” to become airborne transmissible in mammals
They chose the ferret (Mustela putorius furo) as the animal model for the studies as ferrets have been used in influenza research since 1933 because they are susceptible to infection with human and avian influenza “viruses”
There is no exact particle size cut-off at which transmission changes from exclusively large droplets to aerosols
It is generally accepted that for infectious particles with a diameter of 5 mm or less, transmission occurs via aerosols
The researchers used the QuickChange multisite-directed mutagenesis kit to introduce amino acid substitutions in the HA of wild-type “virus”
For experiment 1, they inoculated these mutant “viruses” and the A/H5N1wildtype “virus” intranasally into groups of six ferrets for each “virus”
Throat and nasal swabs were collected daily, and “virus” titers were determined by end-point dilution in Madin Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells to quantify “virus” shedding from the ferret URT
When four naïve ferrets were housed in cages adjacent to those with four inoculated animals to test for airborne transmission as described previously, A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was not transmitted
Because the mutant “virus” harboring the E627K mutation in PB2 and Q222L and G224S in HA did not transmit in experiment 2, they designed an experiment to force the “virus” to adapt to replication in the mammalian respiratory tract and to select “virus” variants by repeated passage (10 passages in total) of the constructed A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus” and A/H5N1wildtype “virus” in the ferret URT
In experiment 3, one ferret was inoculated intranasally with A/H5N1wildtype and one ferret with A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K
Throat and nose swabs were collected daily from live animals until 4 days postinoculation (dpi), at which time the animals were euthanized to collect samples from nasal turbinates and lungs
The nasal turbinates were homogenized in 3 ml of “virus-transport” medium, tissue debris was pelleted by centrifugation, and 0.5 ml of the supernatant was subsequently used to inoculate the next ferret intranasally (passage 2)
This procedure was repeated until passage 6
From passage 6 onward, in addition to the samples described above, a nasal wash was also collected at 3 dpi
To this end, 1 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) was delivered dropwise to the nostrils of the ferrets to induce sneezing
Approximately 200 ml of the “sneeze” was collected in a Petri dish, and PBS was added to a final volume of 2 ml
The nasal-wash samples were used for intranasal inoculation of the ferrets for the subsequent passages 7 through 10
They changed the source of inoculum during the course of the experiment, because passaging nasal washes may facilitate the selection of “viruses” that were secreted from the URT
Because influenza “viruses” mutate rapidly, they anticipated (i.e.guessed arbitrarily) that 10 passages would be sufficient for the “virus” to adapt to efficient replication in mammals
The genetic composition of the “viral” quasi-species present in the nasal washe of ferrets after 10 passages of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was determined by sequence analysis using the 454/Roche GS-FLX sequencing platform
The mutations introduced in A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K by reverse genetics remained present in the “virus” population after 10 consecutive passages at a frequency >99.5%
Numerous additional nucleotide substitutions were detected in all “viral” gene segments of A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K after passaging, except in segment 7
Of the 30 nucleotide substitutions selected during serial passage, 53% resulted in amino acid substitutions
The only amino acid substitution detected upon repeated passage of both A/H5N1wildtype and A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K was T156A
In experiment 4, nasal-wash samples, collected at 3 dpi from ferrets at passage 10, were used in transmission experiments to test whether airborne-transmissible “virus” was present in the “virus” quasi-species
For this purpose, nasal-wash samples were diluted 1:2 in PBS and subsequently used to inoculate six naïve ferrets intranasally
Although mutations had accumulated in the “viral” genome after passaging of A/H5N1wildtype in ferrets, they did not detect replicating “virus” upon inoculation of MDCK cells with swabs collected from naïve recipient ferrets after they were paired with donor ferrets inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1wildtype “virus”
In contrast, they did detect “virus” in recipient ferrets paired with those inoculated with passage 10 A/H5N1HA Q222L,G224S PB2 E627K “virus”
Three out of four naïve recipient ferrets became “infected” as confirmed by the presence of replicating “virus” in the collected nasal and throat swabs (in other words, they saw CPE in a cell culture and claimed “virus” was present)
A “virus isolate” was obtained after inoculation of MDCK cells with a nose swab collected from ferret F5 at 7 dpi
They used conventional Sanger sequencing to determine the consensus genome sequences of viruses recovered from the six ferrets that acquired “virus” via airborne transmission and all six samples still harbored substitutions Q222L, G224S, and E627K that had been introduced by reverse genetics
In other words, they created consensus sequencing through alignment to reference genomes using computer software and algorithms from unpurified material
They observed several other mutations for which their occurrence was not consistent among the airborne “viruses,” indicating that of the heterogeneous “virus” populations generated by passaging in ferrets, “viruses” with different genotypes were transmissible
In other words, they were unable to sequence the exact same “virus” genome every time…and if that wasn’t clear
In addition, a single transmission experiment is not sufficient to select for clonal airborne-transmissible “viruses” because, for example, the consensus sequence of “virus” isolated from F6 differed from the sequence of parental “virus” isolated from F2
Together, they claim that these results suggest that as few as five amino acid substitutions (four in HA and one in PB2) may be sufficient to confer airborne transmission of HPAI A/H5N1 “virus” between mammals
During the course of the transmission experiments with the airborne-transmissible “viruses,” ferrets displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur after intranasal inoculation
It should be noted that inoculation of immunologically naïve ferrets with a dose of 1 × 106 TCID50 of A/H5N1 “virus” and the subsequent course of disease is not representative of the natural situation in humans
Importantly, although the six ferrets that became “infected” via respiratory droplets or aerosol also displayed lethargy, loss of appetite, and ruffled fur, none of these animals died within the course of the experiment
After intratracheal (in the throat) inoculation, six ferrets inoculated with 1 × 106 TCID50 of airborne-transmissible “virus” F5 in a 3-ml volume of PBS died or were moribund at day 3
Intratracheal inoculations at such high doses do not represent the natural route of infection and are generally used only to test the ability of “viruses” to cause pneumonia, as is done for vaccination-challenge studies
Although the airborne-transmissible “virus” is lethal to ferrets upon intratracheal inoculation at high doses, the “virus” was not lethal after airborne transmission
They openly admit that the route of injection and the amount of toxic culture goo injected causes the severity of disease, which does not require the “virus” as an explanation
They state that although experiments showed that A/H5N1 “virus” can acquire a capacity for airborne transmission, the efficiency of this mode remains unclear
They pointed out that their experimental design for studying transmission is not quantitative (i.e. they do not know how much “virus” is required for airborne transmission and assume it occurs via PCR results)
They airborne transmission could be tested in a second mammalian model system such as guinea pigs, but this would still not provide conclusive evidence that transmission among humans would occur
The mutations they identified need to be tested for their effect on transmission in other A/H5N1 “virus” lineages, and experiments are needed to quantify how they affect “viral” fitness and “virulence” in birds and mammals
Their findings indicate that HPAI A/H5N1 “viruses” have the potential to evolve directly to transmit by aerosol or respiratory droplets between mammals, without reassortment in any intermediate host, and thus pose a risk of becoming pandemic in human
Of course, the only place reassortment occurs is in a lab so they never need a host…
Identification of the minimal requirements for “virus” transmission between mammals may have prognostic and diagnostic value for improving pandemic preparedness
Influenza “virus” A/Indonesia/5/2005 (A/H5N1) was isolated from a human case of HPAI “virus” infection and passaged once in embryonated chicken eggs followed by a single passage in Madin-Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cells
All eight gene segments were amplified by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and cloned in a modified version of the bidirectional reverse genetics plasmid pHW2000
Mutations of interest were introduced in reverse genetics vectors using the QuikChange multi-site-directed mutagenesis kit
Recombinant “viruses” were produced upon transfection of 293T cells and “virus” stocks were propagated and titrated in MDCK cells
MDCK cells (canine) were cultured in Eagle’s minimal essential medium supplemented with:
1. 10% fetal calf serum (FCS)
2. 100 IU/ml penicillin
3. 100 μg/ml streptomycin
4. 2 mM glutamine
5. 1.5 mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
6. 10 mM Hepes
7. Non-essential amino acids
293T cells (human embryonic kidney) were cultured in Dulbecco modified Eagle’s medium supplemented with:
1. 10% FCS
2. 100 IU/ml penicillin
3. 100 mg/ml streptomycin
4. 2mM glutamine
5. 1mM sodium pyruvate
6. Non-essential amino acids
For “virus” titrations, MDCK cells were inoculated with tenfold serial dilutions of “virus” preparations, homogenized tissues, nose swabs, and throat swabs
Cells were washed with PBS one hour after inoculation and cultured in 200μl of infection media, consisting of EMEM supplemented with:
1. 100 U/ml penicillin
2. 100 μg/ml streptomycin
3. 2mM glutamine
4. 1.5mg/ml sodium bicarbonate
5. 10mM Hepes
6. Non-essential amino acids
7. 20 μg/ml trypsin
Three days after inoculation, supernatants of infected cell cultures were tested for agglutinating activity using turkey erythrocytes as an indicator of “virus” replication in the cells
Infectious “virus” titers were calculated from four replicates each of the homogenized tissue samples, nose swabs, and throat swabs and for ten replicates of the “virus” preparations by the method of Spearman-Karber

The only way that the gain of function/bioweapon narrative makes any sense is if the original Latin definition for the word “virus” is used to explain what is happening in this research. In Latin, “virus” means “liquid poision” and what virologists are doing is simply creating a liquid poison in a lab using cell cultures. What they are not doing is creating “infectious agents of a small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria” which is the modern definition for the word according to the Britannica. The only way the liquid poison can potentially harm one is through injection. Cell cultured soup is not transmitted through the air nor is it infectious and/or contagious. In other words, GOF studies are not creating “viruses” in the modern sense of the word and can only be considered as such if viewed through the original Latin lens.

What must be realized about the GOF studies and the bioweapon narrative is that these stories are designed to keep people believing in the lies of Germ Theory. This is yet another fear-based tactic utilized by those in power to ensure that the masses are frightened of an invisible enemy that can be unleashed upon the world either accidentally or intentionally at a moments notice. There will be figureheads who appear to be on the side of truth, questioning the natural existence of “SARS-COV-2,” challenging the safety of the vaccines, promoting alternative therapies, etc. who will also continue to push the idea that “viruses” exist and can be manipulated in a lab. These people are the Pied Pipers leading those who are going astray back into the fold. There is no need to create a “virus” bioweapon when all that was needed to control the masses is a PCR test and some well-designed propaganda.

To anyone who may have been taken in by this GOF/Bioweapon narrative, remember that there is no evidence of any purified and isolated “viral” particles ever coming directly from human samples that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Virology does not dispute this. If they can not find a “virus” in nature, they can not create one in a lab. That is truly all you need to know.

Connect with Mike Stone at Viroliegy

cover image based on creative commons work of 13452116/pixaby

Evidence of Infant-Murder in the Creation of the Fetal Cell Line Used for Covid Vaccine Testing

“‘Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
April 4, 2022

We begin here:

“To obtain embryo cells [for research on vaccines and other pharma products], embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used, nor can those obtained by means of abortions performed via the vagina: in both cases, the embryo will be contaminated by micro-organisms.”

“The correct way consists in having recourse to Caesarian section or to the removal of the uterus. Only in this way can bacteriological sterility be guaranteed.”

“In either case, then, to obtain embryo cells for culture a programmed abortion must be adopted, choosing the age of the embryo and dissecting it while still alive, in order to remove tissues to be placed in culture media.”

“Given these premises, we face the dilemma of whether the deliberate systematic destruction of a human creature to obtain cell material can be justified, when it is recognized that this is of great interest to fundamental research and for the diagnosis of some human diseases. Are research and diagnosis of such great value that they justify the destruction of human beings?”

“The Geneva Declaration affirms that the doctor has the duty to take the greatest care to safeguard the life of a human being from its conception and will not, even under threat, use his knowledge to infringe humanitarian laws.” (1986-04-26; Herranz, Gonzalo; Il Sabato, no.15…Professor Herranz was, at the time, president of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish Doctors and vice-president of the Permanent Committee of Medical Ethics of the European Community.)”

What exactly happened in 1972 or 1973, in the Netherlands, where an infant girl was aborted, and her kidneys used to make a cell line that would be used, going forward, in the testing of vaccines?

That cell line is called HEK 293, and it has been used to test COVID vaccines.

I have already presented evidence for concluding the abortion involved removing the living infant from her mother’s womb, and taking her kidneys, which of course killed her.

This evidence rests on the realization that, in order to extract viable and useful kidney tissue, the baby had to have a functioning blood supply, which meant she was alive.

But the evidence ALSO comes from knowing many other abortions have been carried out, in order to harvest tissue for medical research, by murdering living babies.

I have found a very informative article (2/9/2021) at the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK, by Christian Hacking, titled, “What the HEK?!” by Christian Hacking. Quoting from the article:

“HEK 293 is a human cell line created using a kidney from a dissected unborn baby in the Netherlands between 1972 and 1973. It is the second most common cell line and is used extensively in ‘pharmaceutical and biomedical research’. It is also used in vaccine creation and cancer research.”

“It was used, along with other human cell lines, to develop a genetically engineered spike protein (that the mRNA vaccine codes for) in the original development stage of the vaccine. The ‘new technology’ Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna Vaccine were tested on HEK 293 before they began human trials. This testing is ongoing for all new batches. Finally the ‘old technology’ Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine grew a weakened viral strain in HEK 293 cell culture…”

“The kidney in question was dissected from a healthy Dutch baby girl of unknown origin by the team at Leiden University in the Netherlands in 1972. Despite the inclusion of the term ‘embryonic’ in the title, the baby in question was probably 12-13 weeks old when she was killed so as to secure functioning kidney cells. The man in charge of the research was named Alex Jan Van der Eb; he is still alive and still based in Holland.”

“When questioned on the matter by the FDA in 2001, Dr Van der Eb confirmed it was an intentional abortion of a ‘fetus’ but gave hazy details of the exact experiments.”

“’So the kidney material, the fetal kidney material was as follows: the kidney of the fetus was, with an unknown family history, obtained in 1972 probably. The precise date is not known anymore. The fetus, as far as I can remember, was completely normal. Nothing was wrong. The reasons for the abortion were unknown to me. I probably knew it at that time, but it got lost, all this information’.”

Author Hacking continues: “…extracting and growing living cells is incredibly difficult. In order to give oneself the best chance of success you need to ensure the child is healthy, fresh, intact and sterile. As one embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy confirms:”

“’In order to sustain 95% of the cells, the live tissue would need to be preserved within 5 minutes of the abortion. Within an hour the cells would continue to deteriorate, rendering the specimens useless’.”

[That statement was made by “Dr C Ward Kischer, embryologist and Emeritus Professor of Anatomy; specialist in Human Embryology, University of Arizona College of Medicine…”]

[My comment: This suggests the abortion, in the Netherlands, in 1972, was planned and technicians were standing by. I would say that, to ensure the viability of the tissue, the infant had a functioning blood supply and was alive when her kidneys were removed, killing her.]

Hacking:

“In order for the organs to be at ‘optimal viability’, the child needs to be dissected and organs extracted within 5 minutes of delivery. Anaesthetic also cannot be used so as to not change the cellular activity of the organs the researcher wants to obtain.”

“Acclaimed Doctor, Ian Donald, the pioneer of the ultrasound scanner, also claims to have witnessed the WI-38 [another cell-line] dissections [1962], conducted at the Karolinska Institute; he described them such:

“’Experiments were being performed on near-term alive aborted babies who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic as they writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage’.”

“In his dense book ‘The Foetus As Transplant Donor the Scientific, Social, and Ethical Perspectives’, immunologist Dr Peter McCullagh relays detailed descriptions of the methods used on dozens of ‘fetal tissue donors’ from the 1970’s onward, including the deaths of babies between 7 and 26 weeks gestation by decapitations, exposure, dissection and drug testing. Gynaecologist and ex-abortionist Dr Bernard Nathanson, relaying his own understanding of abortion, and citing McCullagh’s book claims the Swedish experiments took place thus:

“’…in Sweden they have been puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells….. Healthy human fetuses from 7 to 21 weeks from legal abortions were used. This is in Sweden. The conception age was estimated from crown rump length and so on. Fetal liver and kidney were rapidly removed and weighed. Now at 21 weeks, what they were doing, or 18 weeks, or 16 weeks, was what is called prostaglandin abortions. They would inject a substance into the womb. The woman would then go into mini-labor and pass this baby. 50% of the time, the baby would be born alive, but that didn’t stop them. They would just simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.’”

“A research paper from the University of Toronto from June 1952 commenting on the method of their experiments suggests that these techniques were universal with researchers working in close proximity to the abortions.”

“’No macerated [softened after death] specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.”

“According to Gonzalo Herranz, former head of the Committee of Medical Ethics of Spanish doctors, the best way to prevent ‘contamination by microorganisms’ is to deliver the child by caesarean section or the removal of the uterus.”

“A 1982 review of a history of tissue donation affirms this, and much of the above evidence:”

“’Fetal tissue for transplantation must be “harvested” within a few minutes of delivery. Ideally this is by hysterectomy, with the fetus delivered in utero. Drugs which reduce fetal physiological activity need to be avoided. The fetus is therefore in as alive and aware a state as possible when being opened’.”

From Hacking’s article, it’s quite clear how the standard procedure of infant-murder is carried out.

It’s entirely reasonable to assume fetal cell line HEK 293—used for COVID vaccine testing—was originally produced, in 1972, by the murder of an infant. Refusal to take a COVID vaccine on the basis of conscience and religion is more than justified.

Given the weight of the circumstantial case, I would say that for all people of faith, refusal is essential.

Lunatic medical murderers and their allies will say anything to avoid blame and the application of true justice to themselves. They will invent “science” at the drop of a hat and couch it in humanitarian terms. They will claim the ends justify the means. They will commit gross forgery to pretend those ends are vital.

But we don’t have to stand by and passively believe them.

Billions of people of faith can stand against them.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons work of FamilyPhotoStudio

Virology’s Unproven Assumptions

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
March 4, 2022

If you are looking for one of the most masterful takedowns of virology to date, this presentation by Alec Zeck, Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, and John Blaid is one of the best out there. When I first watched it a month ago, I was blown away and I had intended to share it here but, as often happens, I got sidetracked and sadly forgot to upload it. I hope you can take away a great deal of value from this presentation as the guys delve into the numerous fallacies and assumptions related to this fraudulent field.

In this presentation, you will find:

A break down of the ridiculous cell culture experiments
The lack of adhering to the scientific method
The foundational issues with virology from the very beginning
The inherent problems with and the limitations of electron microscopy imaging
The lack of any purified and isolated physical “viral” particles found directly in human samples
The issues related to the creation of the theoretical genome
The fabrication and lack of validation of the PCR test for “SARS-COV-2”
A thorough explanation of the Stefan Lanka control experiments
The myths of contagion and other possible explanations for dis-ease
The FOI requests and the burden of proof

As I said, a masterful takedown of the pseudoscience called virology!

Virology’s Unproven Assumptions

In this episode, Alec Zeck has a discussion with Mike Donio, Jacob Diaz, Dr. Jordan Grant MD, and John Blaid on the fallacious reasoning, unproven assumptions, and lack of proof for virus theory.

Connect with Viroliegy

cover image credit: Alexandra_Koch / pixabay

Modern Medicine: A Castle Built on Sand?

by Patricia Harrity, The Exposé
March 31, 2022

Dangerous Dogmas

All scientific research is built on particular dogmas including, or perhaps especially, biomedicine. It’s easier for some “scientists” to perpetuate falsehoods than it is to admit they were wrong, abandon long standing ideas, and start again from scratch. Many scientists would rather pursue trendy research areas in order to win accolades and secure grant money than question long-held beliefs and dogmas.

This is exactly what has happened with modern medicine because too much money and too many reputations are at stake. If you’re not allowed to question it, then it’s not real science.

Erroneous theories in medicine have wasted billions and caused untold harm. Imagine if they had to admit that so many years of research and countless academic careers have been wasted pursuing ideas that have no basis in reality.

Thanks to the covid pseudo pandemic, the corrupt state of the medical establishment has never been more obvious to so many people.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

It might be difficult for some to believe that the castle of medicine is built on foundations of sand. However, Stanford scientist John P. A. Ioannidis published a study in 2005 proving that most published research findings are false.

Marcia Angell the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine has extensively investigated the corruption of medicine by drug companies.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

There are countless victims of iatrogenic disease in countless on-line support groups who once trusted their doctors to have their best interests at heart and to abide by the oath to “first do no harm”.

128,000 Americans die each year from correctly prescribed medications, making prescription drugs one of the leading causes of death.

Clearly, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

Dr. Harold Hillman Goes Renegade

In his final paper, the notorious British biologist Harold Hillman claimed that “cell biology is in dire straits”. That paper was published in 2011 and summarises his life’s work which began in the 1970s. He warned biologists and cell physiologists that something is seriously wrong with their ideas about the human body.

In the 1970s this cytologist and neurobiologist began questioning mainstream cell biology and presented evidence that the accepted model of the cell was completely wrong. He suggested that the dire straits of cell biology was the reason medical research has failed to determine the cause and provide the cure for most diseases.

“During a research career lasting more than 50 years, I have concluded that the following procedures are unsuitable for studying the biology of living cells in intact animals and plants: subcellular fractionation; histology; histochemistry; electron microscopy; binding studies; use of ligands; immunocytochemistry; tissue slices; disruptive techniques; dehydration; deep freezing; freeze-drying; boiling; use of extracellular markers; receptor studies; patch clamp measurements; inadequate calibrations. The main objections to these procedures are: (i) they change the properties of the tissues being studied grossly and significantly; (ii) they ignore the second law of thermodynamics;(iii) they produce artefacts, many of which are two-dimensional; (iv) adequate control procedures have never been published for them.”
~ Dr. Harold Hillman

He challenged the fundamental principles of biology. He was a renegade who put the quest for truth above everything else.

Unsurprisingly his views were unpopular with many in the mainstream and this took a toll on his career and reputation. He had difficulty publishing his work. Mainstream scientific journals rejected his papers without reason and refused to review his books.

“The reason I’m so determined is because they [the mainstream] won’t engage. And if they won’t engage, then to my mind it proves that I’m likely to be right.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman

Many scientists agreed with Hillmans’ compelling ideas in private but wouldn’t support him publicly for fear of losing their funding or tarnishing their reputation. Many leading biologists would refuse to meet with him to discuss his research. His goal was to start a discussion and promote a productive debate to improve and further scientific knowledge. Instead of being given a platform to share his work, he was stifled and ridiculed. Sound familiar?

Real scientists value truth above reputation and financial gain. Real scientists are willing to risk everything to expose falsities and incorrect theories. Scientists who blatantly ignore unpopular views or refuse to debate are not true scientists.

“I should like to draw attention to the fact that I regard my views as unpopular, rather than heretical, as I do not believe that scientists should talk in terms of dogma and heresy. In the best of possible worlds, good scientists who hear challenges to their beliefs, assumptions, hypotheses, procedures or conclusions, should examine such criticism with due attention. They should respond by entering into civilised dialogue with their critics. They should be prepared to admit mistakes, if necessary, and change their views. Such reactions have not occurred.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman

Hillman claimed that the routine procedures used to study the characteristics and composition of cells are completely unfit for purpose. He was adamant that these procedures would change the properties of cells more than any differences being examined so any conclusions made on the basis of these procedures were invalid.

He claimed that electron microscopy is a “waste of time and money” which goes against the vast majority of the biomedical establishment who regard the invention of the electron microscope as a pivotal point in biomedical research. Only dead tissue can be examined under an electron microscope and not living cells. Are findings based on electron microscopy relevant to living organisms?

Hillman’s work includes compelling evidence to suggest that many of the subcellular organelles that some scientists have dedicated their lives to studying are just artifacts of preparation for histology and electron microscopy. This includes both the Golgi body and the Endoplasmic Reticulum.

He also claimed that cellular receptors and transmembrane protein channels do not exist in the mainstream accepted sense. One of the reasons for this is that these cell receptors cannot be seen under an electron microscope, despite their size being within the range of visibility.

He courageously stood up for what he believed to be the truth. Despite his career and reputation taking an enormous hit, he continued to publish his ideas right up until his death.

“If I am wrong, only my reputation has been damaged. If I am right, those colleagues proved wrong may well have been wasting their time and careers and using public or charitable resources naively. They might have used their time and resources to carry out more productive research.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman

When considering the current state of medicine, it seems that “more productive research” is exactly what is needed. Research that doesn’t follow dogma and isn’t funded by the very pharma industry that has a vested interest in perpetuating erroneous ideas such as the “one germ, one disease” fallacy.

“It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman

We’re led to believe that modern medicine is highly advanced but the cause of most diseases apparently remains “unknown”. Most Doctors have a mechanistic, reductionist view of disease often believing disease arises due to “genetics” or that the body is just prone to making mistakes.

“It is widely believed that medical research since the Second World War has been very successful…It is absolutely remarkable how unsuccessful this sort of research has been. If one knew the basic mechanisms, whose disarray induced disease, one could then design logical interventions to prevent them developing… it is true that the cost of failure so far has been high. The most paradoxical aspect of scientific research is that it is widely believed to be objective…”
~ Dr Harold Hillman

Hillman also criticised the lack of sufficient control experiments performed in biomedical research. Proper control experiments are the cornerstone of good science ensuring that variables, other than the one being tested, do not influence the results of the experiment.

“Control experiments for the effects of reagents and manoeuvres used on the results of experiments have been grossly inadequate.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman

Hillman also questioned the use of tissue cultures for histological analysis with compelling logic. Cells in culture have significantly different morphology, biochemistry, and environment than the cells from which they came.

“Tissue cultures are similar to the tissue from which they come in some ways and very different in other ways. It is clear that although there are a few properties in common, there are substantial differences. This is one of the most important questions, in respect of the usefulness of tissue cultures as sources of information about cells in intact animals.”
~ Dr Harold Hillman

Virology: Voodoo Scientism

Hillman’s work challenges virology as much as it does cell biology and neurobiology. The world is slowly waking up to the pseudoscientific nature of virology because of the pseudo pandemic inflicted on all of us.

“Viruses” can only be seen under an electron microscope using procedures involving heavy metals, dehydration, low pressure, electron bombardment and X-ray irradiation. Are viruses real naturally occurring structures or are they artifacts of these harsh conditions?

The effects of “viruses” are studied on cell cultures and most cell cultures are grown from embryonic tissue, cancerous tissue, stem cells, or monkey cells whose properties are completely different from that of adult human tissue. Is any of this relevant to understanding virus infectivity in humans?

Coronaviruses are supposedly assembled at the endoplasmic reticulum-Golgi interface but if Hillman is right and the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi body are artefacts of histological preparation and electron microscopy is presumed understanding of virus assembly completely wrong?

Different cell cultures are prepared by different procedures in different chemical solutions to culture “viruses”. Could this explain why only some cells can grow “viruses” but others can’t? SARS-CoV2 cannot infect many human cell lines but can infected monkey kidney cells which is not what you would expect from a supposed human pathogen.

Viruses are supposed to bind to host cell receptors as the first step to entry but if Hillman is correct macromolecular cell receptors don’t really exist.

Adequate controls have not been performed to test the effects of lab conditions, body fluids, antibiotics, and other chemicals on cell cultures so how can virologists be sure that it is the “virus” causing any observed cytopathic effects and not the chemicals and conditions themselves?

The biomedical establishment has chosen to ignore all of these crucial questions. Sadly, Hillman’s level of critical thinking and radical questioning are rare and often completely absent in modern biomedical science.

His sharp intellect and critical thinking skills were a threat to the scientific establishment. He put his career and reputation on the line to expose the weaknesses of established biomedical knowledge.

But what if he was right? What if the castle of modern medicine really is built on foundations of sand? Will his work be forgotten, or will others be brave enough to pick up where he left off?

References

1) John P. A. Ioannidis “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Med. 2005 Aug; 2(8): e124.

2) Marcia Angell M.D “The Truth About the Drug Companies-How they deceive us and what to do about it.”

3) Richard Horton “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?” Lancet Comment| Volume 385, ISSUE 9976, P1380, April 11, 2015

4) Harold Hillman “Cell Biology is Currently in Dire Straits.”

5) Harold Hillman “A Career in Neurobiology.”

6) A Biomedical Scientist “Virology’s Voodoo Scientism is Not Real Science.” The Expose.

Connect with The Exposé

cover image based on creative commons work of 652234 & sethink / pixabay

Was Covid Vaccine Fetal Tissue Obtained by the Murder of an Infant?

“To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough
to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out.

This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs.

Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and
their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”

~ AnnaMaria Cardinalli

Was Covid Vaccine Fetal Tissue Obtained by the Murder of an Infant?

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
April 1, 2022

With the release of COVID vaccines, and then the mandates, we’ve seen a new resurgence of people attempting to gain religious exemptions.

Many of these attempts focus on fetal tissue obtained through abortion.

On January 19, 2021, AnnaMaria Cardinalli published an explosive article in Crisis Magazine, headlined, “Catholic Conscience and the COVID-19 Vaccine.”

Cardinalli details the collection of fetal tissue for the cell line named HEK 293.

The tissue was taken from an aborted infant in the Netherlands in 1972-3.

This cell line was used for “testing” the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

Cardinalli writes: “We know that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not use any cells derived from abortion in the production process. That is, we know that we are not being directly injected with fetal cells or their engineered descendants (though this fact differs with other manufacturers). We hear that the abortion-derived cell lines were only used in testing, which should somehow comfort us, though it still means that the vaccines from which we seek to benefit depend on the involvement of abortion. We are told that the cell line used in testing came from one abortion, which took place decades ago. These things are all true, but they do not serve to inform us fully.”

“What we may not know follows. The most prominent cell line, called HEK 293, comes from an abortion performed in the 1970’s…”

“HEK stands for human embryonic kidney. To harvest a viable embryonic kidney for this purpose, sufficiently healthy children old enough to have adequately-developed kidneys must be removed from the womb, alive, typically by cesarean section, and have their kidneys cut out. This must take place without anesthesia for the child, which [anesthesia] would lessen the viability of the organs. Instead of being held, rocked, and comforted in the time intervening between their birth and their death, they have organs cut out of them alive.”

“There is no way that a spontaneous abortion could result in the cell line (as the kidneys cannot remain viable past the brief window in which they must be harvested) or that some brilliant researcher found a way for great good to come out of a rare tragedy by making use of a child’s body donated to science after it was aborted. The deliberate killing of an unwanted child (a little girl, in the case of HEK 293) took place in the tortuous manner it did precisely to obtain her organs for research. The harvest of her organs was the direct cause of her death, prior to which, she was a living child, outside the womb.”

“I fear that Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict may not have had this information when they received the vaccines. If we re-examine the Vatican statement that ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and productions process,’ we see that it does not apply here. It does not imagine this scenario. To approve of the currently-available vaccines, it would have to read ‘it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from living persons, killed by the harvest of their organs for use in medical research and productions processes,’ but the Church’s moral teachings could never truly bend so far.

Similar to the human rights abuses exposed by international tribunal in today’s China, where unwanted individuals such as religious and political dissidents are executed by the harvest of their organs for profit, the little girl whose cells gave rise to the COVID-19 vaccines was brutally sacrificed for the purpose, as were all the children whose cell lines failed before her.”

After reading Cardinalli’s analysis—not only should the granting of religious exemptions from vaccination be a foregone conclusion; the whole field of fetal tissue research, going back many years and involving many pharmaceutical products, should be put on trial.

The people who have been carrying out the murders, the people who have been using the harvested tissue, the companies—all of them—on trial.

I hope many medical professionals will take Cardinalli’s article as a springboard, and weigh in on what she is very clearly stating.

And not just doctors. All people who are shocked by her conclusions.

So far, I see one counter-claim to Cardinalli’s assertions:

The notion that the kidneys of the aborted baby must be harvested very quickly is false. The kidneys can survive for a longer period.

On that score, I refer you to a devastating video interview conducted by Robert Kennedy Jr. His guest was SOUND CHOICE PHARMACEUTICAL INSTITUTE “President and Founder, Dr. Theresa Deisher Ph.D., [with] over 30 years of pharmaceutical research and leadership experience. She discovered adult cardiac derived stem cells, has worked on their therapeutic uses as an alternative to human fetal DNA, and leads a team of scientists at AVM Biotechnology dedicated to changing what a diagnosis of cancer, autoimmunity, or chronic infectious disease means to patients and their loved ones. As a result of this work, Dr. Deisher is named as an inventor on over 47 patents.”

In the first 15 minutes of the interview, Deisher makes it quite clear that infants in the womb are taken out alive, with their blood supply functioning (essential) and then killed by cutting out their hearts or their brains. This is what is done in order to obtain tissue that will be turned into fetal cell lines.

Since this act of murder is standard practice, it would appear it was committed against the live baby whose kidney cells became cell line HEK 293, used in testing the COVID vaccines.

At the top of the interview, Kennedy said he didn’t want to get into the moral aspect of fetal cell lines. But after listening to Deisher, he was quite shaken. He said so. He said they would have to cover the moral aspect.

The whole world has to.

Here is the basic ramification: THERE IS A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.

For all people of faith. Every faith.

“According to my religious belief, the murder of an undeniably live infant for any reason is unconscionable and evil, and I refuse the vaccine.”

Here is a Force against which no government, no establishment, no secret society, no wealth can stand.

I fully understand all sorts of professionals will spout language that purports to show “the aborted infant was not alive, the lab followed all the legal guidelines, this is an old argument that has been debunked…”

But this is not just an old argument. This is the equivalent of an opening statement in a murder trial. Nothing less.

If religious leaders will read AnnaMaria Cardinalli’s article, they will see how important her charge is.

The question isn’t “will people of faith wake up and do what they should”; the question is “how can any person of faith NOT do what they should”.

If they will make a stand; if all people of faith will; the entire dire situation we are facing changes in the blink of an eye.

Solomon to God: “You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in…Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil.”

Gautama Buddha: “To cease from evil, to do good, and to purify the mind yourself, this is the teaching of all the Buddhas.”

John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

Would any church, any religion in the world say that God wants the killing of live infants for the purpose of medical research?

In the midst of this COVID tyranny, haven’t we all been looking for a truth that will galvanize huge numbers of people?

And not as some kind of stunt. But rather as an inevitable outcome of deep faith.

Faith and justice come from the same everlasting tree.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons work of mohamed_hassan

See related:

RFK, Jr. Discusses Aborted Fetal DNA and Vaccines with Dr. Theresa Deisher

Addressing Dr. McCullough, Dr. Malone, and Dr. Cole’s “SARS-CoV-2” Claims: Where’s the Evidence?

Truth Comes to Light editor‘s note: This discussion is addressing “Street MD vs The Doctors” at paid video platform Ickonic.

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
March 31, 2021

Yesterday I had the privilege and the honor to speak with Alec Zeck, John Blaid, Mike Donio, and Jacob Diaz about the claims made regarding the isolation and existence of “SARS-COV-2” by Dr.’s Malone, McCullough, and Cole. In this video, we address specific points they made such as whether or not:

Cultivation in cell culture is “isolation” of a “virus?”
Koch’s Postulates had been satisfied for “SARS-COV-2?”
The effect a drug has can be considered proof of the existence of a “virus?”
The electron microscopy images taken from unpurified cell cultures are proof of “virus” particles?
The particles assumed to be “viruses” are purified and isolated directly from the samples of a sick patient?

It was a pleasure to be a part of this conversation! I hope that you are able to come away with a better understanding as to why the evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” or any “virus” for the matter, is entirely lacking and unscientific.

Addressing Dr. McCullough, Dr. Malone, and Dr. Cole’s SARS-CoV-2 Claims: Where’s The Evidence?

Video available at The Truth Seeker (John Blaid) BitChute and Odysee channels.

Mike Donio, John Blaid, Jacob Diaz, Mike Stone, and Alec Zeck filmed a response to claims made by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Ryan Cole regarding virus isolation and the existence of SARS-CoV-2 during an episode of The StreetMD Show hosted by Dr. Jo Yi on the Ickonic platform. The overall stance held by the speakers is simple: the claims made by these three gentlemen lack both in context and in substantial evidence to support the notion that SARS-CoV-2 exists as a pathogenic disease causing agent.

Connect with Mike Stone at Viroliegy

Dr. Tom Cowan: Lab Created Viruses? Gain of Function Research? Bio Labs? — Smoking Gun or Bad Science?

Truth Comes to Light editor‘s notes:

Below you will find a video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan. The questions Dr. Cowan raises, the facts he presents, and the clarity he brings to the discussion of “viruses” and the field of virology are essential to our global conversation and quest to understand the truth. Truth Comes to Light has provided a basic transcript and added links to references for added clarity.

Over the past few years, we have shared many articles on this site related to this inquiry into the truth about “viruses” and the whole field of virology, including information on terrain theory vs germ theory. Find links here: Viruses, Vaccines & the History of Modern Medicine. At the end of this post you will find a selected list of related articles.

A few quotes from Dr. Cowan’s video:

“Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?”

“They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.

“Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.”

“So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.

“So I ask myself how did they do that?”

“What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?”

“Do we really know if mRNA is in these vaccines?

“Where is the paper? Where is the evidence that there actually is mRNA in these injections?”

Lab Created Viruses: Smoking Gun or Bad Science?

video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan
March 25, 2022

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light:

Dr. Tom Cowan:

Okay, so before I get into talking about the question that so many people keep asking me: What about gain of function, lab-created viruses, bio labs now allegedly in the Ukraine?

So what is the science behind that?

So we’ll get into that in a minute. And before that I have a very short, little clip to play.

So that clip pretty much sums it up. That was from our friend Dr. Sam Bailey and our other good friend Stefan Lanka.

So on that note, the reason I wanted to talk about this subject is there was a recent paper that was put out by Dr. Mercola…

The title is ‘Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 — A recent study claims to have discovered something that matches a modified mRNA sequence by Moderna in 2016‘ by author Dr. Joseph Mercola.

[…]

So let’s just read the first couple paragraphs there. So this is a summary:

“A study published February 21, 2022, (so very recently) in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.

The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.

According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.

According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.”

Okay, so why is this important? So obviously, there’s been a lot of attention in the political sphere and in the anti-vax community. There have been movies written about this.

There are many lectures, many prominent people in the “freedom” or “anti-vax” community who are investigating these patents, and saying that these patents — and as Dr. Mercola said, this study in Frontiers in Virology is literally the smoking gun proving that Moderna patented a sequence, which ended up in SARS-CoV-2, “the virus”, and the only way it could have gotten there is, not through natural evolution (that is a one in three trillion chance) but if it was introduced into the virus by some laboratory technique.

This theory is crucial to our understanding, not only of whether there were crimes committed, but the whole theory of virology and gain-of-function research and all that.

So, obviously, and this should go without saying, that the most important part of this is: Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?

The rest of the article goes on to talk about what we know about this MSH3 sequence and the protein that it allegedly codes for.

But I want to emphasize again and again and again — the whole point of this is: This sequence which was patented by Moderna in 2016 is identical to the sequence found in SARS-CoV-2.

That is the point.

If we can demonstrate that there is no SARS-CoV-2 and this is not the genome of this alleged virus, then none of the rest of this has any validity or is of any use at all.

It’s all just a sort of smokescreen or a way to throw us off the track about finding out what really is going on.

I cannot emphasize how important this is.

So for the next few minutes we’re going to actually look at how the authors of the article in Frontiers of Virology — what were they claiming was the SARS-CoV-2 genome?

What were they claiming was the evidence that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus that they could then compare the patent to?

Again, if there’s no virus and there’s no genome then they can’t possibly have put this sequence into a virus or a genome. And it can’t possibly be the thing that’s affecting the world.

So, now let’s be clear about the next step. There is no mention in this story by Dr. Mercola of how the Frontiers in Virology authors found the genome or found the virus.

[…]

In other words, there is no information in here of how Dr. Mercola actually knows there’s a SARS-CoV-2 genome.

But the authors of the Frontiers in Virology paper said that they were comparing the sequence, the mRNA sequence patented by Moderna in 2016, to the genome found in our old friend paper by Chinese virologist Fan Wu.

So it isn’t that we picked this paper by random. It isn’t that I picked this paper to investigate how they found the genome or what their evidence for the virus was. This is the paper that the authors of the Frontiers in Virology use to compare the Moderna patent to.

So we’re using their information and this is their evidence, their proof that the virus exists.

So, let’s look then at that paper and see what they found.

So this is about: Did the paper by Fan Wu prove that the virus existed — the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists — and that this is the genome of the virus?

Again, in order to say that the patented sequence matches 100% to the genome of the virus, obviously, obviously, you have to know that this is actually a virus.

So, this is an old friend, we’ve been through this many times, but let’s see what they say.

So here is the paper, published in the prestigious journal, I believe, Nature — February 3, 2020.

“A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China”. The lead author, his name Fan Wu.

So this is the paper, again, that was cited by the authors of Frontiers in Virology paper that is used as the reference genome.

So how did they do it?

So first we have a summary.

So how did they identify the “virus”? So I’m gonna run down the steps that they used and then we will show the clips, the actual wording from the paper, so that you know that this is actually the facts.

Okay, so we’re looking to find a virus and then find the genome of that virus — a virus that had never been found before.

So first thing they take lung fluid from one person. That’s a huge sample size (that’s a little tongue-in-cheek). That’s obviously just one person. That is a kind of ridiculous experiment to find a new virus.

Then they isolated the RNA, which is a genetic material, from the fluid in that person’s lung. They did not attempt to purify any particles that they could say you were a virus. They did not do any pictures of any virus. They did not do any maceration, filtration, ultracentrifugation to see if they had any such particles. None of that.

They took RNA from the lung fluid, of which we have many possible sources. We have bacterial sources, fungal sources, human sources, possibly viral sources, exosome sources, multivesicular body sources — many sources of RNA. We have no idea the source of that RNA.

Then they create what’s called an mRNA library, which is a catalog of all of the RNA pieces that are in that lung fluid.

This requires that they amplify these pieces of RNA with the process called RT-PCR. And, as we have demonstrated over and over again. and is completely substantiated in the literature, doing PCR amplification of RNA cycles inevitably creates new sequences of RNA which weren’t there in the original sample.

In some cases, if you do enough amplification cycles — up to even 80% of the sequences — after 45 cycles are made de novo, or anew, by the actual PCR process itself.

So now we have yet another source of our RNA. Not only do we have potential viruses, exosomes, multivesicular bodies, apoptotic bodies, human lung tissue, human epithelial lung tissue…, fungal RNA, bacterial RNA — we also have new pieces of RNA generated by the test itself.

Then they performed pair and sequencing that generates 150 base pair reads. That means they matched the sequence by pairing the ends. And you end up with sequences that are basically 150 base pairs long. That’s a fairly small amount. And this results in 56.5 million of these 150 base pair sequences known as reads.

So to be clear, they take this mass, not knowing any idea the origin of these mRNA, they chopped them up into sequences that are 150 base pairs (that’s fairly short) long by pairing the ends. They have 56.5 million of these reads. And then they start doing what’s called de novo assemble.

So there is no sequencing here. There is assembly. And, as it says, you can make a lot of genomes with that many reads.

So they put these 56 million, 150 base pair, reads in aa assembly computer program and… they actually put it in two different computer programs. And one of the computer programs generated 384,000 different sequences. The other one generated over a million sequences.

So now these sequences — all 384,000 of them — are meant to be the possible genomes of this virus. For some reason, they threw away the program that made over a million of these sequences and said the one that made 384,000 — I think that was Megahit — one of those must be the right sequence, the actual sequence of the virus.

Just to be clear, at no point did they ever find a particle. At no point did they purify or isolate a particle.

At no point did they find in any particle… an entire string of RNA, which they then sequenced one by one to find out the sequence of the genetic material of this particle.

None of that was done. All they did was chop up RNA from many different possible sources, put that in a computer program, generate 384,000 and a million in another, and then they went hunting for infectious agents and performed a search of those sequences.

The two longest sequences were a close match to a bat SARS-like coronavirus genome, found 15 years ago or so, that was made in exactly the same way — never having isolated or purified a particle, never having found an intact genome, never having sequenced the genome.

They just did the same sort of assembly, no sequencing of RNA from God knows where. And, this one, the longest one was a 89% match to the previous SARS coronavirus that they did in the same way.

And, as we say: Boom! There is the new novel human coronavirus — even though, as we’ve said over and over again, humans and chimpanzees are about a 96% match. So to say it was an 89% match is essentially like saying there’s no way this could have been anywhere similar to the previous bat SARS-like coronavirus.

In other words, they never found a virus. They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.

Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.

And that are simply the facts.

Now, I just want to say I’m going to read from a pre-publication article from the Lancet Respiratory magazine.

The title is Exosomes in False-Positive Covid-19 PCR tests: non-specificity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Vivo Detection Explains Artificial Post-Pandemic Peaks.

This is a manuscript draft and I don’t know when it will be published.

When I read this, just remember that all these articles that go into The Lancet have to pay homage to the virus god. But I will explain what they mean here.

So this is the interpretation of the entire article. I won’t go through their methods.

“The RNA code counted in PCR tests, previously attributed to SARS-CoV-2, belongs instead to a respiratory-virus-induced immune system response by human cells that liberate exosomes, and that vitiate PCR test results. PCR tests have zero specificity in vivo due to the exosome RNA.”

[…]

And they go on in this article, just as we’re saying — the reality is all of these RNA sequences, all of these reads which were assembled into a viral genome, actually when you do careful analysis, come from human epithelial lung cells.

In other words, just as we’ve been saying all along, these are not viruses. These are breakdown products of our own tissue. And the misconception in calling them a virus needs to stop.

And this idea that they put this patented sequence into a virus can’t possibly be true because, simply, there is no virus.

And all the rest of the article is for not — because nobody put a RNA sequence, patented or otherwise, into a virus.

Now just to show you that we got this from the article — so here is the one patient presenting with cough, etc. So that’s the evidence that we were correct about the one patient.

Here is the evidence that the paired and 150 base pair reads sequencing of the RNA library was performed on this computer platform. So the sequencing yields reads of only 150 base pairs. The whole SARS-CoV-2 genome is supposed to be 30,000.

That means they had to stitch it together using a computer program. This was an assembled genome, out of little bits from God knows where.

And here we see the 56.5 million reads were assembled using Megahit and Trinity. Trinity, they got over a million. They generated a total of 384,000 contigs (that’s sequences).

Trinity generated 1.3 million. They don’t like those because they weren’t long enough. They compared those with the database and compared and found that it was somewhat, although not really similar to a previous bat coronavirus. So, as he says, sequencing results in more than 56 million reads.

How can you possibly differentiate what is from a potential virus from everything else? The answer is you can’t.

And finally… The longest contig is generated by Megahits. The longest one by Trinity is 11,000. How come they didn’t use this one?

Both showed similarity to bat coronavirus. They were found at high abundance. It was only 89 percent similar. That means 11 percent didn’t match. That is a huge amount.

Then they just moved on to develop primers all from this one assay without isolating anything, and from one patient.

And, my friends, that is not science; that is propaganda, as is the entire story of a lab engineered virus.

Now, the real issue here and one of the reasons why this, to me, is so important, is if you go by this unscientific theory that there’s a lab-created virus, you actually miss what I would say are the three most important questions to be asked, and then answered, about this situation.

And so now I’m talking — I would say theory. Where everything else was what I would call simply facts.

So the question that should be asked (and it would be nice to have answers for, and which I don’t have the answers for, but I have some theories) is, to me, the most interesting thing is —

So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.

So I ask myself how did they do that? How did they make — like there’s two theories, there’s two ways of looking at this.

One is: They don’t want that to happen and so it was a mistake.

But, if we think, which I’m inclined to do, that “they” (meaning Moderna and other people) wanted this to happen so that they could throw people off and essentially create a kind of patsy out there, how did they do it?

So I have three possible theories as to how they did it.

Now, let me be clear.

What I’m trying to figure out is these guys Fan Wu and others, Chinese virologists, having, I don’t think, any connection with Moderna, come up with a bogus, anti-scientific genome and for some unbelievable coincidence — let’s say for now — it actually matches exactly one of the patented sequences from the Moderna patent of four years prior. How did that happen?

So possibility number one: It was dumb luck. They just made this sequence and it just so happened to match the Moderna patent. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s actually the right answer.

The second possibility: … Somebody from Moderna or somebody — I don’t know who — calls up Fan Wu and says ‘I want you to make a genome out of nothing and I want it to have this particular sequence in it so some day people will find this out and say “you see, they genetically engineered this sequence”‘. Got it? In other words, there was collusion between the patenters (that’s Moderna) and Fan Wu and his team.

Now I gotta tell you, I actually don’t think that’s true. I would actually love to find out if it is true and if there is a phone call from doctor head of Moderna saying, you know, ‘Hey Wu, would you put this sequence in there so that we can — people find out that it was a genetically engineered sequence?’ But I just don’t think that happens.

And then I came up with a third possibility which is: Once I discovered all these people who are looking into all these patents, that there was at least 70 different patents taken out, of different sequences of RNA, that could end up in a genome. Now, my guess is … I would think it’s a good possibility that one of those sequences may end up in the final genome. And then you would then implant the story that this was a genetically engineered organism and there you go.

So you wouldn’t have to rely on luck, you wouldn’t have to actually have collusion, you could just patent a whole lot of different sequences, for instance, that came in the SARS-1 genome. You could patent all kinds of sequences knowing that, at the end of the day, when somebody makes up this new fraudulent genome it’s bound to have one of them in there. Somebody will find it some day, say it’s the smoking gun and you then implanted the story of the century which does nothing but throws people off.

So those are my three options. I’d be happy to hear about any other possible options. But those were the only three that I could come up with.

Now, the final question then is: What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?

And, I must say, I don’t know what they’re doing in the labs and I don’t think really anybody knows — including in the Chinese labs or Ukrainian labs or North Carolina labs or any other labs.

So again, I have some possibilities.

One is the following …

Screenshot image from BrandNewTube video (specific video source unknown)

They’re doing this.

In other words, what the virologists do is they dress up in hazmat suits and they go on to their computer and start making sequences. And the hazmat suits are crucial, because, as we all know, it’s very possible for the sequences to jump from the computer into their eyes. So it’s very important, as you can see, that they wear goggles and protective head gear to prevent the computer sequences from jumping directly in their eyes.

In other words, they may be just doing nothing and it may be just a whole lot of hooey to get people to worry about things. And to implant in their minds that there is this horrible engineered virus, that we should all be scared of viruses, etc. So that’s one possibility.

Another one is they’re making some sort of proteins or genetic material which can be injected into people. In other words, they’re making toxins. And that is certainly possible.

So those are the two main categories that I came up with. Either they’re just doing nothing and they’re just a front, or a smoke screen, or they’re actually making stuff which isn’t good for people.

And that gets into my final thing that I want to point out.

… This section right here. this is something I’ve been very interested. So this is again from the Mercola article:

“For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. (I’m not going to get into that.) The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein. ¹¹“

Now, I have been asking the question now for months: Where is the paper? Where is the evidence (a) that there actually is mRNA in these injections? They say there is. That’s the whole point. But when people look there either seems to be not there or in variable amounts depending on which injection and which batch.

So it could be that even the whole mRNA in the jab is a actual smokescreen or cover for what’s really in these injections –which is a lot worse stuff like self assembling nanoparticles which we’ve heard about a lot.

And the Baileys, Mark Bailey just did another show on that.

So I was very interested to see that this was… stated as fact, because I can’t find a paper, and my friends can’t find a paper, that confirms that abundant copies of this protein are actually made when you inject this sequence.

And this would be like saying — if I wanted to get investors for my new pencil factory, my investors might ask me to see the pencils that we make. And so it would be natural for me to produce copies of the pencils — maybe tens or hundreds or thousands or millions of them — to show that my technology for making pencils actually works.

One would think that if the whole point of these jabs is to make you make spike proteins that, therefore, “confer immunity”, there would be scores, hundreds, thousands of papers showing here’s the amount of spike proteins in an unjabbed person. And then you jab them and then 10 minutes, half an hour, three hours, two weeks, six months, 12 years later, here’s the amount of spike protein. That would prove that the concept is real and that you can actually genetically alter a human being.

Because I have my doubts. So I’m looking for a reference to show this is true. And, lo and behold, here is the reference. Number 11. [see page 3 of Mercola article] So where is the reference from? CBS News.

Now, I could say — I would say if it was from Fox or MSNBC then I would be skeptical. But the fact it’s from CBS, that must mean it’s true. And obviously I’m kidding. Let’s see the reference.

If the whole point of this is to put RNA into injections, make you make a spike protein which is allegedly from the virus, let’s actually see that it works. And here’s a quote saying there’s at least 73 patents.

My guess is one of them was bound to show up in the imaginary sequence. Bingo! We’ve got proof that it’s there, that it was a genetically engineered virus.

And the whole thing, hopefully you now see, comes crashing down like a house of cards if, as we showed, there was no virus genetically engineered or otherwise in the first place.

[At this point in the video, Tom takes questions from the viewers.]

Question: So this one is related, but it has to do with Dr. Bush‘s reference to 10 to the 30th power of viruses within our blood, as well as in the oceans, in the soil. His purpose is to provide constant flow of updated genomic information that we need to in order to adapt and survive. And they’re not pathogens. That we need not fear, etc., etc.

Answer: So he also has said that, of course, viruses are pathogens. The real issue here is how did they find these 10 to the 30th power viruses? And I’ve gone over this, especially in reference to a paper, and I don’t remember the name, but it’s called the ….something to do with the renaming or the re-evaluating of viral…virome…viral world or something like that.

The reason people say this is because they don’t realize that they’re not talking about actual organisms or particles called viruses. They’re talking about liberated pieces of either RNA or DNA — little snippets of RNA or DNA which then get amplified in what’s called metagenomics sequencing and so there are billions and billions and billions of these breakdown products. None of them have anything to do with a virus. They’re simply little bits of genetic garbage that are coming off of our cells and tissues all the time. They have no particular meaning or function that anybody has been able to prove. They’re just little bits of garbage. And the misconception that they’re somehow actual particles and could possibly hurt you or could possibly help you is just a misunderstanding of how they found viruses in the first place.

They don’t find particles. They don’t purify particles. There haven’t been 10 to the 30th purified particles. We’re talking about little pieces of DNA or RNA that get amplified, called viruses, which is a misconception big time.

[Additional questions include speculation about the patent links to the Fan Wu team “discovery” as well as a question about allergies.]

Articles mentioned in this video presentation:

Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 by Dr. Joseph Mercola [originally published March 7, 2022 at this link — https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/07/moderna-patented-spike-protein.aspx — and was mirrored around the web. It can still be found at Dr. Mercola’s paid archive membership.] Dr. Cowan has provided a pdf file of the article here: https://brandfolder.com/s/fv2q4h7fp84bm5vb3ppn37

Frontiers in Virology paper: MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site

Chinese virologist Fan Wu‘s paper published in Nature: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

Lancet Respiratory magazine article: Role of Exosomes in False-Positive Covid-19 PCR tests: non-specificity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Vivo Detection Explains Artificial Post-Pandemic Peaks

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

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

The Contagion Myth: No Virus Has Ever Caused Disease

The Fraudulent Use of PCR / RT-PCR Techniques for the Manipulation, Harm and, Ultimately, the Destruction of Humanity

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

Jon Rappoport: My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

Exposing the Lie — Hippocratic Hypocrisy: A Tale of Two Snakes [A collaborative film by Spacebusters and Dr. Andrew Kaufman about how authentic medicine was hijacked by the power elite and turned into a deadly, sickness-for-profit industry.]

The Covid “Sceptics” Who Spread Viral Dogma

by Dr. Sam Bailey
March 17, 2022

“The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking something you don’t actually know…One logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely.”
– Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

On 11 March 2022, an article was published on The Daily Sceptic website titled “The Real Truth About Viruses”. It was written by Dr Roger Watson, a PhD-qualified registered nurse, who recently retired from the United Kingdom’s higher education sector and now has a part-time position as Academic Dean of Nursing at Southwest Medical University, China. The article was a blatant hit piece against me, typically the domain of the controlled corporate media, so it was a surprise to see it on a website that developed from Lockdown Sceptics. They have the motto “question everything” but apparently you shouldn’t question germ theory and the existence of viruses!

“Question Everything”….except germ theory and viral existence, that’s pure crazy.

Dr Watson appeared to know very little about my work and never attempted to make contact with me before he did his hit and run. We offered him the chance to come on my channel but he declined saying “I am not sure how fruitful a debate with me would be,” perhaps not feeling confident about backing up his claims or perhaps a little shaken by the derision he received in the comments section on the Sceptics website. Much of his article was ad hominem in nature and doesn’t need to be dignified with a response but I will proceed to address his inaccurate scientific claims point by point…

“I would like to hear Duesberg or Sam Bailey explain how haemophiliacs contracted AIDS from blood infusions. Somehow, I think they’ll have a stock response to that one.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

It is unclear why Watson has conflated my views with Peter Duesberg and his sentence will take some unpacking. His reference to Peter is a link to Wikipedia, a known disinformation site, which should raise a red flag for a sceptic or anyone wanting to know more about a topic. Peter does not claim that viruses don’t exist: he is one of the world’s most prominent retrovirologists after all! His position is that the HIV particle exists but that it is a harmless “passenger” virus that does not cause the clinical condition AIDS. I know he outlined the evidence of why haemophiliacs do not become “infected” through blood product transfusions here but cannot otherwise speak for him. My position is that there is no proof of the existence of a retrovirus called HIV and that the particles nominated “HIV” have never been shown to fulfil the defintion of a virus. Thus “HIV” has not been shown to cause AIDS.

In this regard, the biggest influence on both myself and my Virus Mania co-authors has been the work of The Perth Group. Watson fails to define what he means by “haemophiliacs contracted AIDS from blood” but presumably he means that the reason some haemophiliacs develop AIDS is because there is a pathogenic virus that is being transmitted to them via infected blood. (They actually receive factor VIII concentrate from pooled blood donations.) I am unaware of any research demonstrating HIV particles in blood or any human or animal models showing transmission of “infected” blood that then causes a recipient to develop AIDS. In Virus Mania we explain that “HIV” cannot be the explanation for the development of AIDS in haemophiliacs. Increased death rates did correspond to changes such as the introduction of “anti-viral” pharmaceuticals including the highly toxic AZT in “HIV positive” patients. If Watson wants to get serious about claiming that a virus is being transmitted to haemophiliacs and causing AIDS then he should have an attempt at refuting The Perth Group’s 1995 paper “Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship”. In my estimation it is the best I have come across and I would welcome Watson’s critique of what I’ve missed.

“Her views have been debunked regarding the existence of viruses but, possibly unknown to many who are unwilling to wade into the depths and breadths of her views, she denies germ theory completely.”
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson doesn’t let his readers know how he established I’ve been “debunked” or by who. Instead he provides a link to a small blog post written by a University of Waikato employee and Pfizer BioNTech injection enthusiast Alison Campbell. Campbell set up the blog “as a resource for secondary school biology teachers preparing students for Scholarship Biology examinations” which is probably not the level Watson should be aiming for in this debate. If he checked Campbell’s usual publications he would have realised that she has no experience in virology or medical matters. In fact, when we reached out to her she quickly retreated and would not even agree to a phone call. Watson follows in the footsteps of our state-sponsored mainstream media who also used this largely ad hominem rant as “evidence” against me. I’ve already responded to Campbell and the MSM’s little foray into virology – unfortunately, like Watson, they are limited to repeating the claims of the virologists on face value.

I’m not sure why my views on germ theory would be “unknown” to my viewers as I openly point out that I do not believe it is satisfactory model. Virus Mania is largely dedicated to dismantling germ theory and my views are closest to that of “terrain theory”. I outline why I’m in the terrain camp in much of my work, including in my video “Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory”. For those not familiar with Virus Mania, a window into the book can be found in this short essay I wrote with my co-authors.

“This essay is prompted by the most recent video from Sam Bailey: The Truth About Viruses published on March 9th 2022. She is to be congratulated for its brevity – it is only 17 minutes long – but it is presented in a typically sneering, sarcastic and patronising manner.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson seems to completely miss that this video is a light-hearted and satirical take on some of the historical claims of the virologists. It was designed to engage a wider audience with material that can be a boring subject for many. If he wanted to have a serious discussion about a particular topic then he could have easily accessed my other published work or contacted me to fill in any gaps.

“It is hard to understand how Sam Bailey arrives at her views and it is not necessary to be a virus denier to be highly critical of the way the pandemic was managed.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson has ignored the vast majority of my work and never bothered to converse with me so perhaps it is not surprising that he is confused. I’m not sure why anyone would decide to be a “virus denier” because they needed to criticise “pandemic” management or how this is relevant to his argument. In fact, it’s disingenuous to even suggest such a modus operandi and it slumps into the argument of the destitute.

“After all, anti (Covid) ‘vaxxer’ supreme, Dr. Mike Yeadon made it clear in his excellent interview with Neil Oliver on GB News that he believes a unique virus exists. The HART Group led by Dr. John Lee, who have mounted the most credible and well-informed responses to the UK lockdown, is not stocked with virus deniers.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson has not provided any evidence for the existence of viruses here: his argument seems to be that other people believe in viruses, therefore viruses exist. Some people also believe in the tooth fairy but that would not affect my own investigations into the topic. Appeal to common opinion is a type of faulty reasoning that also plagues the medical community. Heretics like myself are prepared to examine the evidence for ourselves and reach our own conclusions, not parrot those of others. We are not motivated by the number of people who agree with us and our publications are not restricted by governments, institutions, or colleagues. Note to Dr Watson: in all the virology textbooks I’ve looked at, the method of proving the existence of a virus does not include ‘beliefs held by Dr Mike Yeadon’. (For the record: I have no problem with Dr Yeadon, we just have different thoughts on the existence of viruses.)

“It is hard to know where to start but, since she denies germ theory itself – as properly understood – I will start here with Dr Bailey’s views on whether anything exists that can cause an infection and spread between people. Louis Pasteur comes in for criticism by Bailey in her Delingpod interview. I am sure Pasteur was not perfect but he did knock the theory of spontaneous generation a body blow with his swan neck flask experiment.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

I’m unsure what Watson means by “properly understood” germ theory. My investigations into germ theory, which are dealt with in Virus Mania and videos such as “Koch’s Postulates: Germ School Dropout,” have informed me that the theory is fatally flawed. I have looked into Koch’s original work and he did not fulfil his own postulates correctly. His often uncontrolled experiments failed to take into account the traumatic effects of his procedures on animals or consider other factors that were making them ill. With regards to “infection” spreading between people, it seems that clinical experiments have struggled to demonstrated this phenomenon. Perhaps the most spectacular failure has been the inability to ever demonstrate transmission of influenza, as I outlined in this video here and ViroLIEgy’s Mike Stone detailed here. If Watson wants to send me a paper that proves the concept of microbes transmitting between humans to make them ill, then I would be happy to critique it. Pasteur’s work has been exposed as largely fraudulent, but it is unclear why Watson is bringing in his spontaneous generation and swan neck flask experiments and how that relates to anything I’ve published. Perhaps he thought terrain theory was claiming that microbes appear on the basis of spontaneous generation?

“Dr. Bailey has batted the theory of disease back into the 19th Century. Edward Jenner was another scoundrel according to Bailey and, while his experiments would not have passed muster with an NHS ethics committee, you can see where Bailey is going and leading her disciples into the realm of the ‘anti-vaxxers’, a topic which I will not explore here.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson may be shocked to know that I’m not the only one who has questioned the alleged contributions Jenner has made to human health through the practice of vaccination. I would also suggest he reads the book Dissolving Illusions, or at least examine the charts that Dr Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk have put together, if he believes that the smallpox vaccine or any other vaccine has been shown to be of benefit to the public.

: The realm of “anti-vaxxers” and their bloody inconvenient, irrefutable data!

I am up front about my position on vaccines as it is clearly stated on my website FAQs that, “I am not ‘anti-vaccination’ in the sense that I don’t wish to tell other people what to do with their bodies. I’m always happy to consider new evidence, but for me personally, I don’t believe any current vaccine can provide health benefits for myself or my loved ones.” It is unclear to me why Watson thinks I am “leading disciples” into any realm. If he thinks he has sound evidence that vaccines lead to better health outcomes then he is welcome to provide it – our Virus Mania team has sought such data from major institutions such as the Robert Koch Institute for many years and they have been unable to provide it.

“She mentions, in passing, the famous TMV (tobacco mosaic virus) in a ‘that’s all very well’ kind of way. But the fact is that the TMV has been sufficiently purified for its structure to be studied by scanning electron microscopy; and that represents a very high level of both isolation and purity. A plant virus it may be, with no animal equivalent, but it is the case that disproves, in a Popperian way, the argument often repeated by the virus deniers that ‘no virus has ever been purified’. Some have been sufficiently purified for study by X-ray crystallography and that represents an extremely high level of purification.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

It’s not at all convincing in his article that Watson knows the difference between isolation and purification. He refers to a microscopy study which purports to show TMV. We may need to remind Watson that a virus is a tiny replication-competent, intracellular parasite that can infect a host and pass onto other hosts. Apart from images of tiny particles, there is nowhere in the paper he cites that any of these key properties are demonstrated. I have explained in my video “Electron Microscopy and Unidentified “Viral” Objects” the limitations of the technique and why particles that appear amongst dead tissue cannot be classified as “viruses” without further experimental steps. His reference to an x-ray crystallography paper is likewise useless. Plenty of particles can be purified Dr Watson – the issue is that they need to be shown to be viruses. In any case, you’re in for a treat as I currently have a video in production exposing the Tobacco Mosaic “Virus” story going back to Ivanovsky’s unscientific experiments considered by some to be the beginning of virology.

“But the fact is that the existence of any virus is triangulated by an array of increasingly sophisticated laboratory techniques whereby theories may be tested, cultures grown, and infectivity demonstrated. In fact, a great many viruses have been purified, often against the odds.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Triangulation? The process of measuring distances and determining locations. Watson goes next-level cunning with his conflations to make virology look respectable again! If Watson looked at all my publications he would see that I am familiar with the historical techniques, which failed to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses and how they have morphed into modern molecular detection techniques to keep the virus paradigm alive. His citation is “Virus Purification” techniques in the Encyclopedia of Virology (Fourth Edition), 2021 – I have an e-copy of this publication and am familiar with the described methods. However, Watson needs to show his hand and let us know which particles he thinks have been purified and demonstrated to be “viruses” instead of pointing at a textbook.

Dr Watson: stop keeping us in suspense and please publish your list of viruses that were purified “against the odds” with their proofs.

“The virus deniers trot out the Koch’s postulates argument repeatedly, even though Koch’s postulates were simply one way – long before the advent of amino acid and nucleotide sequencing methods – of demonstrating the presence of a bacterium. Koch’s postulates were never intended to be applied to viruses – the existence of which were not known when Koch postulated.”
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson appears completely confused about Koch’s Postulates which relate to establishing a causative relationship between a microbe and a particular disease, and conflates it with “demonstrating the presence of a bacterium”. The postulates were designed to be applied to all microbes, but as I have stated, my investigations indicate that Koch’s Postulates have never been fulfilled and there is no sound basis to germ theory: bacteria, fungi and postulated “viruses” are not the causal agents of disease. And it doesn’t matter what nucleotide sequences or proteins you discover Dr Watson, you still need to establish where they come from – are you sure the virologists establish this or even do “sequencing”? (See below).

“The original SARS, which almost certainly jumped species, is very unusual for that very reason and, for example, bird flu does not infect humans. The jury remains out on whether SARS-CoV-2, which possibly jumped species, did so spontaneously or after a ‘gain of function’ nudge.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Interestingly for a “sceptic”, Watson espouses most of the virology industry’s stories about viruses jumping species. Can he point to the investigations he performed to conclude something that hasn’t been shown to exist “almost certainly jumped species”? We deal with these highly speculative and sometimes baseless claims in Virus Mania and I covered the original “SARS” (and “species jumping”) in another of my videos banned by Big Tech but still available here. There is a fatal flaw regarding gain of function research with “viruses” when the pathogens themselves have not been shown to exist, as I have pointed out in more videos banned by Big Tech but still available here and here. Dr Stefan Lanka has also outlined the fallacies of “bio-weapons,” including fabricated “viruses” and how they have been used to drive fear into the public for many decades.

“I have corresponded with Siouxsie Wiles, a major debunker of the Koch’s postulates argument, at Auckland University in New Zealand over this point and over the point regarding ‘purification’ of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson makes an appeal to “authority” here, which was the same mistake made by Steve Kirsch when he clumsily waded into the issue of the existence of “SARS-CoV-2” in January 2022. My husband Dr Mark Bailey has previously outlined why Kirsch shouldn’t rely on such “experts”. Like Watson, Kirsch started off all guns blazing against the “virus deniers”. Like Watson, Kirsch rapidly retreated when the Baileys, Dr Tom Cowan, Dr Andy Kaufman, and Dr Stefan Lanka all offered to participate in a live debate with his chosen “experts”. It is odd that our “sceptic” Watson corresponds with Wiles as she is heavily promoted by the NZ government and advised our country that “the world is on fire” and we should “all behave as they [the government] are asking us to behave” in March 2020.

“If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.“
William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas

She is notorious for avoiding open scientific discussions and even has a lengthy automated email reply excusing herself from such pursuits. Incidentally, in February 2022, a state-sponsored media platform was found guilty of publishing one of her false claims. Watson has referred to an article by Wiles which is a case of the blind leading the naked. In the article she provides no explanation as to how disease causation is satisfied with viruses when it is conveniently claims there are no suitable clinical experiments available. She tries to distract the reader with Falkow’s molecular postulates, and fails to inform her readers that River’s postulates were designed specifically for viruses but have not even been close to being fulfilled for SARS-CoV-2 – the first problem being that no one can show it exists. There is certainly nowhere in her article that demonstrates she can prove the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus, only excuses as to why direct proofs are lacking. I have previously addressed her false claims surrounding the application of the PCR in another video banned by Big Tech after several hundred thousand views, but still available here. New Zealanders have endured two years of state-sponsored nonsense from Wiles, who is paraded by the MSM as a go to “expert”. I’m willing to bet that a live debate with Watson & Wiles on one side and the Baileys on the other would be very revealing.

“It transpires that the purification of the novel coronavirus argument is a straw dog created by the viral deniers. In fact, nobody has claimed that it has been purified. However, it has been ‘isolated’, which is a different concept whereby studies are carried out to check it is there.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

If Watson hasn’t already indicated that he is bringing his pocketknife into a gunfight, then this is where his pocketknife falls to the floor. I suspect he didn’t know that I have already analysed Vincent Racaniello’s presentation he refers to in this video (banned by Big Tech of course). It is not clear that he even listened to Racaniello’s words: if the virologists don’t have a specific defintion of “isolation” what does Watson think it means? Can he see a problem when Racaniello says “an isolate is a virus that we have isolated…” or has he been swept up in their circular reasoning? The problem of what “isolation” means is the pivotal issue with regards to proving the existence of viruses and the virologists have a habit of playing fast and loose. As stated by The Perth Group in 2017: “The fact is that in virology, while purification retains its everyday meaning, “isolation” is an expediential term virologists assign to data they claim are proof a particular virus exists.” Watson instead chooses to cheerlead the virologists denigration of the English language: if their use of the word ‘isolation’ isn’t what everyone thinks it is, then it’s useless as a method of providing proof that a particle is a virus.

Watson, however, gives the thumbs up to ‘isolate = particles + every other bit of junk in a specimen’, perhaps oblivious to the deception of the virologists.

“According to Siouxsie Wiles, the virus has been found in hundreds of disparate samples and subsequently sequenced. The viral deniers point to the way the sequence was merely pieced together in the early stages, thus proposing a hoax. But this is how viruses are sequenced.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

How on earth this made it past the Daily Sceptic editors is a mystery to me. For his source of “truth” Watson has cited “fact-checking” organisations that are supported by Big Tech, and have financial conflicts of interest with Big Pharma. If it is not apparent at this stage of the “pandemic” that these organisations have been consistently misleading the public since day one then it is difficult to believe that he really is a “sceptic”. The fraudulent invention of the “SARS-CoV-2 genome” by Fan Wu’s lab has been exposed by Stefan Lanka’s team and it was even worse than the usual imaginary “viral genome” assembly circus. The ViroLIEgy website has one of the best collections on the many assumptions and biases involved in “genome” creation, from the collection of the crude specimen through to the hypothetical model constructed by computer software. And with regards to “viruses”, we do not call it a “hoax”, we call it fraud. “Viruses” are not really “sequenced” as you might think Dr Watson (see below).

“In any case, as explained to me by Siouxsie Wiles, it is not necessary to purify the coronavirus and as Dr. Ros Jones says in her Unity News Network interview with David Clews, this is not how it is done; the virus is cultured. This is about as close to Koch’s postulates as you could get: grow the purported virus in a cellular culture and identify it by sequencing. Introduce what you have to some other cultured cells alongside a control culture. If the one with the purported virus shows subsequent evidence for the presence of the virus and the other does not, that is about as watertight an experiment as I can think of.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson has a great deal of faith in Wiles and her reassurances that purification is “not necessary” and again seems to be confused about what Koch’s Postulates is all about. He describes cell culture experiments and what he believes is “identification” of a virus. How does he know there would be a new virus in there? Apparently, by “sequencing” (I’m not sure he understands what they are actually doing – see next point.) And what does he mean by a “control culture”? Official Information Act requests have exposed that the virologists do not do valid control experiments and this has been a problem ever since Enders and Peebles started the “virus” culture technique in the 1950s. Lack of valid controls = unscientific. I can only suggest to Watson that he digs a little deeper and examines the methodology of the papers rather than simply browse their headlines.

“Bailey and co. try to debunk all the methods that are used in virology and to deny the whole field of laboratory science. The only possible retort can be that no method is perfect, and experiments often fail to show what is being hypothesised. That is an argument for rather than against science, which constantly tries to improve its methods. I recall a whole room being dedicated to a huge amino acid sequencer when I was a PhD student. Now, amino acid sequencing can be done on a microchip.”
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

This is so full of non sequiturs that perhaps the best advice to Watson is that he needs an editor to help him communicate what he is trying to say to his readers. He should be able to clearly see my pro-science position in the video “Science vs Dogma”. My publications analysing virology have clearly pointed out that much of it involves uncontrolled experiments and thus cannot be claimed to be scientific. He refers to Karl Popper earlier in his article but fails to see that Popper would be horrified by the reasoning used by many virologists. How is an in silico “viral genome” that is created de novo from an unpurified specimen, that has been templated to another “viral genome” which was invented in the same way, falsifiable? How is a PCR result that “diagnoses” a disease on the basis that a positive result means you have the disease, falsifiable? I also suspect he is confusing complete in silico assembly of hypothetical “viral genomes” with actual physical sequencing, such as via the Sanger method, which he may have seen when he was a student. Computer games are indeed very seductive, particularly for kids but sometimes for adults too.

“I have had Covid, despite the remarkable claims by my virus denying friends to the contrary. How do I know I had it: it hit me like an express train; I felt terrible for two days and slept for 29 of 48 hours, rather like the flu. My taste was not lost but my sense of smell became incredibly deranged, not something that I had experienced after many bouts of flu in my 66 years.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

Watson appears to include this story about his bout of illness as evidence that viruses must exist. Despite it being another non sequitur, what is his definition of “COVID”? Virus Mania co-author Dr Claus Köhnlein pointed out in 2020 that it was nothing more than an imaginary clinical condition based on a new PCR “test” with no demonstrated clinical diagnostic capability. His interview in German reached over 1 million viewers before it was quickly shut down and his interview in English with me on Youtube had 125,000 views when it was shut down. It is still available here. I produced another popular video in 2020, “What Is A Covid-19 Case?” which outlines why “COVID” is a meaningless construct – which was also banned by Big Tech. In Dr Watson’s view how do we define a case: does a person dying in intensive care and an elite athlete running a marathon both have “COVID-19”? According to the WHO they should both be counted as equal “confirmed” cases if a PCR result is positive.

“When I felt worst, I reluctantly took a lateral flow test (LFT). This showed up positive almost instantly and with a thick test line. As I felt better the test – which as it uses antibodies is highly specific but not very sensitive – took longer to show and the line became fainter. Of course, the virus deniers have this one covered under the rubric that immunology is also bogus, antibodies are not at all specific and will pick up anything. My ‘gotcha’ to this is: if I run a pregnancy test which uses antibodies to detect human chorionic gonadotropin, will it show me I am pregnant?“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

It is unclear if Watson is claiming that his lateral flow test proves the existence of viruses or “COVID” or both. What does he think the test is for? Something unique to the postulated “CoV” particle or a specific bodily process? Oh dear, we are back at square one! I have dealt with “COVID” LFTs previously and they are as equally unsuitable as the PCR with regards to clinical diagnostics and proving virus existence. With the rest of his claims, I’m not aware of who said antibodies pick up “anything” and it certainly wasn’t me. The issue surrounds assigning meaning to various proteins that can be detected through in vitro chemical reactions compared to what this informs us about health in real life. This topic has been outlined in Virus Mania and I also cover it in some of my other videos. His “gotcha” with regards to human chorionic gonadotropin has nothing to do with postulated viruses and related “immunology”. β-hCG is a specific glycoprotein of known composition and provenance that has been clinically validated for diagnosing pregnancy and can be easily compared to a “gold standard”: a foetal ultrasound scan (or the actual baby). As per many of Watson’s attempts, it’s another own goal. I can also suggest to him that if he has a positive result on a pregnancy test, as a man he’s unlikely to be pregnant and should be checked for cancer.

“The virus deniers who tend to promote their views on increasingly bizarre websites and within such a deafening echo chamber that they are completely unable to hear, yet alone contemplate, alternative views. They certainly don’t listen.“
Dr Roger Watson, The Daily Sceptic

What are these “bizarre” websites that he is referring to and what’s wrong with bizarre anyway? The orthodoxy doesn’t like being challenged Dr Watson. If they played like real scientists they’d welcome views that challenge their comfy status quo and we could all go on the same URLs. It may disturb Watson but the appetite for the content we produce seems very healthy. Our audience size is mostly restricted by Big Tech censorship and I’m sure he doesn’t agree with such interference with free speech. However, despite my Youtube channel being heavily suppressed, with millions of views being removed and people informing me that my videos and articles can’t be shared on platforms such as Facebook, the audience still grows every week. Mike Stone recently put together a list of websites that challenge the virus paradigm – I am in regular contact with many of these doctors, scientists and journalists and none have indicated that lack of demand is a problem. Last year, Mark and Dr John Bevan-Smith published their essay “The COVID-19 Fraud & War on Humanity”. Not only do they explain that there is no pathogen termed “SARS-CoV-2” but also why everyone should be sceptical about everything the virologists have ever claimed. They were tracking the viewership across various internet platforms for a few months before they gave up. By that stage it had reached about 250,000 people – I would say that’s a few hundred times more than most virologists are reaching with their papers. Watson’s “deafening echo chamber” may turn out to be his own case of tinnitus…

Postscript

Perhaps Dr Watson’s annoyance stems from the fact that because people get sick and die, he thinks it is unsporting to question the methods of the hard-working virologists? They are the white knights, so if we go against them – it means we must be on the wrong side. I don’t have all the answers as to why people get sick but the extensive research I’ve done informs me that pathogenic “viruses” do not seem to exist and are not the cause of disease. The tree of virology has borne no fruit for humanity unless that fruit is a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry that targets enemies that have not been shown to exist. In the last two years, virology and germ theory have brought the planet to its knees, manifesting in anti-humanity measures such as face masks, stripping of civil rights, and mandated “vaccines”. For some of us, germ theory refuted itself at its inception and we see it for what it is: a tragic misunderstanding of nature, now used as propaganda in a perpetual phoney war, like something out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Dr Watson can call us whatever names he likes – we see the universe in a different light and it is a light we choose to walk in. Perhaps he’ll take a stroll with us some day?

“There are three steps in the revelation of any truth: in the first, it is ridiculed; in the second, it is resisted; in the third, it is considered self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

cover image based on creative commons work of Mysticsartdesign

CDC/FDA Smoking Gun of Smoking Guns

They confess: they had no virus when they concocted the test for the virus; they “contrived” a model by pretending to find what they wanted to find; it’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy

This is the con and the crime that drove millions of lives, and economies, into ruin

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
March 9, 2022

Quiz: If an agency of the federal government revealed they had no basis for constructing a diagnostic test that was used on millions of people; but the test was the cornerstone of a national lockdown; and the lockdown drove the economy off a cliff; and destroyed millions of lives; however, NOW, that agency says, they DO have a basis for the test; would you buy what they’re selling?

If your answer is yes, you’re in good company; the company I call Blind, Ignorant, Denialist, Hoaxing Journalists.

The CDC issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions.

The release is titled, “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.” It begins explosively:

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

Many people believe this means the CDC is giving up on the PCR test as a means of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying that at all.

They’re saying the PCR technology will continue to be used, but they’re replacing what the test is looking FOR with a better “reference sample.” A better marker. A better target. A better piece of RNA supposedly derived from SARS-CoV-2.

CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to this minute.

In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out.

To confirm this, the CDC document links to an FDA release titled, “SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data.” Here is a killer quote:

“During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Yes, it’s unbelievable, right? And that’s the test we’ve been using all along. So we CONTRIVED samples of the virus. We fabricated. We lied. We made up (invented) synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2.

This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And, “…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give unreliable results. THE PCR TESTS USED CONTRIVED SPECIMENS OF THE VIRUS WE DIDN’T HAVE.

BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients; they have better targets for the PCR test, and labs should start gearing up for the new and improved tests.

In other words, they were lying THEN, but they’re not lying NOW. They were “contriving,” but now they’re telling the truth.

If you believe that, I have Fountain of Youth water for sale, extracted from the lead-contaminated system of Flint, Michigan.

Here, once again, I report virology’s version of “we isolated the virus”:

They have a soup they make in their labs.

This soup contains human and monkey cells, toxic chemicals and drugs, and all sorts of other random genetic material. Because the cells start to die, the researchers ASSUME a bit of mucus from a patient they dropped in the soup is doing the killing, and THE VIRUS must be the killer agent in the mucus.

This assumption is entirely unwarranted. The drugs and chemicals could be doing the cell-killing, and the researchers are also starving the cells of vital nutrients, and that starvation could kill the cells.

There is no proof that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup, or that it is doing the cell-killing, or that it exists.

Yet the researchers call cell-death “isolation of the virus.”

To say this is a non-sequitur is a vast understatement. In their universe, “We assume, without proof, we have the virus buried in a soup in a dish in the lab” equals, “We’ve separated the virus from all surrounding material.”

Virology equals “how to spread bullshit for a living and scare the world.” Other than that, it’s perfect.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: D1_TheOne / pixabay

Does HIV Exist? An Explosive Interview

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 18, 2022

Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.

My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.

In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.

For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes.

Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.

I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.

AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive symptoms and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”

Several years after the publication of AIDS INC, I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?

Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?

And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?

The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:

How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?

These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them.

Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”

Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.

Christine Johnson: Does HIV cause AIDS?

Eleni Papadopulos: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

CJ: Why not?

EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.

… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?

EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]

CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.

EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?

EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.

… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.

EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.

The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.

That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.

CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?

EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.

CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?

EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.

CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.

EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.

CJ: And what was that method?

EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.

CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?

EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.

CJ: But what about their pictures?

EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…

—end of interview excerpt—

If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.

Worse yet, it appears that Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, the two scientists credited with the discovery of HIV—as well as other elite researchers—were aware they weren’t employing correct methods.

And so…as I’ve reported, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, SARS-CoV-2, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done. And by large-scale, I mean: attempting to find and photograph the virus in a cohort of, say, 1000 people who are supposed to be “pandemic patients.” I’m NOT talking about one or two electron-microscope photos accompanying a study.

But even that isn’t the end of the story. There is one further potential limiting factor in virus research. I became aware of it about a year ago. Analysis of electron microscope findings is fraught with difficulty and doubt. Are scientists actually looking at what they think they’re looking at in these photos? I refer readers to the work of neurobiologist Harold Hillman, who concluded that researchers were, for the most part, looking at artifacts, not actual cells or entities within cells. Another suppressed controversy.

After more than 30 years of investigating medical research fraud, my general conclusion is, the deeper you go the stranger it gets. Or to put it another way, the worse it gets.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: madartzgraphics / pixabay

Montagnier’s Monster

In order to determine whether a “virus” actually exists, the particles must be purified (freed from contaminants, pollutants, and foreign elements) so that they can be isolated (separated from everything else). Only once this occurs can the particles assumed to be “virus” then be proven pathogenic through experimentation. Only purified particles can be used to visualize as well as biochemically and molecularly characterize the “virus” in order to determine specific proteins, antibodies, genomic sequence, electron microscopy imaging, etc. Without purification, one can not determine that the “virus” exists at all and the non-specific laboratory results obtained from unpurified material are absolutely meaningless.

###

Montagnier’s Monster

by Mike Stone, ViroLIEgy
February 13, 2022

“HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS.”
~ Luc Montagnier, VI Int’l AIDS Conference, Jun 24 1990

If you have been following the news recently, you may have heard that there is currently a new “highly virulent strain” of HIV running around the Netherlands (I think there is a pun in there somewhere). You may also have heard that there is a brand new experimental HIV mRNA vaccine that has shown promise in animals. If you have really been paying attention, you may have even heard of French virologist Luc Montagnier, the man credited with the discovery of HIV, and his various critical statements against the dangerous use of mRNA vaccines for “Covid-19.” If so, you are also most likely aware that during this increased attention geared towards HIV and mRNA vaccines, Luc Montagnier died very recently on February 8th, 2022. While he lived to be the ripe old age of 89, many are suspicious of the timing of his death in light of the current HIV resurgence.

While I do find the timing of all of these events interesting, that is not what this article is about. I have always planned to dive into Montagnier’s original HIV paper but I have held off as the HIV/AIDS scam has been exposed brilliantly by many others before me. However, I have always felt that the HIV fraud is the perfect gateway into understanding the “Covid-19” fraud as the numerous parallels to what is going on today are uncanny. We can see the same misuse of PCR and antibody testing, the same rebranding and reuse of toxic pharmaceuticals, the same collection of various symptoms under one giant umbrella disease, the same propaganda spreading fear of the infected, and the same Anthony Fauci spearheading the whole thing. Even though it is not my intention to touch on all of these aspects in one article, the best place to start unravelling this tangled web of deceit begins with the man who was credited with unleashing the HIV monster upon the world, Luc Montagnier.

In 1983, Montagnier was sent a lymph node sample from a 33-year-old (note the age) male determined to have the symptoms of AIDS. From this sample, Montagnier and his team uncovered what they claimed was a new “retrovirus,” originally known as L.A.V., for lymphadenopathy associated “virus.” After several indirect experiments, the team concluded that further studies were needed in order to determine whether or not the new “virus” had any role in the etiology of AIDS. After this initial discovery of the potential “viral” cause of AIDS, there was a bit of drama in 1984 when American virologist Robert Gallo claimed to have uncovered the cause of AIDS himself with the discovery of HTLV-3. Long story short, it was later determined that Gallo had used/borrowed/stolen a sample from the same patient as Montagnier and uncovered the same “virus.” The “virus” was eventually renamed HIV in 1986 and in 2008, Luc Montagnier was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery while Robert Gallo pouted off in a dark corner somewhere.

One of the nicest aspects of writing about Montagnier’s original HIV paper now in 2022 is that in retrospect, Montagnier himself tore apart his own evidence for the existence of his “retrovirus” in the decades following the publishing of his 1983 paper. A perfect example of this is found in a 1997 interview Montagnier did with scientific journalist Djamel Tahi. I have provided highlights from this interview below yet I definitely recommend reading the whole discussion sometime. While reading, note the assumptions made by Montagnier about his “virus,” the various contradictions in his statements, and the revelations about the relation (or lack thereof) of HIV to AIDS. This interview provides an in-depth look into the illogical mindframe of a virologist stuck in unproven theories and pseudoscientific dogma:

Interview with Professor Luc Montagnier by Djamel TAHI – (Pasteur Institut, July 1997)

Djamel TAHI: A group of scientists from Australia argues that nobody up till now has isolated the AIDS virus, HIV. For them the rules of retrovirus isolation have not been carefully respected for HIV. These rules are: culture, purification of the material by ultracentrifugation, Electron Microscopic (EM) photographs of the material which bands at the retrovirus density, characterisation of these particles, proof of the infectivity of the particles.

Luc Montagnier: No, that is not isolation. We did isolation because we “passed on” the virus, we made a culture of the virus. For example Gallo said: “They have not isolated the virus…and we (Gallo et al.), we have made it emerge in abundance in an immortal cell line.” But before making it emerge in immortal cell lines, we made it emerge in cultures of normal Iymphocytes from a blood donor. That is the principle criterion. One had something one could pass on serially, that one could maintain. And characterised as a retrovirus not only by its visual properties, but also biochemistry, RT [reverse transcriptase] activity which is truly specific of retroviruses. We also had the reactions of antibodies against some proteins, probably the internal proteins. I say probably by analogy with knowledge of other retroviruses. One could not have isolated this retrovirus without knowledge of other retroviruses, that’s obvious. But I believe we have answered the criteria of isolation. Totally.

Djamel TAHI: according to several published references cited by the Australian group, RT is not specific to retroviruses and moreover your work to detect RT was not done in the purified material?

Luc Montagnier: I believe we published in Science (May 1983) a gradient which showed that the RT had exactly the density of 1.16. So one had a ‘peak’ which was RT. So one has fulfilled this criterion for purification. But to pass it on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, retroviruses are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity. But I think even so we were able to keep a little of their infectivity. But it was not as easy as one does it today, because the quantities of virus were nonetheless very feeble. At the beginning we stumbled on a virus which did not kill cells. The virus came from an asymptomatic patient and so was classified amongst the non-syncithia-forming, non-cytopathogenic viruses using the co-receptor ccr5 . It was the first BRU virus. One had very little of it, and one could not pass it on in an immortal cell line. We tried for some months, we didn’t succeed. We succeeded very easily with the second strain. But there lies the quite mysterious problem of the contamination of that second strain by the first. That was LAI.

Djamel TAHI: Why do the EM photographs published by you, come from the culture and not from the purification?

Luc Montagnier: There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus in the gradient. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsies. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort! It’s easy to criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of aids.

Djamel TAHI: How is it possible without EM pictures from the purification, to know whether or not these particles are viral and appertain to a retrovirus, moreover a specific retrovirus?

Luc Montagnier: Well, there were the pictures of the budding. We published images of budding which are characteristic of retroviruses. Having said that, on the morphology alone one could not say it was truly a retrovirus. For example, a French specialist of EMs of retroviruses publicly attacked me saying: “This is not a retrovirus, it is an arenavirus”. Because there are other families of virus which bud and have spikes on the surface, etc.

Djamel TAHI: Why this confusion? The EM pictures did not show clearly a retrovirus?

Luc Montagnier: At this period the best known retroviruses were those of type C, which were very typical. This retrovirus wasn’t a type C and lentiviruses were little known. I myself recognised it by looking at pictures of Equine infectious anaemia virus at the library, and later of the visna virus. But I repeat, it was not only the morphology and the budding, there was RT…it was the assemblage of these properties which made me say it was a retrovirus.

Djamel TAHI: About the RT, it is detected in the culture. Then there is purification where one finds retroviral particles. But at this density there are a lot of others elements, among others those which one calls “virus-like”.

Luc Montagnier: Exactly, exactly. If you like, it is not one property but the assemblage of the properties which made us say it was a retrovirus of the family of lentiviruses. Taken in isolation, each of the properties isn’t truly specific. It is the assemblage of them. So we had: the density, RT, pictures of budding and the analogy with the visna virus. Those are the four characteristics.

Djamel TAHI: But how do all these elements allow proof that it is a new retrovirus? Some of these elements could appertain to other things, “virus-like”…?

Luc Montagnier: Yes, and what’s more we have endogenous retroviruses which sometimes express particles – but of endogenous origin, and which therefore don’t have pathological roles, in any case not in aids.

Djamel TAHI: But then how can one make out the difference?

Luc Montagnier: Because we could “pass on” the virus. We passed on the RT activity in new Iymphocytes. We got a “peak” of replication. We kept track of the virus. It is the assembly of properties which made us say it was a retrovirus. And why new? The first question put to us by Nature was: “Is it not a laboratory contamination? Is it perhaps a mouse retrovirus or an animal retrovirus?”. To that one could say no! Because we had shown that the patient had antibodies against a protein of his own virus. The assemblage has a perfect logic! But it is important to take it as an assemblage. If you take each property separately, they are not specific. It is the assemblage which gives the specificity.

Djamel TAHI: With what did you culture the lymphocytes of your patient? With the H9 cell line?

Luc Montagnier: No, because it didn’t work at all with the H9. We used a lot of cell lines and the only one which could produce it was the Tampon (!?) Iymphocytes.

Djamel TAHI: When one looks at the published electron microscope photographs, for you as a retrovirologist it is clear it’s a retrovirus, a new retrovirus?

Luc Montagnier: No, at that point one cannot say. With the first budding pictures it could be a type C virus. One cannot distinguish.

Djamel TAHI: Could it be anything else than a retrovirus?

Luc Montagnier: No…well, after all, yes…it could be another budding virus. But we have an atlas. One knows a little bit from familiarity, what is a retrovirus and what is not. With the morphology one can distinguish but it takes a certain familiarity.

Djamel TAHI: Why no purification?

Luc Montagnier: I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn’t take the “peak”…or it didn’t work…because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on.

Djamel TAHI: But there comes a point when one must do the characterisation of the virus. This means: what are the proteins of which it’s composed?

Luc Montagnier: That’s it. So then, analysis of the proteins of the virus demands mass production and purification. It is necessary to do that. And there I should say that that partially failed. J.C. Chermann was in charge of that, at least for the internal proteins. And he had difficulties producing the virus and it didn’t work. But this was one possible way, the other way was to have the nucleic acid, cloning, etc. It’s this way which worked very quickly. The other way didn’t work because we had at that time a system of production which wasn’t robust enough. One had not enough particles produced to purify and characterise the viral proteins. It couldn’t be done. One couldn’t produce a lot of virus at that time because this virus didn’t emerge in the immortal cell line. We could do it with the LAI virus, but at that time we did not know that.

Djamel TAHI: Gallo did it?

Luc Montagnier: Gallo?…I don’t know if he really purified. I don’t believe so. I believe he launched very quickly into the molecular part, that’s to say cloning. What he did do is the Western Blot. We used the RIPA technique, so what they did that was new was they showed some proteins which one had not seen well with the other technique. Here is another aspect of characterising the virus. You cannot purify it but if you know somebody who has antibodies against the proteins of the virus, you can purify the antibody/antigen complex. That’s what one did. And thus one had a visible band, radioactively labelled, which one called protein 25, p25. And Gallo saw others. There was the p25 which he calledp24, there was p41 which we saw…

Djamel TAHI: About the antibodies, numerous studies have shown that these antibodies react with other proteins or elements which are not part of HIV. And that they can not be sufficient to characterise the proteins of HIV.

Luc Montagnier: No! Because we had controls. We had people who didn’t have AIDS and had no antibodies against these proteins. And the techniques we used were techniques I had refined myself some years previously, to detect the src gene. You see the src gene was detected by immunoprecipitation too. It was the p60 [protein 60]. I was very dexterous, and my technician also, with the RIPA technique. If one gets a specific reaction, it’s specific.

Djamel TAHI: But we know AIDS patients are infected with a multitude of other infectious agents which are susceptible to induce crossreactions.

Luc Montagnier: Yes, but antibodies are very specific. They know how to distinguish one molecule in one million. There is a very great affinity. When antibodies have sufficient affinity, you fish out something really very specific. With monoclonal antibodies you fish out really ONE protein. All of that is used for diagnostic antigen detection.

Djamel TAHI: For you the p41 was not of viral origin and so didn’t belong to HIV. For Gallo it was the most specific protein of the HIV. Why this contradiction?

Luc Montagnier: We were both reasonably right. That’s to say that I in my RIPA technique…in effect there are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere – there’s a non-specific “background noise”, and amongst these proteins one is very abundant in cells, which is actin. And this protein has a molecular weight 43000kd. So, it was there. So I was reasonably right, but what Gallo saw on the other hand was the gp41 of HIV, because he was using the Western Blot. And that I have recognised.

Djamel TAHI: For you p24 was the most specific protein of HIV, for Gallo not at all. One recognises thanks to other studies that antibodies directed against p24 were often found in patients who were not infected with HIV, and even certain animals. In fact today, an antibody reaction with p24 is considered non specific.

Luc Montagnier: It is not sufficient for diagnosing HIV infection.

Djamel TAHI: No protein is sufficient.

Luc Montagnier: No protein is sufficient anyway. But at the time the problem didn’t reveal itself like that. The problem was to know whether it was an HTLV or not. The only human retrovirus known was HTLV. And we showed clearly that it was not an HTLV, that Gallo’s monoclonal antibodies against the p24 of HTLV did no recognise the p25 of HIV.

Djamel TAHI: At the density of retroviruses, 1.16, there are a lot of particles, but only 20% of them appertain to HIV. Why are 80% of the proteins not viral and the others are? How can one make out the difference?

Luc Montagnier: There are two explanations. For the one part, at this density you have what one calls microvesicles of cellular origin, which have approximately the same size as the virus, and then the virus itself, in budding, brings cellular proteins. So effectively these proteins are not viral, they are cellular in origin. So, how to make out the difference?! Frankly with this technique one can’t do it precisely. What we can do is to purify the virus to the maximum with successive gradients, and you always stumble on the same proteins.

Djamel TAHI: The others disappear?

Luc Montagnier: Let’s say the others reduce a little bit. You take off the microvesicles, but each time you lose a lot of virus, so it’s necessary to have a lot of virus to start off in order to keep a little bit when you arrive at the end. And then again it’s the molecular analysis, it’s the sequence of these proteins which is going allow one to say whether they are of viral origin or not. That’s what we began for p25, that failed…and the other technique is to do the cloning, and so then you have the DNA and from the DNA you get the proteins. You deduce the sequence of the proteins and their size and, you stumble again on what you’ve already observed with immunoprecipitation or with gel electrophoresis. And one knows by analogy with the sizes of the proteins of other retroviruses, one can deduce quite closely these proteins. So you have the p25 which was close to the p24 of HTLV, you have the p18.. in the end you have the others. On the other hand the one which was very different was the very large protein, p120.

https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/re-fact-incredible-it-may-sound-he-acknowledged-nothing-relevance-your-end

Luc Montagnier’s 1997 interview is a highlight reel of revelations. We can see clearly, as Montagnier repeated on more than one occasion, that he himself (and Robert Gallo according to his knowledge) did not purify any “virus.” Why is this important? In order to determine whether a “virus” actually exists, the particles must be purified (freed from contaminants, pollutants, and foreign elements) so that they can be isolated (separated from everything else). Only once this occurs can the particles assumed to be “virus” then be proven pathogenic through experimentation. Only purified particles can be used to visualize as well as biochemically and molecularly characterize the “virus” in order to determine specific proteins, antibodies, genomic sequence, electron microscopy imaging, etc. Without purification, one can not determine that the “virus” exists at all and the non-specific laboratory results obtained from unpurified material are absolutely meaningless.

As most virologists do, Montagnier claimed that even though he did not purify the “virus” and therefore did not have direct evidence for its existence, he had plenty of non-specific indirect evidence that when added together, became “specific” to the “virus.” It was the accumulation of indirect evidence that proved his “virus” existed. In essence, he had a circumstantial case based upon evidence that was not drawn from direct observation. This would be considered a weak case in a court of law.

Looking at his circumstantial case, Montagnier admitted that without purification, images of particles taken from electron microscopy could not be definitively claimed to be “retroviruses” or “viruses” of any kind based on morphological appearance alone. He stated that it was necessary to have knowledge of other “retroviruses” first in order to discover a new one. He himself referred to an atlas of images of other “retroviruses” in order to claim that his unpurified particles were also “retroviruses.”

However, what Montagnier did not admit is that this atlas of “retroviruses” was also made up of images of unpurified particles. Therefore, none of the particles imaged in his atlas could be considered “retrovirus” particles until evidence of purified/isolated “retroviruses” are released. Purification would have had to have occurred with the very first “retrovirus” ever discovered and imaged in order for this method of identification to be valid. Montagnier admitted that while purification is a necessary step, it is impossible as the more you purify the sample, the more damage occurs to the particles and the less “virus” you have at the end. Since he stated that they did not purify the culture used to obtain the EM images of “HIV,” there is no proof that the random particles claimed to be HIV are in fact a “virus” at all.

Montagnier also tried to claim that antibodies/antigens, such as the p24 protein, are specific to HIV and that they can be used as part of the evidence for the existence of his “virus.” However, as Djamel expertly pointed out, these proteins are not specific to HIV as there are over 60 conditions (such as pregnancy, tuberculosis, the flu vaccine, etc.) with related proteins that can trigger positive HIV tests. Montagnier ended up admitting that no protein is sufficient for diagnosing HIV thus nullifying any claims he made about the specificity of antibodies/antigens and their value in being used as indirect evidence for the existence of an unseen “virus.”

The biggest revelation by Montagnier in this 1997 interview is his belief that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. While he believed he had discovered a new “retrovirus” based on an accumulation of weak indirect evidence, according to his statement it was not pathogenic. If we take his indirect evidence and break it down, Motagnier did not have purified “virus” particles which means his EM images are useless, his antibody tests are meaningless, and the genomic sequence is worthless. Without purified particles, he had no proof of pathogeniticity as he had no valid independent variable in order to establish cause and effect. It is amazing that Montagnier believed he had a “virus” at all as in every meaningful way possible, he did not have evidence of one.

All of that being said, for those still interested in reading Montagnier’s original 1983 paper containing no evidence of any “virus” whatsoever, here is the paper in its entirety:

Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic Retrovirus from a Patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

Abstract. A retrovirus belonging to the family of recently discovered human T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV), but clearly distinct from each previous isolate, has been isolated from a Caucasian patient with signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This virus is a typical type-C RNA tumor virus, buds from the cell membrane, prefers magnesium for reverse transcriptase activity, and has an internal antigen (p25) similar to HTLVp24. Antibodies from serum of this patient react with proteins from viruses of the HTLV-I subgroup, but type-specific antisera to HTLV-I do not precipitate proteins of the new isolate. The virus from this patient has been transmitted into cord blood lymphocytes, and the virus produced by these cells is similar to the original isolate.

From these studies it is concluded that this virus as well as the previous HTLV isolates belong to a general family of T-lymphotropic retroviruses that are horizontally transmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS.The acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has recently been recognized in several countries (1). The disease has been reported mainly in homosexual males with multiple partners, and epidemiological studies suggest horizontal transmission by sexual routes (2) as well as by intravenous drug administration (3), and blood transfusion (4).

The pronounced depression of cellular immunity that occurs in patients with AIDS and the quantitative modifications of subpopulations of their T lymphocytes (5) suggest that T cells or a subset of T cells might be a preferential target for the putative infectious agent. Alternatively, these modifications may result from subsequent infections. The depressed cellular immunity may result in serious opportunistic infections in AIDS patients, many of whom develop Kaposi’s sarcoma (1). However, a picture of persistent multiple lymphadenopathies has also been described in homosexual males (6) and infants (7) who may or may not develop AIDS (8).

The histological aspect of such lymph nodes is that of reactive hyperplasia. Such cases may correspond to an early or a milder form of the disease. We report here the isolation of a novel retrovirus from a lymph node of a homosexual patient with multiple lymphadenopathies. The virus appears to be a member of the human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV) family (9).

The retrovirus was propagated in cultures of T lymphocytes from a healthy adult donor and from umbilical cord blood of newborn humans. Viral core proteins were not immunologically related to the p24 and p19 proteins of subgroup I of HTLV (9). However, serum of the patient reacted strongly with surface antigen (or antigens) present on HTLV-I-infected cells. Moreover, the ionic requirements of the viral reverse transcriptase were close to that of HTLV. Recently, a type-C retrovirus was also identified in T cells from a patient with hairy cell leukemia. Analysis of the proteins of this virus showed they were related to, but clearly different from, proteins of previous HTLV isolates (10).

Moreover, recent studies of the nucleic acid sequences of this new virus show it is less than 10 percent homologous to the earlier HTLV isolates (11). This virus was called HTLV-II to distinguish it from all the earlier, highly related viruses termed HTLV-I. The new retrovirus reported here appears to also differ from HTLV-II. We tentatively conclude that this virus, as well as all previous HTLV isolates, belong to a family of T-lymphotropic retroviruses that are horizontally transmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS.

The patient was a 33-year-old homosexual male who sought medical consultation in December 1982 for cervical lymphadenopathy and asthenia (patient 1). Examination showed axillary and inguinal lymphadenopathies. Neither fever nor recent loss of weight were noted. The patient had a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982. During interviews he indicated that he had had more than 50 sexual partners per year and had traveled to many countries, including North Africa, Greece, and India. His last trip to New York was in 1979.

Laboratory tests indicated positive serology (immunoglobulin G) for cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus. Herpes simplex virus was detected in cells from his throat that were cultured on human and monkey cells. A biopsy of a cervical lymph node was performed. One sample served for histological examination, which revealed follicular hyperplasia without change of the general architecture of the lymph node. Immunohistological studies revealed, in paracortical areas, numerous T lymphocytes (OKT3+). Typing of the whole cellular suspension indicated that 62 percent of the cells were T lymphocytes (OKT3+), 44 percent were T-helper cells (OKT4+), and 16 percent were suppressor cells (OKT8+).

Cells of the same biopsied lymph node were put in culture medium with phytohemagglutinin (PHA), T-cell growth factor (TCGF), and antiserum to human a interferon (12). The reason for using this antiserum was to neutralize endogenous interferon which is secreted by cells chronically infected by viruses, including retroviruses. In the mouse system, we had previously shown that antiserum to interferon could increase retrovirus production by a factor of 10 to 50 (13). After 3 days, the culture was continued in the same medium without PHA. Samples were regularly taken for assay of reverse transcriptase and for examination in the electron microscope.

After 15 days of culture, a reverse transcriptase activity was detected in the culture supernatant by using the ionic conditions described for HTLV-I (14). Virus production continued for 15 days and decreased thereafter, in parallel with the decline of lymphocyte proliferation. Peripheral blood lymphocytes cultured in the same way were consistently negative for reverse transcriptase activity, even after 6 weeks. Cytomegalovirus could be detected, upon prolonged co-cultivation with MRC5 cells, in the original biopsy tissue, but not in the cultured T lymphocytes at any time of the culture.

Virus transmission was attempted with the use of a culture of T lymphocytes established from an adult healthy donor of the Blood Transfusion Center at the Pasteur Institute. On day 3, half of the culture was cocultivated with lymphocytes from the biopsy after centrifugation of the mixed cell suspensions. Reverse transcriptase activity could be detected in the supernatant on day 15 of the coculture but was not detectable on days 5 and 10. The reverse transcriptase had the same characteristics as that released by the patient’s cells and the amount released remained stable for 15 to 20 days. Cells of the uninfected culture of the donor lymphocytes did not release reverse transcriptase activity during this period or up to 6 weeks when the culture was discontinued.

The cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture was used to infect 3-day-old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords, LCl and LC5, in the presence of Polybrene (2 ,ug/ml). After a lag period of 7 days, a relatively high titer of reverse transcriptase activity was detected in both of the cord lymphocyte cultures. Identical cultures, which had not been infected, remained negative. These two successive infections clearly show that the virus could be propagated on normal lymphocytes from either newborns or adults.

That this new isolate was a retrovirus was further indicated by its density in a sucrose gradient, which was 1.16, and by its labeling with [3H]uridine (Fig. 1). Electron microscopy of the infected umbilical cord lymphocytes showed characteristic immature particles with dense crescent (C-type) budding at the plasma membrane (Fig. 2).

Virus-infected cells from the original biopsy as well as infected lymphocytes from the first and second viral passages were used to determine the optimal requirements for reverse transcriptase activity and the template specificity of the enzyme. The results were the same in all instances. The reverse transcriptase activity displayed a strong affinity for poly(adenylate-oligodeoxythymidylate) [poly(A) -oligo(dT)], and required Mg2+ with an optimal concentration (5 mM) slightly lower than that for HT (14) and an optimal pH of 7.8. The reaction was not inhibited by actinomycin D. This character, as well as the preferential specificity for riboseadenylate *deoxythymidylate over deoxyadenylate * deoxythymidylate, distinguish the viral enzyme from DNA-dependent polymerases.

We then determined whether or not this isolate was indistinguishable from HTLV-1 isolates. Human T-cell leukemia virus has been isolated from cultured T lymphocytes of patients with T lymphomas and T leukemias [for a review, see (9)]. The antibodies used were specific for the p19 and p24 core proteins of HTLV-I. A monoclonal antibody to p19 (15) and a polyclonal goat antibody to p24 (16) were used in an indirect fluorescence assay against infected cells from the biopsy of patient 1 and lymphocytes obtained from a healthy donor and infected with the same virus. As shown in Table 1, the virus-producing cells did not react with either type of antibody, whereas two lines of cord lymphocytes chronically infected with HTLV (17) and used as controls showed strong surface fluorescence.

When serum from patient 1 was tested against infected lymphocytes from the biopsy the surface fluorescence was as ntense as that of the control HTLV-producing lines. This suggests that serum of the patient contains antibodies
that recognize a common antigen present on HTLV-I-producing cells and on the patient’s lymphocytes. Similarly, cord lymphocytes infected with the virus from patient 1 did not react with antibodies to p19 or p24. Only a minor proportion of the cells (about I percent) reacted with the patient’s serum. This may indicate that only this fraction of the cells was infected and produced virus. Alternatively, the antigen recognized by the patient’s serum may contain cellular determinants that show less expression in T lymphocytes of newborns.

We also cultured T lymphocytes from a lymph node of another patient (patient 2) who presented with multiple adenopathies and had been in close contact with an AIDS case. These lymphocytes did not produce viral reverse transcriptase; however, they reacted in the immunofluorescence assay with serum from patient 1. Moreover, serum from patient 2 reacted strongly with control HTLV-producing lines (not shown). In order to determine which viral antigen was recognized by antibodies present in’ the two patients’ sera, several immunoprecipitation experiments were carried out. Cord lymphocytes infected with virus from patient I and uninfected controls were labeled with [35S]methionine for 20 hours. Cells were lysed with detergents, and a cytoplasmic S10 extract was made. Labeled virus released in the supernatant was banded in a sucrose gradient.

Both materials were immunoprecipitated by antiserum to HTLV- I p24, by serum from patients 1 and 2, and by serum samples from healthy donors. Immunocomplexes were analyzed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis under denaturing conditions. Figure 3 shows that a p25 protein present in the virus-infected cells from patient 1 and in LC1 cells infected with this virus, was specifically recognized by serum from patients I and 2 but not by antiserum to HTLV-1 p24 or serum of normal donors.

Conversely, the p24 present in control HTLV-infected cell extracts was recognized by antibodies to HTLV but not by serum from patient 1. A weak band (lane 2, Fig. 3B) could hardly be seen with serum from patient 2, suggesting some similarities of the p25 protein from this patient’s cells with HTLV-1 p24. When purified, labeled virus from patient I was analyzed under similar conditions, three major proteins could be seen: the p25 protein and proteins with molecular weights of 80,000 and 45,000. The 45K protein may be due to contamination of the virus by cellular actin which was present in immunoprecipitates of all the cell extracts (Fig. 3).

These results, together with the immunofluorescence data, indicate that the retrovirus from patient 1 contains a major p25 protein, similar in size to that of HTLV-I but different immunologically. The DNA sequences of these and other members of the HTLV family are being compared. All attempts to infect other cells such as a B-lymphoblastoid cell line (Raji), immature or pre-T cell lines (CEM, HSB2), and normal fibroblasts (feline and mink lung cell lines) were unsuccessful.

The role of this virus in the etiology of AIDS remains to be determined. Patient 1 had circulating antibodies against the virus, and some of the latter persisted in lymphocytes of his lymph node (or nodes). The virus-producing lymphocytes seemed to have no increased growth potential in vitro compared to the uninfected cells. Therefore, the multiple lymphadenopathies may represent a host reaction against the persistent viral infection rather than hyperproliferation of virus-infected lymphocytes. Other factors, such as repeated infection by the same virus or other bacterial and viral agents may, in some patients, overload this early defense mechanism and bring about an irreversible depletion of T cells involved in cellular immunity.

doi: 10.1126/science.6189183.

That’s an impressive circle. Montagnier looks quite pleased with his creation.

In Summary:

According to HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier, they did “isolate” HIV because they “passed on” the “virus” and they made a culture of the “virus”
He stated that Robert Gallo (American virologist who plagiarized Montagnier’s work) said: “They have not isolated the virus…and we (Gallo et al.), we have made it emerge in abundance in an immortal cell line.”
But before making it emerge in immortal cell lines, Montagnier claimed his team made it emerge in cultures of normal Iymphocytes from a blood donor
Montagnier stated that it is obvious one could not have isolated any retrovirus without knowledge of other “retroviruses”
To pass a “virus” on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, “retroviruses” are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity
At the beginning they stumbled on a “virus” which did not kill cells
It was the first BRU “virus,” yet they had very little of it and could not pass it on in an immortal cell line
They were later successful with the second strain yet Montagnier stated that there lies the quite mysterious problem of the contamination of that second strain by the first which was LAI

Quick sidenote: BRU and LAI are considered the first strains of HIV

“The original isolate HIV-1 Bru, formerly called LAV, was derived from patient BRU. HIV-1 Lai was derived from patient LAI and contaminated a HIV-1 Bru culture between 20 July and 3 August 1983. The culture became, in effect, HIV-1 Lai, identifiable by a unique motif in the V3 loop. Because of this contamination two, rather than one, HIV-1 isolates were sent to the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at the National Cancer Institute on 23 September 1983.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2035026/

When asked about the lack of purification for EM imaging of HIV, Montagnier stated that there was so little production of “virus” it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of “virus” in the gradient
What they saw were some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of “retroviruses” as they were very different
He claimed it was “a Roman effort” with the culture as it took many hours to find the first pictures
On the morphology alone one could not say the EM images were truly a “retrovirus”
A French specialist of EMs of “retroviruses” publicly attacked Montagnier saying: “This is not a retrovirus, it is an arenavirus” as there are other families of “virus” which bud and have spikes on the surface, etc.
He stated that it was not only the morphology and the budding, but that there was reverse transcriptase
It was not one property but the assemblage of the properties which made them say it was a “retrovirus” of the family of “lentiviruses”
Taken in isolation, each of the properties isn’t truly specific
The four properties were:
1. The density
2. Reverse Transcriptase
3. Pictures of budding
4. The analogy with the visna “virus”
Montagnier stated that we have endogenous (human origin) “retroviruses” which sometimes express particles – but of endogenous origin, and which therefore don’t have pathological roles
The first question put to them by Nature was: “Is it not a laboratory contamination? Is it perhaps a mouse “retrovirus” or an animal “retrovirus?”
Montagnier stated that it was important to take it as an assemblage as if you take each property separately, they are not specific and it is the assemblage which gives the specificity
When culturing the “virus,” they used a lot of cell lines and the only one which could produce it was the Tampon (!?) Iymphocytes
He admitted that when viewing EM images, one cannot distinguish if the particle is a “retrovirus” or not
They used an atlas of previous “retroviruses” to determine if the “virus” had the morphology of one as it takes a certain familiarity to distinguish them
Montagnier repeated they did not purify the “virus” because if you purify, you damage the “virus” particles
He stated that for infectious particles, it is better to not touch them too much
Analysis of the proteins of the “virus” demands mass production and purification and so it is necessary to do that
In that regard, Montagnier claimed that they partially failed
They did not have enough particles produced to purify and characterise the “viral” proteins as it couldn’t be done
They couldn’t produce a lot of “virus” at that time because the “virus” didn’t emerge in the immortal cell line
Montagnier stated that he believed Gallo also did not purify and he believed Gallo had launched very quickly into the molecular cloning part
He also said that you cannot purify the “virus” but if you know somebody who has antibodies against the proteins of the “virus,” you can purify the antibody/antigen complex
However, this is a complete contradiction as he claimed that purification needed to be done in order to characterise the proteins of the “virus,” so if you can’t purify the “virus” to characterise the proteins, you would be unable to know which proteins act against the “virus”as well as any specific antibodies reacting to them
Montagnier claimed antibodies are very specific and that they know how to distinguish one molecule in one million
With monoclonal antibodies you fish out really ONE protein and all of that is used for diagnostic antigen detection
There are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere – there’s a non-specific “background noise”
An antibody reaction with p24 is considered non specific and it is not sufficient for diagnosing HIV infection
Montagnier agreed that no protein is sufficient to diagnose HIV
When asked why, at the 1.16 density gradient band, 80% of the particles are “non-viral” and only 20% are HIV, Montagnier explained that at this density, there are microvesicles of cellular origin, which have approximately the same size as the “virus,” and then the “virus” itself, in budding, brings cellular proteins
Effectively these proteins are not “viral” and are cellular in origin
He stated that with this technique one can’t differentiate them precisely
If you purify the “virus” to the maximum with successive gradients, you always stumble on the same proteins
Montagnier stated that the other proteins only reduce a little bit as you can take off the microvesicles, but each time you lose a lot of “virus,” so it’s necessary to have a lot of “virus” to start off in order to keep a little bit when you arrive at the end
And then again it’s the molecular analysis, it’s the sequence of these proteins which is going allow one to say whether they are of “viral” origin or not
However, what Montagnier doesn’t seem to understand is that if you can not purify the “virus” in order to determine which proteins belong to the “virus,” sequencing proteins will not tell you if they are “viral” or not

This “virus” is a typical type-C RNA tumor “virus,” buds from the cell membrane, prefers magnesium for reverse transcriptase activity, and has an internal antigen (p25) similar to HTLVp24
Antibodies from serum of this patient react with proteins from “viruses” of the HTLV-I subgroup, but type-specific antisera to HTLV-I do not precipitate proteins of the new isolate
Remember, Montagnier admitted they did not purify the “virus” and that purification was necessary in order to characterise the proteins of the “virus, so how would they know if the antibodies are reacting to “virus” proteins?
The “virus” from this patient has been transmitted into cord blood lymphocytes, and the “virus” produced by these cells is similar to the original isolate
From these studies it is concluded that this “virus” as well as the previous HTLV isolates belong to a general family of T-lymphotropic “retroviruses” that are horizontally transmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS
The pronounced depression of cellular immunity that occurs in patients with AIDS and the quantitative modifications of subpopulations of their T lymphocytes suggest that T cells or a subset of T cells might be a preferential target for the putative infectious agent
Alternatively, these modifications may result from subsequent infections
The depressed cellular immunity may result in serious opportunistic infections in AIDS patients, many of whom develop Kaposi’s sarcoma
However, a picture of persistent multiple lymphadenopathies has also been described in homosexual males and infants who may or may not develop AIDS
The “retrovirus” was propagated in cultures of T lymphocytes from a healthy adult donor and from umbilical cord blood of newborn humans
They tentatively (i.e. subject to further confirmation; not definitely) concluded that this “virus,” as well as all previous HTLV isolates, belong to a family of T-lymphotropic “retroviruses” that are horizontally transmitted in humans and may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS
The patient the “virus” came from had a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982
Oddly enough, syphilis has the exact same symptoms of AIDS and the usual treatment is a series of Penicllin injections, which coincidentally (or not) can destroy a person’s “immune” system
Laboratory tests indicated positive serology (immunoglobulin G) for “cytomegalovirus” (CMV) and Epstein-Barr “virus“
Herpes simplex “virus” was detected in cells from his throat that were cultured on human and monkey cells
Cells of the same biopsied lymph node were put in culture medium with phytohemagglutinin (PHA), T-cell growth factor (TCGF), and antiserum to human a interferon
The reason for using this antiserum was to neutralize endogenous interferon which is secreted by cells chronically infected by “viruses,” including “retroviruses”
After 15 days of culture, a reverse transcriptase activity was detected in the culture supernatant by using the ionic conditions described for HTLV-I and “virus” production continued for 15 days and decreased thereafter, in parallel with the decline of lymphocyte proliferation

Quick sidenote: Montagnier stated here that the “virus” was cultured for 30 days, as it took 15 days for the reverse transcriptase activity to be detected and another 15 days for the “virus” production to decrease. Interestingly, in a paper he wrote in 2003, Montagnier stated this:

“The initial clinical isolate, unlike HTLV, had no transforming or cytopathic effects on T lymphocytes. Barré-Sinoussi notes in her commentary that the lymphocyte culture I started from the patient’s lymph node biopsy died after 4 weeks. But this was anticipated as soon as we realized that the cells were not transformed, because normal cultures of the same type also die within this time period. The need for succesive use of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to maintain a viral culture was therefore a likely hypothesis that proved to be correct. The virus would later be classified as non-syncytium-inducing, as is usually the case for viruses isolated from recently infected HIV patients who are either asymptomatic or present with lymphadenopathies. However, the first typical cytopathic effect, formation of large syncytia, was not observed until 5 months later, in a third clinical sample (HIV LAI) from a patient who had full-blown AIDS.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1003-1235a

It appears they cultured the “virus” for 30 days knowing full well that regular cultures of the same type die within this 4 week time frame. Montagnier stated that they did not even notice the cytopathic effect (CPE) until they had a third clinical sample 5 months later. CPE is claimed to be structural changes in host cells that are caused by “viral” invasion and yet, this was absent in their first two samples.

On day 3, half of the culture was cocultivated with lymphocytes from the biopsy after centrifugation of the mixed cell suspensions
Cells of the uninfected culture of the donor lymphocytes did not release reverse transcriptase activity during this period or up to 6 weeks when the culture was discontinued
The cell-free supernatant of the infected coculture was used to infect 3-day-old cultures of T lymphocytes from two umbilical cords, LCl and LC5, in the presence of Polybrene (2 ,ug/ml)
FYI, Polybrene was shown to negatively impact the proliferation and maintenance of growth potential of human keratinocytes here
Electron microscopy of the infected umbilical cord lymphocytes showed characteristic immature particles with dense crescent (C-type) budding at the plasma membrane
“Virus-infected” cells from the original biopsy as well as infected lymphocytes from the first and second “viral” passages were used to determine the optimal requirements for reverse transcriptase activity and the template specificity of the enzyme
A monoclonal antibody to p19 (15) and a polyclonal goat antibody to p24 (16) were used in an indirect (i.e. not directly caused by or resulting from something) fluorescence assay against infected cells from the biopsy of patient 1 and lymphocytes obtained from a healthy donor and infected with the same “virus” (why did they not use healthy donor lymphocytes without the added “virus?”)
Cord lymphocytes infected with the “virus” from patient 1 did not react with antibodies to p19 or p24
Only a minor proportion of the cells (about I percent) reacted with the patient’s serum
This may indicate that only this fraction of the cells was infected and produced “virus”
When purified, labeled “virus” from patient I was analyzed under similar conditions, three major proteins could be seen: the p25 protein and proteins with molecular weights of 80,000 and 45,000
The 45K protein may be due to contamination of the “virus” by cellular actin which was present in immunoprecipitates of all the cell extracts (i.e. “purified” with contaminants…otherwise known as not purified)
All attempts to infect other cells such as a B-lymphoblastoid cell line (Raji), immature or pre-T cell lines (CEM, HSB2), and normal fibroblasts (feline and mink lung cell lines) were unsuccessful
The role of this “virus” in the etiology of AIDS remains to be determined (ultimately, Montagnier believed his “virus” did not cause AIDS)
Other factors, such as repeated infection by the same “virus” or other bacterial and “viral” agents may, in some patients, overload this early defense mechanism and bring about an irreversible depletion of T cells involved in cellular immunity

Luc Montagnier unleashed his “retroviral” monster onto the world in 1983 and it grew into a beast of its own kind during the proceeding decades. Countless lives have been destroyed by the fear of the HIV diagnosis as well as the subsequent subjection to toxic black label pharmaceuticals. The stigma of the positive test result is the “viral” scarlet letter unfairly placed upon a person in a toxic state due to lifestyle choices and/or environmental factors. It does not matter that Montagnier attempted to steer his monster from the lethal killer it was made out to be into a harmless passenger inside the human body. It does not matter that he believed HIV did not cause AIDS. It does not matter that he believed that co-factors other than a “virus” should be examined in regards to AIDS. It does not matter that he believed HIV could be eliminated based on healthy diet/lifestyle choices. It does not matter that he admitted to not purifying any “virus.” Montagnier’s legacy is tied to the beast of his own creation. He opened Pandora’s Box and released this fraudulent curse upon the world. For that, I doubt he will rest in peace.

Connect with Mike Stone

cover image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Lee Merritt: Debunking Virus & mRNA Theory

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: In the following video, Spacebusters uses images to artistically highlight & add clarity to an essential part of a conversation (Merritt Medical Hour — February 2, 2022) between Dr. Lee Merritt & Dr. Tom Cowan. See the entire interview at Merritt Medical Hour on BrighteonTV.

by Dr. Lee Merritt with Dr. Tom Cowan
edited by Spacebusters
February 10, 2022

Spacebusters video available at Odysee and BitChute.

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Lee Merritt

Connect with Spacebusters

Related document by Harold Hillman:

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman (download PDF)

Related articles:

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

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

Fact-Check: New Zealand Can’t Find the “SARS-CoV-2 Virus”

by Dr. Mark Bailey
February 12, 2022

To those of us that know that virology’s “isolation” and genomic sequencing methodologies are anti-scientific, it is still interesting to see the proponents of the nonsense offer official explanations about what they are up to.

Here in New Zealand, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) is responsible for some of the alleged isolation experiments and genomic sequencing of the imaginary “SARS-CoV-2” particle, that they claim is responsible for the clinically undefined illness “COVID-19”. On the 9th of February 2022, they responded to questions surrounding the methodology of their cell culture and genomic sequencing experiments in relation to an Official Information Act request (which is analogous to a Freedom of Information request).

*ESR couldn’t seem to find the “virus” but they featured this pretty picture.*

So let’s have a look at the ESR’s “scientific” method with regards to their official records of a “SARS-CoV-2 virus”…

“Viral Culture/Experiment details –

Once the cells are 90 – 100% confluent, they are inoculated with 500 uL of diluted clinical sample (sample is diluted 1:10 in Infection media),10 mL of Infection Media is added to the flask. Infection media is made up of DMEM with 1% pen/strep/gentamycin, 1% Nystatin, 1% Glutamax, 1.5% Hepes plus 4ug/mL TPCK added.”

~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.

The “clinical sample” will be something like a crude nasopharyngeal sample taken from a patient. These specimens contain human tissue (from the host and other individuals in close contact with them), various bacterial and fungal elements, and whatever other material was in the patient’s mucosa. Amongst all this biological soup is the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, which of course, has never been directly found in any person. Apparently there can be 200 million copies of the virus in a sneeze but strangely they can’t find any in an “infected” individual.

Instead they resort to tissue culture experiments, as the ESR continues to explain…

“The flasks are then placed into an incubator and monitored for cytopathic effect (CPE) A SARS-CoV-2 N gene PCR is performed on the diluted 1:10 clinical sample and on the supernatant of the flask after 1 week of incubation (or sooner if 100% CPE is evident). CT values for both specimens are used as well as the CPE observed in the flask to determine if viral culture has been successful.”

~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.

Cytopathic effects are non-specific and are simply the observation that cells being stressed in a test tube eventually break down and die, with some cells producing vesicles. However, in the world of virology it is seen as evidence that a virus is at work and is somehow destroying the cells from within. “SARS-CoV-2 N gene” is a misnomer because there has never been a demonstration of a viral particle that contains this genetic sequence. Even more problematic is that there’s never been a demonstration of any viral particle. However, here we see them claiming “successful” viral culture if they detect a single short genetic sequence by PCR amplification. Note to virologists: detecting genetic sequences of unproven provenance does not equal virus.

Then we get to another interesting part…

“Viral culture/experiment details of the negative control –

The method above is also used for the negative control and the flask undergoes the same conditions as the flasks used for viral culture, however we use Infection media only.”

~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.

How on earth is this a comparable control experiment? – they added no control sample to their culture brew. In their first experiment they added a veritable biological soup containing human tissue along with various microorganisms and other organic fragments (everything present in a respiratory tract sample), and their alleged virus of course. Examples of valid control experiments would be:

The same type of sample taken from a well person.
The same type of sample taken from a person with a comparable clinical condition but said not to have “COVID-19” (without biased pre-selection in the form of a PCR result.)

Ironically, both of the above become meaningless in the case of “COVID-19” as it has no specific symptoms, signs, or investigations outside of the PCR result – a PCR result that has never been validated to a clinical condition. In fact, a priori the PCR could never be validated in this application as it is simply a tool to amplify selected genetic fragments, not determine their origin or the significance of their presence in mixed biological samples. So, in the case of (1) above, many well people are said to have “COVID-19” and in the case of (2), there is no way to distinguish a novel clinical condition. Dr Sam Bailey explained these problems back in 2020 in “What is a COVID-19 Case?” – a video banned by Big Tech after several hundred thousand views but still available here.

The wheels really fall off the ESR’s response when they are asked to explain how they purify the alleged virus sample for genomic sequencing and compare this to a control:

“’Whole Genome’ Sequencing – Purity and Control Details:

[• The degree of purity of the “virus” sample used in the sequencing experiment.]
The protocols used for amplification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus consists of primers that specifically and selectively amplify the viral material, any remaining host or bacterial material is filtered out programmatically prior to data analysis.”

~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.

Either they don’t understand the question or are being disingenuous here. Their response doesn’t provide any evidence that they have a virus, let alone have attempted to purify it, in the analysis of its purported genome. They are simply using a process that amplifies sequences they have artificially selected but as it is a mixed sample they cannot demonstrate the origin of them. There is no way to claim this is “viral material” because no one has ever demonstrated that these sequences come from inside a virus, let alone belong to “SARS-CoV-2”. They are simply building on the nonsense that has spun out of control on GISAID.org where not one of the millions of deposited “genomes” has been shown to come from inside a viral particle. It’s turtles all the way down with these contrived “genomes”.

And with regards to the ESR’s “controls”?…

“[• All details of the control group that was used when comparing the results of sequencing:

o the total nucleic acid extracted from the “viral lysate” (from the experimental group), versus

o the total nucleic acid extracted from the non-viral lysate (from the control group).]

The protocols used to extract RNA from clinical samples do not yield a uniform quantity as this depends on the viral load within a sample. Details about the ranges obtained and used for further analysis are published in detail in several scientific peer-reviewed publications and can also be found on the publicly accessible protocols.io website, link provided below as requested.”

~ Jill Vintiner, Joint General Manager Health and Environment Group, ESR, 9 Feb 2022.

They appear to have dodged the question and the protocols provide no evidence of valid control experiments. The ESR have been asked to clarify this but we can already see they are not adhering to the scientific method. I also looked at the four publications that they suggested but these simply confirmed the problem: there is no evidence of any virus and the world is being duped in this war on humanity.

In fact, by definition, there has never been a demonstration of any disease-causing virus ever, full stop. Even if the ESR performed valid genomic control experiments there would still need to be further experiments to demonstrate the existence of a replication competent, obligate intracellular parasite that causes disease in a host. In other words, the actual existence of a virus. It makes me wonder whether the virologists are going to change the very definition of a virus soon in order to keep the whole façade afloat. However, once people realise that virology has never fulfilled its own postulates, they can take a major step away from this health misconception and ignore any of the related damaging measures and “treatments” coming from the medical-pharmaceutical complex.

Connect with Dr. Mark Bailey & Dr. Sam Bailey

cover image credit: satheeshsankaran / pixabay

As Covid Crumbles They’re Already Prepping the Next “Pandemic”

The coronavirus may go but, from cancer to AIDS, the mRNA vaccines are here to stay.

by Kit Knightly, OffGuardian
February 10, 2022

The Covid19 narrative is broken, that battle is over. Yes, there are still pockets of token resistance, little embattled squares who aren’t ready to give up the ghost just yet, but for the most part the establishment are letting it go.

Country after country after country are “relaxing” their Covid restrictions, abandoning vaccine passport plans and attempting to “get back to normal”.

It seems every week some new “expert” who spent the last two years predicting we’re all gonna die turns up on the news claiming we should “treat Covid like the flu”.

But just because they’re giving slack on Covid does not mean the agenda behind Covid is gone. Far from it.

In fact, even as they seek to dump this pandemic in a shallow grave, they are already prepping the public for the next health scare – AIDs.

In December Joe Biden claimed it was the aim of his administration to “end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030”. A similar campaign, launched in the UK at the same, uses the same exact phrase, word for word.

Then, just last week it was suddenly reported there was a “new variant” of HIV circulating in Europe, this new strain is allegedly “more virulent”, “more transmissable”, and “progresses to AIDS faster”.

At the same time, papers are reporting that for the first time in years heterosexuals are more likely to contract HIV than homosexuals, and they are “more at risk of AIDS” because they’re “diagnosed late”.

On the back of this “news”, a Guardian opinion piece claims we need a “new strategy” for dealing with AIDS.

Following hot on the heels of this fresh wave of fear is a push for everyone to get AIDS tested as soon as possible, from politicians and celebrities and everyone in between.

Prince Harry is leading the charge, in a video that caused the press invoke the spirit of his mother Princess Diana, Harry insisted we all have a “duty” to get HIV tested “to keep other people safe”, comparing it to the COVID outbreak.

“Know your status“, the video says. Which will probably be a hashtag in the near future. (I just checked, and it actually is already.)

They’re really cranking through the gears on this one.

Even while the problem and reaction are still barely out of the research and development stage, they’re already talking about the solution.

Guess what it is?

If you said “another mRNA vaccine”, well done for paying attention

Yes, Moderna has apparently learned so much from making their rushed Covid vaccine which doesn’t work that they’re already making an HIV vaccine they hope will be just as “safe and effective”.

In a truly startling coincidence, Moderna’s HIV vaccine began clinical trials the exact same day the “new variant” of HIV hit the headlines, and the same week as the NHS’s annual “HIV Testing Week”. Funny old world, isn’t it?

Anyway, everyone get ready to line up for the AIDS shot.

Oh, and the cancer one as well.

The covid battle might be slowly winding down, but the mRNA “vaccine” war has potentially only just begun.

Connect with OffGuardian

cover image credit: geralt / pixabay

Bioweapons: The Myth of Man-Made Pathogens

[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: For the convenience of our readers, we have prepared a transcript which can be found below the information shared by Immanuel Project. This video was originally recorded in German and a voice-over has been provided by Immanuel Project.]

Immanuel Project – O.R.I., No. 01: bioweapons – the myth of man-made pathogens

by Immanuel Project with Dr. Stefan Lanka
video uploaded to Odysee August 30, 2021

Video available at Immanuel Project Odysee & BitChute channels.

The first of our extra, contributory posts “ON RELATED ISSUES” examines explosive, critical questions, rumours and theories surrounding the topic of “Corona” and everything connected with it. When new reports do the rounds in public that have the potential to fuel (additional) fear, hatred and violence, and which above all spread dangerous misinformation from the field of medicine and science, we would like to publish a special feature on this.
In contrast to our main programme, this series offers first and foremost a statement. In order to be able to publish a comment relatively quickly, we do not go into great detail and refer you to our main programme for precise evidence of our statements, where we publish a detailed list of sources for every contribution.
Since all the topics we deal with in Project Immanuel are directly related, all the contents of our special formats can also be substantiated with the sources from the main programme.

O.R.I., No. 01: “Bioweapons – the myth of the man-made pathogen”
In the first episode of our special format “On Related Issues” we deal with the topic of biological warfare/bioweapons. Due to the latest rumours surrounding the alleged “Wuhan virus” from the laboratory, we specifically address the issue of artificial “pathogens”, i.e. those modified or created in a laboratory, and explain why these are and will continue to remain, a myth.

FURTHER LINKS

Ludwik Fleck : “Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact” (Translated by Frederick Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn) https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo25676016.html — ‎Publisher: University of Chicago Press (August 15, 1981)

Thomas Schnelle: “Ludwig Fleck – Leben und Denken. Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung des wissenschaftlichen Denkstils in der Wissenschaftsphilosophie”,[Ludwig Fleck – Life and Thought. On the Origin and Development of the Scientific Style of Thinking in the Philosophy of Science] January 1982 (in German) — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319630084Ludwik_Fleck-_Leben_und_Denken_Zur_Entstehung_und_Entwicklung_des_wissenschaftlichen_Denkstils_in_der_Wissenschaftsphilosophie_Freiburg_1982
published on ResearchGate

The Ludwik Fleck Centre for Scientific Theory: https://www.fleckzentrum.ethz.ch/en/media-archive/fleck-archive/

“Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research into Behavioral Modification – Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United State Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session”, 03 August 1977 — https://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13inmate_ProjectMKULTRA.pdf — published on the website of the New York Times

Connect with Immanuel Project (Projekt Immanuel)

Connect with Dr. Stefan Lanka

Transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light:

The following video is not intended for entertainment. It’s not a documentary report or television program.

Rather, this is an attempt to approach an explosive scientific topic in a cinematic way that is objective and respectful as possible.

We deliberately avoid staging of scenes as we’ve no intention of causing emotion in the viewer. We would like to convey factual, verifiable information.

In addition, we hereby call on all viewers to question the contents of this video and not simply to believe any information presented here. Doubt, be critical and check everything.

Only that is scientific.

Immanuel Project — “On Related Issues” (ORI).

With this video we introduce you to the first in a series of extra videos that we’ll publish in addition to our regular program.

On Related Issues focuses on pressing questions, theories and theses that are making the rounds in the public sphere, and to which we would like to respond as promptly as possible.

Most importantly, topics are discussed that are only marginally dealt with, or not dealt with at all, in the main series of our project.

No. 1 – Bioweapons: The myth of man-made pathogens

Biological warfare is a fairly complex subject. The use of biological weapons is probably as old as humanity itself.

All kinds of animals or naturally occurring toxins can be used as weapons to either attack enemies directly or in some way to make it difficult for them to survive.

Throughout history humans have been devising all kinds of biological warfare that have been as effective as they have been cruel. Time and again they have been reports about the use of supposed pathogens.

As early as the Middle Ages, and even in antiquity, allegedly transmissible diseases were claimed to be a popular means of warfare.

For instance, corpses of dead humans and animals were hurled into cities with the intention to cause epidemics in these areas.

Such stories do have a kernel of truth. Hurling decaying cadavers at enemies was certainly a proven biological weapon, but it had nothing to do with pathogens.

These days when people hear the term bioweapons, they usually think of artificial pathogens from the laboratory — bacteria and viruses that either genetically modified or even created in their entirety.

In the 21st century such ideas are more topical than ever due to the alleged progress in genetics and, equally assumed, improved understanding of biology.

Horror scenarios, wild rumors and theories, as well as adventurous novels, feature films, series and video games on this subject are dime a dozen.

But what has actually been researched and developed with regard to artificial pathogens?

Is it possible that something could really be brewed up in bioweapon laboratories that could prove dangerous to humans?

No, it’s not possible. I mean, you can see now that fear is the best bioweapon there is. You simply show some photos of coffins and corpses.

That’s the most powerful bioweapon we have: misinformation. But the most dangerous thing, of course, is the superstition associated with it.

People generally believe in the concept of dangerous viruses. Scientists also believe in them. And those working in related fields are proud that they’re working on something so dangerous and important.

They don’t see that they are being completely unscientific by not questioning the concepts in which they believe.

And it is the very first written duty of every scientist to constantly question their own findings and assumptions.

Nowadays, however, we are dealing with the reversal of science. Those who point out obvious contradictions are berated. This is really the reverse of all science.

Science is important and can contribute a lot to humanity if it’s applied with integrity. But what is happening here is pseudoscience.

In his 1956 book, Sociology Vol. 1, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy explains why people engage in pseudoscience. He shows that, because of how science now operates, we can no longer make new discoveries. As if science have been derived from Greek criminal law, what we observe we judge and explain exclusively on the basis of what we already know. And, of course, only material explanations are permitted.

We do not want to know about any other explanations. We then say ‘they cannot be true’, ‘they are unscientific, wrong and dangerous’.

Rosenstock-Huessy clearly demonstrated that we can no longer make any developments in this way. We cannot discover anything new with our unscientific approach. And it’s a typically-human characteristic that no one likes to see their achievements and findings being thrown overboard.

Rosenstock-Huessy also shows this: He demonstrates how these unscientific principles permeate academic life and how pseudo-research has been carried out in order to somehow maintain these very principles, the models which people adhere.

For example, by doing animal experiments without any control experiments. Or killing cells in a test tube, also without any control experiments. And then simply claiming that the results of these experiments have to come about because of some virus. That’s how easy it is.

And we must not forget that this was already written in 1956.

In his book “Healing Power and Truth: Concordance of Political and Cosmic Time” — what a title — he describes how mountains of corpses, such as in genocides, can quickly pile up again if one misses the moment to recognize and correct mistakes.

Wrong decisions are made, wars escalate or whatever. This is the challenge we are facing right now — to recognize these mistakes in time. So it’s very important to deal with these things. And bioweapons is a very good example of these things.

The Russians, for example, completely abandoned their bioweapons development in the 1970s because they realize that the concept of pathogens as weapons does not work.

But the claim that dangerous bioweapons exist is very effective in order to create fear. First and foremost, of course, it’s effective in populations who are panic-stricken about contagion.

For example, historically the Israelis managed to empty the entire Palestinian refugee camps without firing a single shot. They simply claimed the wells are contaminated and soon the dangerous disease will break out here.

Nothing happened at all. No shots were fired. And voila! The Palestinians were gone. That was the starting point of Israel — an act of fear.

The Israeli population also has one of the highest cancer rates in western societies. Certainly not in all parts of the country, but in many, people live in constant fear of death. There is a constant fear of terrorism, of rockets, of bombs. Of course, such an attitude to life is anything but conducive to good health.

Didn’t the Nazis in the Third Reich also have a biological weapons program? What happened to it? Was it abandoned? The reason they never seriously worked on a bioweapons program is because nothing had ever worked in that direction. What they did was try to protect themselves from alleged germs.

In this regard, I recommend reading the book by Ludwik Fleck, “Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact”. There are also many articles by him on the internet.

Ludwik Fleck was a bacteriologist and he was deported to Buchenwald concentration camp where he was forced to develop a vaccine for the SS. He wrote that he and his colleagues knew that all the assumptions about supposedly dangerous disease-causing bacteria were completely wrong.

He knew that things don’t work like — that this idea is just a misinterpretation. Anyone can read that for themselves. You can find a lot of material by and about Ludwik Fleck freely accessible on the internet.

Nevertheless, Ludwik Fleck and his colleagues had the task of developing a vaccine against a supposedly dangerous bacterium for the SS. And they knew that if they tried to explain to them that it wouldn’t work, they’d get their heads chopped off.

So they just made a vaccine for them as demanded. They let something or other decompose, added a few bacteria. And when the whole thing was bubbling away in the test tube, the poisonous mixture was filtered. Formaldehyde was added and that was it.

The vaccine was injected and the job was done. That’s what he describes. And he also describes how science actually operates, because he himself has experienced these undesirable developments and seen how they come about.

After the second World War, the Americans were of the opinion that the national socialists, the Nazis, might have used some kind of secret drugs to take the soldiers’ will away, so that they would happily go to war.

The Americans were investigating this to try to address the big problem that many of their soldiers who were supposed to bomb Korea deserted. Hardly any of the soldiers at that time had ever held a rifle, seen a tank, or had anything to do with weapons in the military. And suddenly they were supposed to drop bombs on another country.

Some biologists even suggested that the Russians had bred a socialist virus that could be used to render the American soldiers will-less. Such speculation really did exist. But, of course, it led no where.

What the USA did in the end, however, was to experiment with all the drugs that were available. This project, about which a great deal of information has come to light, was called MKUltra.

People were tortured and subjected to drugs to take away their will in order to program them. And this project existed solely because it was believed that at least some, if not all, of the German soldiers must have been given some kind of secret drug. It is frightening that even today speculation about bioweapons is used to scare people.

And here is another example. The virologist, professor Zhang from Shanghai, had received the order from Beijing to search for a coronavirus in bats that was harmless to humans and could then be used as a template for so-called sequence alignment.

He was under extreme time pressure because the panic of the people in Wuhan had to be brought under control. It was feared that the people there might storm the hospitals at some point, because anyone who had any kind of complaint such as asthma, cough, or fever immediately panicked and imagined that they had SARS.

Something like that can endanger public order very quickly. And it was going in that direction, triggered by the ophthalmologist Li Wenliang, whose own fear spread very quickly via social media.

That’s precisely why professor Zhang was given the task of producing a harmless bat virus as quickly as possible. It was already established that the few dozen cases of pneumonia that existed at the time had not infected anyone else.

From the beginning of December, when the first cases were tracked, until the 20th of January, no one was infected. No one else got you pneumonia.

So they assume that if, anything at all, it must be a virus that was difficult to transmit and could probably only be transmitted from animals to humans. So they looked for a virus in animals.

Then professor Zhang, from the Fan Wu et al. research group — these results were published in Nature, the first work on the so-called new coronavirus — created the genome strand of SARS-CoV-2, in the absolute record time of only 40 hours.

He got the fluid from a lung wash, obtained some nucleic acid out of the fluid, sequenced it, and then ran the puzzle called sequence alignment. But he didn’t have time to apply all the rules of virology. That’s why the genome from these 40 hours of record time looks more than bumpy.

Normally one takes at least three weeks for this process. And then a genome sequence appears really polished. But anyone who knows a bit about biochemistry can see that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 really does look very bumpy.

And this is exactly the argument. The people who claim that the virus must have come from a laboratory: ‘It must, therefore, be a bioweapon.’. Of course this then circulates on the internet again and fuels people’s primal fear of infection and of viruses.

Therefore, anyone who claims such a thing, has to be asked the question: Where has a virus ever been isolated? Where? Show me a relevant publication and show me the exact passages in which this is described.

Show me where this is described in the methods section of any scientific paper. These are only very short paragraphs. And if it cannot be shown, it must be rejected because it spreads unnecessary and dangerous fear.

Fear is always dangerous. Spreading fear is not justifiable.

The theory that there are pathogens and transmissible diseases have been perpetuated to the present day with this kind of assertion. But if you go into detail, you immediately see that none of this is tenable.

What one could say, perhaps at this point, is — what was done again and again in the so-called Middle Ages, or actually in all wars, is to make survival impossible for the enemy, and also for the civilian population, by destroying the crops, destroying the fields, killing the animals, so that simply scorched earth remains.

And by throwing carcasses into the wells. Then the water was heavily polluted with decomposing products of the proteins, that is with nitrates.

Every mother understands that. If a bottle of mineral water says it contains more than 50 milligrams of nitrates, no child is allowed to drink it because otherwise it would turn blue. And if a child were to drink this water all the time, it would get the type of buboes that were called the plague in the Middle Ages.

From 1981 onwards it was called immune deficiency in homosexuals or GRID (gay related immune deficiency) for short. And from 1983 onwards, it was called AIDS.

It’s as simple as that. It’s massive poisoning from nitrates in drinking water. It has nothing to do with pathogens producing any disease toxins.

Such toxins are produced when something decomposes, i.e. the proteins break down and turned into putrefaction. It is quite clear that it is not healthy to drink water with corpse poisons or to eat rotten food.

Already at the beginning of the corona crisis, rumors circulated very quickly that the alleged new coronavirus was not of natural origin, but came from a bioweapons laboratory.

Of course, China was first accused of having developed the virus. Later, the USA was accused. And then China again.

And, at some point in between, the French scientist Luc Montagnier, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for the alleged proof of the HIV virus, among others, spoke out. He claimed that the virus was definitely of artificial origin because it had genetic similarities to the alleged HIV virus.

Most of these theories were dismissed after some time. And many scientists declared that there was no reason to assume that the alleged SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon.

In January 2021 however, the rumor of the Wuhan virus flared up again when an international group of researchers claimed to have found new evidence that strengthen the suspicion of the bioweapon. The scientists’ conclusion sounded alarming, but were also based only on suspected elements in the alleged genetic strand of SARS-CoV-2.

These observations immediately lose their significance and, above all, their threatening nature when one realizes that the same genetic genome strand of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 is, in any case, only a man-made theoretical construct. No wonder then that some of it looks artificial and man-made.

One could say SARS-CoV-2 did indeed originate in a laboratory in Wuhan, but not in the way many people believe. The genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 comes from a computer and has never left it. It is a theoretical mental construct.

The ideas of pathogens made in laboratories are all scientifically untenable. Moreover, they even contradict principles of biology that have been known for many, many years.

It’s irrelevant whether they’re supposed to be killer bacteria or killer viruses. The terrorist attack in the USA in 2001, with allegedly genetically modified anthrax pathogens, is just as unlikely as the Wuhan virus of 2020.

To understand why biological weapons in the form of pathogens have never existed in this way and never will, one must know the following:

With regard to viruses, disease-causing viruses — i.e. a dangerous genetic substance — are, to this day, nothing more than mere theory.

No scientist in the whole world has ever succeeded in providing tangible proof of such a virus.

Even if one or the other has ever been awarded the Nobel Prize for alleged proof, their work never stands up to scientific scrutiny.

So how do you make an artificial virus when you can’t even find a natural one?

The topic of viruses is dealt with in detail in the main program of Immanuel Project.

With regard to bacteria — bacteria cannot make organisms sick in the sense that we believe they can. And they are not the parasites they are made out to be. Bacteria, which are always found in our bodies, can, under certain circumstances, be involved in ailments — some of which can even be life- threatening.

But that does not mean that they are parasites and harm us in that sense. Moreover, bacteria in living bodies either produce no toxins at all or only in such small amounts that it’s impossible to become ill from them.

One must bear in mind the conditions under which … and cadaveric toxins are produced.

So how do you grow killer bacteria? By reversing their biology? That would really be a scientific sensation.

The complex topic of bacteria is not dealt with in our main program but we will return to it in one or two special formats.

Conclusion.

There are a variety of possible biological weapons. However, pathogens are definitely not one of them. All claims about genetically modified, or even artificially created, pathogens contradicts biological principles and are, therefore, inevitably doomed to failure.

There may well still be stray scientists in the world who aim to produce the ultimate killer microbe in their laboratory, but they will fail just like the people who try to make gold in earlier times.

Their scientific basis is simply incorrect, in both the cases of the alleged viruses and bacteria. All allegations, speculations, rumors and accusations revolving around artificial pathogens, therefore, only generate fear and enemy images. And we definitely do not need to either.

There is already more than enough fear and hatred, especially in this time of corona. Prolonged fear can lead to serious health problems, particularly for people who already have respiratory difficulties.

Rather than creating more fear with unfounded claims of killer viruses from a lab, we should stick to verifiable facts. Then all open questions about the alleged Wuhan virus, its latest mutations, its similarity to HIV, and other theories about bioweapons and killer viruses, will take care of themselves.

In order to complete the control experiments on SARS-CoV-2, we are still urgently looking for bioinformaticians to repeat and document the original sequence alignment. If you are a bioinformatician, are proficient in the De Novo alignment on “viruses” and have an opportunity to access the raw sequence data from Fan Wu and his colleagues please get in touch fragen @ wplus-verlag.de

See related information:

Documents by Dr. Stefan Lanka:

Dismantling the Virus Theory by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

The Causes of Corona Crisis Are Clearly Identified — Virologists Who Claim Disease-Causing Viruses Are Science Fraudsters and Must Be Prosecuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

How Dead Are Virus Anyway? All Claims of Virus Existence Refuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

Related document by Harold Hillman:

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman (download PDF)

Video on the work of Dr. Lanka:

The Final Refutation Of Virology by Dr. Stefan Lanka

Related articles:

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

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

The Contagion Myth: No Virus Has Ever Caused Disease

The Fraudulent Use of PCR / RT-PCR Techniques for the Manipulation, Harm and, Ultimately, the Destruction of Humanity

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

Jon Rappoport: My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

cover image credit: geralt / pixabay

Dr. Andrew Kaufman Interviews Dr. William Trebing, Author of ‘Good-Bye Germ Theory’

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman with Dr. William Trebing
February 5, 2022

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Connect with Dr. William Treging

How the Age of AIDS Mirrors the Covidian Age, With a Twist

by Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath, Nature of Healing
February 7, 2022

The Coronavirus/COVID experience is a replay of the HIV/AIDS, with a twist.

As planned events, they show how history repeats itself when people are oblivious to the cyclical patterns of deception.

Note how NIAID’s Anthony Fauci is a common denominator between the antiretroviral drug treatment for HIV/AIDS and the antiretroviral drug treatment for Coronavirus/COVID19.

The AGE OF AIDS

Dr Robert Gallo made his famous announcement at a press conference on 23 April 1984 that “his” HIV virus was the probable cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). From that moment on, the race was on to find a pharmaceutical weapon against it.

At the height of AIDS epidemic in 2005, the rhetoric about HIV danger and death penetrated every corner of the world. The rapid test for HIV was accepted as the test for AIDS, which divided people into positive and negative camps.

Flashback to June 2015, ten years after the height of the AIDS epidemic:

AIDS-related deaths have fallen by 35 percent since the peak of the epidemic in 2005 and the number of new infections continues to decline annually. That’s the good news. Nonetheless there are thought to be around 35 million people living with HIV globally; 19 million don’t currently know their HIV-positive status. Of those people who need antiretroviral drugs, only just over a third have access. That’s the bad news.

We have the scientific know-how to end AIDS and every month seems to bring news of another biomedical advance that could change the trajectory of the epidemic once and for all.

Last week the preliminary findings of the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment trial confirmed that early treatment is best for HIV.

No one thought that HIV might be lab-created. No one knew that just before Gallo’s April 1984 announcement, someone had filed a United States Patent number: 9499480 for HIV/AIDS Virus invention, a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program.

No one knew that Gallo, himself, was ‘Project Officer’ for the federal Special Virus Program that ran from 1962-1978. See complete list of HIV patents. No one knows that engineered evidence is found from the ‘multiply-spliced’ nature of the HIV ‘tat’ sequence in Dr. Gallo’s 1971 Special Virus paper, “Reverse Transcriptase of Type-C virus Particles of Human Origin.”

Post HIV/AIDS Anomalies:

HIV blamed on a chimpanzee
Rapid HIV tests shown to produce up to 40% false positive results in patients, and was later proven to be scientifically invalid.
The HIV virus has never been isolated or proven to exist. CDC admits no record of any virus.
HIV and sex do not cause AIDs
Evidence shows that AIDS in Africa is caused by starvation and medications, not a virus.
The World Health Organization is criticized for inflating AIDS figures
Anthony Fauci is accused of genocide.
Scientists declare HIV does not cause AIDs. BMJ 2002
The drug of choice, AZT, is called a poison.
Patents for HIV/AIDS discovered (for profit).

From 1985 to 1992 there were 12,000 deaths each year from AIDS. In 1992 the number increased suddenly to 15,000. Why? Because they added 5 new diseases to the AIDS definition! The actual number of cases of AIDS was on the decline until they added more diseases to the list, and still the number of new cases grew very slowly. – Dr. Robert Wilner, Deadly Deception, 1994.

HIV — it has never been found in sufficient numbers to cause disease.” –Peter Duesberg, 1991

The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake. – Kary Mullins, inventor of the PCR test.

Today, the official narrative still claims that no cure exists for AIDS, and that only toxic FDA antiretroviral drugs, including A.Z.T., D.D.I., and D.D.C., will slow down the progression of the disease.

“Why condemn a continent to death because of HIV, when you have other explanations for why people are falling sick?” – Dr John Papadimitriou, professor of pathology at the University of Western Australia in Perth and a co-author of the Journal of Nature Biotechnolgy study that found HIV tests to be inadequate.

Comparison of HIV and Coronavirus Tests. September 2020:

Sometimes testing can give you a false sense of security. That happened in the HIV epidemic, when people got a negative test and they presented it to their sex partners and spread disease, nonetheless. – Cue Mark Schlissel, M.D., Ph.D., President of University of Michigan,

The U of M president knew of the flaws of the rapid HIV test. He knew the patterns of history. And for that he received pushback for equating the COVID-19 pandemic with the AIDS epidemic to justify the University’s decision not to widely test students. He was made to apologize for unrelated reasons, but added to his response:

My comments were intended only as a critique of the effectiveness of massive testing of asymptomatic students for the virus that causes COVID-19 in an effort to prevent its spread. – Cue Mark Schlissel, M.D., Ph.D, President, U of M 2020

The COVIDIAN Age

In the COVIDIAN Age, it is accepted that Coronavirus is a virus. However, Coronavirus is a family name that includes MERS-Cov, SARS-Cov, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, and many others. Coronavirus is not Corona virus. It is also accepted that people with underlying diseases are more susceptible to COVID19. This is likely due to a weakened innate immune system. Immunosuppressed people no longer have a functional defense system and are more likely to suffer from any infection, whether it be called a cold, a flu, toxic overload, or ‘COVID.’

The Twist:

Ironically, new research shows the opposite; that patients with advanced stages of AIDS show less severe COVID symptoms and recover faster than others.

A July 2021 study in the Journal Immun Inflamm Dis, titled “The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in HIV-positive patients: A systematic review of current evidence” shows evidence that the majority of HIV patients show no severe symptoms and completely recovered from COVID19 infection.

Similar to The Age of AIDS, COVID patients will soon be offered antiretroviral drugs. On December 14, 2021, Merck and Pfizer pharmaceutical companies announced the development of COVID antiretroviral drugs. The companies claimed their drugs attack different parts of the virus. Ten days later, on December 24, 2021, the FDA authorized “emergency use” of Merck’s antiviral drug to treat COVID19. FDA had previously “authorized” the first antiretroviral Molnupiravir in late November. Note: authorization does not equal approval.

When Pfizer introduced its antiretroviral red and blue pill for COVID19, it warned that the pills may be risky when taken with other medications. They did not mention vaccines.

Post Coronavirus/COVIDIAN Anomalies:

Coronavirus blamed on escaped lab-infected monkey, bats, and snakes.
CDC Admits there is no proof for Sars-Cov-2 virus. Could it be because viruses are exosomes?
CDC withdraws PCR test as invalid; “too many false positives.” Other scientists agree.
CDC admits COVID deaths are inflated.
Anthony Fauci charged with genocide and crimes against humanity.
3800 Patents for Coronavirus/COVID analyzed

Just as the FDA authorized the first AIDS antiretroviral treatment, AZT, on March 19, 1987, in a record 20 months, the FDA authorizes the new COVID antiretrovirals.

Today, the FDA claims that the antiretroviral pill “should be initiated as soon as possible after diagnosis of Covid-19 and within five days of symptom onset,” – FDA Statement, December 22, 2021

In 1994, Dr. Robert Wilner wrote: “Any antiviral therapy that is immune-suppressive and aimed at treating HIV is unnecessary, dangerous, unethical and bad medicine — you are already immune to HIV!

Be FEAR Aware

Be aware that FEAR is a program. FEAR equals False Evidence Appearing Real. Each epidemic serves to elevate the same fear in a different year. Each time the CDC declares a pandemic, scientists also admit they have no record of any isolated infectious virus, including CoV – 2 and 19, MERS, Influenza, SARS, Polio, Measles, HIV, XMRV, HTLV-1, HTLV-III/LAV, HPV, Ebola, Zika, just to name a few. Via FOIA requests, the CDC admits that there is no purification or isolation of any virus. The only way to isolate a virus is to isolate the human host in a hospital, or to culture/engineer it in a lab.

There is no test to find out a person’s “HPV status.” Also, there is no approved HPV test to find HPV in the mouth or throat. – CDC HPV Fact Sheet, 2022

We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available. – Journal of Euro Surveillance, 2020

The current fallacious approach to therapy will only continue to result in millions of unnecessary and brutal deaths. – Dr. Robert Wilner, Deadly Deception, 1994

Buyer beware! The rhetoric about HIV/AIDS has returned. Then, as now, officials seek to distract and divide people to remove freedoms. In the process, officials make people fearful of touching each other. They will claim that COVID deaths have surpassed AIDS deaths. They will claim to find a more infectious HIV variant. They will claim that “HIV can be stopped by blocking cell to cell contact.“

Will they also separate cells by 6 feet and mandate tiny masks?

Question Everything ….

If HIV does not cause AIDS, then does Coronavirus cause COVID19?

If there is no isolated virus, are virologists legitimate? Is Anthony Fauci an actor? Why does he claim that wearing a mask after vaccination is “theatre?” Why does he hold 4 patents on an HIV component used to create COVID19?

Why blame a pandemic on innocent animals? It sounds like this: “ANIMAL X” could be hiding a deadly virus that could trigger a pandemic worse than the Black Death and kill more than 75million people. They tried to blame Ebola on a bunny.

Did the Species Barrier disappear to allow for animal research to develop profitable drug models?

After mRNA injectables, why are AIDS patients successfully fending off the worst COVID symptoms and recovering faster without an immune system?

Do HIV patients somehow recognize the lab-created Coronavirus as similar? Does the mRNA nanotech somehow protect people without an immune system? Is that why antiretroviral will be required for COVID patients?

Who to trust?

Trust your innate immune system.

Related articles:

Disclaimer: The author encourages you to consult a doctor before making any health changes, especially any changes related to a specific diagnosis or condition. No information in this article should be relied upon to determine diet, make a medical diagnosis, or to determine or prescribe a treatment for a medical condition. This information is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended to build synapses for thinking.

Rosanne Lindsay is a Naturopath, writer, earth keeper, health freedom advocate and author of the books The Nature of Healing, Heal the Body, Heal the Planet and Free Your Voice, Heal Your Thyroid, Reverse Thyroid Disease Naturally.

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network. Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org .

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath

cover image credit: CDD20 / pixabay

Deus Ex Machina and the Invention of “SARS-CoV-2”

by Dr. Mark Bailey
February 6, 2022

A German mathematician working with Dr Stefan Lanka has just published a report titled “Structural analysis of sequence data in virology – An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example.” It provides even more evidence that the virologists are caught up in a world of computer simulations – simulations that are unreliable even on their own terms, not to mention being disconnected from reality. The analysis is an important contribution exposing another element of the anti-science being used to sustain this fake pandemic. Further, it is a technical dismantling of how all “viruses” are being invented and then “found,” in an ongoing game of deception.

The paper is very technical and requires some understanding of how the virologists create a “genome,” starting with a crude sample from an alleged infected “COVID-19” patient. To make it easier, I’ve produced a summary of the main findings as outlined below:

None of the genetic sequences used in producing the “SARS-CoV-2” genomes were shown to come from inside any viruses. It is unclear where the genetic fragments originated from.
The original de novo “SARS-CoV-2” computer-constructed sequence published by Fan Wu, et al could not be reproduced by the methodology described in their paper, raising questions about how they produced it and announced the new “virus” to the world.
The PCR protocols are calibrated to sequences of unconfirmed origin that are clearly found in many humans and apparently other things as well. The PCR process was not shown to detect a “virus,” let alone diagnose an invented illness called “COVID-19”.
The virologists are fooling themselves by running amplifications at 35 to 45 cycles, as it can result in “detecting” sequences that are not even present in the sample. In effect, the methodology can result in “detecting” whatever sequences they are hoping to find.
Fan Wu, et al could have found better matches for “HIV” and “Hepatitis D virus” than “a new coronavirus” in their 41-year-old man from Wuhan, who presented with pneumonia as one of the first claimed “COVID-19” cases. If they want to find a “virus”, it all depends on what they ask the computer to look for.

Of course, it makes much more sense when you get to the root of the problem: “SARS-CoV-2” is nothing more than a computer simulation and there was never a virus to start with – the entire thing is a global fraud. Virology seems to be unaware that it is sinking further into an epistemological crisis and no more so than in the area of genomics, as outlined in this article by Mike Stone. In Stone’s article, I noticed in the comments section that Dr Valendar Turner of The Perth Group pointed out that the late Sir John Maddox, former editor of Nature, had issued a pertinent warning in 1988. It seems that those who become immersed in the world of indirect molecular detection techniques risk no longer seeing the wood for the trees as he presciently stated:

“Is there a danger, in molecular biology, that the accumulation of data will get so far ahead of its assimilation into a conceptual framework that the data will eventually prove an encumbrance? Part of the trouble is that excitement of the chase leaves little time for reflection. And there are grants for producing data, but hardly any for standing back in contemplation”.

Maddox, J. Nature 335, 11 (1998)

We will endeavour to keep exposing these anti-scientific methodologies and encourage others to ask themselves if the multi-billion dollar virology industry and the associated bogus “treatments” coming from the behemoth pharmaceutical complex are actually helping anyone with their health. For those of us that can see there is no sound basis to any of it, there is no way we would heed any advice from the doctors and scientists who promote these sick models. And perhaps more importantly, we know not to take any of the fraudulent and increasingly perverse pharmaceuticals that are products of this pseudoscience, and used as vehicles to deliver nefarious and undeclared constituents. Once again, you can avoid all of these problems by pointing out:

Where is the virus^*?

*A tiny particle that is an obligate intracellular parasite (i.e. replication competent and transmissible) containing a genome surrounded by a protective, virus-coded protein coat.

Connect with Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Sam Bailey

cover image credit: PixxlTeufel / pixabay

See related:

The Covid-19 Fraud & War on Humanity

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

Challenging the Foundations of Virology: Corona Investigative Committee With Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note:

This clip is from the Corona Investigative Committee’s “The Virus of Power” series of interviews , Session 90, which took place on February 4, 2022. See the entire Session 90 here (6+ hours long).

In this interview, Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Lanka challenge “germ theory” and the “science” at the foundation of virology. Of course, this is highly controversial because it shakes the foundation of modern medicine, questions the endless stream of vaccines and toxic medicines produced by big pharma — not to mention the generations of doctors, scientists and medical professionals who have dedicated careers to this “science”.

Committee member Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who has been invaluable in exposing the pandemic fraud and is a key source of medical insight for the committee, challenges Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Lanka, and vehemently defends the prevailing view regarding viruses as cause of disease. See Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg’s presentation during Session 90 here. His presentation occurred earlier in the session, prior to this conversation with Drs. Kaufman and Lanka.

Below the Corona Investigative Committee video, we are providing documents, videos and articles for understanding the work of Dr. Lanka, Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan and others.

Please do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Video by Oval Media can be found at Corona Investigate Committee Odysee channel.

Documents by Dr. Stefan Lanka:

Dismantling the Virus Theory by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

The Causes of Corona Crisis Are Clearly Identified — Virologists Who Claim Disease-Causing Viruses Are Science Fraudsters and Must Be Prosecuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

How Dead Are Virus Anyway? All Claims of Virus Existence Refuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

Related document by Harold Hillman:

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman (download PDF)

Video on the work of Dr. Lanka:

The Final Refutation Of Virology by Dr. Stefan Lanka

Related articles:

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

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

The Contagion Myth: No Virus Has Ever Caused Disease

The Fraudulent Use of PCR / RT-PCR Techniques for the Manipulation, Harm and, Ultimately, the Destruction of Humanity

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

Jon Rappoport: My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

Connect with Dr. Stefan Lanka: http://wissenschafftplus.de/

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman: https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan: http://drtomcowan.com/

Connect with Corona Investigative Committee

What Is a Disease Without a Cause?

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 4, 2022

A disease without a cause is a business model.

You make a list of symptoms. You say many people are experiencing this cluster of symptoms.

You give a label to this list of symptoms. A name. The name of a disease or a disorder or a syndrome.

Over time, through promotion, the name sticks.

You fund research to find the cause of the disease. This research can stretch out for a long time. Possibly forever.

Meanwhile, you develop and sell drugs to treat the disease. Money.

You keep reporting “progress” on finding the cause. “At first, we looked for environmental factors. But now we know the basis is almost certainly genetic. We’re homing in on the specific genetic dysfunction…”

Over time, what’s forgotten is this: is there really a single disease with a single cause?

And think it through; if you can’t verify a single cause, you don’t have a disease. You just have the original list of symptoms.

Alzheimer’s would be an example. Microcephaly (babies born with small heads and brain damage) would be another. The disease names seem to carry the day. “Well, if there’s a name, a label, there must be a unique disease.”

Wrong.

If there’s a name, a label, there is money.

Money for research, for drug development, money from drug and vaccine sales.

Researchers are tasked with making the list of symptoms seem compelling. “We’ve done brain studies. There are remarkable similarities among patients who have Disease X. As you can see from these scans, in Figure A…”

Still, no dice. No verified cause. Therefore, no justification for using the disease label or claiming you have found a unique disease.

But it doesn’t matter, because the business model is working well.

Here’s another example. ADHD. Has a single cause been found for this list of symptoms? No. Therefore, there is no laboratory test for ADHD. No test to confirm the diagnosis of ADHD. Because a test would detect the cause is present in the patient—and there is no cause to look for.

In fact, if you examine the complete catalog of all so-called mental disorders—about 300 of them—there is no defining lab test for ANY of them. Not a one. Each so-called disorder is simply a list of behaviors which have been clustered together by committees of psychiatrists and given a name. ADHD. Bipolar. Clinical depression. And so on.

But it doesn’t matter. Because the business model is working. Money is pouring in. Drugs are selling.

Let’s take this even further. A hundred years of Rockefeller medicine have “established” that there are thousands of separate and distinct and unique diseases, disorders, and syndromes. And each one has a cause. For many diseases, the cause “hasn’t been discovered yet.” Meaning: “We’re writing fiction. We have no justification for calling these diseases, diseases.”

For many other diseases, researchers claim, the causes have been found. The most popular type of cause? A virus.

A virus that had never been seen before. A virus that was “discovered” in a lab.

A lab—as I’ve discussed in depth—that lets in no outsiders, no truly independent observers, to see, in detail, what’s actually going on.

For that reason, and several others, there is no solid reason to believe these viruses, these causes are actually being discovered. Are actually real.

Which leaves us with thousands of lists of symptoms.

But there is always a business model. The full Rockefeller model is worth trillions of dollars. More dollars every day.

The drugs and the vaccines are the $$$ payoff.

I’ve spent decades demonstrating their toxicity.

Here’s a very interesting medical trick. A criminal trick. The researchers say a brain disorder called ABC exists but they haven’t found the cause yet. A parent has a child with severe problems and takes him to the doctor. The doctor pronounces a diagnosis: “Yes, your boy has ABC.”

The parent goes away and does some research. The list of symptoms for ABC could be the result of a vaccine. In fact, the boy developed his severe problems quite soon after vaccination.

She goes back to the doctor and says, “I think my son was damaged by the vaccine.”

The doctor says, “That’s impossible. Your boy is suffering from ABC. And you see, we’ve done studies of boys with ABC, and many of them were never vaccinated. So when you say the cause of your boy’s ABC was a vaccine, we’ve ruled that out.”

The parent doesn’t know what to do.

Of course, the trick is, ABC was never proved to be a unique disorder in the first place. It’s really the NAME of an unproven disorder. The studies the doctor is referring to are completely irrelevant.

ABC is a disorder without a proven cause. Therefore, it is no disorder at all. It’s just a list of symptoms.

The parent’s boy has many of those symptoms. He acquired them—and the damage he suffered—from a vaccine. If you wanted to put a name to what the boy has, call it what it is: vaccine damage.

Not ABC.

Part of the business model for ABC is: “We use that disease label so we can avoid having to pay out huge compensation-dollars for damage caused by a vaccine.”

If the impact of this trick isn’t getting through to you, let me give you a grossly exaggerated analogy.

Engineers claim there is a phenomenon called River Floundering. It is unique but the cause hasn’t yet been found. The basic symptom is: boats on rivers develop the propensity to sink.

Joe takes his boat out on a river. Overhead, a bridge collapses and destroys his boat. Joe barely escapes with his life. After six months, he emerges from the hospital and sues a number of parties.

But he loses his case. In court, experts testify that his boat was suffering from River Floundering. That’s why it sank. Many studies of Floundering show bridges-collapsing did not occur when “the sinking happened.” Therefore, the collapsing bridge was not the cause of Joe’s boat’s disorder, River Floundering.

What is a disease without a cause?

A business model.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: geralt / pixabay

Jon Rappoport: My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
February 3, 2022

What proof would I accept? What sort of proof would convince me that SARS-CoV-2 exists?

Suppose, for example, a study described how researchers actually DID separate a virus from all the material surrounding it in their cell-soup in the lab?

Would that be enough?

And the answer is no.

Why?

Because I don’t trust studies based on research conducted in elite labs where no independent outsiders are allowed. And that’s the situation, when it comes to purported virus isolation.

These labs are like the famous bunkers where key government officials are taken, in the event of a massive attack against the country.

Try getting in off the street.

And who are these researchers in the super-secret labs? To put it another way, what sort of establishment do they represent?

Is it a clean establishment with a track record of honesty? Or is it a cartel with a criminal history?

If it’s a cartel, why should I accept the “scientific methods” of these researchers or their honesty?

As my long-time readers know, I’ve spent decades exposing lies and crimes of the medical cartel. Chapter and verse. (For example this: Medical weapons of mass destruction)

When it comes to vital issues that mean the difference between life and death—drug/vaccine-fueled destruction of human life; mistreatment and errors in hospitals; faked disease case and death numbers; inaccurate, meaningless, and deceptive diagnostic tests; the fabricated existence of a whole range of phony diseases and disorders and syndromes; the true numbers of medically caused deaths—medical authorities have been lying and sliming their way out of accountability for MANY decades.

And all this doesn’t touch on the history of public health declarations of epidemics that have turned out to be duds.

Nor does it include the overall history of Rockefeller medicine, which is based on the fatuous notion that there are thousands of separate and distinct diseases, each one of which is caused by a germ that must be treated by a profit-making drug.

Nor does it include the history of vicious suppression of innovative treatments developed by individuals who’ve worked outside the mainstream.

Therefore, suspicion is warranted. Is absolutely necessary. And “suspicion” is a vast understatement.

I refuse to trust the researchers who simply claim they’re isolating viruses.

When it comes to the so-called basic building blocks of MANY so-called diseases—which ARE “the viruses”—all the discovery-research HAS BEEN conducted by insiders in their off-limit labs. Without independent witnesses. Without educated witnesses who can watch and question each and every step of “the accepted method” for isolation of new viruses.

Frankly, you would have to be crazy to accept anything coming out of these insider-club labs.

So NO. I don’t accept such findings.

Before I describe how outsiders SHOULD be allowed to witness and participate in secret lab work, let me give you two quotes to consider.

They come from decidedly mainstream and elite editors of elite medical journals. These editors have read and explored and probed and lifted the fake cover from published medical material for decades. Material they themselves have published. Therefore, these are CONFESSIONS.

ONE: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

TWO: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

Suspicion is warranted. It’s absolutely necessary. And again, “suspicion” is a vast understatement.

More than a year ago, I mentioned how virus-isolation research—if the word “research” applies at all—should be done.

And I issue this now, as a challenge, to the entire insider-club of virologists, all of whom claim their established method of finding and sequencing new viruses is scientific and rigorous:

Let’s have a film crew on site. As you work. In your lab. Looking over your shoulders and recording every move you make.

And with the film crew, let’s have several knowledgeable, outside, independent researchers. People whom you would ordinarily refuse to give the time of day. People who are insightful. Possibly, people like Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan.

As the film crew works, and as you conduct and describe your step-by-step “isolation” of a new virus, these outsiders can stop you at any moment and question you. In depth.

“Why did you just do that?” “Why didn’t you record that step?” “Explain that answer you just gave me. It makes no sense.” “Exactly what did you just withdraw from the solution in the dish, and how do you know what it was?”

This is not a public relations exercise or an educational documentary for medical students. This is REAL. This is research about your research. No holds barred.

You give a slippery answer to a question; you evade with a vague generality; you try to pull rank; you get nailed to the wall. On film.

THIS is the procedure I want.

All the way from start to finish. Including the so-called sequencing of the “new virus.”

And then we would know a great deal more about what you’re actually doing and not doing in your labs. In the absence of what I’m proposing and demanding, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THE PROCESS OF VIRUS-ISOLATION IS LEGITIMATE.

Virologists, your work affects every human on Earth. Profoundly. To see this, all a person has to do is look around him these days, at what is called “COVID.” It proceeds from your so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2.

I view you virologists as I would view the court magicians and soothsayers and high priests who surrounded and advised the leaders of tribes and nations in ancient times.

Those “experts” huddled with the leaders in their very private rooms and spun stories and predictions, and recommended strategies to deal with supposed ongoing and looming crises.

And then the leaders took actions that affected the lives of all the people.

So it is now. With you virologists.

So my demands are entirely within bounds. If you have a shred of honesty, and if you stop and think about it, what I’m demanding is prosaically simple:

You account for every step you take. In real time. Where you work. Right there, you submit yourselves to the detailed scrutiny of independent outsiders.

That’s my bottom line.

And I challenge any scientist, analyst, investigator, doctor, researcher, reporter, alt. reporter who says what I’m demanding is not necessary. You’re wrong. You’re dead wrong.

You either haven’t thought things through, or you’re lying.

Someone is going to tell me what I’m demanding, as proof, is impossible. It would never happen. “They” would never let it happen. They would never let independent outsiders into their holy labs.

You think I don’t know that?

If outsiders can’t get into their labs, what does that tell you?

And someone will say, “We just have to rely on the best evidence we have.”

No we don’t. Because the best available evidence is no evidence.

In a vast sea of death-dealing medical lies, a sea that has existed for more than a hundred years (actually much longer), if experts tell you they’re discovering viruses in labs you can’t enter, and they say you must believe them, and you buy that…

I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon. Full cash only, no payments.

Here it is: Virologists are saying and writing they’ve found a purple man with pink hair and green lips and four arms living a thousand miles under the surface of a planet in the next solar system over. And he causes disease.

Then they’re saying, “Prove us wrong.”

On top of that, they’re saying, “You can’t watch us work while we discover such creatures.”

Conclusion: the purple man doesn’t exist.

Virologists, text me when you’ll let my people into your lab.

Until then, get lost.

Dear reader, the elephant in the room is trust, not data.

When it comes to the “discovery of viruses,” there are no reliable data. We, on the outside, are told that what happens behind locked doors is irrefutable. Period.

We’re told we just can’t understand what the pros are doing. The problem is our lack of knowledge, our lack of training.

We’re the peasants toiling in the valley. Our better, the baron, is up in his castle on top of the mountain. He’s planning our lives, he’s taking care of us.

Sure. Of course. Uh-huh.

Sounds familiar. It’s pretty much the history of the world.

Or it was, until people who came before us finally staked out a territory called freedom, which involved opening locked doors and finding out what lay behind them.

Consider a parochial example: the mafia. They, too, plan behind closed doors. They concoct methods of carrying out crimes. They record their profits. Then, finally, a prosecutor announces, “We were able to get into their books. We saw the details. We made arrests.”

I want my independent accountants to get into the virologists’ books. But not after the fact. I want my people to BE there while the virologists are creating the books, entry by entry, in the lab.

“Why did you just make that entry? Where did your conclusion come from? Who are you trying to kid? You’re just fabricating this stuff? You know, that’s called RICO. That’s a RICO case. Continuing criminal enterprise. They’ll send you away for a long time…”

And all of a sudden, the high and mighty virologist, who’s been able to con the world with his hustle, who knows how to come off sounding superior in every way, feels a dent in his armor. A big dent. He smells his own blood.

And he starts talking.

He wants to make a deal. He’ll roll over on his colleagues. He’ll expose the whole sham.

“…You don’t understand. It’s the money. It’s all about the money. Where it comes from. We have to do this kind of work. Otherwise, we starve. They cut us off. I know the people on the funding committees. I’ll give you their names. They take orders, too. The whole thing is a system. I can draw you a map. I can’t go to jail. I have a family. I’m paying eighty grand a year just to send my kids to college. There’s the mortgage, and the cottage on the Cape…”

The whole bluff POPS and deflates, and we begin to hear words we understand, at last. The words of confession. The down-to-earth sordid truth.

There was never a towering mystery in the castle on the hill.

There was just the passing of the buck. The soiled buck. From hand to hand.

The “science” was the front.

“…You see, it works this way. The pharmaceutical companies have to have new viruses. For every fake virus, they develop a real drug and a real vaccine. It’s marketing. That’s what they’re doing. That’s what they’ve always been doing. This is much bigger than anyone realizes. I’m just a little fish. The big boys run the whole show. They pay the Congress and the FDA. They pay everybody…”

He keeps talking. He can’t stop. He’s way past “isolation, purification and sequencing.” They’re in his rear-view mirror. Now he’s fighting for his freedom from prison. Now he’s telling the truth.

And the ever-present storm clouds over the valley where we peasants toil are blowing away. The air is fresher.

We’re breathing easier.

The big-cheese baron is really a shrunken little man—when he takes his perp walk in chains.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Tumisu / pixabay

Landmark Book on AIDS That Exposes the Criminality of Anthony Fauci and Government Technocrats: Free Download

by Edward Hendrie, Great Mountain Publishing
January 29, 2022

Peter Duesberg is a molecular biologist and a molecular and cell biology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. At one time, he was an acclaimed scientist who was the world’s foremost expert on AIDS. That all changed when he was blackballed by Anthony Fauci and the scientific establishment for the temerity of revealing the truth that HIV does not cause AIDS. Duesberg was slandered as a homophobe for revealing the scientific evidence that AIDS was caused by the use of certain dangerous recreational/pharmaceutical aphrodisiacs by the sodomite community that over time broke down the immune systems of the users who then developed AIDS. He revealed that the prevalence of AIDS in Africa is simply explained by recategorizing as HIV the endemic immune deficiencies that were always understood to be caused by malnutrition, tainted drinking water, and various infections.

Dr. Duesberg reveals how Fauci pushed the toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who were found to have antibodies to HIV. Those patients were poisoned by the drug (AZT) that was supposed to treat them. AZT, in actuality, caused AIDS, which eventually killed the patients. That is much like the present regime of treating COVID-19 with unsafe and ineffective mRNA vaccines and toxic therapeutics like Veklury® (remdesivir) while suppressing safe and effective therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

Duesberg’s book exposes the incompetence, megalomania, and in some cases criminality of Anthony Fauci, and other NIH, FDA, and CDC officials. It reveals the genesis of the establishment of what has become a cabal of ruling technocrats in government which has now brought Orwellian oppression across the United States and indeed the world through the COVID-19 scare and mandatory experimental vaccinations.

There were very powerful interests who tried to kill Duesberg’s book before it ever saw the light of day. The publisher, Regnery, in its preface to the book explains how Peter Duesberg went through two publishers who backed out of publishing the book at late stages, apparently due to some hidden pressure from an unseen hand.

This book is now out of publication. But there is still robust demand for the book which has driven the price up. While Amazon offers the audible version of the book at a reasonable price, as of January 28, 2022, the hardcover version was priced at $1,260.00 and the paperback was priced at $536.00.

It is now a free PDF download.

Excerpt From the Publisher’s Preface:

Regnery is the third publisher to have contracted to publish Inventing the AIDS Virus. Addison Wesley initially announced the book in 1993. St. Martin’s signed it in January 1994 and subsequently assigned its contract to us in January 1995. We announced it, initially, in the fall of 1995 and finally published it in February 1996. Bryan Ellison, Duesberg’s former research assistant and original co-author, became disenchanted with Duesberg’s and his publisher’s insistence on careful documentation and self-published his own version under the title Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS in 1994. We sued Ellison for breach of contract and copyright violation and, after a two-week federal court jury trial, were awarded a six-figure verdict and an injunction against Ellison’s edition. Inventing the AIDS Virus has been edited by at least five editors, has been agonized over by the publishers of three major publishing firms, and concurrently praised and damned by countless critics.

Excerpt from the foreword by Nobel Laureate Kerry Mullis, creator of the PCR test:

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we’ve seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time. Read this book.

Kary B. Mullis
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993

Prior to his untimely death on August 7, 2019, Kerry Mullis had this to say about Anthony Fauci and his ilk:

“Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking, you know, he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I’d say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there you’ll know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about what’s going on in the body. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They’ve got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to. And they smugly, like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”

Notice the book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, on the table in front of Mullis during the interview.

Connect with Great Mountain Publishing

The Pharmaceutical Companies Have a Financial Incentive to Make Their Vaccines Injurious

by Edward Hendrie, Great Mountain Publishing
January 6, 2022

Congress passed the National Vaccine Injury Act (NVIA) of 1986, which granted immunity to the pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by the vaccines they manufactured. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth 1, the reason for that protection is that Congress deemed vaccines to be unavoidably unsafe, 2 thus no manufacturer would make a vaccine if they had to suffer the liability for injuries they would unavoidably cause. 3

Mary S. Holland explains the issue: “The success of the national vaccine program has come at a cost. Some children are permanently disabled or die from their vaccine exposures. … Between 1980 and 1986, people who claimed vaccine injury brought over three billion dollars of damages claims to U.S. civil courts against vaccine manufacturers.” 4

In response to the litigation that held them accountable for the injuries caused by their vaccines, the vaccine manufacturers lobbied Congress, and in 1986 they were able to get the NVIA law passed. That law had the effect of protecting them from civil liability for injuries caused by vaccines that they manufactured.

The underlying legal reasoning of Congress for the 1986 NVIA law was a concept borrowed from the Restatement of Torts law that vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe.” Holland explains that “[t]he Restatement describes all vaccines as ‘unavoidably unsafe’ products and implicitly recommended that manufacturers not be liable for injuries if doctors administered them properly.” 5

The NVIA set up a system of government compensation for vaccine injuries that has in practice served more to prevent compensation than anything else. Robert F. Kennedy explains:

Parents, legal guardians and legal representatives can file on behalf of children, disabled adults, and individuals who are deceased. According to the vaccine-injured and their loved ones, the program has failed miserably as a litigious, broken system where the injured are up against a government vaccine program, government owned vaccine patents, government health officials who administer the program and government paid attorneys from the Department of Justice. There is no judge, no jury of your peers and no discovery. Claimants feel the system is set up for their claims to fail. 6

The U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz, supra, ruled that language in the statute categorically preempts even design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers. Holland explains that U.S. Supreme Court ruling “removed incentives for pharmaceutical corporations to conduct the extensive research and development necessary to ensure that FDA-approved vaccines remain as safe and effective as possible after licensure. FDA approval alone has not been a sufficient guarantee of drug safety, owing in part to the FDA’s limited authority to compel further safety research after final approval.” 7

Holland reveals the real-world consequences of the NIVA for vaccine recipients:

[Gayle] DeLong showed that the proportion of people that reported a serious complication from a vaccine after [enactment of the NVIA in] 1986 is more than double the proportion of people who experienced a serious complication from a disease before a vaccine for it was available. The difference is statistically significant and is likely greater because of underreporting.

DeLong’s analysis suggests that the Vaccine Act “gave firms greater incentives to capture the regulator: If consumers cannot sue firms for product liability, the only barrier to sales is regulatory approval.” 8

The NVIA protects vaccine makers from liability for “unavoidable” injuries caused by vaccines. The NVIA states in pertinent part:

No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings. 9

In order to make sure the immunity from liability pill goes down easier for the public, the NVIA mandated that the Secretary of HHS “promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines [presently] on the market.” 10

That requirement was supposed to be performed by a task force made up of the “Director of the National Institutes of Health [NIH], the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control [CDC].” 11

The NVIA statute required that “within 2 years after December 22, 1987, and periodically thereafter, the Secretary [of HHS] shall prepare and transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate a report describing the actions taken pursuant to subsection (a) during the preceding 2-year period.” 12

The NIH, FDA, and CDC scoundrels thumbed their noses at Congress. They violated the law by not filing the required reports with the U.S. Congress. Why did they not file the required reports? The only logical reason is that they did not meet as required, and they did not “promote the development of childhood vaccines that result in fewer and less serious adverse reactions than those vaccines [presently] on the market” 13 as required by the statute.

That is clear evidence that the component agencies of HHS (CDC, NIH, and FDA) have no interest in the development of safe vaccines for children.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discovered the scofflaws at HHS when he filed a Freedom of Information Act request with HHS requesting the reports prepared and transmitted to Congress as required by the NVIA. HHS refused to comply with the request. He sued HHS. 14 After being served with the lawsuit, HHS admitted that they never filed any required reports with Congress. 15 That means that the component agencies of HHS (CDC, NIH, and FDA) never formed the required task force and made no effort to see that vaccines were made safer.

The CDC, NIH, and FDA never met to develop a plan for safe vaccines for children. Why? Because CDC, NIH, and FDA know that the pharmaceutical companies have no interest making vaccines safe for children! Vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and the vaccine makers like it that way. Pharmaceutical companies get rich when people are made sick. It is a racket where they cause injury via their vaccines and then make the patent medicines to address the symptoms of the injuries they have caused. There was a fly in their ointment, and that was civil liability for the injuries they caused. The immunity granted by the NVIA solved that problem. Since the NVIA, the pharmaceutical companies have been off to the races creating one ineffective and unsafe vaccine after another.

As explained by Texans for Vaccine Choice, “[t]he [NVIA] removed all liability from vaccine manufacturers when their products injure or kill. Realizing that removing consumer accountability would eliminate any motivation for manufacturers to ensure their products are as safe and effective as they can possibly be, the Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines clause was added to the the Act as a check-and-balance.” But we now know that there is no check-and-balance. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. explains:

This speaks volumes to the lack of seriousness by which vaccine safety is treated at HHS and heightens the concern that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 29 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age. 16

The CDC, when asked, was unable to provide any evidence that any childhood vaccine has ever been tested for safety using a placebo control. Indeed, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out that “not one of the 72 vaccines on the schedule mandated for our children, have been tested with a placebo.” There is a reason. No vaccine could ever survive being tested for safety and effectiveness against a placebo. The pharmaceutical companies know that their vaccines are not only ineffective, they are injurious. Research has shown that childhood vaccines cause injuries. 17 And that is by design. A design for which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the drug companies have immunity from civil liability.

The CDC, NIH, and FDA know it is a fool’s errand to try to convince the drug companies to manufacture something safe when to do so would undermine the drug companies’ pecuniary interests. The surreptitious goal of the drug companies is to make people sick through vaccines. That is why the CDC, NIH, and FDA had nothing to report to Congress regarding their efforts to develop vaccines with “fewer and less serious adverse reactions.” The goal of the vaccine makers is to cause injury. The pharmaceutical companies, CDC, NIH, and FDA all know that vaccines will unavoidably cause injuries. They have no interest in mitigating the damage caused by vaccines because those injuries make the pharmaceutical companies rich through the patent medicines they sell to address the injuries caused by the vaccines.

For example, on December 13, 2021, Pfizer announced:

Pfizer will acquire Arena, a clinical stage company developing innovative potential therapies for the treatment of several immuno-inflammatory diseases. Under the terms of the agreement, Pfizer will acquire all the outstanding shares of Arena for $100 per share in an all-cash transaction for a total equity value of approximately $6.7 billion. The boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved the transaction. 18

Pfizer is acquiring a company that makes drugs that treat the very immuno-inflammatory injuries caused by Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Arena has drugs in the pipeline to treat cardio inflammatory diseases like myocarditis; the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has become notorious for causing myocarditis. 19 Also notable is Arena’s development of a drug (Termanogrel) to address microvascular obstructions, which several doctors have identified as the root cause of many illnesses resulting from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. 20 For example, Dr. Charles Hoffe, MD — who practices in British Columbia, Canada — explained in very simple terms how the mRNA COVID vaccines create the spike proteins which cause widespread microscopic blood clotting that will eventually kill many people within three years of taking the shots. 21 Pfizer now wants to get in on the action of offering overpriced patent medicines to give to desperate patients suffering from the deadly side-effects of their vaccine. How much more Machiavelian can you get?

Please be mindful that the COIVD-19 vaccine manufacturers are also protected from civil liability. The COVID-19 vaccines will be subjected to the even more exacting standards and limited compensation of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which authorizes the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) to provide benefits to injured parties. A notable limitation under the CICP is that an injured party will be subjected to the statute of limitations that forecloses all legal actions not filed within one year of vaccination. 22 That is compared with the statute of limitations for an approved vaccine under the National Vaccine Injury Act (NVIA) of 3 years from the occurrence of the first symptom of injury from the vaccine. 23

Experts specializing in vaccine injury cases say that the bar for obtaining compensation is very high under the PREP Act. 24 Over the last ten years, 94% of injured patients who filed claims under the PREP Act received no compensation. 25 In reference to the virtually insurmountable hurdles erected under the CICP, Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School, said COVID-19 vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.” 26 Altom Maglio, whose 22 lawyer law firm, Maglio Christopher & Toale, specializes in vaccine injury cases, says that you’re out of luck if you’ve suffered an injury related to any of the COVID-19 vaccines in receiving any compensation for your injury. 27 That all is not intended to suggest that the NVIA is fair. The NVIA has its own problems. Two out of three claims filed under the NVIA are denied. 28

A “declared public health emergency” as described in the PREP Act is the legal landscape under which the COVID-19 vaccine is being developed. Under the PREP Act, there is a moral hazard where manufactures of the COVID-19 vaccines will be protected from any liability for injuries caused by their COVID-19 vaccines. They have no financial incentive to make a vaccine that is safe or effective. They can sit back and count their billions in profits as they injure the public with impunity. The demand for the product is guaranteed by a marketplace that is rigged by the U.S. and state governments, which will pay for the vaccine and then mandate that the public consume that vaccine. The attitude of the vaccine manufacturers toward the consumer who is injured is “oh well, too bad, so sad, it sucks to be you.”

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 1 Timothy 6:10.

Endnotes

1 562 U.S. 223 (2011), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf.

2 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–22, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22.

3 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Children’s Health Defense, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/ (last visited on January 6, 2021).

4 Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/.

5 Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/.

6 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Children’s Health Defense, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/ (last visited on January 6, 2021).

7 Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/.

8 Mary S. Holland, Liability for Vaccine Injury: The United States, the European Union, and the Developing World, Emory Law Journal, Vol 67, 2018, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss3/3/. Quoting Gayle DeLong, Is “Delitigation” Associated with a Change in Product Safety? The Case of Vaccines, Rev. Ind. Org. (June 14, 2017).

9 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–22, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22.

10 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-27.

11 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27.

12 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27.

13 42 U.S.C. § 300aa–27.

14 RFK, Jr. Proves HHS is in Violation of the “Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines” as Stipulated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, Children’s Health Defense, September 13, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/federal-failures/rfk-jr-proves-hhs-is-in-violation-of-the-mandate-for-safer-childhood-vaccines-as-stipulated-in-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-act/. ICAN v. HHS, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, April 12, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rfk-complaint-against-united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services.pdf. See also ICAN & RFK, Jr. Call Out DHHS for Vaccine Safety Violations, Texans for Vaccine Choice, July 18, 2018, https://texansforvaccinechoice.com/ican-rfk-jr-call-out-dhhs-for-vaccine-safety-violations/.

15 ICAN v. HHS, Stipulation, July 9, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/rfk-hhs-stipulated-order-july-2018.pdf.

16 RFK, Jr. Proves HHS is in Violation of the “Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines” as Stipulated in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, Children’s Health Defense, September 13, 2018, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/federal-failures/rfk-jr-proves-hhs-is-in-violation-of-the-mandate-for-safer-childhood-vaccines-as-stipulated-in-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-act/.

17 Edward Hendrie, Study Shows That Vaccinated Children Are Significantly Less Healthy Than Unvaccinated Children, December 20, 2020, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/12/20/study-shows-that-vaccinated-children-are-significantly-less-healthy-than-unvaccinated-children/. Edward Hendrie, Vaccines Increase Mortality of Infants, August 17, 2020, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/08/17/vaccines-increase-mortality-of-children/. Edward Hendrie, Vaccines Cause Autism and Allergies, August 5, 2020, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2020/08/05/vaccines-cause-autism-and-allergies/.

18 Pfizer to Acquire Arena Pharmaceuticals, December 13, 2021, https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-acquire-arena-pharmaceuticals.

19 Edward Hendrie, Follow the SILENCE: Paper Proving That COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Myocarditis Is Removed From Publication Without Explanation, October 31, 2021, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/10/31/follow-the-silence-paper-proving-that-covid-19-vaccines-cause-myocarditis-is-removed-from-publication-without-explanation/. See also Edward Hendrie, The FDA and Pfizer Concealed Evidence That COVID-19 Vaccines Will Cause Myocarditis in Children, November 7, 2021, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/11/07/the-fda-and-pfizer-concealed-evidence-that-covid-19-vaccines-will-cause-myocarditis-in-children/.

20 Pfizer buys immuno-inflammatory firm Arena Pharmaceuticals for $6.7b, December 13, 2021, Outsourcing-Pharma, https://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Article/2021/12/13/Pfizer-buys-immuno-inflammatory-firm-Arena-for-6.7b.

21 Edward Hendrie, Doctor Finds That His Patients Have Permanent Organ Damage from Blood Clots Caused by COVID-19 Vaccines, Great Mountain Publishing, October 23, 2021, https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/10/23/doctor-finds-that-his-patients-have-permanent-organ-damage-from-blood-clots-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines/, quoting CFT Team, Doctor Warns How COVID mRNA ‘Vaccines’ Will Cause Delayed Strokes & Heart Attacks — ‘The Worst Is Yet To Come’, July 14, 2021, https://christiansfortruth.com/doctor-warns-how-covid-mrna-vaccines-will-soon-cause-strokes-heart-attacks-the-worst-is-yet-to-come/.

22 Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, Request for Benefits Form Instructions, OMB Control No. 0915-0334, Expiration Date: 3/31/2023, https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/cicp/cicp-request-form-instructions.pdf.

23 42 U.S. C. § 300aa–16.

24 McKenzie Sigalos, You Can’t Sue Pfizer or Moderna If You Have Severe Covid Vaccine Side Effects. The Government Likely Won’t Compensate You for Damages Either, CNBC, December 17, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html.

25 McKenzie Sigalos, You Can’t Sue Pfizer or Moderna If You Have Severe Covid Vaccine Side Effects. The Government Likely Won’t Compensate You for Damages Either, CNBC, December 17, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html.

26 Megan Redshaw, Injured by a COVID Vaccine? Want Financial Compensation? Too Bad, Says Injury Compensation Law Firm, The Defender, July 1, 2021, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-injury-no-compensation-program/.

27 Megan Redshaw, Injured by a COVID Vaccine? Want Financial Compensation? Too Bad, Says Injury Compensation Law Firm, The Defender, July 1, 2021, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-injury-no-compensation-program/.

28 Vaccine Injury Fund: Lessons From a Vaccine Lawyer-“Covered” Vaccines in the Court (and the DtaP), Widman Law Firm, https://www.widmanlawfirm.com/vaccine-injury-fund-lessons-from-a-vaccine-lawyer-covered-vaccin.html (last visited on August 28, 2021).

Connect with Great Mountain Publishing

cover image credit: Parentingupstream / pixabay

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

by Dr. Mark Bailey
Febuary 1, 2022

“Viruses are small obligate intracellular parasites, which by definition contain either a RNA or DNA genome surrounded by a protective, virus-coded protein coat.”

Medical Microbiology, 4th edition, 1996

The question regarding the existence of pathogenic viruses remains an important one as the belief in such viruses dictates billions of dollars of resources and research funds. In the past two years we have also seen how an alleged virus can be used as a political tool to bring populations to heel. It is not the first time this has happened: for example, the “discovery” of HIV in the 1980s set up a multi-billion dollar industry and has also been used politically in most corners of the world. (The fallacies regarding the existence of the HIV particle and it causing AIDS are outlined in Virus Mania. For those wanting to dive more deeply into the arguments, I would recommend The Perth Group’s magnus opus on this topic.)

Independent journalist Jeremy Hammond who promotes himself as exposing “dangerous state propaganda” surrounding COVID-19 and the dangers of the vaccines, thus made the following curious statement in 2021:

“the false claim that SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated (i.e., never proven to exist) greatly harms the credibility of the health freedom movement and is grounded in total ignorance of the science (the virus is constantly being isolated and whole genome sequenced by scientists all over the world)”

Jeremy Hammond, 9 March 2021

I would argue that the ignorance falls in Hammond’s lap as he appears to reach his conclusion by essentially repeating the claims made by virologists and reassuring the audience that their methodologies are valid. In recent weeks we have also seen Dr Joseph Mercola presenting Hammond’s interview and Steve Kirsch’s blog (that also makes appeals to virology authority) as “evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 exists. Kirsch states that he relies on “expert opinions of people I trust” which means that he has put the argument into the hands of others rather than investigating the issue himself. But is it wise for these health freedom fighters who are battling establishment COVID “experts” to not also question the establishment virologists?

Dr Andy Kaufman produced a point by point refutation of Hammond’s support of modern virology’s “isolation” methodology here, while Dr Tom Cowan warned that we are just getting started with dismantling virology’s nonsense here. Dr Sam Bailey has published many videos covering the virus isolation issue – most of which have been banned from YouTube but can still be found on Odysee. Additionally, in an essay I co-authored with Dr John Bevan-Smith, we describe the first pillar of the COVID-19 fraud as virology’s misuse of the term “isolation”. In summary, because virologists were unable to physically isolate any viruses last century, they simply changed the definition of the word so that even virologists admit the term is now used loosely. A strange state of affairs when the scientific method calls for precise terminology.

My observation over the past two years has been that many scientists, doctors, and journalists are happy to jump over this “isolation” chasm and cite the “coronavirus genomes” deposited in databases as proof that the virus must exist. For example, Steve Kirsch writes in his blog that:

“I know that Sabine Hazan verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus.”

Steve Kirsch, 10 January 2022

He cites Hazan’s paper “Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing” as the evidence for this statement. Kirsch admits that he doesn’t know how the genomes were created, but his…

“scientist friends seem happy with them. At $2,000 a shot, I don’t think they’d market the product if it was contaminated and useless. Am I wrong?”

Steve Kirsch, 10 January 2022

Unfortunately, he appears to have been duped by the high-tech façade of virology’s genomics genie where “viruses” are created from various detected genetic sequences. In fact, sometimes the sequences are not really detected at all, as Dr Stefan Lanka is exposing in what may be virology’s death blow.

We can use Hazan’s paper as an example of the flawed methodology used in creating these “virus genomes”. The research team obtained faecal samples from 14 participants and proceeded to see what genetic sequences they could detect in the samples. We strike the first issue in the ‘methods’ section when they state that “included throughout sample processing was the SARS-CoV-2 positive control from ATCC (Heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2, VR-1986HK; strain 2019-nCoV/USA-WA1/2020)” How did they know that the sample contained the inactivated virus? Because the ATCC (American Type Culture Collection) claims that it does on their website where they state “this strain was originally isolated from a human case in Washington state and was deposited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” And how did the CDC know that they had the virus? Because they claimed they found it in this paper here.

But where was the virus?

In the CDC’s paper, they say that they collected “clinical specimens from a case-patient who had acquired COVID-19 during travel to China and who was identified in Washington, USA”. It was concluded that the patient had COVID-19 based on a PCR result that detected some sequences said to come from SARS-CoV-2. But at this point they had no proof of any virus – all they had was some detected genetic sequences from a patient with an alleged viral infection. After performing a test tube tissue culture experiment on their clinical sample and claiming that there was evidence of a virus due to non-specific cytopathic effects, they began to construct their “genome”. They state that “we used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing.” This is another sleight of hand because the “viral lysate” was not demonstrated to come from a virus, it is simply a soup of broken up culture cells and other additives.

Similarly misleading was the claim they “extracted nucleic acid from isolates”. They have implied that they have isolated a virus and that they know which RNA sequences came from inside it. However, this would require the alleged viral particles to be truly physically isolated by purification, which they failed to do. And I say alleged because even if they purified the particles, it would still have to be shown that they meet the definition of a virus – including being parasitic and the causal agent of disease – something that was not demonstrated by these authors or any others.

In any case, how did they know which genetic sequences belonged to the “virus” in the first place? They “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512).” And where did this “reference sequence” come from? This relates to Fan Wu, et al’s paper describing the 41-year-old man who was admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan on 26 December 2019 with bilateral pneumonia and despite no new clinical features, was said to have a condition that was later called “COVID-19”.

The specimen was of crude lung washings, so it contained a mixture of human cells and potentially all sorts of other micro-organisms and genetic fragments. They simply asserted that there was a virus in the brew. From this mixed sample they blindly generated tens of millions of different sequences and then put their software to work to see how they could fit them all together. To do this “fitting” the software searched for “contigs” or areas where different fragments appear to have overlapping sequences. Of the hundreds of thousands of hypothetical sequences generated in this fashion they identified that the longest “continuous” sequence the computer could create was about 30,000 bases long and concluded that this software creation must be the genome of the presumed new virus.

They thought this was the genome because their hypothetically generated 30,000 base sequence was 89.1% similar to, “a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45”. The “genome” for the bat CoV “isolate” was generated in 2018 after “19 degenerated PCR primer pairs were designed by multiple alignment of available SARS-CoV and bat SL-CoV sequences deposited in GenBank, targeting almost the full length of the genome.” So in other words, they already knew the sequence to look for based on sequences that had previously been deposited in GenBank. But how did the producers of these already deposited sequences know that they had found viral genomes? Welcome to the circular reasoning of modern virology.

To explain the loop that virologists appear to be trapped inside, this 2019 paper published in Virology is illustrative of the problem:

“Three main methods based on HTS [High-throughput sequencing] are currently used for viral whole-genome sequencing: metagenomic sequencing, target enrichment sequencing and PCR amplicon sequencing, each showing benefits and drawbacks (Houldcroft et al., 2017). In metagenomic sequencing, total DNA (and/or RNA) from a sample including host but also bacteria, viruses and fungi is extracted and sequenced. It is a simple and cost-effective approach, and it is the only approach not requiring reference sequences. Instead, the other two HTS approaches, target enrichment and amplicon sequencing, both depend on reference information to design baits or primers.”

Maurier F, et al, “A complete protocol for whole-genome sequencing of virus from clinical samples,” Virology, May 2019.

Essentially this gets to the root of the problem. The “viral” reference genomes are being created through metagenomic sequencing but this is done on crude specimens (such as lung washings or unpurified tissue cultures) and then declarations that the selected sequences are viral in origin. So already there are two problems: firstly, there was no step (i.e. purification) to show that the sequences come from inside “viruses” and secondly, as described above, the computer generated “genomes” are simply assembled hypothetical models from small genetic fragments, not something that has been proven to exist in nature as a whole 30,000 base sequence. However, these in silico models then effectively become the “virus” and an entity such as SARS-CoV-2 is created. Once the first of such a sequence is deposited on a database, the “virus” can be “found” by others through the same flawed metagenomic techniques. Or as stated in the Virology paper, it can be “found” through target enrichment and amplicon sequencing (usually PCR), but this requires you to have a reference sequence…that is, a template that was invented in silico by metagenomic sequencing where the provenance of the genetic fragments was unknown.

There is no part in the above process that establishes either:

1) the genetic composition of any imaged or imagined particles; or

2) the biological nature of such particles, i.e. what they actually do.

It’s a good-looking nano-particle alright, but what is it made of and what does it do?

So, now can we return to Hazan’s paper to see that it is a pointless exercise in virological nonsense. They state that along with their “SARS-CoV-2 positive control from ATCC”, the “patient genomes were compared to the Wuhan-Hu-1 (MN90847.3) SARS-CoV-2 reference genome”. Accession number MN90847.3 refers to the updated “genome” said to have been found in the 41-year-old man from Wuhan as discussed above in Fan Wu, et al’s paper. The circle is complete – at no stage was it demonstrated that there was any virus by following this evidence trail of “genomes”. Fan Wu’s team never found a virus, they simply asserted that their genetic sequence computer simulation was a “new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae” without proving that the sequence existed in nature or came from inside a virus. Hence, there was no “detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples” as the title of the Hazan paper claimed, unless “SARS-CoV-2” means genetic sequences of who-knows-what from who-knows-where. It doesn’t matter where or how often these sequences are detected – they have never been proven to be viral in nature. So, when Steve Kirsch stated that Hazan “verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus,” he is mistaken.

What “virus” is he talking about?

Connect with Dr. Mark Bailey & Dr. Sam Bailey

cover image credit: krivitskiy / pixabay

Is Purification of a “Virus” Necessary? Yes.

by Mike Stone, Viroliegy
January 30, 2022

Purification: the act or process of making something pure and free of any contaminating, debasing, or foreign elements

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/purification

I was not planning on doing any more articles nor devoting any more of my time to Steve Kirsch after my response to his claim that “SARS-COV-2” has been isolated. It was clear to me after reading his blog post that he did not understand what he was writing about. Even if it wasn’t clear to anyone reading, Steve took the liberty of outright admitting that he did not understand the topic as he relied on “experts” to tell him what to think and believe:

I rely on expert opinions of people who I trust for certain issues like whether or not the virus has been “isolated.” -Steve Kirsch

After the blog post came out, there were some exchanges between Steve and Christine Massey, who has done an amazing job of destroying the “virus” isolation lie with her Freedom of Information requests. She confronted Steve about his “isolation” claim and brilliantly pointed out why he was wrong. Instead of conceding that she was right and that he clearly did not understand the topic, Steve hunkered down on his ridiculous claim and pushed her for a 5 hour live debate with his “experts” in order to let the audience decide which side was right in the “SARS-COV-2” isolation argument. Disregarding the ridiculousness of the 5 hour time frame and the desire for the audience to decide a winner, Steve was attempting to sit on the sidelines and play matchmaker by pitting his “experts” against Christine. Once she enlisted the help of a team of her own experts, Steve seemingly panicked and decided to exit stage left.

This is just a brief summary of what transpired over the course of a few weeks in January 2022 and I may not have done the exchange justice. However, while the debate-that-never-was is an interesting story, it is not my main focus. In fact, I would have left this whole Steve Kirsch situation in the wastebasket where it belongs until I saw his parting shots at the “virus does not exist” community. In his attempt to save face by passing the responsibility of debating Christine and her experts off to his readers (which shouldn’t be shocking as he is seemingly skilled at passing responsibility off to “experts”), Steve shared some additional outlandish claims made by his “experts” regarding “virus” purification. Here are a few brief highlights from his post:

Does anyone want to debate “Does the virus exist?”

If course it does, but there are followers of Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey who claim it doesn’t.

“I’m not willing to invest my time in this debate, but if you want to challenge Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey, please let me know in the comments.”

“Basically, purifying a virus is difficult and there is no reason in today’s world to do it, so it isn’t done. The FOIA requests they issue are a publicity stunt that they know will fail. That’s very disingenuous of them not to reveal that.”

“Also, the people I talk to fully acknowledge there is no purified virus, but that it isn’t needed because they can do everything they need to do without it. Lanka et al. claim it is needed. So it’s now just a matter of opinion. Neither side is going to convince the other side. That’s what happened.”

“The reason nobody has purified the virus is there is no need to do so in today’s world where gene sequencing is readily available.”

First, I would like to point out Steve’s apparent Freudian slip while attempting to declare the “virus” exists: “If course it does.” Not a typo on my part. I’m not here to play grammar police as I make plenty of spelling errors myself. I just thought it was an amusingly ironic way to start his post. Since Steve is unwilling to invest his time in a debate, maybe he could devote it to proofreading?

Now that the fun is out of the way, let’s get to the nitty-gritty on “virus” purification. According to Steve’s “experts,” the purification of a “virus” is too difficult and is no longer necessary. They believe that in today’s world of molecular virology, purifying “viruses” does not need to occur as a genome can be obtained from the genetic soup full of host and other unknown “non-viral” RNA/DNA. They believe that it is possible to obtain a genome for an unknown “virus” by piecing it together from the millions of reads of random RNA aquired from these unrelated sources within the sample. Thus, Steve and Co. want you to believe that purification, i.e. the very steps used to rid a sample of contaminants, pollutants, foreign material, etc. in order to isolate it, is not necessary any more as technology has advanced beyond these primitive methods. Putting aside the fact that the admittance by Steve and Co. that purified “SARS-COV-2” does not exist destroys their previous claims of “virus” isolation, does Steve’s “expert” advice on purification hold up?

No. Not at all. At least, not according to these experts:

“That such “purification” is an indispensable prerequisite for detecting viruses and creating valid antibody and PCR tests based on them is also stated by scientists who are the most renowned in the world, among them:

White and Fenner: “It’s an essential pre-requisite.”
Luc Montagnier: “It is necessary.”
Robert Gallo: “You have to purify.”
Marcel Tanner: “If a pure SARS-CoV-2 isolate cannot be documented by the IVI [=Institute of Virology and Immunology] in Bern, then we have a problem.” (siehe here).
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi: “… you have to purify the virus from all this mess.”
Jean-Claude Chermann: “Yes, of course… Absolutely.”
David Gordon: “It’s a natural step from obtaining the virus in cell culture to then obtain purified virus.”
Dominic Dwyer: “The purification, as far as one can go, is important in analysis of any virus or bacteria, for that matter well.”
Wan Beom Park: “In the outbreak situation, isolation of causative virus is indispensable for developing and evaluating diagnostic tools, therapeutics, and vaccine candidates.”

I’m not positive who Steve’s “experts” are, but the people listed above are well-known and respected scientists and virologists. While they may disagree with the fact that “viruses” do not exist, they all accept that purification of a “virus” is an absolutely necessary and essential step. It is a prerequisite.

Those listed above are not the only experts claiming purification is necessary. An interview with Professor: Dr. Osamu Nakagomi from the Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Molecular Epidemiology, who is an expert on the subject matter, states as much as well:

Fundamentals of Ultracentrifugal Virus Purification

“In recent years, in virus research, it has become a standard practice to purify and analyze genomes and identify viruses from samples using commercial kits. Since for the established viruses their genomes have already been known, virus identification is possible even in a mixed state. However, to carry out detailed investigation on the nature of viruses, it is first necessary to refine the virus particles in order to yield a high level of purified materials.”

Please discuss the necessity of ultracentrifugation in virus research.

“When extracting virus genome using the classical method, the virus particles must first be purified. Then the virus genome extracted from the particles is examined. Ultracentrifugation plays an important role in the process. Purifying the virus particles makes it possible from the beginning to ensure that we are dealing with the rotavirus genomes in the virus particles. Currently such analysis is performed almost all the time after hastily extracting the genome without actually purifying the specimen. This practice is common since the genome of rotavirus is well established and it is a common knowledge that if the genome (Fig. 1 ) characteristic of rotavirus is present, there is no doubt that the genome is present in rotavirus particles as well. However, suppose, for example, that we are dealing with the problem of determining what kind of host cell organelles or virus proteins and genomes are aggregated in an infected cell, ultracentrifugation becomes indispensable. Moreover, while studying new viruses, it becomes increasingly necessary to investigate whether or not the genome is present in the particle. In such cases, purification with an ultracentrifuge becomes a necessity. Information on the buoyant density, size and sedimentation coefficient (Svedberg value, S value), all of which are taken into consideration in ultracentrifugation, is in fact the fundamental aspect of virology which taken together are called the physiochemical properties of viruses.”

https://www.beckman.com/resources/reading-material/interviews/fundamentals-of-ultracentrifugal-virus-purification

I wonder if Steve and Co. would be able to point out “SARS-COV-2” from these unpurified EM images if we took out the labels?

As can be seen by Dr. Osamu Nakagomi as well as the experts listed above, purification is entirely necessary, especially in instances with “novel viruses” such as “SARS-COV-2,” which Steve and Co. admit has never been purified. Without purification, there are numerous host cell organelles and other proteins, microrganisms, bacteria, etc. within the sample and thus there can be no claims of isolation. There would be no way to be able to determine that the RNA used to create the “SARS-COV-2” genome came from one source. In fact, the only time Dr. Nakagomi states purification is not necessary is when the genome is already known and established, thus purification is a neccesary step to obtain the initial genome. Yet this creates a bit of a conundrum. Where has it ever been shown that the particles assumed to be “viruses” were ever purified and isolated directly from a sick human in order to obtain the original genome for any “virus?” At some point in the history of “viral” genomes, this purification and isolation process must have been carried out before any genome for any “virus” could have been obtained and considered accurate and reliable. However, it has never been done, especially for “coronaviruses” as I outlined here.

The “SARS-COV-2” genome was nonexistent and there was no prior knowledge of its sequence. The genome was created from unpurified broncoalveloar fluid (BALF) from one patient and cobbled together in a computer from other unpurified reference genomes made in a similar way. In a document by the WHO regarding sequencing genomes using metagenomics, such as was done for the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is admitted that high “non-viral” host material will also be sequenced. They claim that purification steps such as centrifugation and filtration are supposed to be done yet even purifying samples will still lead to a high number of “off-target, non-viral” reads:

Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2

“Depletion of host or other non-SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in a sample leads to a higher proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reads in generated sequence data and therefore a higher chance of recovering a full genome. SARS-CoV-2 metagenomic approaches therefore typically include steps to remove host and bacterial cells, through either centrifugation or filtration prior to RNA extraction, or chemical or enzymatic removal of unwanted DNA/RNA. This is easier for liquid samples, from which cells can be more easily separated, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (Table 4). Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and DNA content are also commonly depleted during library preparation for virus RNA sequencing, and carrier RNA is often omitted from extractions or replaced with linear polyacrylamide. Despite such measures, samples may still contain high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA that may also be sequenced. Metagenomic approaches therefore generally benefit from input of samples with high virus loads (such that a reasonable proportion of the genetic material in the sample is virus).”

“Metagenomic sequencing typically produces high numbers of off-target, non-virus reads. It is also often (though not always, depending on the sequencing platform and multiplexing) more costly than targeted capture-based or amplicon-based sequencing approaches, because more data have to be produced to generate one SARS-CoV-2 genome. Moreover, pretreatment steps that are particularly beneficial for metagenomics, such as centrifugation, are not typically performed for molecular diagnostic assays so new extractions that incorporate pretreatment steps may have to be performed for metagenomic sequencing.”

Another source on the advantages and disadvantages of genomic sequencing states that contamination, such as that by bacteria which is sure to be present without purification, will lead to inaccurate genomes:

Advantages and Limitations of Genome Sequencing

“Factors outside the control of the service provider tasked with isolation and sequencing of DNA can negatively influence the quality of the genome sequence and therefore its interpretation. This can include the quality of the DNA sample provided for analysis, such as low quantity, high bacterial contamination, or sample degradation. Such factors can even prevent the procedure from being undertaken. In such a circumstance, the client might be obliged to deliver a new sample.”

https://merogenomics.ca/en/advantages-and-limitations-of-genome-sequencing/

Since Steve and Co. admit that “SARS-COV-2” has never been purified, yet purification is a prerequisite for “novel viruses” in order to obtain an accurate genome, how can they claim that this step is unnecessary?

It’s probably due to the other fact which Steve admitted to: purification is difficult. However, I would go one step further and say that when dealing with nano-sized particles, purification is impossible. I will not go into too much detail in this post as I have outlined the purification problems here and here. However, it has been admitted numerous times that it is impossible to separate “viruses” from exosomes and other extracellular vesicles that co-sediment together. There is no one method, whether ultracentrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc., that can completely purify the “viruses.” Although you can find similar statements in some of the posts I linked, I will provide a recent article which focused on the need for purifying RNA for epigenetic studies. The authors supply various purification methods and then admit that none of them alone are sufficient to purify “viruses” from host-derived impurities. These impurities then impact the creation of the genome and any study relating to it. Even when combined, they can only claim that these methods will increase “virus” yield and quality, not completely purify the particles.

“The relatively low abundance of viral genomic material within the nucleic acid milieu of clinical samples places constraints on the utility of epigenetics-related applications, like m ⁶ A RNA methylation ELISAs, to specifically study the virus epigenome. Such assays require highly pure input material, free from host-derived impurities whose epigenetic modifications can also be detected and interfere with results.”

“The methods included above are generally not sufficient, when performed alone, for adequate purification of viruses. Studies focused on the virus epigenome require highly pure input material, without interference from the epigenetic modifications of host DNA, RNA, or protein. Combinations of the aforementioned methods can increase viral recovery, yield, and quality.”

https://www.epigentek.com/catalog/methods-of-virus-Purification-n-41.html

Even when the purification steps are performed on samples, there will always be many known and unknown identical particles with various sources of genetic material within the sample. Contamination is a widespread problem both in cell culturing and genomics. This makes electron microscopy imaging and the creation of a genome utterly meaningless and useless as proof of a “virus.” In order to hammer this point home, here are a few highlights from a 1996 Manuel on “virus” purification:

“Virus purification is the physical separation of virus in a concentrated form from the host cell milieu in which it has grown. Viruses need to be purified for many studies in which properties or structure of the virus must be distinguished from those of the host cells or culture medium, such as analyses of structure of viral polypeptides, function of membrane
glycoproteins, etc.”

Criteria of purity

“The observation of particles in the electron microscope, whilst not a good criterion of purity, does allow the detection of ‘unwanted structures’.

It would be expected that constituents of the medium would form a major part of the contaminants of purified virus preparations. This can be monitored by gel diffusion tests, where antisera raised against e.g. calf serum, or uninfected cells can be reacted with virus preparation.”

https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FB978-012465330-6%2F50005-1

As can be seen, “viruses” must be purified in order for the structure and physical properties of the “virus” to be distinguished from host cells and the culture medium. The constituents of the culture medium are said to be the bulk of the contaminants in purified “virus.” This would include the fetal bovine serum which is added to nearly every culture which is a completely separate source of RNA from the host source. They fail to mention the added animal RNA which would come from the Vero cells regularly used for culturing as in the case of “SARS-COV-2.” All of this “non-viral” material would need to be eliminated first along with the host material as well as possible contamination from bacteria, exosomes, MVB’s, other microrganisms, etc. before a genome could be considered valid. Otherwise, there is no realistic way of knowing which RNA belongs to which source within the mixture and whether or not the computer-generated genome is an amalgamation of the RNA stitched together from those numerous sources.

It is clear that purification is an absolutely necessary process, even though the methods themselves are flawed and unable to completely purify these preparations. This is why Steve and Co. claim it is “difficult” (i.e. impossible) to purify “viruses,” that it is no longer necessary, and why they want to skip over this step entirely. They know it is impossible. They know that they can not supply a single study where the particles claimed to be “viruses” were completely purified and isolated directly from a sick host. They can not even show this in papers where “viruses” are cultured. They want you to believe that technology has advanced to a point where it can pick through these unpurified mixtures of RNA in order to piece together a theoretical representation of an unseen “virus” in the form of a genome. Even if this was a logical argument (it’s not), a genome from unpurified samples would be at best INDIRECT evidence, not DIRECT evidence of a “virus.”

Fortunately, even disregarding the sources I’ve shared above which completely dispute Steve and Co., we can rely on logic and critical thinking to understand that their claims are ridiculous. In order for a genome to be considered valid evidence, the entity being sequenced must be shown to actually exist in reality first. One can not just assume an unseen “virus” is within the unpurified sample from the start without ever verifying that it actually exists to begin with. This requires that the particles claimed to be “viruses” be found in a state completely free of contaminants, pollutants, and foreign material as well as separated from everything else. In order for this to occur, the sample must be put through the steps of purification (centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc.) so that it can be shown to exist in an isolated state. Only then can proof of pathogeniticity be aquired using the purified particles as a valid independent variable in order to establish cause and effect. Only then can the particles identified in EM images be said to be the “virus.” Only then could a genome be aquired. Only then can the “virus” be fully characterized.

Without purification, Steve and Co. have no “virus.”

And so we get to the crux of the problem with relying on “experts” to do the thinking for you. Steve has relied on his “experts” to tell him that the purification process is unnecessary. He allowed the “experts” to tell him that the definition of isolation means to add many things together rather than what it actually means which is to exist in a state separated from everything else. He did not do a cursory bit of research to understand that his so-called “experts” are wrong. However, their inaccurate claims are now his to defend. Sadly, Steve is adamant that, while he was willing to invest the time to write a blog post about his unwillingness to do a debate, he is not willing to invest his time to actually defend his claims in a debate. So the way I see it, Steve has three options:

Find the time to debate Christine and her experts to defend his ridiculous claims.
Find new “experts” who understand the methods used for the purification and isolation of “viruses” and why they are necessary.
Find the time to do his own research and utilize critical thinking and logic to discern truth for himself rather than relying on “experts” to do the thinking for him.

I’m hoping Steve chooses option # 3. However, I’m not holding my breath.

Connect with Mike Stone, Viroliegy blog

cover image credit: terimakasih0 / pixabay

See related:

Virus Isolation…Is It Real? Andrew Kaufman, MD Responds to Jeremy Hammond

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Andrew Kaufman: A Challenging Response to Dr. Mercola’s Article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus”

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines”

The Government Has Isolated, Purified, and Sequenced Fear

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
January 27, 2022

You can buy bottles of Liquid Fear (LF) at your local pharmacy. Over the counter.

No refrigeration necessary.

I suggest sipping through a straw to start. Don’t gulp it all at once. You want it to seep in.

One day you won’t take a walk in the park. You’ll say you have other things to do. But you’ll be afraid of strangers breathing on you. Breathing is dangerous. Who knew?

Now you do.

Fear was first isolated by Louis Pasteur in 1884. He wrote in his diary: “I was sitting in my kitchen drinking a glass of pasteurized milk, and suddenly I realized I could extract blood from a patient and separate out anxiety from the sample. Later that day, I took a vial of blood to the local prison, where they kept killers in a special section. The guards brought these dangerous men into a room, where I had placed a bit of blood on a slide, under a lamp, on a table. The men stared at it, and soon a colorless liquid migrated from the blood on to the table. I sucked it up into a dropper and squeezed it on to the arm of a guard. He promptly fled from the room…”

For near a century and a half since that day, governments and corporations have been trying to produce very large amounts of the fear liquid.

Finally, in February, 2020, in an NIAID lab, under the direction of Anthony Fauci, Doctors Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper were able to synthesize the fear particle using blood obtained from several hosts of The View.

“From that point on,” Cooper told reporters, speaking yesterday from CNN-CIA headquarters, “we activated a special machine that transmits voice vibrations from leading news anchors, we focused the vibrations on the synthesized fear particle, and within an hour we had 567 gallons of pure liquid.”

Untersturmführer Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, stated, “After all, this pandemic is your basic terror operation. How else are you going to hold society together and mobilize it?”

The drink, it turns out, has been bottled and sold, by corporations, under a variety of names for the past year and a half. For example, XXX [censored] and XXX [censored].

Schwab continued: “Since the dawn of time, people have been falling ill and dying for a variety of reasons. Down through the ages, some of those people who recovered said, ‘When I was sick THIS time, it was really DIFFERENT. I had never experienced anything like it.’ Anyway, now we take all that sickness and dying and we re-label a large part of it ‘COVID’. Add the fear particle and we have our window of opportunity to transform the world.”

The COVID vaccines are not an antidote. They’re not designed to affect emotions. They scramble internal systems of the body.

The President has announced the formation of a new cabinet post, the Department of Trepidation. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Whoopi Goldberg have been put on a short list of candidates to serve as its first director.

Social media trolls have already begun calling this innovation The Department of Pussification.

The CDC has announced adult guidelines for imbibing the fear drink. Basically, the agency recommends a first dose of two tablespoons, twice a day, for the first week. Thereafter, a pint a day in the morning for a month; and then a quart each day, on an ongoing basis. Researchers are conducting studies to determine the dose schedules for children.

Groups of “anti-fearers” in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida have sprung up. US Attorney General Garland has issued a memorandum to all Dept. of Justice employees: “These groups share common anti-government sentiments. They tend to cling to religion and guns. We have to be on the alert for acts of domestic terrorism…”

Public health departments across the country are, according to the Washington Post, “investigating charges of disproportionate distribution of LF [Liquid Fear] to underserved communities of color.”

This morning, California Governor Gavin Newsom appeared at a press briefing, standing in front of a huge poster carrying the simple message, SUPPORT FEAR. Newsom said, “This is not the time to back down from what we feel. Embrace it. It’s healthy, it’s real, and it’s our passport out of this pandemic. I’m especially addressing our young children. Don’t worry. Drink from your bottle. It tastes great. And to the adults: there’s nothing to tremble at but the absence of trembling.”

Senator Chuck Schumer has introduced a bill allocating emergency funding for federal bottling plants in sixteen states. The word on Capitol Hill is, the new government version of LF will be called Quake, or Anthony.

Last week, in Northern Florida, at the Hanging Chad Park, local organizers staged an impromptu concert featuring Eric Clapton and Van Morrison. For nearly a half-hour, 75,000 adoring fans shouted in unison:

FUCK FEAR.

Several hundred FBI agents, dispatched to the scene, stationed themselves around the periphery of the park.

And did nothing.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: Willgard / pixabay

Doctors, What Are They Good For?

by Dr. Sam Bailey
January 25, 2022

People keep asking me where they can find a good doctor.

The real question they need to ask is whether they even need a doctor, because the medical system has become detached from health. But has this happened recently or did medicine go off the rails long ago?

References:

“Terrain” the film – register here

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey

cover image credit: valelopardo / pixabay

Plain Burger: Hold the Virus Pickles, They Don’t Exist

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
January 26, 2022

Shh. Shh. Stop saying the virus doesn’t exist.

Why?

Because…

ONE: Let’s not get distracted by the virus question. We have to focus on knocking down the vaccine mandate.

My Reply: Can you walk down the street, carry a bag of potatoes, and look at messages on your cell phone? Newsflash: people have been known to do several things at the same time.

TWO: If we bring up the virus question, people will call us crazy and have a reason to ignore our criticism of the vaccine.

My Reply: “People” already say we’re crazy. They have 345 “reasons” on file.

THREE: If we say the virus doesn’t exist, “our base” will desert us.

My Reply: “Our base” is so outraged about the ineffective and hugely destructive vaccine, and about the mandates, NOTHING will deter them from attacking the vaccine.

FOUR: It’s well established that the virus exists.

My Reply: Yes, established by the same scientists who say the vaccine is remarkably safe and effective.

FIVE: Doctor A says the virus exists. As evidence, he cites Doctor B’s statements. Doctor B says the virus exists. He cites Doctor C’s statements. Doctor C says the virus exists. He cites Doctor A.

My Reply: Go back to school. I suggest starting at the 4th grade.

SIX: It doesn’t really matter whether the virus exists.

My Reply: If the virus doesn’t exist, the pandemic is a hoax. If the pandemic is a hoax…trace all the implications. If you can’t, go back to school. I suggest starting at the second grade. If the school won’t let you in, tell them you identify as a six-year old.

SEVEN: If I say the virus doesn’t exist, my family will disown me.

My Reply: I see. Other than the virus question—you’re on very good terms with your family, right? Who are you trying to kid?

Speaking of kid, here’s another dialogue for your edification—

ME: Hey kid, aren’t you fed up with all this COVID crap?

KID: Listen, Grandpa, I’m been fed up with crap since I was born.

ME: Including Biden now?

KID: The brain-damaged guy in the White House?

ME: What about Trump?

KID: The guy who keeps pushing the killshot? Pfizer paid him a million bucks to stage his inauguration.

ME: Do you wear a mask?

KID: I wore one once, at the DMV, when I applied for my driver’s license. The witch behind the counter told me I had to put that germicide goo on my hands. So I did. I wiped my hands on the counter. She called security. I don’t drive. I take the bus.

ME: What about the vaccine?

KID: Let me put it this way. My cell phone says I took the shot.

ME: Did you get depressed during the lockdowns?

KID: No. I made money fixing old people’s computers. When I went to their houses, I wore a military uniform. Nobody bothered me.

ME: Are you woke?

KID: You mean do I think every move I make is motivated by systemic racism? That crap is for my friends whose parents give them money. They all moved away. Their parents took them to Florida.

ME: What about the virus?

KID: What about it?

ME: Do you think it exists?

KID: The people who say it does—I don’t listen to anything they say.

ME: Why not?

KID: If you can’t figure that out, Grandpa, you’re older than you look.

ME: Are there a lot of kids like you?

KID: Millions.

ME: Do they listen to the government?

KID: You mean the mafia. We don’t pay protection money to anybody.

ME: Do these millions of kids take the vaccine?

KID: It’s always a tip-off when somebody says, “Hey, it’s free.” We’re not that stupid.

ME: Have you ever voted in an election?

KID: Once, when I ran for student body treasurer in high school. I ran because the treasurer handles student funds. I voted for myself 27 times.

ME: Did you win?

KID: I came in third. The kid who won was the son of the assistant principal. Very quietly, that old codger was trying to get us to join his secret transgender club. We told him we already had the sex change, he just couldn’t spot it. We also told him the local pedophile priest, Father Joseph, was opposed to transgenderism on moral grounds. We suggested he should turn Father Joseph into the authorities for the hate crime of opposing transgenders.

I now return you to your regular scheduled programming, sponsored by Moderna, the company that cares about you. The company that had never brought a single product of any kind to market, before the RNA genetic shot. The company that spawned several billionaires overnight. The company championed by little Anthony Fauci, serving his last term as de facto president of the United States.

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: CDD20 / pixabay

Is the Virus Real? Steve Kirsch Suggests a Debate

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
January 25, 2022

My readers know that, for the past two years, I’ve been making the case that the virus is a scientific fiction, a con, and a cover story for tyranny that would make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao blush with envy.

Recently, the question has been attracting wider coverage: Does SARS-CoV-2 exist?

Entrepreneur, inventor, and philanthropist, Steve Kirsch, says yes. He offers to set up a 5-hour live video debate. He’ll send his experts and other side will send theirs. They’ll go at it.

What about the usual form of scientific debate, called the written word?

Buckle up.

Kirsch: “I don’t think the folks I’d ask to do this would want to spend time writing papers…They don’t even have the time to prepare their own papers. Doing written documents is much more time consuming than talking because people spend the time to make it bulletproof.”

Heaven forbid.

Kirsch: “None of the people on our team require that all discussions be in writing only.”

Of course not. Why would his team of scientists insist on the method by which science is accomplished?

Kirsch: “One of the commenters [to an article by Kirsch] wrote this: ‘But when someone really knows their shit they would much rather handle it in a live conversation; it’s much more efficient (you don’t spend hours writing) and it reaches a wider audience, and that audience has the benefit of tone and body language to affirm (or negate) the veracity and substance of what is being said.’”

Kirsch: “I agree with that.”

Truly awesome.

Tone and body language. Yes, of course. You know, that was Galileo’s problem when he was tried by the Inquisition for insisting the Earth rotated, and journeyed around the sun. If only he’d stood up straighter and spoken with unwavering clarity (in the manner of, say, a Walter Cronkite). He might have won his case. Because tone and inflection equal science. We all realize that. Obviously, Galileo didn’t know his shit.

Spending hours writing arguments about the existence of the virus—who would have the audacity to insist on that? As Kirsch points out, his experts are busy. It’s rude to interrupt them and ask them to make their case bulletproof. Science on Video tends to be based on “we KNOW we’re sure” and “the truth is OBVIOUS” and “WE’RE the pros.” That’s good enough, and you can sell it. If you, again, display convincing tone and body language.

In medical school, they teach this. “One day you students will be called on to defend your actions and opinions with pure bullshit. I tell you that now, to prepare you for the moment. How do you shape and transmit the bullshit? Do you do it through tiresome written reports, which run the risk of exposing the truth, engraved on the page, or do you stand up before a panel and look those people in the eye and tell a story that wows them? Do you fumble to clarify a point, or do you gloss it over with a quick-hitting generality that covers a crack in your armor? Careers are won and lost on that basis.”

Kirsch believes an exchange of papers between debaters is futile. Who can, or is willing to, pore through them and analyze them? And do those written exchanges actually cover all essential points? But with video, we NEVER EVER see opponents talking past each other or quickly changing the subject to avoid unpleasant revelations. Certainly not. We never see opponents smirking like entitled monkeys and making ad hominem accusations. We never witness slippery logic sliding by before it can be isolated and corrected. We never witness grandstanding for the audience’s benefit. It’s never show biz on parade. No mainstream expert would dare intone, “Ahem, in my many years as professor of so-and-so at such-and-such, having engaged in intense research on this question, and having authored over 60 papers on this very subject…”

And then there is the suggestion, as the commenter states, that the audience can decide…on the winner in the debate. Yes. What else is a debate FOR? Science is a democracy, and the audience is the proof of the pudding. Once they vote up or down, the deed is done. This is why, in medical journals, at the bottom of every paper and study, you see the poll question: “DO YOU THINK THIS ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE? CAST YOUR BALLOT. Depending on the outcome, we will maintain the study in our archive or retract it with an apology. Everyone can vote. You do not need to be a subscriber. We work for our audience every day. If the majority of you believes one of our authors has convinced you that the moon is a slice of soft brie on a plate or an elephant’s ass, we concur. This is called consensus, and what else could science be?”

Not long ago, I crashed my Gulfstream in the Himalayas, and after a harrowing journey to the GeFunkte Hospital in Berlin, as I was lying on the operating table, two surgeons debated whether I needed one or two transplanted hearts. Later, I was told a live stream of this discussion had been piped into the hospital waiting room, and the patients expressed an overwhelming preference for two hearts, based on the charismatic presentation of Surgeon Number One, who had studied Voice and Drama at the Julliard School in New York. So…two hearts it was. You can read about the groundbreaking operation in the Medical Journal of Audience Participation.

Published blow-by-blow descriptions of “isolating viruses” are quite dense to begin with. Perhaps one person in two hundred thousand can plow through them and understand them. Therefore, the debate about the existence of a virus starts with something in writing that, for most people, is impenetrable.

It’s no surprise that these descriptions are viewed with suspicion.

“We’re the expert virologists. Only we understand what we’re doing.”

“I see. So understanding virus isolation is like understanding RNA development and insertion into lipid nanoparticles which are injected into a few billion people.”

“Yes, exactly. Only we understand that whole process.”

“Got it. I have grave doubts about everything you’re claiming about the vaccine, but I completely accept everything you’re saying about the existence of the virus.”

In this particular debate about the existence of the virus, the devil really is in the details.

The details concerning exactly how virologists believe they are isolating viruses and sequencing them. As I say, reading the studies, one sees immediately that the accounts of these procedures are laden with technical terms and technical steps.

Those elements have to be analyzed and taken apart, to see whether they make scientific sense. In fact, a debate in writing is the sane way to proceed.

Settling the question of virus-isolation via video would be quite a challenge. An exceptional amount of good will and patience, from the mainstream virologists, would be required. I’ve never seen medical “experts” show those qualities, when the basic assumptions of their professions are on the line. I’ve seen them get up on their high horse, growl, bloviate, dismiss, generalize, tap dance, boil over, accuse, pretend to be oh so reasonable, with their pants on fire.

Someone will say, “But…but, let’s wrap all this up in one sitting. Video will accomplish that. I have things to do, places to go. We live in a fast-food world, face it.”

Yes, you have to go to the store with your mask on and maintain distancing; you have to look for a restaurant that won’t make you flash your vaccine passport; you have to show up at the school board meeting to tell the members what they can do with their mandate forcing your kid to take the shot; when they refuse to listen to you, you have to sell your house, pack up your belongings, and move with the kids from New York to Florida; and all the while, you have to keep deleting voice messages from your brother who’s telling you only the injection will save you and the family wants you institutionalized.

All these and so many more to-do’s begin with the assumption that a virus exists.

So a debate on this point ought to be complete and rigorous.

If the only possibility is a video, have a go. But the written word is far superior.

“Counsel, you have a video where the defendant discusses how he can steal a billion dollars from the pension fund?”

“Yes, Your Honor. But we also have a letter of agreement between the defendant and the head of the Montebello crime family. The letter reveals the defendant has already stolen the money, and will give it to the mob in exchange for certain favors.”

“A letter, you say? Words? Sentences? In writing, on a page? Signed? And it can be read?”

“Yes, sir. Writing is an older form of expression. It’s now being phased out. But it stands up quite well. It’s bulletproof.”

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Andrew Kaufman: A Challenging Response to Dr. Mercola’s Article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus”

A Response to Dr. Mercola’s Recent Statement on if SARS-Cov-2 Is a Real Virus With Dr. Andrew Kaufma

by Dr. Tom Cowan with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
January 21, 2022

“…I think there has been, you know, a total wave right of criticism of the the truth that viruses don’t exist and cause disease. And we see that, seemingly at the same time, that the pandemic seems to be drawing near an end. Right?

We see suddenly lifting restrictions all over the world.

And even Bill Gates predicted in 2022 that would be the end of the pandemic.

The Wall Street journal printed an editorial saying that…essentially last three weeks a major drop in cases, and it signifies, you know, what do they call it — the herd immunity. Right? Which is another thing we can debunk.

So, as they’re kind of ending out of this — and, you know, I’m sure that there’s more planned in the future. And I don’t know if it’s going to be a health crisis or not. But if this does peter out, they want to make sure that as we, you know, get this relief and come out of it — and probably they want us to look at them in a favorable light.

But they want to make sure that we still believe in deadly and dangerous viruses.

And they want to make sure that we still believe that there are safe vaccines, even if we question the safety of these particular genetic injections.

That we retain those important beliefs, so that they can still continue to profit and manipulate and, you know, run operations in the future.”

~ Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel.

See Dr. Mercola’s article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus” here.

Here are the additional links referenced during the discussion:
– Virus Isolation – Is It Real? – https://www.bitchute.com/video/UnpfmjmXNH0O/
– An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola – https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/open-letter-to-dr-mercola-january-17-2022/
– What is a Virus? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thsDCmtkcOA

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

See related:

Virus Isolation…Is It Real? Andrew Kaufman, MD Responds to Jeremy Hammond

Christine Massey: An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola in Response to His Claim That SARS-CoV-2 Has Been Isolated

Questioning ‘The Science’: What Is a ‘Virus’? How Is a ‘Virus’ Seen & Isolated?

Questioning ‘The Science’: What Is a ‘Virus’? How Is a ‘Virus’ Seen & Isolated?

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: The video below was recommended by Dr. Tom Cowan as preparation for viewing his upcoming conversation with Dr. Andrew Kaufman in regards to Dr. Mercola’s recent article about virus isolation. You can register here to participate in the zoom conversation. The video will also be available at Tom Cowan’s channels following the event. We will repost the conversation here at Truth Comes to Light when it is available.

What is a virus?

by RealEyesation
January 8, 2022

So what is a virus, and how can a virus be seen?

Addressing the pink elephant in the room pertaining to scientific practice, electron microscopy, histology, and the misinterpretations within modern biology in general.

Video available at RealEyesation Rumble and YouTube channels.

[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.]

Connect with RealEyesation at Rumble

Christine Massey: An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola in Response to His Claim That SARS-CoV-2 Has Been Isolated

[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: On January 17 when this article was first published, a live link to Dr. Mercola’s article could still be found at his site. Due to attacks from mainstream media, his articles only remain open for public view for 48 hours. It is now available behind a paywall at his archived site. However, you can find a copy here or at many other websites and blogs that reposted the original. ]

This image is a screenshot from Dr. Mercola’s article which is now found in his archives and at many other websites and blogs.

Open Letter to Dr. Mercola January 17, 2022

by Christine Massey, M.Sc., Flouride Free Peel
January 17, 2022

Hi Dr. Mercola,

You’ve published an blog titled “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus“.

One of the sources you relied most heavily on for this claim is a recent blog by Steve Kirsch, which is really interesting because in that blog Steve admitted right off the top that he actually has no idea whether or not the alleged virus has even been isolated and that he relies on other people’s opinions.

I wrote an educational Open Letter to Steve Kirsch in response to that blog and strongly suggest you and your readers review it.

Now in your blog you state that: “SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.”

I hope we can agree that a specific thing must be known to exist in order to know that “it” is pathogenic. Not believed, imagined, assumed, or wanted to exist, but known. Because otherwise it’s impossible to establish even a correlation, let alone prove causation of anything.

Yet nowhere in your blog did you present or cite any proof that that the alleged RNA genome of 30,000 base pairs surrounded by a spikey protein shell actually exists.

I’ll briefly review some of the sources you’ve cited to explain why I say this.

You start out with a video that features Jeremy Hammond insisting that “the virus” is real, has been isolated, and is a necessary factor in “COVID-19”.

(For the record, I had an extensive email exchange with Jeremy on this topic, between October 25 and November 14, 2020. I encourage you and your readers to review it.)

In this video, Jeremy made bold claims indeed. But despite stating that the “virus” existence issue is “probably” his “biggest pet peeve“, he came to this interview armed with zero sources showing that the alleged virus does exist. In fact Jeremy cited no studies of any kind. Just unsubstantiated claims, and reliance on the beliefs of others. They could do this, they could do that. They can’t do this, they can’t do that. So-and-so says this, so-and-so says that.

Instead, Jeremy insisted that the following is the “gold standard” for “isolation” of a disease spreading “virus”: irrational and unscientific interpretation of cytopathic effects in a cell culture – typically malnourished monkey kidney cells to which toxic drugs have been added, and further contamination in the form of fetal bovine serum is added as food for the cells, along with a patient sample (not a purified sample of anything).

This, in Jeremy’s mind, establishes the existence and presence of a virus. Which is why he’d make a great virologist. Jeremy doesn’t think like a scientist, and as I always point out, “virology is not a science“.

And Jeremy lied through his teeth when he went along with the naïve (I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt) comment from his interviewer that virologists then pull “the virus” from the cell culture. “It really is that simple.” (I challenge Jeremy or you, Dr. Mercola, to cite any study where a specific thing was “pulled”, even from a monkey/cow/human mixture aka cell culture, and shown scientifically to be a disease-spreading “virus”.)

And according to Jeremy, we just “know” what “coronaviruses” look like, despite the fact that no specific thing alleged to be a “coronavirus” has ever been purified from any patient sample (or even from a cell culture) so that it could be studied logically and scientifically. Who needs science? We just know these things.

Jeremy insists that the CDC has isolated “SARS-COV-2”. Well, yes they have according to the meaningless, antiscientific approach to “isolation” used by Jeremy and virologists.

But did the CDC researchers apply even a modicum of logic or scientific method and actually establish the existence of the alleged virus? That’s an entirely different matter and the answer is a resounding “No”.

The CDC’s “SARS-COV-2 isolation” study is just another example of the typical fraudulent monkey business (literally) that plagues our world. I have addressed the CDC’s study previously, and will address this same issue of virology’s blatantly bogus “isolation” methods below.

Jeremy carried on with more bizarre claims: that scientists never isolate/purify anything, and don’t have the technology to purify things like alleged viruses.

Jeremy also strangely implied that people (such as myself) who say that proof of a disease-spreading “virus” requires purification actually demand that the alleged virus be floating in a vacuum.

Dr. Mercola, I’ve been involved in this issue for almost 2 years now and don’t know a single man or woman who defines isolation/purification as “floating in a vacuum“.

And I make explicitly clear in my Freedom of Information requests that this is not how I define isolation/purification. Below is a screenshot from a recent FOIA request to the CDC. They have no records, like all 164 other institutions in roughly 30 countries, that have been asked by people around the world. No one on the planet has purified a sample of the alleged “virus” from a disease human, or knows of anyone who has, even though supposedly millions and millions of people are infected and spewing this “virus” every time they breath.

And no, contrary to Jeremy’s claim, it is not people such as Dr. Andrew Kaufman, or Jon Rappoport, or Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey, who bizarrely redefined the word “isolation”. It’s virologists who redefined it, to mean mixing various complicated substances together and drawing wild conclusions – quite the opposite of its historical meaning.

It’s funny how everyone knows that “isolate” means “separate” when it comes to isolating humans and the “confusion” only arises when it comes to theoretical “viruses”. And how a virologist’s use of the word “isolate” gives the impression of legitimate science when nothing could be further from the truth.

Dr. Mercola, I couldn’t help but notice the unicorn in the background over the shoulder of Jeremy’s interviewer. Was this video inserted into your blog as someone’s idea of a joke? I mean, these people proved a virus no more than a unicorn, and unicorns are a popular analogy for imaginary viruses these days, thanks to Dr. Tom Cowan, and I can’t for the life of me imagine why you would have purposely included this video when it’s completely useless to anyone looking for proof of a virus.

And no Dr. Mercola, we are not confused. We’re quite familiar with what virologists have been getting away with.

As distressing as it is to do so, since you have chosen to rehash Steve Kirsch’s summary of the curious “science” of Sabine Hazan, I will briefly address it once again, here, as I did in my educational Open Letter to Steve.

To put it bluntly, Sabine Hazan’s study is 100% useless and fraudulent. The RNA used in her “sequencing” was a genetic soup from various sources, including patients, and not shown to involve any alleged “virus”.

She fabricated meaningless codes on a computer that have never been shown to correspond to anything in the physical realm and falsely passed these off a “viral genomes”.

Sabine compared her meaningless “sequencing” results to the results of her utterly meaningless and fraudulent PCR tests (that she is quite secretive about, at least with me) that also have never been shown to have anything to do with a “virus”.

Sabine comes unhinged when directly challenged on the validity of her so-called “science”. I encourage your readers to try this themselves and see what happens (and send me the results at cmssyc@gmail.com).

Dr. Mercola, I also already addressed ATCC’s very expensive and fraudulent “virus” product that you are now promoting as well, in my educational Open Letter to Steve Kirsch. Please be sure to review that section. It includes a Buyer Beware! from Dr. Saeed A. Qureshi, PhD, who spent 30+ years as a scientist (as opposed to a virologist) with Health Canada.

Dr. Mercola, I challenge you to track down the origin and contents of any ATCC “SARS-COV-2” product, as I did last year for the so-called “SARS-COV-2 isolate” that is referred to as “MUC-IMB1” aka “BavPat1” and sold by companies like EVA for 2 000,00 € per vial, and report back to your readers what you learn. Report the detailed methods that were used to allegedly verify that the product contains any disease-causing “virus” whatsoever.

Regarding your claim that “Germ Theory and Terrain Theory Both Have Merit”, can you prove with science that virology has any merit whatsoever?

Please prove the existence of a specific physical thing alleged to be a disease-spreading “COVID-19 virus/variant” aka “SARS-COV-2” and prove that that specific thing spreads disease from host to host via natural modes of exposure in animals or humans.

I challenge you to publish a study proving that such a thing exists. Show with science that only subjects that are exposed to that specific thing get “COVID-19” respiratory disease, as claimed by Jeremy, whose wild unsubstantiated claims you are now disseminating.

Dr. Mercola, as evidence that “the virus” has been isolated and sequenced, you are citing studies that rely in part on PCR “tests”. Without bothering to go into all the well documented fatal flaws with these so-called tests, a little logic is in order.

It is impossible to validate any “test” without a gold standard.
It is impossible to validate any “test” claimed to “confirm” the presence of a “virus” (or a “viral infection”) before the alleged “virus” has been proven to exist.
It is impossible to validate any “test” claimed to “confirm” a “viral disease” before the alleged “virus” has been a) proven to exist and b) proven to cause the disease.

Obviously an indirect test for a “virus” cannot logically be used to prove the existence of the alleged “virus”. The test is what it is. In the case of PCR, in the very best case scenario, it is evidence of the presence of the very tiny target genetic sequence. Nothing more. Not a virus, not a genome, just a tiny little sequence.

And cytopathic effects on a cell culture, any cell culture, are just that – effects. An effect is not the cause of the effect. And wild assumptions about the cause of the effect are just that – wild assumptions, not science. This is especially true when the cells in question have been malnourished by lowering the level of food for the cells (typically fetal bovine serum) and poisoning the cells with toxic drugs.

Dr. Mercola, I am shocked that you actually published this quote from the sketchy, brief Letter from Italy that you cited, as evidence that a “virus” has been sequenced:

“[Vero E6 aka monkey kidney] Cell culture supernatants from passage 1 (P1) of four isolates were collected, and RNA was extracted…”

First of all, as you seem to understand and as should be clear by now, “isolates” do not mean purified, isolated specimens in virology. Quite the opposite. In the case of “SARS-COV-2” studies, they are monkey/cow/human mixtures. And the authors are telling you in plain language that they extracted the RNA from the cell culture supernatants. Not from a purified specimen of an alleged virus.

These authors are telling the world that they have a soup of genetic material, and are going to concoct on their computer a so-called “viral genome” out of the zillions of sequences that they (kinda, maybe, sorta) detect therein. Because this is virology, not science.

Do we really need to discuss this any further?

Dr. Mercola, fabricated “genomes”, meaningless, impossible-to-validate PCR “tests”, wild assumptions about the cause of effects on a malnourished/poisoned cell line, and arrows added to EM images and pointing at particles that were never purified, never sequenced, never characterized, never studied with controlled experiments does not add up to science.

Virology is not a science.

Dr. Mercola, it is very distressing to see you promoting blatant pseudoscience that has been used for decades to fool and coerce people around the world in myriad ways, not limited to the utterly useless and harmful injections that have fraudulently been passed off as “immunizations”.

Every time you (or someone like Peter McCullough) do this, people such as myself have to spend hours clearing up all the confusion you have caused with the public.

You need to do your due diligence, find and share the “missing” scientific proof of viruses, or retract your blog, apologize to your readers, and get on the right side of history. You’ve had 2 years already to figure this out.

Hopefully the public will soon tire of relying on “experts” and simply read the ridiculous “virus isolation” studies for themselves. When that happens, this pseudoscience (which is really too generous a word) is finished forever.

Best wishes,
Christine Massey, M.Sc.
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Pdf of my Jan. 18, 2022 email to Dr. Mercola:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Open-Letter-to-Dr.-Mercola-January-17-2022.pdf

Connect with Christine Massey, M.Sc.

See related:

156 Responses From 25 Countries: FOI Requests Affirm That No Record of SARS-Cov-2 Isolation Exists Anywhere

Virus Isolation…Is It Real? Andrew Kaufman, MD Responds to Jeremy Hammond

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

Christine Massey Interviewed by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky: On FOIA Requests & Responses to the Question — Has SARS-CoV-2 Ever Been Isolated? Does the “Virus” Exist?

Virus Isolation…Is It Real? Andrew Kaufman, MD Responds to Jeremy Hammond

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman
January 19, 2022

Andrew Kaufman M.D. refutes Jeremy Hammond’s recent interview opining that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to exist. Point by point, Kaufman debunks Hammond’s explanation of how a virus is discovered.

The definitions and technology behind isolation, the methodology being used by scientists, and the agenda by governmental agencies are examined with the appropriate corrections.

Hammond’s argument is the same old one trick pony being trotted out with pomp, circumstance, and pedigree.

Video available at DrAndrewKaufman BitChute channel.

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: The screenshot seen below is from Jeremy Hammond video as found within Dr. Joseph Mercola’s recent article: Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus. Many sites have republished Dr. Mercola’s article. A web search will locate it for you. We have not shared it here at Truth Comes to Light.

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

See related:

Christine Massey: An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola in Response to His Claim That SARS-CoV-2 Has Been Isolated

The Plague Doctors

by Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath, Nature of Healing
January 17, 2022

Are you tired of wearing a cloth mask that resembles a face diaper that does nothing to filter the air?

There are other mask models to consider that have stood the test of time, and may help you stand out in a crowd, instead of blending into it.

Who Were The Plague Doctors?

One such model is the Bird Beak Mask. Since the 16th century, this menacing-looking mask has been a fashion statement of Plague Doctors who used it to filter their air stream while treating victims of plague and burying the dead. However, to everyone else, the beaked mask and coverings were a sign of death, the Grim Reaper in the flesh.

The Plague Doctors were the well-educated, well-connected, well-known and wealthy men from rich families, even if they were terrible healers. The sole purpose of the Plague doctor was to treat plague patients, even if the cause was as elusive as the cure. History tells a story that plague victims’ bodies piled up quickly, were carted away, and unceremoniously dumped into mass graves. Hundreds were burned at a time. Entire villages simply ceased to exist.

The plague doctors’ duties were far more actuarial than medical. Most did a lot more counting than curing, keeping track of the number of casualties and recorded the deaths in log books.

These doctors were not allowed to mingle with the general public (much like the political and Hollywood elite, today), and were said to self-quarantine for long periods of time after treating patients. History writes of Plague Doctors living lonely lives in isolation, but who really knows, since many of them just up and disappeared after the plagues, never to be heard from again.

Plague doctors were sometimes requested to take part in autopsies, and were often called upon to testify and witness wills and other important documents for the dead and dying. Not surprisingly, many a dishonest doc took advantage of bereaved families, holding out false hope for cures and charging extra fees (even though they were supposed to be paid by the government and not their patients). – Doctorsreview.com

Before or by the 17th century, three dominant Theories of Disease Transmission were accepted:
1) By Miasma Theory, or “bad air”
2) By divine mandate through the Will of God, or by the Planets or Comets
3) By some unknown device jumping from person to person.

The Costume

To ward off miasma, and other possible transmitters of disease, the Plague Doctors’ costume was developed to look like a featherless, black “Big Bird.” The six-inch beak area over the nose also came with round eye openings and a black wide-brimmed Morocco leather hat that indicated the profession of doctor.

The beak functioned as a respirator and contained herbs, such as wormwood, spices, dried flowers, camphor, and a vinegar sponge that protected against miasma or “bad air.” The shape of the beak is said to have slowed the passage if air before being absorbed by the herbs and traveling to nostrils and lungs. The full-length impermeable coat was made from waxen leather. The hands were gloved. And the canes were used to examine victims without touching them.

Building on the theory of miasma, some plague doctors in France set the scented material inside their masks on fire in the hopes that the smoke would help to clear the bad air. – Doctorsreview.com

In fact, the costume of the 16th century was dusted off and reused in the 17th and 18th centuries, since plagues seemed to suddenly appear every 100 years, like clockwork. Each plague came with a narrative of “the most feared disease in the world, capable of wiping out hundreds of millions of people in seemingly unstoppable global pandemics.” Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, with each plague, the Plague Doctors were never able to prevent or cure the plague. No matter how certain the Plague Doctors believed in their treatments and “cures,” they universally failed. Could the poor outcomes have been due to the treatments?

The Treatments

These were the times of blood letting, where Plague Doctors bled a vein to release “bad blood” or “hot blood.” Sometimes vinegar, arsenic and mercury were fed to infected individuals. Food might be rubbed on the patient’s body, including onion, herbs, pigeon, or snake, dead of course. Sometimes doctors would burst an inflamed lymph node in the neck, groin, or armpits.

Doctors tried to purge a fever by sitting a patient close to a fire, and there was always the option of smothering patients in their own feces, or dropping them off in the sewer overnight if they couldn’t produce enough of their own waste. Patients were told that the plague was punishment from God. And it was reported that some devout patients asked to be beaten into repentance with the doctor’s cane or a whip. But that may just be a story.

According to Historian, Winston Black, the Plague Doctors did not have clients. “Instead, they went around the city during a plague outbreak, making decisions about which houses to lock up or condemn, which neighborhoods to quarantine, and so on.”

The beak doctors, as they came to be know, dropped like flies or pretty much lived under constant quarantine, wandering the countryside and city streets like pariahs… until of course desperate families needed them.

During the Middle Ages, there were alternative treatments. Botanists were known as herbalists; they collected, grew, dried, stored, and sketched plants. Many herbalists became experts in identifying and describing plants according to their morphology and habitats, as well as their uses. The best medieval treatment that healed was a salve made of onion, garlic, wine, and cow bile that has shown promise 1000 years later against today’s “modern” Superbugs. This salve can kill 90 percent of the methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria cultures.

MRSA is a serious public health concern; it is a difficult infection to treat, as it has naturally developed resistance to modern antibiotics, and has thus been given the classification of “superbug.”

Were victims of the plagues victims of parasites?

Worms and Parasites

Whenever the body’s immune system is depressed or suppressed due to toxic exposures, including radiation or harmful frequencies, and malnutrition, that is a proven recipe for pathogenic microbes and parasites to move in.

Some have recorded that ancient Rome was known to fertilize crops with human feces, which may have provided a vector for parasitic infections in the early documented plagues. Likewise, eating raw fish and unfermented fish sauce was another opportunity for tapeworm infestation in ancient Rome, especially if people were exposed to other toxins.

Research in the 2016 Journal Parasitology, from the University of Cambridge, shows that Romans experienced parasites as whipworm, roundworm, and a fish tapeworm. Even with sanitation, they suffered from ecto-parasites such as fleas, lice, and bedbugs at the same rate as Vikings and Medieval Europeans.

What about exposures not recorded or lost vital records? Or altered records describing toxins from water or air? What about new frequencies unleashed during plague-ridden times that mimic flu symptoms in the body?

Today, people are faced with toxic exposures, radiation, and particle dust (PM 2.5) that enters the blood and lungs to create chronic lung diseases. Harmful frequencies and malnutrition are also hazardous to health and ignored, for the most part, by health authorities. These exposures all change the pH of the body’s tissues to draw in pathogens and could be main reasons why most people harbor parasites today.

Under the “COVID” scare, the National Institutes of Health promotes the anti-parasitic animal, drug “Ivermectin,” without using the term parasites. While this drug may work for some people, similar to another anti-parasitic FDA-approved, non-toxic drug, Fenbendazole, it does not work for everyone. The presence of parasites represents a warning that the body’s immune system is breaking down. In fact, most if not all cancers represent parasite infestation, even if the presence of parasites does not always indicate cancer. Parasites in humans also reflect parasitic human relationships. And there are plenty of those, from friendships and marriages, to relationships between doctors and patients, and between citizens and governments.

When parasites overwhelm the body it is called hyperinfection. The symptoms of parasites include chronic cough, fever, chills, chest pain, and fatigue, symptoms similar to flu. From the 16th century to the 21st century, if medical doctors have not improved their success rates over diseases, it may be due to lack of knowledge.

Most doctors diagnose disease without testing for parasites. Why not test when there are multiple ways parasites take up residence in the body? One reason is the price tag for an antiparasitic prescription, which can reach over $8000 for fourteen 200-mg tablets of prescription Albendazole, once the insurance companies get involved. According to Goodrx.com, 4 tablets of Albendozole cost approximately $115.00 if you purchase them yourself. Surgery is more also profitable, at over $100,000, than prescribing antiparasitic tablets.

Doctors continue to choose dangerous prescription medications such as the FDA-approved drug Veklury (remdesivir), as well as harmful procedures (ventilation), that can cause death. New antiviral medications for COVID come with adverse health risks. Neurotoxins, aluminum and mercury (Thimerosal) are still found in some injections, called vaccines, “to safeguard against contamination,” believe it or not.

Biophysicist and naturopath, Dr. Hulda Clark (1926-2009), provided a recipe for making Lugol’s solution in her 1995 book, “The Cure for All Diseases.” In her book, she tells readers to ask pharmacists to make Lugol’s Solution. At the time her book was published, a pint of Lugol’s Solution, sold in brown glass bottles, cost about $20. Lugol’s popularity among physicians of the 19th Century is reflected in the poem:

If ye don’t know where, what and why,
prescribe ye then K and I

The atomic symbols, K and I, are symbols for potassium and iodine. Farmers can still purchase iodine crystals if the DEA can verify the location of their farm with a satellite photo. The DEA also allows the sale of a 2% Lugol’s Solution, since the 5% dilution is banned.

If simple solutions to health exist, why, then, are are doctors still failing to create health or avert the diseases that plague populations?

The Plague Makers

Running silently underneath the publicized disease plagues that build fear of communicable diseases, and death tolls, are the unseen plague makers.

From The Bubonic Plague of 549 to the Black Death of 1348 to the Cholera and Typhoid scares of the 1890s [and the promotion of the Germ Theory], to the 1918 Spanish Flu, there have been dozens of so-called plague infestations. See an “approved” historical timeline of some plagues and epidemics. Read about the coincidental timeline of electricity in The Invisible Rainbow.

Each new plague and pandemic was accompanied by a hidden more sinister plague of new restrictions on the rights of the people under “quarantine authority.” Government quarantines began in the 19th century.

Among such restrictions include The National Quarantine Act of 1893 and the 1902 Pan American Sanitary Bureau, the first of a series of international health organizations formed in the 20th century—culminating with the World Health Organization in 1948—that helped to bring issues of quarantine and the control of disease to a global stage. There was the 1944 Public Service Act and the 2001 Patriot Act after September 11 terrorist attacks, and many Acts in between.

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts…
William Shakespeare, As You Like It

The common denominator among all plagues was not only the alleged “germ,” or the fear, or the advertised death toll, but it was also the consequences of an ignorant population that allowed “authorities” to tell the stories that removed their freedoms. Could the biohazards just as well have originated from contaminated air, or new frequencies, or both?

History repeats itself if unchecked. And we, as humans, repeat the same events under new names perpetually, over and over again, if unconscious. Mass extinctions of people and freedoms happen simultaneously, through wars and plagues. Each time they happen, it is through ignorance, because people choose to become victims over and over again.

Did the Plague Doctors disappear without a trace, or did they assume a different title, with different tools, and a new costume? Is it time to recycle the herb-filled beak mask as an air purifier for anyone who wants a functional mask during the latest plague known as COVID?

Related Articles:

Rosanne Lindsay is available for consultation through Turtle Island Network. Subscribe to her blog at natureofhealing.org .

Connect with Rosanne Lindsay, Naturopath

cover image credit: Conmongt / pixabay

Why Nobody Can Find a Virus

by Dr. Sam Bailey & Dr. Mark Bailey
January 5, 2022

Perhaps prior to 2020 the issue of virus isolation was of minimal interest to the vast majority earth’s inhabitants. Most people blindly accept the medical establishment’s claims that viruses exist and can cause disease. They otherwise don’t give it a second thought. Sometimes you get unwell, and a doctor informs you, “it’s probably a viral illness” – but almost every time, you get better again.

However, the increasingly negative impacts from government instigated policies in the name of the “corona” crisis has resulted in some healthy new interest in the subject. Social cohesion in households and communities is being strained, businesses are being run into the ground, and suspicions about the requirement to be injected every four months to maintain protection against an invisible enemy are on the rise. If no virus has been isolated then its very existence is pure speculation. A phantom menace that has no confirmed physical presence, merely a ruinous psychological construct manifesting as a living nightmare. And those who ignore the pivotal issue of virus isolation are blindly accepting a premise on which all manner of lies can be built.

But there are scientific papers that prove isolation?…

The confusion surrounding virus isolation stems from the fact that many published scientific papers state in their titles or claim in their abstracts that they successfully “isolated” a virus. In 2020 and 2021, we lost track of the number of times we were sent such papers as apparent proof of the “SARS-CoV-2” virus. Similarly, industry-funded “fact-checking” sites have a propensity to link to such papers to reassure their spoon-fed readers that the “virus” has been isolated. Unfortunately, such disinformation sites fail to inform their audience that the virologists are not referring to actual physical isolation of any virus and have instead substituted the meaning of the word isolation for something that means almost the opposite.

Researchers such as Christine Massey have tirelessly collated Freedom of Information requests from governments around the world to clearly expose the fact that the alleged causal agent of COVID-19 has never once been physically isolated. While at least one government supported microbiologist has claimed this is disingenuous as the requests are worded in such a way that they are not consistent with the methodology of modern virology, this misses the whole point: the modern virologists are not isolating viruses in the way that the public and probably most of the medical profession are led to believe. Instead, they moved the goalposts.

The excuses for this sleight of hand should be rejected and the isolation of a virus should mean the same as it does with any other entity on the planet – that is, in its pure form, separated out from other material. It is done with things that are smaller than alleged viruses, such as proteins, and things that are bigger such as bacteria. It is not a technological limitation or because of some special property that precludes this process from being essential to the process of real isolation.

The most definitive evidence of a virus would be finding it directly in a host such as a human.

However, despite the fact we are told that a single sneeze could contain 200 million SARS-CoV-2 particles, when we take a mucous or blood sample from a patient not one virus particle can be found. And what about taking samples from hundreds or even thousands of people said to be infected and have a disease such as COVID-19 and then combining them altogether? I’m not sure if this has ever been tried but apparently even then if we purified such a sample, the excuse is apparently the same: we wouldn’t find any viruses in there! So, we are expected to believe that a patient is overwhelmed with trillions of viral particles but we can’t find any on or inside them.

Magic Tricks and the Electron Microscope

The virologists of old were convinced that with the advent of the electron micrograph and more efficient purification techniques they would be able to find all sorts of viruses in sick individuals. However, it became apparent they would have to abandon this process around the middle of the 20^th Century as the attempts were fruitless – no viruses were found. These days when most virologists talk about isolating viruses, one of the techniques they cite is tissue culture experiments in test tubes. It has been outlined why these are not only unsuitable proxies, but the stress of the test tube conditions alone on abnormal cells can produce the effects, no virus required. Similarly, detecting genetic sequences in these culture experiments is also unsatisfactory as there is no proof that such sequences come from inside any of the particles they are calling “SARS-CoV-2” and even if they did, that this is enough to qualify them as viruses. A virus is said to be a particle with a proteinaceous coat surrounding a genome that can infect and parasitise a host and then infect other hosts.

Therefore, anyone asserting that they have isolated a virus needs to show that what they have is actually a virus and not just test-tube observations and various biological molecules that can be detected without any viruses required.

How to Isolate a Virus

STEP 1: Identify a number of individuals with specific symptoms and signs that are thought to be caused by a virus.

This can’t be done with COVID-19 as it is an ethereal clinical disease that is “diagnosed” with a PCR result. There are no specific symptoms, signs or confirmatory investigations. However, for the purposes of this essay we will assume that we are talking about a well-defined clinical disease. We know that the virologists will not be able to find any viruses directly in a patient as outlined above, which doesn’t look good, but we’ll let them have another shot.

STEP 2: Perform a tissue culture experiment with a patient sample.

Briefly, this involves adding a crude sample (e.g. sputum) to some cells in a test tube and seeing if it produces any viruses. In early 2020 it was declared that a “virus” called SARS-CoV-2 had been “isolated” with this method. In reality Na Zhu, et al, had both failed to physically isolate any particles or show any of these particles to be viruses.

So, what should have been done? Na Zhu, et al should have repeated their experiment multiple times and then purified the particles they called “2019-nCoV” (later “SARS-CoV-2”) by means of a technique such as density gradient ultracentrifugation. This technique was already well established in the 20^th Century and as illustrated below in Figure 1 could be used satisfactorily to obtain much more purified samples that could be confirmed by electron microscopy.

At this point we could more confidently claim that we had physically isolated viral-like particles and could analyse their composition, including their genetic structure. All very interesting (and beyond what has been done) but the proof that theses particles are viruses, that is infectious and disease-causing, still needs to be established.

STEP 3: Infect a live animal, eg a monkey with the purified particles.

Mind you, we are not talking about bogus experiments as described in Sam’s SARS-1 video.

Pouring large volumes of mixed tissue culture fluid directly into an animal’s lungs to see if it will cough or develop some lung tissue changes does not constitute evidence of a virus. Pouring any biological muck into an animal’s lungs will cause these reactions. That’s why control experiments are suspiciously absent in such experiments. The purified particles, said to be viruses (which we are told are airborne and highly infectious) alone could be simply sprayed into the animals’ cages and they should get sick. Following that, any monkey introduced into the cage subsequently should also get sick if there is a contagious pathogen.

The Case for Human Experiments with “Viruses”

In fact, given that the world has been subjected to draconian restrictions, ruinous lockdowns, and population-wide experiments with “vaccines” in the name of an alleged virus, the case can be made for human experiments involving the “virus”. In the tradition of Max von Pettenkofer (who swallowed cholera bacillus in 1892 to show that it could not cause cholera by itself), we would be happy to inhale any purified particles said to be the SARS-CoV-2 “virus”, like many (we’re sure) who have investigated virology. It’s not particularly bold when one is aware that not once in history have any particles alleged to be viruses by themselves been shown to cause disease in any animal. Of course, such experiments would not be considered ethical today because the “deadly virus” was declared to exist, cause disease, and transmit via aerosol even though no such evidence was produced. However, one would suspect that these experiments are avoided due to the long history of the failure to demonstrate human to human transmission of any alleged viral illness.

Perhaps the complete lack of clinical evidence that influenza passes between humans as talked about below is the most embarrassing chapter for the “highly infectious virus” claimants.

The virus model was suspect long ago but it’s a model that will continue to be peddled as it pays dividends for industry participants – indeed, the development of their playbook over the decades is outlined in Virus Mania.

The End of Virology

Forget hypothetical computer generated “genomes” from non-purified samples and PCR tests that are calibrated to these simulations: none of these require the existence of a virus. Forget electron micrographs of cell “culture” experiments purporting to show viruses: these are simply vesicles of unknown significance until shown otherwise. What we need to see is purification of these particles and then a demonstration that they can parasitise a host and are the causal agent of a disease. The reality is that nobody is isolating viruses because carrying out the correct experiments would reveal that the particles are not viruses at all and virology would be finished.

Connect with Dr. Sam Bailey & Dr. Mark Bailey

cover image credit: based on creative commons work of mauriciodonascimento

Ebola: Shattering the Lies and the Fakery

Once again, the virus is the cover story

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
January 12, 2022

We’re warned, now and then, that a new Ebola outbreak might be spreading. It’s one of those Coming Attractions in the theater that shows one virus movie after another.

In this case, the fear-hook is the bleeding symptom. It makes people cower in the dark. O my God, look at the BLOOD. It’s…THE VIRUS.”

Yahoo News, 2/26/21 [1]: “…the World Health Organization reported a cluster of Ebola cases in Guinea…The Biden administration is moving forward with plans to screen airline passengers from two African countries arriving in the U.S. for Ebola…”

Because I do the work others won’t do…and because I covered the Ebola story in 2017 and 2014, here are essential quotes from my pieces during that period—

There is one predictable outcome: at Congo clinics and hospitals, frightened people who arrive with what are labeled “early signs” of Ebola will be diagnosed as probable cases. What are those symptoms? Fever, chill, sore throat, cough, headache, joint pain. Sound familiar? Normally, this would just be called the flu.

The massive campaign to make people believe the Ebola virus can attack at any moment, after the slightest contact, is quite a success.

People are falling all over themselves to raise the level of hysteria.

And that is preventing a hard look at Liberia, Sierra Leone, and the Republic of Guinea, three African nations where poverty and illness are staples of everyday life for the overwhelming number of people.

The command structure in those areas has a single dictum: don’t solve the human problem.

Don’t clean up the contaminated water supplies, don’t return stolen land to the people so they can thrive and grow food and finally achieve nutritional health, don’t solve overcrowding, don’t install basic sanitation, don’t strengthen immune systems, don’t let the people have power—because then they would throw off the local and global corporate juggernauts that are sucking the land of all its resources.

In order not to solve the problems of the people, a cover story is necessary. A cover story that exonerates the power structure.

A cover story like a virus.

It’s all about the virus. The demon. The strange attacker.

Forget everything else. The virus is the single enemy.

Forget the fact, for example, that a recent study of 15 pharmacies and 5 hospital drug dispensaries in Sierra Leone discovered the widespread and unconscionable use of beta-lactam antibiotics.

These drugs are highly toxic. One of their effects? Excessive bleeding.

Which just happens to be the scary “Ebola effect” that’s being trumpeted in the world press.

(J Clin Microbiol, July 2013, 51(7), 2435-2438), and Annals of Internal Medicine Dec. 1986, “Potential for bleeding with the new beta-lactam antibiotics”)

Forget the fact that pesticide companies are notorious for shipping banned toxic pesticides to Africa. One effect of the chemicals? Bleeding.

Forget that. It’s all about the virus and nothing but the virus.

Forget the fact that, for decades, one of the leading causes of death in the Third World has been uncontrolled diarrhea. Electrolytes are drained from the body, and the adult or the baby dies. (Diarrhea is also listed as an “Ebola” symptom.)

Any sane doctor would make it his first order of business to replace electrolytes with simple supplementation—but no, the standard medical line goes this way:

The diarrhea is caused by germs in the intestinal tract, so we must pile on massive amounts of antibiotics to kill the germs.

The drugs kill off all bacteria in the gut, including the necessary and beneficial ones, and the patient can’t absorb what little food he has access to, and he dies.

Along the way, he can also bleed.

But no, all the bleeding comes from Ebola. It’s the virus. Don’t think about anything else.

Forget the fact that adenovirus vaccines, which have been used in Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia (the epicenter of Ebola), have, according to vaccines.gov, the following adverse effects: blood in the urine or stool, and diarrhea.

Reporter Charles Yates uncovered a scandal in Liberia centering around the Firestone Rubber Plantation—chemical dumping, poisoned water.

And skin disease.

“Rash” is listed as one of the Ebola symptoms.

Then there is the Liberia Coca Cola bottling plant: foul black liquid seeping into the environment—animals dying.

Chronic malnutrition and starvation—conditions that are endemic in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea—are the number-one cause of T-cell depletion (aka immune system suppression) in the world.

Getting the picture?

In email correspondence with me, David Rasnick, PhD, announced this shocking finding:

“I have examined in detail the literature on isolation and Ems [EM: electron microscope pictures] of both Ebola and Marburg viruses. I have not found any convincing evidence that Ebola virus (and for that matter Marburg) has been isolated from humans. There is certainly no confirmatory evidence of human isolation.”

In other words, there is no evidence that the Ebola virus actually exists.

Rasnick obtained his PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and spent 25 years working with proteases (a class of enzymes) and protease inhibitors. He is the author of the book, The Chromosomal Imbalance Theory of Cancer. He was a member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.

The real reasons for the “Ebola outbreak” include, but are not limited to: industrial pollution; organophosphate pesticides (causes bleeding); vast overuse of antibiotics (causes bleeding); severe and debilitating nutritional deficiencies (which can cause bleeding); starvation; drastic electrolyte loss; chronic diarrhea; grinding poverty; war; stolen farm land; vaccination campaigns (in people whose immune systems are compromised, vaccines can easily wipe out their last shreds of health).

What about doctors and nurses in West Africa, who are treating Ebola patients? These health workers are falling ill with “the dreaded disease.”

Are they?

They’re working in very high temperatures, in clinic rooms likely sprayed with extremely toxic organophosphate pesticides. They’re sealed into hazmat suits, where temperatures rise even higher, causing the loss of up to five liters of body fluid during a one-hour shift. Then, recovering, they need IV rehydration, and they are doused with toxic disinfectant chemicals. They go back into the suits for another round of duty. One doctor reported that, inside his suit, there was (toxic) chlorine. These factors alone could cause dangerous illness and even death, and, of course, the basic symptoms of “Ebola.”

The experts were expressing grave doubts about Ebola, all the way back in 1977. Right at the beginning of the hysteria.

The 1977 reference here is: “Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever: Proceedings of an International Colloquium on Ebola Virus Infection and Other Haemorrhagic Fevers held in Antwerp, Belgium, 6-8 December, 1977.”

This report is 280 pages long. It’s well worth reading and studying, to see how the experts hem and haw, hedge their bets, and yet make damaging admissions:

For example, “It is impossible to consider the virological diagnosis of Ebola virus infection loose [apart] from the diagnosis of haemorrhagic fevers in general. The clinical picture of the disease indeed is too nonspecific to allow any hypothesis as to which virus may be responsible for any given case.”

Boom.

To those who point out there is a history of hemorrhagic (bleeding) fevers in parts of Africa, there is a history of horrendous malnutrition, one aspect of which is scurvy, which causes bleeding from all mucous membranes.

Bottom line: no need for a virus to explain the bleeding.

Then we have pesticides.

The reference here is “Measuring pesticide ecological and health risks in West African agriculture…” Feb. 17, 2014, published in Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, by PC Jepson et al.

“The survey was conducted at 19 locations in five countries and obtained information from 1704 individuals who grew 22 different crops. Over the 2 years of surveying, farmers reported use of 31 pesticides…

“…certain compounds represented high risk in multiple environmental and human health compartments, including carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, endosulfan and methamidophos.

“Health effects included cholinesterase inhibition, developmental toxicity, impairment of thyroid function and depressed red blood cell count…”

The study also notes that “[p]esticide imports to West Africa grew at an estimated 19% a year in the 1990s…well ahead of the growth in agricultural production of 2.5%…” In other words, pesticides have flooded West Africa.

Here is another vital observation made in the study: “The distribution and sale of pesticides in West Africa is not effectively regulated. Multiple channels of supply commonly include the repackaging of obsolete or illegal stocks [extremely toxic] and the correspondence between the contents of containers to what is stated on the label is poor…”

Pesticide suppliers conceal banned pesticides—which they are taking a loss on, because they can’t sell them—and put them inside containers labeled with the names of legal pesticide

Let’s consider the pesticides specifically mentioned in the study.

Carborfuran—According to the New Jersey Dept. of Health and Senior Services’ Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet, exposure to Carbofuran “can cause weakness, sweating, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, and blurred vision. Higher levels can cause muscle twitching, loss of coordination, and may cause breathing to stop [imminent death].”

Chloropyrifos, dimethoate, and methamidophos are organophosphates. The Pesticide Action Network describes organophosphates as “among the most acutely toxic of all pesticides…they deactivate an enzyme, Cholinesterase, which is essential for healthy nerve function.”

Endosulfan is being phased out globally, because it is extremely toxic and disrupts the endocrine system.

These pesticides can and do produce a number of the symptoms called “Ebola:”

Bleeding, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, stomach pain, coma.

But all this is swept aside in the hysteria about The Virus.

Here is a quote from a study, “Potential for bleeding with the new beta-lactam antibiotics,” Ann Intern Med December 1986; 105(6):924-31:

“Several new beta-lactam antibiotics impair normal hemostasis [body processes that stop bleeding]… These antibiotics often cause the template bleeding time to be markedly prolonged (greater than 20 minutes)… dangerous bleeding due to impaired platelet aggregation requires treatment with platelet concentrates.”

Here is a summary from MedlinePlus:

“The Clostridium difficile bacteria normally lives in the intestine. However, too much of these bacteria may grow when you take antibiotics. The bacteria give off a strong toxin that causes inflammation and bleeding in the lining of the colon…Any antibiotic can cause this condition. The drugs responsible for the problem most of the time are ampicillin, clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, and cephalosporins…”

So let’s look at the level of antibiotic use in West Africa and the Third World.

Voice of America, February 26, 2014, “…antibiotics have become the automatic choice for treating a child with a fever.”

AAPS (American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists): “For instance, in most areas of West Africa, antibiotics are commonly sold as over-the-counter medications.”

TWN (Third World Network): “…a survey carried out in 1999 showed that nearly one out of two antidiarrheal products in Third World countries contained an unnecessary antibiotic…” [and chronic diarrhea in the Third World is a leading cause of death, so you can be sure that these antidiarrheal drugs are consumed in great quantities].

“…75 products (including some antibiotics) which had been pulled out or banned in one or more European countries were identified in the Third World in 1991.”

Of course, banned antibiotics would be exceptionally toxic.

In West Africa, antibiotic use is sky-high…and antibiotics do cause bleeding.

Bleeding where? In the digestive tract.

In light of that, consider the following excerpt from the healthgrades.com article, “What is vomiting blood?”

“Vomiting blood indicates the presence of bleeding in the digestive tract…

“Vomiting blood may be caused by many different conditions, and the severity varies among individuals. The material vomited may be bright red or it may be dark colored like coffee grounds…”

Yes, it turns out that any source of internal bleeding in the digestive tract—such as overuse of antibiotics—can cause a person to vomit blood.

“The uniqueness” of “Ebola-blood-vomiting” is a fairy tale.

What else could cause the “Ebola” bleeding symptom in West Africa?

We have the fact that organophosphate insecticides are being widely used for indoor spraying, in West African homes and, surely, in clinics, to kill mosquitos. One study reports: “With high DDT resistance present throughout much of West Africa, carbamates and organophosphates are increasingly important alternatives to pyrethroids for indoor residual spraying (IRS).”

Among the effects, from severe exposure to organophosphates: diarrhea, tremors, staggering gait, blood disorders, death—all of which have been described in reference to Ebola.

And then there is this: “In nine patients suffering from organophosphate intoxication, platelet function and blood coagulation parameters were investigated…In five of nine patients a marked bleeding tendency was observed. The bleeding tendency in organophosphate intoxication is probably mainly caused by the defective platelet function.” (Klin Wochenschur, Sept. 3, 1984;62 (17):814-20, author: m. Zieman)

Bleeding. Not from a virus.

What about vaccines? A number of vaccination campaigns have been carried out in West Africa. I have found no in-depth independent investigations of the ingredients in these vaccines. But for example, a simple flu vaccine, Fluvirin, carries the risk of “hemorrhage.”.

Several other routine vaccines can cause vomiting. The HiB, for example.

We have this chilling report—From the (Liberian) Daily Observer, Oct. 14, “Breaking: Formaldehyde in Water Allegedly Causing Ebola-like symptoms”:

“A man in Schieffelin, a community located in Margibi County on the Robertsfield Highway, has been arrested for attempting to put formaldehyde into a well used by the community.”

“Reports say around 10 a.m., he approached the well with powder in a bottle. Mobbed by the community, he confessed that he had been paid to put formaldehyde into the well, and that he was not the only one. He reportedly told community dwellers, ‘We are many.’ There are agents in Harbel, Dolostown, Cotton Tree and other communities around the country, he said.”

“State radio, ELBC, reports that least 10 people in the Dolostown community have died after drinking water from poisoned wells.”

The ATSDR (US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) in its Guidelines for medical management of formaldehyde poisoning, lists these symptoms: “nausea, vomiting, pain, bleeding, CNS depression, coma…”

There are other sources of poisoning in West Africa. Their components and effects need further investigation.

For example: Firestone.

For nearly a century, the company has run a giant rubber plantation in Liberia. According to one estimate, Firestone controls 10% of the arable land in the country.

Aside from the wretched living and working conditions of the locals, who tap the trees for rubber, and bring their young children to work in order to meet Firestone daily quotas, there is the issue of massive pollution.

From irinnews: “LIBERIA: Community demands answers on rubber pollution”:

“MONROVIA, 4 June 2009 (IRIN) – People living next to Firestone Natural Rubber Company’s plantation in Harbel, 45km outside of Liberia’s capital Monrovia, say pollution from the concession is destroying their health, ruining their livelihoods and even killing residents.”

“Firestone’s Liberia rubber concession is the second largest rubber producer in Africa and employs some 14,000 Liberians.”

“Residents of the town of Kpanyarh, just next to Firestone’s rubber plantation in Harbel, say the creek from which they fish and drink their water in the dry season has been contaminated with toxins.”

“’We used to fish and drink the water,’ 67-year-old Kpanyarh resident John Powell told IRIN on a visit to the creek which runs just outside the town. He said the water became toxic in October 2008. ‘We can’t drink it any longer. Some of our people have already died from this. We have drawn Firestone’s attention to our plight but they have ignored it.’”

“In mid-May on an IRIN visit to the area, acidic fumes emanating from the creek caused people’s eyes to water and made it difficult to breathe.”

From BBC News: “The three-month investigation found that a plant south-east of the capital Monrovia was responsible for high [toxic] levels of orthophosphate in creeks.”

From laborrights.org: Because of lack of drinkable water on the plantation, “this situation leaves tappers and other unskilled employees and their families with no option but to drink from shallow wells and creeks.”

And of course, those creeks are heavily polluted.

Who knows how many and what toxic chemicals have been released from the Firestone plantation into the surrounding creeks and rivers?

A further investigation in West Africa could well turn up even more reasons for bleeding—none of which has anything to do with a virus. The region is rife with industrial operations which produce major pollutants—mining, offshore oil exploration and drilling, rubber-tapping, etc.

Then we come to the frightening press stories about the “Ebola-stricken, collapsing” doctors and health workers, who are treating patients in the Ebola clinics in West Africa.

These health workers have been wearing hazmat suits. Sealed off from the outside world, working shifts inside those boiling suits, where they are losing 5 quarts of body fluid an hour, they come out for rehydration, douse themselves with toxic chemicals to disinfect, and then go back in again.

One doctor told the Daily Mail he could smell intense fumes of chlorine while he was working in his suit. That means the toxic chemical was actually in there with him.

No wonder some health workers are collapsing and dying. No virus necessary.

From the Daily Mail, August 5, 2014, an article headlined, “In boiling hot suits…”:

“Doctor Hannah Spencer revealed how she wills herself to feel safe inside a boiling hot air-sealed Hazmat suit…”

“Boiling: Doctors and nurses lose up to five litres in sweat during an hour-long shift in the suits and have to spend two hours rehydrating after…”

“To minimise the risk of infection they have to wear thick rubber boots that come up to their knees, an impermeable body suit, gloves, a face mask, a hood and goggles to ensure no air at all can touch their skin.”

“Dr. Spencer, 27, and her colleagues lose up to five litres of sweat during a shift treating victims and have to spend two hours rehydrating afterwards.”

“At their camp they go through multiple decontaminations which includes spraying chlorine on their shoes.”

“Dr. Spencer: ‘We would like to keep a [patient] visit between 45 minutes and one hour, but now, we’re stretching it to almost two hours. We put ourselves through a very strong physiological stress when we’re using personal protection gear.’”

“‘We sweat, we’re losing water; we’re getting hotter and it wreaks havoc on the body. Our own endurance starts to wear down.’”

In another Daily Mail article (“What’s shocking is how Ebola patients look before they die…”), Dr. Oliver Johnson describes working in protective gear: “The heat of the suits is quickly overwhelming, as your goggles steam up and you feel the sweat dripping underneath. And the smell of chlorine is intense.”

Getting the picture? Imagine losing five quarts of water from your body in an hour. While you’re trapped inside a bulky hazmat suit. While you’re treating a patient who, for example, might want to escape the clinic because he’s afraid of you and your Western medicine.

Imagine needing two hours after you climb out of your suit to rehydrate. Then you go back for more. Of course you also decontaminate yourself with toxic chemicals, including chlorine.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with why you might fall ill. No. If you fall ill, or collapse, or suddenly die, it’s Ebola. The virus.

Sure it is.

No need to wonder. Don’t ask questions. Believe the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control. They always tell the truth.

—end of excerpts from my 2014 and 2017 Ebola articles—

Coda: Canadian investigator, Christine Massey, has been doing stunning work filing Freedom of Information Act requests for proof that various viruses have ever been isolated and purified (aka discovered). On March 15, 2021, she received a response from the CDC regarding the Ebola virus [2]. The CDC informed her they could find no records indicating the virus had ever been isolated and purified, from a patient sample.

Massey and her colleagues have filed seven other FOIA requests to various government agencies—seeking proof the Ebola virus has ever been isolated and purified—and the answer has always been the same: no such records exist.

Aside from exposing the horrendous truth about “Ebola” and what has really been happening in West Africa, I have another reason for writing this piece. I strongly recommend this method of investigation to independent researchers.

You start with the supposed medical cause of illness and death. You examine that cause and see whether it actually exists. At the same time, you carry out a parallel deep dive, in order to find out whether non-viral causes explain the symptoms of illness and death.

This is all aimed at “uncovering the cover story” that is being promoted to hide the crimes of corporations and governments.

In 1987, while I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I probed a large amount of data and found my way into this approach. It worked then, and in succeeding years, it’s worked time and time again.

As I never tire saying: “the virus” is the greatest cover story ever invented.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/now/exclusive-white-house-preparing-order-for-enhanced-airport-screenings-for-ebola-203354978.html

[2] https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-Ebola-FOIA-request-response-No-Records.pdf

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image credit: flutie8211 / pixabay

20 Facts About Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot to Tell You

by Dr. Vernon Coleman
January 8, 2022

Read this if you want to know more about vaccines than your doctor, practise nurse and health visitor.

1. The US Health Department’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme has shown that between 2,500 and 3,000 children are killed or injured each year by vaccines.

2. The US Government has paid vaccine damage compensation to the parents of autistic children.

3. The Japanese Government has halted part of its vaccination programme because of children dying.

4. In the UK, GPs receive massive payments for giving vaccinations. And bonus payments if they vaccinate enough patients. Doctors get very rich out of vaccine programmes.

5. Vaccines are now given to eight week old babies, though there is absolutely no long-term scientific evidence available to show that it is safe to do so. By the time they reach their second birthday small children will have received over a score of vaccinations. American children will have received even more. The vaccine industry is forever looking for new vaccines to give.

6. You will find a full list of the research work done to investigate the safety or otherwise of mass vaccination programmes on the palm of your left hand.

7. The diphtheria vaccine was first introduced in Germany. After the vaccine was introduced the number of cases of diphtheria steadily increased.

8. The number of deaths from whooping cough had fallen long before the vaccine was introduced. The vaccine has not reduced the incidence of the disease.

9. The flu vaccine is, inevitably, designed to deal with last year’s flu virus.

10. I have never met a doctor who has regular flu jabs (or any other jabs for that matter).

11. In the past, a flu vaccine contained different strains of flu virus (propagated in chicken embryos); formaldehyde (a preservative); polyethylene glycol; gelatin (made from cow’s bones) and a substance which contains mercury. The odd thing is that the EU has banned barometers containing mercury because they are thought to be dangerous. But doctors inject the stuff into people.

12. The polio vaccine did not ‘kill off’ polio. On the contrary, the vaccine resulted in more sufferers. In Tennessee, in the US, the number of polio victims before vaccination became compulsory was 119. The year after vaccination was introduced, the figure rose to 386. Similar figures for other American states. Polio became less common as a result of better sanitation and cleaner water supplies. The vaccination had no useful effect.

13. Dr Jenner is widely acclaimed as the ‘inventor’ of vaccine. But it is not so well known that when he tried the first smallpox vaccine on his 10 month son, the boy became mentally retarded and died at the age of 21. Jenner refused to have his second child vaccinated. However, the medical profession saw the commercial possibilities and vaccination became popular (if deadly).

14. When Louis XV contracted smallpox he survived because his nurse hid him from the doctors whose vaccines had killed his father and brother.

15. Even though TB is now a major problem, many countries have abandoned the TB vaccine because it simply doesn’t work. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the vaccine spreads the disease.

16. The risk of a child given the whooping cough vaccine developing brain damage is officially said to be 1 in 100,000. But that’s the ‘best’ figure. Other research shows that the risk is as high as 1 in 6,000. There is no doubt that the vaccine causes far more harm than the disease and there is clear evidence linking the vaccine to brain damage.

17. Vaccines are dangerous and they don’t always work. Up to half of the people given a vaccine jab do not develop a resistance to the disease concerned.

18. Drug companies now publish long lists of reasons for not vaccinating patients. Doctors rarely look at the lists, let alone take any notice. For example, for one vaccine the advice is that babies who cry persistently or develop a fever should not be given another jab. No one knows how much damage is caused by giving several vaccines in a single vaccine cocktail.

19. The French Government abandoned its hepatitis B vaccine programme for children after more than 15,000 lawsuits were filed for brain damage and other serious health problems.

20. In the US a group of paediatricians with 30,000 young patients do not vaccinate at all. They have no cases of autism in their practice.

For more information about vaccines please see Vernon Coleman’s book Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying: here’s the proof. The book is available as a paperback and an eBook on Amazon.

Connect with Dr. Vernon Coleman

cover image credit: nts01 / pixabay

Gaslighting Autism Families: CDC, Media Continue to Obscure Decades of Vaccine-Related Harm

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest autism report, once again, attributed the rise of autism to “more awareness” rather than a true increase — and as usual, mainstream media fell in line with that narrative.

by Children’s Health Defense Team
December 17, 2021

Media and public health officials perpetuated their entrenched practice of gaslighting autism families when earlier this month they trotted out the worn-out canard that a 23% rise in autism prevalence over a two-year period “reflects more awareness … rather than a true increase.”

The basis for this mean-spirited whopper was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) release of its biennial report on autism prevalence as of 2018.

The report estimated autism affected 1 in 44 American 8-year-olds born in 2010 (2.27%). The CDC’s prior report estimated prevalence at 1 in 54 8-year-olds born in 2008 (1.85%).

Using a different methodology, the 2019-2020 National Survey of Children’s Health situated autism prevalence for children ages 3 to 17 at 1 in 34 (2.9%).

Notwithstanding the media spin, CDC’s new report cannot hide the fact that autism rates have not stopped rising — and the trend has persisted for decades.

This was acknowledged by the report’s New Jersey author, researcher Walter Zahorodny, who states that U.S. autism prevalence — far from plateauing — “has increased continuously over 20 years.”

Zahorodny, who years ago described the situation as “urgent,” has consistently rejected “better awareness” or “changes in diagnostic criteria” as explanations.

Twenty years (the period of time during which CDC has had its tracking system in place) is itself a gross understatement — autism prevalence in the 1990s (1 in 1,000) already represented a tenfold increase over the condition’s estimated prevalence in the 1970s.

Greeting the new data with a wink and a yawn, the media also ignored the fact that some subgroups and regions are experiencing even more of a “red alert” situation.

Zahorodny called attention, for example, to the finding that autism prevalence for California’s boys is an “unprecedented” 1 in 16 (6.4%) — almost double the dreadful rate of 1 in 28 boys overall (3.6%).

The “Golden State” now has the dubious distinction of having the highest autism rate in the nation.

Moreover, recent projections by autism researchers Mark Blaxill, Toby Rogers and Cynthia Nevison suggest, if current trends continue, the autism rate could surpass 6% for ALL American children within a few years.

Although there are any number of environmental toxins that harm children’s neurodevelopment, a preponderance of information from national and international sources pinpoints vaccines as the driving factor behind the autism epidemic.

This information includes the CDC’s own data — despite the agency’s numerous fraudulent attempts to make years of troublesome findings “go away.”

Tragically, officialdom’s willful refusal to acknowledge or address vaccine-autism safety signals is no longer just an ongoing slap in the face to those directly affected — it is now affecting the U.S. population as a whole.

Why? Because CDC and Big Pharma are now using the very same playbook to gaslight victims of COVID vaccine injuries.

Omnibus Autism Proceeding trickery: a reminder

In the early 2000s — when autism prevalence had surged to an estimated 1 in 150 children — the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) consolidated 5,400 claims into something called the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP).

The claims were filed by parents who asserted vaccines had injured their children, causing seizures, developmental delays and mitochondrial injuries that ultimately led to a diagnosis of autism.

Under the VICP, vaccine-injured individuals file claims against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters.

The adversarial process pits petitioners not just against the special masters who adjudicate the claims but also against U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys who “defend HHS.”

In the case of the OAP, the special masters told thousands of families they would make a determination about compensation based on nine “test cases” — almost immediately whittled down to six — using them to evaluate three narrowly defined theories of autism causation via vaccine injury.

Knowing that if their conclusions pinpointed vaccination as the likely culprit in even one of the test cases, the VICP might be on the hook to compensate all 5,400 families — an outcome that would have bankrupted the VICP and cast a black cloud over the entire childhood vaccination program — the special masters and DOJ then pulled a couple of fast ones.

First, HHS quietly removed one of the test cases, “Child Doe 77,” later revealed to be Hannah Poling.

After awarding millions to be disbursed over Poling’s lifetime — and admitting vaccines were responsible for her autism — the special masters sealed the documents, so the case “could not be used to establish precedent on any of the other OAP cases.”

In a parallel move to ensure none of the remaining five test cases would lead to compensation, two DOJ attorneys allegedly distorted the views of HHS’s star expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman.

At the time, Zimmerman wrote an opinion for one of the test cases in which he rejected the proposed vaccine-autism theory of causation in that specific case.

In 2019, however, Zimmerman signed an affidavit disclosing how he had informed the two attorneys during the OAP deliberations that his opinion in that one case was not intended “to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science.”

In fact, Zimmerman told the DOJ attorneys, he believed vaccines could indeed cause autism in some children.

As noted by journalist Sharyl Attkisson, Zimmerman’s consequential scientific opinion “stood to change everything about the vaccine-autism debate — if people were to find out.”

To make sure people did not “find out,” Zimmerman was immediately fired as an expert witness.

Even worse, DOJ’s two attorneys intentionally used Zimmerman’s statements — written for the single test case — to misrepresent his broader views, omitting the expert’s stated belief that vaccines can and did cause autism in a subset of children.

Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. described the Justice Department’s OAP cover-up as “one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history.”

This “fraud” allowed the VICP special masters to dismiss out of hand the petitions of all 5,000-plus families.