More deliberately misleading pseudoscience designed to confuse the layperson who knows nothing about virology or biochemistry or genetic sequencing or, even, about control experiments. The article is a misrepresentation of how it's all done. One of dead giveaways is the classic straw man fallacy - ironically, the straw man fallacy is about 'isolation'. That's to say you try and find the weakest bit of an argument, ignore everything else, misrepresent it to the reader and then claim you've debunked it.
Example: observation of cytopathic effects is ONLY ONE method of viral detection. There's a whole load more but I can't be effing bothered. Any science I mention will simply be ignored.
To return to a 1954 experiment (that's 70 years) and cast doubt on it is at best lazy, at worst disingenuous and deceitful. They didn't have modern technology in 1954. They couldn't sequence viral genomes. They couldn't isolate individual proteins of a virus and test those specific proteins against specific human proteins, whether immune cells, epithelial cells, lung cells, whatever. Now this is possible.
But here's the real, suspicious clincher for all this anti-virology nonsense. You know, if there weren't any viruses then virology would've been exposed as a sham a long time ago. But how come it's only become a 'thing' since 'Covid'?
And who benefits? I'll tell you who benefits - the pharma industry, for one, and the manufacturers of the mRNA and Sars-Cov-1 and 2 bioweapons. That's who.
Why, after all, is this 'no viruses' idea specifically targeting the so-called 'truth movement'? I mean, the people propagating this pseudoscientific nonsense know perfectly well the general public are just going to laugh at them, along with millions and millions of independent scientific researchers across the world with access to modern-equipped laboratories who perform biochemical assays every fucking day!
Think about it - if you design a bioweapon, and you know that a certain group of people are going to come along and say 'that's a bioweapon', then you really, really need to infiltrate that group and put them off the scent. You need to misdirect them. You need to firstly gain their trust by masquerading as a 'former pharma industry operative who's suddenly seen the light and simply has to speak out about this madness' - like yeah right, you work for a psychopathic industry for 30 years and then suddenly develop a conscience? Don't make me laugh.
If you don't even believe in the existence of viruses then by definition you also can't believe in the existence of the bioweapon, can you?
And because if I came along and told you about the more than a dozen different immune pathways evaded and suppressed by Sars-Cov-1 and 2, and the suppression of cytokines by the S-protein, which is manufactured by the body itself after mRNA injection, and try and tell you about basic immunology and biochemistry, then you aren't going to listen. Oh it's all fraudulent science, you will say.
No - you can't create such a bioweapon without a knowledge of viruses and immunology.
Furthermore, if you deny the existence of viruses then you also have to deny the adaptive immune system. The adaptive immune system is the basis of immunotherapy, which is the holy grail of medical care - it's curative, targeted, and has no side effects. A patient cured is a customer lost. So it's anathema to the pharma companies, isn't it? They have to stop it somehow - or at least destroy people's immune systems (yeah, maybe with an immune-pathway based bioweapon) so they become permanently sick and, well, eminently profitable.
Think about Ivermectin. Ivermectin works by activating a variety of different immune pathways. It's immunotherapy!!!
These people are psychopaths, remember. They not only conduct experiments on sentient animals every day, infecting them with all manner of sickness, from emphysema to cancer, but they also do that to humans. Their so-called gold standard of randomised controlled trials involves a control experiment with a placebo. But if the patient knows they might get a placebo then it actually creates a nocebo effect, which greatly reduces the efficacy and safety results, thus delaying the introduction and approval of these products for at least ten years. Think about it.
I wouldn't trust any of them. They are working together. Because that's what they do.
"These people are psychopaths, remember. They not only conduct experiments on sentient animals every day, infecting them with all manner of sickness, from emphysema to cancer, but they also do that to humans"
Agreed. And you can trace that right back to Pasteur.
"Example: observation of cytopathic effects is ONLY ONE method of viral detection."
The article focuses on cell culturing and especially on cytopathic effects. It does not go into genome sequencing, etc. though plenty could be said about that. The article is specifically about control experiments and so far as I am aware there has not been a single genome sequencing control experiment published, although there are plans in the making.
"You know, if there weren't any viruses then virology would've been exposed as a sham a long time ago. But how come it's only become a 'thing' since 'Covid'?"
There was no internet in the 1980s or 90s when Perth Group of Australia led by biophysicist Eleni Papadopolus began questioning HIV (see theperthgroup.com) or when microbiologist Stefan Lanka as a young virologist was asked by one of his German mentors to look into the claims he was miming about HIV causing AIDS and see how he knew that was true. The significant but minority movement questioning HIV or that HIV causes AIDS was able to be largely kept under the wraps by the mainstream media and by NIH control of research funding and education. I certainly never heard about it, and neither did most of the rest of the world.
Same is true of polio in the 1950s and even before that. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the important work in that area by Ralph R. Scobey MD and Morton S. Biskind MD. Their concerns even went before a Senate commitee, but how many people ever heard about it? You can follow links to their scientific papers here.
They are quite thorough and, while focusing on polio, also address research showing correlation of things such as herpes being similarly associated with poisoning as polio as well.
An article you linked in a comment on one of my previous articles focuses on Kaufman and Cowan, instigating they are part of a Jewish psyop. I can only say Kaufman and Cowan are relatively late on the scene of questioning viruses. Whale.to is a vast website, a collection of a huge number of articles and sources, and has been around for a long time (I don't know if it's creator is still active). Researcher Jim West has been questioning viruses for decades by now, as has John Rappoport, author of AIDS, Inc.
As for bioweapons, the real danger in my opinion is that we ARE being poisoned left and right by every avenue imaginable (food, air pollution, perfumes, vaccines, pesticides, modern building materials, EMF, etc., etc.) and that viruses and bioweapons alike are red herrings to keep us from seeing the obvious.
As expected you didn't really address my main point about who benefits. Namely the pharma industry. You have said nothing about the human immune system or immunotherapy.
Like I said, it's the straw man fallacy. If you can't avoid the elephant in the room then throw a dead cat around.
The reason I said virology would've been exposed by now if it was bunk is that there are millions of scientists and lab workers around the world with access to the latest technology (which wasn't available in the 1950s so I shall just blithely ignore that red herring). Are you seriously suggesting that the all-powerful global cabal can somehow control the results of every single use of every single lab in the world? Including routine histopathology examinations?
Maybe you'd like to speak one-to-one with people who have been damaged by infectious diseases like polio (maybe some of the thousands of children in Gaza, perhaps, because the water supply is now contaminated). What you need to do of course, if you deny the existence of the polio virus, is come up with some biochemical explanation for how all your 'pollutants' cause those specific symptoms.
Same for Herpes, same for Varicella Zoster, same for all of them. You would also need to explain the presence of antigen-specific B-cells.
Does the adaptive immune system develop specific B-cells which biochemically attract/bind to pollutant particles? If that were the case, I think we'd know about it by now.
The control experiments, by the way, are built in to all of these assays investigating the activity of antigen-specific B cells, precisely to eliminate errors and effectively isolate the pathogen by inference. This can also take place in vivo, by the way. Here is a good overview of techniques for isolating antigen-specific B cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6667631/ Ironically this paper was published 5 years to the day (24 July 2019). Scroll down for the in vivo section.
Anyhow - I am not going to waste any more of my time doing research. I have better things to do.
I am of course aware of the damaging effects of all the pollutions and such like. That goes without saying. Those things cause AIDS. Likewise I'm aware that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. It's a harmless passenger virus, as the work of the likes of Peter Duisburg showed. Kary Mullis agreed with him. But neither of them actually questioned the existence of passenger viruses. Interesting, I think, that the guy who invented the PCR isn't here to be able to say anything about this anti-virology nonsense.
Anyway - if you want to keep pushing this subversive rubbish and undermining the truth movement then that's your issue. I'm done with it.
Virology has been exposed long since past. I will not address all of your questions. They have been addressed elsewhere. You can see the links I provided if you want to know more.
In order to believe that viruses don't exist you have to debunk a long chain of research and fact, events, etc... that arguably goes back thousands of years.
That's a LOT to debunk.
What I mean is that there are SO many points of reference within the collective knowledge of humans and our history, that any position you hold to the contrary is overwhelmed with opposing facts. It makes your position look somewhat ridiculous.
Another way of saying it...
We know that 2+2=4. If we want to double check, we can use subtraction. We can also use the logic that if 2+2=4, then 2+3=5 and 2+4=6 and so on. Everything will fit together in perfect order .
What the no virus crowd is arguing is like stating that 2+2=5, therefore 5-2=2 2+3=6, 2+4=7 and so on. It doesn't work out.
It's like trying to fit a larger jigsaw puzzle piece into another puzzle with smaller pieces and a different picture.
Your comparison with mathematics is a poor analogy, but you are correct in stating that there is a many-layered public understanding of "viruses", contagion, historical epidimics, etc. that has to be unravelled one piece at time.
Until 2020, I never questioned that epidemics I had been taught were caused by viruses were just that. My first peek into any alternative to the standard narrative was when I began studying polio and discovered that there was already a long history (since the beginning really) of physicians who saw clearly that polio was caused by poisoning.
It took me a long time to work through other alleged "viral" diseases and begin thinking that they too might not be what I had been led to believe.
"Your comparison with mathematics is a poor analogy,"
Perhaps. I'm just trying to articulate that there are so many points of reference within the history and development of our current understanding that must check out in terms of sound reason. It's gotta add up. It's gotta fit right.
"but you are correct in stating that there is a many-layered public understanding of "viruses", contagion, historical epidimics, etc. that has to be unravelled one piece at time."
Yes, Exactly.
Until 2020, I never questioned that epidemics I had been taught were caused by viruses were just that. My first peek into any alternative to the standard narrative was when I began studying polio and discovered that there was already a long history (since the beginning really) of physicians who saw clearly that polio was caused by poisoning. It took me a long time to work through other alleged "viral" diseases and begin thinking that they too might not be what I had been led to believe."
Consider that humans have come a long way with regard to technological advancement. We have a pretty good grip on science at this point. Gain of function research is a common term in the modern era where we have things like microbiology epidemiology genetic science and electron microscopes.
We're beyond 'no viruses'. We know viruses are real. Scientists can even isolate their genetics and manipulate them. Decades ago, governments were doing biowarfare research developing sophisticated things like a bioweapon made of DNA fragments of diseases. You don't actually have it, but get ill from the symptoms anyway. Imagine getting all the sores of smallpox without actually having it while you dehydrate to death with weaponized Diarrhea.
How much development of knowledge research science and technology goes into producing something like that?
John, I got curious about "Ring around the rosies" and decided to see what I could find. Sources mentioned variously either the Black Death (which presumably dates back to the 1300s) or the Great Plague of London in the 17th century. The closest I got to finding a primary source was the following:
"Children were apparently reciting this plague-inspired nursery rhyme for over six hundred years before someone finally figured out what they were talking about, as the first known mention of a plague interpretation of "Ring Around the Rosie" didn't show up until James Leasor published The Plague and the Fire in 1961."
If you know of anything dating back further than 1961 let me know. I have lot of interest in these old epidemics.
On the bubonic plague, I've read a book from the late 1800s called "Are Epidemics Contagious?" written by the British monarch's Cholera Inspector to the West Indies, published after the author's death at ripe old age. He puts forth evidence that neither the plague, nor cholera, nor even smallpox were contagious.
As far as I know, "Ring around the Rosie" was a reference to the pinkish-red sores (buboes) made by the plague. "Pocket full of posies" was regarding the belief that carrying flower pedals would protect you from it. "Ashes to Ashes" is from Ecclesiastes 3:20 - "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust". And, of course, "We all fall down" is describing a lot of death.
Oh FFS.
More deliberately misleading pseudoscience designed to confuse the layperson who knows nothing about virology or biochemistry or genetic sequencing or, even, about control experiments. The article is a misrepresentation of how it's all done. One of dead giveaways is the classic straw man fallacy - ironically, the straw man fallacy is about 'isolation'. That's to say you try and find the weakest bit of an argument, ignore everything else, misrepresent it to the reader and then claim you've debunked it.
Example: observation of cytopathic effects is ONLY ONE method of viral detection. There's a whole load more but I can't be effing bothered. Any science I mention will simply be ignored.
To return to a 1954 experiment (that's 70 years) and cast doubt on it is at best lazy, at worst disingenuous and deceitful. They didn't have modern technology in 1954. They couldn't sequence viral genomes. They couldn't isolate individual proteins of a virus and test those specific proteins against specific human proteins, whether immune cells, epithelial cells, lung cells, whatever. Now this is possible.
But here's the real, suspicious clincher for all this anti-virology nonsense. You know, if there weren't any viruses then virology would've been exposed as a sham a long time ago. But how come it's only become a 'thing' since 'Covid'?
And who benefits? I'll tell you who benefits - the pharma industry, for one, and the manufacturers of the mRNA and Sars-Cov-1 and 2 bioweapons. That's who.
Why, after all, is this 'no viruses' idea specifically targeting the so-called 'truth movement'? I mean, the people propagating this pseudoscientific nonsense know perfectly well the general public are just going to laugh at them, along with millions and millions of independent scientific researchers across the world with access to modern-equipped laboratories who perform biochemical assays every fucking day!
Think about it - if you design a bioweapon, and you know that a certain group of people are going to come along and say 'that's a bioweapon', then you really, really need to infiltrate that group and put them off the scent. You need to misdirect them. You need to firstly gain their trust by masquerading as a 'former pharma industry operative who's suddenly seen the light and simply has to speak out about this madness' - like yeah right, you work for a psychopathic industry for 30 years and then suddenly develop a conscience? Don't make me laugh.
If you don't even believe in the existence of viruses then by definition you also can't believe in the existence of the bioweapon, can you?
And because if I came along and told you about the more than a dozen different immune pathways evaded and suppressed by Sars-Cov-1 and 2, and the suppression of cytokines by the S-protein, which is manufactured by the body itself after mRNA injection, and try and tell you about basic immunology and biochemistry, then you aren't going to listen. Oh it's all fraudulent science, you will say.
No - you can't create such a bioweapon without a knowledge of viruses and immunology.
Furthermore, if you deny the existence of viruses then you also have to deny the adaptive immune system. The adaptive immune system is the basis of immunotherapy, which is the holy grail of medical care - it's curative, targeted, and has no side effects. A patient cured is a customer lost. So it's anathema to the pharma companies, isn't it? They have to stop it somehow - or at least destroy people's immune systems (yeah, maybe with an immune-pathway based bioweapon) so they become permanently sick and, well, eminently profitable.
Think about Ivermectin. Ivermectin works by activating a variety of different immune pathways. It's immunotherapy!!!
These people are psychopaths, remember. They not only conduct experiments on sentient animals every day, infecting them with all manner of sickness, from emphysema to cancer, but they also do that to humans. Their so-called gold standard of randomised controlled trials involves a control experiment with a placebo. But if the patient knows they might get a placebo then it actually creates a nocebo effect, which greatly reduces the efficacy and safety results, thus delaying the introduction and approval of these products for at least ten years. Think about it.
I wouldn't trust any of them. They are working together. Because that's what they do.
"These people are psychopaths, remember. They not only conduct experiments on sentient animals every day, infecting them with all manner of sickness, from emphysema to cancer, but they also do that to humans"
Agreed. And you can trace that right back to Pasteur.
"Example: observation of cytopathic effects is ONLY ONE method of viral detection."
The article focuses on cell culturing and especially on cytopathic effects. It does not go into genome sequencing, etc. though plenty could be said about that. The article is specifically about control experiments and so far as I am aware there has not been a single genome sequencing control experiment published, although there are plans in the making.
"You know, if there weren't any viruses then virology would've been exposed as a sham a long time ago. But how come it's only become a 'thing' since 'Covid'?"
There was no internet in the 1980s or 90s when Perth Group of Australia led by biophysicist Eleni Papadopolus began questioning HIV (see theperthgroup.com) or when microbiologist Stefan Lanka as a young virologist was asked by one of his German mentors to look into the claims he was miming about HIV causing AIDS and see how he knew that was true. The significant but minority movement questioning HIV or that HIV causes AIDS was able to be largely kept under the wraps by the mainstream media and by NIH control of research funding and education. I certainly never heard about it, and neither did most of the rest of the world.
Same is true of polio in the 1950s and even before that. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the important work in that area by Ralph R. Scobey MD and Morton S. Biskind MD. Their concerns even went before a Senate commitee, but how many people ever heard about it? You can follow links to their scientific papers here.
http://whale.to/vaccine/polio_ddt_h.html
They are quite thorough and, while focusing on polio, also address research showing correlation of things such as herpes being similarly associated with poisoning as polio as well.
An article you linked in a comment on one of my previous articles focuses on Kaufman and Cowan, instigating they are part of a Jewish psyop. I can only say Kaufman and Cowan are relatively late on the scene of questioning viruses. Whale.to is a vast website, a collection of a huge number of articles and sources, and has been around for a long time (I don't know if it's creator is still active). Researcher Jim West has been questioning viruses for decades by now, as has John Rappoport, author of AIDS, Inc.
As for bioweapons, the real danger in my opinion is that we ARE being poisoned left and right by every avenue imaginable (food, air pollution, perfumes, vaccines, pesticides, modern building materials, EMF, etc., etc.) and that viruses and bioweapons alike are red herrings to keep us from seeing the obvious.
As expected you didn't really address my main point about who benefits. Namely the pharma industry. You have said nothing about the human immune system or immunotherapy.
Like I said, it's the straw man fallacy. If you can't avoid the elephant in the room then throw a dead cat around.
The reason I said virology would've been exposed by now if it was bunk is that there are millions of scientists and lab workers around the world with access to the latest technology (which wasn't available in the 1950s so I shall just blithely ignore that red herring). Are you seriously suggesting that the all-powerful global cabal can somehow control the results of every single use of every single lab in the world? Including routine histopathology examinations?
Maybe you'd like to speak one-to-one with people who have been damaged by infectious diseases like polio (maybe some of the thousands of children in Gaza, perhaps, because the water supply is now contaminated). What you need to do of course, if you deny the existence of the polio virus, is come up with some biochemical explanation for how all your 'pollutants' cause those specific symptoms.
Same for Herpes, same for Varicella Zoster, same for all of them. You would also need to explain the presence of antigen-specific B-cells.
Does the adaptive immune system develop specific B-cells which biochemically attract/bind to pollutant particles? If that were the case, I think we'd know about it by now.
The control experiments, by the way, are built in to all of these assays investigating the activity of antigen-specific B cells, precisely to eliminate errors and effectively isolate the pathogen by inference. This can also take place in vivo, by the way. Here is a good overview of techniques for isolating antigen-specific B cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6667631/ Ironically this paper was published 5 years to the day (24 July 2019). Scroll down for the in vivo section.
Anyhow - I am not going to waste any more of my time doing research. I have better things to do.
I am of course aware of the damaging effects of all the pollutions and such like. That goes without saying. Those things cause AIDS. Likewise I'm aware that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. It's a harmless passenger virus, as the work of the likes of Peter Duisburg showed. Kary Mullis agreed with him. But neither of them actually questioned the existence of passenger viruses. Interesting, I think, that the guy who invented the PCR isn't here to be able to say anything about this anti-virology nonsense.
Anyway - if you want to keep pushing this subversive rubbish and undermining the truth movement then that's your issue. I'm done with it.
Virology has been exposed long since past. I will not address all of your questions. They have been addressed elsewhere. You can see the links I provided if you want to know more.
In order to believe that viruses don't exist you have to debunk a long chain of research and fact, events, etc... that arguably goes back thousands of years.
That's a LOT to debunk.
What I mean is that there are SO many points of reference within the collective knowledge of humans and our history, that any position you hold to the contrary is overwhelmed with opposing facts. It makes your position look somewhat ridiculous.
Another way of saying it...
We know that 2+2=4. If we want to double check, we can use subtraction. We can also use the logic that if 2+2=4, then 2+3=5 and 2+4=6 and so on. Everything will fit together in perfect order .
What the no virus crowd is arguing is like stating that 2+2=5, therefore 5-2=2 2+3=6, 2+4=7 and so on. It doesn't work out.
It's like trying to fit a larger jigsaw puzzle piece into another puzzle with smaller pieces and a different picture.
Square peg - round hole
Fail
Your comparison with mathematics is a poor analogy, but you are correct in stating that there is a many-layered public understanding of "viruses", contagion, historical epidimics, etc. that has to be unravelled one piece at time.
Until 2020, I never questioned that epidemics I had been taught were caused by viruses were just that. My first peek into any alternative to the standard narrative was when I began studying polio and discovered that there was already a long history (since the beginning really) of physicians who saw clearly that polio was caused by poisoning.
It took me a long time to work through other alleged "viral" diseases and begin thinking that they too might not be what I had been led to believe.
"Your comparison with mathematics is a poor analogy,"
Perhaps. I'm just trying to articulate that there are so many points of reference within the history and development of our current understanding that must check out in terms of sound reason. It's gotta add up. It's gotta fit right.
"but you are correct in stating that there is a many-layered public understanding of "viruses", contagion, historical epidimics, etc. that has to be unravelled one piece at time."
Yes, Exactly.
Until 2020, I never questioned that epidemics I had been taught were caused by viruses were just that. My first peek into any alternative to the standard narrative was when I began studying polio and discovered that there was already a long history (since the beginning really) of physicians who saw clearly that polio was caused by poisoning. It took me a long time to work through other alleged "viral" diseases and begin thinking that they too might not be what I had been led to believe."
Consider that humans have come a long way with regard to technological advancement. We have a pretty good grip on science at this point. Gain of function research is a common term in the modern era where we have things like microbiology epidemiology genetic science and electron microscopes.
We're beyond 'no viruses'. We know viruses are real. Scientists can even isolate their genetics and manipulate them. Decades ago, governments were doing biowarfare research developing sophisticated things like a bioweapon made of DNA fragments of diseases. You don't actually have it, but get ill from the symptoms anyway. Imagine getting all the sores of smallpox without actually having it while you dehydrate to death with weaponized Diarrhea.
How much development of knowledge research science and technology goes into producing something like that?
https://viroliegy.com/2022/03/09/the-case-against-viral-genomes/
Highly recommend
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/virus-bacteriophage-single-virus-genomics/
John, I got curious about "Ring around the rosies" and decided to see what I could find. Sources mentioned variously either the Black Death (which presumably dates back to the 1300s) or the Great Plague of London in the 17th century. The closest I got to finding a primary source was the following:
"Children were apparently reciting this plague-inspired nursery rhyme for over six hundred years before someone finally figured out what they were talking about, as the first known mention of a plague interpretation of "Ring Around the Rosie" didn't show up until James Leasor published The Plague and the Fire in 1961."
If you know of anything dating back further than 1961 let me know. I have lot of interest in these old epidemics.
On the bubonic plague, I've read a book from the late 1800s called "Are Epidemics Contagious?" written by the British monarch's Cholera Inspector to the West Indies, published after the author's death at ripe old age. He puts forth evidence that neither the plague, nor cholera, nor even smallpox were contagious.
As far as I know, "Ring around the Rosie" was a reference to the pinkish-red sores (buboes) made by the plague. "Pocket full of posies" was regarding the belief that carrying flower pedals would protect you from it. "Ashes to Ashes" is from Ecclesiastes 3:20 - "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust". And, of course, "We all fall down" is describing a lot of death.
https://aldhissla.substack.com/p/the-infectious-myth-busted-is-plague?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true