Results are never conclusive (certain) only the best guess of the moment in time to be hopefully useful!
The quests for certainty run deep 🙄🥳😎
I doubt this. Knowlege is founded on "reasoned certainty". For instance, there is reasoned certainty that one can sail from Manhatten to Africa, south around the Cape, northeast to the Phillipines, across the Pacific to Panama, through the Canal to east coast of Florida, and then north to New York Harbor. There is reasoned certainty one can circumnavigate.
There is reasoned certainty that arsenic is poison, that oxygen is necessary to human life, that most politicians lie by commission and ommission and that WWI and WWII happened (but not as told in history books).
All knowlege is opened ended, including experimental science. But there is the reasoned certainty that virology is not valid nor true.
Deny "certainty" (knowlege), and one destroys the concept of truth and reason, thereby contradicting oneself. For the claim therre is no certainty must be applied to the claim itself.
Touché . Agreed, thank you for adding clarity in my words - it’s a very human trait to cling to one’s sense of ‘truth’-this can create blind spots and close the door to creative possibilities, and yes to the claim that there is no certainty must be applied to the claim itself.
I have read a lot of Mark Bailey's work on no-virus. And, I could be wrong here, but I don't recall him mentioning much about Ender's control experiment described above. As this is one of the foundational papers of virology, I find this to be a bit odd. It's almost as if he doesn't realize that it was actually a failed control experiment. But I can't really believe that. Just wondering if anyone could help me understand this.
It's a fair question Mike, Mark Bailey has actually kinda referred to it once.
In A Farewell to Virology (top of pg 18), Mark Bailey says, "Enders... performed no control experiments to check whether the culture procedure itself, that is the stressing of the cells in the test tube, would produce the same CPE's, thereby invalidating the evidence for their conclusion."
So perhaps he missed it in the paper, or you are correct and he didn't think it was a control experiment. Why he didn't think it was a control, I can't tell you either because he didn't elaborate.
I know for sure Cowan and Lanka consider it a control experiment.
In Lanka's own words about the Enders paper, on page 3 of 4:
"To date, no negative control experiments have been done with respect to the so-called measles virus either, which would have shown that it is the laboratory procedures that lead to the cytopathic effects on the cells. Additionally, all claims and experiments made by Enders et al. and the subsequent researchers lead to the only objective conclusion that in fact they were observing and analyzing dying cellular particles and the activity thereof in the test tube, misinterpreting these as particles and characteristics of the alleged measles virus."
--
"No control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects."
--
"Such a pressure for success can also explain why Enders and his colleagues ignored their own reservations and cautions expressed in 1954, when they had observed and noted that many cells also died after being treated normally (i.e. without being “in-
fected”), which they thought to have been caused by unknown viruses and factors. All these facts and cautions were subsequently disregarded."
It seems to be an issue of semantics. We find a lot of words to try and explain why we've taking a certain position or why we are saying something.
This was one of the main messages I got from Mia's article. It's not a matter of defining what the word control means but it's about the importance of the evidence we have...
Even you call it a "limited" control but I don't really care what anyone calls it. The evidence is damn important. It's perhaps the most important evidence we have against the profession and now you're defending Mark's decision to ignore it...
"None of us are ignoring the control that Enders did"
Who is the "us" you are talking about and why do you think you can speak for Mark? Are you close to him?
Mark's EXACT words in Farewell to Virology: "Enders and Peebles performed no control experiments to check whether the culture procedure itself, that is stressing of the cells in the test tube, would produce the same CPEs"
This is not a maybe or a "no proper control." This is a "NO CONTROL" was done.
So even by your own admission this is an oversight. So I'm not sure why you are here in the comments... Are you trying to drive home the point?
Apparently I have misinterpreted the Enders study and I apologize for this so I need to retract my earlier statements.
The statement from the paper: "A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.", it doesn't refer to it as a control.
Someone with a sharper mind than I said: "Enders did not describe a "control" experiment in that paragraph. The inference is that it was "second agent" - either it came with the cell line or was a contaminant. There was no independent variable that could be identified between the two experiments so they were uncontrolled."
Now it makes perfect sense why the expert witness during the Measles trial and Lanka et al all say that it doesn't contain any control experiments.
The problem is that you keep calling the Enders' contol not proper, limited or not worthy of being referred to a control at all.
Your definition of a proper control-
" A truly proper control would be the same "infected sample" where you extracted the alledged "virus" and then put the final sample in the tissue culture where all other material are exactly the same except for the alledged virus"
According to you, any other experiments carried out with the aim of determining the validity of the main experiments but which do not meet this requirements are not proper. So much so that we may as well not call them controls, and in fact you and others generally don't by saying no controls were performed.
This would mean both Lanka's "negative control experiments" (the RNA and 2021 yeast one ) would not amount to proper controls or a negative control. So are we to just say Lanka in actual fact didn't carry out control experiments or he did but they were just not proper?
You also say, there are "more control experiments" one can do to figure out what exactly is causing the CPE "by creating numerous CONTROLS where you change ONLY the nutrients levels step by step.... Etc"
What are we to call these experiments described by you where only a single step in the experiment are varied ? Also not proper controls, or should we also just say these don't amount to controls or are not worthy of being called controls?
The reality is there is more than one type of control and just because some offer more clarity doesn't magically make the other types not control experiments or as you say "not proper controls". They are all proper controls and some provide more or different information than others.
I will again make the point that your definition of a proper control means the virus isolation experiment cannot be controlled to any extent whatsoever - control experiments cannot be run alongside of it. Then why even make the point that no controls were done by virologists, if it was impossible to carry out controls ?
Because a negative control cannot be done various other types controls should be done and were done. The results of which taken cumulatively can provide the necessary clarity and certainty one would receive from a negative control.
Thanks John for your detailed comment, it adds to the article nicely.
I think where the misunderstanding is coming in is the definition of control experiment. Or the fact that you (and others) seem to think there is only one type of control experiment that is valid.
I know full well what a negative control experiments is and if you will notice I tried to keep the words 'negative control experiment' out of the article. This is because I agree that it was not the type of control experiment performed by Enders. I used the word failed control, never negative.
A negative control experiment (or a parallel control experiment as Harold Hillman calls it) is merely one type of control experiment that can be conducted alongside the main experiment.
If you read ch 6 of Harold Hillman’s 'Evidence Based Cell biology, with some implications for Clinical Research' you will see there are numerous types of control experiments of which the negative control experiment is just one. Each type of control experiment is run in order to test different parts of your experiment all of which are still considered valid control experiments.
While you and others may hold the negative control experiments out as the gold standard or the only proper control. This does not mean that other experiments run for the purpose of testing the main experiment do not amount to valid or proper control experiments.
The control Enders did I understand to be called a 'previous control'. Where you examine something before and after an agent is added. By observing the CPE in the uninfected culture, Enders was observing what would happen to a culture prior to infection. This is still a valid or proper control as it tells you about the information received from your experiment.
You yourself have said that this control experiment was enough to show that the isolation experiment was pseudoscience. Both you and Mark also mention other controls that would not technically fit into your definition of a proper negative control either.
I didn't want to go into all this detail in this article because I was trying to get a simple point across. I found out from my Hillman article (which you shared in your telegram group) that too much detail tends to obscure the message or the shear amount of information simply puts people off from trying to understand the message.
But do you understand now why I said in the article that it is not good enough to say no control experiments were run? It is not good enough because valid or proper control experiments were done and they did prove something essential.
On that note, I also feel saying that the one done by Enders was not proper or a limited control is aslo downplaying the fact that is was a valid control experiment.
Like I said, you yourself have deemed it sufficient to point out that the experiment was pseudoscience. Why down play it then or try argue that it falls outside the definition of a valid control experiment?
Especially given, and as you say, technically a proper negative control cannot be run in virology due to the inability to isolate a virus. If we had to go by your definition of a proper control experiment, it would not be possible whatsoever to run any control for the isolation experiment. If anything, this type of approach is in favor of virology.
I did also say in the article that more control experiment should have been run by Enders when I say, "It is not too hard to work out why Enders would want to brush over this detail and ensure it did not receive much attention. It is because this detail clearly indicated that Enders had been wasting time and money and that any more experiments carried out to explore this detail was likely to prove this even more so (as Stefan Lanka's control experiments proved many years later, refer to this link).... "
Which is pretty much what Lanka says too in one of the quotes provided by you.
I hope you understand now where I was coming from and also why I said it is not clear why Mark thinks the Enders control wasn't a valid control. Perhaps I should have been more clear and not shyed away from adding detail.
Let me know if I can email you that Hillman's book.
Ps: Cowan does say Enders control was a valid control see here as an example -
It seems that most of what we call science is really science fiction. Unfortunately we don't have the will or authority to undertake the dismantling of this deception.
""A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles. But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed. Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum. Obviously the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind.""
My question is: How does Enders know what these 'internuclear changes typical of the measles agents' were actually caused by? Is he just assuming they are caused by a so-called 'virus'? Or have I missed something?
Yup, he is just assuming that the changes they have observed in the cell cultures are as a result of the "virus" being present. He is completely ignoring the fact that they have added things to the culture and starved the culture of the things it needs to survive. Doesn't even consider the fact that his actions could have caused the change. This even when his control experiment indicates that the changes don't need the virus agent to take place.
Essentially, he has taken for granted that the viruses is present in the agent before ever having proved it was.
Thanks Mia and DPL. I am going to read DPL's links when I get home. But, if it's OK, I have one more quick question. I am interested in this 'fixing and staining' that Enders is talking about. Did he somehow think that different 'stains' could identify different 'viruses' or something? And, if so, how did he come to that conclusion? There seems to be no real science in Enders paper at all. It just seems to be a string of baseless assumptions. The whole thing seems so ridiculous that it's 'blowing my mind' as they used to say in the 1960s.
You are 100% correct there is nothing scientific about Enders experiment. It's not logical at all and anyone using their brain when going through it will have trouble understanding how Enders came up with his conclusions.
The fixing and staining comes in when you want to look at biological samples ( in this case cell cultures) under an electron microscope.
I discuss why a biological sample has to be fixed and stained in order for it to be viewed under an electron microscope, in this article:
No need to read the entire article if you don't want to, just scroll down to the heading 'light microscope and Electron Microscope' and you will find it explained there.
Essentially, that is how virologist claim to identify viruses. They infect a cell cultures with a sample of something they believe contains a "virus" , when the cell cultures dies (also referred to as cytopathic effect - CPE) after they have poisoned and starved, they claim it was a virus that killed the cells in the culture (as this what they believe viruses do in our bodies - kill cells after they have hijacked them) .
They then take that dead cell culture, fix it and stain it, and put it under an electron microscope to try find a particle they think resembles a virus.
The above is a very brief explanation, I really recommend Dpl's links, as they will provide a lot more information and detail. But I am always happy to answer any questions on this topic if you get stuck, just drop a comment.
Wow. I'm so glad I came across this article. It's completely changed my outlook on health. Basically, after reading this article and DPL's links, I'm not scared anymore. I now know there are no viruses, bacteria only eats dead tissue and there is NO EVIDENCE that any diseases are actually contagious. Talk about mind blowing. Thank you so much.
Thanks for drawing attention to this important point! I guess Ender thought he was following tradition, walking in Pasteur's footsteps. Does anyone know when this kind of deception became the norm?
I tend to agree with Peter. This kind of deception has plagued science since it's inception. In the beginning, it was mostly ego-related and scientists were obsessed with making novel discoveries. In modern times it is both ego and financially related, grants /the purse strings are very influential on the amount of integrity shown.
The fundamental issue is that humans are not really capable of being 100% objective and it's about time we acknowledge it and stop pretending otherwise.
People are going to misled each other intentionally or negligently and we have to be able to pick up when this is or might be the case. Otherwise things like virology can get out of control and cause harm.
It's not just science, the justice system struggles with this issue too. Pretending judges can come to completely objective rulings, ignoring all their inner convictions about morality. When in reality you can see this is not the case.
Ultimately I think it's really just a case of where there are humans, deception will be lurking.
Yes, I agree it to err is part of human nature, and I think developmental trauma (the habits we adopt in early childhood in attempts to survive despite inadequate nurturance by caretakers. These habits then continue to warp our view of ourself and others in adulthood, leading for example to being convinced -unconsciously- we need to deceive people or they'll hurt us) but I'm looking for a more detailed understanding of what is going on, as I replied to Peter.
About judges, I get the impression you're not familiar with what this book explains, and you might appreciate it:
My gut says forever; as in rulers, rule by deception. But as far as science, Massey has FOI'd for yellow fever, and they (govt's and Health agencies) can't produce a document proving its existence using controls....1901.
I agree about rulers and deception. I'd like to know who decided to interfere with the development of science since the Renaissance, and for what reason, and how they went about it, as much as it is possible to know.
Not just what science there is in medicine, all of science. Astronomy and astrophysics look just as corrupt to me as germ theory and its offshoot virology, because of how they avoid taking into account plasma and electromagnetism in general. With repercussions on climate science. And I have doubts about large parts of biology too, now, like cell membranes, sodium pumps, immunology vs symbiosis, etc.
Because I'd like to know what else is false, and what the truth actually is, overall.
I would argue TPTB knew that if they controlled how we understood our world ( which we do nowadays via science not religion) we could be easier manipulated. Think Truman show. That's the why - for controlling and manipulation.
I would argue that they would leave no area untouched - sciences, education, family, culture, religion - all of it they manipulated with various tools in order to control us ( money, media, education, Hollywood, politics, immigration etc). In other words, it's likely that most of what we know is false.
They were also content on playing the long game. Slowly but surely they have corrupted everything through whatever means worked. That's the how - in every avaliable manner.
You will have your work cut out to find a more specific answer - names and exact strategies. I think just knowing this has been done is enough, and trying to get to the details is time that could be spent on trying to expose these issues. You need only equip yourself with tools needed to spot falsehoods.
Re cells - my article on Harold Hillman will convince you that the majority of it is nonesense . Hillman's work is also good for finding tools on how to spot falsehood in all biology - see Certainty and Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques.
Thank you for the links, and for making an audio version of your article on Hillman. I listened to it and I'm convinced by the arguments presented. I've had https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/index.html and Gilbert Ling's website in browser tabs for over a year without finding time to finish reading, so this audio finally motivated me to go look at these more closely. Thanks!
I'll check the other links soon. I've been exploring mileswmathis.com, whose uncovering of manipulation in famous photos surprised me, along with his deductions about many historical events, and also his physics articles that for example, present a way of reconciling particule-wave duality that impresses me very much. Have you looked at his work?
He offers more specific perspectives on who has been controlling and manipulating and how and why, than going with the notion that every area of knowledge and of society is affected. I agree with you that this is likely, but I still find value in trying to get a detailed understanding, in order to choose more effective actions to fix the mess created.
You have DPL to thank for the audio version, he knew it would be appreciated with such a long article. Very happy you found Hillman’s work and the arguments presented convincing though. Also glad to have helped close some gabs.
Yes I know Mathis quite well, more his historical fake events papers, which I have been reading for a few years now, than his scientific ones. Through from what I understand his scientific papers are quite extraordinary.
Mathis has been shown to be misleading on occasion with his historical stuff - see Dpl's gatekeepers club article. And there were a few papers I found to be poorly researched, like his paper on terrain theory. But I wouldn't advise throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to his info, just keep your wits about you.
Thank you :) Yes, I've noticed a couple of places so far where I think he is mistaken. I recommend again the book I linked earlier, The Most Dangerous Superstition, if you aren't familiar with it, because it's the deception that I think has the most impact on our lives, and enables the other ones.
I'm heading to Dpl's gatekeepers article now. Thanks again to both of you!
For anyone interested, in his Venetian Conspiracy lecture, Webster Tarpley says the De' Medicis moved to England and became the 'Whigs'. And the royal family I suppose. They have been against science because it helps people think, so they've tried to subvert it for centuries, paying people like Galileo and Newton (and I suppose Pasteur, Einstein, Freud) to lead people astray.
I think it's unconscious fear that drives people to behave like that. From not feeling safe in early childhood, because of being raised by people themselves not at peace enough to be able to respond to a baby in the natural way that builds a sense of inherent worth. Without this, we hold a deep expectation of not receiving what we need. Add a family worldview of living in a cruel world where it's the most ruthless who survive, and it makes sense to try to protect oneself by being the first to attack.
If this is what is going on, then my hope is that as knowledge spreads of how much life satisfaction improves when we heal our childhood trauma, it will eventually pervade culture enough for these people to hear about it. And then humanity can finally move beyond being at war with itself.
I regret sharing that lecture. I listened to it again, and I heard contradictions I had missed, such as the church supposedly being on the side on scientific enquiry. I then listened to the start of Tarpley's latest podcast, and realized he hasn't seen through statism. So, I lost a lot of trust in what he says.
About the intention to deceive: in the Humanley podcast 58, at around 30min, Dr Tom Cowan says synapses can't be real because it is said they transmit in around .05 seconds, and if that was true, and if there are typically 20 synapses to go through (his number) it would take at least 20 x .05, or .2 seconds for sense information to make it to the brain. Which is clearly not our experience of the process being almost instantaneous.
But a quick search shows that synapse speed is said to be 5ms, not 50. He is off by a factor of 10! I have trouble believing this is an honest mistake, because this is Dr Tom Cowan, a highly articulate critic of mainstream science! So my conclusion is he is lying, I guess to make germ theory critics like the Baileys look bad by association, so the public at large dismisses them.
Hi Marc, what you say my be true I have no clue to be honest re either the timing for synapses and Cowan's take thereon.
Harold Hillman, however, discusses other reasons why synapses have not been conclusively demonstrated. Hillman, argues that in fact synapses are artefacts of the electron microscope procedure.
I see everyone in the no virus camp as “steadfast” as the yes group. It doesn’t really matter to me because i have not been formally trained and i have a long history of bullshit detecting. When i reacted to salks vaccine and was told i had scarlet fever that was an awakening moment for me. All of these “viruses”are just cover for poisoning and the only thing i have to isolate is the bull shit. I just wonder(and im not trying to piss you off)Ray almost banned me because he thought i was about the attack) ( i really enjoy your creativity and hard work) i just wonder if you allowed the idea of shapeshifting bacteria into your thoughts? To me the, knowing the source of my food and drink and following a path of personal responsibility is the way (with help from the lets call them angels) health! Mike
When reading this piece and the comments, I was struck by the notion that the word "control" has become associated with so many things that it is extremely difficult to use. There is "controlled" variable, controlled experiment, properly controlled experiment, all the potential variables that should be "controlled" in an experiment in which there is only one independent and one dependent variable etc. People seem to use the word in extremely different contexts and sometime with a lack of the necessary precision, given that there is a myriad of meanings associated with it.
The main point that I took from this piece is that it is important to acknowledge the experiments carried out by virologists in the past which actually refute their claims, irrespective of what you call those experiments. It does not seem they carefully eliminated all potential confounding pieces of relevant evidence. Had they done so, virology may have ceased to exist from its outset.
What do we say to those who suggest that a significant number of clinical disease states now appear to have no identifiable cause?
Hi again John, you have grasped perfectly the arguments that I have been trying to put forth with this piece and my more recent one on control experiments.
What a pleasure it is to read your comment.
Re the your question about clinical diseases and their causes - I would say to those people that all that has occurred is that the theory that diseases or group of symptoms are each caused by a particular microorganism invading the body has been thoroughly disproven.
Given that germ theory was relied on to explain all illness, it is not surprising that it now appears that we don't know what causes diseases.
However, these symptoms, grouped together to make diseases, definitely do have causes which IMO can be identified but we are only likely to have success in identifying them when we start exploring other explanations.
I would suggest to them that terrain theory is a good place to start to determine cause. The terrain model doesn't yet have an explanation for absolutely everything we see but maybe once more inquiring minds approach the problem from this perspective more explanations will emerge.
Just because no virus can be isolated does that mean they dont exist? Royal rife (i have read) would watch bacteria change into viruses and back again(shapeshifters?) he had invented a microscope that was ultra powerful and did not kill the subject like the electron microscopes. we have ama fishbein (before fauchi) to thank for its removal from most peoples grasp
This article was emphasising how inadequately virologists follow the scientific method, to the extent that it amounts to deception. It wasn't establishing viruses do not exist, we have written other articles to that extent.
While the lack of isolation doesn't necessarily mean viruses do not exist. It does mean that they have not been shown to exist as characterized - I. E morphology, chemistry and behavior. Since everything a virus is claimed to do is based on these three things, the lack of isolation should really be enough.
Nevertheless, what does irrefutably demonstrates that viruses do not exist is the combination of the lack of isolation, the failure to demonstrate transmissiblity (contagion) and the non-existence of the cellular organelles said to be "hi-jacked" by viruses.
I have been reading several of your pieces and some of the comments back and forth and found them to be extremely interesting. Can you provide more detail on your last sentence, specifically, which cellular organelles said to be hijacked, do you mean ribosomes and how was this determined?
Hi John, happy to hear that I have managed to pique your interest.
Re my last sentence : yes I am referring to ribosomes but also all the other organelles said to be involved in producing protiens within the cells - endoplasmic reticulum and nuclear pores etc. I base the statement off the work of Dr Harold Hillman.
The rife manchine is said to do far more than just observe bacteria - soke claimed it could cure disease. Nevertheless, you do not need a rife machine to observe bacteria shapeshift.
The ability of bacteria to shapeshift is referred to as pleomorphism and was first observed by Atoine Bechamp under an ordinary light microscope.
Bacteria do not morph from virus particles nor does it happen visa versa. What is a possibility is that one of bacteria's stages in their pleomorphic cycle - the spore - may have been mistaken for a virus particle. But that is as close as bacteria and viruses get in my view.
Hi mia, thanks for your replies. Royal rifes machine and microscope were confiscated. The machine was somewhat ordinary just a frequency emitter. He would take a sample of the sick persons blood and look at it through his very powerful microscope until hefoundthe frequecy that would cause the pathogen to explode. Then he would feed this frequency into a room withthe patient mixed with music, he almost killed his first people becausetheir damaged organs couldnt get rid of refuse that fast. He then introduced the frequency more gradually. I think the socalled rife machines around only have a coupleof frequencies that work withcertain coditions. I first became familiar with rife talking with the motherof one of my sons new friends. Theyhad been jumpingothetrampoline all afternoon and commented how he seeemed so strong and healthy shetold me how he had been almost paralyed two weeeks before from lyme disease. theyhadbeenlivigupnorthand no one had been diagnosed with it there and they waited too long before trying antibiotics. anyway she brought him to this town and he listen to music and recoverd. piqued my interest! sorry about the typing nut i am hurrying because iam expected at a grandsons birthday party. i think you should be able to decipher this if you care too. health! ps rife sent a picture of an onion skin to science mag taken under his scope. they were so amazed they published an article. i know because i found it to show my dad who was a subscriber to science. he hadnt remembered it
Lazy work or intentionally ignored?
Results in the same lame ‘science’
ALL should be open to inquiry, including the methods of inquiry-
Results are never conclusive (certain) only the best guess of the moment in time to be hopefully useful!
The quests for certainty run deep 🙄🥳😎
Results are never conclusive (certain) only the best guess of the moment in time to be hopefully useful!
The quests for certainty run deep 🙄🥳😎
I doubt this. Knowlege is founded on "reasoned certainty". For instance, there is reasoned certainty that one can sail from Manhatten to Africa, south around the Cape, northeast to the Phillipines, across the Pacific to Panama, through the Canal to east coast of Florida, and then north to New York Harbor. There is reasoned certainty one can circumnavigate.
There is reasoned certainty that arsenic is poison, that oxygen is necessary to human life, that most politicians lie by commission and ommission and that WWI and WWII happened (but not as told in history books).
All knowlege is opened ended, including experimental science. But there is the reasoned certainty that virology is not valid nor true.
Deny "certainty" (knowlege), and one destroys the concept of truth and reason, thereby contradicting oneself. For the claim therre is no certainty must be applied to the claim itself.
Touché . Agreed, thank you for adding clarity in my words - it’s a very human trait to cling to one’s sense of ‘truth’-this can create blind spots and close the door to creative possibilities, and yes to the claim that there is no certainty must be applied to the claim itself.
I have read a lot of Mark Bailey's work on no-virus. And, I could be wrong here, but I don't recall him mentioning much about Ender's control experiment described above. As this is one of the foundational papers of virology, I find this to be a bit odd. It's almost as if he doesn't realize that it was actually a failed control experiment. But I can't really believe that. Just wondering if anyone could help me understand this.
It's a fair question Mike, Mark Bailey has actually kinda referred to it once.
In A Farewell to Virology (top of pg 18), Mark Bailey says, "Enders... performed no control experiments to check whether the culture procedure itself, that is the stressing of the cells in the test tube, would produce the same CPE's, thereby invalidating the evidence for their conclusion."
So perhaps he missed it in the paper, or you are correct and he didn't think it was a control experiment. Why he didn't think it was a control, I can't tell you either because he didn't elaborate.
I know for sure Cowan and Lanka consider it a control experiment.
Both Drs Baileys, Dr Cowan, Dr Kaufman, the virologist Stephan Lanka have all referenced & addressed Enders and are all in agreement.
Mia made reference to the exact page and paragraph where Mark Bailey in black and white have it stated that Enders PERFORMED NO CONTROL EXPERIMENTS.
So your claim is either an outrageous lie or you're speaking out of ignorance.
In Lanka's own words about the Enders paper, on page 3 of 4:
"To date, no negative control experiments have been done with respect to the so-called measles virus either, which would have shown that it is the laboratory procedures that lead to the cytopathic effects on the cells. Additionally, all claims and experiments made by Enders et al. and the subsequent researchers lead to the only objective conclusion that in fact they were observing and analyzing dying cellular particles and the activity thereof in the test tube, misinterpreting these as particles and characteristics of the alleged measles virus."
--
"No control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects."
--
"Such a pressure for success can also explain why Enders and his colleagues ignored their own reservations and cautions expressed in 1954, when they had observed and noted that many cells also died after being treated normally (i.e. without being “in-
fected”), which they thought to have been caused by unknown viruses and factors. All these facts and cautions were subsequently disregarded."
Source: "Dismantling the Virus-Theory"
http://www.wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf
It seems to be an issue of semantics. We find a lot of words to try and explain why we've taking a certain position or why we are saying something.
This was one of the main messages I got from Mia's article. It's not a matter of defining what the word control means but it's about the importance of the evidence we have...
Even you call it a "limited" control but I don't really care what anyone calls it. The evidence is damn important. It's perhaps the most important evidence we have against the profession and now you're defending Mark's decision to ignore it...
"None of us are ignoring the control that Enders did"
Who is the "us" you are talking about and why do you think you can speak for Mark? Are you close to him?
Mark's EXACT words in Farewell to Virology: "Enders and Peebles performed no control experiments to check whether the culture procedure itself, that is stressing of the cells in the test tube, would produce the same CPEs"
This is not a maybe or a "no proper control." This is a "NO CONTROL" was done.
So even by your own admission this is an oversight. So I'm not sure why you are here in the comments... Are you trying to drive home the point?
Apparently I have misinterpreted the Enders study and I apologize for this so I need to retract my earlier statements.
The statement from the paper: "A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.", it doesn't refer to it as a control.
Someone with a sharper mind than I said: "Enders did not describe a "control" experiment in that paragraph. The inference is that it was "second agent" - either it came with the cell line or was a contaminant. There was no independent variable that could be identified between the two experiments so they were uncontrolled."
Now it makes perfect sense why the expert witness during the Measles trial and Lanka et al all say that it doesn't contain any control experiments.
The problem is that you keep calling the Enders' contol not proper, limited or not worthy of being referred to a control at all.
Your definition of a proper control-
" A truly proper control would be the same "infected sample" where you extracted the alledged "virus" and then put the final sample in the tissue culture where all other material are exactly the same except for the alledged virus"
According to you, any other experiments carried out with the aim of determining the validity of the main experiments but which do not meet this requirements are not proper. So much so that we may as well not call them controls, and in fact you and others generally don't by saying no controls were performed.
This would mean both Lanka's "negative control experiments" (the RNA and 2021 yeast one ) would not amount to proper controls or a negative control. So are we to just say Lanka in actual fact didn't carry out control experiments or he did but they were just not proper?
You also say, there are "more control experiments" one can do to figure out what exactly is causing the CPE "by creating numerous CONTROLS where you change ONLY the nutrients levels step by step.... Etc"
What are we to call these experiments described by you where only a single step in the experiment are varied ? Also not proper controls, or should we also just say these don't amount to controls or are not worthy of being called controls?
The reality is there is more than one type of control and just because some offer more clarity doesn't magically make the other types not control experiments or as you say "not proper controls". They are all proper controls and some provide more or different information than others.
I will again make the point that your definition of a proper control means the virus isolation experiment cannot be controlled to any extent whatsoever - control experiments cannot be run alongside of it. Then why even make the point that no controls were done by virologists, if it was impossible to carry out controls ?
Because a negative control cannot be done various other types controls should be done and were done. The results of which taken cumulatively can provide the necessary clarity and certainty one would receive from a negative control.
Thanks John for your detailed comment, it adds to the article nicely.
I think where the misunderstanding is coming in is the definition of control experiment. Or the fact that you (and others) seem to think there is only one type of control experiment that is valid.
I know full well what a negative control experiments is and if you will notice I tried to keep the words 'negative control experiment' out of the article. This is because I agree that it was not the type of control experiment performed by Enders. I used the word failed control, never negative.
A negative control experiment (or a parallel control experiment as Harold Hillman calls it) is merely one type of control experiment that can be conducted alongside the main experiment.
If you read ch 6 of Harold Hillman’s 'Evidence Based Cell biology, with some implications for Clinical Research' you will see there are numerous types of control experiments of which the negative control experiment is just one. Each type of control experiment is run in order to test different parts of your experiment all of which are still considered valid control experiments.
While you and others may hold the negative control experiments out as the gold standard or the only proper control. This does not mean that other experiments run for the purpose of testing the main experiment do not amount to valid or proper control experiments.
The control Enders did I understand to be called a 'previous control'. Where you examine something before and after an agent is added. By observing the CPE in the uninfected culture, Enders was observing what would happen to a culture prior to infection. This is still a valid or proper control as it tells you about the information received from your experiment.
You yourself have said that this control experiment was enough to show that the isolation experiment was pseudoscience. Both you and Mark also mention other controls that would not technically fit into your definition of a proper negative control either.
I didn't want to go into all this detail in this article because I was trying to get a simple point across. I found out from my Hillman article (which you shared in your telegram group) that too much detail tends to obscure the message or the shear amount of information simply puts people off from trying to understand the message.
But do you understand now why I said in the article that it is not good enough to say no control experiments were run? It is not good enough because valid or proper control experiments were done and they did prove something essential.
On that note, I also feel saying that the one done by Enders was not proper or a limited control is aslo downplaying the fact that is was a valid control experiment.
Like I said, you yourself have deemed it sufficient to point out that the experiment was pseudoscience. Why down play it then or try argue that it falls outside the definition of a valid control experiment?
Especially given, and as you say, technically a proper negative control cannot be run in virology due to the inability to isolate a virus. If we had to go by your definition of a proper control experiment, it would not be possible whatsoever to run any control for the isolation experiment. If anything, this type of approach is in favor of virology.
I did also say in the article that more control experiment should have been run by Enders when I say, "It is not too hard to work out why Enders would want to brush over this detail and ensure it did not receive much attention. It is because this detail clearly indicated that Enders had been wasting time and money and that any more experiments carried out to explore this detail was likely to prove this even more so (as Stefan Lanka's control experiments proved many years later, refer to this link).... "
Which is pretty much what Lanka says too in one of the quotes provided by you.
I hope you understand now where I was coming from and also why I said it is not clear why Mark thinks the Enders control wasn't a valid control. Perhaps I should have been more clear and not shyed away from adding detail.
Let me know if I can email you that Hillman's book.
Ps: Cowan does say Enders control was a valid control see here as an example -
https://twitter.com/ExitEUbefree/status/1460908283431116800/mediaViewer
Great stuff. So you also see the importance of the control experiment. I'm glad you can see it.
Now we just need to convince Mark to stop ignoring it.
It seems that most of what we call science is really science fiction. Unfortunately we don't have the will or authority to undertake the dismantling of this deception.
I don't know about not having the will though Charlotte, there are people out there giving it a pretty good bash.
link placed on an Epoch Times Article. See if you get traffic from it. Good luck.
Can I ask a question please?
In the Enders paper it says:
""A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles. But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed. Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum. Obviously the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind.""
My question is: How does Enders know what these 'internuclear changes typical of the measles agents' were actually caused by? Is he just assuming they are caused by a so-called 'virus'? Or have I missed something?
Yup, he is just assuming that the changes they have observed in the cell cultures are as a result of the "virus" being present. He is completely ignoring the fact that they have added things to the culture and starved the culture of the things it needs to survive. Doesn't even consider the fact that his actions could have caused the change. This even when his control experiment indicates that the changes don't need the virus agent to take place.
Essentially, he has taken for granted that the viruses is present in the agent before ever having proved it was.
Thanks Mia and DPL. I am going to read DPL's links when I get home. But, if it's OK, I have one more quick question. I am interested in this 'fixing and staining' that Enders is talking about. Did he somehow think that different 'stains' could identify different 'viruses' or something? And, if so, how did he come to that conclusion? There seems to be no real science in Enders paper at all. It just seems to be a string of baseless assumptions. The whole thing seems so ridiculous that it's 'blowing my mind' as they used to say in the 1960s.
You are 100% correct there is nothing scientific about Enders experiment. It's not logical at all and anyone using their brain when going through it will have trouble understanding how Enders came up with his conclusions.
The fixing and staining comes in when you want to look at biological samples ( in this case cell cultures) under an electron microscope.
I discuss why a biological sample has to be fixed and stained in order for it to be viewed under an electron microscope, in this article:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/why-you-should-know-about-harold?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=10iiay
No need to read the entire article if you don't want to, just scroll down to the heading 'light microscope and Electron Microscope' and you will find it explained there.
Essentially, that is how virologist claim to identify viruses. They infect a cell cultures with a sample of something they believe contains a "virus" , when the cell cultures dies (also referred to as cytopathic effect - CPE) after they have poisoned and starved, they claim it was a virus that killed the cells in the culture (as this what they believe viruses do in our bodies - kill cells after they have hijacked them) .
They then take that dead cell culture, fix it and stain it, and put it under an electron microscope to try find a particle they think resembles a virus.
The above is a very brief explanation, I really recommend Dpl's links, as they will provide a lot more information and detail. But I am always happy to answer any questions on this topic if you get stuck, just drop a comment.
Wow. I'm so glad I came across this article. It's completely changed my outlook on health. Basically, after reading this article and DPL's links, I'm not scared anymore. I now know there are no viruses, bacteria only eats dead tissue and there is NO EVIDENCE that any diseases are actually contagious. Talk about mind blowing. Thank you so much.
Exactly Right Steve!!!
There is no reason to fear germs!
You made my day 😁! Couldn't be happier to read this! So happy for you.
It is such a pleasure.
Great stuff Steve! Glad you could see this truth. It's a big 1st step on your journey to better health man 💪💪
Great question Steve. I wrote more about it here: https://dpl003.substack.com/p/an-update-on-virus-isolation
Jamie also explains in more detail here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/AqD7i1yjY8Gn/
Enders "...it was impossible to distinguish the cytopathic changes induced in an uninfected culture to those that were induced in an infected culture.
There was no "infected" culture.
Falsehoods are perpetrated and reinforced upon assumptions.
'Trust but verify'.
Exactly.
In the experiment meant to prove the existence of the "virus", the existence of the "virus" was taken for granted.
Thanks for drawing attention to this important point! I guess Ender thought he was following tradition, walking in Pasteur's footsteps. Does anyone know when this kind of deception became the norm?
I tend to agree with Peter. This kind of deception has plagued science since it's inception. In the beginning, it was mostly ego-related and scientists were obsessed with making novel discoveries. In modern times it is both ego and financially related, grants /the purse strings are very influential on the amount of integrity shown.
The fundamental issue is that humans are not really capable of being 100% objective and it's about time we acknowledge it and stop pretending otherwise.
People are going to misled each other intentionally or negligently and we have to be able to pick up when this is or might be the case. Otherwise things like virology can get out of control and cause harm.
It's not just science, the justice system struggles with this issue too. Pretending judges can come to completely objective rulings, ignoring all their inner convictions about morality. When in reality you can see this is not the case.
Ultimately I think it's really just a case of where there are humans, deception will be lurking.
Yes, I agree it to err is part of human nature, and I think developmental trauma (the habits we adopt in early childhood in attempts to survive despite inadequate nurturance by caretakers. These habits then continue to warp our view of ourself and others in adulthood, leading for example to being convinced -unconsciously- we need to deceive people or they'll hurt us) but I'm looking for a more detailed understanding of what is going on, as I replied to Peter.
About judges, I get the impression you're not familiar with what this book explains, and you might appreciate it:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/86174715/The-Most-Dangerous-Superstition-by-Larken-Rose
My gut says forever; as in rulers, rule by deception. But as far as science, Massey has FOI'd for yellow fever, and they (govt's and Health agencies) can't produce a document proving its existence using controls....1901.
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/cdc-foia-reply-re-scientific-evidence
I agree about rulers and deception. I'd like to know who decided to interfere with the development of science since the Renaissance, and for what reason, and how they went about it, as much as it is possible to know.
Not just what science there is in medicine, all of science. Astronomy and astrophysics look just as corrupt to me as germ theory and its offshoot virology, because of how they avoid taking into account plasma and electromagnetism in general. With repercussions on climate science. And I have doubts about large parts of biology too, now, like cell membranes, sodium pumps, immunology vs symbiosis, etc.
Because I'd like to know what else is false, and what the truth actually is, overall.
I would argue TPTB knew that if they controlled how we understood our world ( which we do nowadays via science not religion) we could be easier manipulated. Think Truman show. That's the why - for controlling and manipulation.
I would argue that they would leave no area untouched - sciences, education, family, culture, religion - all of it they manipulated with various tools in order to control us ( money, media, education, Hollywood, politics, immigration etc). In other words, it's likely that most of what we know is false.
They were also content on playing the long game. Slowly but surely they have corrupted everything through whatever means worked. That's the how - in every avaliable manner.
You will have your work cut out to find a more specific answer - names and exact strategies. I think just knowing this has been done is enough, and trying to get to the details is time that could be spent on trying to expose these issues. You need only equip yourself with tools needed to spot falsehoods.
Re how they did this - these articles give clues:
https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/the-richest-man-in-the-world/
https://open.substack.com/pub/seemorerocks/p/harold-wallace-rosenthal-confessions?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=10iiay
Re cells - my article on Harold Hillman will convince you that the majority of it is nonesense . Hillman's work is also good for finding tools on how to spot falsehood in all biology - see Certainty and Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/why-you-should-know-about-harold?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=10iiay
Re membrane pumps - see Gilbert Ling.
Thank you for the links, and for making an audio version of your article on Hillman. I listened to it and I'm convinced by the arguments presented. I've had https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/index.html and Gilbert Ling's website in browser tabs for over a year without finding time to finish reading, so this audio finally motivated me to go look at these more closely. Thanks!
I'll check the other links soon. I've been exploring mileswmathis.com, whose uncovering of manipulation in famous photos surprised me, along with his deductions about many historical events, and also his physics articles that for example, present a way of reconciling particule-wave duality that impresses me very much. Have you looked at his work?
He offers more specific perspectives on who has been controlling and manipulating and how and why, than going with the notion that every area of knowledge and of society is affected. I agree with you that this is likely, but I still find value in trying to get a detailed understanding, in order to choose more effective actions to fix the mess created.
You have DPL to thank for the audio version, he knew it would be appreciated with such a long article. Very happy you found Hillman’s work and the arguments presented convincing though. Also glad to have helped close some gabs.
Yes I know Mathis quite well, more his historical fake events papers, which I have been reading for a few years now, than his scientific ones. Through from what I understand his scientific papers are quite extraordinary.
Mathis has been shown to be misleading on occasion with his historical stuff - see Dpl's gatekeepers club article. And there were a few papers I found to be poorly researched, like his paper on terrain theory. But I wouldn't advise throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to his info, just keep your wits about you.
Goodluck with your investigations!
Thank you :) Yes, I've noticed a couple of places so far where I think he is mistaken. I recommend again the book I linked earlier, The Most Dangerous Superstition, if you aren't familiar with it, because it's the deception that I think has the most impact on our lives, and enables the other ones.
I'm heading to Dpl's gatekeepers article now. Thanks again to both of you!
For anyone interested, in his Venetian Conspiracy lecture, Webster Tarpley says the De' Medicis moved to England and became the 'Whigs'. And the royal family I suppose. They have been against science because it helps people think, so they've tried to subvert it for centuries, paying people like Galileo and Newton (and I suppose Pasteur, Einstein, Freud) to lead people astray.
https://odysee.com/@TheSearch4Truth:8/trim.B11EF8EA-1A0D-4491-9D6B-57DA326A8552:4
I think it's unconscious fear that drives people to behave like that. From not feeling safe in early childhood, because of being raised by people themselves not at peace enough to be able to respond to a baby in the natural way that builds a sense of inherent worth. Without this, we hold a deep expectation of not receiving what we need. Add a family worldview of living in a cruel world where it's the most ruthless who survive, and it makes sense to try to protect oneself by being the first to attack.
If this is what is going on, then my hope is that as knowledge spreads of how much life satisfaction improves when we heal our childhood trauma, it will eventually pervade culture enough for these people to hear about it. And then humanity can finally move beyond being at war with itself.
Wouldn't be at all surprised re the Royal Family. Thanks for the links.
Are you suggesting , the elite are traumatized and that's why the do what they do?
I regret sharing that lecture. I listened to it again, and I heard contradictions I had missed, such as the church supposedly being on the side on scientific enquiry. I then listened to the start of Tarpley's latest podcast, and realized he hasn't seen through statism. So, I lost a lot of trust in what he says.
Gilbertling.org is gone. Luckily the wayback machine still has the papers and books that used to be there, I saved copies. Fyi.
About the intention to deceive: in the Humanley podcast 58, at around 30min, Dr Tom Cowan says synapses can't be real because it is said they transmit in around .05 seconds, and if that was true, and if there are typically 20 synapses to go through (his number) it would take at least 20 x .05, or .2 seconds for sense information to make it to the brain. Which is clearly not our experience of the process being almost instantaneous.
But a quick search shows that synapse speed is said to be 5ms, not 50. He is off by a factor of 10! I have trouble believing this is an honest mistake, because this is Dr Tom Cowan, a highly articulate critic of mainstream science! So my conclusion is he is lying, I guess to make germ theory critics like the Baileys look bad by association, so the public at large dismisses them.
Hi Marc, what you say my be true I have no clue to be honest re either the timing for synapses and Cowan's take thereon.
Harold Hillman, however, discusses other reasons why synapses have not been conclusively demonstrated. Hillman, argues that in fact synapses are artefacts of the electron microscope procedure.
He isolated the Benjamins that he saw in his telescope.
Ha ha ha ha ha most definitely.
Excellent DPL, thaank you.
I meant Mia.
I see everyone in the no virus camp as “steadfast” as the yes group. It doesn’t really matter to me because i have not been formally trained and i have a long history of bullshit detecting. When i reacted to salks vaccine and was told i had scarlet fever that was an awakening moment for me. All of these “viruses”are just cover for poisoning and the only thing i have to isolate is the bull shit. I just wonder(and im not trying to piss you off)Ray almost banned me because he thought i was about the attack) ( i really enjoy your creativity and hard work) i just wonder if you allowed the idea of shapeshifting bacteria into your thoughts? To me the, knowing the source of my food and drink and following a path of personal responsibility is the way (with help from the lets call them angels) health! Mike
Your clearly on the right path the Mike. See my reply to your previous comment re the shape-shifting bacteria.
How many other such frauds have been reinforced by awarding the perpetrators a Nobel Prize? I would expect many.
I imagine that is the sole purpose of the Nobel Prize -to validate poor or fraudulent science.
Yes but also to spur the poor souls onward on someone elses chosen path
When reading this piece and the comments, I was struck by the notion that the word "control" has become associated with so many things that it is extremely difficult to use. There is "controlled" variable, controlled experiment, properly controlled experiment, all the potential variables that should be "controlled" in an experiment in which there is only one independent and one dependent variable etc. People seem to use the word in extremely different contexts and sometime with a lack of the necessary precision, given that there is a myriad of meanings associated with it.
The main point that I took from this piece is that it is important to acknowledge the experiments carried out by virologists in the past which actually refute their claims, irrespective of what you call those experiments. It does not seem they carefully eliminated all potential confounding pieces of relevant evidence. Had they done so, virology may have ceased to exist from its outset.
What do we say to those who suggest that a significant number of clinical disease states now appear to have no identifiable cause?
Hi again John, you have grasped perfectly the arguments that I have been trying to put forth with this piece and my more recent one on control experiments.
What a pleasure it is to read your comment.
Re the your question about clinical diseases and their causes - I would say to those people that all that has occurred is that the theory that diseases or group of symptoms are each caused by a particular microorganism invading the body has been thoroughly disproven.
Given that germ theory was relied on to explain all illness, it is not surprising that it now appears that we don't know what causes diseases.
However, these symptoms, grouped together to make diseases, definitely do have causes which IMO can be identified but we are only likely to have success in identifying them when we start exploring other explanations.
I would suggest to them that terrain theory is a good place to start to determine cause. The terrain model doesn't yet have an explanation for absolutely everything we see but maybe once more inquiring minds approach the problem from this perspective more explanations will emerge.
Just because no virus can be isolated does that mean they dont exist? Royal rife (i have read) would watch bacteria change into viruses and back again(shapeshifters?) he had invented a microscope that was ultra powerful and did not kill the subject like the electron microscopes. we have ama fishbein (before fauchi) to thank for its removal from most peoples grasp
This article was emphasising how inadequately virologists follow the scientific method, to the extent that it amounts to deception. It wasn't establishing viruses do not exist, we have written other articles to that extent.
While the lack of isolation doesn't necessarily mean viruses do not exist. It does mean that they have not been shown to exist as characterized - I. E morphology, chemistry and behavior. Since everything a virus is claimed to do is based on these three things, the lack of isolation should really be enough.
Nevertheless, what does irrefutably demonstrates that viruses do not exist is the combination of the lack of isolation, the failure to demonstrate transmissiblity (contagion) and the non-existence of the cellular organelles said to be "hi-jacked" by viruses.
I have been reading several of your pieces and some of the comments back and forth and found them to be extremely interesting. Can you provide more detail on your last sentence, specifically, which cellular organelles said to be hijacked, do you mean ribosomes and how was this determined?
Hi John, happy to hear that I have managed to pique your interest.
Re my last sentence : yes I am referring to ribosomes but also all the other organelles said to be involved in producing protiens within the cells - endoplasmic reticulum and nuclear pores etc. I base the statement off the work of Dr Harold Hillman.
I have written an article on exactly this issue which you can find here - -https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/why-you-should-know-about-harold?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=10iiay
It's a long article but I promise it is worth investing some time in it when you get a chance.
Thank you. I will check it out.
The rife manchine is said to do far more than just observe bacteria - soke claimed it could cure disease. Nevertheless, you do not need a rife machine to observe bacteria shapeshift.
The ability of bacteria to shapeshift is referred to as pleomorphism and was first observed by Atoine Bechamp under an ordinary light microscope.
Bacteria do not morph from virus particles nor does it happen visa versa. What is a possibility is that one of bacteria's stages in their pleomorphic cycle - the spore - may have been mistaken for a virus particle. But that is as close as bacteria and viruses get in my view.
Hi mia, thanks for your replies. Royal rifes machine and microscope were confiscated. The machine was somewhat ordinary just a frequency emitter. He would take a sample of the sick persons blood and look at it through his very powerful microscope until hefoundthe frequecy that would cause the pathogen to explode. Then he would feed this frequency into a room withthe patient mixed with music, he almost killed his first people becausetheir damaged organs couldnt get rid of refuse that fast. He then introduced the frequency more gradually. I think the socalled rife machines around only have a coupleof frequencies that work withcertain coditions. I first became familiar with rife talking with the motherof one of my sons new friends. Theyhad been jumpingothetrampoline all afternoon and commented how he seeemed so strong and healthy shetold me how he had been almost paralyed two weeeks before from lyme disease. theyhadbeenlivigupnorthand no one had been diagnosed with it there and they waited too long before trying antibiotics. anyway she brought him to this town and he listen to music and recoverd. piqued my interest! sorry about the typing nut i am hurrying because iam expected at a grandsons birthday party. i think you should be able to decipher this if you care too. health! ps rife sent a picture of an onion skin to science mag taken under his scope. they were so amazed they published an article. i know because i found it to show my dad who was a subscriber to science. he hadnt remembered it
Some*
Yes, that is exactly what it means. Your steadfast faith in this religion does not change this fact.
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virology-the-damning-evidence