Great summary and great idea to put all the info in one place! I see you already have some references to Mike Stone's, ViroLIEgy, but really everything on that site is gold re the no virus debate. However, what you are missing is Dr Harold Hillman's work (unless I have missed a reference somewhere) because he was really a forerunner in pointing out a lot of issues in accepted science. In particular, Dr Hillman pointed out the complete lack of control experiments in almost all biochemistry experiments and then he did an enormous amount of work on the electron microscope and the failures of cytology, specifically that most of the structures in cells apparent by electron microscopy are artifacts. See his story and references to his work here >https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/what-price-intellectual-honesty.htm. Otherwise thank you for a your great work.
Thank you for the comment. I am trying to stay up to date with everything that is planned but there is only so much I can do. My next step for this article is showing all the ludicrous studies that is out there where they inject sht into the brains and lungs of animals in an attempt to prove transmission.
I have shared your link with our group and I'll definitely try and make the time to add it to the article.
You and your group are doing great. People go through the comments so the link is already sort of part of the article, so I wouldn't stress too much and stick to your plan. The inclusion of the transmission studies is a good one. Dr Hillman's work really just highlights the lack of controls in science and shows why the procedures (like the electron microscope) shouldn't be trusted at face value. He showed all of this over 30 years ago but instead of addressing the issues pointed out by him modern sciencists built on top of flawed experiments which in turn allowed completely flawed branches of science, like virology, to be kept alive. As such, I always try to make sure his work is included in the mix wherever possible.
That was an interesting read thank you. I didn't realise that he had been "persuaded" to retire. Like Chris Exley at Keele when he wrote about the connection of aluminium in vaccines and autism. Or Andy Wakefield when he innocently stumbled upon the link between MMR vaccines and autism. They were obviously all "over the target". Tom Cowan refers to Hillman a lot - in particular about the non-existence of synapses and what is really inside a cell.
Glad someone read the article! Yeah from what I have read, Hillman was a real scientist who followed the scientific method properly and who felt strongly about doing science with integrity. I can imagine he made the other scientists look like complete fakers and they just couldn't have that. If it wasn't for the academic tenure still in place at the time I rate there would have been a smear campaign to get him out of academia earlier. Yes, Cowan was one of the first places I came across Hillman. We can only hope that in the future Hillman's and his work will become more mainstream.
“Viruses” cannot be shown to exist as defined, which in simple terms means a sub-microscopic protein-covered length of RNA or DNA that can infect a host, reproduce and subsequently be transmitted by the host’s own biological mechanisms to infect again.
It simply is not good enough to point to imagery of objects or sequences of RNA/DNA and declare “this is the virus” without showing, end to end, that it actually does everything they claim it can do.
The “isolation” process for viruses is completely different to that for other protein-sized substances, and involves contaminating the sample rather than purifying it; this in itself is utter madness, and a fine example of the backwards pseudoscientific thinking of virology.
This fact alone ought to be problematic enough, given that reliable techniques do exist to routinely isolate other proteins that closely resemble viruses in all but name.
The main reason why a radically different technique is used for viruses seems to be that pathogenicity experiments always fail otherwise.
In fact, viruses can only ever be shown to cause ‘pathogenic’ effects under the most contrived lab conditions imaginable, with the alleged natural transmission journey eliminated altogether, and usually by the virologist injecting the suspected pathogen (plus many other toxic substances) directly into the host’s tissues or onto a cell culture.
That’s the only way a virologist can experiment with a ‘virus’ and get the results he is looking for. Doing so in a scientific manner never works, because virology is pseudoscience (and really, anti-science).
Bypassing a host’s defenses by directly injecting toxic proteins and other substances will cause effects as consistently as the mixture and methodology can be produced. As virology gets better at manipulating these injected cocktails, the consistency of observations is used as further evidence that the alleged virus does all the same things in a natural setting too, without that crucial part ever being demonstrated.
So let’s take them out of their simulated world and hold their feet to the fire in reality, ask them to show pathogenicity in a natural setting, and contagion from sick to healthy hosts. Unless and until challenge experiments can be done scientifically, viruses remain a theoretical concept with a 100% failure rate in valid scientific experiments.
Thank you for the great comment. It is clear that you have done a lot of study on the subject. I started off in 2020 studying common law thinking that this would be the best approach to stop the madness but as soon as I realized that the topic of virology could so easily be blown out of the water I shifted most of my attention to it.
Even if you go back to the great showmen of the past you could see the gaping holes in their profession. The best snipped I could find recently is probably on of Luc Montagnier on HIV - https://www.bitchute.com/video/fM2RerImY4OE/
Also, I've see a lot of people (more specifically Mutton Co twitter trolls) suggest that Lanka got out of his measles challenge by being cunning but reading this back and forth between two people that seem to know the subject gave a lot more insight on the topic - https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-no-proof-for-measles-virus.html
I am constantly looking for the best information to get people up to speed on the subject because as soon as people click this truth the whole house of cards falls over. I've put together this video (https://www.bitchute.com/video/WE8I5FAGmSep/) as a crash course for people unfamiliar with the subject with most of the required content in the video description.
If you do have information to add please feel free to drop some links. I would be happy to add it to the growing list proving virology a fallacy.
Thank you for such a complete compilation of this important information! I’ve long questioned the narrative, and trust a well maintained immune system, but at the risk of looking foolish, how is it explained that multiple individuals in a group express similar symptoms? Is it all completely psychological? Are we that easily influenced by an idea of transmission of a non-pathogen? Is it simply a mind game? My partner and I left a trade show, where folks in our booth began dropping like flies with upper respiratory symptoms, body aches, etc. We left the show early, hoping to avoid “catching it”, yet arrived home and were both sick as dogs for a week. I brag that I never get sick but I was! How should I look at this as I want to be mentally prepared to logically not “fall for it” ever again. Thanks in advance!
Hi Cyn - you may be interested in this article by the rather great Brendan D. Murphy. All humans have a biofield (what new agers describe as the "aura"). Our biofields emit both light and electricity, and become entrained with those around us.
“The Kaznacheyev experiments showed that the dying cells from the infected culture emitted photons in the near UV that contained artificial (structured) potentials. The virtual-state, patterned-substructures in this photon flux directly represented the cellular disease pattern caused by the original cell's specific infection. In other words, as the infected cells died, they emitted "death photons" which contained the template pattern of their death condition. When these "death photons" are absorbed into uninfected cells, their deterministic substructures gradually diffuse into the cell's bio-potentials. Gradually the biopotentials of the new cells are "charged up" with the integrated pattern of the disease”.
“In truth, the dynamics of “contagion” are far more subtle - in point of fact, it is all about information transmission, little more”.
“As I have explained elsewhere, the reason a whole family gets “sick” together is usually because they are biologically entrained with one another, in a state of relatively high bio-informational harmony. (And they usually share many of the same environmental influences).
The reason the cleaner who only visits a few hours a week remains magically “immune” is because she/he isn’t there long enough for her electromagnetic organism to synchronise with the family and manufacture a similar set of “disease” (aka: healing) symptoms.
She is already resonating with a different biorhythm, so to speak (that of her own family).
The nanny, on the other hand, who spends 40 hours a week there and is more en rapport, might experience a sniffle and recover quickly”.
“The photons (light) we exchange between us are considered to be pure information, and biologically speaking, we are indeed “beings of (biophotonic) light,” communicating with each other in ways that are subtle but still measurable”.
--------
This information is going to be way above the heads of the average Joe, so it probably won't help you further, or argue, your position with that particular cohort. But for expanding your own knowledge and education, it may be one of the most illuminating articles you'll ever read.
There's been a lot of talk recently about harnessing the biofield (a body part they've intentionally kept us in the dark about). If we accept that contagion and viruses are bogus, I find this theory about why whole groups get sick together to be the most plausible yet.
Suffice to say, we haven't even begun to understand the human body and its hidden systems.
So, this all makes one wonder, what is making people sick? Is it bacteria based, rather than invisible never isolated viruses? If it is a bacteria, why would people in a trade show rapidly sicken? This seems more like an aerosolized toxin or chemical contaminant spread via an HVAC system.
If all of this is a complete fraud, why have millions of birds been killed to stop the spread of avian flu? It is very sinister.
I’m learning that it is possibly more related to electromagnetic damage to our systems and how it affects our body’s ability to function properly. It’s difficult to sum up in a few sentences, but we’ve polluted our immune systems in so many ways that our systems overload trying to maintain homeostasis and dis-ease ensues. There are multiple folks here on SubStack I’d suggest you follow and read; for starters, @thepowercouple. When you subscribe to folks you’ll see also who they follow; that’s how I found all the best resources. I’m still learning and researching but much I thought I knew is now being questioned.
Well, whatever made you sick, it wasn't a "virus" or a "bacterial infection". Those notions have been exposed and proven false, so you can take them off your list.
The cause of your illness would need to be investigated to identify the probable cause of poisoning. The answer is not self evident, like "something going around".
Oh. Were you eating samples? Seafood is well known for toxins in certain circumstances. I don't think I have ever suffered side effects but I don't eat much of it.
I think, after further education, I’d be inclined to lean towards an electric or EMF poisoning. Consider the technology being powered in a trade show atmosphere. We’re learning how much radiation to which we’re being increasingly, unknowingly, being exposed.
You are obviously a man who seeks real answers as to why humanity is so far off the rails. Your work, to date, is exemplary, in the areas you have studied.
I offer another line of inquiry that I think will help you get to the root of the matter:
Sorry, but so-called "proteins" are also only an assumption and hypothesis - they cannot be isolated, because if one needs so-called "bacteria" for this, which are again "won" by a fraudulent experiment, i.e. have nothing to do with reality, then this is also a fraud! And E.Coli cell lines are chemically prepared and have also nothing to do with reality!
Now enter the groups of letters in Table 3 individually into the BLAST search, scroll down to the left blue box and click on it - wait for the result - you can do that with the mouse, with the rat and with the so-called "microbes" - always look for nucleotide sequences, which are partly present in dead cell debris, and these debris have to be excreted by humans, animals, but also plants in order to maintain their health, and that's between 50 and 70 millions per day in humans - if millions of these nucleotide sequences are found everywhere, it is NOT possible to verify or determine anything Specific, not Viruses, not Bacteria and certainly not so-called Proteins or anythig else!!
In these so-called experiments, the metabolism of all tissue cells is exposed by the addition of chemical components including the fluorescent agents, by dehydration and everything dies!
You may well be right about proteins. I haven’t cut through to that layer of the onion yet.
The point I was making was about showing the hypocrisy and doublethink of microbiologists in general, who say they routinely isolate (in the dictionary sense) structures of a certain size and chemical composition (proteins), but who also change the definition of isolation for similar structures of a similar size and chemical composition when it suits them better to do that (virology).
If the entire field of microbiology turns out to be rooted in fakery I wouldn’t even shrug.
"... haven't cut through that layer of the onion yet..."
Indeed.
If we keep backing up the stairs to see the bigger picture, a few things become clear:
- There is a huge and amazing world of the ultra-tiny.
- Because legit science can barely see or measure any of it, all we have are various indirect and disparate inferences to go on.
- To claim that something 'doesn't exist' because it is not isolatable is an inappropriate jump to an unprovable conclusion. All manner of unknown or guessed-at ultra-tiny things seem to 'exist'... atoms, elements, molecules, whatever... we just have no precise idea what they are or what they do. We still don't truly know what electricity or fire actually IS, but we certainly use them and manipulate them for our own purposes.
And when you begin trying to investigate the ultra-tiny world of biology, it is far more complex and unfathomable.
- Likewise, to claim that something (such as a virus) 'does exist' is equally invalid.
- All efforts of science to study the ultra-tiny realm of biology result in fragmented and largely unreliable evidence. But there certainly are good people who are genuinely curious, and are trying to make some kind of headway. If these good people make any sort of interesting discovery, their bossman-priest will immediately scrutinize that discovery for any contradiction to approved (and blessed) medical scripture... and judge whether or not the discovery is allowed to stand, and be published.
- Humanity's problem, vis-a-vis the medical profession, is that the medics have bet ALL their chips on the germ theory. So, 2 things must then occur:
1. Any and every bit of evidence of anything happening in the ultra-tiny world must be reframed and spun such that the germ theory is supported; and
2. If holes in the germ theory grow too large and get out of hand, a whole new tapestry of interwoven BS myths must be concocted to patch those holes over... such as the concept of virology.
IOW, the show must go on at any cost.
So, with all that said, a point comes to mind:
Can scientists, via technology, manipulate ultra-tiny things in some fashion, even though none of these ultra-tiny things have ever been properly isolated?
Certainly. Even though precise knowledge of the ultra-tiny world is extremely fragmented, ultra-tiny things can certainly be mucked with, altered, butchered, destroyed... using all manner of techniques.
Do these scientists really know what they are doing?
Hell no. But that doesn't stop them from trying. All you need to do is to take your carrot-stick and replace the carrot with money, prestige, status and military enemies, and you can get thousands of ethically-challenged scientists to do your bidding.
It is certainly possible to muck with Nature and create harmful, toxic crap of all kinds and unleash it on the world. That is happening every day, 24/7. Bizarre manmade chemicals, incredibly harmful EMFs, artificial synthetic 'food', on and on.
With all of that said, WHAT are these ethically-challenged scientists actually DOING in military and private biowarfare labs around the world? Especially since clear knowledge of the world of the biologically ultra-tiny is very fragmented at best?
The point about isolation and purification of "viruses" as described by virologists and the media is that technology does exist to isolate them if they were to actually be present in that form in the sample. Andy Kaufman pointed this out 3 years ago when he talked about methodology. I tried to engage Thermo Fisher in this 2 years ago but they didn't respond. I do however have trouble with Koch's 2nd postulate: "the microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture". What do unknown substances like to eat? The other 3 postulates seem reasonable, logical and robust. So robust those evil virologists try to find ways around them! Cheers
"The “isolation” process for viruses is completely different to that for other protein-sized substances, and involves contaminating the sample rather than purifying it;"
"...reliable techniques do exist to routinely isolate other proteins that closely resemble viruses in all but name."
The first time I read what is put into the witch's brew for isolating a virus I was shocked. I thought someone was pulling my leg so I dug in a little more only to find out that it's true. Shakespeare's witches were on to something:
"The “isolation” process for viruses is completely different to that for other protein-sized substances, and involves contaminating the sample rather than purifying it"
Why does mainstream medicine do it this way? What's their own rationale? They must have a reason that in their minds makes sense. What is it? Does the no-virus camp care to find out?
They are doing this because over the course of about 60 there was a whole profession trying to find the fairy dust and no one could turn something up. From 1893 to 1954 is the time it took for them to finally find a con they could use to BS people.
It was a discovery of desperation to save the profession of virology. There really is nothing more to it.
Hard to say for sure. It’s hard even finding someone in mainstream medicine aware that this is how the process is done so they could then go on to explain why.
My own conclusion is that an obtuse and indirect methodology was the best way to consistently get the results needed to keep up the ruse. It had to look scientific and be blessed by a Nobel prize to initially gain legitimacy.
The few who dared challenge it got no traction or publicity until fairly recently, by which time Enders’ method had long since become the de facto way of doing virological ‘experiments’.
The mere fact virology was done like this for so long, by so many, this alone would be enough to appeal to a mainstream science advocate who still believes in processes like peer review. Attacking virology attacks the foundational dogma that science effectively polices its own corruption and errors, which is unfortunately false.
A good first step would be to persuade one (ideally more than one) of the "Great Barrington" docs/scientists (Malone, McCullough, Khorry, Vanden Bossche, etc.) to participate in a discussion/dialogue/debate with representatives of the No Virus team. Since the vast majority of those "Great Barrington" seem to believe in viruses and even the Covid virus, they could explain why and could explain the isolation process under the scrutiny of colleagues who challenge them.
These people are part of the control grid mate. they will NEVER discuss these topics. If they do they always jump into genome sequencing because that is the arse end of the argument and there is a lot you can confuse people with.
Check out the gatekeeperclub article. They are all there.
$$$ and lots of it! Multi-trillion dollar a year industry. Virus/vax pushers like Hotez make millions, virus treatment pushers like Malone/McCullough are making lots of money also. Bigtree and RFK are probably doing well with their foundations also. Drs Cowan, Kaufman, Baileys are banned from the trough, attacked and censored. Who is more likely to be bought off, and who is honest?
The reason typically given is that the scientists involved need lots of the particular virus on hand to work with, so they need to culture and breed more of them via the 'hijack the cell and force it to make virus copies' myth. Never mind that so-called viruses are not even living things, nor can individual viruses be somehow isolated out of the culture medium.
They claim, for example, 'there are not enough viruses in the sputum of someone with a respiratory disease'. EM micrographs of 'prepared' sputum are 'inconclusive,' they say, so we must have a method to produce more of them.
Bottom line concerning this whole arena of investigation is that the subjects of study are simply too small. Virtually nothing can be properly seen, much less properly proven. There are layers of guesswork that quickly pile up, and the only honest answer when questioned about any of it is, "I don't know."
Medical marketers long ago pounced on the ambiguity and 'disease-causing scariness'of the viral realm, manufacturing whatever stories helped support the germ theory paradigm... then steering the market to maximize continuing business and continual profit. $$$.
That's what all nearly all marketers do, which is why marketing/sales is such a slimy pursuit populated by slimy individuals.
Fantastic post. This is exactly what I was looking for. I've heard about the 1918 flu trials and wanted to see some trials on common colds and other flues, but didn't know where to look. Thanks!
I can give you the results of my own trial as a teacher the past 11 years. I can be in a room everyday swarming with kids sneezing and coughing on me all day. 9 out of 10 times kids don't make me sick. When teachers start getting sick it is a little bit more of a concern, but there is still no solid transmission connection. Last year I sat at a table with a kid who was coughing and sneezing. He eventually sneezed right on my face and I felt the saliva hit me between the eyes. At the time, I had just begun accepting that germs don't really exist and are not transmissible so I was not too worried.
😂🤣 we have a great group of ppl Doug. I would not have been able to have suc h a comprehensive article without wheir input. Insane amount of research that went into this by some great peeps
No worries always fun searching for stuff. looking at it again I think it's just he beginning and you'd have to pay for the rest; so may have to take the later papers word for it, the numbers in the tables don't match so must be more to come.
Great reference list. Thank you all for putting it together. Comments are great too. Here is my contribution. It is indisputable fact that starvation (including malnutrition), poisoning and trauma (mental and physical) can and do cause illness and premature death. Any investigation of "what made me sick" must eliminate these known and common causes before speculating on unseen and unproven factors. This is the essence of the scientific method and common reason. Controlled experiments of disease should investigate these known, proven and common causes first. The null hypothesis being that it was not a mysterious agent, but rather a known and common agent that cause the illness No one disputes that the mind alone can create all manner of strange expressions on the skin. That's a proven fact. It is known that emotional stress causes external manifestations like blushing, sweating, rashes, hives, etc... So anyone claiming measels, warts, poxes and herpes are from a virus has to prove that the mind was not a factor or indeed the cause before speculating on unseen and unproven germs. It could be the mind, malnutrition and poisoning all at the same time. Remember: Poisoning, Starvation and Trauma. That's all you need to know.
I loved this. Extremely eye-opening. Reminded me of Garett Kramer. I’m still stuck on one thing though.... herpes simplex. I don’t get cold sores on my lip anymore, and used to get them once a year (I’m hypothesizing that is because I’ve done several 30-day fasts and assume the autophagy killed the “virus” or removed it from my system). When I’d feel one surfacing, I would take the listed dose on an anti-viral medication (forget what it’s called but it’s standard prescription for cold sores. Zovirax? I don’t remember) and it would prevent the cold sore from surfacing into a large sore and keep it very small and only minorly noticeable. If a virus isn’t real, which may be true, then what is herpes simplex and how did the anti-viral medication work so successfully every time? When I was younger, I didn’t have that medication and the cold sores would become enormous. Herpes is very much contagious and can spread to others just from touch. This is hurting my brain! Can someone explain this?
Also, I noticed during my pregnancy that the only time I got a cold sore (it was 3rd trimester), my body suppressed it on its own without any use of medication. I would never use any kind of medication during pregnancy and apparently a pregnant woman’s immune system is weak (which I knew was probably bullshit and not true, and my body proved that it was in fact stronger during pregnancy). So my cold sore during pregnancy stayed soooo small and was gone within 2 days (very unusually short duration). After pregnancy I only got one more and it went away just as quickly without any prescription meds- all I used was an ointment containing emu oil, oregano oil, thyme oil, etc etc etc. just a dab. After lots or extended water fasts, my cold sores have never returned. It’s been nearly 3 years now.....
So what are cold sores if not viruses? Very confused and if anyone can shed some light I would be grateful to hear the discussion. Thanks.
I definitely agree that suppressing symptoms is not a cure! And actually isn’t good to do. I’m not one to “bring down fever” (I take yarrow tea to maximize it!) or take pain meds (I stick it out and/or try to sleep, even with the worst suffering “kill me” 10/10 pain. 11/10 is another story though), packaging says that the antiviral pills (whatever they were called- still can’t remember) disrupt the life cycle of the virus and prevent it from “replicating”..... did a whole lot of other things too that were very unpleasant.
Saying that the cold sores were my body trying to rid something DOES make a lot of sense. And I think you’re right. I’m still confused as to why the cold sore blister would appear in the same area every time, or very close to.
BUT here’s my brain again: would you sleep completely wildly and uninhibited with someone who has genital herpes? And not worry about getting it? Are all herpes just our bodies detoxing? I’m genuinely perplexed by this.
Thank you for responding! You’ve gotten me down another path now and I’m going to go down that rabbit hole some more.
Damn good question. Nanotech is very scary sh*t. The body does not know how to deal with it. Nothing like it exists in Nature, so specific defenses against nanotech does not exist, either. The body simply does its best to identify, sequester and eliminate it... AFAIK, nobody knows how successful the body is in ridding itself of nanotech.
I would like to congratulate you for your all your work. It is clear, precise and succinct. Once you know where to look, there is an abundance of information that conclusively demonstrates that virology is pseudoscience. Because there is so much information, it can overwhelm you. I was considering the monumental task of putting all those pieces together in a way that cuts to the chase. Fortunately, you beat me to it, so I am grateful for not only your work, but also saving me from having to compile all the relevant information. And you are right of course regarding "no virus", since once that concept is grasped, everything that follows can be disregarded and seen in reality for what it is.
As you have cited in the article above the study by Ben Killingley and stated that "Nobody got sick", I was wondering if you could explain this quote as on reading the paper, it does appear that a number of participants did exhibit what could be considered cold like symptoms.
Thank you for the comment :-) Always great to see someone checking the work and thank you for speaking up about why you think this is wrong. It does not sit with everyone to speak up these days.
Ben Killingley also conducted a study in the early 2010's in which he put the inoculated people in a room with 75 others some wearing masks others as a control. Not a single person even tested PCR positive. Some links to that include:
We think that this follow up study was to cover the findings of his previous version of this study. Some additional notes on the one listed include:
- They gave 10 people the potent nephrotoxin Remdisivir.
- They measure sickness with PCR which isn't indicative of disease because it tests positive with asymptomatic cases.
- Even if you say that a runny nose after swabbing is Covid. 50% outcomes to a direct challenge of something is a negative result. It doesn't suggest causation which would need to be at least 90%.
- The very methods of inoculation used during the study could cause the nasal congestion/discharge (which is their measure of whether someone is sick or not). This has been shown in previous studies.
- Lastly nobody got given "regeneron" because they didn't get "sick".
I looked at the "killingley softly" 2022 paper and did a search on "control". It only appears in the word "controlled" (which is a lie) and in phrases like "infection control": not together with "placebo". Then I searched "placebo"...my computer gave me a blank stare. Also those fancy statistics are just mathematical embellishments that are embedded in a style that makes reading of this material impenetrable for the 99.9% (& even for those of us who have used statistics and that same software).
From 1918-1919, the USPHS conducted experiments to better understand the infectious nature of the Spanish Flu. They made rather determined efforts to infect healthy volunteers with the disease. As you will see below, their efforts were a complete failure:
“We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from [sick patients] and transferred this to our volunteers.” These secretions were placed in the nostrils, throat, and eyes of the volunteers. Of the 100 volunteers, NONE became sick.
The experiment was repeated, this time using new volunteers and more stringent procedures. But the results were the same: “None of them took sick in any way.”
In another experiment, healthy volunteers were inoculated with blood from sick patients. None became sick.
In yet another experiment, mucous was collected from sick patients, filtered, and then injected directly into the volunteers. None became sick.
Finally, the researchers attempted to infect volunteers in a manner that was more consistent with how transmission would occur in the real world. New volunteers and sick patients were assembled:
The participants shook hands and talked face to face as close as possible for five minutes.
The sick patients then coughed in the face of the healthy volunteers several times while the healthy volunteers inhaled.
Each volunteer repeated the procedure with ten sick patients.
None became sick.
Despite these experiments, it is still firmly believed that the 1918 Spanish Flu was caused by a contagious virus. Ironically, this denial of reality is called “following the science.”
I made a huge list of medical papers of which most of them are considered to be proof of pathogenicity, contagion etc. - including links to access them and PDFs (~600Mb).
I also have the complete paper by Schmitz 1920, the one by Williams et al. (1921)... I went through your list until 1949 (Polio and NY Health State Department) then I became lazy... sorry for that.
Thank you for this great write up and I'm happy to see more people speaking out about No Contagion / transmission of disease, so no virus.
'The only real virus is the believe that viruses exist' is how I phrase it now, after speaking for 2.5 years about 'no virus'. As ideas are real ideas.
Please have a look at the letter I recently wrote to the Dutch senators, who voted for the Dutch pandemic laws anyways...
https://t.me/NLvirusWaan/ is my virus hoax channel which I started in Dutch as there were already a few others in English when I came to Telegram after being banned on Twitter.
But in hindsight I should have given it an English name.
.
I also have https://t.me/spacebusters for that as Steve (spacebusters) did not reply to me when I reserved it and asked him if he liked to have it. Steve made many excellent videos about the covid/virus hoax, but to bad he believes in the flat earth nonsense. You can find all of his work on https://www.bitchute.com/channel/MKanl25dSUxl/
Oops! After a couple of comments I've made here, I would like to make up for my mistake of not congratulating you on the excellence of your comprehensive summary. The list of Frankenstein experiments are extremely powerful and support the rest of your findings as well as what I also hope I know.
At the age of five, I lied to a "doctor" about being ill, because I wanted to experience what it would be like to be hospitalized. I was indeed quarantined with another 26 "sick" children in a hospital for infectious diseases. I expected people dropping like flies, but no contagion took place and nobody got sick. I expected the doctors and the nurses to be the worst, but they remained healthy. At that point, I learned that there was something seriously wrong with "Medicine," and my belief was confirmed in the next 60 years on several occasions. No study was needed...
Still, a coherent paradigm of health and illness is overdue, and not much is happening about that. Here is my proposition:
Of course, virology and pathogenic viral transmission was refuted several times, but it's apparently never enough; people have been conditioned for new viruses, pandemics, and states of emergency.
If billions have been spent studying virology but they were actually studying exosomes & cellular messengers present during illness, then quite a lot has been learned about cellular messengers and exosomes.
Great summary and great idea to put all the info in one place! I see you already have some references to Mike Stone's, ViroLIEgy, but really everything on that site is gold re the no virus debate. However, what you are missing is Dr Harold Hillman's work (unless I have missed a reference somewhere) because he was really a forerunner in pointing out a lot of issues in accepted science. In particular, Dr Hillman pointed out the complete lack of control experiments in almost all biochemistry experiments and then he did an enormous amount of work on the electron microscope and the failures of cytology, specifically that most of the structures in cells apparent by electron microscopy are artifacts. See his story and references to his work here >https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/what-price-intellectual-honesty.htm. Otherwise thank you for a your great work.
Hi Mia,
Thank you for the comment. I am trying to stay up to date with everything that is planned but there is only so much I can do. My next step for this article is showing all the ludicrous studies that is out there where they inject sht into the brains and lungs of animals in an attempt to prove transmission.
I have shared your link with our group and I'll definitely try and make the time to add it to the article.
You and your group are doing great. People go through the comments so the link is already sort of part of the article, so I wouldn't stress too much and stick to your plan. The inclusion of the transmission studies is a good one. Dr Hillman's work really just highlights the lack of controls in science and shows why the procedures (like the electron microscope) shouldn't be trusted at face value. He showed all of this over 30 years ago but instead of addressing the issues pointed out by him modern sciencists built on top of flawed experiments which in turn allowed completely flawed branches of science, like virology, to be kept alive. As such, I always try to make sure his work is included in the mix wherever possible.
Mike, while he fulfilled an essential role in his heydays, seems to have been lagging behind for a while to a nearly embarrassing level...
That was an interesting read thank you. I didn't realise that he had been "persuaded" to retire. Like Chris Exley at Keele when he wrote about the connection of aluminium in vaccines and autism. Or Andy Wakefield when he innocently stumbled upon the link between MMR vaccines and autism. They were obviously all "over the target". Tom Cowan refers to Hillman a lot - in particular about the non-existence of synapses and what is really inside a cell.
Glad someone read the article! Yeah from what I have read, Hillman was a real scientist who followed the scientific method properly and who felt strongly about doing science with integrity. I can imagine he made the other scientists look like complete fakers and they just couldn't have that. If it wasn't for the academic tenure still in place at the time I rate there would have been a smear campaign to get him out of academia earlier. Yes, Cowan was one of the first places I came across Hillman. We can only hope that in the future Hillman's and his work will become more mainstream.
I have Exley’s book!
Very nice summary, thank you.
“Viruses” cannot be shown to exist as defined, which in simple terms means a sub-microscopic protein-covered length of RNA or DNA that can infect a host, reproduce and subsequently be transmitted by the host’s own biological mechanisms to infect again.
It simply is not good enough to point to imagery of objects or sequences of RNA/DNA and declare “this is the virus” without showing, end to end, that it actually does everything they claim it can do.
The “isolation” process for viruses is completely different to that for other protein-sized substances, and involves contaminating the sample rather than purifying it; this in itself is utter madness, and a fine example of the backwards pseudoscientific thinking of virology.
This fact alone ought to be problematic enough, given that reliable techniques do exist to routinely isolate other proteins that closely resemble viruses in all but name.
The main reason why a radically different technique is used for viruses seems to be that pathogenicity experiments always fail otherwise.
In fact, viruses can only ever be shown to cause ‘pathogenic’ effects under the most contrived lab conditions imaginable, with the alleged natural transmission journey eliminated altogether, and usually by the virologist injecting the suspected pathogen (plus many other toxic substances) directly into the host’s tissues or onto a cell culture.
That’s the only way a virologist can experiment with a ‘virus’ and get the results he is looking for. Doing so in a scientific manner never works, because virology is pseudoscience (and really, anti-science).
Bypassing a host’s defenses by directly injecting toxic proteins and other substances will cause effects as consistently as the mixture and methodology can be produced. As virology gets better at manipulating these injected cocktails, the consistency of observations is used as further evidence that the alleged virus does all the same things in a natural setting too, without that crucial part ever being demonstrated.
So let’s take them out of their simulated world and hold their feet to the fire in reality, ask them to show pathogenicity in a natural setting, and contagion from sick to healthy hosts. Unless and until challenge experiments can be done scientifically, viruses remain a theoretical concept with a 100% failure rate in valid scientific experiments.
Hi dbuser,
Thank you for the great comment. It is clear that you have done a lot of study on the subject. I started off in 2020 studying common law thinking that this would be the best approach to stop the madness but as soon as I realized that the topic of virology could so easily be blown out of the water I shifted most of my attention to it.
Even if you go back to the great showmen of the past you could see the gaping holes in their profession. The best snipped I could find recently is probably on of Luc Montagnier on HIV - https://www.bitchute.com/video/fM2RerImY4OE/
Also, I've see a lot of people (more specifically Mutton Co twitter trolls) suggest that Lanka got out of his measles challenge by being cunning but reading this back and forth between two people that seem to know the subject gave a lot more insight on the topic - https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-no-proof-for-measles-virus.html
I am constantly looking for the best information to get people up to speed on the subject because as soon as people click this truth the whole house of cards falls over. I've put together this video (https://www.bitchute.com/video/WE8I5FAGmSep/) as a crash course for people unfamiliar with the subject with most of the required content in the video description.
If you do have information to add please feel free to drop some links. I would be happy to add it to the growing list proving virology a fallacy.
Thank you for such a complete compilation of this important information! I’ve long questioned the narrative, and trust a well maintained immune system, but at the risk of looking foolish, how is it explained that multiple individuals in a group express similar symptoms? Is it all completely psychological? Are we that easily influenced by an idea of transmission of a non-pathogen? Is it simply a mind game? My partner and I left a trade show, where folks in our booth began dropping like flies with upper respiratory symptoms, body aches, etc. We left the show early, hoping to avoid “catching it”, yet arrived home and were both sick as dogs for a week. I brag that I never get sick but I was! How should I look at this as I want to be mentally prepared to logically not “fall for it” ever again. Thanks in advance!
Hi Cyn - you may be interested in this article by the rather great Brendan D. Murphy. All humans have a biofield (what new agers describe as the "aura"). Our biofields emit both light and electricity, and become entrained with those around us.
“The Kaznacheyev experiments showed that the dying cells from the infected culture emitted photons in the near UV that contained artificial (structured) potentials. The virtual-state, patterned-substructures in this photon flux directly represented the cellular disease pattern caused by the original cell's specific infection. In other words, as the infected cells died, they emitted "death photons" which contained the template pattern of their death condition. When these "death photons" are absorbed into uninfected cells, their deterministic substructures gradually diffuse into the cell's bio-potentials. Gradually the biopotentials of the new cells are "charged up" with the integrated pattern of the disease”.
“In truth, the dynamics of “contagion” are far more subtle - in point of fact, it is all about information transmission, little more”.
“As I have explained elsewhere, the reason a whole family gets “sick” together is usually because they are biologically entrained with one another, in a state of relatively high bio-informational harmony. (And they usually share many of the same environmental influences).
The reason the cleaner who only visits a few hours a week remains magically “immune” is because she/he isn’t there long enough for her electromagnetic organism to synchronise with the family and manufacture a similar set of “disease” (aka: healing) symptoms.
She is already resonating with a different biorhythm, so to speak (that of her own family).
The nanny, on the other hand, who spends 40 hours a week there and is more en rapport, might experience a sniffle and recover quickly”.
“The photons (light) we exchange between us are considered to be pure information, and biologically speaking, we are indeed “beings of (biophotonic) light,” communicating with each other in ways that are subtle but still measurable”.
--------
This information is going to be way above the heads of the average Joe, so it probably won't help you further, or argue, your position with that particular cohort. But for expanding your own knowledge and education, it may be one of the most illuminating articles you'll ever read.
There's been a lot of talk recently about harnessing the biofield (a body part they've intentionally kept us in the dark about). If we accept that contagion and viruses are bogus, I find this theory about why whole groups get sick together to be the most plausible yet.
Suffice to say, we haven't even begun to understand the human body and its hidden systems.
https://open.substack.com/pub/officialbrendanmurphy/p/how-illness-actually-spreads?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=nll84
Thank you! Makes perfect sense! I look forward to learning even more!
So, this all makes one wonder, what is making people sick? Is it bacteria based, rather than invisible never isolated viruses? If it is a bacteria, why would people in a trade show rapidly sicken? This seems more like an aerosolized toxin or chemical contaminant spread via an HVAC system.
If all of this is a complete fraud, why have millions of birds been killed to stop the spread of avian flu? It is very sinister.
I’m learning that it is possibly more related to electromagnetic damage to our systems and how it affects our body’s ability to function properly. It’s difficult to sum up in a few sentences, but we’ve polluted our immune systems in so many ways that our systems overload trying to maintain homeostasis and dis-ease ensues. There are multiple folks here on SubStack I’d suggest you follow and read; for starters, @thepowercouple. When you subscribe to folks you’ll see also who they follow; that’s how I found all the best resources. I’m still learning and researching but much I thought I knew is now being questioned.
Something toxic in the booth perhaps. What was the trade show and the nature of the booth?
Well, whatever made you sick, it wasn't a "virus" or a "bacterial infection". Those notions have been exposed and proven false, so you can take them off your list.
The cause of your illness would need to be investigated to identify the probable cause of poisoning. The answer is not self evident, like "something going around".
You seem to have replied to me not Cyn.
Seafood
Oh. Were you eating samples? Seafood is well known for toxins in certain circumstances. I don't think I have ever suffered side effects but I don't eat much of it.
I think, after further education, I’d be inclined to lean towards an electric or EMF poisoning. Consider the technology being powered in a trade show atmosphere. We’re learning how much radiation to which we’re being increasingly, unknowingly, being exposed.
dpl - Great work, Amigo!
You are obviously a man who seeks real answers as to why humanity is so far off the rails. Your work, to date, is exemplary, in the areas you have studied.
I offer another line of inquiry that I think will help you get to the root of the matter:
https://www.patreon.com/children_of_the_forest/about
and a video here:
https://youtu.be/jXwwsJUMoQg?t=183
All The Best To You,
Robert
Thanks for the links Robert
This is where it all happens. Proof of contagion!
Thank you for this, it is SO important. I have re-stacked it.
Excellent explanation of how ridiculous virology is.
Sorry, but so-called "proteins" are also only an assumption and hypothesis - they cannot be isolated, because if one needs so-called "bacteria" for this, which are again "won" by a fraudulent experiment, i.e. have nothing to do with reality, then this is also a fraud! And E.Coli cell lines are chemically prepared and have also nothing to do with reality!
https://international.neb.com/products/c3040-neb-stable-competent-e-coli-high-efficiency#Product%20Information
For example:
https://www.bio-rad.com/webroot/web/pdf/lsr/literature/Bulletin_5870.pdf >
https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/146/2/271/489735?login=false >
https://tinyurl.com/4sf4stfv >
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC263034/pdf/jcm00002-0075.pdf
Now enter the groups of letters in Table 3 individually into the BLAST search, scroll down to the left blue box and click on it - wait for the result - you can do that with the mouse, with the rat and with the so-called "microbes" - always look for nucleotide sequences, which are partly present in dead cell debris, and these debris have to be excreted by humans, animals, but also plants in order to maintain their health, and that's between 50 and 70 millions per day in humans - if millions of these nucleotide sequences are found everywhere, it is NOT possible to verify or determine anything Specific, not Viruses, not Bacteria and certainly not so-called Proteins or anythig else!!
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&BLAST_SPEC=OGP__9606__9558&LINK_LOC=blasthome
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&BLAST_SPEC=OGP__10090__9559&LINK_LOC=blasthome
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&BLAST_SPEC=OGP__10116__10621&LINK_LOC=blasthome
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&BLAST_SPEC=MicrobialGenomes
In these so-called experiments, the metabolism of all tissue cells is exposed by the addition of chemical components including the fluorescent agents, by dehydration and everything dies!
Or here Table 1:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49247/pdf/pnas01085-0381.pdf
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-66c
https://maryann255.substack.com/p/the-truth-is-always-on-the-other-b7c
All the best to you all!
You may well be right about proteins. I haven’t cut through to that layer of the onion yet.
The point I was making was about showing the hypocrisy and doublethink of microbiologists in general, who say they routinely isolate (in the dictionary sense) structures of a certain size and chemical composition (proteins), but who also change the definition of isolation for similar structures of a similar size and chemical composition when it suits them better to do that (virology).
If the entire field of microbiology turns out to be rooted in fakery I wouldn’t even shrug.
"... haven't cut through that layer of the onion yet..."
Indeed.
If we keep backing up the stairs to see the bigger picture, a few things become clear:
- There is a huge and amazing world of the ultra-tiny.
- Because legit science can barely see or measure any of it, all we have are various indirect and disparate inferences to go on.
- To claim that something 'doesn't exist' because it is not isolatable is an inappropriate jump to an unprovable conclusion. All manner of unknown or guessed-at ultra-tiny things seem to 'exist'... atoms, elements, molecules, whatever... we just have no precise idea what they are or what they do. We still don't truly know what electricity or fire actually IS, but we certainly use them and manipulate them for our own purposes.
And when you begin trying to investigate the ultra-tiny world of biology, it is far more complex and unfathomable.
- Likewise, to claim that something (such as a virus) 'does exist' is equally invalid.
- All efforts of science to study the ultra-tiny realm of biology result in fragmented and largely unreliable evidence. But there certainly are good people who are genuinely curious, and are trying to make some kind of headway. If these good people make any sort of interesting discovery, their bossman-priest will immediately scrutinize that discovery for any contradiction to approved (and blessed) medical scripture... and judge whether or not the discovery is allowed to stand, and be published.
- Humanity's problem, vis-a-vis the medical profession, is that the medics have bet ALL their chips on the germ theory. So, 2 things must then occur:
1. Any and every bit of evidence of anything happening in the ultra-tiny world must be reframed and spun such that the germ theory is supported; and
2. If holes in the germ theory grow too large and get out of hand, a whole new tapestry of interwoven BS myths must be concocted to patch those holes over... such as the concept of virology.
IOW, the show must go on at any cost.
So, with all that said, a point comes to mind:
Can scientists, via technology, manipulate ultra-tiny things in some fashion, even though none of these ultra-tiny things have ever been properly isolated?
Certainly. Even though precise knowledge of the ultra-tiny world is extremely fragmented, ultra-tiny things can certainly be mucked with, altered, butchered, destroyed... using all manner of techniques.
Do these scientists really know what they are doing?
Hell no. But that doesn't stop them from trying. All you need to do is to take your carrot-stick and replace the carrot with money, prestige, status and military enemies, and you can get thousands of ethically-challenged scientists to do your bidding.
It is certainly possible to muck with Nature and create harmful, toxic crap of all kinds and unleash it on the world. That is happening every day, 24/7. Bizarre manmade chemicals, incredibly harmful EMFs, artificial synthetic 'food', on and on.
With all of that said, WHAT are these ethically-challenged scientists actually DOING in military and private biowarfare labs around the world? Especially since clear knowledge of the world of the biologically ultra-tiny is very fragmented at best?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F2o6fLrFwo
That's a question that definitely needs answering.
The Precautionary Principle has long ago been thrown out the window... which is mankind's most egregious mistake.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=precautionary_principle
Homo Sapiens has a psychopathic streak in it that desperately needs to be excised, stat.
https://t.me/DrRobertSniadach
The point about isolation and purification of "viruses" as described by virologists and the media is that technology does exist to isolate them if they were to actually be present in that form in the sample. Andy Kaufman pointed this out 3 years ago when he talked about methodology. I tried to engage Thermo Fisher in this 2 years ago but they didn't respond. I do however have trouble with Koch's 2nd postulate: "the microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture". What do unknown substances like to eat? The other 3 postulates seem reasonable, logical and robust. So robust those evil virologists try to find ways around them! Cheers
"The “isolation” process for viruses is completely different to that for other protein-sized substances, and involves contaminating the sample rather than purifying it;"
"...reliable techniques do exist to routinely isolate other proteins that closely resemble viruses in all but name."
The first time I read what is put into the witch's brew for isolating a virus I was shocked. I thought someone was pulling my leg so I dug in a little more only to find out that it's true. Shakespeare's witches were on to something:
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.
"The “isolation” process for viruses is completely different to that for other protein-sized substances, and involves contaminating the sample rather than purifying it"
Why does mainstream medicine do it this way? What's their own rationale? They must have a reason that in their minds makes sense. What is it? Does the no-virus camp care to find out?
They are doing this because over the course of about 60 there was a whole profession trying to find the fairy dust and no one could turn something up. From 1893 to 1954 is the time it took for them to finally find a con they could use to BS people.
It was a discovery of desperation to save the profession of virology. There really is nothing more to it.
Hard to say for sure. It’s hard even finding someone in mainstream medicine aware that this is how the process is done so they could then go on to explain why.
My own conclusion is that an obtuse and indirect methodology was the best way to consistently get the results needed to keep up the ruse. It had to look scientific and be blessed by a Nobel prize to initially gain legitimacy.
The few who dared challenge it got no traction or publicity until fairly recently, by which time Enders’ method had long since become the de facto way of doing virological ‘experiments’.
The mere fact virology was done like this for so long, by so many, this alone would be enough to appeal to a mainstream science advocate who still believes in processes like peer review. Attacking virology attacks the foundational dogma that science effectively polices its own corruption and errors, which is unfortunately false.
A good first step would be to persuade one (ideally more than one) of the "Great Barrington" docs/scientists (Malone, McCullough, Khorry, Vanden Bossche, etc.) to participate in a discussion/dialogue/debate with representatives of the No Virus team. Since the vast majority of those "Great Barrington" seem to believe in viruses and even the Covid virus, they could explain why and could explain the isolation process under the scrutiny of colleagues who challenge them.
These people are part of the control grid mate. they will NEVER discuss these topics. If they do they always jump into genome sequencing because that is the arse end of the argument and there is a lot you can confuse people with.
Check out the gatekeeperclub article. They are all there.
$$$ and lots of it! Multi-trillion dollar a year industry. Virus/vax pushers like Hotez make millions, virus treatment pushers like Malone/McCullough are making lots of money also. Bigtree and RFK are probably doing well with their foundations also. Drs Cowan, Kaufman, Baileys are banned from the trough, attacked and censored. Who is more likely to be bought off, and who is honest?
Charles is starting to uncover the paper trail - https://charleswright1.substack.com/p/jeff-hansons-finance-of-the-flccc
Thanks for sharing. I wondered why Kory, Weinstein, and Malone got so much airtime while Cowan, Kaufman, and Bailey did not...
"What is their rationale?"
The reason typically given is that the scientists involved need lots of the particular virus on hand to work with, so they need to culture and breed more of them via the 'hijack the cell and force it to make virus copies' myth. Never mind that so-called viruses are not even living things, nor can individual viruses be somehow isolated out of the culture medium.
IOW, self-serving circular reasoning.
They would then have to explain why they needs lots of it.
They claim, for example, 'there are not enough viruses in the sputum of someone with a respiratory disease'. EM micrographs of 'prepared' sputum are 'inconclusive,' they say, so we must have a method to produce more of them.
Bottom line concerning this whole arena of investigation is that the subjects of study are simply too small. Virtually nothing can be properly seen, much less properly proven. There are layers of guesswork that quickly pile up, and the only honest answer when questioned about any of it is, "I don't know."
Medical marketers long ago pounced on the ambiguity and 'disease-causing scariness'of the viral realm, manufacturing whatever stories helped support the germ theory paradigm... then steering the market to maximize continuing business and continual profit. $$$.
That's what all nearly all marketers do, which is why marketing/sales is such a slimy pursuit populated by slimy individuals.
Consensus......Con (the) sense (out of) us.
Neat!
Bingo. That simple!
Fantastic post. This is exactly what I was looking for. I've heard about the 1918 flu trials and wanted to see some trials on common colds and other flues, but didn't know where to look. Thanks!
I can give you the results of my own trial as a teacher the past 11 years. I can be in a room everyday swarming with kids sneezing and coughing on me all day. 9 out of 10 times kids don't make me sick. When teachers start getting sick it is a little bit more of a concern, but there is still no solid transmission connection. Last year I sat at a table with a kid who was coughing and sneezing. He eventually sneezed right on my face and I felt the saliva hit me between the eyes. At the time, I had just begun accepting that germs don't really exist and are not transmissible so I was not too worried.
I never got a sniffle.
Well done DPL!
Wow, links and references for everything!
Do you sleep?
Thanks 🔥
😢Funeral services for Germ Theory will be held at the Pasteur Museum at the Institut Pasteur, situated at 25 rue du Docteur Roux - 75015 Paris, France
😂🤣 we have a great group of ppl Doug. I would not have been able to have suc h a comprehensive article without wheir input. Insane amount of research that went into this by some great peeps
Hiya, I noticed you have the Schmidt 1920 paper that Doug was looking for but the link goes to a 1931 paper with difference authors
🙏🏽
Hi @georie&donny
There is not a copy of the paper itself.. It is referenced in this literature review on page 449 stating the percentages of placebo were higher.
https://rupress.org/jem/article/53/4/447/10125/THE-ETIOLOGY-OF-ACUTE-UPPER-RESPIRATORY-INFECTION
I'll see what I can do to get hold of it but it seems to be a difficult task.
This is the paper 'Zur Aetiologie von Schnupfen und Grippe' The aetiology of sniffles and flu! Classic! It's available in the Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (the German medical weekly) at https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0029-1192963
Jo
Thanks man! I'll see if the chaps can translate it.
No worries always fun searching for stuff. looking at it again I think it's just he beginning and you'd have to pay for the rest; so may have to take the later papers word for it, the numbers in the tables don't match so must be more to come.
🙏🏽
Great stuff! If a correction is needed please let me know. I hate having info up that is not correct.
Great reference list. Thank you all for putting it together. Comments are great too. Here is my contribution. It is indisputable fact that starvation (including malnutrition), poisoning and trauma (mental and physical) can and do cause illness and premature death. Any investigation of "what made me sick" must eliminate these known and common causes before speculating on unseen and unproven factors. This is the essence of the scientific method and common reason. Controlled experiments of disease should investigate these known, proven and common causes first. The null hypothesis being that it was not a mysterious agent, but rather a known and common agent that cause the illness No one disputes that the mind alone can create all manner of strange expressions on the skin. That's a proven fact. It is known that emotional stress causes external manifestations like blushing, sweating, rashes, hives, etc... So anyone claiming measels, warts, poxes and herpes are from a virus has to prove that the mind was not a factor or indeed the cause before speculating on unseen and unproven germs. It could be the mind, malnutrition and poisoning all at the same time. Remember: Poisoning, Starvation and Trauma. That's all you need to know.
I loved this. Extremely eye-opening. Reminded me of Garett Kramer. I’m still stuck on one thing though.... herpes simplex. I don’t get cold sores on my lip anymore, and used to get them once a year (I’m hypothesizing that is because I’ve done several 30-day fasts and assume the autophagy killed the “virus” or removed it from my system). When I’d feel one surfacing, I would take the listed dose on an anti-viral medication (forget what it’s called but it’s standard prescription for cold sores. Zovirax? I don’t remember) and it would prevent the cold sore from surfacing into a large sore and keep it very small and only minorly noticeable. If a virus isn’t real, which may be true, then what is herpes simplex and how did the anti-viral medication work so successfully every time? When I was younger, I didn’t have that medication and the cold sores would become enormous. Herpes is very much contagious and can spread to others just from touch. This is hurting my brain! Can someone explain this?
Also, I noticed during my pregnancy that the only time I got a cold sore (it was 3rd trimester), my body suppressed it on its own without any use of medication. I would never use any kind of medication during pregnancy and apparently a pregnant woman’s immune system is weak (which I knew was probably bullshit and not true, and my body proved that it was in fact stronger during pregnancy). So my cold sore during pregnancy stayed soooo small and was gone within 2 days (very unusually short duration). After pregnancy I only got one more and it went away just as quickly without any prescription meds- all I used was an ointment containing emu oil, oregano oil, thyme oil, etc etc etc. just a dab. After lots or extended water fasts, my cold sores have never returned. It’s been nearly 3 years now.....
So what are cold sores if not viruses? Very confused and if anyone can shed some light I would be grateful to hear the discussion. Thanks.
My hunch:
Fasting is the best way to rid the body of toxins as you allow it to allocate energy to the correct systems. There's no better way to assist the body:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vcz49VLliB4I/
Suppression of symptoms is not a cure... Symptoms are a sign of a bigger problem:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/f1Yx6Ib5YXEi/
Getting cold sores was your body working to get rid of toxins. Not a virus...
I definitely agree that suppressing symptoms is not a cure! And actually isn’t good to do. I’m not one to “bring down fever” (I take yarrow tea to maximize it!) or take pain meds (I stick it out and/or try to sleep, even with the worst suffering “kill me” 10/10 pain. 11/10 is another story though), packaging says that the antiviral pills (whatever they were called- still can’t remember) disrupt the life cycle of the virus and prevent it from “replicating”..... did a whole lot of other things too that were very unpleasant.
Saying that the cold sores were my body trying to rid something DOES make a lot of sense. And I think you’re right. I’m still confused as to why the cold sore blister would appear in the same area every time, or very close to.
BUT here’s my brain again: would you sleep completely wildly and uninhibited with someone who has genital herpes? And not worry about getting it? Are all herpes just our bodies detoxing? I’m genuinely perplexed by this.
Thank you for responding! You’ve gotten me down another path now and I’m going to go down that rabbit hole some more.
At 71 yrs old I've never had a cold sore. What makes the difference?
Do you think fasting could rid our bodies of this nanotech fuckery or are we all just... stuck. ?
Damn good question. Nanotech is very scary sh*t. The body does not know how to deal with it. Nothing like it exists in Nature, so specific defenses against nanotech does not exist, either. The body simply does its best to identify, sequester and eliminate it... AFAIK, nobody knows how successful the body is in ridding itself of nanotech.
I would like to congratulate you for your all your work. It is clear, precise and succinct. Once you know where to look, there is an abundance of information that conclusively demonstrates that virology is pseudoscience. Because there is so much information, it can overwhelm you. I was considering the monumental task of putting all those pieces together in a way that cuts to the chase. Fortunately, you beat me to it, so I am grateful for not only your work, but also saving me from having to compile all the relevant information. And you are right of course regarding "no virus", since once that concept is grasped, everything that follows can be disregarded and seen in reality for what it is.
As you have cited in the article above the study by Ben Killingley and stated that "Nobody got sick", I was wondering if you could explain this quote as on reading the paper, it does appear that a number of participants did exhibit what could be considered cold like symptoms.
Hi Devil's_Advocate
Thank you for the comment :-) Always great to see someone checking the work and thank you for speaking up about why you think this is wrong. It does not sit with everyone to speak up these days.
Ben Killingley also conducted a study in the early 2010's in which he put the inoculated people in a room with 75 others some wearing masks others as a control. Not a single person even tested PCR positive. Some links to that include:
- 2011 (https://europepmc.org/article/med/22131338)
- 2019 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340160987_Minimal_Transmission_in_an_Influenza_A_H3N2_Human_Challenge-Transmission_Model_with_Exposure_Events_in_a_Controlled_Environment)
- 2020 (https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704)
We think that this follow up study was to cover the findings of his previous version of this study. Some additional notes on the one listed include:
- They gave 10 people the potent nephrotoxin Remdisivir.
- They measure sickness with PCR which isn't indicative of disease because it tests positive with asymptomatic cases.
- Even if you say that a runny nose after swabbing is Covid. 50% outcomes to a direct challenge of something is a negative result. It doesn't suggest causation which would need to be at least 90%.
- The very methods of inoculation used during the study could cause the nasal congestion/discharge (which is their measure of whether someone is sick or not). This has been shown in previous studies.
- Lastly nobody got given "regeneron" because they didn't get "sick".
asymptomatic is another invention/excuse to cover the LIE...it is complete bullshit
I looked at the "killingley softly" 2022 paper and did a search on "control". It only appears in the word "controlled" (which is a lie) and in phrases like "infection control": not together with "placebo". Then I searched "placebo"...my computer gave me a blank stare. Also those fancy statistics are just mathematical embellishments that are embedded in a style that makes reading of this material impenetrable for the 99.9% (& even for those of us who have used statistics and that same software).
Here’s one to add to your list
Experiments on Navy Volunteers
From 1918-1919, the USPHS conducted experiments to better understand the infectious nature of the Spanish Flu. They made rather determined efforts to infect healthy volunteers with the disease. As you will see below, their efforts were a complete failure:
“We collected the material and mucous secretions of the mouth and nose and throat and bronchi from [sick patients] and transferred this to our volunteers.” These secretions were placed in the nostrils, throat, and eyes of the volunteers. Of the 100 volunteers, NONE became sick.
The experiment was repeated, this time using new volunteers and more stringent procedures. But the results were the same: “None of them took sick in any way.”
In another experiment, healthy volunteers were inoculated with blood from sick patients. None became sick.
In yet another experiment, mucous was collected from sick patients, filtered, and then injected directly into the volunteers. None became sick.
Finally, the researchers attempted to infect volunteers in a manner that was more consistent with how transmission would occur in the real world. New volunteers and sick patients were assembled:
The participants shook hands and talked face to face as close as possible for five minutes.
The sick patients then coughed in the face of the healthy volunteers several times while the healthy volunteers inhaled.
Each volunteer repeated the procedure with ten sick patients.
None became sick.
Despite these experiments, it is still firmly believed that the 1918 Spanish Flu was caused by a contagious virus. Ironically, this denial of reality is called “following the science.”
https://brezinskinutrition.com/spanish-flu-the-highly-contagious-disease-that-was-not-contagious/
Thanks for the link man. This sounds a lot like the Rosenau study. I will have a look.
One of the best articles I have ever seen on this very important subject. Thank you.
Well thought out and put together. I pray other common-sense scientists add to this summary.
Hey dpl,
I made a huge list of medical papers of which most of them are considered to be proof of pathogenicity, contagion etc. - including links to access them and PDFs (~600Mb).
I also have the complete paper by Schmitz 1920, the one by Williams et al. (1921)... I went through your list until 1949 (Polio and NY Health State Department) then I became lazy... sorry for that.
https://t.me/Medi_History
Great stuff man. Thanks for this info. Any chance I can send you and email? Drop an address if you're up for it.
You may contact me via TG, if you like.
@Baron_EJR
Thank you for this great write up and I'm happy to see more people speaking out about No Contagion / transmission of disease, so no virus.
'The only real virus is the believe that viruses exist' is how I phrase it now, after speaking for 2.5 years about 'no virus'. As ideas are real ideas.
Please have a look at the letter I recently wrote to the Dutch senators, who voted for the Dutch pandemic laws anyways...
https://telegra.ph/Youve-been-lied-to-by-experts-who-dont-know-any-better--the-hard-virus-truth-05-20
There are some nice additions like:
- "No one has claimed the €1,500,000 bid with evidence for the existence of a coronavirus: https://samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/"
- The effectiveness of ‘vaccines’ in 1 image.
- Louis Pasteur, the Father of immunology, admitted his fraud
- https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition
Dr. Sam Bailey is also author of the book Virus Mania and made many excellent video's.
I will add a link to this substack and some more to it soon. Already shared on my Telegram channel.
Hi Gerben,
Thank you for the comment. Please share a link to your telegram channel. I am always interested in connecting to likeminded people.
Hi DPL, it is in my letter I linked: https://t.me/GerbenNL
https://t.me/NLvirusWaan/ is my virus hoax channel which I started in Dutch as there were already a few others in English when I came to Telegram after being banned on Twitter.
But in hindsight I should have given it an English name.
.
I also have https://t.me/spacebusters for that as Steve (spacebusters) did not reply to me when I reserved it and asked him if he liked to have it. Steve made many excellent videos about the covid/virus hoax, but to bad he believes in the flat earth nonsense. You can find all of his work on https://www.bitchute.com/channel/MKanl25dSUxl/
Oops! After a couple of comments I've made here, I would like to make up for my mistake of not congratulating you on the excellence of your comprehensive summary. The list of Frankenstein experiments are extremely powerful and support the rest of your findings as well as what I also hope I know.
Always great seeing your comments Ray and I do enjoy your links. They add a lot more value for people doing research.
At the age of five, I lied to a "doctor" about being ill, because I wanted to experience what it would be like to be hospitalized. I was indeed quarantined with another 26 "sick" children in a hospital for infectious diseases. I expected people dropping like flies, but no contagion took place and nobody got sick. I expected the doctors and the nurses to be the worst, but they remained healthy. At that point, I learned that there was something seriously wrong with "Medicine," and my belief was confirmed in the next 60 years on several occasions. No study was needed...
Still, a coherent paradigm of health and illness is overdue, and not much is happening about that. Here is my proposition:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-makes-people-sick-apart-from
Of course, virology and pathogenic viral transmission was refuted several times, but it's apparently never enough; people have been conditioned for new viruses, pandemics, and states of emergency.
If billions have been spent studying virology but they were actually studying exosomes & cellular messengers present during illness, then quite a lot has been learned about cellular messengers and exosomes.
Exosome theory is as unproven as the theory that viruses exist but jea... they've spent a lot of money on observing extracellular vesicles.
https://t.me/thegatekeeperclubh/706