ICYMI The counter argument to Dr Palmer's stack here > "Some responses to Bhakdi & Palmer's recent "yes, viruses exist" claims" - Christine Massey FOIs - Jun 06, 2024
[clip} Massey says: "On May 18, 2024 Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD published an article titled “Do viruses exist?”. In it, they framed the growing realization that virology is pseudoscience and that no virus has ever been shown to exist as “radical skepticism bordering on nihilism”.
"Despite 3000+ words and 18 references, they failed to cite valid scientific evidence for even 1 alleged virus (because there is none to cite).
Dr. Tom Cowan has addressed their article at length in his May 29, 2024 webinar, below.
I responded to their article with a private email on May 27, 2024 that has had no response or acknowledgement and that I am now making public. And Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey made some comments about this article in their May 31, 2024 Q & A for paid subscribers. "
Think everyone will be super interested in this excellent interview with Dr Lee Merrit MD re: "viruses":
> Stew Peters Show - Interview w/ Dr Lee Merrit MD - Most Vaccine Pushing Doctors & Scientists Know Viruses Don't Exist & Vaccines Are Actual Poison! - 1 year ago
Dr Merrit provides a ^ convincing argument imo. ICYMI >C19 is a "CGI" fear-mongering medical hoax.
Evidence that viruses have not been shown to exist based on Christine Massey's extensive FOI requests.
> Collecting FOIs re never-isolated/sequenced/characterized (or studied with controlled experiments) imaginary "viruses" https://tinyurl.com/novirusisolated
"The great scientists of the 19thcentury were very often hobbyists who were indulging their own whims and passions. They thus were independent from external interests, particularly from financial ones."
This seems an apt description of Antoine Bechamp, but DEFINITELY NOT of Koch or Pasteur.
See Money and Microbes: Robert Koch, Tubercullin and the Foundation of the Institute for Infectious Diseases in Berlin in 1891
This came AFTER Koch's key discoveries, and in recognition of them. Also this was not a statement about Koch specifically, but about science then vs. now in general. And Koch's institute was not financed by commercial interests.
No not commercial interests but "national" interests. In a letter to the Ministry of Culture Koch made a claim that they would make a boatload of money on his tuberculin cure. He stated his requirements. He tried to wedge his position. But when tuberculin flopped he lost leverage.
Koch may have been more honest earlier on, I don't know. But by this stage he was in it for the fame and prestige. And for money.
"It therefore is remarkable that Koch’s discoveries were recognized and accepted within a fairly short period of time."
The Prussian Ministy of Culture supported him and gave him his own national institute to compete with the Pasteur Institute of France, though the disaster of Koch's treatment for tuberculosis was a national embarrassment.
Michael Palmer: "Figure 1 shows how, immediately after Koch’s discovery of the tubercle bacillus [1882], mortality due to tuberculosis went into a steep and sustained decline. Most likely, both hygiene and improvements to nutrition and general health contributed to this change for the better."
In 1889, Robert Koch stated: "Attempts have been made repeatedly to prove the contagious nature of tuberculosis, but they must be looked upon as failures, as such views have never found acceptance among scientists ... on the whole physicians consider tuberculosis a non-contagious disease"
Michael Palmer: "Hygiene and surveillance and improvements to sanitation made it possible to prevent outbreaks of enteric diseases such as cholera."
Truth: "Public health policy had been riven since the 1840s with divisions between so-called contagionist and anticontagionists. The former group maintained that the prevention and control of epidemic diseases should be based on the use of quarantines and cordon sanitaires. The latter group, as the form of the word suggests, was primarily defined by its opposition to contagion and, above all, opposition to the use of quarantines and isolation to control epidemics. However, anticontagionists had their own programme of prevention and control, which relied on environmental improvements ... The experience of cholera played a pivotal role in shaping public disease theories and control policies in the 1850s and 1860s. After the epidemic of 1848-49, the standing of anticontagionism rose due to the repeated failure of quarantines to halt the spread of the disease between countries and within them. The cholera poison had passed through quarantine barriers, and often appeared de novo in suitable conditions behind them. In the 1850s, a number of human as well as animal diseases were fashioned by medical and sanitary authorities to be noncontagious, and hence best prevented by general environmental and sanitary reforms rather than waiting for threats and instituting quarantines ... Anticontagionists saw themselves as proactive, 'inclusive' and truly preventive, while contagionists were reactive, 'exclusive' and often only offered control of established epidemics. The imperative for anticontagionists was to prevent epidemics at their source by eliminating the conditions in which poisons arose and which facilitated their elaboration and spread."
[clip] Leader writes: "There is a strategy afoot which was used during the Spanish Flu epidemic. In 1918 the US army erected high powered radio transmitters near their barracks in Kansas. The soldiers were immediately struck down with catastrophic and unexplained illness.
They knew why.
It was the radio-waves.
So Rockefeller and his institute immediately prepared a vaccine cocktail full of all sorts of poison and began giving that to all the military men before they were deployed to Europe. Everywhere the US military went, the general public were warned of the strange illness and were offered this new vaccine. People were masked. Health facilities became overrun with war casualties and those who were sick from the radio-waves AND those who were reacting to the toxic vaccines.
The symptoms were so varied that nobody could work out what to do. One thing stuck out.... no efforts to infect the uninfected succeeded. None. Even the horses were sick but did not infect each other. They put snot up noses.... and failed to infect people and horses.
It was a clusterfuck.
But it was a very successful clusterfuck.
It killed far more people that the wars!
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the telecoms corporations knew that introducing 5G was going to cause dramatic health reactions and sure enough, as soon as Wuhan was switched on for the UN Military Games in Oct 2019, people were going down like flies. Hospitals had 5G antennae on the roofs. Major venues, shopping centres and municipal buildings were all fitted with 5G first. Elderly residencies especially.
The progress of the illness followed the roll out of 5G both chronologically and geographically until the vaccine was finally approved to be given to the public in December of 2020.
By dispersing the vaccine to the most vulnerable elderly first, the waters were forever muddied in exactly the same way that they had been in 1920!
People began to get sick even if 5G had not been set up in their area. They didn't die from the same symptoms. They died of intubation and poor protocols, plus starvation and fluid deprivation + too much morphine and Midazolam (in the UK) - other drugs did the job in other countries.
The intention is to murder multiple billions and the root cause is 5G EMFs being covered up by vaccines - NOT WORKING IN TANDEM.
Most of the vaccines were probably duds.... saline.... but if people got them and subsequently died, nobody would suspect the 5G towers looming everywhere, they would (as they DO) blame the vaccines and let telecoms continue to get on with the job of murdering everyone."
(Good, additional informed comments to this posted Leader stack above also.)
There is a world of difference between surveillance and sanitation measures one can carry implement when the pathogen is known, as opposed to when it is not known, and the mode of disease causation and transmission remains elusive.
The book "Invincible Microbe" tells the story of surveillance measures instituted in the US in the years after Koch's discovery. You can find it at
I find it likely that they contributed to the continued decline of tuberculosis morbidity and mortaliy, although it is likely the improved supply of fresh food due to better transportation etc. also played an important role.
As to the contagiousness of tuberculosis -- not everyone who is exposed gets infected, not everyone who is infected gets sick, and most of those who get sick will take a long time to do so, often after a long period of latent infection and triggered by some change in general health. Thus, it is not surprising that transmission of the manifest disease is difficult to demonstrate. However, infection as such can be detected a lot more often using the tuberculin skin test, which has been widely used for mass surveillance in the past.
"Dr. Robert Koch has sought to explain the cause of certain diseases upon the hypothesis of the action of pathogenic germs, invisible to the human eye ... But this comma-shaped bacillus theory of cholera has proved a failure. These invisible comma-shaped germs are now found to be universal and harmless. They are found in the secretions of the mouth and throat of healthy persons, and in the common diarrheas of summer everywhere—they swarm in the intestines of the healthy and are observed in hardened fecal discharges as well. Dr. Koch to-day asserts that these bacilli are universally present. He even tells us that: "Water from whatever source frequently, not to say invariably, contains comma-shaped organisms."
"Baumgarten, to whom belongs the credit of being a co-discoverer of the bacillus tuberculosis, and who implicitly believes that this organism is the causative agent of tuberculosis says that he never knew of a single well-established case of tuberculosis which was acquired through respiring an atmosphere vitiated by the exhalation of people with tuberculosis."
"When direct statistical evidence, such as that submitted in this paper, shows that among one thousand six hundred and twentysix married persons, where consumption existed either in the wife or in the husband, only the same disease occurred in the other partner in only forty-four instances, the certainty of non-contagiousness is placed beyond the shadow of a doubt. Here we have the picture of more than 1,600 people who were subjected to a much closer intimacy than that which obtains in any other condition of social life, occupying for years the same bed at night and the same room by day, and yet only forty-four or 2.73 per cent. of the consorting partners became fellow-sufferers. Truly, if consumption is contagious, it can only be so in a very slight degree. But can the source of these forty-four cases be traced to infection?"
But Koch himself did NOT consider tuberculosis a non-contagious disease.
Re cholera: Vibrio cholerae is not part of the regular oral flora, nor of the gut flora. And it is now known that the profuse diarrhea that is characterisic of cholera is caused by a protein toxin, which is formed by many, but not all strains of V. cholerae; so even the detection of V. cholerae in some patient sample does not prove that this patient is at risk of suffering cholera.
Here is a trial with human volunteers that imbibed V. cholerae cultures:
Hornick, R.B. et al. (1971) The Broad Street pump revisited: response of volunteers to ingested cholera vibrios. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 47:1181-91 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=5286453
Many, but not all developed diarrhea, and some developed outright cholera.
Tuberculosis typically has a very long incubation time, so the occasion of the transmission in an individual case will as a rule be impossible to trace.
It is best to think of transmission of infectious agents as a necessary, but not sufficient cause of infectious disease. Then most observations fall into place.
Did you read the other citation? 1,600 people were subjected to a close intimacy for years, and yet only 2.73% of the consorting partners became afflicted with tuberculosis.
Do you know why Robert Koch considered tuberculosis a contagious disease? Because of his uncontrolled inoculated experiments. However, numerous researchers have induced tuberculosis simply by injecting various innocous and inert substances, demonstrating that the experimental procedure itself created the disease.
"Take away the inoculation experiments on animals and you destroy the corner-stone on which those who believe in the communication of tuberculosis from man to man repose their belief."
Those 2.73% became sick. How many became infected but stayed clinically healthy?
The histopathological signs of tuberculosis are indeed similar to those for example of sarcoidosis, for which no causative microorganism is known -- and also for example to the tissue lesions in miner's lung or asbestosis, which is caused by inhalation of mineral dust particles. But that doesn't mean these are the same diseases as tuberculosis. Surely you are aware of the general idea that different diseases can manifest in similar ways.
Doesn't this idea of assymptomatic carriers totally invalidate Koch's original postulates which were logical and sound and which he later modified and watered down such that they prove nothing. I must agree about the petitio principii
Dr Palmer, TY for outlining your objections to no virus theory - which is actually NOT a theory, but an extensive investigation into the tenets of "virus theory" (as utilized by the field of virology) itself.
Torsten Engelbrecht's arguments & evidence against viruses that you argue against here & in your other article is explored more fully in his writings & his book's thorough & comprehensive analysis. In case others are interested, Torsten's website is here: https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/home/
p.s. Torsten's website is perfectly safe, however many popular search engines - google? - may block it or use a pop-up to say that it's "unsafe" & then not link to it - which is definitely online censorship.)
Also, pls read his block-buster book: "Virus Mania"-(Now available: The 3rd greatly expanded edition)
subtitled -" -Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Avian Flu, Cervical Cancer, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu - How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense" - https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/virus-mania/
Plus: ☆ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about vaccines, fraud and harm
With Forewords by
☆ Etienne de Harven, MD, pioneer in virology
☆ Joachim Mutter, MD, expert in preventive medicine
Re: "Virus Mania" - "The aim of this book is to steer the discussion back to a real scientific debate and put medicine back on the path of an impartial analysis of the facts. Engelbrecht, Köhnlein, Bailey and Scoglio will analyze all real causes of the illnesses named COVID-19, avian flu, AIDS or Spanish flu, among them pharmaceuticals, lifestyle drugs, pesticides, heavy metals, pollution, malnutrition and stress. All of these can heavily damage the body of humans and animals and even kill them."
"To substantiate these claims, the authors cite dozens of highly renowned scientists, among them the Nobel laureates Kary Mullis, Barbara McClintock, Walter Gilbert and Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet as well as microbiologist and Pulitzer Prize winner René Dubos. The book presents more than 1,400 solid scientific references."
Urge everyone to read this book & fully consider Engelbrecht's historical evidence as compared to "virus" defenders. You must read Torsten's full arguments & then decide the "virus vs no virus" for yourself.
Reviews:
"The book 'Virus Mania' is masterfully written."
Wolfgang Weuffen, MD, Professor of Microbiology and Infectious Epidemiology
"'Virus Mania' will open your eyes. As soon as you realize that you have already been deliberately manipulated by politics and the media for decades with recurring misinformation, the foundation is laid to break free from the current COVID mass psychosis."
Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, molecular biologist with more than 25 years of experience in PCR and co-author of the Corman-Drosten Review
For me, the evidence & facts marshaled by the critics of germ theory & virology are simply irrefutable.
First off, I have the book "virus mania." I find it worthwhile to give all those specific "pandemics" a good hard look, and I agree on the general idea that virology is being hijacked and abused for nefarious purposes. But on the fundamental questions of germ theory and the existence of viruses Engelbrecht is very much mistaken. He often misrepresents (and apparently misunderstands) the meaning of the scientific references he cites.
Klaus Steger happens to be a friend of mine. I agree with him on COVID, which is a prime example of the abuse of virology, but not the only one. But on the other hand, we both agree that this virus (as well as others) exist and can cause disease.
Okay. My sharing this info was primarily for your readers here as I figured that you had also read Engelbrecht's Virus Mania book (with its 1,400 citations!). Thnx for responding.
This no virus issue just seems so clear to me since claiming that something invisible can be proven to exist by putting a mixture of human cells into a reactive cell culture w/other toxic elements like kidney monkey cells & THEN just saying whatever cell culture reaction occurs can only due to a "virus" (& not those reactive ingredients added to the mix & causing the reaction) seems illogical, flawed scientific reasoning & just plain dumb.
But then, I really didn't need to be convinced that the field of virology lies thru its teeth as I had already read so many articles/exposes/books of the medical profession's tricks & deceptions that I was already doubtful of anything that trad medicine tells us is factual.
There are many history of medicine books I could cite here right now showing the absolute perfidy of Big Med etc. but I'm tired & can't do it now. Later, perhaps.
'Has the SARS-CoV-2 virus ever been isolated?' You say it has but was it a virus or synthetic DNA ie a clone? And it it was a clone, is it possible to pass that on to another person? Just asking in the spirit that this was a false pandemic and much trickery was used on the general population that needs to be exposed.
To our knowlege, no attempts to truly isolate any virus were made; even though some of the "scientific" papers mention "isolation", the description in the Methods Section of such papers never describes isolation as you or I would understand that word. Nothing of the kind.
The alleged "spike protein" in "mRNA vaccines" is claimed to be a synthetic mRNA sequence. The sequence is an in silico (computer) sequence with no relation to any natural protein. The sequences are all computer generated.
The virus has been isolated from cell cultures that were inoculated with patient samples many times. That is standard practice in virology, and I see nothing wrong with it. The idea that "viruses are exosomes" is untenable and easily refuted.
With "isolation" I mean obtain a pure culture of a virus, and that is the common meaning of the word in microbiology, not just virology. And with virures "pure" does not exlude the presence of host cells, since viruses cannot propagate without them. In contrast, bacterial pathogens are typically isolated by inoculating agar media.
Regarding SARS-CoV-2, the following studies report the isolation in cell culture:
1. Liu, C. et al. (2020) The Architecture of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 with Postfusion Spikes Revealed by Cryo-EM and Cryo-ET. Structure 28:1218-1224.e4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=33058760
Can you explain what you mean by "obtain a pure culture of the virus?"
How do you know the culture is a "pure culture"?
.
So far Ive looked at the first paper and I see they use the term "purified virus" but I couldnt find where they explain how they "purified" whatever it was that they were claiming was purified.
"The continued decline in tuberculosis mortality in those years was most likely due to the continued surveillance measures". What were the surveillance measures?
Good question. Robert Koch's "magic bullet" he named Tuberculin was an embarrasing disaster, just like Pasteur's "anthrax vaccine". There is certainly plenty of reason to question such claims crediting Koch with the decline of tuberculosis.
Tuberculin was a disaster in terms of therapy, but it was a success in terms of diagnostics. The tuberculin skin test was widely used as a screening test for subclinical infection. If it was positive, people were subjected to further diagnostics by X-rays and microbiology. If someone was found to shed tubercle bacilli in the sputum, some preventive measures and contact restrictions were imposed, and his family were examined as well etc.
So both Koch's tuberculin and Koch's bacteriological methods were cornerstones of tuberculosis surveillance. Nobody gave Koch sole credit for the decline of tuberculosis, but it is baseless to deny his great contribution.
Yes, only too recently here in the UK there was a mass culling of healthy animals because of a test and a computer prediction. Guess who did the prediction? The same "go to" scientist who led to the world wide lockdowns for the so called human "pandemic" in 2020.
"Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”
OK. Still, these data aren't very meaningful. Must have been an attempt to eradicate cattle tuberculosis, and it probably isn't easy to obtain sputum samples from cows or to X-ray them, so they just used the tuberculin test instead.
In humans, a positive tuberculin test is taken as evidence of either natural infection or vaccine-induced immunity. It was only used for screening; a positive test was followed by more definitive diagnostics (X-ray, bacteriology).
Vaccine-induced immunity is at best relative BTW, the vaccine never was considered very effective.
“While direct isolation is often used in the initial characterization of a novel virus, the use cell cultures greatly facilitates the sensitive and speedy routine detection of viruses that are already known.”
Can you define exactly what you mean by ‘direct isolation’? Are you able to show an example of when an actual isolation (purification) procedure was done in order to first identify a particular ‘viral particle’ in order to then allow virologists to use the more expedient ‘cell culture’ method?
I'm curious about the pure isolated sample, as well. Surely, the samples were taken from living tissue and did not have anything added to it, including the chemicals used in electron microscopy, otherwise it isn't “pure” and “isolated”.
I have yet to see a single example of when a pure isolated sample has been obtained in virology. Either directly from a sample taken from living tissue or even after the cell culture procedure, which it is claimed is needed in order to culture enough of these alleged 'viral particles' for further experimentation. My understanding is that EM would be impossible without the use of chemicals during the process (which is an issue in itself), nevertheless it should still be possible to produce EM photographs of purified 'virus' particles if they actually exist, because this has been done with other similar sized particles, e.g. bacteriophages.
With "direct isolation" I mean the purification of viral particles from the tissues or body fluids of infected humans or animals. One example is discussed in the article, namely the study by Theil et al. In this case, the virus particles were purified from the intestinal contents of the pigs. They were characterized by electron microscopy, and also directly by RNA electrophoresis. Moreover, they were shown to be infectious for other pigs.
Examples of human viruses that initially were obtained in this manner are rotaviruses, norovirus, and hepatitis A virus, all of which were initially obtained from stool samples, and hepatitis B, the particles of which were first demonstrated in blood samples by David Dane (hence their name "Dane particles").
Respectfully, have you looked at Christine Massey's long list of FOIAs made by herself and others. The answer from the world's leading health institutions for all these viruses about whether they have papers showing the virus directly isolated from patient samples always come back "We were unable to find any documents pertaining to your request."
I’ve downloaded this paper and I’ve read through the methods section and I cannot see anything remotely like an attempt to purify any particles.
Please can you show me exactly where in the paper the authors describe how they purified ‘viral particles’ and how they then proved that these particles and only these particles caused the same disease symptoms they observed in the original animal.
In your answer to Christine below you wrote: "Of course this is not a highly pure preparation --- just pure enough for the kinds of experiments that were carried out"
However, this contradicts your answer to my first question where you claim "the virus particles were purified from the intestinal contents of the pigs” . Therefore the only logical conclusion is that it cannot possibly have been proven that any unique and identifiable particles were the cause of the observed disease symptoms in the first animal.
My first question concerned the fact that you are claiming the ‘cell culture’ method is valid because ‘viral particles’ have already been ‘directly isolated’. However, you are now confirming that no actual isolation (purification) has taken place in the study you have cited.
Then you state: “That is precisely the reason for using cell cultures, because those produce much higher particle densities, and therefore permit more rigorous purification.”
If that is the case, then please show an example of when the ‘cell culture’ method was used and this was then followed by ‘rigorous purification’ in order to isolate ‘viral particles’ in order to prove that these particles and these alone were the cause of an observed disease.
The cited study achieved partial purification by filtration. The filtration in particular would have removed bacteria, which might be an alternate cause of infection. The persistence of infectiousness after removal of bacteria by filtration was the crucial observation that first tipped off people to the existence of viruses, and there are many such studies. I picked this particular one because it not only demonstrated the infectiousness of the bacteria-free filtrate, but the viral particles were also observed by EM, and the genomic RNA molecules contained in those particles were characterized by electrophoresis. Realistically, this is about all you can hope to achieve when working with material obtained directly from diseased animals (or humans).
You write "Therefore the only logical conclusion is that it cannot possibly have been proven that any unique and identifiable particles were the cause of the observed disease symptoms in the first animal."
Rotaviruses and their relatives are known causes of acute diarrhea, which was also observed in this case. But indeed, we can't entirely rule out the possibility that some residual contaminant -- such as another virus -- was the true cause of disease. This is another excellent reason to work with cell cultures, which unlike samples such as intestinal contents make it possible to isolate the offspring of single viral particles. They indeed make rigorous isolation and purification of viruses much more practical, which is one of the reasons why they are used whenever possible.
Experimental infections using virus preparations from cell cultures have been carried out numerous times (though I'm not aware of studies on the particular virus described in the study cited here). I will address this in a future article.
Your answers are a litany of unproven assumptions. Until I am shown evidence of actual Science taking place within virology, I have no choice but to logically conclude that virologists have observed various particles of unknown origin by way of electron microscopy and have made up increasingly elaborate stories about them.
Question: If, as you claim, virologists work with cell cultures “because those produce much higher particle densities, and therefore permit more rigorous purification.” Where are all the electron microscopy photos showing many thousands or even hundreds of identical particles?
The virus particles were partially purified by filtration. More rigorous methods of purification such as chromatography or crystallization are realistic only if the starting material has a higher content of the substance of interest.
The article describes the inoculation of pigs with the filtrate of the intestinal contents of previously infected pigs: "The inoculum was a bacteria-free filtrate of a 1:10 dilution (prepared in minimum essential medium) of the intestinal contents from gnotobiotic pig passage 4 of the RVLV."
The same material was also examined by electron microscopy, which detected viral particles, as well as by RNA electrophoresis, which detected the genomic RNA of the virus particles.
Of course this is not a highly pure preparation --- just pure enough for the kinds of experiments that were carried out. It is very difficult to achieve high purity if the concentration of particles in the sample is very low. That is precisely the reason for using cell cultures, because those produce much higher particle densities, and therefore permit more rigorous purification.
Many viruses have been shown to occur in hosts. They do occur in "zillions" of copies, but nevertheless the amount of viral material per amount of tissue sample or body fluid is low, which makes complete purification difficult. Cell cultures achieve a much higher ratio of viral to other material and therefore are the preferred source of viral material for experimental purposes.
I will address these points in a future post. For now, I will stop replying.
Drs. Palmer and Bakhdi need to take a weekend to read every article on Mike Stone's Substack, ViroLIEgy. He has actually read the papers, and done the deep dive into the history of "germ theory," that show these two doctors to be wrong on almost every count in this article.
The entirety of meta-genomics and gene sequencing/assemblage are fraudulent.
People have been convinced through years of social engineering to believe that the things they see on screens represent biological reality.
PCR is worse than useless for diagnostics as are antigen tests. These tests are weaponized to manipulate public perceptions and invent "diseases."
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is yet another example of this fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which itself was never properly purified or isolated), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced that they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for their diagnostic test. As there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment was made up.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "New" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "Novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "Novel" virus at their disposal.
The Chinese scientists, who work for the WEF/Pharma Cartel BTW, "found" these sequences in their 'Atypical Pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 Clinical Sample.
In order to create a Genome correctly, you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "Viral Genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They then took a clinical sample from a PCR + person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent with "Atypical Pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into computer programs- Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assembled a bunch of Contigs (Possible Genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 Contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 Contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In layman terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest Contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 bat-like sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
Can anyone not see at this point they are simply making shit up as they go to reach their pre-ordained conclusion?
80%, is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the Contig. If those weren't valid how do we know this entire Contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
Then come thousands of papers and studies and reports all based on the original in-silico sorcery and deceptions...Turtles All The Way Down.
Put simply, Covid-19 was never a widespread medical event, it was and is a criminal conspiracy- an orchestrated program launched by elite Western financial interests in response to the comprehensive collapse of the Western financial systems in 2019 which itself was the result of decades long Ponzi Schemes carried out by these elites. It was a racketeering operation, a massive psychological operation and a smoke screen for a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current social and economic world order.
📍 Yes, viruses exist but only as ideas.
Not as a disease causing particle, because no disease could ever be proven to be transmissible in the many experiments which have been done.
https://telegra.ph/Disease-transmission-experiments-all-failed-list-09-09
ICYMI The counter argument to Dr Palmer's stack here > "Some responses to Bhakdi & Palmer's recent "yes, viruses exist" claims" - Christine Massey FOIs - Jun 06, 2024
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/some-responses-to-bhakdi-and-palmers
[clip} Massey says: "On May 18, 2024 Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD published an article titled “Do viruses exist?”. In it, they framed the growing realization that virology is pseudoscience and that no virus has ever been shown to exist as “radical skepticism bordering on nihilism”.
"Despite 3000+ words and 18 references, they failed to cite valid scientific evidence for even 1 alleged virus (because there is none to cite).
Dr. Tom Cowan has addressed their article at length in his May 29, 2024 webinar, below.
I responded to their article with a private email on May 27, 2024 that has had no response or acknowledgement and that I am now making public. And Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey made some comments about this article in their May 31, 2024 Q & A for paid subscribers. "
Think everyone will be super interested in this excellent interview with Dr Lee Merrit MD re: "viruses":
> Stew Peters Show - Interview w/ Dr Lee Merrit MD - Most Vaccine Pushing Doctors & Scientists Know Viruses Don't Exist & Vaccines Are Actual Poison! - 1 year ago
https://www.bitchute.com/video/D73qGbAskBTb
Dr Merrit provides a ^ convincing argument imo. ICYMI >C19 is a "CGI" fear-mongering medical hoax.
Evidence that viruses have not been shown to exist based on Christine Massey's extensive FOI requests.
> Collecting FOIs re never-isolated/sequenced/characterized (or studied with controlled experiments) imaginary "viruses" https://tinyurl.com/novirusisolated
Read more on FOIS etc here: Christine Massey FOI substack - https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/
Let the scientific evidence & facts speak for themselves because "real science" is always contentious. ;-)
"The great scientists of the 19thcentury were very often hobbyists who were indulging their own whims and passions. They thus were independent from external interests, particularly from financial ones."
This seems an apt description of Antoine Bechamp, but DEFINITELY NOT of Koch or Pasteur.
See Money and Microbes: Robert Koch, Tubercullin and the Foundation of the Institute for Infectious Diseases in Berlin in 1891
This came AFTER Koch's key discoveries, and in recognition of them. Also this was not a statement about Koch specifically, but about science then vs. now in general. And Koch's institute was not financed by commercial interests.
No not commercial interests but "national" interests. In a letter to the Ministry of Culture Koch made a claim that they would make a boatload of money on his tuberculin cure. He stated his requirements. He tried to wedge his position. But when tuberculin flopped he lost leverage.
Koch may have been more honest earlier on, I don't know. But by this stage he was in it for the fame and prestige. And for money.
"It therefore is remarkable that Koch’s discoveries were recognized and accepted within a fairly short period of time."
The Prussian Ministy of Culture supported him and gave him his own national institute to compete with the Pasteur Institute of France, though the disaster of Koch's treatment for tuberculosis was a national embarrassment.
Michael Palmer: "Figure 1 shows how, immediately after Koch’s discovery of the tubercle bacillus [1882], mortality due to tuberculosis went into a steep and sustained decline. Most likely, both hygiene and improvements to nutrition and general health contributed to this change for the better."
In 1889, Robert Koch stated: "Attempts have been made repeatedly to prove the contagious nature of tuberculosis, but they must be looked upon as failures, as such views have never found acceptance among scientists ... on the whole physicians consider tuberculosis a non-contagious disease"
https://archive.org/details/sim_american-veterinary-medical-association-journal_1889-05_13_2/page/54/mode/2up
Michael Palmer: "Hygiene and surveillance and improvements to sanitation made it possible to prevent outbreaks of enteric diseases such as cholera."
Truth: "Public health policy had been riven since the 1840s with divisions between so-called contagionist and anticontagionists. The former group maintained that the prevention and control of epidemic diseases should be based on the use of quarantines and cordon sanitaires. The latter group, as the form of the word suggests, was primarily defined by its opposition to contagion and, above all, opposition to the use of quarantines and isolation to control epidemics. However, anticontagionists had their own programme of prevention and control, which relied on environmental improvements ... The experience of cholera played a pivotal role in shaping public disease theories and control policies in the 1850s and 1860s. After the epidemic of 1848-49, the standing of anticontagionism rose due to the repeated failure of quarantines to halt the spread of the disease between countries and within them. The cholera poison had passed through quarantine barriers, and often appeared de novo in suitable conditions behind them. In the 1850s, a number of human as well as animal diseases were fashioned by medical and sanitary authorities to be noncontagious, and hence best prevented by general environmental and sanitary reforms rather than waiting for threats and instituting quarantines ... Anticontagionists saw themselves as proactive, 'inclusive' and truly preventive, while contagionists were reactive, 'exclusive' and often only offered control of established epidemics. The imperative for anticontagionists was to prevent epidemics at their source by eliminating the conditions in which poisons arose and which facilitated their elaboration and spread."
https://archive.org/details/spreadinggermsdi0000worb
Aldhissla - [on edit: meant to post this under TALKnet re: his EMF comments above]
Yep. Recommend Frances Leader's substack if you don't know about it or follow it.
See: "WHAT DOES 1920 HAVE IN COMMON WITH 2020?" - Frances Leader - Mar 21 [2024]
Re: radio/microwaves/EMF/5G etc. "Strategy....that is what. A dirty dastardly sinister STRATEGY."
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/what-does-1920-have-in-common-with
[clip] Leader writes: "There is a strategy afoot which was used during the Spanish Flu epidemic. In 1918 the US army erected high powered radio transmitters near their barracks in Kansas. The soldiers were immediately struck down with catastrophic and unexplained illness.
They knew why.
It was the radio-waves.
So Rockefeller and his institute immediately prepared a vaccine cocktail full of all sorts of poison and began giving that to all the military men before they were deployed to Europe. Everywhere the US military went, the general public were warned of the strange illness and were offered this new vaccine. People were masked. Health facilities became overrun with war casualties and those who were sick from the radio-waves AND those who were reacting to the toxic vaccines.
The symptoms were so varied that nobody could work out what to do. One thing stuck out.... no efforts to infect the uninfected succeeded. None. Even the horses were sick but did not infect each other. They put snot up noses.... and failed to infect people and horses.
It was a clusterfuck.
But it was a very successful clusterfuck.
It killed far more people that the wars!
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that the telecoms corporations knew that introducing 5G was going to cause dramatic health reactions and sure enough, as soon as Wuhan was switched on for the UN Military Games in Oct 2019, people were going down like flies. Hospitals had 5G antennae on the roofs. Major venues, shopping centres and municipal buildings were all fitted with 5G first. Elderly residencies especially.
The progress of the illness followed the roll out of 5G both chronologically and geographically until the vaccine was finally approved to be given to the public in December of 2020.
By dispersing the vaccine to the most vulnerable elderly first, the waters were forever muddied in exactly the same way that they had been in 1920!
People began to get sick even if 5G had not been set up in their area. They didn't die from the same symptoms. They died of intubation and poor protocols, plus starvation and fluid deprivation + too much morphine and Midazolam (in the UK) - other drugs did the job in other countries.
The intention is to murder multiple billions and the root cause is 5G EMFs being covered up by vaccines - NOT WORKING IN TANDEM.
Most of the vaccines were probably duds.... saline.... but if people got them and subsequently died, nobody would suspect the 5G towers looming everywhere, they would (as they DO) blame the vaccines and let telecoms continue to get on with the job of murdering everyone."
(Good, additional informed comments to this posted Leader stack above also.)
There is a world of difference between surveillance and sanitation measures one can carry implement when the pathogen is known, as opposed to when it is not known, and the mode of disease causation and transmission remains elusive.
The book "Invincible Microbe" tells the story of surveillance measures instituted in the US in the years after Koch's discovery. You can find it at
https://archive.org/details/invinciblemicrob0000murp_t6r6
I find it likely that they contributed to the continued decline of tuberculosis morbidity and mortaliy, although it is likely the improved supply of fresh food due to better transportation etc. also played an important role.
As to the contagiousness of tuberculosis -- not everyone who is exposed gets infected, not everyone who is infected gets sick, and most of those who get sick will take a long time to do so, often after a long period of latent infection and triggered by some change in general health. Thus, it is not surprising that transmission of the manifest disease is difficult to demonstrate. However, infection as such can be detected a lot more often using the tuberculin skin test, which has been widely used for mass surveillance in the past.
Cholera:
"Dr. Robert Koch has sought to explain the cause of certain diseases upon the hypothesis of the action of pathogenic germs, invisible to the human eye ... But this comma-shaped bacillus theory of cholera has proved a failure. These invisible comma-shaped germs are now found to be universal and harmless. They are found in the secretions of the mouth and throat of healthy persons, and in the common diarrheas of summer everywhere—they swarm in the intestines of the healthy and are observed in hardened fecal discharges as well. Dr. Koch to-day asserts that these bacilli are universally present. He even tells us that: "Water from whatever source frequently, not to say invariably, contains comma-shaped organisms."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453342
---
"On the whole physicians consider tuberculosis a non-contagious disease."
- Rober Koch, 1889. https://archive.org/details/sim_american-veterinary-medical-association-journal_1889-05_13_2/page/54/mode/2up
---
"Baumgarten, to whom belongs the credit of being a co-discoverer of the bacillus tuberculosis, and who implicitly believes that this organism is the causative agent of tuberculosis says that he never knew of a single well-established case of tuberculosis which was acquired through respiring an atmosphere vitiated by the exhalation of people with tuberculosis."
https://archive.org/details/101719214.nlm.nih.gov/page/8/mode/2up
---
"When direct statistical evidence, such as that submitted in this paper, shows that among one thousand six hundred and twentysix married persons, where consumption existed either in the wife or in the husband, only the same disease occurred in the other partner in only forty-four instances, the certainty of non-contagiousness is placed beyond the shadow of a doubt. Here we have the picture of more than 1,600 people who were subjected to a much closer intimacy than that which obtains in any other condition of social life, occupying for years the same bed at night and the same room by day, and yet only forty-four or 2.73 per cent. of the consorting partners became fellow-sufferers. Truly, if consumption is contagious, it can only be so in a very slight degree. But can the source of these forty-four cases be traced to infection?"
https://archive.org/details/sim_medical-and-surgical-reporter_1890-06-14_62_24/page/690/mode/2up
---
For more on Koch's failures have a look at these articles:
Koch's Cholera Catastrophe https://mikestone.substack.com/p/kochs-cholera-catastrophe
The Germ Hypothesis Part 2
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/the-germ-hypothesis-part-2
But Koch himself did NOT consider tuberculosis a non-contagious disease.
Re cholera: Vibrio cholerae is not part of the regular oral flora, nor of the gut flora. And it is now known that the profuse diarrhea that is characterisic of cholera is caused by a protein toxin, which is formed by many, but not all strains of V. cholerae; so even the detection of V. cholerae in some patient sample does not prove that this patient is at risk of suffering cholera.
Here is a trial with human volunteers that imbibed V. cholerae cultures:
Hornick, R.B. et al. (1971) The Broad Street pump revisited: response of volunteers to ingested cholera vibrios. Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 47:1181-91 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=5286453
Many, but not all developed diarrhea, and some developed outright cholera.
Tuberculosis typically has a very long incubation time, so the occasion of the transmission in an individual case will as a rule be impossible to trace.
It is best to think of transmission of infectious agents as a necessary, but not sufficient cause of infectious disease. Then most observations fall into place.
Did you read the other citation? 1,600 people were subjected to a close intimacy for years, and yet only 2.73% of the consorting partners became afflicted with tuberculosis.
Do you know why Robert Koch considered tuberculosis a contagious disease? Because of his uncontrolled inoculated experiments. However, numerous researchers have induced tuberculosis simply by injecting various innocous and inert substances, demonstrating that the experimental procedure itself created the disease.
"Take away the inoculation experiments on animals and you destroy the corner-stone on which those who believe in the communication of tuberculosis from man to man repose their belief."
— Dr. Thomas J. Mays, 1890.
https://aldhissla.substack.com/p/refuting-the-infectious-etiology
Those 2.73% became sick. How many became infected but stayed clinically healthy?
The histopathological signs of tuberculosis are indeed similar to those for example of sarcoidosis, for which no causative microorganism is known -- and also for example to the tissue lesions in miner's lung or asbestosis, which is caused by inhalation of mineral dust particles. But that doesn't mean these are the same diseases as tuberculosis. Surely you are aware of the general idea that different diseases can manifest in similar ways.
The animals became afflicted with tuberculosis, not sarcoidosis.
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/the-germ-hypothesis-part-2
Doesn't this idea of assymptomatic carriers totally invalidate Koch's original postulates which were logical and sound and which he later modified and watered down such that they prove nothing. I must agree about the petitio principii
Yes, the idea of asymptomatic carriers does conflict with Koch's original postulates.
The rest of your statement does not even rate as sophomoric.
Dr Palmer, TY for outlining your objections to no virus theory - which is actually NOT a theory, but an extensive investigation into the tenets of "virus theory" (as utilized by the field of virology) itself.
Torsten Engelbrecht's arguments & evidence against viruses that you argue against here & in your other article is explored more fully in his writings & his book's thorough & comprehensive analysis. In case others are interested, Torsten's website is here: https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/home/
p.s. Torsten's website is perfectly safe, however many popular search engines - google? - may block it or use a pop-up to say that it's "unsafe" & then not link to it - which is definitely online censorship.)
Also, pls read his block-buster book: "Virus Mania"-(Now available: The 3rd greatly expanded edition)
subtitled -" -Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Avian Flu, Cervical Cancer, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu - How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense" - https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/virus-mania/
Plus: ☆ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about vaccines, fraud and harm
With Forewords by
☆ Etienne de Harven, MD, pioneer in virology
☆ Joachim Mutter, MD, expert in preventive medicine
Re: "Virus Mania" - "The aim of this book is to steer the discussion back to a real scientific debate and put medicine back on the path of an impartial analysis of the facts. Engelbrecht, Köhnlein, Bailey and Scoglio will analyze all real causes of the illnesses named COVID-19, avian flu, AIDS or Spanish flu, among them pharmaceuticals, lifestyle drugs, pesticides, heavy metals, pollution, malnutrition and stress. All of these can heavily damage the body of humans and animals and even kill them."
"To substantiate these claims, the authors cite dozens of highly renowned scientists, among them the Nobel laureates Kary Mullis, Barbara McClintock, Walter Gilbert and Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet as well as microbiologist and Pulitzer Prize winner René Dubos. The book presents more than 1,400 solid scientific references."
Urge everyone to read this book & fully consider Engelbrecht's historical evidence as compared to "virus" defenders. You must read Torsten's full arguments & then decide the "virus vs no virus" for yourself.
Reviews:
"The book 'Virus Mania' is masterfully written."
Wolfgang Weuffen, MD, Professor of Microbiology and Infectious Epidemiology
"'Virus Mania' will open your eyes. As soon as you realize that you have already been deliberately manipulated by politics and the media for decades with recurring misinformation, the foundation is laid to break free from the current COVID mass psychosis."
Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, molecular biologist with more than 25 years of experience in PCR and co-author of the Corman-Drosten Review
For me, the evidence & facts marshaled by the critics of germ theory & virology are simply irrefutable.
First off, I have the book "virus mania." I find it worthwhile to give all those specific "pandemics" a good hard look, and I agree on the general idea that virology is being hijacked and abused for nefarious purposes. But on the fundamental questions of germ theory and the existence of viruses Engelbrecht is very much mistaken. He often misrepresents (and apparently misunderstands) the meaning of the scientific references he cites.
Klaus Steger happens to be a friend of mine. I agree with him on COVID, which is a prime example of the abuse of virology, but not the only one. But on the other hand, we both agree that this virus (as well as others) exist and can cause disease.
Okay. My sharing this info was primarily for your readers here as I figured that you had also read Engelbrecht's Virus Mania book (with its 1,400 citations!). Thnx for responding.
This no virus issue just seems so clear to me since claiming that something invisible can be proven to exist by putting a mixture of human cells into a reactive cell culture w/other toxic elements like kidney monkey cells & THEN just saying whatever cell culture reaction occurs can only due to a "virus" (& not those reactive ingredients added to the mix & causing the reaction) seems illogical, flawed scientific reasoning & just plain dumb.
But then, I really didn't need to be convinced that the field of virology lies thru its teeth as I had already read so many articles/exposes/books of the medical profession's tricks & deceptions that I was already doubtful of anything that trad medicine tells us is factual.
There are many history of medicine books I could cite here right now showing the absolute perfidy of Big Med etc. but I'm tired & can't do it now. Later, perhaps.
.
Even Pavlov’s Dog
Would Have Figured Out This Charade
And Turned On Its Owner.
Now The Salient Question Is:
How Many Vicious Bites
Would It Take The Doctor
To Turn On Its Owner ?
Thank you for this exceptional article.
'Has the SARS-CoV-2 virus ever been isolated?' You say it has but was it a virus or synthetic DNA ie a clone? And it it was a clone, is it possible to pass that on to another person? Just asking in the spirit that this was a false pandemic and much trickery was used on the general population that needs to be exposed.
To our knowlege, no attempts to truly isolate any virus were made; even though some of the "scientific" papers mention "isolation", the description in the Methods Section of such papers never describes isolation as you or I would understand that word. Nothing of the kind.
The alleged "spike protein" in "mRNA vaccines" is claimed to be a synthetic mRNA sequence. The sequence is an in silico (computer) sequence with no relation to any natural protein. The sequences are all computer generated.
The virus has been isolated from cell cultures that were inoculated with patient samples many times. That is standard practice in virology, and I see nothing wrong with it. The idea that "viruses are exosomes" is untenable and easily refuted.
Can you define what you mean by isolated and give a free access paper where this was done? Thanks.
With "isolation" I mean obtain a pure culture of a virus, and that is the common meaning of the word in microbiology, not just virology. And with virures "pure" does not exlude the presence of host cells, since viruses cannot propagate without them. In contrast, bacterial pathogens are typically isolated by inoculating agar media.
Regarding SARS-CoV-2, the following studies report the isolation in cell culture:
1. Liu, C. et al. (2020) The Architecture of Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 with Postfusion Spikes Revealed by Cryo-EM and Cryo-ET. Structure 28:1218-1224.e4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=33058760
2. Yao, H. et al. (2020) Molecular Architecture of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus. Cell 183:730-738.e13 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=32979942
Can you explain what you mean by "obtain a pure culture of the virus?"
How do you know the culture is a "pure culture"?
.
So far Ive looked at the first paper and I see they use the term "purified virus" but I couldnt find where they explain how they "purified" whatever it was that they were claiming was purified.
A pure culture of a microorganism is one in which no other microorganism occurs.
The Liu paper describes the purification in some detail. The most important step is the isopycnic density gradient centrifugation.
"The continued decline in tuberculosis mortality in those years was most likely due to the continued surveillance measures". What were the surveillance measures?
Good question. Robert Koch's "magic bullet" he named Tuberculin was an embarrasing disaster, just like Pasteur's "anthrax vaccine". There is certainly plenty of reason to question such claims crediting Koch with the decline of tuberculosis.
Tuberculin was a disaster in terms of therapy, but it was a success in terms of diagnostics. The tuberculin skin test was widely used as a screening test for subclinical infection. If it was positive, people were subjected to further diagnostics by X-rays and microbiology. If someone was found to shed tubercle bacilli in the sputum, some preventive measures and contact restrictions were imposed, and his family were examined as well etc.
So both Koch's tuberculin and Koch's bacteriological methods were cornerstones of tuberculosis surveillance. Nobody gave Koch sole credit for the decline of tuberculosis, but it is baseless to deny his great contribution.
After it failed as a treatment, it was used on cattle as a test (and a vaccine?):
““Guerin, Richart and Bossiera studied a large number of cattle
on a farm. On this farm in 1915 in a herd of 67 head, 47%
reacted positively to the tuberculin test. Year after year, the
positive animals were slaughtered. In 1918, 38% were still
positive to the tuberculin test. In 1920, the number of reactors
was 41.7%.
Vaccination in the newborn cattle started on Jan. 1, 1921.
In 1922, one year after the vaccination, 20 cattle gave a
definitely positive and nine a very suspicious tuberculin
reaction, or a total of 45% of 64 head. Many of these animals
were vaccinated and revaccinated. In 1923 there remained
26 of the 1919-1920 year animals, all giving a positive
tuberculin reaction.”
So the “test” resulted in extremely heavy culling of the cattle, yet the number of “positives” remained high year after year!
This is too reminiscent of what goes on nowadays. A crime, I would say.
Yes, only too recently here in the UK there was a mass culling of healthy animals because of a test and a computer prediction. Guess who did the prediction? The same "go to" scientist who led to the world wide lockdowns for the so called human "pandemic" in 2020.
"Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/professor-lockdown-modeler-resigns-in-disgrace/
The vaccination also causes a positive tuberculin test -- you can't distinguish that from the natural infection.
Cattle are slaughtered all the time. Some do consider this a crime.
But in this record, which begins in 1915, vaccination of newborns did not begin until 1921
OK. Still, these data aren't very meaningful. Must have been an attempt to eradicate cattle tuberculosis, and it probably isn't easy to obtain sputum samples from cows or to X-ray them, so they just used the tuberculin test instead.
In humans, a positive tuberculin test is taken as evidence of either natural infection or vaccine-induced immunity. It was only used for screening; a positive test was followed by more definitive diagnostics (X-ray, bacteriology).
Vaccine-induced immunity is at best relative BTW, the vaccine never was considered very effective.
I have questions:
You wrote:
“While direct isolation is often used in the initial characterization of a novel virus, the use cell cultures greatly facilitates the sensitive and speedy routine detection of viruses that are already known.”
Can you define exactly what you mean by ‘direct isolation’? Are you able to show an example of when an actual isolation (purification) procedure was done in order to first identify a particular ‘viral particle’ in order to then allow virologists to use the more expedient ‘cell culture’ method?
I'm curious about the pure isolated sample, as well. Surely, the samples were taken from living tissue and did not have anything added to it, including the chemicals used in electron microscopy, otherwise it isn't “pure” and “isolated”.
I have yet to see a single example of when a pure isolated sample has been obtained in virology. Either directly from a sample taken from living tissue or even after the cell culture procedure, which it is claimed is needed in order to culture enough of these alleged 'viral particles' for further experimentation. My understanding is that EM would be impossible without the use of chemicals during the process (which is an issue in itself), nevertheless it should still be possible to produce EM photographs of purified 'virus' particles if they actually exist, because this has been done with other similar sized particles, e.g. bacteriophages.
With "direct isolation" I mean the purification of viral particles from the tissues or body fluids of infected humans or animals. One example is discussed in the article, namely the study by Theil et al. In this case, the virus particles were purified from the intestinal contents of the pigs. They were characterized by electron microscopy, and also directly by RNA electrophoresis. Moreover, they were shown to be infectious for other pigs.
Examples of human viruses that initially were obtained in this manner are rotaviruses, norovirus, and hepatitis A virus, all of which were initially obtained from stool samples, and hepatitis B, the particles of which were first demonstrated in blood samples by David Dane (hence their name "Dane particles").
Respectfully, have you looked at Christine Massey's long list of FOIAs made by herself and others. The answer from the world's leading health institutions for all these viruses about whether they have papers showing the virus directly isolated from patient samples always come back "We were unable to find any documents pertaining to your request."
I have addressed these questions in my follow-up post: https://michaelpalmer.substack.com/p/the-fallacies-of-the-no-virus-doctrine
I’ve downloaded this paper and I’ve read through the methods section and I cannot see anything remotely like an attempt to purify any particles.
Please can you show me exactly where in the paper the authors describe how they purified ‘viral particles’ and how they then proved that these particles and only these particles caused the same disease symptoms they observed in the original animal.
Please see my answer to Christine below.
In your answer to Christine below you wrote: "Of course this is not a highly pure preparation --- just pure enough for the kinds of experiments that were carried out"
However, this contradicts your answer to my first question where you claim "the virus particles were purified from the intestinal contents of the pigs” . Therefore the only logical conclusion is that it cannot possibly have been proven that any unique and identifiable particles were the cause of the observed disease symptoms in the first animal.
My first question concerned the fact that you are claiming the ‘cell culture’ method is valid because ‘viral particles’ have already been ‘directly isolated’. However, you are now confirming that no actual isolation (purification) has taken place in the study you have cited.
Then you state: “That is precisely the reason for using cell cultures, because those produce much higher particle densities, and therefore permit more rigorous purification.”
If that is the case, then please show an example of when the ‘cell culture’ method was used and this was then followed by ‘rigorous purification’ in order to isolate ‘viral particles’ in order to prove that these particles and these alone were the cause of an observed disease.
The cited study achieved partial purification by filtration. The filtration in particular would have removed bacteria, which might be an alternate cause of infection. The persistence of infectiousness after removal of bacteria by filtration was the crucial observation that first tipped off people to the existence of viruses, and there are many such studies. I picked this particular one because it not only demonstrated the infectiousness of the bacteria-free filtrate, but the viral particles were also observed by EM, and the genomic RNA molecules contained in those particles were characterized by electrophoresis. Realistically, this is about all you can hope to achieve when working with material obtained directly from diseased animals (or humans).
You write "Therefore the only logical conclusion is that it cannot possibly have been proven that any unique and identifiable particles were the cause of the observed disease symptoms in the first animal."
Rotaviruses and their relatives are known causes of acute diarrhea, which was also observed in this case. But indeed, we can't entirely rule out the possibility that some residual contaminant -- such as another virus -- was the true cause of disease. This is another excellent reason to work with cell cultures, which unlike samples such as intestinal contents make it possible to isolate the offspring of single viral particles. They indeed make rigorous isolation and purification of viruses much more practical, which is one of the reasons why they are used whenever possible.
Experimental infections using virus preparations from cell cultures have been carried out numerous times (though I'm not aware of studies on the particular virus described in the study cited here). I will address this in a future article.
Your answers are a litany of unproven assumptions. Until I am shown evidence of actual Science taking place within virology, I have no choice but to logically conclude that virologists have observed various particles of unknown origin by way of electron microscopy and have made up increasingly elaborate stories about them.
Question: If, as you claim, virologists work with cell cultures “because those produce much higher particle densities, and therefore permit more rigorous purification.” Where are all the electron microscopy photos showing many thousands or even hundreds of identical particles?
The virus particles were partially purified by filtration. More rigorous methods of purification such as chromatography or crystallization are realistic only if the starting material has a higher content of the substance of interest.
The article describes the inoculation of pigs with the filtrate of the intestinal contents of previously infected pigs: "The inoculum was a bacteria-free filtrate of a 1:10 dilution (prepared in minimum essential medium) of the intestinal contents from gnotobiotic pig passage 4 of the RVLV."
The same material was also examined by electron microscopy, which detected viral particles, as well as by RNA electrophoresis, which detected the genomic RNA of the virus particles.
Of course this is not a highly pure preparation --- just pure enough for the kinds of experiments that were carried out. It is very difficult to achieve high purity if the concentration of particles in the sample is very low. That is precisely the reason for using cell cultures, because those produce much higher particle densities, and therefore permit more rigorous purification.
There is no contradiction here.
Many viruses have been shown to occur in hosts. They do occur in "zillions" of copies, but nevertheless the amount of viral material per amount of tissue sample or body fluid is low, which makes complete purification difficult. Cell cultures achieve a much higher ratio of viral to other material and therefore are the preferred source of viral material for experimental purposes.
I will address these points in a future post. For now, I will stop replying.
Nope
All that and you still can't identify your begging the question circular reasoning, as I explain here:
https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/virologys-fatal-flaw
Drs. Palmer and Bakhdi need to take a weekend to read every article on Mike Stone's Substack, ViroLIEgy. He has actually read the papers, and done the deep dive into the history of "germ theory," that show these two doctors to be wrong on almost every count in this article.
Please don't presume to assign homework. If you have some objections, please state them in your own words, right here.
NO “virus” has been proven to exist.
Ever.
I rest my case😎
Thank you for stating your ignorance so succinctly.
Okay. I’ll say it one more time:
NO "virus" has ever been proven to exist.
- But I'm happy to wait for you Dr. Palmer to solve Big Pharma's smal scientific problem.
I’m not holding my breath though…😎
The entirety of meta-genomics and gene sequencing/assemblage are fraudulent.
People have been convinced through years of social engineering to believe that the things they see on screens represent biological reality.
PCR is worse than useless for diagnostics as are antigen tests. These tests are weaponized to manipulate public perceptions and invent "diseases."
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is yet another example of this fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which itself was never properly purified or isolated), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced that they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for their diagnostic test. As there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment was made up.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "New" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "Novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "Novel" virus at their disposal.
The Chinese scientists, who work for the WEF/Pharma Cartel BTW, "found" these sequences in their 'Atypical Pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 Clinical Sample.
In order to create a Genome correctly, you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "Viral Genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They then took a clinical sample from a PCR + person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent with "Atypical Pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into computer programs- Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assembled a bunch of Contigs (Possible Genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 Contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 Contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In layman terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest Contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 bat-like sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
Can anyone not see at this point they are simply making shit up as they go to reach their pre-ordained conclusion?
80%, is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the Contig. If those weren't valid how do we know this entire Contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
Then come thousands of papers and studies and reports all based on the original in-silico sorcery and deceptions...Turtles All The Way Down.
It's all fraud piled on top of fraud.
What do you think "Covid 19" was? I know it doesn't really matter now (!) as it served it's desired intent, but I am interested.
Put simply, Covid-19 was never a widespread medical event, it was and is a criminal conspiracy- an orchestrated program launched by elite Western financial interests in response to the comprehensive collapse of the Western financial systems in 2019 which itself was the result of decades long Ponzi Schemes carried out by these elites. It was a racketeering operation, a massive psychological operation and a smoke screen for a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current social and economic world order.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/01/02/covid-19-a-global-financial-operation/
This article did not attempt to defend the fraudulent COVID "pandemic".
What did it try to do?