And another thing: anyone who thinks outer space is "real" needs to look carefully at the science: has anyone ever brought any space back to earth? Or isolated any? Answer: "no". All very well saying that scientists work with it every day, but I declare astronomy a bogus science. It deals with a postulate which in the first instance falls as it cannot in itself be observed.
On the assumption that antibodies are specific and can "fish out" specific compounds, the Perth Group's papers are quite thorough in showing how, particularly in reference to "HIV antibodies", in thier words they are "promiscuous".
"If we inoculate the same kind of cell culture with two or more different viruses, we should still only ever get back one and the same “virus”—because this “virus” would be a mirage, and its particles only the products of the cultured cells themselves."
In the recent control experiments conducted by a team of sceintists including Jamie Andrews, within only the first few slides showing EV's from the breakdown of cells in cell culture without addition of any patient sample, there were particles resembling "SARS-CoV2", "HIV" and "measles virus"... all from the same samples. It was not the addition of anything foreign that led to the formation of these different looking particles.
Show me an isolated virus then. Not in some uncontrolled tissue culture which has the same CPE result when not inoculated with so called "viral material".
The example of the hepatitis A virus discussed in the post was especially selected for those who don't trust cell cultures. There are more such examples, although this is the single best documented one I could find.
Discussing this article is like trying to dynamite fog. For its pre-eminent rhetorical method is conflation. It conflates the question of virus existence with the question of bacterial existence and with the question of exosomes. It conflates using antibodies for detecting hormones with using antibodies for detecting "viruses." It conflates using PCR for detecting bacterial or human genetic material with using PCR for detecting "viral" genetic material. It conflates the everyday meaning of isolation with the virologists' doublespeak meaning of it.
These conflations are all bogus, and the article's extended discussions simply assuming them are at best obfuscatory.
But let's as an example take one of the conflations anyway: isolation. The article uses "isolation" as follows: "In the study by Liu et al. [20], the virus was ISOLATED from a single patient" (my CAPS). The cited study, in its section "Sample Collection and Virus Isolation" describes the so-called isolation as follows:
"The Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid (BALF) was collected from the patient at 1 day after admission. Vero cells were used for the virus isolation in the biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory. The BALF sample was centrifuged at 5,000 rpm at 4°C for 5 minutes, and then 200 μl supernatant was added to monolayer of cell in 6 well plates and incubated at 37°C and 5% CO2 for 1 hour. Then cells were washed with PBS 3 times, and fresh DMEM containing 2% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% penicillin streptomycin (PS) was added to cell culture. Cells were maintained at 37°C and 5% CO2, and CPEs were monitored daily with light microscopy. Meanwhile viral RNAs were detected at 3 and 5 dpi using qRT-PCR to monitor the replication of virus, and the supernatant was harvested at 6 dpi."
At no point in this witches' brew did the study authors ever have a sample with ONLY the virus -- i.e., satisfying the plain-English meaning of isolation. So -- and contrary to the article's bogus straw-man assertion that cell cultures are a "favorite bogeyman of the virus skeptics ... because they contain exosomes" -- the objection is not to cell cultures themselves (which may have uses AFTER one has isolated the virus) but to claiming that the method results in any kind of isolation as it is normally and correctly defined. The virologists' and the author's Humpty Dumpty insistence that "isolation" means what they choose it to mean, no more and no less, is just gaslighting.
There is no point in attempting to physically isolate virus particles before inoculating them into a cell culture. The concentration of particles in the material tends to be very low. It is only attempted if no cell culture is available which would support the growth of the virus in question. I gave you one example of that kind -- namely, hepatitis A, which initially could not be grown in cell culture, and therefore people actually went to the trouble of extracting the particles from poop. Those experiments stopped the very minute someone found a suitable cell culture for th virus.
Look, the virologists are not troubled by worries that "viruses don't exist," because they work with them every day. They see their effects in cell culture, they see them by EM, they analyze their proteins and nucleic acids by electrophoresis, they even genetically manipulate them to change their behaviours .... they see no need for futher proof of existence.
¨There is no point in attempting to physically isolate virus particles before inoculating them into a cell culture. The concentration of particles in the material tends to be very low. ¨
This is probably one of the biggest contradicitons in the narrative... A virus from Wuhan that causes pneumonia can´t be seen in BALF from infected subjects because ¨the concentration of particles in the material tends to be very low¨´.
However, we are supposed to believe that somehow this virus is extremely contagious, with high viral loads in the host, and caused a pandemic..
Interestingly, this virus can only be seen and cause cell damage after been multiplied in cell cultures.. By the way, human respiratory cell lines and human respiratory tissues don´t even have been shown to express ACE2.
I pointed out that your and the virologists' definition of "isolation" is nothing of the sort. In response, you describe what virologists do, which is not the same as showing that it's sound.
Your comment, like your article, is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Thus, they have first to admit that they are inverting the meaning of words — to point out which is hardly “quibbling” — and second to justify the doublespeak.
Your example physics terms only weaken your case. For both terms, the everyday and physics terms are in accord — not diametrically opposed, as in virology “isolation.”
The term "isolation" applied to cell culture is analogous to the use in bacteriology, where sample materials are directly applied to solid growth media. This typically gives a mixture of bacterial colonies, which are then transferred to new media and subcultured separately. Once one has obtained a pure culture of a single germ this way, one calls this "isolation."
The burden of proof is a legal concept, which does not literally apply here. But de facto the side that challenges the status quo is expected to bring proof, not merely demand it of others. As long as your side does not accept that, mainstream science will not engage with you.
Let's leave aside this latest try at reversing the burden of proof.
Virologists have inverted the meaning of an essential word. When this substantial epistemological hole was pointed out, you described the criticism as "quibbling" -- a valiant attempt to enlarge speciously the meaning of "quibble." Virology is just gaslighting based on word games.
You have to show that it is unsound. Otherwise nobody will feel compelled to change their ways. And you won't achieve that by quibbling about the word "isolation." Words change their meaning when used by specialists -- it happens. Take for example the meanings of the words "current" or "momentum" in physics and in everyday language.
Electron microscopy images are (should be) convincing. If…
1. Is there any publication which shows consecutive EM images of the same object in a time-marked sequence? Like every 2 seconds or every 5 seconds? In other words, can we observe the changes of the object in time?
2. Since science is based on replication, are there any publications which present replication observations of the same subject in different EM environments (labs)? Or, in the same lab, with the same equipment, but at different time points?
3. The resolution (= the nm length of objects) of EM images presented here is weak. Much better images are publicly available for electronic equipment, particularly computer microchips - where 2 nm objects are extremely clear. Why there are no images of viruses at 2 nm dimension visibility?
4. Figure 2 in the article shows (a) virus particles, (b) virus particles, (c) a single viral RNA molecule. How do we know this? All I can see is (a) a cluster of grayscale dots hiding in the dark, (b) something, (c) something over nothing. How do we know that the “line” in (c) is what they say it is?
5. We are told that there are trilliards of viruses in us and in our environment. But when you search for “photos of viruses”, there are very very very few “images” and tons of fancy graphics. Since we are now obsessed with SC2, and we stopped the whole world in fear of it, there should be at least 8 billion hi-res excellent photos of this virus. Are there any libraries with significant number of actual images (not graphics) of viruses? “Significant” being in the order of thousands.
1. time lapse is not possible with EM, only with confocal fluorescence imaging, which doesn't have the same resolution. You can see viral particles as little specks but no structural detail
2. feel free to go look for it on Pubmed
3. 2 nm is not feasible with EM. This is X-ray crystallography territory. There are crystal structures of several viruses, e.g. hepatitis A, rhinovirus, poliovirus
4. "how do we know this?" From experience -- looking at such images repeatedly and comparing them. EM is not trivial -- there are specialists who do nothing but EM for their entire careers
5. that's a non-sequitur. There never was a reason to obsess over this virus, and of course the scientific effort is not proportional to the hype and the panic whipped up around it
1. Basically, we are looking at a snapshot of something and - owing to the sample preparation process - we do not know why and how this sample has been formed the way we “see” it in EM. Also, due to the sample preparation process and its invasive steps, we don’t really know what we are observing. Whatever it is, it certainly is not what was there in the raw material. I haven’t found any answer to this problem - how the observing scientists convince themselves that “this is it”?
1a. The sample size - measured in nanometers - being taken from a living organism of, say, 80 kgs - is practically completely irrelevant. Which begs another questions: how does the observing scientist know that the EM-recorded sample is representative of anything? Because the following publications not only refer to these images as “proofs”, but also form the ground for further theories and recommendations.
2. This means that you don’t know any. No wonder, I did try, but to no avail. The best you can find is 2 or 3 images, often cropped and non-contextual.
3. This difference is interesting. The sample observed in EM is dead and metallized, fully solid. Why not have a try? We are told that X-ray crystallography has been used to examine the structure and function of “…vitamins, drugs, proteins and nucleic acids such as DNA…” Or: “over 130,000 X-ray crystal structures of proteins, nucleic acids and other biological molecules have been determined..” [https://web.archive.org/web/20170711125430/https://www.rcsb.org/pdb/statistics/holdings.do] Why not apply it to viruses? Especially those of high concern...
4. Sorry, I am not buying this one. An “expert” EM operator is looking at dots of something on the background of something and he/she gains experience from this? Enough experience to name these dots? How does he/she know that this is this and not something else? Because yesterday’s dots were different? How does he/she know that this is “a single RNA molecule”, and not an unknown contaminant? Are they using any controls? Like placing two different “somethings” next to each other and comparing them? They don’t, obviously, because it is technically and process-wise impossible.
Which leaves the question unanswered: how do they know that this bright dot is “object A”, and the other bright dot is “object B”?
How is their naming and classification validated? No time lapse, no sequential sampling, no control images, no possibility to interfere with the sample being observed to examine its behavior in FOV - literally no way to validate their naming.
5. True. But... the more publicity this thing gets, the more money is flown into this sub-field (a natural process), as we have amply seen in 2020-2024. I don’t care about the obsession (which is actual - as evidenced by the number of peer-reviewed papers published). However, observable developments, like the “disappearance” of flu, should inspire scientists to examine everything that can in any way they can. But we get various theories instead of more efforts in actual scientific observation and experimentation. Strange.
For the record, I am not for or against anything. It’s just that there are so many contradictions and unanswered questions. What is curious to me is that everything can be answered “yes” or “no”. It’s science, right? There is no “maybe” in science - because it means “I don’t know”. So rare in public messages...
1. All microscopic imaging is subject to distortion of some kind. EM is no exception, but it is not black magic.
1a. I don't know what you are trying to say.
2. You did not specify what specific finding you wanted to see replicated. I selected some representative images from some studies and added as much context as I needed for my argument, but not more. But I cited my sources, so you are free to look at them and find out about the number of replicate experiments within them.
3. As I said, X-ray crystallography HAS ALREADY been applied to viruses. Nowadays Cryo-EM ist approaching the resolution of X-ray, but I haven't seen a whole lot of high-resolution Cryo-EM work on viruses. But then this is not my primary area of interest.
4. You can find many similar images in the literature. Also the study I took that single RNA molecule from shows more such images.
5. The "disappearance" of the flu was obviously an artifact of testing. Mixed virus infections are not uncommon. If you test for only one and then stop, then the others will "disappear" from view.
Thank you for your replies. Grateful for you viewpoints that are different from what I am gathering from literature. I will stop at this as it is inspiring enough for me to learn more and (subjectively, in my view) there in no point to elaborate on it in comments.
As Denis Rancourt has shown using excess-mortality figures by region, there is no evidence of deaths due to the spread of a pathogen (which, it shouldn't need to be said, don't know about jurisdictional boundaries). Similarly, as concluded in this detailed analysis of Italy in 2020: "There was no pandemic [of a contagious disease]." https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/03/07/italy-2020-inside-covids-ground-zero-in-europe/
Does it not trouble you that your "Sars-CoV-2 virus" is explaining something that never happened?
The question of the existence of the virus is totally separate from that of the severity or lethality of the disease. I agree with Denis' analysis that the "response" measures, including harmful "treatment", have done far more harm than the virus itself.
I watched this documentary series (linked below) in the summer of 2022 & have been sharing it with everyone since. It provides an excellent overview of the field of virology & how it developed/grew etc.
Conclusions include:
> The lack of evidence for "C*V virus" is very clear based on scientific analysis/review of the so-called "C*v isolation" (Fan Wu study) which actually shows that C*v-19 was NEVER isolated at all in the original Chinese patient.
True. > 2. C*vid was NEVER isolated as a unique illness. It was simply assumed/invented thru computer simulation & genomic modeling replication.
Watch > THE VIRAL DELUSION - The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & The Madness of Modern Virology > https://paradigmshift.uscreen.io/
"Amazing. Should be translated into every language on the planet."
In addition, the series questions the entire "germ/virus theory" deception & explores the many expert doctors' analysis of contagion, what makes us sick & the overall scientific methods needed to determine disease (w/no stake in maintaining the traditional germ/virus medical institution/dogdma of Rockefeller Medicine) re: the basic deceptive foundation of germ theory/virology studies.
For more on this topic see Drs Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Sam Bailey, and Stefan Lanka (the first two even have their own Bitchute channels), plus many other videos & substacks w/excellent critiques of the field of germ theory/virology ...
Dawn Lester is the co-author of the widely acclaimed book, "What Really Makes You Ill", as well as a researcher into many different fields of inquiry, including, but not restricted to that of health.
Interested to learn what readers think about these doctors' honest critiques/arguments against germ theory/viruses & explanations for disease causation. Confusion, contention, debate & discussion leads to clarity & IS the proper way - including the scientific method - to determine the "truth of the matter". ;-)
“On this week’s VSRF Live, Steve sits down with psychiatrist and molecular biologist Dr. Andrew Kaufman, M.D. who has risen to fame during the pandemic for his unorthodox views on germ theory and that viruses and germs, including the COVID- 19 virus, do not actually cause illness.”
“Kaufman, an MIT trained scientist and Duke University trained psychiatrist, has deep expertise in analyzing scientific papers, data and general published studies and as such has come to believe that the traditional acceptance of germ theory since the late 1800s is not scientifically based but is rather fraught with contradictions, various conflicts of interest and even fraudulent claims. Conversely, Kaufman supports the more broadly defined “terrain theory” which promotes the belief that lifestyle choices alone force otherwise benevolent microbes to transform into pathogens; i.e. the body’s “terrain,” not germs, creates disease. These beliefs made Dr. Kaufman an early rejector of masks and COVID 19 vaccines and the subsequent attacks on our civil liberties, which the widespread societal acceptance of germ theory allowed.”
“Regardless of your personal position on germ vs. terrain theory, Dr. Kaufman presents a very interesting and compelling case which deserves greater consideration. Join us for this enthralling conversation and come to your own conclusions!”
"Conversely, Kaufman supports the more broadly defined 'terrain theory' which promotes the belief that lifestyle choices alone force otherwise benevolent microbes to transform into pathogen"
Have you ever heard of biological weapons? If Kaufman's "terrain" idea were true, then biological weapons would be impossible. But they exist. A good introduction to the subject is
Alibek, K. and Handelman, S. (1999) Biohazard (Random House)
For the use of biological weapons by the US in the Korean war, see
Needham, J. et al. (1952) Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacterial Warfare in Korea and China https://archive.org/details/isc-full-report
All those crazed flat-earthers are just looney-tunes, right? Maybe you can show them this absolute video proof of a ball earth from outer-space (space station?) & really convince 'em?
"All a round the world" - "Amazing Satellite Zoom Shows People Upside Down in Australia!"
"Incredible new footage from the Japanese Flimiwari 9 satellite has just been released zooming-in to reveal people, buildings, oceans and waterfalls all literally upside-down in Australia, proving it really is "the land down under" and finally shutting up these ridiculous flat-Earthers once and for all."
As a layperson it's been frustrating to see the "no virus" crowd basically act like one is morally responsible for 2020/21 for simply not adopting their dogma. Which I think is wrong even if they were correct.
Many "no virus" proponents argue that virology is a mythology to justify "public health" abuses. As a layperson this argument seems compelling, especially considering concerns with some pre-covid vaccines and other issues within medicine that seem to have come to a head during covid.
The problem I have with that is that it reeks of motivated reasoning.
As a follow-up question is it splitting hairs to argue that "regardless of the virology the measures taken in 2020 themselves were always going to more harm than good"?
It seems like there's no room for people to accept viruses or even gain of function without also conceding to the pretext of massive theft and abuse of lockdowns. That's currently the mindset I'm in, and it seems fairly lonely.
I remain convinced that 1) the SARS-CoV-2 virus is artificial, 2) the release of that virus and the "countermeasures" were part of the same script, by the same crowd, 3) the "countermeasures" were predictably and intentionally harmful. And this was not their first rodeo, nor apparently the last one.
Viruses are real, but the "pandemic" scares conjured up around them are false.
I'm talking about the alleged SARS-CoV-2. There were no waves that could prove the spread of a virus. No one has found such waves to date. There was also no excess mortality in 2020. There was only one flu that mysteriously disappeared along with 6 other respiratory diseases. The only thing that existed was the most expensive propaganda in world history with countless paid propaganda "experts", trolls, corrupt media and politicians. Here is the evidence:
Yeah, according to Palmer we must believe that something that exists was released but it didn´t cause nothing. Palmer even admits that the measures and killer treatments were worst than the ´virus´ itself. No to mention that the ¨virus´ can be detected consistently in samples obtained years before the offcial date of the Wuhan outbreak. The fact that nobody noticed it for so long is consistent with the fact the ´virus´ didn´t cause any outbreak. The fake and massive PCR testing and harmful measures better explain this.
The fraud can be proven in many ways. At the time, I also thought that it was one part of the virus swarm that make up the flu and that no one was interested in before. I am now convinced that was all 100% pure propaganda. None of it was real, except for the fear, which in individual cases could lead to a weakening of the immune system and hysterical body reactions. There were no specific symptoms and no waves of spread. After a closer look, there is nothing left of the fairy tale. There are no figures that can prove anything new, except for the short-term deaths caused by incorrect hospital protocols, delayed treatment, dehydration and isolation, etc. Even if these deaths had occurred naturally, they would not constitute a pandemic. In Germany, for example, there was a rare under-mortality rate in 2020.
Your post talks mostly about alternative explanations of disease, not about negative evidence on viruses.
In my post, which you apparently did not read, I discuss the isolation of hepatitis A virus particles from patients. Those particles were then thoroughly characterized using electron microscopy and biochemical methods. That single example already suffices to prove you wrong.
And another thing: anyone who thinks outer space is "real" needs to look carefully at the science: has anyone ever brought any space back to earth? Or isolated any? Answer: "no". All very well saying that scientists work with it every day, but I declare astronomy a bogus science. It deals with a postulate which in the first instance falls as it cannot in itself be observed.
[And maybe if you are of the no-virus school you'll fall for that as well 😵💫]
On the assumption that antibodies are specific and can "fish out" specific compounds, the Perth Group's papers are quite thorough in showing how, particularly in reference to "HIV antibodies", in thier words they are "promiscuous".
theperthgroup.com
"If we inoculate the same kind of cell culture with two or more different viruses, we should still only ever get back one and the same “virus”—because this “virus” would be a mirage, and its particles only the products of the cultured cells themselves."
In the recent control experiments conducted by a team of sceintists including Jamie Andrews, within only the first few slides showing EV's from the breakdown of cells in cell culture without addition of any patient sample, there were particles resembling "SARS-CoV2", "HIV" and "measles virus"... all from the same samples. It was not the addition of anything foreign that led to the formation of these different looking particles.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dpl003/p/control-experiment-an-update-by-jamie?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1cz07o
It’s impossible to take this seriously 👉🤪
But supporting organized crime like Big Pharma's billion dollar virus hoax is a very serious matter.
Show me an isolated virus then. Not in some uncontrolled tissue culture which has the same CPE result when not inoculated with so called "viral material".
The example of the hepatitis A virus discussed in the post was especially selected for those who don't trust cell cultures. There are more such examples, although this is the single best documented one I could find.
Truth does not account for beliefs, feelings and opinions.
I am still waiting for irrefutable proof of any alleged biological virus.
Either by direct real time observations of all vital occurring processes or by experimentation on independent variable.
There is no other logical way to do this and so far no one has done it.
Discussing this article is like trying to dynamite fog. For its pre-eminent rhetorical method is conflation. It conflates the question of virus existence with the question of bacterial existence and with the question of exosomes. It conflates using antibodies for detecting hormones with using antibodies for detecting "viruses." It conflates using PCR for detecting bacterial or human genetic material with using PCR for detecting "viral" genetic material. It conflates the everyday meaning of isolation with the virologists' doublespeak meaning of it.
These conflations are all bogus, and the article's extended discussions simply assuming them are at best obfuscatory.
But let's as an example take one of the conflations anyway: isolation. The article uses "isolation" as follows: "In the study by Liu et al. [20], the virus was ISOLATED from a single patient" (my CAPS). The cited study, in its section "Sample Collection and Virus Isolation" describes the so-called isolation as follows:
"The Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid (BALF) was collected from the patient at 1 day after admission. Vero cells were used for the virus isolation in the biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory. The BALF sample was centrifuged at 5,000 rpm at 4°C for 5 minutes, and then 200 μl supernatant was added to monolayer of cell in 6 well plates and incubated at 37°C and 5% CO2 for 1 hour. Then cells were washed with PBS 3 times, and fresh DMEM containing 2% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 1% penicillin streptomycin (PS) was added to cell culture. Cells were maintained at 37°C and 5% CO2, and CPEs were monitored daily with light microscopy. Meanwhile viral RNAs were detected at 3 and 5 dpi using qRT-PCR to monitor the replication of virus, and the supernatant was harvested at 6 dpi."
At no point in this witches' brew did the study authors ever have a sample with ONLY the virus -- i.e., satisfying the plain-English meaning of isolation. So -- and contrary to the article's bogus straw-man assertion that cell cultures are a "favorite bogeyman of the virus skeptics ... because they contain exosomes" -- the objection is not to cell cultures themselves (which may have uses AFTER one has isolated the virus) but to claiming that the method results in any kind of isolation as it is normally and correctly defined. The virologists' and the author's Humpty Dumpty insistence that "isolation" means what they choose it to mean, no more and no less, is just gaslighting.
There is no point in attempting to physically isolate virus particles before inoculating them into a cell culture. The concentration of particles in the material tends to be very low. It is only attempted if no cell culture is available which would support the growth of the virus in question. I gave you one example of that kind -- namely, hepatitis A, which initially could not be grown in cell culture, and therefore people actually went to the trouble of extracting the particles from poop. Those experiments stopped the very minute someone found a suitable cell culture for th virus.
Look, the virologists are not troubled by worries that "viruses don't exist," because they work with them every day. They see their effects in cell culture, they see them by EM, they analyze their proteins and nucleic acids by electrophoresis, they even genetically manipulate them to change their behaviours .... they see no need for futher proof of existence.
¨There is no point in attempting to physically isolate virus particles before inoculating them into a cell culture. The concentration of particles in the material tends to be very low. ¨
This is probably one of the biggest contradicitons in the narrative... A virus from Wuhan that causes pneumonia can´t be seen in BALF from infected subjects because ¨the concentration of particles in the material tends to be very low¨´.
However, we are supposed to believe that somehow this virus is extremely contagious, with high viral loads in the host, and caused a pandemic..
Interestingly, this virus can only be seen and cause cell damage after been multiplied in cell cultures.. By the way, human respiratory cell lines and human respiratory tissues don´t even have been shown to express ACE2.
What a load of BS...
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.31.016048v1.full.pdf
I pointed out that your and the virologists' definition of "isolation" is nothing of the sort. In response, you describe what virologists do, which is not the same as showing that it's sound.
Your comment, like your article, is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Thus, they have first to admit that they are inverting the meaning of words — to point out which is hardly “quibbling” — and second to justify the doublespeak.
Your example physics terms only weaken your case. For both terms, the everyday and physics terms are in accord — not diametrically opposed, as in virology “isolation.”
So now we are quibbling over the word "quibble."
The term "isolation" applied to cell culture is analogous to the use in bacteriology, where sample materials are directly applied to solid growth media. This typically gives a mixture of bacterial colonies, which are then transferred to new media and subcultured separately. Once one has obtained a pure culture of a single germ this way, one calls this "isolation."
The burden of proof is a legal concept, which does not literally apply here. But de facto the side that challenges the status quo is expected to bring proof, not merely demand it of others. As long as your side does not accept that, mainstream science will not engage with you.
Let's leave aside this latest try at reversing the burden of proof.
Virologists have inverted the meaning of an essential word. When this substantial epistemological hole was pointed out, you described the criticism as "quibbling" -- a valiant attempt to enlarge speciously the meaning of "quibble." Virology is just gaslighting based on word games.
You have to show that it is unsound. Otherwise nobody will feel compelled to change their ways. And you won't achieve that by quibbling about the word "isolation." Words change their meaning when used by specialists -- it happens. Take for example the meanings of the words "current" or "momentum" in physics and in everyday language.
Electron microscopy images are (should be) convincing. If…
1. Is there any publication which shows consecutive EM images of the same object in a time-marked sequence? Like every 2 seconds or every 5 seconds? In other words, can we observe the changes of the object in time?
2. Since science is based on replication, are there any publications which present replication observations of the same subject in different EM environments (labs)? Or, in the same lab, with the same equipment, but at different time points?
3. The resolution (= the nm length of objects) of EM images presented here is weak. Much better images are publicly available for electronic equipment, particularly computer microchips - where 2 nm objects are extremely clear. Why there are no images of viruses at 2 nm dimension visibility?
4. Figure 2 in the article shows (a) virus particles, (b) virus particles, (c) a single viral RNA molecule. How do we know this? All I can see is (a) a cluster of grayscale dots hiding in the dark, (b) something, (c) something over nothing. How do we know that the “line” in (c) is what they say it is?
5. We are told that there are trilliards of viruses in us and in our environment. But when you search for “photos of viruses”, there are very very very few “images” and tons of fancy graphics. Since we are now obsessed with SC2, and we stopped the whole world in fear of it, there should be at least 8 billion hi-res excellent photos of this virus. Are there any libraries with significant number of actual images (not graphics) of viruses? “Significant” being in the order of thousands.
1. time lapse is not possible with EM, only with confocal fluorescence imaging, which doesn't have the same resolution. You can see viral particles as little specks but no structural detail
2. feel free to go look for it on Pubmed
3. 2 nm is not feasible with EM. This is X-ray crystallography territory. There are crystal structures of several viruses, e.g. hepatitis A, rhinovirus, poliovirus
4. "how do we know this?" From experience -- looking at such images repeatedly and comparing them. EM is not trivial -- there are specialists who do nothing but EM for their entire careers
5. that's a non-sequitur. There never was a reason to obsess over this virus, and of course the scientific effort is not proportional to the hype and the panic whipped up around it
Thank you for the replies.
1. Basically, we are looking at a snapshot of something and - owing to the sample preparation process - we do not know why and how this sample has been formed the way we “see” it in EM. Also, due to the sample preparation process and its invasive steps, we don’t really know what we are observing. Whatever it is, it certainly is not what was there in the raw material. I haven’t found any answer to this problem - how the observing scientists convince themselves that “this is it”?
1a. The sample size - measured in nanometers - being taken from a living organism of, say, 80 kgs - is practically completely irrelevant. Which begs another questions: how does the observing scientist know that the EM-recorded sample is representative of anything? Because the following publications not only refer to these images as “proofs”, but also form the ground for further theories and recommendations.
2. This means that you don’t know any. No wonder, I did try, but to no avail. The best you can find is 2 or 3 images, often cropped and non-contextual.
3. This difference is interesting. The sample observed in EM is dead and metallized, fully solid. Why not have a try? We are told that X-ray crystallography has been used to examine the structure and function of “…vitamins, drugs, proteins and nucleic acids such as DNA…” Or: “over 130,000 X-ray crystal structures of proteins, nucleic acids and other biological molecules have been determined..” [https://web.archive.org/web/20170711125430/https://www.rcsb.org/pdb/statistics/holdings.do] Why not apply it to viruses? Especially those of high concern...
4. Sorry, I am not buying this one. An “expert” EM operator is looking at dots of something on the background of something and he/she gains experience from this? Enough experience to name these dots? How does he/she know that this is this and not something else? Because yesterday’s dots were different? How does he/she know that this is “a single RNA molecule”, and not an unknown contaminant? Are they using any controls? Like placing two different “somethings” next to each other and comparing them? They don’t, obviously, because it is technically and process-wise impossible.
Which leaves the question unanswered: how do they know that this bright dot is “object A”, and the other bright dot is “object B”?
How is their naming and classification validated? No time lapse, no sequential sampling, no control images, no possibility to interfere with the sample being observed to examine its behavior in FOV - literally no way to validate their naming.
5. True. But... the more publicity this thing gets, the more money is flown into this sub-field (a natural process), as we have amply seen in 2020-2024. I don’t care about the obsession (which is actual - as evidenced by the number of peer-reviewed papers published). However, observable developments, like the “disappearance” of flu, should inspire scientists to examine everything that can in any way they can. But we get various theories instead of more efforts in actual scientific observation and experimentation. Strange.
For the record, I am not for or against anything. It’s just that there are so many contradictions and unanswered questions. What is curious to me is that everything can be answered “yes” or “no”. It’s science, right? There is no “maybe” in science - because it means “I don’t know”. So rare in public messages...
1. All microscopic imaging is subject to distortion of some kind. EM is no exception, but it is not black magic.
1a. I don't know what you are trying to say.
2. You did not specify what specific finding you wanted to see replicated. I selected some representative images from some studies and added as much context as I needed for my argument, but not more. But I cited my sources, so you are free to look at them and find out about the number of replicate experiments within them.
3. As I said, X-ray crystallography HAS ALREADY been applied to viruses. Nowadays Cryo-EM ist approaching the resolution of X-ray, but I haven't seen a whole lot of high-resolution Cryo-EM work on viruses. But then this is not my primary area of interest.
4. You can find many similar images in the literature. Also the study I took that single RNA molecule from shows more such images.
5. The "disappearance" of the flu was obviously an artifact of testing. Mixed virus infections are not uncommon. If you test for only one and then stop, then the others will "disappear" from view.
Thank you for your replies. Grateful for you viewpoints that are different from what I am gathering from literature. I will stop at this as it is inspiring enough for me to learn more and (subjectively, in my view) there in no point to elaborate on it in comments.
As Denis Rancourt has shown using excess-mortality figures by region, there is no evidence of deaths due to the spread of a pathogen (which, it shouldn't need to be said, don't know about jurisdictional boundaries). Similarly, as concluded in this detailed analysis of Italy in 2020: "There was no pandemic [of a contagious disease]." https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/03/07/italy-2020-inside-covids-ground-zero-in-europe/
Does it not trouble you that your "Sars-CoV-2 virus" is explaining something that never happened?
The question of the existence of the virus is totally separate from that of the severity or lethality of the disease. I agree with Denis' analysis that the "response" measures, including harmful "treatment", have done far more harm than the virus itself.
So you are saying that the virus causes such a mild disease that we don't notice it but that it still exists?
NB: Rancourt's analysis does not presume the existence of the the "virus" (as you presume here by comparing to "the virus itself").
I didn’t state what Denis assumes. I stated what his ANALYSIS assumes. And it does not assume a virus.
It causes trivial or mild disease in most, but severe disease in a few.
I don't know whether Denis assumes that the virus exists or not. Regardless of that point, I agree with his reading of the numbers.
I watched this documentary series (linked below) in the summer of 2022 & have been sharing it with everyone since. It provides an excellent overview of the field of virology & how it developed/grew etc.
Conclusions include:
> The lack of evidence for "C*V virus" is very clear based on scientific analysis/review of the so-called "C*v isolation" (Fan Wu study) which actually shows that C*v-19 was NEVER isolated at all in the original Chinese patient.
True. > 2. C*vid was NEVER isolated as a unique illness. It was simply assumed/invented thru computer simulation & genomic modeling replication.
Watch > THE VIRAL DELUSION - The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & The Madness of Modern Virology > https://paradigmshift.uscreen.io/
"Amazing. Should be translated into every language on the planet."
-Dr. Vicci Costa
CLICK HERE TO SEE EPISODE ONE FOR FREE!
https://paradigmshift.uscreen.io/orders/customer_info?o=70365
In addition, the series questions the entire "germ/virus theory" deception & explores the many expert doctors' analysis of contagion, what makes us sick & the overall scientific methods needed to determine disease (w/no stake in maintaining the traditional germ/virus medical institution/dogdma of Rockefeller Medicine) re: the basic deceptive foundation of germ theory/virology studies.
For more on this topic see Drs Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Sam Bailey, and Stefan Lanka (the first two even have their own Bitchute channels), plus many other videos & substacks w/excellent critiques of the field of germ theory/virology ...
Dr. Sam Bailey.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c
Dr. Tom Cowan
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/CivTSuEjw6Qp/
Dr, Andrew Kaufman
https://odysee.com/@DrAndrewKaufman:f
Some relevant substacks to check out too:
Dr Sam Bailey
https://drsambailey.substack.com/
Mike Stone - ViroLIEgy Newsletter
https://mikestone.substack.com/
Dawn Lester - Dawn's Writings
https://dawnlester.substack.com/
Dawn Lester is the co-author of the widely acclaimed book, "What Really Makes You Ill", as well as a researcher into many different fields of inquiry, including, but not restricted to that of health.
Interested to learn what readers think about these doctors' honest critiques/arguments against germ theory/viruses & explanations for disease causation. Confusion, contention, debate & discussion leads to clarity & IS the proper way - including the scientific method - to determine the "truth of the matter". ;-)
Pls watch this discussion re: Dr Kaufman’s info/arguments/evidence against viruses’ existence.
VSRF Live #131: The Great Virus Debate! An Interview with Dr. Andrew Kaufman, M.D. w/Steve Kirsch
rumble.com/v516uno-vsrf-live-131-the-gr…
“On this week’s VSRF Live, Steve sits down with psychiatrist and molecular biologist Dr. Andrew Kaufman, M.D. who has risen to fame during the pandemic for his unorthodox views on germ theory and that viruses and germs, including the COVID- 19 virus, do not actually cause illness.”
“Kaufman, an MIT trained scientist and Duke University trained psychiatrist, has deep expertise in analyzing scientific papers, data and general published studies and as such has come to believe that the traditional acceptance of germ theory since the late 1800s is not scientifically based but is rather fraught with contradictions, various conflicts of interest and even fraudulent claims. Conversely, Kaufman supports the more broadly defined “terrain theory” which promotes the belief that lifestyle choices alone force otherwise benevolent microbes to transform into pathogens; i.e. the body’s “terrain,” not germs, creates disease. These beliefs made Dr. Kaufman an early rejector of masks and COVID 19 vaccines and the subsequent attacks on our civil liberties, which the widespread societal acceptance of germ theory allowed.”
“Regardless of your personal position on germ vs. terrain theory, Dr. Kaufman presents a very interesting and compelling case which deserves greater consideration. Join us for this enthralling conversation and come to your own conclusions!”
"Conversely, Kaufman supports the more broadly defined 'terrain theory' which promotes the belief that lifestyle choices alone force otherwise benevolent microbes to transform into pathogen"
Have you ever heard of biological weapons? If Kaufman's "terrain" idea were true, then biological weapons would be impossible. But they exist. A good introduction to the subject is
Alibek, K. and Handelman, S. (1999) Biohazard (Random House)
For the use of biological weapons by the US in the Korean war, see
Endicott, S. and Hagerman, E. (1999) The United States and biological warfare: secrets from the early Cold War and Korea (Indiana University Press) https://archive.org/details/unitedstatesbiol00endi
and
Needham, J. et al. (1952) Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacterial Warfare in Korea and China https://archive.org/details/isc-full-report
Nice article. But you know what kind of logic you're up against, don't you?
'We know the earth is flat because people aren't constantly falling off it! Not even heretics like you. So there.'
It can be difficult. But I sincerely appreciate your work here.
No sense of humor, whiskeys? Come on now, “logic”??
whiskeys - Yeah, I'm w/you, buddy.
All those crazed flat-earthers are just looney-tunes, right? Maybe you can show them this absolute video proof of a ball earth from outer-space (space station?) & really convince 'em?
"All a round the world" - "Amazing Satellite Zoom Shows People Upside Down in Australia!"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Asni7SAAEPvO/
"Incredible new footage from the Japanese Flimiwari 9 satellite has just been released zooming-in to reveal people, buildings, oceans and waterfalls all literally upside-down in Australia, proving it really is "the land down under" and finally shutting up these ridiculous flat-Earthers once and for all."
Thank you for putting this out.
As a layperson it's been frustrating to see the "no virus" crowd basically act like one is morally responsible for 2020/21 for simply not adopting their dogma. Which I think is wrong even if they were correct.
Many "no virus" proponents argue that virology is a mythology to justify "public health" abuses. As a layperson this argument seems compelling, especially considering concerns with some pre-covid vaccines and other issues within medicine that seem to have come to a head during covid.
The problem I have with that is that it reeks of motivated reasoning.
As a follow-up question is it splitting hairs to argue that "regardless of the virology the measures taken in 2020 themselves were always going to more harm than good"?
It seems like there's no room for people to accept viruses or even gain of function without also conceding to the pretext of massive theft and abuse of lockdowns. That's currently the mindset I'm in, and it seems fairly lonely.
Thank you for your comment.
I remain convinced that 1) the SARS-CoV-2 virus is artificial, 2) the release of that virus and the "countermeasures" were part of the same script, by the same crowd, 3) the "countermeasures" were predictably and intentionally harmful. And this was not their first rodeo, nor apparently the last one.
Viruses are real, but the "pandemic" scares conjured up around them are false.
I'm talking about the alleged SARS-CoV-2. There were no waves that could prove the spread of a virus. No one has found such waves to date. There was also no excess mortality in 2020. There was only one flu that mysteriously disappeared along with 6 other respiratory diseases. The only thing that existed was the most expensive propaganda in world history with countless paid propaganda "experts", trolls, corrupt media and politicians. Here is the evidence:
Prof. Denis Rancourt :
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/dr-mike-yeadon-and-prof-denis-rancourt
The missing flu :
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-missing-flu
And please don’t forget the RKI protocols:
https://suavek1.substack.com/p/the-rki-protocols-part-5-dr-mike
1000 other proofs :
https://suavek1.substack.com/
Best wishes,
Suavek
Yeah, according to Palmer we must believe that something that exists was released but it didn´t cause nothing. Palmer even admits that the measures and killer treatments were worst than the ´virus´ itself. No to mention that the ¨virus´ can be detected consistently in samples obtained years before the offcial date of the Wuhan outbreak. The fact that nobody noticed it for so long is consistent with the fact the ´virus´ didn´t cause any outbreak. The fake and massive PCR testing and harmful measures better explain this.
The fraud can be proven in many ways. At the time, I also thought that it was one part of the virus swarm that make up the flu and that no one was interested in before. I am now convinced that was all 100% pure propaganda. None of it was real, except for the fear, which in individual cases could lead to a weakening of the immune system and hysterical body reactions. There were no specific symptoms and no waves of spread. After a closer look, there is nothing left of the fairy tale. There are no figures that can prove anything new, except for the short-term deaths caused by incorrect hospital protocols, delayed treatment, dehydration and isolation, etc. Even if these deaths had occurred naturally, they would not constitute a pandemic. In Germany, for example, there was a rare under-mortality rate in 2020.
Best wishes,
Suavek
Care to rebut the argument against the exosome canard in this very article?
There are even crystal structures of viral particles. It is simply impossible that exosomes or any other cellular components mimic those.
Most of this really isn't relevant to the topic of my posts.
My posts are about evidence for the existence of viruses, not about the pathogenic effects of vaccines or electromagnetic radiation.
Your post talks mostly about alternative explanations of disease, not about negative evidence on viruses.
In my post, which you apparently did not read, I discuss the isolation of hepatitis A virus particles from patients. Those particles were then thoroughly characterized using electron microscopy and biochemical methods. That single example already suffices to prove you wrong.