The Adventitious Adenovirus

“Adventitious agents are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as microorganisms that may have been unintentionally introduced into the manufacturing process of a biological medicinal product [5]: these include bacteria, fungi, mycoplasma/spiroplasma, mycobacteria, rickettsia, protozoa, parasites, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) agents and viruses. Adventitious agents could be inadvertently introduced into a vaccine through starting materials used for production, such as cell substrates, porcine trypsin, bovine serum, or any other source materials of animal or human origin.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5130882/

How many times have you been to the doctor only to be told that the symptoms you were experiencing were just “viral?” It’s nothing to worry about and the “virus” will run its course in about a week or two. Rarely, a doctor may run a PCR test if they suspect you have the flu or some other condition. However, most often they just assume you had one of the various “viruses” that induce the exact same symptoms of disease collectively known as the common cold. This is due to the fact that tests are either non-existent or are considered useless in determining the source of the cold:

“No lab tests exist to diagnose colds—a quick physical exam or self-check is usually all that’s needed—but there are several available to test for flu, including rapid tests that can be done in a clinic.”

https://www.verywellhealth.com/cold-flu-diagnosis-4689129

“Though there are some lab tests that can detect common viral agents like rhinovirus and respiratory syncytial virus, they are rarely used because the common cold tends to go away before a diagnostic test is necessary.”

https://www.healthline.com/health/common-cold-diagnosis#outlook

Why is it so difficult to test for and detect common cold “viruses?” This is because there are supposedly over 200 different “viruses” which each cause the exact same symptoms of disease. These “viruses” include:

  1. “Coronaviruses”
  2. “Rhinoviruses”
  3. “Respiratory syncytial virus”
  4. “Enteroviruses”
  5. “Human metapneumovirus”
  6. “Human parainfluenza virus”
  7. “Adenoviruses”

Thus, doctors typically only do a clinical exam to see if the symptoms are upper or lower respiratory, however due to overlapping symptoms of disease, both can be affected. Doctors can not determine the type of “virus” based on symptoms alone, even between the common cold, the flu, and “Covid-19.” The only tests available are for the flu and “Covid-19,” so the common cold “viruses” are primarily lumped into the same category.

According to the CDC:

What is the difference between a cold and flu?

“Influenza (flu) and the common cold are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. Flu is caused by influenza viruses only, whereas the common cold can be caused by a number of different viruses, including rhinoviruses, parainfluenza, and seasonal coronaviruses. Seasonal coronaviruses should not be confused with SARS-COV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Because flu and the common cold have similar symptoms, it can be difficult to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone. In general, flu is worse than the common cold, and symptoms are typically more intense and begin more abruptly. Colds are usually milder than flu. People with colds are more likely to have a runny or stuffy nose than people who have flu. Colds generally do not result in serious health problems, such as pneumonia, bacterial infections, or hospitalizations. Flu can have serious associated complications.

How can you tell the difference between a cold and flu?

Because colds and flu share many symptoms, it can be difficult (or even impossible) to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone. Special tests can tell if a person is sick with flu.”

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/coldflu.htm

As the symptoms of all of these different “viruses” overlap, the only way to tell them apart is through testing. This is primarily only done for the flu and “Covid-19.” If it isn’t the flu or “Covid-19” (which nearly every person is tested for now anyways), there is no need for doctors to test for the common cold. If they do a flu and/or “Covid” test which comes back negative, they can just assume the patient has the “rhinovirus” or they can pick from among the other 200+ cold “viruses” to blame as the culprit. Or they can simply just use the scapegoat: “It’s viral.” It doesn’t matter as the treatment is exactly the same due to the fact that it is the same disease.

It is important to know the reason why numerous “viruses” can be blamed for causing the exact same symptoms of disease. This is due to the fact that no particles assumed to be “viruses” have ever been properly purified and isolated directly from the sample taken from a sick patient and then proven to be pathogenic in a natural way. Instead, virologists take a sample, combine it with “viral” transport media, and add the unpurified mixture to toxic tissue and/or cell cultures to create cell death in order to claim that the resulting particles are “viruses.” I have gone through and shown that all of the “coronaviruses,” including “SARS-COV-2,” have never been purified, isolated, nor proven pathogenic. I have shown that to be the case for “rhinoviruses” as well. I have even shown this for the influenza “virus” which can be mistaken for the common cold. Now it is time to reveal that the exact same tricks were used to claim the existence of another common cold-causing “virus” with the relatively obscure “adenovirus.”

According to the CDC:

“Adenoviruses are common viruses that cause a range of illness. They can cause cold-like symptoms, fever, sore throat, bronchitis, pneumonia, diarrhea, and pink eye (conjunctivitis). You can get an adenovirus infection at any age. People with weakened immune systems or existing respiratory or cardiac disease are more likely than others to get very sick from an adenovirus infection.

Adenoviruses can cause a wide range of illnesses such as

  • common cold or flu-like symptoms
  • fever
  • sore throat
  • acute bronchitis (inflammation of the airways of the lungs, sometimes called a “chest cold”)
  • pneumonia (infection of the lungs)
  • pink eye (conjunctivitis)
  • acute gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach or intestines causing diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and stomach pain)

https://www.cdc.gov/adenovirus/index.html

From that description, “adenovirus” sure sounds quite a bit like a certain “coronavirus” we’ve heard a lot about recently. However, as human “coronaviruses” were not discovered until the 1960’s, “adenovirus” gets to be the first to claim these symptoms as it was supposedly “isolated” in 1953:

“Adenoviruses were first discovered in 1953, by Rowe and his colleagues. These viruses were first isolated from Adenoid cell culture, hence the family name of Adenoviridae. At present, 51 distinct serotypes have been recognized and recorded.”

http://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/adeno/2004takahashi/webpage/second.html

As can be seen from the above description, “adenoviruses” were first “isolated” from CELL CULTURES. If you know anything about the cell culture process, this immediately places the sample in an unpurified and non-isolated state as it is mixed with numerous contaminants and foreign elements. Presented below is Rowe’s entire 1953 paper showing how this culture process was carried out. You will see numerous substances added to the culture such as different kinds of nutrient media, chicken plasma, beef amniotic fluid, beef extract, horse serum, chick embryo extract, phenol red, penicillin and streptomycin, and soybean trypsin inhibitor. The degeneration pattern seen on various cells resulting from this toxic recipe was used to claim the isolation of a “virus” even though Rowe was unable to show his “virus” was pathogenic in any animal in any way whatsoever. However, this is par for the course in virology:

Isolation of a Cytopathogenic Agent from Human Adenoids Undergoing
Spontaneous Degeneration in Tissue Culture.

During the course of a study of the growth of human adenoid tissue in roller tube culture, a characteristic degeneration has been encountered which has been found to be serially
transmissible in other tissue cultures.

Methods. Adenoids were obtained duringt he winter and spring of 1952-53 from operations on young children. The tissues were minced, washed 3 times in nutrient media, and cultured by the chicken plasma clot technic. The majority of adenoids and all other tissues were grown in a modification of the beef amniotic fluid medium described by Enders (1) a few adenoids were cultured in media that were modified from those of Youngner et al.(2) Explant cultures of other tissues were prepared in the same manner; HeLa cell cultures (3) were obtained from Microbiological Associates, Bethesda, Md. Culture fluids were changed twice weekly, and the supernatant fluids were stored in screw-capped vials at -2O’C. Passages were made by transfer of supernatant fluid in a dilution of 10-l.

Results. During the first week of culture most adenoid cultures demonstrated sheets of epithelium, often ciliated, with a few areas of fibroblastic outgrowth. After 8 to 28 days in culture, 33 of the 53 (62%) adenoids observed for this period demonstrated a characteristic rounding of the peripheral epithelium, progressing to complete destruction of the epithelium within 7 to 10 days. The morphological appearance of the round cells was distinctive, and the appearance of a few of these cells almost invariably was followed by progressive replacement of the epithelium by the same type of cell. These cells were large, round or slightly ovoid, with a smooth, distinct margin, clear peripheral cytoplasm, and a densely granular center, the nucleus obscured by the granulation.

Culture fluids of 14 adenoids demonstrating this degeneration have been transferred to fresh cultures of adenoids, human embryonic tissue, or HeLa cells, and in 13 instances characteristic changes were produced in the recipient cultures. The changes observed in the recipient adenoid or embryonic tissues were identical with the picture of the original degeneration of the adenoids. The changes in HeLa cell cultures consisted of clumping and rounding of the cells, followed by dislodgement of the clumps from the wall of the tube. One isolation (strain No. 2) of the agent was obtained from an adenoid which degenerated on the eighth day of culture, by passage of the supernatant fluid to cultures of a second adenoid, the controls of which did not undergo spontaneous degeneration during 69 days of observation and from which no cytopathogenic agent could be isolated. This strain has been carried through a total of 17 passages, the first in adenoid, one in human embryo trachea, and the last 15 in HeLa cells, with production of the typical changes in every passage. Degeneration of the seventeenth passage tissue occurred one day after infection with fluid representing a theoretical dilution of the original adenoid fluid of 10^32. Fluid of the eleventh passage when passed to cultures of human fetal trachea reproduced the typical round cell degeneration after 3 days. Similarly, other strains of the agent have been carried without difficulty through serial passages, and have consistently reproduced the degeneration. In both human embryo skin and HeLa cell cultures the agent has been found to reach a titer in the supernatant fluid of more than 10^5 infectious units per ml when titrated in HeLa cells.

The medium consisted of beef amniotic fluid 85%, beef emlbryo extract 10% and inactivated horse serum 5%.

During the first week of culture the following medium was used: Hanks’ solution 40%, inactivated horse serum 40%, and chick embryo extract 20%. After this time the medium was changed to the following: Hanks’-Sims’ solution (3: 1) 85%, inactivated horse serum 5%, and chick embryo extract 10%. All media contained phenol red (O.OOl%O, penicillin and streptomycin (5O to 250 units of each), and soybean trypsin inhibitor (0.005%).

The incubation period of the cytopathogenic effects in human epithelium is usually 4 to 8 days; with higher dilutions of the inoculum the incubation period may be as long as 23 days. In cultures consisting almost entirely of human embryo fibroblasts the incubation time is longer, ranging from 8 to 15 days for the lowest dilution, to as long as 40 days with higher dilutions. Incubation time in HeLa cells varies from 2 to 20 days, depending on the concentration of the agent. The following tissues have been found to show cytopathogenic effects after infection with the agent: human adenoid; human embryonic nose, pharynx, palate, tongue, trachea, skin, muscle, and pancreas; new-born human prepuce; HeLa cells; suckling rabbit kidney and trachea; suckling hamster trachea, lung, kidney, skin, and muscle; and chick embryo lung and skin. The effects seen in hamster and chick embryo cultures were not distinctive, being characterized by gradual death and disappearance of tissue with lysis of the plasma clot. The following tissues have shown no evidence of cytopathogenic changes following inoculation with the agents: beef embryonic trachea, mouse embryo mixture, mouse glioblastoma, monkey testis, and guinea pig trachea and kidney.

Hematoxylin-eosin stained preparations of infected human embryonic tracheal epithelium
cultures have been examined by Dr. Henry Pinkerton, St. Louis University School of Medicine, who made the following description: “The normal cells take the hematoxylin stain, both nucleus and cytoplasm. The affected cells show eosinoplzilic swollen nuclei, with what I take to be nuclear inclusions. These are usually basophilic, but occasionally eosinophilic. There is margination and fragmentation of the nuclear chromatin (which stains deeply blue-black), often wrinkling of the
nuclear membrane, and swelling of the nuclei. The cytoplasm stains deep reddish purple, and occasionally contains 10 to 12 small pale blue inclusions’. . . . Often, also, the nucleus is blended with the cytoplasm to form a granular purplish mass in which no nucleus can be recognized.” Photomicrographs of stained roller tube cultures are shown in Fig. 1-3.

The agent has not been found to grow on bacteriological media, including repeated cultures on thioglycollate broth, blood agar, and several types of pleuropneumonia media. Activity of the agent was destroyed by heating at 62°C for 30 minutes; the agent was filterable through a Mandler No. 14 candle with some loss in titer. No loss of activity was found after storage at 3°C for a week or after three cycles of quick-freezing and thawing. No clinically recognizable disease has been produced by the agent inoculated by various routes into experimental animals, including embryonated eggs, suckling and adult mice, suckling hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, rhesus monkeys, and a chimpanzee.

Hyperimmunization of rabbits with agent-containing tissue culture fluids resulted in the production of antibodies capable of neutralizing the agent in tissue culture, whereas immunization with control culture fluid did not. Rabbit antisera against herpes simplex and vaccinia viruses did not neutralize the agent in tissue culture, and rabbit hyperimmune serum against strain No. 2 of the adenoid agent did not neutralize herpes simplex virus in suckling mice or vaccinia virus in tissue culture. The cytopathogenic effects of the agent were prevented or significantly delayed by addition to the cultures of human gamma globulin in a final concentration of 1:500 or some human sera in dilutions of 1:50 or higher, whereas other human sera showed no neutralizing capacity at dilutions of 1:25.

In this laboratory a variety of human viruses have been inoculated into human adenoid and embryo cultures and HeLa cell cultures, including herpes simplex, vaccinia, influenza A’ and B, Type 1 poliomyelitis, and members of the Coxsackie A and B groups, as well as human pleuropneumonia-like organisms and presumably virus-containing materials from cases of measles and varicella; in no instance has the picture produced by the adenoid agents been produced. The pattern of destruction of adenoid epithelium by herpes simplex and poliomyelitis viruses was somewhat similar to that of the adenoid agents, but their effects on HeLa cells did not resemble that produced by the adenoid agents.

Summary. 1. From the present evidence it appears that an unidentified, possibly new, tissue culture cytopathogenic agent has been isolated repeatedly from human adenoids undergoing spontaneous degeneration in tissue culture. The filterability and the inability to cultivate the agent on bacteriological media and to demonstrate organisms in stained tissue culture preparations would indicate that the agent belongs to the group of viruses or rickettsiae. It is tentatively proposed to designate the agent as the “adenoid degeneration agent”, abbreviated as “A.D. agent.” 2. That the agent is derived from the adenoid tissue rather than from the nutrient media is indicated by the fact that some adenoids and all human embryonic tissues cultivated in the identical media and at the same time have not undergone degeneration, although they are susceptible to infection with the agent; also, repeated attempts to isolate the agents from adenoid cultures not demonstrating degeneration have been uniformly unsuccessful. 3. Further investigation is in progress to determine the relation of the agent to the adenoids and to study their possible role in human disease: par ticularly upper respiratory infections.

https://doi.org/10.3181%2F00379727-84-20714

In Summary:

  • No lab tests exist to diagnose colds—a quick physical exam or self-check is usually all that’s needed
  • Though there are some lab tests that can detect common viral agents like “rhinovirus” and “respiratory syncytial virus,” they are rarely used because the common cold tends to go away before a diagnostic test is necessary
  • Flu is caused by influenza “viruses” only, whereas the common cold can be caused by a number of different “viruses,” including “rhinoviruses,” “parainfluenza,” and seasonal “coronaviruses”
  • Seasonal “coronaviruses” should not be confused with “SARS-COV-2,” the “virus” that causes “COVID-19” 
  • Because colds and flu share many symptoms, it can be difficult (or even impossible) to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone (the same applies for “Covid-19” as well)
  • Adenoviruses are common “viruses” that cause a range of illness:
    1. Common cold or flu-like symptoms
    2. Fever
    3. Fore throat
    4. Acute bronchitis (inflammation of the airways of the lungs, sometimes called a “chest cold”)
    5. Pneumonia (infection of the lungs)
    6. Pink eye (conjunctivitis)
    7. Acute gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach or intestines causing diarrhea, vomiting, nausea and stomach pain)
  • “Adenoviruses” were first discovered in 1953, by Rowe and his colleagues who “isolated” the “virus” from Adenoid cell culture
  • At present, 51 distinct serotypes have been recognized and recorded
  • During the course of a study of the growth of human adenoid tissue in roller tube culture, a characteristic degeneration was encountered which was found to be serially transmissible in other tissue cultures
  • Adenoid tissues taken from children were minced, washed 3 times in nutrient media, and cultured by the chicken plasma clot technic
  • The majority of adenoids and all other tissues were grown in a modification of the beef amniotic fluid medium described by Enders
  • A few adenoids were cultured in media that were modified from those of Youngner et al.
  • Explant cultures of other tissues were prepared in the same manner
  • Culture fluids were changed twice weekly, and the supernatant fluids were stored in screw-capped vials at -2O’C
  • After 8 to 28 days in culture, 33 of the 53 (62%) adenoids observed for this period demonstrated a characteristic rounding of the peripheral epithelium, progressing to complete destruction of the epithelium within 7 to 10 days
  • The morphological appearance of the round cells was said to be distinctive
  • Culture fluids of 14 adenoids demonstrating this degeneration were transferred to fresh cultures of adenoids, human embryonic tissue, or HeLa cells, and in 13 instances characteristic changes were produced in the recipient cultures (out of how many, they don’t say…)
  • This strain was carried through a total of 17 passages, the first in adenoid, one in human embryo trachea, and the last 15 in HeLa cells, with production of the typical changes in every passage
  • Degeneration of the seventeenth passage tissue occurred one day after infection with fluid representing a theoretical dilution of the original adenoid fluid of 10^32
  • Fluid of the eleventh passage when passed to cultures of human fetal trachea reproduced the typical round cell degeneration after 3 days
  • Other strains of the agent were said to be carried without difficulty through serial passages, and consistently reproduced the degeneration
  • The medium consisted of:
    1. Beef amniotic fluid 85%
    2. Beef emlbryo extract 10%
    3. Inactivated horse serum 5%
  • During the first week of culture the following medium was used:
    1. Hanks’ solution 40%
    2. Inactivated horse serum 40%
    3. Chick embryo extract 20%
  • After this time the medium was changed to the following:
    1. Hanks’-Sims’ solution (3: 1) 85%
    2. Inactivated horse serum 5%
    3. Chick embryo extract 10%
  • All media contained phenol red (O.OOl%O, penicillin and streptomycin (5O to 250 units of each), and soybean trypsin inhibitor (0.005%)
  • The incubation period of the cytopathogenic effects in human epithelium is usually 4 to 8 days; with higher dilutions of the inoculum the incubation period may be as long as 23 days
  • In cultures consisting almost entirely of human embryo fibroblasts the incubation time is longer, ranging from 8 to 15 days for the lowest dilution, to as long as 40 days with higher dilutions
  • Incubation time in HeLa cells varies from 2 to 20 days, depending on the concentration of the agent
  • Breaking News: The higher the amount of toxins added to the cell/tissue culture, the faster the cell/tissue dies
  • The following tissues were found to show cytopathogenic effects after infection with the agent:
    1. Human adenoid
    2. Human embryonic nose,pharynx, palate, tongue, trachea, skin, muscle, and pancreas
    3. New-born human prepuce
    4. HeLa cells
    5. Suckling rabbit kidney and trachea
    6. Suckling hamster trachea, lung, kidney, skin, and muscle
    7. Chick embryo lung and skin
  • The effects seen in hamster and chick embryo cultures were not distinctive, being characterized by gradual death and disappearance of tissue with lysis of the plasma clot
  • No clinically recognizable disease was produced by the agent inoculated by various routes into experimental animals, including embryonated eggs, suckling and adult mice, suckling hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, rhesus monkeys, and a chimpanzee (i.e. they failed miserably in attempting to prove pathogeniticity)
  • Also note that many of the tissues from these animals were ones which showed CPE yet they could still not produce disease in any of them
  • Hyperimmunization of rabbits with agent-containing tissue culture fluids (not purified/isolated “virus) resulted in the production of antibodies capable of neutralizing the agent in tissue culture (if they were unable to produce disease in rabbits, what were the antibodies doing there…?)
  • The cytopathogenic effects of the agent were prevented or significantly delayed by addition to the cultures of human gamma globulin in a final concentration of 1:500 or some human sera in dilutions of 1:50 or higher, whereas other human sera showed no neutralizing capacity at dilutions of 1:25
  • In other words, they could prevent or delay CPE dependent upon the amount of blood added to the culture
  • In their laboratory a variety of human “viruses” were inoculated into human adenoid and embryo cultures and HeLa cell cultures, including herpes simplex, vaccinia, influenza A’ and B, Type 1 poliomyelitis, and members of the Coxsackie A and B groups, as well as human pleuropneumonia-like organisms and presumably “virus-containing” materials from cases of measles and varicella; in no instance has the picture produced by the adenoid agents been produced
  • In other words, they are basing their disease-less producing “virus” on pictures of patterns they had never seen before which they created during tissue culture experiments
  • The pattern of destruction of adenoid epithelium by herpes simplex and poliomyelitis “viruses” was somewhat similar to that of the adenoid agents, but their effects on HeLa cells did not resemble that produced by the adenoid agents
  • Rowe concludes with 3 points:
    1. From the present evidence it appeared that an unidentified, possibly new, tissue culture cytopathogenic agent had been isolated repeatedly from human adenoids undergoing spontaneous degeneration in tissue culture
    2. That the agent was derived from the adenoid tissue rather than from the nutrient media was indicated by the fact that some adenoids and all human embryonic tissues cultivated in the identical media and at the same time have not undergone degeneration, although they are susceptible to infection with the agent; also, repeated attempts to isolate the agents from adenoid cultures not demonstrating degeneration have been uniformly unsuccessful (even though they never actually isolated anything from cultures showing degeneration either…)
    3. Further investigation was in progress to determine the relation of the agent to the adenoids and to study their possible role in human disease: particularly upper respiratory infections
  • In other words, Rowe did not purify and isolate any “adenovirus” nor prove pathogeniticity but instead created ways to break down tissues through the use of added toxins in order to claim a “virus” was present due to the pattern of degeneration created

It is very obvious that Rowe and Co. tried really hard to make the case that they had discovered and “isolated” a new “virus” yet the evidence they presented showed just the opposite. Not only were they unable to show purified/isolated “virus” particles taken directly from the adenoids of sick patients (as there is no indication the children were even sick to begin with), they were UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY CLINICAL DISEASE with their “agent.” All they can say is that sometimes, through different types of tissue/cell cultures experiments and numerous culture passages between them, they saw some sort of pattern in the cultures after waiting days/weeks/months which depended on the conditions of the experiments. Even then, they admit that herpes simplex and polio produced similar patterns in cultures showing that this was not a specific pattern to their “virus.” This creation of patterns caused by the different recipes used by virologists in the culturing technique is the very trick used to “discover” and claim the “adenovirus” as well as over 200 different causes for the exact same symptoms of disease. This recipe always includes unpurified samples combined with different kinds of nutrient media, animal cells/blood and other foreign proteins/microorganisms, antibiotics and antifungals, etc. Virologists can pick and chose whichever recipe they desire in order to create their adventitious scapegoats. No “virus” is ever necessary.

9 comments

  1. I think that It’s all about keep control over the masses through fear and mystification.
    There is a parallelism between the “secret” research on atomic weapons and the “secret” research on dangerous pathogens: “It is very easy to fool people with Fake News about fake, invisible nuclear radiation and fake virus killing us all. Various international organizations like WHO and IAEA controlled by gangsters supported by media fool us.”
    https://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm
    Now among other things we have:
    FEAR OF DANGEROUS PATHOGENS
    FEAR OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
    FEAR OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
    A researcher specialized in a single branch of scientific fraud often believes that in the other fields of science is much better, but it’s not like that. In reality the only thing we can say is that mainstream science has become the new mass religious fundamentalism, a means that elites use to control masses through irrefutable dogmas. And a means to make huge profits. They are not scientists, they are priests, wizards. They control the collective imagination.
    At the beginning of the “pandemic” AT THE TOP of USA medical Institutions we had: 1) Robert Redifield, Director of the CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency For Toxic Substanch and Disease Registry from 2018 to 2021, TRAINED by the JESUITS AT the Georgetown University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._Redfield . 2) Anthony Fauci who, during the Covid-19 served under President Donald Trump as one of the main members of the Coronavirus Task Force of the White House. From 1984 to today, and therefore also under Trump, Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci was TRAINED by the JESUITS at Regis High School and the College of the Holy Cross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci
    In the podcast below you can also learn how Fauci Jesuit education helped prepare him for the pandemic
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtHKbe1j0TQ
    No surprise if we learn now that Jesuits “believe everyone should have the right to access a COVID-19 vaccination” and “Jesuit Missions is working to make COVID-19 vaccines accessible to people living in the world’s poorest countries.”
    https://jesuitmissions.org.uk/campaigns/vaccines-for-all/
    According to historical of Christianity Ulrich L. Lehner:
    ” In reality, Catholics had endorsed vaccinations since the 1720s. It was, after all, Catholic missionaries, mostly Jesuits, who began inoculating Amazon Indians against smallpox in the 1720s. In Europe, Catholic orders set up modern hospital care, and church officials, such as the archbishop of Bamberg in Germany, introduced public vaccinations in the 1780s. In Rome, Pope Pius VII (1800–1823) voiced support for the treatment, and already in 1805 more than eight-hundred newborn Roman babies were vaccinated. The president of the Jimmy Carter Center, Donald Hopkins, notes in his history of small pox, The World’s Greatest Killer. Smallpox in History, that even in the remote villages of Bohemia in the early 1800s the priests constantly reminded their parishioners of the importance of being vaccinated.
    Pius VII, who resisted Napoleon, who had imprisoned him, and whom Catholics therefore venerated as a living martyr, was the immediate predecessor of Leo XII. His support for vaccinations should have made historians, who repeated the above-mentioned black legend, cautious: How often did a papal successor reverse course so completely, from endorsement to prohibition—and without a trace in the official papal pronouncements? For anti-Catholic historians the account simply had to be true, because it fit their own perception of Catholicism as intellectually and morally inferior.” In fact, according to Lehner also Pope Leo XII (1823–1829) was a provax.
    https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/02/an-anti-vaxx-pope
    By the way, also Operation Warp Speed Donald Trump was trained by the Jesuits for a certain periods of time.
    https://fordhamram.com/62224/news/a-bit-of-a-loner-former-classmates-remember-donald-trump-in-the-bronx/
    Here below there is an interesting article about the so called biolabs in Ukraine
    https://projekt-immanuel.de/en/us-american-biolabs-in-ukraine/
    “Regarding biological research in the laboratory, it must be said that it generally has little or nothing to do with reality. You cannot study living nature, which is in a cycle and in constant change, in a sterile laboratory. Just as you cannot study the natural behaviour of animals in an unnatural zoo. What happens in the test tube has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
    The researchers who work specifically in such laboratories always have certain unquestioned, fixed ideas in mind and everything they observe in their test tubes and under the microscope is evaluated within the framework of these concepts – just like with the virologists and the supposed detection of viruses. This automatically blinds them to all the contradictions that inevitably arise due to biological realities. As a result, a lot of time and money is invested in trying to answer the question of why some individuals sharing the same external conditions, fall ill less often than others. Do they possibly have a certain natural resistance in their body that should be isolated and extracted in order to produce a better vaccine? However, the observation itself can be seen as an indication that the basic idea of contagion as imagined – but never proven – may not work at all” and “A physical use of artificial pathogens is definitely out of the question because the whole scientific basis on which the idea is based is wrong. What always works very effectively, however, is the use of fear, i.e., psychological warfare, and this has been used successfully for years. One simply claims that someone else possesses biological weapons which they wouldn’t hesitate to use against all of us, and in this way legitimise an attack on them. This is what happened with the US attack on Iraq in 2003, when it was claimed that the then dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal (although it was more a matter of chemical than biological weapons), which subsequently turned out to be a “mistake”. The alleged anthrax attack shortly after the 9/11 attacks also falls into this category. An incident that is always presented as something real and supposedly proven, but on closer examination there are only claims by some “experts”, secret service agents or other questionable persons, but no solid, scientific facts that would stand up to scrutiny” and “People who are diagnosed with ‘cancer’ or ‘AIDS’, for example, which for many is tantamount to a death sentence, live in constant fear of the evil in their own bodies that they cannot escape from the time of the diagnosis. And the Corona crisis has impressively shown how susceptible people are to nonsensical scaremongering and fear of the invisible enemy. The evil killer virus lurks everywhere and can infiltrate you and make you deathly ill at any time. If you are trapped in this narrative, you cannot possibly continue to live healthily in the long run.”
    FEAR!
    You can also watch this interesting video: Immanuel Project – O.R.I., No. 01: bioweapons – the myth of man-made pathogens
    https://odysee.com/@Projekt-Immanuel:3/ORI_01_bioweapons:3?fbclid=IwAR0z97eyXjzhxlPa-tBWDdsm2q2IWvFN4HyTUdNJvTMe0Bw3xVEFjADnJs4
    I think that nuclear weapons are a scam as big as the bioweapons, read also this very well documented book:
    https://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Death-Object-Exploding-the-Nuclear-Weapons-Hoax-by-Akio-Nakatani.pdf
    “Trickery is the way of war – thus has it always been. But the nuclear trick is the biggest, boldest and baddest-ass scam in all of mankind’s ancient and eternal quest for power and profit through mass slaughter. DEATH OBJECT takes you behind the curtain and reveals the empty sound stage. The science, the history, the misery, the mystery – the full hoax is covered.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for the links and info! I agree that the bioweapon and nuclear threat are designed to keep people in a constant state of heightened fear of the invisible threat that can take them out at any moment. Fear is the true “virus.”

      Like

    2. ciao Federico, regarding your comment on the last post (https://viroliegy.com/2022/03/24/the-viral-delusion/#comment-1861) i wholeheartedly agree with it and i would go even further even leaving aside the germ issue i can’t seem to find an honest source of information on any topic at all: geoengineering, politics, the law, … they all clearly have an hidden agenda and/or misdirect heavily on the issue
      anyway, may i ask you what you read, who do you follow regarding italian matters?
      thanks to you and to Mike for all the invaluable work and information you provide

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Ciao PSM. Regarding Italian matters the “alternative” parties, the “alternative” lawyers, etc. are mainly controlled opposition. Vatican, Mafia and Freemasonry control both information and counter-information. The magistrature is corporately managed and all the sues about violations of the constitutional rights presented by the citizens are dismissed. “Alternative” lawyers know it but they continue to push citizens in presenting sues that inevitably will be stopped by magistracy. The purpose of these lawyers is just to earn a lot of money, create “alternative” parties, become famous and direct the protests towards inconclusive directions. We have already had a similar experience with the Movimento 5 Stelle, an “alternative” party created by Grillo, a famous comedian (like Zelensky), and Casaleggio, with the help of Freemasons and Zionists, like Enrico Sassoon of the infamous Sassoon family (Later Sassoon falsely dissociated him from that party https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2013/03/28/enrico-sassoon-ecco-perche-casaleggio-scelse-grillo/544913/)
        Later this “Five star movement” once in the government has become part of the globalist agenda. Another alternative party, the League of Salvini, after having deceived millions of citizens, end up the same way.
        I think that Francesco Carbone is one of the few honest researchers who tell us what’s going on in Italy.
        Se sei italiano o comprendi la lingua italiana vai a vedere la sua pagina facebook:https://www.facebook.com/francesco.carbone.7773
        In Italy we have mainly the Vatican, Mafia and Fremansonry that controls all political puppets both in the government and opposition.
        The head of the government Mario Draghi was trained by the Jesuits at the Massimiliano Massimo Institue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM9fgVMMZDY
        Draghi was an employee of Goldman Sachs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBdMvck7_m8
        Sergio Mattarella is another Vatican puppet, he has served as the president of Italy since 2015. “A Christian leftist politician, Mattarella was a leading member of the Christian Democracy party from the early 1980s until its dissolution.” and “During his youth, Mattarella moved to Rome due to his father’s commitments to politics. In Rome, he became a member of Azione Cattolica (AC), a large Catholic lay association, of which he became the regional chairman for Lazio from 1961 to 1964.[11] After attending Istituto San Leone Magno, a classical lyceum (liceo classico) in Rome,[12] he studied law at the Sapienza University of Rome, where he joined the Italian Catholic Federation of University Students.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Mattarella#Early_life
        Before Draghi we had Giuseppe Conte, another Vatican puppet at the head of the government. Conte attended the University College Villa Nazareth, that that place is known as the temple of the so-called “democratic” Catholicism. Some talk about it as a small Oxford of the Roman suburbs: https://www.agi.it/politica/villa_nazareth_giuseppe_conte-3943268/news/2018-05-24/
        Carlo Azeglio Ciampi was another bankster trained by the Jesuits who destroyed our nation. He attended the San Francesco Saverio Institute, managed by the Jesuits, from the third elementary high school. He was the prime minister of Italy from 1993 to 1994 and the president of Italy from 1999 to 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Azeglio_Ciampi
        Another disgrace for us was Mario Monti. Mario Monti, OMRI (born 19 March 1943) is an Italian economist who served as the Prime Minister of Italy from 2011 to 2013. He also was trained by the Jesuits at the Leone XIII Institute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLpi1K-2tSo
        “Monti actively participates in several major think tanks. He was the founding chairman of Bruegel, another European think tank, which was formed in 2005.
        Monti is a leading member of the exclusive Bilderberg Group.[54] He has also been an international advisor to Goldman Sachs[55] and The Coca-Cola Company.[56]
        In 2007, Monti was one of the first supporters of the first European civic forum, États Généraux de l’Europe, initiated by European think tank EuropaNova and European Movement.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Monti#Early_life

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It’d be great if there were a forum for discussion of all fields, a sort of new citizen academia. I saw something called the Fakeology(?) Forum that sort of fit the bill but it was pretty small and more centered on conspiracy/fakes than a general academic angle.

        I dissent substantially from the mainstream on:

        – epistemology***
        – logic/semantics***
        – math (its theoretical foundations)*
        – physics*
        – virology*
        – microbiology
        – physiology/health**
        – psychology*
        – sociology*
        – linguistics**
        – economics (political economy)**
        – Bitcoin**
        – music theory

        *fields I know quite a bit about
        **fields I’m well versed in
        ***fields I consider myself a leading thinker in some aspect of

        I’m curious to see others’ lists! Only virology? Surely not.

        I’m currently also exploring history, religion, compsci/coding, archeology, and law.

        Liked by 2 people

    3. “A researcher specialized in a single branch of scientific fraud often believes that in the other fields of science is much better, but it’s not like that. In reality the only thing we can say is that mainstream science has become the new mass religious fundamentalism, a means that elites use to control masses through irrefutable dogmas. And a means to make huge profits. They are not scientists, they are priests, wizards. They control the collective imagination.”

      Perfectly stated. With the media, Hollywood, government, the church, and even (until the legal presumption is refuted by competed counsel, like the OMSJ lawyers) the courts all playing along blindly or complicitly.

      Mass formation is defeated by parallel societies. We need science but also culture.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. I still wonder why they find degeneration so consistently with certain “viruses” while with others they can’t find any. It must be some manner of self-fooling but it would be helpful to know the details.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I believe it has more to do with the recipe used for culturing and a matter of chance. They can not always reproduce the same effect and there are many cases where a “specific” CPE is not specific and shared by other “viruses.”

      Like

Leave a Reply to ClariFire Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: