Introduction to ViroLIEgy

The world of virology can be a confusing and chaotic mess, especially if one does not know where to look or what to be looking for. In the interest of helping people navigate the many interlocking areas related to virology as well as the information contained within this site, I am providing an introduction page outlining the most important components to be looking out for while partaking on this journey. Think of this page as the map to help guide you through the fantastical world of the pseudoscience known as virology. It is my hope that this will help to create a better understanding of the unscientific methods utlized in these studies so that anyone can read the papers and identify the tricks for themselves.

Is Virology A Science?

To start off with, let’s address the question of whether or not virology is even a science at all. To do so, we need to examine at a few definitions first:

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Pseudoscience: Theories, ideas, or explanations that are represented as scientific but that are not derived from science or the scientific method. 

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199594009.001.0001/acref-9780199594009-e-1007

In order to be considered science, the field in question must adhere to the scientific method. If it does not, it is considered pseudoscience, i.e. fake science. The scientific method is the process of observation, questioning, and experimentation that is supposed to be followed by all researchers. It consists of a series of steps designed to test a hypothesis in order to either validate or invalidate it. The steps are as follows:

  1. Observe a phenomenon
  2. Alternate hypothesis
    • Independent variable (the presumed cause)
    • Dependent variable (the observed effect)
    • Control variables
  3. Null hypothesis
  4. Test/experiment
  5. Analyze the observation/data
  6. Validate/invalidate hypothesis

Virology is at a loss from the very start as they can not observe a “virus” in nature. They can not see a “virus” float into a host and witness this act causing disease. They can not watch “viruses” being transferred from person to person through tiny droplets or aerosols in the air. As virologists can not observe “viruses” at all, they had to assume something “virus-like” existed in the first place causing disease. In other words, “viruses” were nothing but an idea from the beginning. We are still waiting for the proof that these fictional entities actually exist.

The most important aspect of the scientific method to obtain the necessary proof for cause and effect is having a well-established independent variable. This is the variable that you can manipulate in order to see if it (the presumed cause) has the desired effect on the dependent variable; the result that changes based on the manipulation of the independent variable. 

This is exactly where problems arise in virology. In order for any scientific experiment attempting to show cause and effect to be valid, it must have an independent variable that can be observed and manipulated in order to determine if it is the real cause of the desired effect. For virology, the independent variable would be only those particles that virologists dreamt up and assumed to be the “virus.” Nothing more, nothing less. As they can not observe “viruses” in nature nor aquire them there in order to obtain the necessary particles to be used for experimentation, virologists must get the desired particles directly from the fluids of a sick patient though the means of purification and isolation.

What is Purification and Isolation?

Purification is the necessary process required to get the assumed “virus” particles free from any contaminants, pollutants, or foreign materials that are found within the fluids from the sick patient. This means separating the assumed “virus” particles away from any host material, bacteria, microorganisms, multivesicular bodies, exosomes, etc. so that nothing but the particles believed to be “viruses” remain. Only then would virologists be able to use just the isolated (separated from everything else) particles believed to be “viruses” as an independent variable in order to attempt to prove cause and effect.

Purification be done various ways and is usually a combination of multiple methods including:

  1. Centrifugation
  2. Filtration
  3. Precipitation
  4. Chromatography

Yet here is where we hit another road bump. Even though the methods of purification exist, virologists rarely if ever use them. In fact, they regularly claim that purification can not be done in order to get the desired particles and they will provide many excuses for why this is the case. Often, you will see excuses such as:

  • There are not enough “virus” particles in the sample
  • The “virus” particles are damaged and lost during purification
  • “Viruses” need a host cell and must be cell cultured in order to grow enough “virus” particles

Here are a few examples of the excuses being put into action. From Luc Montagnier, discoverer of HIV:

“There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus in the gradient.”

“One had not enough particles produced to purify and characterise the viral proteins. It couldn’t be done.”

“I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn’t take the “peak”…or it didn’t work…because if you purify, you damage.”

https://viroliegy.com/2022/02/13/montagniers-monster/

From University of Auckland associate professor and microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles in an AAP “Fact” check:

“Viruses are basically inanimate objects which need a culture to activate in. But the way they are phrasing the requests is that the sample must be completely unadulterated and not be grown in any culture – and you can’t do that,” she told AAP FactCheck in a phone interview.

“You can’t isolate a virus without using a cell culture, so by using their definition it hasn’t been isolated. But it has been isolated and cultivated using a cell culture multiple times all around the world.”

https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/19/what-do-virologists-mean-by-isolation/

From the CDC:

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

As can be seen, it is claimed that even though the methods of purification exist, these methods are unsuitable for separating the assumed “virus” particles away from everything else. In other words, “viruses” can not be purified (free of contaminants) nor isolated (separated from everything else) and therefore can not be used as a valid independent variable in order to prove cause and effect. Thus, virology can not follow the scientific method and is by definition unscientific. In other words:

Virology is a Pseudoscience!

Now that we have that out of the way, how does virology go about attempting to get around the fact that it is a pseudoscience in order to trick the masses? This comes about mainly through redefining criteria and definitions.

Cell Culture = “Virus Isolate?”

When virologists refer to isolating a “virus,” as seen in the examples above, they are not referring to particles that are separated and free of contaminants, pollutants, foreign materials, etc. Their definition is something else entirely, as explained by virologist Vincent Racaniello:

“Many of the terms used in virology are ill-defined. They have no universally accepted definitions and there is no ‘bible’ with the correct meanings.”

“Let’s start with the term virus isolate, because it’s the easiest to define. An isolate is the name for a virus that we have isolated from an infected host and propagated in culture. The first isolates of SARS-CoV-2 were obtained from patients with pnemonia in Wuhan in late 2019. A small amount of fluid was inserted into their lungs, withdrawn, and placed on cells in culture. The virus in the fluid reproduced in the cells and voila, we had the first isolates of the virus.

Virus isolate is a very basic term that implies nothing except that the virus was isolated from an infected host.”

https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/12/virologists-making-conclusions-not-justified-by-the-data/

What virologists call an isolate is the fluid from the sick host with everything included. The unpurified fluids (containing host materials, bacteria, microorganisms, etc) are mixed with many other materials such as antibiotics/antifungals, blood from baby cows, chemicals and minimal “nutrients,” etc. and are added to a cell culture normally consisting of African green monkey kidneys or a cancerous cell line from humans. After culturing for days, virologists look for evidence of cell death known as the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) to claim a “virus” is present within the unpurified soup. There are, however, two problems with this:

  1. The CPE in the cell culture which virologists look for as evidence is not specific to “viruses” and can be caused by numerous other factors.
  2. The mixture of the unpurified fluids from the host with many contaminants and foreign elements is the exact opposite of purification and isolation.

Thus, it should be clear that one can not use cell cultured supernatant as an independent variable in order to adhere to the scientific method to determine cause and effect as there are numerous substances mixed together into a toxic soup. Any of these substances within the soup could potentially cause the effect being blamed on the invisible “virus.” It is also important to note that no “virus” is ever observed to be within the cell culture, only the non-specific CPE effect is observed. The cell culture method championed by virologists fails two very important components of the scientific method which can not be accomplished without them. For more information on this fraudulent cell culture practice, click here.

Satisfying Koch’s Postulates?

In 1884, German scientist Robert Koch devised a set of logic-based criteria that needed to be met in order to prove a specific pathogen caused a disease. By 1890, he had refined and published them. At the time, Koch’s criteria were developed for bacteria as “viruses” were unknown and were not officially “discovered” until 1892 with the Tobacco Mosaic “virus” for plants. The four original Postulates were:

  1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all cases of those suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy subjects.
  2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased subject and grown in pure culture.
  3. The cultured microorganism should cause the exact same disease when introduced into a healthy subject.
  4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

Since the time of Koch, it has been debated as to whether or not Koch’s Postulates could ever be fulfilled for “viruses.” In 1937, prominent virologist Thomas Rivers admitted that it was “obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.” He tried to revise the Postulates for virology by watering them down in order to make it easier for virologists to satisfy them. However, even with the revisions, virologists have been unable to fulfill these Postulates. The problem is that in order to fulfill these logic-based criteria, virologists must adhere to the scientific method by having purified and isolated “virus” particles in order to prove cause and effect. As we already discussed, they can not do this as virology is a pseudoscience that attempts to wiggle around the scientific method. Thus, many arguments have come about trying to paint the satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates as irrelevant by claiming:

  1. The Postulates are outdated.
  2. They were created for bacteria only.
  3. “Viruses” can not be grown in pure culture.
  4. Koch himself could not satisfy his own criteria.

I’m sure there are many other excuses that I have left out but the picture should be crystal clear. Virologists can not satisfy the logical requirements that must be met in order to prove a microbe causes disease. Funny enough, even though attempts have been made to discredit the Postulates, the WHO still admits that they must be satisfied:

“Conclusive identification of a causative must meet all criteria in the so-called “Koch’s postulate.” The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.” -WHO 2003

https://web.archive.org/web/20210105005624/https://www.who.int/csr/don/2003_03_27b/en/

There are even virologists who also admit to needing to fulfill these Postulates. From Ron Fouchier:

“For starters, we’ll find out whether animals get sick from this virus. You can isolate a virus from a patient, but that does not mean they died from it; to show that it causes disease you need to fulfill Koch’s postulates.”

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/ron-fouchier-new-coronavirus-we-need-fulfill-kochs-postulates

From the Zaki MERS paper:

“It will be equally important to test whether HCoV-EMC fulfills Koch’s postulates as the causative agent of severe respiratory disease.”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1211721

From the Zhu “SARS-COV-2” paper:

“Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.”

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017

From the Zhou “SARS-COV-2 ” paper:

“The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease. We do not yet know the transmission routine of this virus among hosts.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7#ref-CR13

Somehow, the WHO and these various virologists did not receive the memo to trash the Postulates. It is obvious, contrary to what the naysayers want you to believe, that these four criteria must be satisfied in order to prove a “virus” causes disease. In order to do so, the scientific method must be adhered to by having the independent variable of purified/isolated particles taken directly from sick humans in order to prove them pathogenic in a natural way. Taking unpurified fluids from sick patients and adding them to toxic cell culture concoctions does not cut it and the pseudoscientists know it.

Indirect Does Not Equal Direct

As virologists can not provide the purified and isolated particles they believe are “viruses,” they lack direct proof as to the existence of said “viruses.” Direct evidence is that which directly demonstrates and proves a fundamental fact. In order to get around this conundrum, virologists have attempted to provide an array of indirect evidence to stand in for the lack of the real deal. Indirect evidence is a combination of many facts that do not offer direct proof but, if they turn out to be true, allow for the inference of a key fact at issue. The different sources of indirect evidence that stands in as a substitute for the invisible “virus” include:

  1. Cell Culture and the cytopathogenic effect (CPE)
  2. Electron microscope images
  3. Antibody results
  4. Genomes
  5. Animal studies

We will look at each of these areas briefly starting with electron microscopy as we already previously touched upon cell culturing.

Electron Microscopy: Point and Declare

Many people think that because there are images of “viruses,” it means that the “viruses” have been proven to exist. However, this is one of the great deceptions that virology has enacted upon the world. As we previously discussed, virologists can not purify and isolate the particles that they believe are “viruses” directly from the fluids of sick patients. In order to obtain the EM images, they take the supernatant (top layer of liquid) of the unpurified cell culture and put it through a series of steps to prepare the sample for imaging. These steps include:

  1. Fixing (i.e. killing) the sample with either glutaraldehyde or paraformaldehyde
  2. Staining the sample with heavy metals
  3. Dehydrating the sample in increasing concentrations of alcohol
  4. Embedding the sample in an epoxy resin

Not only has the unpurified fluids fron the sick patient been heavily altered through all of the pollutants added during the cell culturing process, it is further altered during the sample preparation process for EM. The resulting images are of random particles from a sea of billions of similar and/or identical particles which were then plucked out as the representation of the “virus.” The EM technician points at the random particles and declares them as the “virus” without proof that the particles are in fact the culprit. As the EM images are not of purified/isolated particles, the evidence is indirect at best and entirely fraudulent at worst. In fact, microbiologist Harold Hillman claimed that these images were nothing but aretfacts created by the very process used to obtain them. The end result is that the images are as far away removed from reality as they could possibly get. For more on EM images, click here.

Antibodies: Does One Fictional Entity Prove Another?

Another indirect trick that virologists love to use is the so-called specificity of antibodies to bind to only the intended “virus” target. We have been sold the idea that antibodies exist inside of us which engage in all-out warfare against the invading pathogenic “virus” in order to restore us back to health. Antibodies are used to claim a specific “virus” is present in the lab and also to claim that one has some form of immunity either after vaccination or acquired from natural “infection.”

However, what most do not know is that, like “viruses,” antibodies have also never been purified and isolated directly from the fluids of humans. These entities are entirely theoretical and have never been observed. Also like “viruses,” antibodies were just the figment of the imagination of various researchers in the late 19th century who never witnessed them in action. In fact, there are no less than six theories attempting to explain the shape and function of these fictional creations. These include:

  • Instructive Theories
    1. Direct Template Theory
    2. Indirect Template Theory
  • Selective Theories
    1. Natural Selection Theory
    2. Side Chain Theory
    3. Clonal Selection Theory
    4. Immune Network Theory

Virologists regularly use antibody tests to claim that they have a specific “virus” present. In essense, they look at indirect chemical reactions in a lab to claim the presence of antibodies which are then used to claim the presence of a “virus.” The tests that are utilized regularly in the papers include:

  1. Neutralization assays
  2. Hemagglutination Inhibition test
  3. Complement Fixation test
  4. Immunoassays
  5. Immunoblotting
  6. Lateral Flow tests

What virologists will not openly admit to is that antibodies are nonspecific and will regularly bind to proteins which are not the intended target. Antibodies sold to labs vary in quality and differ batch-to-batch which often leads to erroneous and false results. The work done with antibodies are unreproducible and irreplicable which has led to a reproducibility crisis in the sciences. The reason for all of this is that antibodies remain an unproven theoretical construct. It should be obvious that one can not use a fictional creation in order to assert the existence of another fictional creation, yet virologists continue to use this illusion to trick you.

Genomics: Random A,C,T,G’s In A Database

With the rise of molecular virology, genomics has played an ever-increasing role in the “viral” delusion. The advent of PCR in the 1980’s led to the use of the DNA Xerox machine becoming a makeshift test to detect “viruses” based off of fragments from their genomes. However, as has been shown during the “Covid-19 pandemic,” PCR is highly inaccurate and is not suitable for this purpose. What is also evident is that genomes themselves are entirely unreliable as virologists are unable to sequence the exact same genome every time. At the time of this writing, there are nearly 10.5 million variants of the same “virus” running around.

https://www.gisaid.org/

Why is this the case? As discussed before, as virologists are unable to purify and isolate the particles they claim are “viruses,” the resulting genome comes from unpurified mixtures of RNA/DNA including various sources such as human, animals, bacteria, and other microorganisms. There is absolutely no way to tell where the genetic material is coming from nor whether it belongs to a single source. However, this has not stopped virologists from creating and assembling theoretical models of random A,C,T,G,’s in a computer database in order to claim the existence of a “virus” never before seen. The fact that there are numerous steps that the samples go through during the creation of a genome that lead to alterations, artefacts, distortions, and errors makes it easy to see that the genome is nothing but a meaningless indirect and fraudulent representation of a non-existent entity. For a breakdown of the genome creation process, click here.

Proof of Pathogenicity?

The most horrific aspect of the indirect methods used to claim the existence of pathogenic “viruses” is the cruel and grotesque torture animals are regularly subjected to in the pursuit of evidence. Holes were drilled into the heads of monkeys in order for the emulsified spinal cord from a 9-year-old boy to be injected into their brains. This was the “proof” that polio caused paralysis. Rabbits were regularly scraped with sandpaper and had toxic emulsions of ground up wart tissues rubbed into their wounds to “prove” the existence of the “papillomavirus.” The rabbits also had this goo injected directly into their veins, into their stomachs, into the fat layers of their skin, into their testicles, and into their brains. Rabbits also had their eyes scarified by scalpels in order to inject the goo supposedly containing the variola-zoster (chickenpox/shingles) “virus” in order to “prove” pathogenicity. They were also injected in all of the usual places including the testicles. Horrifying tales such as these are ripe in the virology literature. Often times, the experiments ended in failure and the animals were needlessly tortured and killed for no reason whatsoever. In all cases, no purified/isolated “virus” particles are ever used and the injection mixture often contains the ground up remains of previously killed animals. The route of “infection” is anything but natural and in no ways proves pathogenicity, contagiousness, and/or infectiousness. At best, these experiments show that animals can be poisoned by the injection of chemically-altered diseased tissues/fluids

Why do virologists go to such cruel lengths to attempt to prove the existence of pathogenic “viruses?” It is because the attempts to pass “viruses” on naturally from human-to-human failed miserably most of the time. During the 1918 Spanish flu, transmission experiments were conducted on numerous volunteers on separate occasions on different coasts. The results from the “deadliest virus” of all time were very revealing:

“The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. Rosenau was the first to report on the experiments conducted at Gallops Island in November and December 1918. His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer’s bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, some volunteers received injections of blood from influenza patients. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. None of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza. Rosenau was clearly puzzled, and he cautioned against drawing conclusions from negative results. He ended his article in JAMA with a telling acknowledgement: “We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person. Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”

The research conducted at Angel Island and that continued in early 1919 in Boston broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results. It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.“

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/#!po=60.7527

Because of the repeated failures of human-to-human transmission experiments, these types of natural routes of exposure were deemed unethical and were replaced by the much more “ethical” torture, dismemberment, and murder of animals. There are, however, still what are called human challenge trials such as that seen recently with “SARS-COV-2.” Yet these trials do not reflect reality whatsoever and use cell-cultured manufactured goo that is inoculated into the nose of volunteers who are then told to wear noseclips to become “infected.” There is nothing natural about these human trials and the inhumane animal experimentation. There are no purified/isolated “virus” particles used in these studies. There are no natural routes of infection. There is no proof of pathogenicity.

Piecing The Puzzle Together

Hopefully it is now clear that virology does not follow the scientific method. It has no valid independent variable (i.e. purified/isolated particles directly from human fluids) for which to establish cause and effect through experimentation. Without this, there is no direct evidence of any “virus” ever having been inside a human. Without this, there can be no satisfaction of Koch’s Postulates, the logic-based criteria needed to be fulfilled in order to prove a microbe causes disease. All virology has is flawed indirect evidence that does not hold up under scrutiny.

In order to put this information to use and to understand the papers presented on this site, I want to briefly walk you through how to use the links properly. Under any paper shared in the articles I post, there is usually a link to the paper. If the paper is behind a paywall, a DOI number will be listed at the end of the paper.

In my articles it will look like this:

In a study, it will normally appear something like this:

Once you have the DOI number, go to sci-hub.st and paste it into the search bar. This will give you the option to either read or download the paper:

The most important section of any virology paper is the “Methods” section. You can honestly skip over the entire study if you want to and just read the methods. If you see that the “virus” was cultured, you know full well now that they never purified nor isolated any particles directly from the human sample. The virologists did nothing more than create a toxic soup and assumed a “virus” was present indirectly through CPE:

Welcome to ViroLIEgy

This site is intended to be a guide through the pseudoscientific world of virology. My intention is to share information directly from their own studies and sources. I obviously have my own opinion of the information and I will always provide my own breakdown and commentary. However, I do not want anyone to just take my word as the gospel truth. I share the sources so that anyone can read and verify this information for themselves. You can determine if my analysis is correct or not or ignore it entirely and do an analysis of your own. In this day and age, we can not just assume what we are told and taught is correct. We all need to be our own experts and display critical thinking, logic, and discernment. It is my belief that anyone looking at virology utilizing these same skills will see what myself and others have seen for a long time now. Virology is an illusion. A deliberate deception. A trick. It is not science. It is pseudoscience at its worst.

Welcome to the world of viroLIEgy. I wish you luck on your own journey as you uncover the hard truths about the deceitful and horrific tales that have been indoctrinated into us since birth.

75 comments

  1. Incredible! Well done! The science of virology follows the big pharma method…create a disease or illness out of thin air and extract monstrous profits for distribution of the fake fix. It’s the perfect scam of all time…repeated over and over without question.

    Unlike a car or computer, few humans are able to tear apart a body and rebuild it to see how it works or what has caused it to malfunction. Thus, we have to blindly place our faith in the medical system and trust it will have our backs and best health in mind. It seldom does.

    Mike, you would make an excellent guest on George Noory’s nightime radio show “Coast To Coast” if you haven’t been a guest as of yet. Your ideas about germ theory verses terrain theory would reach millions. The virus hoax would become somewhat exposed and perhaps many would begin to question the status quo.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks so much for the kind words! I have never heard of George Noory. I’m hopeful this message continues to reach a larger audience. Together we can end this madness once and for all. 🙂

      Like

    2. Thanks for this. I find even many science-informed people feel totally clueless when it comes to medical sciences, trained to stay in their lanes, and taught to worship experts, to feel lost when it comes to the body and biological processes. Precisely because, as you say, we can’t see the stuff with the naked eye. Rule by electron microscope.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. How to get people to read this? Understand that virology is not science? (Sorry, Fauci, you aren’t either). It’s frustrating and increasingly exhausting. Took my husband for a blood draw this morning. Our required masks on (ugh), sitting in the waiting room, I read on the white board, “Do you need a booster?” Underneath this question is drawn a cheery little flower, smiling at us from inside its flower pot. Uh, no. Didn’t need the two doses either, or any other jabs you have in mind for my arm. If no virus, no virology. Then no germ theory, no pandemic.Then no need for masks (Why don’t they work? Because there’s nothing for them to stop, aerosolized or in droplets or riding a magic carpet). No virus, no lockdowns, no v@x passports, no business closures (that bankrupt mostly independent, family-run companies) no big hammer to wield to control us, corral us, track and trace us – for our own good, mind you. For ALL our health and safety! The entire charade falls apart. This is why people like you, and me and many others will not let go: There is NO VIRUS. End of rant. Love you Mike Stone!

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I have never worn a muzzle anywhere and never will. Every one of us is capable of saying no to any of their ridiculous demands. You simply say you cannot wear a muzzle, and continue about your business. If they continue to harass you, call the police. Harassment is a crime, but breathing is not.
      Wearing a muzzle is a humiliating ritual that is physically, psychologically and socially harmful to you and to anyone who sees you. Stop complying with evil.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. Lynn, thanks for this. I start by informing people of the scientific method. I suppose it helps that i do have science background in terms of getting them to listen. And another key point i make is to explain that so-called sequencing of viruses is NOT “sequencing,” but assembling. Sequencing is the process of taking a known genome, e.g. human, cat,..and breaking it apart, determining the order in which A,C, G, T base pairs are arranged within it. Assembling involves taking short strands of 150 base pairs or fewer and putting them together (via matching end segments) so as to create an unknown genome, using something as a model. in the case of SARS-COV-2, the model was…. SARS-COV-1, which was itself assembled in such a process. Good piece of information to inform people with, i learned it from David Rasnick PhD in the movie The Viral Delusion. and also Mike’s interview with Sol Luckman.

      Liked by 4 people

    1. Roland,

      In your brief, first you say that viruses are DNA copies made by living cells, and that without that process life could not exist. While you do not mention the function of this productive capacity, it sounds a lot like exosomal, proteomic intercellular communication.

      But later you say that viruses are particles from dead cells. This leaves me confused.

      Also, I find your conclusion that memory transcription does not take place during t-cell division unsupported by both the germ theory establishment’s immunological studies and also what I understand to be the reason-based natural dynamic under terrain theory.

      The natural dynamic of the specialized transporters that are t-cells is one of continuity. Life itself is a continuum. It doesn’t stand to reason that a specialized class of transporters within the mammalian filter system would have to start from scratch every 1.5 to 6 months, and relearn it’s job. And it doesn’t stand to reason that memory transcription doesn’t take place during memory cell division (reproduction). Transcription is the whole point of reproduction.

      Like

      1. Sorry Roland I forgot to answer your question about t-cell division. Yes, t-cells divide by mitosis.

        I read the study you posted. It was partly a very clever in vivo study examining the differences in mammalian t-cell types found in the three main compartments they are found: the blood, the thymus, and bone marrow. While each of these compartments are ‘home’ to one type of t-cell or another, they all can be found circulating in all three. They were able to dynamically track t-cells in vivo by putting a biomarker, a deuterium compound, in the goats’ water. Since they already know how frequently the different types of t-cells divide, the way that they were able to calculate the lifespan of the different types of individual t-cells was by tracing and calculating the fading fingerprints of the deuterium from daughter cell to daughter cell.

        The title of the paper alluded to t-cell division:

        “Short Lifespans of Memory T-cells in Bone Marrow, Blood, and Lymph Nodes Suggest That T-cell Memory Is Maintained by Continuous Self-Renewal of Recirculating Cells.”

        The body is intelligent. Cutting edge research is generally not stupid. Natasha Campbell-Mcbride is the scientific visionary that she is because came from a traditional Russian peasant culture as a child, had a career as a disaffected neurosurgeon, and ended up a holistic healer because she pored over the raw power of cutting edge allopathic science experiments and took the truths and left the rest, and systematically compiled the truths with lateral thinking and incorporated them into her traditional cultural roots. Virology is a mainly a cultural problem, because the elites are a cultural problem.

        Our ‘t-cells’ are toxin transporter cells. Just because ‘t-cells’ have short individual lifespans doesn’t mean that their daughter cells aren’t just as equipped to do the job that their mother did. On the contrary, of course they are.

        Like

      2. Roland, you’re welcome. I read your revision and as far as I can tell you changed the word “particle” to “fragment” which doesn’t affect my original confusion.

        When you initially talk about viruses in truth being DNA copies made by living cells for the survival purposes of the organism, you are talking about exosomes. Exosomal diversity contains all the variations of nucleic acid formations including mRNA, RNA, DNA, etc. These nucleic acid formations are protein formulations in an informational format.

        If we believe that the field of proteomics is correct in concluding that exosome are the class of particles manufactured by living cells for intercellular communication purposes, then the ‘viruses’ that virology refers to are in actuality exosomes being misidentified as ‘viruses.’ The ‘viruses’ of virology are not simply dead cell debris as Tom Cowan would have it. Dead cell debris gets eaten by saprophytes. That said, actively dying cells (living cells) surely would be communicating with exosomes the nature of the cytopathic effect they are succumbing to, whether naturally occurring or the result of artificial cell culturing practices.

        Like

      3. @Reante “Yes, t-cells divide by mitosis”. The article does two things: 1 show that most T-memory cells live less than 30 days (In this study, we used in vivo deuterium labeling in goats to simultaneously quantify the average turnover rates—and thereby expected lifespans—of memory T-cells) and 2 speculate about memory T-cell division (Our results support the view that the majority of memory T-cells in the BM are self-renewing as fast as those in the periphery). The speculation is of course to support the false idea that vaccines do work and so secure further funding. Now you understand the false title, which suggests T-memory cell division, whereas this study is exclusively about the expected lifespan of memory T-cells.

        When we can get this into the world the whole great reset comes to a halt. I think this is a very big chance. Suggestions welcome!

        Like

      4. Roland, WADR you are letting reactionaryism get the better of you, and it is affecting your understanding of reality. The more that happens in the ‘activist’ community the weaker is the ‘activism.’ (Myself, I do not believe in activism because I do not believe in civilization. I only believe in the truth.)

        Everybody knows that t-cells divide, including memory t-cells. You are reading with a bias that prevents basic comprehension: the “speculation” is not about whether memory t-cells divide at all, but about the nature (frequency) of memory t-cell division, since it is known that memory t-cells do not divide as much as other t-cells. Which stands to reason because memories are passive operations most of the time and the body doesn’t perform unnecessary functions.

        If I were you I would take down my brief and take a step back. I fully understand that these are intense times, but when we find ourselves overreacting to the ‘great reset’ to the point where we’re not thinking straight, then it means we weren’t prepared for the intensity. Take a step back and prepare yourself, and then come at it again.

        FWIW, the great reset is a misdirection play. TPTB are at eternal war with the people. That’s what makes them TPTB. The first art of war is deception. TPTB are going to have ‘the people’ like you ‘overthrow’ Big Pharma and Big Everything else, for political effect, because the Big Establishment is rapidly collapsing for geological reasons. So if you just sit back and do nothing I think you’ll be quite happy with the political theater that’s headed our way. But your also going to be a hell of a lot poorer, if you survive it at all, that is. The great reset may be a misdirection play, and virology may even be brought into question, but the depopulation agenda is not political in nature. As with the plandemic that agenda lies above politics, in the hands of the warring elites that are wielding it.

        Like

      5. “Everybody knows that t-cells divide, including memory t-cells.” Scientific publications with the conclusion that memory t-cells divide are quite rare.

        Like

      6. If memory cell division is “quite rare” then the study in question was completely fabricated and never took place, because there could be no reason for it taking place. Is that what you believe?

        Like

      7. “If memory cell division is “quite rare”” Publications about T-memory cell division is rare. The article is about the lifespan of T-memory cells. They die after 30 days or so, that means vaccines do not work.

        Like

      8. If you reread the article you will see that the way they calculated the lifespan was based on how many times the t-memory cells divided. Thanks for the conversation, Roland.

        Like

      9. “If you reread the article you will see that the way they calculated the lifespan was based on how many times the t-memory cells divided.”

        Consider this text from the article: (BM is bone marrow)
        1 whether memory T-cells in BM are maintained by continuous cell division or by cellular longevity is also heavily debated
        2 we conclude that BM memory T-cells do not form a separate population of long-lived cells.
        3 Because of the difficulties in the interpretation of Ki-67 expression (see discussion) it remains unclear where the divisions occur.

        These results suggest that, despite the observed differences in the fraction of Ki-67 positive cells, the turnover rates of CD4+ and CD8+ memory T-cells obtained from blood, BM, and LN are very similar, and that the vast majority of memory T-cells, even the ones located in BM and LN, are short lived, with an average lifespan of about 50 days.

        My conclusion: Division of memory T-cells, if that happens at all, is independent of the lifespan of memory T-cells this is what the article is about, with an average lifespan of about 50 days.

        Like

      10. Roland, the paper took my undivided focus in order to understand exactly what was going on. Have you tried machine translating it into Dutch? It seems to me that it would take true, university-level proficiency in a second language to be able to understand that paper. Do you have that proficiency in English?

        It also requires a lack of bias as I said previously.

        I’ll respond to your three quotations of the paper. Part of the issue with the BM subset of memory t-cells is that they are less well understood and therefore cause controversy.

        1. You’ve taken this out of context to mean something that it doesn’t. When they say ” continuous” they mean unlimited divisions as opposed to a finite number of times a memory t-cell can divide. This radically changes the meaning.

        2. This means that they found that BM cells are not isolated to BM (“separate population”) and individually do not have long lives (because they divide a finite number of times).

        3. This means that they can’t tell where, as they circulate in all three compartments, these BM cells divide, whether in BM, thymus, or blood. My assumption is they divide wherever they are when it’s time for them to divide.

        “These results suggest that, despite the observed differences in the fraction of Ki-67 positive cells, the turnover rates of CD4+ and CD8+ memory T-cells obtained from blood, BM, and LN are very similar, and that the vast majority of memory T-cells, even the ones located in BM and LN, are short lived, with an average lifespan of about 50 days.”

        “differences in the fraction of Ki-67 positive cell” means the differences in how many times the BM and LN (lymph node/thymus) t-cells can divide compared to each other as well as blood t-cells, as based on reading the fading fingerprints of the deuterium.

        “the turnover rates” means how frequently each of the types of t-cells divide. The frequency for all was under a week.

        You are fundamentally misunderstanding the science. Your reputation is at stake if you don’t take down the brief. If you leave it up, WADR, it is a case of the blind leading the blind. There’s a lot of that going on right now. That’s the fog of war. The only way to cut through the fog is to only care for the truth (of Reason) and nothing else. Getting consumed by the amplifying injustices of industrial collapse only leads to madness. The truth under natural law, on the other hand, is untouchable, and is everything that every religion has ever sought to co-opt.

        Like

      11. If you search for “memory t-cells division frequency” or similar you will find plenty of industry info. One of the goals of the experiment was to find out how many times each of the three memory t-cell types divide so that they could multiply that number by the known frequency in order to calculate individual lifespan.

        Like

      12. Figure 4. Analysis of deuterium enrichment and summary of the estimated lifespan of CD4+ and CD8+ memory T-cells from blood, BM and LN. (A) Best fits to the level of deuterium enrichment measured in the DNA of CD4+ and CD8+ memory (CCR7−) T-cells from blood, BM and LN. Label enrichment in the DNA was scaled between 0 and 100% by normalizing to the maximum enrichment in granulocytes (See material and methods). (B) Estimated lifespans of CD4+ and CD8+ memory T-cells in days, and their respective 95% confidence limits. (C) Correlation between deuterium enrichment in BM and blood, and LN and blood. The gray dashed line represents the X = Y line. Nothing here about division of memory T-cells Reante.

        Like

      13. You simply aren’t listening and don’t understand. The “% DNA Enrichment” axis *is* the de facto cell division axis. This % climbs until the mother t-cells start dying out and then the percentage declines because the daughter cells do not carry as much or any ( I’m not sure which but probably the former) deuterium. This is my last comment on the matter, thanks.

        Like

      14. It wasn’t designed to quantify the rate of division. They stated that they couldn’t know when and where division was taking place. But they didn’t need to the way they designed the experiment.

        Like

      15. Reante, as I told before the researchers have investigated the lifespan of memory T-cells. If and how often memory T-cells divide has not been investigated in this research project. There are speculations, however, in the article, in connection with Ki-67 positive cells. But the researchers add: “This suggests that Ki-67 may be a good indicator of recent cell-cycle activity but may not be a marker for active cell division”. Your personal speculation about how frequently each of the types of t-memory cells divide, “The frequency for all was under a week.” would be deadly very soon considering the average lifespan of 50 days.

        Like

      16. Reante, this research article is a masterpiece of language delusion. Most people, you included, fall in the trap and conclude that there is proof that memory T-cells do divide. The editor, Klaas Van Gisbergen, just recieved an grant from ZonMW, which is sponsored by the B$M G F. The pure result, that memory T-cells are short-lived, shall not be in clear sight. All these useless vaccines! https://www.sanquin.org/news/2022/feb/vici-career-grant-for-klaas-van-gisbergen

        Like

  3. On last week’s highwire show, Stephanie senff was talking about vaccine issues and mentioned build up of prions: misfolded proteins that make other proteins misfold… Another stupid ignorant virus like theory. Ugh!?!!
    It’s such a stupid sham, they are like robots who regurgitate nonsense.

    If senff just used common sense, what causes damaged proteins? Cell damage, toxicity etc. But these so called experts have their heads up the asses of their peers, blindly trusting papers on mad cow disease prion bullshit that ignored the key issue, pesticides.

    As Liam Scheff wrote in his book “official stories”
    a cool excerpt about polio and how viruses are used to blame cause you can’t sue them lol

    “It was perverse – it appeared in industrialized nations, but it left poor people alone. George Carlin even made a joke about it. He grew up poor. He and his friends “swam in the raw sewage” of the East River. “It gave us immune systems,” he said. “Unlike you rich pussies!” He was joking, but what if he was half right? What were the mothers of middle-class children doing that the poor weren’t?
    It didn’t act like a plague. It appeared in summer. Adults never got it from children. People didn’t “pass” it. It came out of nowhere and exploded in clusters. Whole schools would be taken down by a flash of profound muscular weakness, leaving some paralyzed and killing a few. Industrial history had demonstrated that neurological and paralytic Illnesses tended to act just this way – to explode, violently, in clusters.
    But among academic scientists, there was no interest in toxins. The going concern in medicine was to nail down tiny particles. Pollution was not on the agenda. Instead, the focus went to something invisible that could perhaps be filtered from blood. Something never seen, but suspected to be there. These invisibles would be blamed for all illness. And vaccines would be invented to stop them. “Just as Pasteur and Jenner had done,” went the rallying cry.
    But what was the real motivation, besides the fascination of some Ph.D.s with microscopes?
    Ask the question: who funds university research? Who hires university researchers? The answer is the same: chemical, oil and pharmaceutical companies. And as my friend Janine Roberts (author of the very fine book “Fear of the Invisible”) says, “You can’t sue a virus.” That is, you can sue industry. If industry doesn’t want to be blamed for causing most of the ailments of the modern age, they have in their possession a ready scapegoat. A virus. Which they pay to discover and to develop vaccines for. And then you pay to be protected. But was the virus ever to blame? Was it ever really there?”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “…mad cow disease prion bullshit..” Yes indeed Rob Rob! It is one of the first stories that got me thinking we were being lied to in order to cover up poisonings by industry. I read Mark Purdey’s articles in Acres, USA about BSE, “Educating Rida” that was also published in the journal of the Weston A Price Foundation, Wise Traditions. It was an organophosphate pesticde poured down the spines of cattle to ward off warble flies (mandated by UK ag) that caused this devastaing neurological disease. Prions my ass! 4.4 million cattle slaughtered and who knows how many farmers’ livelihoods were also destroyed. https://www.westonaprice.org/wp-content/uploads/EducatingRida.pdf

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Thanks for sharing! I love Liam’s work. It was tragic what happened to him. His words helped to open my eyes to this mess. It would have been great to hear his insight into what we currently face.

      Like

  4. Mike, this is another fantastic post. I’m aware that Lanka has said antibodies are a sign of toxicity, not immunity. But I didn’t know antibodies may be fake as well. Could molecular bioLIEgy be completely wrong?! Surely, DNA is real?

    At this point, the only reason to go to a doctor is for wounds and injuries and maybe they can treat heart attacks and strokes. For cancer, and preventative medicine, run- don’t just hide- from your doctor.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Yes, definitely run from them. BioLIEgy has a nice ring to it. 😉 I have my doubts about DNA as it seems to be built upon the same fraudulent pseudoscintific principles as viroLIEgy and immunoLIEgy. I have friends who have shared their own investigations into it and what they were uncovering was eye-opening. It made me realize it is an area that needs further exploration to see how it was validated.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks Anthony! That is a huge rabbit hole to go down. I hope to get to it sometime soon but I will admit, it’s a tad intimidating. Fingers crossed! 🤞

        Like

  5. EXCELLENT article, perfect entry point for someone just starting to ask questions about virus/germ theory, has it all in one package. Grand slam.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Jeffrey! I was trying to think if there was anything else that I should add to it but I didn’t want to bog the article down or make it overly complicated. I appreciate the feedback. 🙂

      Like

  6. To be clear: they first create this toxic soup to get a cytopathogenic effect which they claim te be a virus. And only then, after a second toxic round, in which they add another batch of toxic things like heavy metals, glutaraldehyde, and resin, do they take EM pictures? So there are no EM pictures of the alleged “virus” after the first round either?
    And are there any EM pictures of antibodies?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Ivan, you are correct. They do not take images of “viruses” unless they have been cultured. Same with antibodies. It is actually very difficult to find any TEM images of antibodies. The best ones that I could find were from this 2012 study which used monoclonal antibodies to get 2 images that they thought were antibodies.

      DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2012.03.023

      Monoclonal antibodies are cultured as well. I have never seen any images of antibodies coming directly from any fluids that were not cultured first.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sorry for being vague.

        Establishment microbiology is an earnest attempt at explaining life on the inside in materialistic terms. When we watch a video of a lymphocyte going about its complex business, purposefully changing directions, it is not unreasonable at all to suggest that there are proteomic signaling molecules (biochemical antennas) both on the exterior of the lymphocyte and free signaling biochemical antennas (antibodies), or homing devices, that have (chemically) attached themselves to the foreign body. Just as the worm has a temperature sensor up front so that it can travel according to temperature gradients as is its evolutionarily adapted won’t, the lymphocyte must also have some type of specific cause-and-effect navigation system.

        If at least part of the navigation system is not an ‘antibody’ infrastructure — a proteomic intercellular communication structure — then how is the intelligent communication happening? How else is the body’s intelligent design designed? Nothing comes for free, including intelligence. If we discard their modeling of the intelligent body then we *have* to be prepared to replace it with another reason-based one, or we’re just being religious, flat-earthist naysayers, and that’s not a high-functioning way of operating IMO.

        Again, their materialistic model is by and large entirely reasonable because they spend billions of dollars harnessing the power of industrialism in order to examine it with ultra fancy tools. It’s just the Big Pharma germ theory cultural overlay that has distorted their conclusions about saprophytes, exosomes, and the genesis of disease. That doesn’t mean we can’t take advantage of their tools, too, to better understand the minutae of holistic health if that’s what we’re into.

        When we call ‘antibodies’ transport proteins it’s because they’re a part of the proteomic transportation system. Transportation systems have dispatch departments responsible for the messaging of logistics. As above so below.

        Like

      2. I think it is best not to assume anything at this point. We only need to look at the evidence presented and verify if it holds up to scrutiny. Just because we call into question the evidence and theories presented to us (i.e. “viruses,” antibodies, exosomes, etc) does not mean we need to replace these theories with a new one if the evidence itself is unscientific. We then make the same mistakes virologists do which is taking evidence not produced by the scientific method and creating unverifiable stories to connect and explain it.

        Like

      3. Wow, really? Cultured and what they imaged, they “thought” were antibodies? Are they just another phantom construct?

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Reason (‘science’) isn’t limited to formalized physical experimentation via the scientific method. Imposing those limitations on Reason is a tight shackling of it indeed. Over-reliance on using the scientific method to accurately understand our surroundings is analogous to an ontological autism. Humans didn’t need the scientific method for 99+PC of its existence, it just needed a well-developed culture of reason based on close observation of the local ecology. Human animists without formal use of the scientific method have always known that germs don’t exist.

    If we want to be honest, the worst thing we can do is call as false something that may be essentially true, as with the case of antibodies. Both germ theory and terrain theory believe in a filter system that cleans the blood of toxins. Therefore both theories believe that there must be all the necessary mechanisms there to do that. Critiquing germ theory requires radical honesty.

    Like

    1. Yes, there are systems of cleaning, however the existence of antibodies as a mechamism for this cleansing is nothing but a fictitious creation. Just as with “viruses,” there is no reason to even entertain the antibody theory if the evidence for it is fraudulent. If there was reasonable evidence, it may be worth exploring. However, there is nothing there. I have looked. If better evidence comes along, only then would I entertain it. I think once we get to the level of nanoparticles, it is all fictitious.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That’s because you’re only looking for verification based on the scientific method. Science doesn’t end at the scientific method. That’s just the edumacation box labeled ‘hard science.’ There is no scientific method that can prove that 2+2=4 yet you and me both believe that to be true. What defines us as humans is our ability to reason abstractly, to pattern truth.

        Saying no to lies is not the same thing as saying yes to Life. These days the former is a necessary step on the way to the latter, but by no means is it the end goal. The end goal is always to construct and not to deconstruct.

        Like

      2. I think 2+2= 4 can easily be proven if you have four objects. You can observe them, manipulate them, and determine that 2+2=4.

        If we can’t prove things to be true, then they are beliefs. It is fine to have a belief in something without direct proof. However, in the case of antibodies, there is no reason to even believe they exist as the evidence is fraudulent, the treatments are toxic, and the test results are non-specific and meaningless. Antibodies can not even do what it is they are supposed to theoretically do. We might as well believe unicorns exist while we are at it. At least that belief won’t cause any harm…as far as I know… 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      3. It can be ‘proven’ according to our number system, which is a language, but it cannot be proven according to the scientific method because the scientific method is based on objective cause and effect and languages are conceptual. There is no cause and effect in 2 or 4, so therefore there is no intrinsic cause and effect in 2+2=4. It’s just a computation.

        My point is that there’s a great deal to understanding reality that lies outside of the scientific method. I know this goes without saying but it’s relevant to our conversation.

        Incidentally, most of the human societies in the history of the world did not feel the need for the ‘word concept’ that is the number 4. They decided that the numbers 1, 2, 3, and “many” were all they needed. Now that’s the kind of society I’d like to be a part of! 🙂

        Like

      4. I agree that it math is a language. However, it can be proven using the scientific method with objects. At some point, someone observed 4 objects and figured if you took 2 away, you get 2. If you add 2 back, you get 4. The cause is the concept of addition and subtraction (i.e. the taking the two objects away and then putting them back). The effect is the resulting number of what is left (i.e. 2 objects or 4). It is repeatable. The only way 2+2 will not equal 4 is if we change the meaning of the numbers we use.

        I also agree that the scientific method can not be applied to everything. However, the theories of “viruses,” antibodies, exosomes, etc need to be upheld to the scientific method as they are considered sciences and they are directly related to cause and effect. Since there is no independent variable (i.e. purified and isolated particles from human fluids), we are just looking at random culture created particles and developing fictional stories around them. This does more damage than good.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Right, any cause and effect is conceptual. But there’s no functional/practical cause and effect under natural law, which is what the scientific method is the systematic study of and, as such, we call it a ‘hard’ science.

        ‘Soft’ sciences, when done well, use ‘hard’ sciences to take human understanding of reality to insightful places that the hardness alone cannot go.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. The hard science of EM photography has shown ‘exosomes’ to be inside the cell, outside the cell, and embedded in the cell wall that hard science has shown is permeable. Reason-based soft science finds that to be a highly suggestive group of hard data when combined with the self-evident truth that cells *must* have a way of communicating with other cells.

    Like

    1. If we are to uphold exosomes to the same standards as we do “viruses,” they are cultured in the same manner and subjected to the same fixing, staining, dehydration, and embedding processes. Researchers can not distinguish nor separate the particles as they are the same and are created in the same manner. We can not assume function to random particles from EM images. I highly recommend the work of Harold Hillman if you are not familiar. He was able to show how unreliable EM imaging truly is.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. We don’t need to hold them up to the same standard. As people if the terrain we know that nature is a loving mother. If the establishment wants to convict exosomes — and our mother by extension — as murderers, then it needs to so beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously the establishment can’t do that.

        Exosomes, on the other hand, aren’t on trial here. They are simply the best current materialist, reason-based explanation for the intercellular communication that common sense tells us *must* exist, because the body is a trillion-fold cellular symphony. I don’t see why that should be resisted. If that doesn’t float people’s boat then, hey, different strokes for different folks, but just know that proteomic intercellular communication and conscious resonance (is there even a difference?) are the only two reason-based hypotheses of the obvious reality of distributed intelligence out there. And both have a fair bit of compelling hard evidence to support them.

        Like

      2. You are assuming the exosome theory is correct without holding it under scrutiny. That is a mistake. The same fraudulent unscientific indirect evidence holding up “viruses” holds up exosomes. They do not have a valid independent variable in purified/isolated particles coming directly from human fluids. They can not observe these particles functioning. The researchers are pointing at particles in EM and declaring that they have a specific form/function and then creating a theory around them. The particles themselves are most likely cellular debris and/or artifacts. This unproven theory is being used as toxic treatments so it definitely needs to be critically examined just as with “viruses.” Even if a theory “makes sense,” we should not accept it just because it is the next best option, especially when it is unscientific and fraudulent. If we do, we make the exact same mistake those who uphold Germ Theory and virology are making.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Aptly named pages – ViroLIEgy – as these pages are lying about virology from very first sentence…
    Virologists have been observing viruses directly from 1935 when Tobacco mosaic virus was first “photographed” by electron microscopy. The virus itself was isolated and crystalized (!) even 5 years before that. Crystalized viruses in the flask (from one of first isolation) were able to induce the same illness on the tobacco even several years after. From the infected plants the same particles were isolated and observed by electron microscopy. There are tons of electron microscopic pictures depicting the same structures of various viruses in infected cells, there are pictures of so called viral factories – the places in the cell where very same viruses are produced, we can see different stages of these process. Furthermore, such a structures have never been found in healthy cells. There are tons of images depicting rows of viruses being attached to the cells or even injecting its genetic information into them (especially bacteriophages – viruses of bacteria). More sophisticated methods enabled direct watching of viruses attack almost “in the progress” (for example immuno-electron microscopy, fluorescent microscopy, …) – so virologists can see different stages of virus attack after experimentally inoculating virus into the host/host cells from which it is apparent that the viruses certainly are NOT a natural part of the cells but something what multiply there and leave (with or without destroying the cell).
    The Koch’s postulates (1890 !) were found not to be applicable on some bacterial pathogens even by Robert Koch himself and later these “exceptions” were extended to range of other bacterial pathogens. And yet it does NOT mean, those bacteria (and “their” diseases) do not exist at all, as they were confirmed by another ways. With the discovery of viruses it was apparent the Koch’s postulates cannot be applied (without change) also to the viruses – the same way Newtonian physics was apparently not sufficient for computing of anything connected with high velocities, masses and energies (even if it does good foundation in other cases). The science is evolving, the old theories are being renewed, updated or abandoned, if there are new ones which are more fitting to what we see in the nature. So stubborn demanding of 130 years old tool for something we have now much more accurate and almost direct methods is like you demanded to use old weather houses (with boy and girl – see wikipedia ;)) in official weather forecasting or demanding to “confirm” 3 day forecast by such a weather house…
    Similarly, also the other claims and “suspicions” on these pages are false and incorect, as they are based on the same “logic”, supported by selected claims taken out of context from scientific publications or citing unproved statements of controversial scientists (especially if they once were famous – but the science do not respect the fame, it respect just proofs and evidence, and unproved claim is still unproved claim even if it was the claim of former Nobel-winning scientist).
    Ondrej Lenz (molecular biologist, virologist)

    Like

    1. 1. Tobacco mosaic “virus” is a plant “virus.” The evidence behind it is as weak as the rest of the supposed pathogenic “viruses” as shown by Dr. Sam Bailey in this excellent breakdown:

      https://www.bitchute.com/video/q8LiJ6sKlmHS/

      Even if we were to accept TMV (which it’s obvious we shouldn’t), it is not a pathogenic human “virus.” I am not concerned with what happens in plants. There are many things related to plants that have no relevance to humans. There is no evidence of any “virus” ever being properly purified and isolated directly from human fluids and proven pathogenic in a natural way.

      2. As for EM images, taking pics of random particles from cell cultured supernatant which contains millions of similar and identical particles is not proof of a “virus” any more than taking a picture of Santa Claus is proof he exists. Harold Hillman’s work completely destroyed EM as a valid way to image anything as not only is everything killed but the fixing, dehydrating, staining, and embedding processes heavily alter the sample and anything within it. The images are artefacts.

      3. Koch’s Postulates are logic based. His Postulates worked as they disproved bacteria as being pathogenic. The same logic of the Postulates can be applied to “viruses.” As I stared in the article, the WHO and many other virologists insist they must be fulfilled in order to prove a microbe is pathogenic and causes disease. However, even if you do not accept the Postulates, you can not deny the scientific method which requires a valid independent variable in order to prove cause and effect. The IV can only be purified/isolated particles assumed to be “virus” coming directly from human fluids (not cultured first). Virology does not have this thus it can never fulfill the scientific method. This means virology is a pseudoscience.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

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: