Emil Von Behring’s Diphtheria/Tetanus Papers (1890): Precursor to Antibodies

Emil Von Behring is considered the “Father of Immunology” which creates some confusion as Edward Jenner is also considered the “Father of Immunology.” Either Immunology has two daddies or you can pick whichever one you like best I suppose. In any case, it was Behring’s work that created the hypothesis that there were certain components in the blood (later given the name antibodies) that protected us from toxins associated with bacteria (“viruses” were still yet to be dreamt up at that time). As with “viruses,” antibodies were unable to be seen upon their “discovery” but were instead assumed to be present in the blood.

In the late 1800’s, various experiments using numerous chemical compounds were used in attempts to create “immunity” to disease. Many of these substances were tested by Behring himself. Through his experimentation with these “disinfectant” chemicals on animals, Behring eventually theorized the presence of substances in the blood of animals previously treated (immunized) which was then transferred to other animals via injection of their blood. Not unexpectedly, there are problems with his indirect evidence presented as proof which we see immediately in the first statement from Behring’s 1890 paper with researcher Shibasaburo Kitasato:

During our long-term studies about diphtheria (Behring) and tetanus (Kitasato), we also approached the questions of therapy and immunization, and for both infectious diseases we were able to cure infected animals as well as pretreat healthy ones so that they did not fall ill of diphtheria or tetanus.

The above passage highlights that during these experiments, animals were PRETREATED in order to become “immune” to the toxins. In other words, animals were not just given the blood of previously immunized animals, they were also given therapies designed to alleviate toxicity. Digging a bit deeper, we can get a little more insight into how this was supposedly done:

Emil von Behring

Biographical

“Starting from his observations on the action of iodoform, Behring tried to find whether a disinfection of the living organism might be obtained if animals were injected with material that had been treated with various disinfectants. Above all the experiments were performed with diphtheria and with tetanus bacilli. They led to the well-known development of a new kind of therapy for these two diseases. In 1890 Behring and S. Kitasato published their discovery that graduated doses of sterilised brothcultures of diphtheria or of tetanus bacilli caused the animals to produce, in their blood, substances which could neutralize the toxins which these bacilli produced (antitoxins). They also showed that the antitoxins thus produced by one animal could immunize another animal and that it could cure an animal actually showing symptoms of diphtheria.”

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1901/behring/biographical/

Behring believed that disinfecting the animals through the use of various chemicals may provide them immunity to toxins. This fact was not mentioned much in Behring and Kitasato’s original paper but was detailed in a second publication by Behring alone a week later. Behring was pretreating his cultures and animals with iodine trichloride and zinc chloride and using these substances to “disinfect” the toxins in the cultures, gradually ramping up the doses, and thus providing the illusion of “immunity:”

March 15, 1854: Diphtheria’s Foe

“After a number of failures, von Behring, working with Japanese colleague Shibasaburo Kitasato, found that by treating diphtheria-infected guinea pigs with iodine trichloride, some of the animals built up a resistance to the disease. He also found that treating an infected animal with serum taken from a successfully treated animal often resulted in a cure.

The antiserum that came out of this research would eventually rein in diphtheria, although it still appears in congested, poverty-stricken populations where sanitation is poor.

For his achievement, von Behring was awarded the first Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, in 1901.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2011/03/0315diphtheria-foe-behring/amp

It was difficult to find Behring’s original paper with Kitasato as it was in German and had not been properly translated in the medical journals. Fortunately, a book about Behring did translate some of his papers in English and I was able to provide images from it. I was unable to copy/paste the text as I normally am able to do, so I highlighted important sections in the images below. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get a full breakdown of the methods utilized by Behring and Kitasato as they do not divulge how they obtained their cultures nor what chemicals were used. Thus, I will leave it up to the reader to decide if pretreating animals with iodine trichloride, injecting unknown culture and/or sera into the stomach of the animal and then taking the blood from it and injecting that into the stomach of another pretreated animal actually proves immunity and/or antibodies:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://raolab.org/upfile/file/20200612164743_201234_56288.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj0lerfn4jwAhXPWc0KHTxxD-sQFjADegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw2mnxVOwLc6ToZIGQKtNmAh

While it was not mentioned in this initial paper with Kitasato, it was later revealed that these “immune” animals were pretreated with compounds such as iodine trichloride when Behring published his own paper on his findings with diphtheria a week later. In it, he provided much more insight into the methods he used as well as how he came to his conclusions that there must be some unseen substance (antibodies) within the blood that protect against disease. Once again, I am providing images of the paper with the relevant sections highlighted:

Emil Von Behring: Infectious Disease, Immunology, Serum Therapy

Di Derek S. Linton

https://books.google.sm/books?id=n-Ee9OV6zTEC&pg=PA450&hl=it&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is clear upon reading this paper that there is no way Behring could definitively conclude that it was unseen properties in the blood which protected the animals versus either the use of the iodine trichloride, the habituation to toxins, or a combination of these factors. He treated both the cultures and the animals with these chemicals before and after injection with poison. He gradually introduced more poison while lowering the amount of iodine trichloride in the mixture. This allowed him to create the illusion of immunity while the animals built up a tolerance to the repeated injections.

Passages from this 2007 article on Behring’s use of disinfectants offers some more insight into his deceptive methods:

Emil Behring’s Medical Culture: From Disinfection to Serotherapy

“We return to Berlin for the publication in 1890 by Emil Behring and Shibasaburo Kitasato (1852–1931) of a set of experiments that introduced the possibility of rendering a rabbit immune to the toxin associated with the tetanus bacilli by injecting it with blood serum taken from an animal formerly immunized by other experimental means.”

“For Behring, iodine trichloride is a more typical disinfectant than iodoform, as it has direct anti-bacterial properties that are observable in vitro, using colonies of pathogenic micro-organisms cultured on a suitable medium. Following a series of tests that compared carbolic acid, mercury sublimate (chloride) and iodine trichloride in terms of their capacity to kill anthrax bacilli, and their toxicity in rabbits, iodine trichloride was singled out as having the most favourable ratio of disinfectant power to toxicity. Behring also took the opportunity of this article to announce the therapeutic success he had obtained by injecting iodine trichloride into the site of an earlier injection of a virulent diphtheria culture.”

“On the other, as I mentioned above, various forms of “inner disinfection” were considered promising approaches, with Behring and others attempting to cure infected animals by the internal administration of disinfectants both before and after infection.”

“If the injection of hydrogen peroxide, for example, could, by means of some form of internal disinfection, protect an animal against the lethal effects of diphtheria and thereby help to render it immune, then the technique could potentially serve to produce serum for treating other animals or even humans suffering from the disease. Thus, rather than taking the risk of injecting diphtheria patients with hydrogen peroxide directly, there now existed the apparently safer possibility of using the same procedure in animals in order to generate a serum for human administration. In the end, Behring’s favoured technique for inducing immunity—the essential preliminary for extracting the therapeutic serum—was not any form of inner disinfection, however, but the pre-treatment of a diphtheria culture (and later the toxin) using iodine trichloride. This manipulation rendered the culture or toxin less deadly and thereby facilitated the process of immunization. Following this initial stage, Behring successively reduced the iodine trichloride concentration in subsequent injections of toxin, until the animal could eventually be exposed to untreated toxin, thereby completing the process of artificial immunization.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871706/

Artificial immunization required the manipulation of the culture and toxin by pretreatment with iodine trichloride which rendered them less toxic and deadly. The gradual reduction of iodine trichloride in successive injections completed the “immunization.” However, Behring even admitted that immunity was not permanent and that unfavorable conditions left the animals to the same disease as if they had not been immunized. Essentially, the process Behring employed amounted to habituating the animals to increasing levels of poison, an idea that Kitasato favored, and not Behring’s idea of unseen substances in the blood being transferred from animal-to-animal. How these experiments on animals and the assumptions made from them could possibly apply to humans or be considered proof of antibodies is beyond understanding. Behring was actually very clear they should not be applied to humans, and for good reason it seems:

MonoclonalAntibodies in Medicine

History of passive immunisation

“The first use of passive immunisation is thought by some to have been on Christmas night 1891. The recipient is reported to have been a young boy in Berlin with diphtheria who was cured by injection of diphtheria antitoxin, although this cannot be proved today. Passive immunisation is based on work carried out by Emil Behring and Shibasabura Kitasato from Robert Koch’s Hygiene Institute in Berlin. On 4 December 1890 Behring and Kitasato published a landmark article in which they showed that serum from an animal actively immunised against diphtheria toxin could be used to neutralise even a fatal dose of the toxin in another animal. The same results were obtained with tetanus toxin, and the effects of these sera were shown to be specific in that tetanus antitoxin did not protect against a challenge with diphtheria
toxin.”

“A major problem with passive serotherapy was its toxicity. Anaphylactic reactions often occurred after giving horse serum and serum sickness (fever, rashes, and joint pains) was common. Behring believed that the antitoxin effect resided in the protein fraction of the serum and went on to show that ammonium sulphate precipitated a fraction (now known as gammaglobulin) that retained antitoxin activity. Precipitation reduced side effects but did not completely overcome the problem of serum sickness, which is now known to result from the deposition of circulating immune complexes. Cleavage of gammaglobulin by pepsin further reduced the incidence of serum sickness.”

doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6864.1269

As can be seen, the use of passive immunization with antibodies generated by horse (or other animal) blood can lead to serious and deadly side effects mimicking both of the symptoms of diphtheria and tetanus. The deadly nature of these treatments is demonstrated by this next passage detailing the death of an infant who was pre-treated with Behring’s serum out of fear that the child might come down with diphtheria from a house maid:

Remembering Emil von Behring: from Tetanus Treatment to Antibody Cooperation with Phagocytes

“The first indications that serum therapy could cause adverse events also appeared, although Behring considered his serum innocuous. In 1896, a healthy infant was prophylactically treated with diphtheria serum because the housemaid had fallen ill of diphtheria. The child likely died of an anaphylactic reaction to the foreign serum, and in the obituary, the saddened father—a well-known pathologist—stated that this was “due to the injection of Behring’s serum for immunization.”

https://mbio.asm.org/content/8/1/e00117-17

Another case where the treatment is worse than the disease it is supposed to protect against.

In Summary:

  • Behring and Kitano claimed that they were able to cure infected animals as well as pretreat healthy ones so that they did not fall ill of diphtheria or tetanus
  • In this paper, immunization against diphtheria was only briefly mentioned
  • Starting from his observations on the action of iodoform, Behring tried to find whether a disinfection of the living organism might be obtained if animals were injected with material that had been treated with various disinfectants
  • In 1890 Behring and S. Kitasato published their discovery that graduated doses of sterilised brothcultures of diphtheria or of tetanus bacilli caused the animals to produce, in their blood, substances which could neutralize the toxins which these bacilli produced (antitoxins)
  • Von Behring experimented initially with iodine trichloride and zinc chloride as potential treatments for diphtheria and tetanus infections
  • After a number of failures, von Behring, working with Japanese colleague Shibasaburo Kitasato, found that by treating diphtheria-infected guinea pigs with iodine trichloride, some (i.e. not all) of the animals built up a resistance to the disease
  • The antiserum that came out of this research would eventually rein in diphtheria, although it still appears in congested, poverty-stricken populations where sanitation is poor
  • A rabbit was “immunized” against tetanus in an undisclosed way
  • The blood from these rabbits were drawn and injected into the stomachs of mice
  • 2 mice were inoculated with a tetanus culture 24 hours later and survived
  • 6 mice were inoculated with coagulated blood from rabbits and infection that developed 24 hours later had no effect on them while control mice died 48 hours later (why only the 24 hour follow-up for “immune” mice?)
  • They mixed blood from rabbits with toxin-containing culture and allowed it to sit for 24 hours
  • The mice getting either serum alone or serum with toxin remained immune as far as they could tell
  • Physiological saline was considered to have the same healing effects
  • Through repeated experimentation, it was determined mice and rats are naturally immune to Diphtheria
  • Behring proposed 5 ways to immunize animals:
    1. The use of sterile cultures can render animals immune in 10-14 days
    2. Adding iodine trichloride to 4-week-old cultures and letting it sit for 16 hours, injecting it into the abdominal cavities of Guinea pigs, then gradually increasing the toxin dose over time while decreasing the iodine trichloride in each successive dose
    3. Metabolic processes in the blood of animals already immunized produced either an amber yellow, colorless, or bloody transudate that did not contain diphtheria bacilli yet was still toxic to Guinea pigs to varying degrees
      • When the non-bloody transudate was injected subcutaneously and intra-abdominally, most Guinea pigs died of a widespread hemorragic edema at the injection site
      • The ones that did not die were watched until they were considered healthy again and were inoculated with enough toxin which could kill Guinea pigs normally within 3-4 days
    4. Infect the animal with toxin and then immediately eliminate the negative effects through therapeutic treatments such as gold salts, naphthylamine, trichloracetic acid, carbolic acid, and iodine trichloride
      • Behring claimed he was not stating iodine trichloride can cure diphtheria in humans, only in the animals he experimented on
      • He then assumed that he did not make the animals immune solely by the use of iodine trichloride
    5. The use of hydrogen superoxide had a greater capacity to confer resistance to diphtheria infection and protect rabbits from otherwise deadly amounts of culture than did the unseen metabolic properties in the blood
      • However, animals given hydrogen superoxide directly AFTER infection died more rapidly than control animals
      • Thus Behring decided to pretreat the animals with hydrogen superoxide before inoculation
  • Behring then described experiments with 5 rabbits pretreated with hydrogen superoxide
  • 4 of the rabbits died after a period of days yet one survived and somehow Behring concluded it was immune
  • Behring stated that all 5 of the proceeding methods for immunization are unusable on humans
  • He also stated that immunity can be lost after repeated injections of substantial amounts of poison
  • Guinea pigs standing under the influence of poisonous germ-free diphtheria culture under unfavorable conditions succumbed to diptheria just as if they had never been immunized
  • Behring argued that his experiments do not show the resistance to poison through becoming habituated to the poison but rather that unseen metabolic properties confer immunity
  • He stated that despite carefully raising the doses of the poisons from the entirely harmless to higher, he could not succeed in protecting the animals against diphtheria poison even to the extent that they could tolerate a little more of it than normal
  • Behring concluded that there are special unseen metabolic properties in the blood
  • He tested his theory by taking the blood of rats that had been injected in their abdominal cavities with diphtheria poison 3 hours earlier and injecting it into the abdominal cavities of Guinea pigs
  • He stated that since the Guinea pigs did not get sick from the blood of animals considered immune to diphtheria but did become sick when injected with the blood from animals not considered immune, his theory was correct
  • Behring and Kitasato introduced the possibility of rendering a rabbit immune to the toxin associated with the tetanus bacilli by injecting it with blood serum taken from an animal formerly immunized by other experimental means
  • For Behring, iodine trichloride is a more typical disinfectant than iodoform, as it has direct anti-bacterial properties that are observable in vitro, using colonies of pathogenic micro-organisms cultured on a suitable medium
  • Following a series of tests that compared carbolic acid, mercury sublimate (chloride) and iodine trichloride in terms of their capacity to kill anthrax bacilli, and their toxicity in rabbits, iodine trichloride was singled out as having the most favourable ratio of disinfectant power to toxicity
  • In other words, iodine trichloride was the least toxic of the chemicals tested
  • Various forms of “inner disinfection” were considered promising approaches, with Behring and others attempting to cure infected animals by the internal administration of disinfectants both before and after infection
  • Rather than taking the risk of injecting diphtheria patients with hydrogen peroxide directly, there now existed the apparently safer possibility of using the same procedure in animals in order to generate a serum for human administration
  • In the end, Behring’s favoured technique for inducing immunity—the essential preliminary for extracting the therapeutic serum—was not any form of inner disinfection, however, but the pre-treatment of a diphtheria culture (and later the toxin) using iodine trichloride
  • This manipulation rendered the culture or toxin less deadly and thereby facilitated the process of immunization
  • Following this initial stage, Behring successively reduced the iodine trichloride concentration in subsequent injections of toxin, until the animal could eventually be exposed to untreated toxin, thereby completing the process of artificial immunization (i.e. habituation to poison)
  • The first use of passive immunisation is thought by some to have been on Christmas night 1891
  • The recipient is reported to have been a young boy in Berlin with diphtheria who was cured by injection of diphtheria antitoxin, although this cannot be proved today
  • A major problem with passive serotherapy was its toxicity
  • Anaphylactic reactions often occurred after giving horse serum and serum sickness (fever, rashes, and joint pains) was common
  • In 1896, a healthy infant was prophylactically treated with diphtheria serum because the housemaid had fallen ill of diphtheria
  • The child likely died of an anaphylactic reaction to the foreign serum, and in the obituary, the saddened father—a well-known pathologist—stated that this was “due to the injection of Behring’s serum for immunization.”

Behring stated resistance to poison due to habituation to the poison could be assumed to grant “immunity,” however he was forcefully against the idea. Unlike his partner Kitasato, Behring was adamant that it was not the pretreatment nor the gradual incline in doses of toxins given to the animals that gave the impression of “immunity” but was instead an invisible substance in the blood. As with “viruses,” the invisible substance (antibodies) must be taken by faith alone as there was no visual proof for its existence, just the usual indirect observations.

Beyond the problem of pretreatment of the animals, there is another more glaring issue with the experiments and conclusions regarding the bacteria studied. Both diphtheria and tetanus are found in healthy people, hence the fact that most of the cases are asymptomatic:

Diphtheria:

“Most infections are asymptomatic. The disease can gain access to the body through the throat (pharyngeal diphtheria) or through skin lesions (cutaneous diphtheria). Spontaneous healing can occur but other patients will go on to develop invasive disease with heart block and paralysis (both cranial and peripheral). The incubation period is typically between 1 to 7 days.”

https://www.tmb.ie/vaccinations/diphtheria

Tetanus:

“Typically, illness is asymptomatic or mild in the vast majority of infected persons, with a small proportion experiencing severe disease.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/TetanusFAQ_20170601.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi28-qrg4bwAhUKV80KHVRhDTYQFjABegQIBBAG&usg=AOvVaw2vKVwVfJyyhKYcgzAt8rcC

Asymptomatic means:

“not causing, marked by, or presenting with signs or symptoms of infection, illness, or disease”

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

As both of these bacteria are found in healthy people, it can be seen that they were not the causes of disease as they fail Koch’s first Postulate:

  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.

If these bacteria are not the true cause of the diseases they are associated with, what exactly were Behring and Kitasato “immunizing” against? Why did the serum treatments create the same exact symptoms that they were supposed to prevent? It seems that this is another case in the long history of germ theory where the treatment based on theoretical entities is worse than the supposed disease.

27 comments

  1. When I read, “inner disinfectant” immediately I said to myself “oral antibiotics.” So much to unravel, so much revealing medical history (Lies! Assumpions!) buried now under decades of dogma. Looks like we’ve been misled, and have misunderstood, how the human body works for a very long time. I remember some years back Dr Cowan stating that tetanus is the only injection he’d ever consider giving a child and that he’s done this maybe five times in his entire career. He went on to say that tetanus boosters are utterly useless, uncalled for, if you got your shots (five doses?). My bet is he has reconsidered and would now say all are useless and all are harmful. Tetanus is the last injection I had, a booster after a deep cut to my hand with a kitchen knife, in the mid-80’s. Never again. Thanks Mike for this interesting history, and I look forward to reading more about these mysterious antibodies (which i think have nothing to do with immunity and everything to do with poisoning).

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks Lynn! While it is definitely possible antibody tests could be picking up poisoning, I’m not even sure we can say for certain it’s that. There are entirely healthy (as far as we know) people testing positive with antibodies and those who are sick testing negative, and vice versa. I’m not sure the results are relevant at all. I’d be more inclined to believe it has to do with poisoning but the results are so inconsistent and all over the place it seems difficult to draw any conclusions. I would think that if it was strictly picking up poisoning, the CDC would want people to test after vaccination as there should be a rise at that time yet they seem scared to have people check for antibodies after vaccination at all. I’m thinking the lack of positive results would blow their cover. 😉

      Like

  2. I usually don’t give out much information about myself but in this instance I think it might be beneficial. I have been a machinist for over 40 years working with numerous types of metals and metal cutting tools. I have worked in some of the dirtiest and filthiest environments you can imagine. I have scars all over my hands from numerous cuts, some very deep for which I never went to a doctor. I have never had any stitches. One time a cut was to the bone and I just wrapped it up and left the wrap on there for 2 weeks. After the two weeks I took it off and everything was fine. If I ever did have a tetanus vaccine it was at least 47 years ago when I was in the military. Whether or not I had one when I was a child I do not know.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Every story that you post is great but I can’t listen to their words. It’s so hard to listen to insane people who lack common sense and perspective.
    It’s like these scientists are actually just people with OCD, finding a way to fit a square into a round hole…
    The latest smart idiot I heard was Stephanie Senff on the highwire.
    She went into the prions causing brain issues, but everything was her reciting what the research says, even though it didn’t make sense at all.
    Somehow a misfolded protein (like any damaged protein) can modify other proteins? Did these aholes ever study biology? Damaged proteins get eliminated.
    The reason why they pile up in the brain etc, is because something is stopping that from happening (jabs, medicines, toxins, etc).
    But still these idiots refuse to follow occams razor and find the most complicated thing to explain the disorder.

    It’s just like the past, when they thought swamps were haunted by death. Never mind the strong egg like smell (hydrogen sulfide) that faded with exposure… Nah it’s those evil spirits.
    These days, the evil spirits that cause disease are viruses, prions, whatever the heck.

    None of these people are intelligent.

    ““It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    ― Upton Sinclair

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, these “scientists” tend to prove their inability to think critically and logically every time they open their mouths. It is amazing how complicated and convoluted their explanations get. However, that typically happens when lies compound with other lies. They lose the narrative and it becomes one obvious giant pile of BS.

      Like

  4. They use the word isolate to define a process. But the end result of the process doesn’t isolate anything previously known to exist. Nevertheless, the process does create many different models. With technology you could probably build an article (real thing) from any of the models. But nothing says that the article you choose to build ever existed before. Unless you have an original first article or a specific model of that article then you cannot prove that the one you chose to build is not a first article or an original in and of itself. Fundamentally, they cannot prove what they create ever existed in reality before they created it. And it does not matter whether they create a model or if they then proceed to build a first article of that model. Now if they ever did build a first article from one of their models then they would have to prove that what they built is the specific cause of an effect, or in this case a disease. Of course there are diseases or more accurately diseased conditions, but proving they are caused by what they call a virus is something they’ve never done. So when I ask, “how did they isolate the virus?” I mean, “what process did they use to find the cause (what they call a virus) of the diseased condition they described?” So now they will have to claim that they isolated (used their process) the virus in a chicken and then isolated (used their process again) a virus in a person and compared the two results and found that they were identical. All this proves is that the two processes they used contained the required material in each process sufficient to yield the same results. Proving that the material they used was ever in a chicken or in a person is an entirely different matter. Additionally, you can probably tell from the grammatical problems generated in attempting to describe this mess that they have actually processed what they call viruses and not proven that any ever existed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Exactly. They dream up an idea of what they think is in the fluids (“viruses,” antibodies, exosomes, etc) and then create fiction around them to flesh out their theories. They develop indirect methods to attempt to prove that the unseen entity exists but they can never directly prove it nor show that the functions given to it are correct. Virology, Immunology, genomics, etc are all built upon unproven theoretical models. Just because things may work inside of the model does not mean that the model reflects reality whatsoever.

      Like

  5. There is also another aspect of this that I would like to touch upon. In the manufacturing process we use models all the time. These models are simply three dimensional drawings in a computer. We determine what size material is necessary to make the part, which is modeled in the computer. Then we select various tools and create tool paths around the excess material to remove it, then we are left with the finished part in the computer. We then overlay the finished part, which is a model itself, over the original model of the part. If it doesn’t line up exactly then we know we have either more material to remove or we have removed too much. When we are satisfied we then generate code. The machine that we make the part on reads the code and follows the same axis motion that was created in the computer for each tool used in the manufacturing process. The process is similar for 3D printing. You start with a model. You begin to build the model layer by layer in the computer. The computer generates the code that the machine will use to print the part. The code controls the axis motors to follow the same path that was modeled in the computer. These are simple examples. The reality of biology is far more complex, with a tremendous number of variables, all subject to the laws of physics, chemistry and electrical processes. We cannot create in a computer models of something we don’t completely understand and then subject those models to processes that are subject to and limited by laws of physics that we don’t completely understand. The genetic sequencing they do in silico doesn’t start out with a model, nevertheless, it ends up with one, which is a genetic sequence of RNA or DNA of whatever length they want it to be. I knew something was fishy when I realized they claimed to have produced something by a process for which there was no original model. You can’t use a process to make something unless you know what you’re going to make in the first place. Before there were computer models there were drawings. They used to call them blueprints. If somebody handed me a blank sheet of paper, told me it was a drawing of something and said please make this I wouldn’t be able to make anything. Their process is really like using Aladdin’s lamp. You rub the lamp (create a cell culture) and out pops the genie (a computer program with pieces of genetic material), you ask what you wish for (a particular genetic sequence of predetermined length) the genie grants your wish (the virus you wanted). It’s magic.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. May be piling on, but another refutation of the entire “pandemic,” by long time investigative reporter Eric Coppolino (started out with Love Canal in the ’80s) by Dr Sam Bailey. His own website, Planet Waves dot FM,(linked at the video’s page) is a great source, see his March 11. 2022 show. The interview is at https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/the-COVID-19-Chronology-with-Eric-Coppolino:8
    The COVID-19 Chronology with Eric Coppolino, 4/26/22, 65 minutes.
    And at the top of Eric’s page, see an item about RFK Jr, whom he asked to comment about Christine Massey’s work, and the utterly BS response he got.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I was quite astounded by his response He was asked about a legal matter, and instead he responded as if Coppolino asked him whether the virus exists o not. “Freedom Information Laws do not require the government agency to do science, or to answer specific questions. What they do is, the Freedom of Information Laws make it obligatory for the government to give you existing documents. So if you are telling the government, ‘I want you to verify these, there are documents’, they say, listen there’s nothing to verify it. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’ve got nothing.”
        As Coppolino wrote later,
        “In late 2020, the New York State Department of Health (NYS-DOH) responded to an open records request saying it had no studies to prove that masks are safe or effective at preventing the spread of viruses or other diseases. For that same kind of “sorry no documents” FOIL reply, Kennedy was much more outspoken.

        At the time, he wrote to his Instagram followers, “It erodes popular faith in democracy when public officials insist that their arbitrary policies are ‘science based’ and yet cannot produce a single study to support sweeping mandates. This letter illustrates the hazard of abandoning due process.””

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Guess he’s in to double-standards. 😉 He’s a Kennedy. I’m not sure why people put any faith in him. RFK Jr. has always been a part of the club.

        Like

    1. Thanks Mike for another in depth and well researched article.
      ———
      As RFK Jr. was mentioned .
      “ I Am Amused Reading These Exchanges’
      He added: “I am kind of amused reading the exchanges, and my inclination is that the viruses do exist and they do make people sick. I could be wrong. It could all be a big hoax, but to me, it all seems like viruses are real.”
      But Kennedy answered a different question than the one I asked. I did not present him with an argument, or ask him whether he thought viruses were real. He admits that he uses a kind of mob rule to make up his mind over critical scientific issues when he says, “And other people on the list server, and these are all very brilliant people, ridicule them and dismiss them, and have them produce a lot of evidence.”
      Reading Kennedy’s response, Christine Massey said, “RFK Jr. now relies on popular opinion and ridicule to evaluate science? When did he declare incompetence with simple logic? And why is a man dedicated to protecting children from medical harm uninterested in one of the greatest medical frauds of all time?”
      Source: https://chironreturn.org/rfk-jr-acknowledges-controversy-over-existence-of-sars-cov-2-and-of-all-viruses/
      ———-
      And he is not the only one. It is similar with many in alternative circles that have misdirected and seem to be all about popularity rather than provable scientific facts or have vested interests. There is also a cult like belief in scientism that even believe their falsehoods.
      Main stream ‘science ‘ has become learning and repeating disproven consensus dogmas.
      We have a population that is scientifically illiterate including the so called ‘scientists’ that have fabricated the science and do not seem to understand or want to understand basic scientific principles.
      And we also live in a culture where people cannot think for themselves and assess the information independently but need authority, ‘experts’, the new found gurus in the so called ‘freedom ‘ movement to tell them what is supposed to be factual when they start with statement of ‘ I believe there is a virus , etc.
      Over 100 years of universal schooling has conditioned many in believing that repeating main stream science falsehoods accurately makes it true.
      Science is about the rules of thought and logic and not about credentials and repeating what one learns in school , books , pseudoscience articles.
      And another way of self censoring is when people do not look at the evidence but dismiss the information because it was not in an ‘approved’ scientific article or not presented by the so called ‘experts’ .
      —————
      Schooling has created pseudoscientist that produce science to order for glory and financial rewards as the ignore the basic principles of science.
      “The only way to test a hypothesis is to look for all the information that disagrees with it.’
      ‘The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.’” 
      Karl Popper.
       
      Karl Popper- Theory of Falsification
      https://www.simplypsychology.org/Karl-Popper.html
      According to Popper, scientific theory should make predictions which can be tested, and the theory rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct.
       
      For Popper , science should attempt to disprove a theory , rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses.
       
       
      What is the orgin and the proof for a virus model for disease?
      Source: https://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
       
      Dr Stefan Lanka:
      “The definition of what can be called a scientific statement and the resulting obligations are clearly defined. Summarised:
      A. Every scientific statement must be verifiable, comprehensible and refutable.
      B. Only if the refutation of a scientific statement by laws of thought, logic and, if applicable, by control experiments has not succeeded, a statement may be called scientific.
      C. Every scientist is obliged to check and question his statements himself.
      Because virologists have never done this themselves and for understandable reasons are reluctant to do so – who wants to refute themselves, who wants to refute their actions, who wants to refute their own reputation – we do this publicly with seven arguments. Every single argument alone is sufficient to refute the existence claims of all “pathogenic viruses” and this is what virologists of this discipline do (except for researchers who deal with the existing “phages” and “giant viruses”). in the following points the word “virus” is used instead of the word combination “pathogenic virus”. “( https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-virologists.pdf)

      Like

      1. PC,

        Great Popper quotes. And Lanka’s point B is on point: “Only if the refutation of a scientific statement by laws of thought, logic and, if applicable, by control experiments has not succeeded, a statement may be called scientific.”

        At this point I maintain that intercellular communication, both endogenous and exogenous — and via protein secretions (‘exosomes’) — is a scientific theory that is superior to that unscientific view which holds, as does Mike, that this proteomic communication does not exist merely because it cannot be witnessed to exist under a microscope.

        As Lanka says, control experiments are only applicable where possible and also when there is a deficiency in the scientific statement WRT “laws of thought and logic.” The logic behind intercellular communication is, obviously, unassailable, when considering how it is that cells within an organism cooperate. The logic is as unassailable as the existence of the organism itself. Indeed it’s the*same* logic.

        Like

  7. Thanks Mike. I am still astounded how many medical do not accept the term of asymptomatic. They say that asymptomatic people can be carriers and have inapparent or subclinical infection.
    How can this be? We know they rely of a test, in all likelihood a PCR that is not fit as a diagnostic apparatus. Its a process for replication of sequences that mean nothing but support a belief system.
    I suspect thought or assertion comes from Genealogy that people have genes that they inherit. In fact they are chromosomes. DNA is a biological construct. Well explained by Dr. David Martin as a tapestry of life. I quote verbatim. “DNA is not a product of nature, it is a characteristic, it’s a model of human manipulation. That first image, 1952, Raymond Gosling
    and Rosalind Franklin, the first people who actually characterized the double helix called deoxyribonucleic acid, they were the first ones to discover that there was an interesting orientation of the molecule deoxyribonucleic acid.
    And it was then a year later that Watson and Crick were celebrated for actually coming up with the “invention” of DNA.
    But, it turns out they didn’t invent anything, they actually built a model. But the model was analogous to untying the tapestry of life in the form of chromosomes, and putting the untied strings on the floor and saying “describe humanity.”
    No different from the sequences created in gene banks. Model constructs all based on assumptions- guesswork.
    So, you may have genes that you inherit and it may be that you could have a predisposition to something? I am not sure. This is complete assumption that supports the theory of Heredity, also called inheritance or biological inheritance.
    I have a problem with the notion. You may have a inherited trait that you resemble your parent or parents yes accepted.
    It cannot be shown that because your father was a scoundrel you will become as he was, or because your mother was promiscuous, that you will be so.
    It is a tactic, a label and an emotional belief. As Lynn Wright above says dogma.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Absolutely a dogma supported by unproven models that are used to make the evidence fit the conjured up theory. I’m more and more convinced that, like virology, genomics is one giant scam.

      Like

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: