Mission Control: The Exosome Escape Clause

You have likely already quoted from multiple studies that contain a method section that is replete with information on how particle(s) were isolated, so I will refrain from going on a hunt for a study you will likely not agree with in terms of isolation.

Functionality and isolation are two separate things. Functionality is the action an entity takes. In static cultures, the actions of those entities are not as they would appear in the body since static environments are devoid of the entirety of the microbiome and the body. However, particles can still be characterized.

The pictures you are providing in your article are isolated particles of exosomes and viruses, whether naturally existing or not. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what isolation is. You are seemingly claiming that viruses and exosomes do not exist because they have not been “completely isolated”, yet do not seem to understand that isolation standards allow for around a 1% contamination in their isolate when filtrated through a 0.22 µm pore size. It is a delicate process but normally does not hinder observation when properly conducted. In those circumstances, you can still characterize and identify those particles. And, it is obvious that isolation is taking place, or such pictures would not exist, to begin with.

You are taking the stance of Kaufman/Cowan/Lanka, and redefining isolation to conform to some impossible standards of “complete isolation” that cannot take place by the very nature of isolation itself. It is an impossible threshold to meet and is not founded on scientific reason or common sense.

It is not accurate whatsoever to claim you cannot tell these various particles apart. If this were true, the pictures of viruses, exosomes, and cellular debris would all look exactly the same—they do not.

In reply to your comment starting with: ‘You must not understand that the scientific method requires a valid independent…”

Again, cause and effect are two entirely different things. I do not agree with their conclusions whatsoever on cause and effect (i.e. infectiousness). However, I do agree they are able to isolate and characterize the proteins of viruses, enzymes, exosomes, and so forth. When you say “completely separated”, you are acting as if particles the size of viruses can be 100% removed from the fluids by which they are bound. That is a physical impossibility. If you take a rock and isolate it from the dirt that surrounds it, you have a completely isolated rock, and it was likely quite easy to do so because of the size of the rock. Yet, the smaller something gets, the more is required to isolate the object. This is a law of nature and has nothing to do with virology.

With objects as small as viral particles, exosomes, and so forth, damage to those particles becomes a major issue. Complete and total isolation as you are describing is not needed to determine the size, shape, and characteristics of the rock, even if it still has a little dirt around it.

The study you provide concludes:

“Here, we aimed to create awareness that virus preparations may never be pure but rather are contaminated with diverse subpopulations of EVs, and SOME of these EVs may be either indistinguishable from or very similar to so-called defective viruses.”

Further, the study never claims viruses are not real, but affirms it as fact.
It concludes, in part, with the following:

“Understanding of the structure of EVs produced by infected cells, determining their cargo, and deciphering the fine mechanisms by which they affect viral infection are required not only for basic virology but also for translation into therapy.”

Concerning “To study their respective functions…”:
The study states:

“This is very difficult with some viruses, such as retroviruses, because both EVs and retroviruses are comparable in size (EVs ranging from 50 to 100 nm, virions being ∼100 nm) and buoyant density (EVs: 1.13–1.18 g/L; most retroviruses: 1.16–1.18 g/L). Other membrane-derived materials may also have similar characteristics. Therefore, density gradients, which are often used to separate EVs from contaminating protein aggregates on the basis of differences in buoyant densities (40), are not always reliable for separation of EVs from viral particles.”

Thus, proper procedures must be carried out to differentiate. They do not claim such things cannot be done, and even allude to the fact that they can, but that it must be done properly.

While we may not be able to touch them or see them directly, at the same time, we cannot see or touch most anything in the body. Surely, you can understand my rock example for what it is. The fact remains, that there must be a mediator between cells to deliver cellular fluids and facilitate communication between cells. Exosomes are merely one such agent that takes this role. At the same time, there must also be a sole solvent factor to break down toxicity when our living microbes are poisoned by modern toxins and can no longer take part in the engulfing of that toxic matter without being poisoned to death. Thus, a solvent construct must absolutely exist to break down substances so cells can rationally handle them.

The body is quite adept at creating solvents and acids. Each cell is a micro-laboratory, with all of the tools to manufacture many types of proteins and variants therein.

Viruses allow cells to dissolve substances without the cell ever making contact with the whole toxin. What is left after viral dissolution is the remnants of a once caustic toxin, which are then more easily managed and removed by cells. It is mainstream science itself that admits that viruses are able to dissolve the walls of cells.

We must take the larger picture into context. None of these entities exist in singular environments in the body. They exist in harmony, with intelligence and cohesion. If we took a human out of the natural world and completely sterilized the body of all bacteria with harsh sterilizers, they would eventually no longer function properly, would become mutated, and die. Likewise, on the macro scale, it is irrational to expect pure isolation and sterilization of an organic particle that cannot be completely removed from its natural environment. To do so would surely mean the destruction of the particle, including misobservation of functions. You can only purify a particle so much before it alters its structure. This is especially true for organic particles.

There are not millions of particles that look like viruses under electron microscopy. Viruses are clearly defined from any other body. You must train yourself to see the differences. When you say they can not determine which particles are which, this is not accurate. For example, you can easily determine an adenovirus particle from influenza virus particles.

Further, if I am not mistaken, I do believe the study you are quoting is referring to vesicles that themselves contain viral particles, not that exosomes and viruses cannot be seen or isolated. As I wrote before, you cannot separate a protein from another protein like an exosome without destroying both. Exosomes may carry viral particles at some point, but viruses and exosomes appear separate much of the time. I already explained how they can conduct characterization.

“Where was a “virus” ever properly purified/isolated and proven to function in the way you claim?”

By your standards, nothing in the body is known. We are not finding any common ground if you cannot even agree with anything I have written. There’s literally nothing I can provide to you if you are already dead-set on believing that none of these things exist. Take a step back for a moment and think about what I am imparting without bias. Some things in life must be theorized and concluded in scientific reasoning and likelihood. You seem to be suggesting that researchers should automatically have all the answers for every facet of every atom of something to conclude it is real. Real science is far more mature than that, even if it is tainted by the modern aura of deception.

If exosomes were called by any other name, you surely would find them faulty as well.

“Even if this is true, that does not mean that the particles seen in EM and said to be exosomes are in fact the agents that perform this role.”

The way one would know that is by observing the components of the vesicle itself and its makeup, like the membrane, shape, size, etc. Simple cellular debris does not exactly appear like vesicles, even though they were originally thought of as cellular debris back in the 80s with little evidence to go on. There are likely other vesicles that researchers have mistaken as debris, which are actually reconstitutions of cellular parts packaged up and used in the creation of new cells. The body recycles when it can.

“Where were either the adenovirus and influenza “viruses” ever purified/isolated in order to determine what they look like?”

By centrifuging a sample, extracting the proper density band containing the virus, and observing it through electron microscopy, then taking photographs.

Your only line of defense thus far has been: “Where was a “virus” ever properly purified/isolated?” There are many photographs and photographs in studies, many of which you yourself have quoted from and referenced, that show viruses. You do not believe viruses exist, so you are already greatly biased. This is not an argument about the supposed infectiousness of these entities but about their actual existence, which is an entirely and vastly different argument. In my view, it distracts from actual errors in virology.

These are the same sort of tactics Kaufman and Cowan (and Lanka) resort to. Their entire modus operandi is to heavily cherry-pick studies to try to prove their conclusions, and they do so in a manipulative manner. It is misrepresenting fundamental science and making it appear as if none of these things exist and that researchers are completely inept at every step. For example, they have set the bar for isolation so high that they can potentially claim nothing exists. Where’s the middle ground?

At the same time, they have absolutely no issue promoting and selling the ‘Analemma water wand’, which promises to ‘restructure’ tap water, and will gladly show you the so-called ‘science’ behind the scam product. In actuality, it will only restructure your wallet. Many of the same people who believe viruses are not real will go to their website and purchase this wand based on their words alone. In hindsight, you cannot turn tap water into water for healthy use in the body, and it is absurd to even make such claims. You do not need a study to prove that fact, but I digress.

My comment: “There are not millions of particles that look like viruses…” was in reference to your previous comment, “How are they able to determine which are the particles they are studying in EM images if there are millions of similar/identical particles within the sample as well?”

My point was that there are not millions of other particles besides viruses that look like viruses. Exosomes and cell debris do not look like viruses—viruses have unique structures, some more so than others.

The most important aspect to understand is, that without viruses, the body would surely die. Our cells need specialized non-living solvents to disassemble/dissolve substances in and around tissues that are not bio-active. Normal cleansers, like bacteria, fungus, parasites, phagocytes, etc, will not survive such non-bio-active toxins for long because they would all be killed. Even on a theoretical basis, you cannot legitimately deny that the body must have such cell constructs. Otherwise, we would all be dead. Think of all of the manmade industrial pollution, waste, and chemicals that the average person is exposed to on a daily basis that is detrimental to all life. Do you suppose the body magically removes all of this using its living agents? How can it? It cannot. It must have specialized, highly specific solvents, period.

Jeff,

“The most important aspect to understand is, that without viruses, the body would surely die. Our cells need specialized non-living solvents to disassemble/dissolve substances in and around tissues that are not bio-active. Normal cleansers, like bacteria, fungus, parasites, phagocytes, etc, will not survive such non-bio-active toxins for long because they would all be killed. Even on a theoretical basis, you cannot legitimately deny that the body must have such cell constructs. Otherwise, we would all be dead. Think of all of the manmade industrial pollution, waste, and chemicals that the average person is exposed to on a daily basis that is detrimental to all life. Do you suppose the body magically removes all of this using its living agents? How can it? It cannot. It must have specialized, highly specific solvents, period.”

I’m open to your paradigm in general, but it must accord with Reason in order to be true. The statement you made above may not stand to reason.

The reason that I mistook microsomal monooxygenases as what I thought you were mistaking viruses for being was because they are the major class of enzymes, some of which that have presumably evolved more recently in order to deal with the slew of industrial chemical xenobiotics. And presumably they evolved in humans via HGT via microbes and ultimately via the primordial soup.

Anaerobic microbes themselves have evolved to handle nasty ass shit. To bioremediate it so that aerobic life can repopulate the locale.

I feel that you underestimate the resiliency and redundancies of the living ecology when you say that it absolutely cannot adequately detoxify without what it is that you conceive to be the additional, essential viral enzyme function.

In a previous thread here I explored the body’s biological remediation dynamics.

Here’s a link to my first relevant comment.

https://viroliegy.com/2022/06/05/monkeypox-mania/#comment-3341

If you use the ‘find in page’ function and search for “anaerobe” it will highlight further examinations of the body’s bioremediation abilities. The key thing to understand about the bioremediation of industrial chemicals is that generally they are fat-soluble so they get stored in body fat and must be enzymatically broken down into water soluble toxins so that the anaerobes and the other enzymes can work on them as well as enable the toxins to return to the bloodstream through capillary walls which requires water solubility.

Cheers.

Sorry, Jeff, I cut a sentence short: monooxygenases are the major class of enzymes that deal with fat-soluble toxins.

Going back to your past posts, you clearly claim that exosomes are real. You had even posted some of my writings which you have removed as well. Now, you have done a complete 180 and suddenly changed your stance altogether.
Here, for example, you concluded the following: ““Viruses” are nothing more than exosomes. These are just two competing theories for the exact same particles created from artificial conditions in a lab.” https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/10/viruses-or-exosomes/

I wrote “It can be said that exosomes are indistinguishable from viruses in some cases.” nearly three years ago—”…in some cases.”
I also wrote this on June 29th, 2022: “It may correctly be stated that viruses appear similar to other agents from a distance, as all other agents in the body do. Therefore, taking adequate time to identify is needed.” https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/are-viruses-merely-cell-debris.
And, in my first comment to you, I wrote “On their surface, many cells and entities in the body appear to be similar or the same, until closely observed.”
These statements are still true. You are merely taking one statement I made out of its context. You are far too defensive to have a legitimate conversation with and you addressed nothing of import from my previous reply other than to deflect and deny.

“These are images of particles created after heavy alterations in cell culture and TEM preparation. There is no evidence whatsoever that these particles exist in the body as presented nor that they have any function in the body.”

Then you are basically admitting cell alteration elicits cells to produce viral proteins. If cells can produce such proteins in cell culture, then they can do so in the body. I have concluded that your entire stance is to chase your own tail. It is as if you are fighting with yourself. I have nothing to fight with you over, but I simply disagree with your broad and generalized denial of all things science.

With regard to your comments on isolation, you are wholly mistaken. You expect those conducting isolation to separate viruses 100% from their fluids to be able to observe them, which is impossible. You do not use the term “100%”, but that is obviously what you allude to. You are using that minor negative to try to prove your denialism. You are claiming that viruses are merely mistaken as cell debris, even though viruses have apparent structures and cohesion in their form when closely observed. Of course, you do not believe any of this exists anyway.

“I have repeatedly shown that researchers claim “viruses” and exosomes can not be distinguished”

You have done no such thing. The very study in your post here states the following: “…and some of these EVs may be either indistinguishable from or very similar to so-called defective viruses.” p.9159
“Some of”, and in “defective viruses”, which are incomplete viral structures. Further, retroviruses are only one type of virus. Nowhere does it state exosomes cannot be distinguished from all other complete viruses or vice versa, nor does it state that this occurs in every situation by every researcher.

Finally, you baselessly claim I am “promoting pseudoscience”, yet you are on here claiming antibodies, exosomes, viruses, and everything else attached to them are all fake and non-existent, with literally no substitute to take their place. Your argument has no basis in reality. In fact, your stance is that nothing can be proven or known. Essentially, you can deny viruses exist, and by doing so you do not have to address the complexities of so-called infectiousness, symptoms, isolation, or anything else surrounding them for that matter. You have wrapped it all into a nice neat box with a bow on top.

You are still not properly differentiating between cause and effect and isolation, which again, are each different processes. You are combining them into one process. Importantly, you do not need to show the supposed cytopathic effects of a particle in order to isolate it. That is secondary to isolation and comes afterward.

With regard to exosomes and viruses being nearly impossible to isolate from each other—you are misreading the study from which you are quoting. It clearly reads that viral particles that exist inside exosomes cannot be separated from one another. Researchers do not need to do this to observe viruses anyway because both particles appear in separation in samples. This is done in order to determine the cargo of an exosome, which is part of the topic of the study.

Furthermore, your statements about viruses being merely cellular debris, as you continually rehash, is missing one very important observation, among many. That is, if viruses were simply cellular debris, pictures of viruses would show them without cohesive form; without apparent structure. You see an equilateral distribution of surface glycoproteins on viruses—something only an intelligent formation by a living organism could manufacture—not the more simple structures and greater various sizes of cellular debris. You may then claim the pictures themselves are fake, but that would be absurd since they are clearly real photographs of organic particles.

Vesicles are merely packages of material that are composed inside the cytoplasm of cells, which are either recycled for eventual use by the cell or sent off as extracellular vesicles wherein they gain a lipid membrane by nature of the exocytosis of the particle from the cell wall when they bud off. Some viruses, such as enveloped viruses, also gain their membrane by the same pathway.

Viruses begin in the nucleus of cells. Exosomes do not. They contain entirely different inner core makeups.

Viruses are densely packed with tightly coiled mRNA, which is obtained by the cell nucleus during DNA to RNA transcription using chromosomes. The final viral formation is completed in the cytoplasm by ribosomes, wherein translation of RNA to mRNA takes place. If viruses leave the cytoplasm as unfinished vesicles, it is to transmit the necessary components for less than fully vital cells to manufacture proteins. Thus, incomplete “defective” viruses can become vesicle-like. Such so-called viruses are mere vesicles and not complete viral structures.

All of this is able to be determined by observing formations after they leave the nucleus and/or cell. Chromosomes, for example, cannot be seen in the nucleus under microscopy. However, when cells divide, their appearance is readily visible because their DNA becomes so tightly packed. You may pull up videos of the process. The same is true for the formation of other proteins, like viruses. Simply suggesting that researchers are completely inept in every way is a great disservice to the men and women who spend their lives studying the great complexities of the body and does not seek to correct any errors in medical science. You are making overly broad generalizations that are circular in logic. As I stated before, existence and functionality are entirely different, and by combining these two you will never find the truth of the matter.

To disprove your ideation on vesicles: A cell undergoing apoptosis will release all of its inner parts, and many of them, once they leave the cell, will by the very nature of cellular decay form vesicles—called blebbing, which causes apoptotic membrane protrusions that form into vesicle bodies—that are eventually reestablished in other cells, if they can be utilized and are still bio-active. This is essentially what exosomes are. You are suggesting these vesicles are merely cellular debris with no use, or worse, that they simply do not exist. True cellular debris appears as a fine particulate, not as defined vesicles.
I have video of this near the end of my presentation ‘Viral Misconceptions’ where you can clearly see this breakdown particulate, along with vesicle secretion, from a dying neutrophil.

If cells did not recycle their contents, the body would be incredibly inefficient, and the body is incredibly efficient.

You go sentence by sentence instead of understanding the whole of what I write. So, I can also apply that to you as well.

“Isolation must come first in order to obtain the independent variable (i.e. the particles assumed to be exosomes/”viruses” free of all other kinds of particles) which is then used to determine cause and effect.”

I’m not interested in cause and effect. I am interested in your claims about isolation not taking place. You did not address my point, which is, that you are combining both isolation and CPE together, and you cannot do that. They are separate processes.

“You must also have purified/isolated particles free of everything else in order to properly characterize the particles you are supposed to be studying.”

You do not. Your definition of “free of everything else” is 100% isolation, which is not possible.
In a previous thread, you wrote:

“What percentage of purification is acceptable to you? 99%? 90%? 80%? 50%? Lower? Why wouldn’t you need 100% in order to identify a particle you have never studied before?” As such, you believe in 100% isolation by your very words.

100% isolation is not needed to characterize particles or nothing in the body would be characterized. How can you not concede this fact? You write about others having “intellectual honesty”. Well, where is yours?

“If you do not have the particles by themselves, then there is no way to determine specific proteins, antibodies, etc. as they could belong to any of the other substances/contaminants in the sample.”

Particles are quite pure after proper centrifugation as described in isolation technical manuals:

“The most common first step in purifying viruses from natural samples is filtration through a membrane having pore size of 0.2 or 0.22 µm. This removes virtually all of the cells, while allowing the vast majority of viruses to pass in the filtrate. The method is not perfect, as there are reports of ultramicrobacteria that can pass a 0.2 µm filter (reviewed by Velimirov 2001), and some marine viruses have diameters in excess of 0.2 µm (Bratbak et al. 1992; Garza and Suttle 1995). Viruses smaller than the pore size can also be trapped on the filter by adsorption or pore occlusion, resulting on occasion in low yields. Filtration is, however, very simple and effective for many purposes.” p.177

“Any contaminating nucleic acid, especially RNA, that pellets during the run will be located at the very bottom of the tube where it will not be in contact with the virus bands. Material that is less dense than the least dense portion of the gradient will not pellet, but will float at the top of the gradient.” p.180

Lawrence, Janice & Steward, Grieg. (2010). Purification of viruses by centrifugation. 10.4319/mave.2010.978-0-9845591-0-7.166.

“It clearly is stating that the particles claimed to be exosomes and “viruses” can not be separated/differentiated due to their similar size, shape, and density. Both particles do not appear in separation.”

Yes, they do. Viruses and vesicles appear as their own individual bodies. The study you quote from writes about them being joined, which I already clearly address in my previous comments. It is “almost impossible” to separate combined exosomes and viruses.

See here:

“Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules.”

Can you not read that for what it states? “EVs that carry viral proteins…” Viruses do not always appear in exosomes—they appear on their own, I.e. single.

“How can they determine the core of either “virus” or exosome if they can not separate the particles from each other and study either independently?”

Refer to my point above.

“Observing formations tells nothing.”

It tells us a lot more than nothing. It tells us structure, through which one learns to characterize objects. How can you be so boldened to claim that “Observing formation tells us nothing.”

“You are fixated on static EM images that have been used to create a fictional story of how these particles form and function.”

I’m not actually fixated on anything. You are, and you are fixed on your theory of non-existence no matter the evidence presented. I am well content in my rebuttals to you. I am not being combative in any way, as you are, because I am content with the correctness of my information, and it is something I have labored over for a period of many years. Your exosome theory is merely a couple of weeks old.
You literally discarded a wealth of information I imparted in my previous post as if it was nothing, which is why I will likely refrain from taking the time to converse with you from here on since you cannot converse in good faith.

Hello reante,

The theory I have proposed is that viruses are cellularly created proteins that are enzymatic in nature, similar to other enzymes but with more specific structures and actions. The class of microsomal monooxygenase enzymes you are referring to are merely fragments of larger bodies and are not whole viral protein structures, nor are they what I claim viruses are.

Viruses and exosomes are larger whole structures and are released from the cytoplasm and the membranes of living or dying cells—whether the cell is healthy, undergoing planned cellular death (apoptosis), or cellular decay. Microsomes are merely parts of a greater whole—they are fragments and cannot be considered whole cellular protein structures. They may be called fragments of larger structures. Therefore, microsomal monooxygenase enzymes are neither exosomes nor viruses.

Viruses are very specific proteins containing mRNA that is tightly woven into their nucleocapsid, which meets with glycoprotein surface receptors on their capsid. This allows for communication between viruses and cells using surface receptor proteins. The glycoproteins (spikes) that cover viruses work by holding a receptive object in place and beginning the breakdown of bonds that hold the structure together through enzymatic hydrolysis, thus causing fractionation of the object. Other enzymes work similarly, but viruses are more unique structures operating on a specific lock-and-key system using mRNA and/or DNA. If this were not true, viruses would begin to dissolve whatever they touch in the body. As with anything in the body, there is intelligence involved.

A virus is a transporter of many enzymes on its capsid. Viruses must be transported safely throughout the body to dissolve specifically, unlike other enzymes, like digestive enzymes that are situated in the intestinal tract.

Jeff, thanks for clearing up my mistake. I apologize. I’ll have to further ruminate on your full comment which you linked to.

What do you mean by the primary exosomal function being as “fluid” carriers? What are these fluids and what are they for? Are you saying they are not nucleic acid- based carriers of information?

You’re welcome… no problem.

With regard to exosomes being fluid carriers, I am referring to them as vesicles that contain components for cellular life; proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and so on.

Ok right on.

It is true that many toxins are fat-soluble and flow into fat. That is why putting on the proper body fat is essential in our modern-day. The problem arises in people who have very little body fat and low microbial levels due to modern diet. Those without the proper body fat will many times allow toxins to remain free-floating in the blood where they can contact cells and damage cellular life. This is also an issue when cells dump toxins during their cyclical detoxification/cleansing, which occurs throughout the weeks, months, and years of a person’s life as cells renew themselves and their tissues. A skinny body is easily agitated by toxins, and a body that has the proper fat is far less influenced.

Secondly, if a person has very low bacterial levels due to not consuming a diet rich in raw bacteria, their body will not contain the necessary microbes to help consume toxic material and their detoxification symptoms will be far more severe in order to help rid the body of the level of toxins it is having to break down. Regardless, toxic material, whether it is stored in fat or not, must be expelled at some point. To do so, cells make contact with the toxin, such as white blood cells, in order to bind with, escort, and push it out of the body. If the toxin is toxic enough, no living organism, no matter how evolved, will be able to deal rationally with that substance, and it must be taken care of by using a last resort (virus) to diminish the toxin. This is why viral variants exist. Cells alter their proteins to be able to deal with new unrecognizable toxins that are not natural to our bodies.

Lastly, there are many fat-soluble toxins like plastic and heavy metals that are very difficult, if not impossible, for the body to make water-soluble. They embed in fat tissue, cells and their tissue, wherein they settle. To dissolve those, solvents are needed. Sometimes, cells must be fully dissolved to remove the toxin (I.e. polio, heavy metals in the spinal column). This is partly why the ‘infectiousness’ of viruses is an illusion.

>If you merely label every particle shape X as “influenza virus” and shape Y as “adenovirus” and shape Z as “an exosome,” you haven’t found or characterized anything. You’ve merely given names to recurring patterns of shapes and made stories about their function. Those shapes could turn out to be something entirely different and this method of “characterizing” would never tell you.
Nails it!
>Merely because the mainstream makes a groundless conjecture about some intercellular communication object doesn’t mean you jump at it as the means by which cells communicate. That would be just naïve dot connecting as a flailing attempt to make sense of things based on very sparse info and meager debate. It was understandable back in the days before the Internet when debate on such controversial topics was rare to find and made some sense to weave a just-so story as long as it had the right effect (of stopping “virus” fear and vaccination) but the bar has been raised – especially in the last two years

Likewise! Thanks for bringing some … clarity to the discussion. So much of what has been posted in this discussion smacks of “We’re here because we’re here because….” Nothing more than a demand for us to accept the basics of virology because it’s supposedly the accepted “science,” just like the basics of physics, astronomy, never mind that these other sciences, including cellular biology, have the precedence of hundreds if not thousands of years of observations and repeatable experiments serving as a basis, whereas virology (and its outgrowth, allopathic medicime) got its very start as a corporate-sponsored endeavor and engaged in a scorched-earth campaign against all other explanations of related observations, e.g. terrain theory, homeopathy.

Magnificent summary of the state of play.

You da man Big C!

@Jeff Green

The theme of this blog is to debunk the mainstream using their own sources. It should be clear that a mainstream researcher is never going to say anything greatly unorthodox, so the game is to see if when you take all their claims together it creates problems for the field. Obviously it will be in a way the authors don’t realize because they don’t approach their own field with any criticism of the fundamentals and most scientists also aren’t in the habit of thinking through an entire paradigm as they’re too specialized and compartmentalized; if contradictions and amazing ad hoc coincidences pile up in their storytelling they just assume that’s how things must be down there in the microcosm or assume that’s someone else’s job to verify.

It eventually reaches a level where they would happily contradict themselves or the scientific method within a single paper if it would meet the approval of their peers, just as Enders did when he carried out a control experiment that failed yet nonetheless concluded he had identified the cause of measles, got a Nobel Prize for it, and the rest of the ailing field followed his unscientific methods because “hey, he got a Nobel.”

To a reader willing to question the fundamentals, the problems with the whole theory holding together become starkly obvious *precisely because of and in proportion to* the stark unwillingness of the mainstream to question fundamental assumptions.

When one takes in new information and tries to theorize from it *without* allowing the fundamentals to be called into question at the same time, one is liable to unwittingly resort to ad hocery like “viruses,” “retroviruses,” “exosomes,” and one object containing another as ever more transparent rescue devices to fill in holes in the existing theory. It adds up to a planet-sized violation of Occam’s razor, which is the beating heart of a scientific theory. This is the pattern with all institutional science, though life and social sciences most of all. Physics has its “dark matter” and its ever-expanding zoo of particles and forces for the same reason. It looks really embarrassing and cringey from the perspective of those who understand science and logic, aren’t invested in the dogma of a given field, and aren’t stricken with hyperspecialized “stay in your lane” syndrome.

As to why it matters if “viruses” haven’t been distinguished from “exosomes” if they both haven’t been shown to be any special particles performing their imputed functions, again think of the point of this blog and look at the history of the posts. Virology was resoundingly destroyed on these pages a long time ago, but Mike has continued systematically dissecting and pulverizing each part of its corpse for good measure. This is a great service to the rest of microbiology and serves as a fascinating study of the sociology of scientism.

Clarifire

It was helpful and important that you reviewed the prevailing subculture of this blog as you did, in order to signal to Jeff that he might consider recalibrating his tactics in service of the case he is capably making.

I will add more context. The subculture of this blog is solidly — as in, extremely — in the Deconstructionist movement. Postmodernism was founded on deconstructionism. My senior thesis was on postmodern literature. (In my paper I took a canonical Pomo short story and argued how it was just a phony pomo story dressed up in Pomo style but thematically it was fundamentally modernist lol. I wrote a really good sentence with the word “transmogrification” in it and between that and the accusation of modernism, and probably the fact that it was also in the feminist canon and I am male and opposed to all political co-optation, they hauled me in and accused me of plagiarism.)

Deconstructionism IS the quintessential postmodern act of unlearning the fake Progress narrative of fairytale industrialism, by systematically picking its falsehoods apart but without any care for what’s actually true whether they be any nuggets of truth contained within the falsehoods (remember the definition of evil is truths intentionally placed in service of a falsehood) or, most importantly, holistic truth itself. Deconstructionism and its larger context of postmodernism, are shattered ontologies of a nihilism born of the first-world “spectacular society” of a consumer consciousness in a permanent Disneyland environment. And this is not my opinion. This is postmodernism’s self-acknowledged reality because the point of it for them is to ‘honestly’ acknowledge and explore the nature of contemporary cultural reality as a new, felt ontology, as if that culture is all that exists in the universe. That’s what happens when you live and die in the citadel.

And obviously, Clarifire, you are not a postmodern person, which is why I’m still here. But Mike is Deconstructionist through and through, and he needs to understand that his deconstructionism is as mainstream as it gets because civilization will welcome with open arms anyone who does not care for the holistic truth but merely amplifies the dissonant babble in the great tower, for that is not even a minor threat – it’s precisely the effect that they are looking for.

The idea is to build again in truth and beyond postmodernism. Obviously that’s what Jeff’s about, too, and I’m curious to hear you, Jeff, respond to Clarifire’s possible part-identification of the origins of your paradigm (Frey, Vonderplanitz) as well as continue to elaborate on your own ‘divinations’ about how the intelligent body works and works best, and under what conditions it works best, because that’s ultimately what we’re all here for. Right, Mike?

Its not the same difference, and if you cant tell the difference in the nuance between what the quote I responded to was and what you said, you REALLY need to go back and study the English language more.

Dude, I apologize for my careless and incorrect comment.

I will say though that all the research doesn’t do exactly the same thing. That’s bias.nDespite the deep cultural flaws and industrial corruption, they are always trying to refine their processes. For example, Jeff and I are the only people so far who will acknowledge the lengths that the field of electron microscopy will go to improve their freezing methods so that what they look at is the same as what was in the body. (We also recognize the economic boondoggles that these lengths they go to do represent.) Why is it that so few here will acknowledge the degree of vitrification they are now achieving with these samples?

Same goes for ‘clean’ fluid isolation of ‘exosomes.’ Mike’s too proud to let go of the isolation argument in this specific context. He doesn’t need to let go of the functionality (of exosomes) argument because whether to Pattern or not to Pattern: that is the personal question. Nonetheless, Mike makes a religion of the materialistic ‘scientific method’ and so refuses to pattern, and prefers to stonewall those that do reach for patterns because no one can hurt him (his intellect) there.

Its cool, i have all the resources here i just need to read through a little more of Poisoned Needle, Private science of Louis pasteur, and maybe some more of Bechamp vs Pasteur. Other than that, I basically have all the important stuff done (as I’ve already translated the drosten paper, and I can explain the Enders method in Japanese well enough for normies).

The only thing im worried about is after passing the idea by a friend who is awakened, she was complaining that 2 hours would be too long. I told her straight up: This is NOT an easy thing to explain and if a person isnt willing to spend the time to actually learn this stuff, because its not something you can just explain, even in the simplest way possible, in under an hour, then they are just lazy. I made what, 10 videos in japanese, all of them around an hour each, going through individual papers and explaining all of the important points, but hearing that even an awakened person doesnt want to sit through that really bothers the hell out of me.

Mike, I didn’t realize you now believe in genomics and the possibilities of gene therapy.

nestorseven called them gene therapy injections without qualification. You agreed 100pc. Case closed mike

Lol! I still cannot believe you write this entire blog on your phone, and a demon phone at that!!!

Reante,

“Matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change—none is created or destroyed. This concept is called the Law of Conservation of Mass.”

If this law is true then what do you want to call the breakdown products that result from cell death?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at George so feel free to let me know if that seems useful, but fundamentally I would call a dead body (“breakdown products”) food. Apoptotic bodies are food for saprophytes. Jeff’s recent comment to me about the body directly recycling this food to any appreciable degree, for it’s own use, does not appear to stand to Reason to me because I don’t see a mechanism for it. If Jeff’s reading this comment I’d love to hear about the insides of that claim. Seems to me there are highly likely to be some metabolites from saprophytes eating our dead tissues that we may be to put to use but calling this any kind of recycling program would be a stretch; the saprophytes recycling our death into their lives. We grow cells anew, by cell division, and we fuel that by working our eating drinking breathing and sunning faculties.

How about this, son….with technology, I can prove conclusively that there is no curvature (e.g. ever heard of a Nikon P900), but you can’t prove the same…why is that, son?

Potente, you’re living inside a parlor trick because it helps you feel like the world can’t hurt you as much from in there. You need to man up and go outside and earn yourself a real living.

Loud and clear boss. Looks like I might be drawing closer to being your first after all. 🙂

I thought it was an accurate diagnosis and sound advice myself, for a flat-earth adverse reaction.

I saw some YT videos by That Chemist on falsified chemistry data… that may point you in the right direction.

So many people need to have a bogeyman to blame stuff on. 🙂

OK, you just let me know when someone comes to these threads and claims viruses are pathogens….my financial backers have a proposition for ANYONE who makes these claims…

This is probably what he is talking about. The question is can this process be seen with optical microscopy at least in part?

“In human adults, billions of cells die every day as part of the body’s natural processes. Cells that become damaged by microbial infection or mechanical stress also die. The cell death that occurs in the physiological setting is programmed, and is therefore called programmed cell death (Lockshin and Zakeri, 2001). Apoptosis is the major death process, but necrosis and autophagic cell death have also been proposed to play roles in programmed cell death (Kroemer et al., 2009). Dying cells secrete a “find me” signal, and they expose an “eat me” signal on their surface. In response to the “find me” signal, macrophages approach the dead cells; they then recognize the “eat me” signal (Ravichandran and Lorenz, 2007). Using sophisticated cell machinery, the phagocytes ingest the dead cells, direct them to lysosomes, and degrade their cellular components into basic biochemical building blocks: amino acids, nucleotides, fatty acids, and monosaccharides. These molecules will be released from the lysosomes and reused to make new macromolecules. In definitive erythropoiesis, the process by which red blood cells are generated, the nuclei are extruded from erythroid precursor cells at the final differentiation stage and are engulfed by macrophages (Chasis and Mohandas, 2008). The machinery used for the engulfment and degradation of the extruded nuclei appears similar to that used for the removal of apoptotic cells.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867410001297

There are videos of macrophages eating things.