Dissecting “Viruses” and Grapefruits with Eric Coppolino

I recently had the privilege of being on Eric Coppolino’s show again to discuss all things virology…and grapefruits! It was a fun conversation where we dove into the recent launch of the No “VIrus” Challenge and some of the issues we continue to see in regards to our current (and potentially future) pandemic(s).

Per Eric:

A pile of dust is not a grapefruit. Mike Stone and Eric Francis deconstruct the notion of a virus.

A grapefruit is not a pile of dust.

“Want a good time? Call up Mike Stone and ask him about viruses. Today we start with understand the Virology Challenge issued by some of your favorite presenters — Mark and Sam Bailey, Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman and others. Mike is the author of the ViroLIEgy.com website, which should be more famous than it is. In this 50-minute segment, we talk about why you can’t sweep the produce department floor and make a grapefruit out of the dust. You’re not a bank robber if you have a dollar in your pocket. And a pile of computer code is not a virus. This is an entertaining, no bullshit discussion of what the heck virologists think they are doing. Special cameo by Tony Fauci! He was right in my studio. I made him espresso and we smoked a cigarette for old time’s sake.”

You can listen to our conversation here:

A pile of dust is not a grapefruit. Mike Stone and Eric Francis deconstruct the notion of a virus.

And please visit Eric’s brand new substack for more amazing content!

https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/

20 comments

    1. However this method does not allow a direct real time observation. And it has its own issues, i.e., a lack of reference material for visualization, it scans surface only, it can itself negatively affect scanned bio matter, it is invasive.

      BTW This method was presented to me while I was dealing with virologists on social media platforms.

      Like

  1. Progress in phonon microscopy needs monitoring.

    Phonon

    “In physics, a phonon is a collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter, specifically in solids and some liquids. A type of quasiparticle,[1] a phonon is an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations for elastic structures of interacting particles. Phonons can be thought of as quantized sound waves, similar to photons as quantized light waves. . . – Wikipedia.

    Cell imaging by phonon microscopy: sub-optical wavelength ultrasound for non-invasive imaging

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319955074_Cell_imaging_by_phonon_microscopy_sub-optical_wavelength_ultrasound_for_non-invasive_imaging

    3D phonon microscopy with sub-micron axial-resolution

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7870650/

    Like

    1. I haven’t had time to look into your links, but recall the amazing pistol shrimp as an example of soundwaves generating sonoluminescence and corresponding implosion/explosion by which to stun its prey. Vibrations have frequency, spin that interacts with (and ultimately manifests) matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXK2G2AzMTU. At the subtler scale, biophotons are part of biological communication as part of the radiant energy of electrical, kinetic interactions. What I don’t share is the presumption that a ‘virus’ theory must be ‘explained’ by another mechanism. This is backwards. (BTW your earlier post referred to cell membranes with innumerable ‘pumps’ and receptors for the balancing of inner and outer conditions that support/embody life – this is Victorian plumbing mindset that is another model given priority over fact. Gilbert Ling and others were blocked for revealing this. The domain of a cell is an energetically boundaried ‘structure’. We think in disconnected things separated by space and seek to put them together again. There is no empty ‘space’ to the fields that organise matter. Taking thing-in-itself is already the precursor to the in vitro mindset of a disembodied observer.

      Like

      1. I don’t necessarily agree with everything that I post on here. Many of these articles have a lot of information in them to evaluate. Nevertheless, there may be some validity to some of the information that merits consideration, whereas other parts of it are still popular although discredited or may remain unproven. I look at microscopy the same way I look at any other tool – it can be used or abused or perhaps worthless.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. There are issues with this phonon microscopy too, i.e., a lack of reference material, assumption that changes in EMF does not impact a sample, it is a scanning method (not real time observation of occurring processes), preservation of all vital characteristics of acquired sample.

      Like

      1. Does it really differ that much from a similar procedure they use on pregnant women? They also use a similar procedure to monitor blood flow through arteries.

        Like

      2. From a skim of the studies the premise is of using sound frequencies that are less distorting to ‘elastic’ properties of cell boundaries, so as to hopefully not distort the output.
        When reading across some of the biologic science the complexity of innumerable highly specialised & standardised or accepted methods for detecting, measuring & manipulating otherwise invisible & possibly theoretical facets of the material/biological realm are outside my sense and sensibility. Sometimes I wonder if such instruments are calibrated so as to deliver only the desired results.
        Likewise Gaston Naessons specialise microscopy is far more complex than a focussing lens through which light passes.
        Which brings me back to the recognition that marketising and weaponising operates a filter by which some developments are accepted, and others denied, or suppressed.

        Like

      3. Yes, it does differ as we talk about nano levels. And silhouette visualization on macro levels is a different thing. Not to mention such procedure itself can negatively affect physiological processes and fetus.

        Like

  2. Any naive person will believe, unconditionally, all the pseudoscientific crap that is being spewed out, all the time, because of the continuous debunking of pseudoscientific crap. So when a certain lab technique is exposed as fraudulent, the so-called scientists immediately come up with another alleged lab technique that is claimed to be flawless.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. „Specialization is in fact only a fancy form of slavery wherein the ‘expert’ is fooled into accepting a slavery by making him feel that he in turn is a socially and culturally preferred-ergo, highly secure-lifelong position.”
    — R. Buckminster Fuller
    ————————————
    „The course of every intellectual, if he pursues his journey long and unflinchingly enough, ends in the obvious, from which the non-intellectuals have never stirred.”
    — Aldous Huxley

    Like

    1. Thanks for the quotes.

      I had my own interpretation but a friend gave me a better understanding..

      “ know the one from Huxley. It is one of my favourite quotes.

      It has been used to describe people of high intelligence who use that intelligence to convince themselves of a lie, including systems of belief that are patently false. False at least to anyone who also allows him/herself to be guided by instinct.

      The unflinching intellectual in this quote is one of the few who goes beyond self-delusion and is not afraid to end up back where the non-intellectual has always remained.”

      Like

  4. The Huxley quote is a facile, Lao-tzu-type platitude, and therefore untrue in and of itself. Presumably “the obvious”(ness) to which he refers is the egalitarian patterning function we call ‘common sense — and presumably the working class had more common sense in his day, on average, than today — but actively cultivating one’s intellect is not at any point mutually exclusive with common sense.

    Even if the quote comes out of context, sentences must still be able to stand on their own merits.

    We all make mistakes and that’s okay. Accepting the humbling that the mistake brings and righting the course is one of the most sacred acts we can undertake.

    Right Eric?

    Like

  5. The analogy of sweeping a grocery store’s floor and creating out of the dust a “grapefruit” is ingenious. GREAT work, Mike and Eric.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. BIOMAGNETIC FIELDS AND THE HUMAN BODY

        ” . . .The body’s own internal magnetic fields are generated by the extraordinary amount of internal electrical activity that keeps our bodies alive. These biomagnetic fields interact with all of the other magnetic fields on the planet and control our basic chemistry. . .

        . . .The adult body is comprised of more than 70 trillion individual cells. . .Each of those trillions of cells carries out several thousand metabolic processes every second. In order for that level of complexity to function smoothly, there must be a great deal of communication between and within these trillions of cells. . .

        . . .Our bodies naturally conduct electricity. In fact, every organ and cell in the human body has its own field. The magnetic field produces electrical currents that are weaker than you may first think. At the same time, the electromagnetic field of the brain is stronger than the heart. . .

        . . . Cells normally go through at least 7,000 chemical reactions per second. This is an indication of the complex and continuous process involved in adaptation. This level of complexity is beyond the scope of simple biochemistry. By using electromagnetic stimulation, modern measuring techniques have increased the understanding of electromagnetic bio-communication that makes the coordination of the living system possible. . .

        . . . The body’s electrical activity happens primarily in the cell membrane. It is hugely important that the cell membrane maintain an appropriate “charge” or voltage. A healthy cell has a transmembrane potential of about 80 or 100 millivolts. A cancer cell, for comparison, has a transmembrane potential often as low as 20 or 25 millivolts. . .

        . . .The cell membrane is there both to protect the contents of the cell and to act as a sort of gatekeeper – opening and closing channels (like doorways) through which ions can flow. These channels are sometimes referred to as “pumps.”. . .

        . . .The cell membrane itself has a voltage called a “potential” (or membrane potential, or transmembrane potential). Membrane potential refers to the difference in electrical charge between the inside and outside of the cell. The channels in the membrane are opened or closed based on the polarity of the membrane. When the channels are closed, a cell membrane is at its “resting potential” and when it is open, it is at its “action potential.” . . .

        https://www.drpawluk.com/education/magnetic-science/biomagnetic-fields/

        This may well explain how a person can “catch a virus,” such as the detoxification process known as the flu. If someone is in the process of detoxification that person’s bioelectric/magnetic field may not be in a healthy state. If another person is approaching that condition due to a build up of toxins in the body then a close interaction with the detoxifying person may be enough, through the interaction of the fields, to trigger the “flu” in the person of marginal health as well.

        So perhaps viral particles are quasiparticles like phonons that “move” through materials. In which case they are not actually real particles but rather elementary excitations in a system. This means that they can never be found.

        Exactly how to measure the body’s bioelectric/magnetic field to determine health may be an impossible process, let alone measure the interaction of two fields!

        Like

  6. After reading an article that goes back to the beginning of the fake pandemic where they claim covid is a coronavirus and that no vaccines have ever been invented for such an animal, I am now wondering if coronaviruses even exist. What the experts term as a coronavirus is mainly the same as having a cold. And we know there is no vaccine to prevent a cold.

    So why not? A cold is pretty common and relatively simple as far as symptoms go. I would surmise that the reason there are no cold vaccines is because there are no cold creating viruses. What doesn’t make sense to me is if they claim they can vaccinate against a flu virus, which is usually a bit more severe than a cold virus, then why can’t they create a cold vaccine?

    I think that almost everyone on the planet would rush to get injected with one of those at least twice a year…what a gold mine. This suggests to me that big pharma vaccines and virology is nothing more than exaggerated hoodoo.

    I think the “virus challenge” is a good idea, but you are asking virologists to question their ingrained false delusions that have kept them in the dark for many, many decades. You will have better luck pulling teeth from a T-Rex.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I looked for a way to send a message & ended up in a comment 😉

    Your site hasn’t looked at the social economic political context so much yet – but its a valid part of the phenomena of the viral delusion.
    F.William Engdahl has documented a lot on all kinds of facets of geopolitics but he’s finally looking at the ‘Medical’ monopoly:
    Worth a look.
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/toxicology-vs-virology-rockefeller-institute-criminal-polio-fraud/5786537

    Liked by 1 person

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: