Getting the Monkey(pox) off the Back With Patrick Timpone

A few days ago, I had the honor of being a guest on the Patrick Timpone show for the third time. As usual, the conversation was entertaining, even beyond the fact that I unknowingly wore the exact same shirt as when I was on the show a few months ago. We covered many topics in our hour long chat which was nicely listed in order on Patrick’s site:

How Can Monkey Pox Exist If the Germ Theory Is False?

Mike did video with Dr. Cowan about monkeypox.  It’s on ViroLIEgy.com.  Many articles there.

Monkeypox is more of the same.  Nonspecific symptoms, unusual presentations, usually in genital areas, a targeted victim group, victims pegged with a faulty PCR test while presenting for other symptoms.

Monkeypox confused with herpes.  Friction, sweat, stress, anxiety, immune-suppressing drugs will cause the lesions.  Thin skin, lack of collagen related to herpes.

Had a drill before monkeypox outbreak similar to Event 201. 

Initial victims had no travel or contact with anyone from the monkeypox endemic areas such as Africa.

Dr. Luc Montagnier said they never purified a virus. 

AZT causes same symptoms as HIV/AIDs.  Very toxic.  Was a failed chemo drug in the 70s. 

Contagion is a myth.  Studies trying to transmit 1918 Flu couldn’t.  Measles parties shown not to transmit measles to all exposed.

Epidemiological studies are subjective and often biased.  Need to look at patient’s environment.  

Bioresonance possibly explains “catching” a virus.

Virologists believe it.  They don’t question because they have a lot invested in their education and position.  We’re taught not to look at outside factors or to question the establishment. 

Look at the information for yourself.  They’re going to keep playing the same trick over and over again. 

Culturing by putting in lots of other toxic substances that break down the cells, then isolating and saying it’s a virus.

7 main “coronavirus” now, and they all look the same.  In a study, spikes created by a procedure that eroded the cell membrane.  Can’t see a “live virus” in an electron microscope, it must be killed first.  Which alters it and creates artifacts.

Can bioweapons be created?  99% of people survived COVID – it was a poor bioweapon.  The real bioweapon is the jab.  All they needed was the fear to induce people to get it.  They can poison us though, and they are.

Gain of function – another fiction. 

Shedding from the jab – another fear campaign. 

Are viruses racist and homophobic?  Those are identified as the target groups.

See the No Virus Challenge on viroliegy.com.  Also see Debunking the Nonsense.

You can watch our discussion here:

I hope that you are able to come away with some useful information!

76 comments

  1. Listened to this yesterday, heard your voice over my iPod. “Hey! That’s Mike!” Thanks for the shout out, i will take the credit for putting you two together. Patrick has recurring guests, you should be on that list. Another great conversation. Get the word out, contagion is a myth!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Actually most of biology is a myth, this includes biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, medical microbiology, pathology, virology, immunology etc. It started with Quantum Mechanics in Physics that bled over into Chemistry, which then bled over into all of biology. Most academic biology is exactly that: FICTION. Real biology and science are something we’re going to have to actually explore moving forward. It’s not just viruses that have not met Koch’s Postulates, most bacteria and fungi have yet to meet the smell test of Koch’s postulates. If you cannot replicate In vivo conditions, in vitro in the lab identically, you have a real problem on your hands. And most biology has not been able to replicate disease in vitro. For example, Borellia burgdoferii, the spirochete that “supposedly” causes Lyme disease has yet to be “seen” and “isolated”. The excuse is that this bacterium hides and lays dormant in tissues and is hard to see except through dark microscopy if you’re lucky.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Poornima

        Given that you’ve presumably spent your life working in fields you now regard as ‘myths,’ and systematically using and abusing animals while doing so, it looks to me very much like your new views that are flat-earthing the terrain are the psychotic product of the emotional fallout from your godawful career running face-first into a godawful plandemic. WADR. Your flat-earthism loves flatness just as much as your psychopathic career did, because flatness numbs the pain. Nothing has changed in other words, except the rhetoric.

        You’re welcome for the armchair psychological profile!

        If biochemistry was a myth then you wouldn’t probably be alive today because if biochemistry hadn’t turned natural gas into nitrogen fertilizer then you probably wouldn’t have been born. Certainly more than half the people in the world today wouldn’t be alive.

        How about you start truly thinking and feeling, together, for once in your life? It’s gonna hurt for a while but that’s a good thing because nothing truly worthwhile was ever easy.

        Like

      2. Can you please make comments without resorting to logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks? You seem to be incapable of not comparing anything to flat earth. Maybe you should go debate the shape of the earth on another blog dedicated to that topic rather than accusing everyone here that you disagree with as “flat-earth thinkers.” Even if (a big if) you had a point, your constant ad hominem attacks detract from everything else you say.

        Like

      3. Thanks for the feedback but there are no logical fallacies in my comment. We’re all adults here Mike, and Poornima’s a ‘big girl’ capable of defending her honor if she finds herself in a position to do so. Now THAT’S a big if!

        What goes around comes around. Cause and effect.

        Like

      4. You equating Poornima’s thoughts as “flat-earth thinking” (as you often put it) is an attempt to discredit her views based on a lesser category you created. You are attempting to put her and anyone else you disagree with into your FE category so that you do not have to engage in arguing the validity of their comments.

        “Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage with it.”

        https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

        Like

      5. And you are straw-manning because you are willfully ignoring my engagement in true ideas. I evidenced Poornima’s false claim that biochemistry is a myth by highlighting the objective existence of the manufactured biochemical ammonium nitrate that biochemically fuels plant growth.

        Do you remember that part now, Mike?

        Why did you ignore it? Out of habit?

        Like

      6. You used one example to try and dispute all of her claims. You lumped all of her beliefs as FE thinking. Your one example given does not negate your attempt to paint her views as lesser than your own using a category you created. It is an attempt to place all of her views under one umbrella in order to discredit her.

        Like

      7. The one example (biochemistry) covers all of the myths she listed because all the other myths are biochemical in nature (based on biochemistry). And I’ve firmly established here what I mean by ‘flat-earthing’ (in single quotes) the truth. It means saying stupid ass shit that even a fifth-grader can think well enough to disprove.

        If Poornima wants to make a counterargument against the existence of biochemicals she can have at it. But we all know that she won’t. For obvious reasons.

        Look, there’s no shame in getting all fucked up and turned around and discombobulated from this fog of war. Shit happens to the best of us. The shame is in not fessing up to it, to yourself, and, having hit rock bottom doing the hard work of getting back on track. I’m not asking for a public apology. I’m just providing pointed feedback from out here in true, objective reality. Because that’s what paying it forward is for me.

        Like

      8. “And I’ve firmly established here what I mean by ‘flat-earthing’ (in single quotes) the truth. It means saying stupid ass shit that even a fifth-grader can think well enough to disprove.”

        Exactly. It is an ad hominem attack that you use. Thanks for admitting your logical fallacy. 👍

        Like

      9. No an ad hominem is to attack a person in lieu of using a true counterargument. The unassailably true counterargument was made and I’m also being hard on Poornima because I believe she should hear it and not because I need to try and fool people into thinking that my being hard on her means my argument is more persuasive.

        Like

      10. You did not provide a true counterargument. You gave one vague example while attempting to discredit her based on your idea of “saying stupid ass shit that even a fifth-grader can think well enough to disprove.”

        As I’ve said to you in the past, stick to actual evidence-based arguments and leave your personal attacks out of it.

        Like

      11. Is that so? Then why don’t you go ahead and tell us all how, other than from the sun, the great majority of the human calories (directly or indirectly as animals reared on plants) on this planet get the vast majority of their green color, if not from natural gas?

        Like

  2. The framing of GoF is as magnifying or mutating a presumed or believed pathogenic contagious vector of disease.
    But the principle of GoF is framing ANYTHING that happens as a vector or booster of control, as the logical extension of fear driven and thus fear-fed identity.
    So while the surface is instantly dismissible – ie billions of dark research for a dud – huh?
    But which was in any case effective in priming the ‘market’ for a new platform of ‘solutions’ as part of a global economic, social and political ‘reset’. Suggest that GoF is the subordination and alignment of anything and everything TO the ‘function’ of consolidating control over life framed as risk, as chaos, as unworthy or worthless, as broken or failed and in need of fixing, upgrading or replacing.
    If the mind of framing in definition and identify is a used to give or take meanings out of context that replace a true inheritance with a ‘new order’ built over the denial of wholeness. Then that mind shall believe IT has no true source or inheritance but what it has made, which is at odds with reality, and yet through which an experience of reality is interpreted (as attack and thus as a basis for pre-emptive defence).

    Just as the virus-fear mutates ever more restrictive and destructive ‘controls’, so does the pattern that it represents operate through the fear-framed, masked and distanced ‘mind’ relative to unconscious or denied conflicts.

    Conflicts can be seen as stuck decisions, stuck because while the decision is put out of attention (if never truly from our mind), we are no longer able to recognise the conflicted choices or purposes that it represents, so as to discern or recognise a choice for wholeness, and release the conflict. Not least because the MEANS to delay, defer or deny any part of our self is a pushing down that also pushes out – such that we then WANT to see our denials or conflicts in OTHERS and world RATHER than meet or relive them in ourself. (Whether our enemy threat is real or not).

    Like

  3. Once again, overall an excellent job, Mike! If there was one segment which was a touch thin, it was in explaining the move away from “traditional” virology methods into pure genomics, pure digital analysis, you said you were gonna do so but didn’t. But that’s more the result of Patrick just not being able to stay focused. You discussed electron microscopy, but didn’t really address assembling (mis-characterized as “sequencing” in common discourse). But soon after came a particularly good segment, about bio-weapons, gain of function and shedding, amazing how many people i’ve encountered online the past few days, be it FB, forums or emails, who stated they don’t think there is proof for “natural” viruses but cling to the idea of bio-weapons, not understanding the relationship between virus theory and such weapons. “Whatever sells headlines.” As a friend of ours said “bio-weapon notion gives the virus street creds in the freedom community.” Thanks again for all your work.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Jeffrey! Yes, I was a little disappointed in not being able to touch on the molecular virology aspect more. If I remember correctly, I started talking about it but then Patrick took the conversation in a different direction. It would have been great to go into more detail. Sadly, that’s the way interviews go as it is up to the flow of the conversation and even though he may have accidentally interrupted that train of thought, I felt Patrick did great steering the conversation towards many different aspects of the virology lie. We definitely could have gone another hour but unfortunately I had to leave. Oh well. Hopefully there will be a 4th chat to cover the things we missed. 🙂

      Like

      1. I emailed Patrick this morning, suggesting you become one of his recurring guests. You have so much more to share! These chats are a great way to introduce people to the lies of virology w/o overwhekming the newbies. So much common sense!

        Like

  4. I am virus/poxed out. I have had my fill of this nonsense. I haven’t had any vaccines since maybe the mid 1970’s at least (can’t recall) and no mRNA gene therapy injections. Since I haven’t had any serious illnesses from covid or other pretend viruses, there is nothing new for me to do. My trust in just about everything mainstream has crumbled to dust. Every 3 letter government agency is now on my ignore forever list.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Viruses are REAL. I have studied them for 15 years. It’s time to dig deep and understand that vaccinology is a different field than virology. Please take more time to dig into the science of viruses and stop misleading the public!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have been digging into the virology (pseudo)science quite a bit actually. That is what this whole site is about. Years of research. I understand you believe “viruses” are real and that you have been working with them. However, do you have actual proof of the existence of these entities, i.e. purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick host (not cell cultured) and proven pathogenic in a natural way by adhering to the scientific method? If you do not have this evidence, all you have is a belief.

      Like

      1. ““viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick host (not cell cultured)”

        First, you cannot purify a virus without layering and suspending it in a liquid medium in order to centrifuge and filter the sample. Cells and viruses must be kept in a nutrient base when outside the host to keep the sample alive. Virus deniers erroneously use this as a negative.

        Second, viruses are multiplied by living cells. Cells must be incubated to allow them time to produce ample viral replication for research and viewing. In actuality, your implied method of attempting to find viruses in a sample where there is not a great degree of replication would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Again, virus deniers, like yourself, would assuredly not be pleased with that practice either and accuse researchers of assumption.

        In the end, virus deniers have crafted their position to not allow for any evidence to be sufficient enough.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. You are assuming two things here, both of which remain unproven and rely on fictional stories on how “viruses” behave. “Viruses” have never been observed in nature so there is no way to deternine that these fictional entities would need a nutrient base to stay alive nor that they need a cell in order to multiply. These are stories created after the fact to explain effects observed in artificial conditions in a lab.

        Please show the original evidence backing up both of your claims. When and in what paper were these two statements proven?

        “Cells and viruses must be kept in a nutrient base when outside the host to keep the sample alive.”

        “Second, viruses are multiplied by living cells.”

        How were either of these statements about invisible entities determined without ever purifying and isolating “viral” particles from host fluids nor observing these entities in nature first?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. A living cell produces a virus—viruses are non-living and do not occur by themselves in nature without first being produced by a cell. Bacteriophages, as one example, can appear in marine samples without a whole living organism because they are produced by many types of prokaryotic cells that both exist in water and in whole organisms. Eukaryotic cells, however, only exist inside a whole organism, and such viruses cannot be found “in nature” as you suggest. They are only found inside living bodies (animals, plants).

        “there is no way to deternine that these fictional entities would need a nutrient base to stay alive…”

        If a virus is a cellular protein, and it is, it needs a base to stay moist or it will wither. The same is even more true for the cell itself, which needs nutrition outside the host. So, your statement is already answered by the nature of proteins and organic matter.

        “Please show the original evidence backing up both of your claims. When and in what paper were these two statements proven?”

        For paragraph 1: Centrifugation works by using fluid of a specific viscosity. Without fluid, there can be no purification.

        “No purification procedures are known that are based on specific selection of infectious particles from crude material. All depend on the selection of particles homogeneous with respect to the sedimentation rate (size, shape, and density), electric charge, adsorption behavior, or some other physical or chemical property. Much of the evidence of purity is, consequently, based on the degree of this homogeneity observed in the purified product.”

        Advances in Virus Research – Volume 1, 1953, Pages 277-313 – D. GordonSharp – (p.1)

        For paragraph 2: I stated, “Viruses are multiplied by living cells.” Cells produce non-living proteins (like viruses), therefore, non-living proteins come from cells. Further, viruses cannot multiply themselves because they are non-living proteins—no different than other non-living enzymes that cannot self-replicate and come from living cells.

        Further, you’re asking me to provide a source that proves an unspoken basic awareness of proteins and cells in the living domain. There are almost endless sources that say this. Here is merely one below…

        “Viruses replicate only within living cells, thus many early studies of viruses were done in bacteria or plants.”

        Payne S. Methods to Study Viruses. Viruses. 2017:37–52.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. “A living cell produces a virus—viruses are non-living and do not occur by themselves in nature without first being produced by a cell.”

        This, once again, is never observed. You are assuming that cells create “viruses.” Where was this process ever observed in living organisms or in a living state and not the interpretations from dead static heavily altered EM images?

        “If a virus is a cellular protein, and it is, it needs a base to stay moist or it will wither. The same is even more true for the cell itself, which needs nutrition outside the host.”

        The fluids of the host are all the “nutrient base” that should be needed. “Viruses” are supposed to replicate and be present in the billions in these fluids. Therefore, they should be able to be purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a host without cell culturing.

        “Further, you’re asking me to provide a source that proves an unspoken basic awareness of proteins and cells in the living domain.”

        I’m asking you to provide evidence that adheres to the scientific method which backs up the claims you are making. A “virus” must be shown to exist first, either in nature or directly in the fluids of a host. One can not know how to create more of a thing they have never observed nor studied first outside of the artificial confines of a petri dish.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. “You are assuming that cells create “viruses.””

        This is something you yourself have also claimed. You have claimed cell culture and toxins cause cellular debris that looks like what are called viruses. In actuality, cells create viruses in culture for a few different reasons. Regardless, viruses are multiplying and coming from cells, not as cell debris, but as structural forms repeatable in all practices.

        There are also giant viruses, like mimivirus, that can be seen under light optical microscopy, so your “dead static heavily altered EM images” statement is irrelevant to the totality of virus existence.

        “The fluids of the host are all the “nutrient base” that should be needed.”

        It depends. A nutrient medium is needed to sustain cellular life because cells outside the body cannot go through their full processes of synthesizing micronutrients and obtaining needed nutrients; they have no microbiome to draw from. The medium is like an electrolyte broth mix for cells to stay alive and hydrated. Further fluid must be added to a vial to prepare it for centrifugation. Further, the medium regulates the pH and osmotic pressure.

        “Although initial cell culture experiments were performed using natural media obtained from tissue extracts and body fluids, the need for standardization, media quality, and increased demand led to the development of defined media.”
        — ThermoFisher ‘Culture Media & Sera’

        “Viruses” are supposed to replicate and be present in the billions in these fluids. Therefore, they should be able to be purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a host without cell culturing.”

        Those fluids still must be purified. The host body is a natural culture wherein viruses are multiplying in cells in the body. Viruses never manifest outside of culture (outside of cells), be that in the body, or in artificial culture. Further complicating your requirement, is that cells able to produce viruses are usually found deep in organ tissue fluid, such as lung cells, in the case of coronavirus. There is hardly zero in nasopharyngeal samples, which is partly why testing of residual nucleic acids is employed (PCR).

        Lastly, your constant claims of the “scientific method” are replete with assumptions that there must be strict adherence to something that is merely a set of principles.

        “The scientific method ‘is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,’ rather than being seen for what it truly is, ‘a highly variable and creative process’ (AAAS 2000:18).”

        Liked by 1 person

      6. “You are assuming that cells create “viruses.””

        “This is something you yourself have also claimed. You have claimed cell culture and toxins cause cellular debris that looks like what are called viruses.”

        I do not say that the cells are creating these particles. I have said that these particles are debris which are formed as the cell dies and breaks apart.

        “Regardless, viruses are multiplying and coming from cells, not as cell debris, but as structural forms repeatable in all practices.”

        You do not know this. You are assuming this. We know for a fact that these particles come from the death and breakdown of the cells. Any claims of these particles multiplying is fictional. The cell is dying and breaking apart into smaller pieces. This is not replication.

        “There are also giant viruses, like mimivirus, that can be seen under light optical microscopy, so your “dead static heavily altered EM images” statement is irrelevant to the totality of virus existence.”

        You can call something a “virus” but that does not make it a “virus.” In fact, giant “viruses” were originally said to be bacteria:

        “The first giant virus, Acanthamoeba polyphaga mimivirus (APMV), was discovered in 2003 [17]. Its size was unprecedented, being on the scale of small bacteria or archaea cells [18]. Unlike any previously identified virus, APMV could be seen with a light microscope [19,20]. INITIALLY IT WAS MISTAKEN FOR A BACTERIUM and recognized as a virus ONLY TEN YEARS AFTER ITS ISOLATION [21]. Up to this day, most of its proteins REMAIN UNCHARACTERISTIZED [22,23]. Notably, even more than a decade after the discovery of APMV, the identification of giant viruses STILL SOMETIMES INVOLVES CONFUSION, as illustrated in the discovery of the Pandoravirus inopinatum [24], which was INITIALLY DESCRIBED AS AN ENDOPARASITIC ORGANISM, and Pithovirus sibericum [25], which was also MISINTERPRETED AS AN ARCHAEAL ENDOSYMBIONT (see discussion in References [21,26]).”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6563228/

        “It depends. A nutrient medium is needed to sustain cellular life because cells outside the body cannot go through their full processes of synthesizing micronutrients and obtaining needed nutrients; they have no microbiome to draw from.”

        This is why cell culturing is not valid as it does not reflect what occurs naturally inside a living organism.

        “Those fluids still must be purified. The host body is a natural culture wherein viruses are multiplying in cells in the body. Viruses never manifest outside of culture (outside of cells), be that in the body, or in artificial culture.”

        You are relying on the fictional narrative of replication/multiplication. This is never observed. Again, the breakdown of the cells into cellular debris is observed.

        “Further complicating your requirement, is that cells able to produce viruses are usually found deep in organ tissue fluid, such as lung cells, in the case of coronavirus.”

        This is why they should be able to find these “viruses” directly in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF).

        “There is hardly zero in nasopharyngeal samples, which is partly why testing of residual nucleic acids is employed (PCR).”

        Do you have any source backing up your statement that there are hardly zero “virus” particles on NP swabs?

        “Lastly, your constant claims of the “scientific method” are replete with assumptions that there must be strict adherence to something that is merely a set of principles.”

        Let’s see, why would I require the scientific method? 🤔

        Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as OBTAINED AND TESTED THROUGH SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

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

        Pseudoscience: Theories, ideas, or explanations that are represented as scientific but that are NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. 

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

        Anything not adhering to the scientific method is pseudoscience. Congratulations! You are promoting pseudoscience.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. “I do not say that the cells are creating these particles. I have said that these particles are debris which are formed as the cell dies and breaks apart.”

        If the particles are cell debris, then the cell is creating the particles, regardless. Do you honestly believe that those particles, as can be seen under microscopy, are nothing more than cell debris in all cases, when they contain very obvious indicators of intelligent formation? I think you are being incredibly disingenuous in this statement. Cell debris does not appear as viruses do. You may however argue, but with context, that enveloped viruses, not all viruses, can at first appear as vesicles or vesicle-like forms.

        Mimiviruses were mistaken for bacterium at one point, and they now have further evidence to make an informed conclusion. Do you believe that researchers are born with all the answers to life? It’s time to get realistic in your expectations.

        “You do not know this. You are assuming this. We know for a fact that these particles come from the death and breakdown of the cells.”

        I know that cell debris comes from cellular breakdown by nature of cell composition and cellular breakdown itself, and I know that viruses cannot appear as both crude cell debris and intelligent formation. You lack logical foresight and inference skills. Everything is at first an assumption—that is the hypothesis stage of the scientific method that you erroneously define as being so strict. You are using broad dictionary definitions that many times lose most of their fundamental in-depth meanings. I already elucidated the proper meaning of the scientific method.

        How can you know for a fact that cell debris comes from the breakdown of cells if you cannot see cell debris the size of viruses without using EM, stains, or some sort of serum to make them visible? After all, how do you know it’s not the serums themselves? I know the answer to that, do you? I have caught you in a contradiction.

        You make your own assumptions insofar as you use them to further your position, but you do not see them through to their ultimate end.

        The answer is quite simple: Viruses, by and large, appear as unique structures unlike crude cell debris, which has no consistent form and varies greatly. Viruses have their own nucleic acid biomarkers and specific structures. The fact you do not understand this is very telling.

        By that very reality, you cannot have debris appearing as a virus when held under close scrutiny.

        “You can call something a “virus” but that does not make it a “virus.””

        Under close scrutiny, it can be determined what is a bacteria and what is a virus. In the same vein, those like Cowan now push that bacteriophages are not viruses when they contain the same formations as eukaryotic viruses, like the adenovirus. It is not unlike how you just did with mimiviruses. You broadly dismiss wide swaths of science in one breath if it doesn’t suit your position.

        Replication:
        You claim replication is fictional. In reality, when viruses are replicated by cells, they grow in order of magnitude larger than the cell itself, which is why viral colonies of a culture are visible to the naked eye. Cell breakdown wouldn’t grow like that. The cell is using nutrients in and around itself to synthesize more material (virus).

        Liked by 1 person

      8. “If the particles are cell debris, then the cell is creating the particles, regardless.”

        The cells are not creating these particles. The cells are decomposing and breaking apart as they die.

        “Mimiviruses were mistaken for bacterium at one point, and they now have further evidence to make an informed conclusion.”

        What evidence led them to believe that something they thought was a bacteria for 10 years was now a “virus?”

        “I know that cell debris comes from cellular breakdown by nature of cell composition and cellular breakdown itself, and I know that viruses cannot appear as both crude cell debris and intelligent formation.”

        How do you know “viruses” can not appear as both crude cell debris and intelligent formation? How do you know the particles you claim as “viruses” have intelligent formation?

        “I already elucidated the proper meaning of the scientific method.”

        Please share the steps of the scientific method and how virology adheres to it.

        “How can you know for a fact that cell debris comes from the breakdown of cells if you cannot see cell debris the size of viruses without using EM, stains, or some sort of serum to make them visible?”

        Some CPE can be seen in an optical microscope. That which can only be seen under an electron microscope is already questionable due to the nature of the preparation process. However, as we know that the cells break apart and die during cell culturing and are further broken apart if centrifuged/filtered before imaging, the particles are nothing but remnants of cell debris and/or artefacts stemming from the processes used to create and image them.

        Like

      9. Then please explain why bacteriophages, which contain 23 tail proteins, 6 tail fibers, and an icosahedral capsid is mere “cell debris”—they too are viruses. Explain how prokaryotic bacteriophage capsids are icosahedral, and eukaryotic adenoviruses are also icosahedral. Both are different cells, and both produce isometric viral symmetry with related characteristics. Explain it logically.

        If even one virus can be observed under an optical microscope, your entire ‘non-existent’ position is invalid. And it can be invalidated through EM as well. Viral skeletal structures, under normal damaging effects of EM (which is small), are still visible. You could not find one study to show otherwise. If so, please present that evidence.
        Then, there is cryo-EM, which does not require chemically stained or fixed samples and shows viruses in their natural aqueous environment.
        With that known, you must immediately stop using basic EM as a negative to disprove viruses.

        The centrifugation of cells and viruses is different. Viruses can withstand more than delicate cells. And you cannot claim that centrifugation causes cells to miraculously break apart and form into structures that appear as bacteriophages. That would be asinine.

        With the knowledge that viruses contain such symmetry as I elucidated above, it becomes pseudoscience to claim viruses do not come from cells.

        Your modus operandi is to look for literally every negative of science and then quote it to try to claim the related science is entirely wrong. You did it with the mimivirus above in your “REMAIN UNCHARACTERIZED”, “STILL SOMETIMES INVOLVES CONFUSION”, and “INITIALLY MISTAKEN” in all caps. Your takeaway is that these are not viruses because the study you referenced is elucidating scientific discoveries and the nature of organic matter, and any minor negative means it’s not real in your mind. You’ve applied the same treatment to many studies.
        Apparently, science cannot make corrections to observations through time.

        Please, exhibit some reasoning skills beyond this. There are mountains of evidence that shows viruses are real, and are helpers of the body, but also appear in the disease state. This is not as black and white as “viruses are pathogenic”. Science has stated more or less what I state viruses are—arising from a state of disease. Within that, there is a great question in science about the true nature of viruses, which is where those like myself come in.

        Science has shown the ability of viruses to dissolve toxic cells, like cancerous tumor cells, and so forth. They have used them in clinical settings to help reverse disease. Studies have also shown the reduction of illness when an ill person developed influenza.

        Science is replete with information that goes against the ignorant mainstream narrative that viruses are indiscriminately dangerous for no reason.

        On the other hand, there is zero evidence or logic for the non-existence of the entities called viruses, and virus deniers are making leaps in logic that rival that of flat-earthers. They operate, not with logical reasoning, but in tangential erratic illogic, and in denialism of basic truths. And, you will find that flat-earthers ‘argue’ just as you are, in the face of all observable evidence (such as some commenters here). In fact, most virus deniers are flat-earthers.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. “Then please explain why bacteriophages, which contain 23 tail proteins, 6 tail fibers, and an icosahedral capsid is mere “cell debris”—they too are viruses.”

        As I have stated many times, I am not concerned with bacteriophages as these entities are not considered pathogenic. What happens in bacteria does not necessarily translate to humans and animals. I am concerned with the particles claimed to be “viruses” which can only be found in artificial cell cultured conditions after heavy alterations and never directly from the fluids of humans. In any case, Dr. Stefan Lanka wrote about the misconceptions and assumptions surrounding these entities and how they are only seen as highly inbred test tube creations and not in nature:

        “Due to the belief that these -at the time of their discovery still invisible structures-were killing the bacteria, they were called phages/bacteriophages, “eaters of bacteria”. Only later it was DETERMINED THAT MERELY HIGHLY INBRED AND THEREFORE ALMOST NON-VIABLE BACTERIA CAN BE MADE TO TURN INTO PHAGES, or bacteria which are being destroyed so fast that they do not have time to form spores.

        The introduction of the electron microscopy led to the discovery of the structures resulting from the transformation of bacteria when these WERE SUDDENLY DYING OR WHEN THE METABOLISM OF THE HIGHLY INBRED GERMS WAS OVERWHELMED BY PROCESSES TRIGGERED BY THE ADDING OF “PHAGES ”. It was also discovered that there are hundreds of types of different-looking “phages”. The discovery of phages, the so-called bacterial “viruses”, REINFORCED THE WRONG ASSUMPTION AND THE BELIEF THAT THERE WERE HUMAN AND ANIMAL VIRUSES THAT LOOKED THE SAME AND HAD THE SAME STRUCTURE. This is not and cannot be the case, for several different reasons.

        After introducing chemical examination techniques in biology, it was discovered that there are thousands of types of phages and that phages of one type always have the same structure. They consist of a particular molecule, made of nucleic acid, which is covered in a shell of proteins of a given number and composition. It was only later discovered that merely the bacteria which had been HIGHLY INBRED IN THE TEST TUBE could turn into phages themselves, by contact with phages, BUT THIS NEVER APPLIED TO NATURAL BACTERIA OR BACTERIA WHICH HAD JUST BEEN ISOLATED FROM THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. In this process, it was discovered that these “bacterial viruses” actually serve to provide other bacteria with important molecules and proteins, and that the BACTERIA THEMSELVES EMERGED FROM SUCH STRUCTURES.

        Before it could be established that the “bacterial viruses” CANNOT KILL NATURAL BACTERIA, BUT THEY ARE INSTEAD HELPING THEM TO LIVE and that bacteria themselves emerge from such structures, these “phages” were already used as models for the alleged human and animal viruses. IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE HUMAN AND ANIMAL VIRUSES LOOKED LIKE THE “PHAGES”, were allegedly killing cells and thereby causing diseases, while at the same time producing new disease poisons and in this way transmitting the diseases. To date, many new or apparently new diseases have been attributed to viruses if their origin is unknown or not acknowledged. This reflex found an apparent confirmation in the discovery of the “bacterial viruses”.

        Click to access Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf

        “If even one virus can be observed under an optical microscope, your entire ‘non-existent’ position is invalid.”

        You are playing fast and loose with the definition of a “virus.” Giant “viruses” were originally thought to be bacteria/parasites. They are not pathogenic. As with bacteriophages, just because they were given the name “virus” does not make them so. Even if these entities given the name giant “virus” exist, that does not mean it proves the existence of every other “virus” nor their theoretical functioning. If I were to prove unicorns exist, that does not prove all other mythological creatures exist. 

        “Then, there is cryo-EM, which does not require chemically stained or fixed samples and shows viruses in their natural aqueous environment.”

        There are many ways in which cyro-EM is invalid. First, it reconstructs the image through computer algorithms deducing the structure:

        “A computer is then used to process and calculate a large number of 2D (two‐dimensional) images, AND RECONSTRUCT THE the 3D (three‐dimensional) STRUCTURE of the biomacromolecule.1 3D RECONSTRUCTION IS USED TO DEDUCE 3D STRUCTURE FROM 2D IMAGES. Its THEORETICAL BASIS is the central section theorem proposed by Aaron Klug in 1968.”

        On top of that, there are many ways the sample can be damaged and/or altered:

        “Some problems may be encountered in the process of using cryo‐EM, mainly in the following aspects: (a) THE SAMPLE IS UNSTABLE, DEGRADED, OR AAGGREGATED; (b) some ligands with small molecular weight, may not be seen in the density map; (c) there may be organic substances such as sugar, DMSO, or glycerin in the buffer, resulting in the decrease of sample contrast and resolution; (d) the purity of the sample may be good or even very good, BUT THE HOMOGENEITY IS POOR, which greatly reduces the resolution; (e) the target area may have greater flexibility, after 2D or 3D averaging, the resolution of the target area becomes very poor; (f) SAMPLES MAY BE DESTROYED DURING FREEZING; (g) in addition to the samples, there are many parameters to be optimized, such as sample concentration, block time, temperature, grid specifications, and so forth. Therefore, cryo‐EM needs rich experience and sufficient machine time, and good experimental results really need the right time and the right place.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096719/

        There are artefacts that are created as well, such as the leopard skin ice:

        “When investigators first start to learn cryo-EM, THEY OFTEN STRUGGLE TO DISTINGUISH GOOD FROM BAD IMAGES. Fortunately, in the course of a 25-year career in cryo-EM, I have had ample opportunity to accumulate a library of terrible images—for teaching purposes of course. PROBLEMS WITH ICE CONDITIONS ARE COMMON —insufficient rapid freezing leads to formation of hexagonal ice, while devitrification occurs when samples warm up, leading to formation of cubic ice (Fig. 1a, b). VARIOUS DEGREES OF CONTAMINATION MAY OCCUR, and frosting at atmospheric pressure causes the above-mentioned ice crystal deposition, while contamination within the column or under low-vacuum conditions gives rise to a more subtle artefact—LEOPARD SKIN ICE (Fig. 1c, d).”

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12551-019-00571-w

        “The centrifugation of cells and viruses is different. Viruses can withstand more than delicate cells.”

        This is not true according to Luc Montagnier. “Viruses” are very fragile and are damaged and destroyed by purification:

        “But to pass it on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, RETROVIRUSES ARE VERY FRAGILE, SO THEY BREAK EACH OTHER and greatly lose their infectivity.”

        “I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn’t take the “peak”…or it didn’t work…BECAUSE IF YOU PURIFY, YOU DAMAGE. So for infectious particles IT IS BETTER TO NOT TOUCH THEM TOO MUCH.”

        https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/re-fact-incredible-it-may-sound-he-acknowledged-nothing-relevance-your-end

        “With the knowledge that viruses contain such symmetry as I elucidated above, it becomes pseudoscience to claim viruses do not come from cells.”

        No, as we already discussed, science involves the use and adherence to the scientific method. Pseudoscience does not. Virology does not use the scientific method and thus it is by definition a pseudoscience. You are using concepts and theories created from pseudoscience to create your own pseudoscientific theory.

        “Apparently, science cannot make corrections to observations through time.”

        Science can make corrections, pseudoscience can not. As we’ve discussed before, science requires the use of the scientific method, a proper independent variable, valid controls, and reproducibility and replication. Pseudoscience such as virology does not and thus the evidence is built upon fraudulent foundations. In order to correct itself, virology would need to adhere to the scientific method yet this would invalidate their findings.

        “There are mountains of evidence that shows viruses are real, and are helpers of the body, but also appear in the disease state.”

        You are resorting to a logical fallacy here. Just because there is “mountains” of pseudoscientific evidence does not make the “virus” premise true nor prove that these entities exist and function as you claim. Mountains of fraudulent evidence is still fraudulent.

        “Science has stated more or less what I state viruses are—arising from a state of disease.”

        Science has not stated this. Pseudoscience has and you have attached yourself directly to it.

        “Science has shown the ability of viruses to dissolve toxic cells, like cancerous tumor cells, and so forth.”

        In order for science to do so, it must first have purified and isolated the particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from the human fluids. The experimental outcomes do not match real-world ones as most of the patients who go through these trials succumb to their cancer. 

        “On the other hand, there is zero evidence or logic for the non-existence of the entities called viruses, and virus deniers are making leaps in logic that rival that of flat-earthers. They operate, not with logical reasoning, but in tangential erratic illogic, and in denialism of basic truths. And, you will find that flat-earthers ‘argue’ just as you are, in the face of all observable evidence (such as some commenters here). In fact, most virus deniers are flat-earthers.”

        Oh the irony! You are appealing to logic while resorting to a logical fallacy in ad hominem attacks. 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      11. Bacteriophages:

        There are trillions of bacteriophages naturally coexisting in the human body. So yes, it absolutely does translate to humans. Humans are 99% bacterial.

        You are not concerned with bacteriophages, yet adenoviruses are a different class of virus from eukaryotic cells and contain the same capsid forms as phages. Deflection?
        Bacteriophages are replicated in bacterial cells. Phages infect bacterial cells, which is how they help dissolve and destroy toxic bacterial cells. They are viruses too. The long quote from Lanka is him misstating reality and there are many incorrect statements in his writing. I suppose that is partly your issue—you are taking the word of Lanka and conforming your views to his no matter the evidence.

        Bacteriophages of the same type do not always have the same structure. This is another incorrect statement by Lanka. Phages of the same type can contain either elongated or normal isometric capsids with variations of penton base proteins, or omit or contain whisker proteins under the capsid stationed above the tail. There can also be other variations, such as in the tail base plate.

        Centrifugation/Purity:

        Retroviruses are enveloped and are therefore more sensitive due to their lipid bilayer than non-enveloped viruses. Thus, not all viruses are as sensitive as cells. Many non-enveloped viruses are quite robust. Centrifugation must be done properly and gently. That is why procedure manuals are written for proper usage guidelines. Don’t be daft.
        The more you purify a particle, the more damage you incur. That is why your implied 100% purity is a misnomer, among many other things. It does not mean whatsoever the particle can not be or is not purified.

        Luc Montagnier Quotes:

        For anyone interested, this is what Montagnier actually said, which Mike Stone conveniently left out of his quotations.

        “Luc Montagnier: So one has fulfilled this criterion for purification. But to pass it on serially is difficult because when you put the material in purification, into a gradient, retroviruses are very fragile, so they break each other and greatly lose their infectivity.”

        “Luc Montagnier: So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on.”

        “Djamel TAHI : So the stage of purification is not necessary?”

        “Luc Montagnier: No, no, it’s not necessary. What is essential is to pass on the virus.”

        Cryo-EM:

        Once again, you look for any negative aspect of a study and attempt to claim the entire practice of something cannot be done properly by adept researchers.

        Scientific Method:

        Once more, you are strictly defining some “scientific method” that does not exist in practice. There is no defined “scientific method” that is strictly followed the same in all situations, period.

        “But first, a potential misunderstanding needs to be avoided. The scientific method “is often misrepresented as a fixed sequence of steps,” rather than being seen for what it truly is, “a highly variable and creative pro- cess” (AAAS 2000:18). The claim here is that science has general principles that must be mastered to increase productivity and enhance perspective, not that these principles provide a simple and automated sequence of steps to follow.”

        cont.

        “American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS is the world’s largest scientific society, the umbrella organization for almost 300 scientific organizations and publisher of the prestigious jour- nal Science. Accordingly, the AAAS position bids fair as an expression of the mainstream opinion.”

        ‘Scientific Method in Practice’ – Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. 2003 – Cornell University

        And of course, you did not deny being a flat-earther, and you have never denied being one, so why not set the record straight?

        Liked by 1 person

      12. “There are trillions of bacteriophages naturally coexisting in the human body. So yes, it absolutely does translate to humans. Humans are 99% bacterial.”

        First, please back up your claim that humans are 99% bacterial. If we supposedly harbor 380 trillion “viruses” compared to 38 trillion bacteria, it would appear we are mostly “viral.” Granted, both numbers are estimates based on metagenomics and fraudulent calculations and classifications of what constitutes bacteria/”viral” RNA vs what is human RNA. 

        Second, even if that were true, we are not bacteria. We do not function like bacteria. Therefore, what applies to bacteria does not automatically apply to humans.

        “You are not concerned with bacteriophages, yet adenoviruses are a different class of virus from eukaryotic cells and contain the same capsid forms as phages.”

        I’ve already covered the lack of evidence for adenoviruses which you can read for yourself:

        https://viroliegy.com/category/adenovirus/

        “The more you purify a particle, the more damage you incur. That is why your implied 100% purity is a misnomer, among many other things. It does not mean whatsoever the particle can not be or is not purified.”

        This is the excuse given for not purifying and isolating “viruses” directly from human fluids. I’m guessing we can at least both agree “viruses” have never been purified and isolated directly from human fluids, correct? As this is a fact, “viruses” have only ever been claimed to have been found in cell cultures and never in nature nor directly in the fluids of humans. Thus, the only evidence for “viruses” comes from artificial lab created concoctions that are a mixture of many host and foreign materials. There is absolutely no way one can say that the resulting particles were ever in any human in the form they are presented in after culturing and preparation for imaging. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

        “For anyone interested, this is what Montagnier actually said, which Mike Stone conveniently left out of his quotations.”

        If we are going to play that game, why did you leave out this?

        “I believe we published in Science (May 1983) a gradient which showed that the RT had exactly the density of 1.16. SO ONE HAD A ‘PEAK ’ WHICH WAS RT. So one has fulfilled THIS CRITERION for purification.”

        “I REPEAT WE DID NOT PURIFY. We purified TO CHARACTERISE THE DENSITY OF THE RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus.”

        In other words, they did not purify completely in order to separate all particles. They only did to the point to characterize the density of the RT. He also stated this:

        “THERE WAS SO LITTLE PRODUCTION OF VIRUS IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE WHAT MIGHT BE IN A CONCENTRATE OF VIRUS IN THE GRADIENT. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsies. We saw some particles BUT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE MORPHOLOGY TYPICAL OF RETROVIRUSES. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours to find the first pictures. IT WAS A ROMAN EFFORT! It’s easy to criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of aids.”

        I did not intentionally leave anything out. You did. The full interview as well as a link to it are found here:

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

        “There is no defined “scientific method” that is strictly followed the same in all situations, period.”

        You are being disingenuous here. There is a generally accepted template for the scientific method which is used to determine cause and effect:

        “At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

        Make an observation.

        Ask a question.

        Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.

        Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.

        Test the prediction.

        Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

        THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS USED IN ALL SCIENCES —including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, THEY USE THE SAME CORE APPROACH to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.”

        https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology

        “True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, A PROCESS KNOWN AS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it FOCUSES ONLY ON THE NATURAL WORLD, according to the University of California, Berkeley. Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

        When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a scientific theory.”

        The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College:

        1. Make an observation or observations.

        2. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.

        3. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.

        4. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.

        5. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method,” Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. “The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. NO REPRODUCIBILITY — NO SCIENCE.”

        Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

        The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University(opens in new tab). Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.

        Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning uses observations to infer an explanation for those observations.

        An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) AND AN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (which does change), according to the University of California, Santa Barbara(opens in new tab).

        An experiment should include an experimental group AND A CONTROL GROUP. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against, according to Britannica(opens in new tab).”

        https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

        And the sections from your source do not in any way dispute the scientific method nor that virology is a pseudoscience, unless you care to explain how virology adheres to the scientific method, i.e. observing a natural phenomena, having a valid independent variable, using proper controls, and being able to reproduce/replicate the work.

        “And of course, you did not deny being a flat-earther, and you have never denied being one, so why not set the record straight?”

        Doubling down on your ad hominem attack logical fallacy! Brilliantly done! 👏 🤣

        Like

      13. I’m not going to spoon-feed you. The human body is bacterial. Every function that transpires in the body is bacterial, from healing to digestion, to much more. We eat food, digest it, and excrete it, all with the help of bacteria. Bacteria consume matter, then digest it, then excrete it into smaller particulates so other cells can uptake the matter for their own processes. We live off bacterial excretions. We are 99% bacterial. Asking me this question is akin to asking why the sky is blue. If you do not understand this aspect of the body, you understand nothing whatsoever.
        Trillions of viruses make up a lot less weight due to their small size in comparison to bacteria or cells.

        And no, I do not agree that viruses have not been purified directly from a host sample. That is exactly what researchers do. Even one of the original CoV-2 studies does this.

        [Read ‘Methods’ for context] “Bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid samples were collected in sterile cups to which virus transport medium was added. Samples were then centrifuged to remove cellular debris. The supernatant was inoculated on human airway epithelial cells…”

        February 20, 2020 N Engl J Med 2020; 382:727-733 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

        Cell Culture:

        If cells can produce viruses in culture, they can do so in a full body. Luc Montagnier clarifies in his statements why a particular purification was not needed for the specific retrovirus he studied. You are on here mischaracterizing what Montagnier stated in his interview. It is another fabrication of what transpired in your comments when you claim “I left it out”. It was you that left out the context in your quotes.

        Method:

        I just quoted to you the scientifically held view by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) of what the “scientific method” entails, and you go off again into a basic broad definition. Your list of criteria is not what you ask for when you claim virology should follow the “scientific method”. You add whatever you want so that it can never meet the scientific method, just like the “No Virus Challenge” does. The approach to reach a conclusion that conforms to the scientific method is not a strict set of orderly rules as you purport it to be.

        Virology follows the scientific method just as much as other branches of science do. And as you can see, you have certain commentators here who completely dismiss other branches in the same way they do virology. Again, such people, including you, are not actually interested in the truth of the matter.

        Also, I find it amusing to watch you take factual evidence and twist and turn it into something else to try to prove your erroneous point(s).

        Finally, I am not doubling down on anything. I never attacked you—I stated a truism. Let the record reflect that you cannot answer a straight question.

        Do you believe the earth is a flat plane or not?

        Liked by 1 person

      14. “We are 99% bacterial.”

        Again, please provide scientific validation backing up this claim of yours or admit it is theoretical speculation.

        “That is exactly what researchers do. Even one of the original CoV-2 studies does this.”

        No, they did not purify and isolate any “virus” directly from the fluids. They even admitted to not purifying and also admitted to not fulfilling Koch’s Postulates:

        [We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, NOT PURIFIED ONES.” -Replying Author: Wenjie Tan

        https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

        “ALTHOUGH OUR STUDY DOES NOT FULFILL KOCH’S POSTULATES, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.”

        https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/15/zhu-sars-cov-2-paper-2020/

        As you disagree and you supplied a study which admitted to not purifying a “virus,” do you have a different study which actually shows the purification and isolation of “viruses” directly from human fluids?

        “Luc Montagnier clarifies in his statements why a particular purification was not needed for the specific retrovirus he studied. You are on here mischaracterizing what Montagnier stated in his interview.”

        I did not mischaracterize Motagnier. I supplied his quotes in the context of purification damaging “viruses” as well as his stating that they did not purify their “virus.” That he felt their accumulation of indirect evidence was proof of a “virus” is irrelevant to what I was using his quotes for when responding to you.

        “I just quoted to you the scientifically held view by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) of what the “scientific method” entails, and you go off again into a basic broad definition. Your list of criteria is not what you ask for when you claim virology should follow the “scientific method”. 

        Nowhere in your quoted article did it state what the scientific method entails. I supplied two sources showing what it does entail. It seems you must have a different definition of the scientific method than that which is commonly accepted. Please provide the scientific method used to prove cause and effect and show how virology adheres to this method.

        “If cells can produce viruses in culture, they can do so in a full body.  inal CoV-2 studies does this.”

        Cells do not produce “viruses” in culture. You assume that this occurs without direct evidence. What cells do in culture is break apart into smaller and smaller pieces as they are starved and poisoned.

        “Your list of criteria is not what you ask for when you claim virology should follow the “scientific method”. 

        How does the criteria that I list differ from the scientific method? Please be specific as I do not believe you know or understand what the scientific method is.

        “Virology follows the scientific method just as much as other branches of science do.”

        Great. Show us exactly how virology adheres to the scientific method. Where did they observe “viruses” in nature in order to establish a hypothesis? Where did they obtain the independent variable i.e. purified/isolated particles either in nature or directly from the fluids of a sick host (which logically has to happen first before one can know how to grow something in a culture)? Where did they perform proper controls to account for all variables? Where are the results reproduced and replicated?

        “Do you believe the earth is a flat plane or not?”

        What does this have to do with our conversation on the existence of “viruses?” How does this question relate at all? How about you stop trying to save face, be honest, and admit that you are engaging in a logical fallacy to try and discredit me.

        Like

    2. You’ve been living in a dream world Mary.
      Take the blue pill and go back to studying delusions, or take the red pill and see how far the rabbit hole goes.
      Remember, all there is to gain is the truth 😉

      Liked by 2 people

    3. Oh please Mary. Prove the existence, that is all that is required. That is the problem. Virologists have been unable to do so. Simply fulfil the postulates.

      Liked by 2 people

    4. Please stop making baseless assertions. You were asked many times in the Telegram group for actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for virus theory, with strict adherence to the scientific method, and you left the chat. If you cannot provide actual evidence, you may want to rethink your assertions here. This gets tiresome.

      You don’t get to claim “I work with viruses” if you cannot give the foundational evidence for #1, such things existing in REALITY (where were these first identified in people?), and #2, once shown to EXIST, show where THEY were proven to cause the disease being studied.

      You will not be able to do this, because neither #1 or #2 above have been done. and this isn’t debatable.

      You have mixed up effects in a lab with purported causes never proven.

      So, unless you have the actual scientific papers (which don’t involve already begging the question of “virus”), then you’re simply left with this rhetoric.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. It has gone on long enough—it’s time to get rid of both the virus theory and the immune system theory. These are theories focused on what happens at the biomolecular level, which scientists have held dear to their hearts.

    Nevertheless, scientists come and go just like their theories. Oh my, there goes another one, this time at the macro level.

    Scientists are now in a panic at the macro level. Tiny and smooth galaxies mean no expansion and thus no Big Bang.

    https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

    These two, like the virus/immune system theory, were in all the textbooks. Chances are, if it’s in the textbooks, you had better think long and hard about whether it’s true or not.

    I knew the expansion theory was a pipedream when I first read about it. The virus/immune system theory took me a lot longer to reject because of my very limited knowledge of the subject. Learn to educate yourself, not only about the world around you, but about the idiots who think they understand it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Well that was easy peasy wasn’t it, George? And now you get to hope that Eric Lerner will get to keep milking taxpayers like you and me for another few years until he’s finished inventing the industrial fusion power perpetual motion machine so we can ‘be saved’ by the newest savior, and all live happily ever after watched over by such machines of loving grace under the Great Fusion Reset.

      Here’s a First Truth for you George, that is wholly consistent with your Christianity, and is based on Pure Reason which itself is everything that we are:

      If the universe is eternal, like Mr. Lerner concludes that it must be from his ‘plasma’ cosmology, then Creation itself cannot exist in the first place because there is no first place and, by extension, your ‘god’ nor my Creator cannot exist.

      Careful what you wish for.

      Like

  7. Update:

    Anti-Big Bang theory scientists face censorship by international journals

    “BENGALURU: Scientists from across the globe, including India, who are refuting the Big Bang theory on cosmology are facing resistance and censorship from journals and archives of international repute where they get their research papers published for peer review.

    The Big Bang theory holds that the universe was born out of a highly compressed, dense and microscopic point (called singularity), which exploded with a huge force some 13.8 billion years ago, resulting in everything arising from that singularity moving outwards in all directions. From this, all cosmic matter (as we know it today) was formed at different stages through time until now.

    Twenty-four astronomers and physicists from 10 countries including reputed astrophysicist Jayant V Narlikar of Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics ®, Prof Sisir Roy of National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) and Prof Amitabha Ghosh of Indian National Science Academy (INSA) ® from India are among the scientists protesting the censorship of papers that are critical of the Big Bang hypothesis by the open pre-print website arXiv. . .”

    https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2022/aug/09/anti-big-bang-theory-scientists-face-censorship-by-international-journals-2485604.html

    Like

  8. As I’ve made clear from the holistic (animist), holographic cosmology I’ve outlined here that is able to theoretically integrate the Two Darks, big bang theory is dynamically true but mainstream physics does have serious issues because even though the mainstream has commendably embraced radical honesty in its realization that physical matter does not exist, being an overtly secular field it still doesn’t know what to do with consciousness/spirit/mystery (CSM), because by their own rules they’re not dealing in full-spectrum wisdom but only full-spectrum holographic observation (which, it should be noted, has resulted in a spectacular degree of focus on observation). So since, due to their secular nature, they can only work with holography but without understanding/acknowledging the Consciousness symbiont within the holography and, therefore, the NATURE of holography, their explanations for the NATURE of the big bang are off. But that doesn’t mean that inflationary theory in and of itself is dynamically wrong.

    Alternative, eternal theories of the universe like Lerner’s seek in part to justify their own falsehoods by picking at the highly theoretical aspects proposed by mainstream cosmology about the highly speculative insides of the big bang; but pointing out minor flaws and high-speculations doesn’t make the alternative true, especially when straw-manning the flaws by effectively saying, “because these (more speculative or imperfect) physical theories of an inflationary universe must be wrong, inflation itself is wrong.” We have to stay grounded and remember that the strawman fallacy is the devil’s playground, and falling for it is the difference between being a conspiracy factist and a kook, a crank, right?

    This guy here is taking an interesting look at redshirting because he’s not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He’s suggesting that the mainstream view of the inflationary universe is wrongly centralized (in the mainstream’s own self-centered image), and that universal inflation is a dynamically decentralized phenomenon at the galactic level, like the grand finale of a fireworks display. And indeed, at a glance this better fits the pattern under natural law. His examination of the multivariable dynamic of red shifting is much more alive than the static, singular conception offered by the mainstream, and it incorporates gravity (Consciousness) (dark matter) into the dynamic, as well of course, by definition, the expansion that causes redshifting, in dark energy:

    https://johnmarkmorris.com/2019/06/13/fresh-thinking-about-redshift/

    Cheers .

    Like

  9. So-called molecular biologists claim that they can describe the characteristics of so-called proteins, nucleotides, enzymes, antibodies and all the so-called molecular structures from which they are claimed to be made (size, shape, weight, density, etc.) and they also claim that they can even describe the functions that all of these perform in living organisms… although no one has ever isolated, purified or visualized two-dimensionally and three-dimensionally even one of the so-called submicroscopic particles, even inside the living body nor outside of it.
    ———————————-
    “Being a skeptic just means being rational and empirical: thinking and seeing before believing.”
    — Michael Shermer

    Like

  10. Then why are you leaving it the thinking part, Nike? Because it’s the hard part? Everybody can think adequately. Just because some people are naturally better thinkers than others in the same way that some people are naturally better runners than others doesn’t mean that everybody profound disabilities notwithstanding) can’t think or run adequately if they try hard enough. Flat-earthing the truth is the same thing as quitting and pretending like you didn’t quit. And everybody knows what that looks like from when we were growing up as kids.

    Like

      1. I have not declined anything.
        And I debunked gravity gazillion of times.

        Gravity is a mental construct only. Never experienced through any of 5 senses, never experimented on as an independent variable.

        You are a fraud and a liar.

        Like

  11. Atoms and molecules are the foundation of the scam called submicroscopic science. No human can come to know how existence is structured in the submicroscopic realm. There is nothing scientific in the submicroscopic realm. It is enough to honestly analyze what is claimed to be done in the field of the so-called atomic and molecular sciences, and you will immediately understand that everything there is a colossal fraud, perfectly described by Hans Christian Andersen in the adult fairy tale The New (Invisible) Clothes of the emperor.
    ———————————————
    „People don’t realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so.”
    – Kary Mullis
    ——————————————–
    „Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
    – Max Planck
    ——————————————–
    „Heisenberg, Max Plank and Einstein, they all agreed that science could not solve the mystery of the universe.”
    -Harry Dean Stanton

    Like

    1. You’re using those quotes as an excuse to quit thinking so you can take the easy way out instead of truly understanding their respective values.

      Why did Mullis say “somewhat?”

      And Planck was wrong. We’re not the mystery. We’re the creation. Creation is just a puzzle to be unlocked — or not — and more or less. The enduring mystery is the Creator itself, and that process, about which nothing can be known.

      Like

  12. PCR is not a TEST. This gets on my nerves, calling it a test. It is a technique, not a test. Monkeypox is from the jabs. We need to stop talking about Monkeypox. Let’s find out how many of these people are jabbed. I bet you 100% are jabbed. Hence now this nonsense called “Monkeypox.” If only jabbed are getting so called Monkeypox, we know it is from the jabs. This is called common sense.

    Like

    1. I definitely think that the vaccines should be looked at as a possible cause, especially as the lesions are listed as possible side effects from vaccination. I’m sure there are other factors involved but it would be interesting to see the vaccination status of each person coming down with the symptoms commonly associated with monkeypox. Granted, the symptoms in this “outbreak” are atypical so who even knows what monkeypox is even supposed to be anymore. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Poornima

      How exactly do you propose we come up with a ‘monkeypox’ diagnosis so that we can cross-reference the ‘cases’ with vaccination status? Lol. So much for common sense.

      Like

  13. Knowledge and understanding of the submicroscopic realm belongs only to Divinity. We humans are incapable of understanding almost anything correctly even about the visible realm. But that doesn’t stop a lot of stupid vainglorious people from thinking they are scientists… especially if the System trains them, gives them degrees, gives them positions and pays them.

    Like

    1. One might gain ‘Knowledge and understanding of the submicroscopic realm” by placing a finger on the positive terminal of an electric switch while it is in the on position.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Moliere is not speaking a truth there. He speaking relativistically. Which is what makes the quote a platitude. Beware of false idols, Nike…

      A fool is a fool no matter his place in the capitalist pecking order.

      Like

  14. Welcome back, Jeff.

    Ultimately it’s legitimate to say viruses do not exist because of the etymology of the word virus.

    Language is a tool. Mainstream language is a power tool. The word virus is a mainstream power tool. There are pros and cons to all power tools; what you gain in power you lose in feel, because work is being done for you. Beware the illusory power of mechanization. Be aware of it, my brother.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Jeff

    “The human body is bacterial. Every function that transpires in the body is bacterial, from healing to digestion, to much more. We eat food, digest it, and excrete it, all with the help of bacteria. Bacteria consume matter, then digest it, then excrete it into smaller particulates so other cells can uptake the matter for their own processes. We live off bacterial excretions. We are 99% bacterial. Asking me this question is akin to asking why the sky is blue. If you do not understand this aspect of the body, you understand nothing whatsoever.”

    You’re overstating, simplifying, and mischaracterizing our biological nature, here. While the genes contained in our body are over 90pc non-human, the microbial diversity goes well beyond bacterial. Bacteria are the first digesters of the plant food that we eat but we ourselves are the digesters of animal foods. Functionally we don’t eat or excrete food with the help of bacteria but as I said we do digest it with their help.

    We are not “99% bacterial” but, as our symbionts, we can’t live without them. Human cells are eukaryotic and bacterial cells are prokaryotic.

    I know you know this, and that sometimes in the heat of battle we get a little carried away; and then there’s Mike who just said that plants only require the sun for photosynthesis.

    I appreciate your further explanation as to what you see as the importance of setting the record straight on ‘viruses,’ seeing as how they have also been long-established in the field as non-pathogenic. I was not aware of this. It’s a legitimate angle.

    WADR I still think the exosome connection is by far the most relevant because the stupid exogenous hijacker dynamics claimed by virology are in the end just a misconstruing of proteomic horizontal gene transfer, and vaccines — both traditional and mRNA, are exosomal-based. And I do not doubt that the primers they use in PCR are exosome snippets. So for all intents and purposes, ‘pathogenic viruses’ are just them lying about exosomes, so that they can fuck with our evolution, in order to further domesticate us.

    Like

  16. Mike,
    This was another great interview although I agree with another commenter that it should have been longer.

    I became a virus skeptic in 2020 because of several Off-Guardian articles which led me to read “Inventing the AIDS Virus” by Peter Duesberg and “Virus Mania” by Torsten Englebrecht. Duesberg used to be a world-renowned virologist until his HIV “denialism” destroyed his career. Duesberg doesn’t deny HIV exists but he regards it as a harmless passenger virus and blames AIDS on nitrate poppers and the AZT “treatment”. Both books describe illnesses which were blamed on viruses but actually have non-viral causes. I then went further down the rabbit hole via books like “Invisible Rainbow”, “Fear of the Invisible” and then Kaufman, Lanka, Cowan and your superb blog.

    My position is that endogenous, extra-cellular particles (like exosomes) probably exist although I know you question that as well. Exogenous (pathogenic) “viruses” though have definitely not been proven to exist as thoroughly explained on your blog (lack of isolation, fake genomes cobbled together out of fragments and the lack of proof via Koch-Rivers postulates). Perhaps Jeff Green is really asserting the existence of endogenous “viruses”?

    I used to be a proud member of the sheeple class but COVID turned me into a conspiracy theorist as well. The globalist elite are telling us they want to depopulate the world. The late Prince Phillip famously said he wished to be reborn as a deadly virus so he could depopuate the world. So I assume the Deep State seriously tried to create a deadly, Gain-of-Function “viral” bioweapon. The fact that they failed (and had to resort to PCR fakery to cause a fake pandemic) is more evidence that pathogenic virology is seriously flawed.

    Finally, why is everyone here so hard on Flat Earthers? I’m not a FE but I get their POV. They claim (like I do now) that the Illuminati bloodline elite have run the world for millenia. This cabal, who own the Central Banks and the rest of the Deep State, controls scientific funding and therefore determines “consensus” science. The FEs are right that the Moon Landings were 100% fake- NASA has now all but admitted it. Something is likely very wrong with the globe/heliocentric/Big Universe NASA model.
    https://newspunch.com/nasa-finally-reveals-the-truth-about-fake-moon-landings/

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks CK! Sadly, we only had the one hour but hopefully I will be able to discuss things again with Patrick in the future.

      I honestly do not know what Jeff Green is focused on. What he thinks clearly does not line up with virology yet he continues to use their terms and their evidence. He seems confused IMO.

      As for the FE label, it has become an ad hominem attack used by many to discredit others whom they disagree with. They think that those who question NASA, the shape of the earth, and the related science/evidence are somehow less educated. I have found that to be the exact opposite as many in the FE community are extremely smart and are willing to question long-held beliefs that are assumed to be true. Those who use the FE label in a derogatory way believe that labeling one as FE makes their own position stronger. It is a lazy way to try and “win” a debate by resorting to a logical fallacy without presenting a valid counter argument.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. This comment is about as close as you will come to admitting you adhere to a flat earth view (as if it was a mystery before). Flat earthers who continue to deny the nature of earth and space, even in light of being shown clear observable evidence, show that they are not interested in the truth but are rather engaged in denialism of the highest order. They come nowhere close to being “extremely smart”—this is a very telling statement from you. They are self-deceived, just as you are. Not only are they less educated, but they also do not have the ability to visualize.

        You engage others who show you evidence no different than a flat earther does when they try to ‘argue’ their absurd stance. If someone cannot even understand the shape of the earth, why should anyone entertain their notions about the complexities of the human body? By default, they would be incorrect about most such things because to be a flat earther means to be unable to visualize and rationalize the most basic science, which is needed to make conclusions based in truth.

        The earth question is highly relevant to you personally for a number of reasons. It goes to the heart of why you believe what you believe and why you dismiss blatantly obvious evidence, no matter what.

        You do not know what I am focused on because you lack the insight and decency to try to understand what I am imparting. Instead, you dismiss, deflect, deny, and belittle.

        Like

      2. Jeff, there is no point in engaging with you. It is clear that you are unwilling and unable to let go of many of the things you’ve been indoctrinated to believe by a corrupted system. Resorting to ad hominem attacks to try and discredit others is low. Try raising your game up a bit and avoid engaging in logical fallacies. It’s a sign of weakness.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. My points still stand and are true. You have now used the phrase “ad hominem attack” 9 times throughout this comment section to try to dismiss legitimate points about your alignment to a false view of reality, yet no one has attacked you. If so, quote the attacks. Further, this is not a game to me. This is your game, which is to twist and destroy whatever you can in the most illegitimate way possible to ‘prove’ your non-theory.

        To you, it’s perfectly fine to say biology and biochemistry are a myth, or that cells and/or major parts of cells do not exist, or that the earth is flat (implied), or that genetics are fake, but when someone merely suggests such positions are patently incorrect and draws parallels between them, as well as provides clear-cut evidence for why that is so, you falsely claim they are attacking someone.

        In actuality, ad hominems are valid when someone’s beliefs or actions are relevant to the conclusions being drawn. The earth question I posed certainly has a basis in relevance because it is a scientific question that relates to the scientific mind.

        Like

      4. Your earth questions have no relevance here. You are attempting to label me based on your own subjective criteria you feel makes one unknowledgeable. How about you stick to debating the evidence (or the lack thereof) which adheres to the scientific method? You do not have the evidence which is exactly why you are attempting to deflect and distract to something else. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. It’s no distraction if all your cards have been laid on the table face up and are visible. If you believe in a flat earth, you will believe anything, and you will twist information to suit your bias accordingly. It is highly relevant to your discourse with others and your inability to accept even a shred of tangible evidence.

        It means you do not understand basic proven pillars of the science of nature, visible to all those willing to see. It means you are denying fundamental truths. It means you have the inability to reason, understand, and think beyond your limited horizons. It means you cannot accept evidence, no matter how well presented and proven.
        And ultimately, because of this, it means you are in opposition to the truth.

        It’s not an attack, it’s simply the truth as it is.

        Like

      6. You are completely incapable of debating the evidence. You can try and deflect and distract all you want but it is pointless as I will not play your game. Either share evidence of “virus” purified and isolated directly from the fluids of a host which adheres to the scientific method or move on. You already have one strike with your “SARS-COV-2” paper you supplied. Swing and a miss. I’ll give you two more.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Do you know what cognitive standards are?
        If yes, what are your cognitive standards?
        Are they logic, scientific method and shared human experience through 5 senses?
        Do you know what is a direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes or experimentation on an independent variable?
        Do you understand why people use what I mentioned to verify “scientific” dogmas and pushed narratives?
        Do you want to make a positive claim and substantiate it in regards to a shape of Earth as a whole here?
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/370499601818806

        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: