There has been quite a bit of debate over the years in regards to whether or not virology adheres to the scientific method, with much of this debate focused on the lack of proper controls. The argument has centered on whether the controls that are sometimes used yet rarely described, known as mock infections, are even a valid control to begin with. For those who are unfamiliar, scientific controls are a check and balance system that are utilized during experimentation when researchers are attempting to determine the cause of an effect. Controls are designed to ensure that the presumed cause, known as the independent variable, is the only thing that could be causing the observed effect, known as the dependent variable:
“A study with control(s) is designed to ensure that the effects are due to the independent variables in the experiment. The use of controls allows to study one variable or factor at a time. It is, however, important that both the control and other (experimental) group(s) are exposed to the same conditions apart from the one variable under study. Doing so will help draw conclusions that are more accurate and reliable.”
One of the main reasons I have not really focused as much on the lack of valid controls in virology is that there are other far more pressing issues which need to be addressed first before even getting to the experimental stage in order to discuss proper controls. Take a look at the steps of the scientific method for a moment:
- Observe a phenomenon
- Alternate hypothesis
- Independent variable (the presumed cause)
- Dependent variable (the observed effect)
- Control variables
- Null hypothesis
- Analyze the observation/data
- Validate/invalidate hypothesis
Determining the IV, DV, and controls come after observing a natural phenomenon and are established when creating a hypothesis. Virologists have a difficult time completing the first steps of the scientific method as, beyond finding people with similar symptoms, they are unable to observe how this natural phenomenon occurs. They are unable to see the assumed “virus” particles in nature. They can not witness these particles entering a human being and causing illness, nor can they see these particles being transferred from person-to-person and causing disease. Without the observation of how this natural phenomenon occurs, there is no ability to establish a valid hypothesis in order to design an experiment in order to test for the cause of an observed effect. This means that step number 2 of the scientific method is off the table. With the inability to successfully satisfy the first two steps of the scientific method, so too goes the ability to design and perform a scientific experiment. Thus, the argument in regards to whether or not the controls used during pseudoscientific cell culture experiments are valid or not is too far ahead of the game. The entire premise behind the cell culture experiments themselves is invalid, as was shown by the man who created the method.
The Establishment of the Cell Culture
Up to 1952, the virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme directly poisoning the body, and that it was somehow multiplied by the body itself and would spread-Dr. Stefan Lanka https://viroliegyhome.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-1.pdf
in the body as well as between people and between animals. Medicine and science gave up on this idea in 1951, because the suspected virus had never been seen in an electron microscope and, above all, no control experiments had ever been carried out. It was acknowledged that even healthy animals, organs and tissue would release the same decay products during the decomposing process that had been previously misinterpreted as “viruses”. Virology had refuted itself.”
In the early 1950’s, virology was on its deathbed after decades of failing miserably in the attempts to purify and isolate the assumed “viral” particles in order to directly prove the existence and pathogenicity of these invisible entities. In all of the years of experimentation, virologists had nothing to show but indirect evidence of decay from human and animal tissue culture experiments claimed to be caused by the “virus” in question.
However, the experimental results were not specific to the presence of any assumed “virus” as the same state of decay was witnessed in tissues from healthy hosts. As Dr. Stefan Lanka pointed out in the above quote, virology had refuted its own pseudoscientific tissue culture experiments. On top of this, the findings of effects associated with a specific “virus” from one group of researchers could not be reproduced nor replicated by other groups of researchers. In fact, results were often contradictory towards what was considered established evidence. Researchers could not even agree on what exactly a “virus” was nor whether the experimental evidence offered was in fact valid or not. A great summary of this rift was presented in a 1999 essay by Karlheinz Lüdtke:
On the history of early virus research.
“With the “filterable” virus, something had been discovered which, according to the traditional concepts, which after all had mostly proved their worth in research into infectious diseases, could not be described in a way that all researchers could have shared. Very different interpretations of the nature of this phenomenon arose, which were put forward against each other. No experimental evidence for this or that concept, which all researchers should have accepted, could be presented by any side. In other words, the decision as to whether this or that explanation most accurately expresses the “true” nature of the virus could not be “objectified” empirically. Every version of the interpretation of the phenomenon remained open to attack, facts presented to the expert public could often be reinterpreted into fictions by opponents, who brought into play the dependence of the findings on the conditions of observation, the local situation of the experiments, the research-related nature of the attributions of characteristics, etc. as sources of error. For example, findings often reported by certain virus researchers at the time were not confirmed by other researchers as a result of their own experiments, or the observations could not be reproduced by all scientists working with the virus. Often, findings to the contrary were reported, or the findings that had been examined were considered artefacts. As with justification, reasons of various kinds could be invoked to reject the positions debated. Findings that were used to empirically confirm a suspected connection were often soon joined by negative findings reported by other researchers. However carefully and deliberately the techniques used in the experiments were employed, and despite the fact that each party could offer credible reasons for defending their respective positions and provide empirical evidence – which explains why “the various opponents ‘constructed’ widely diverging research objects which they identified as the ‘virus'” (van Helvoort 1994a: 202) – at no time did they offer compelling reasons that would have led the other party to finally abandon artifact accusations.”
While things were obviously not going well for the field, virology got a booster in the form of a new method purporting to establish the existence of these invisible entities. This was the cell culture method which was introduced in 1954 by John Franklin Enders during his attempts to identify a measles “virus.” As virologists could still not properly purify nor isolate the assumed “virus” particles directly from the fluids of a sick host, it was decided that the particles had to be grown in a culture instead as it was claimed that there were not enough particles present within the fluids. The “virus,” which could not be found directly inside the fluids in order to be studied properly, was somehow determined to need a host cell in order to replicate itself so that it could then be found and studied. The cell culture method was said to produce supposedly superior indirect evidence to that which had come before and it ultimately ended up reviving the dying field. To achieve this superior indirect evidence, Enders, a virologist who was awarded a Nobel Prize (also in 1954) for the discovery of the ability of poliomyelitis “viruses” to grow in various types of tissue cultures, replaced animal and human tissue cultures with animal and human cell cultures. In other words, Enders was ironically recognized with the Nobel Prize for the evidence he had gathered using the old refuted tissue culture practices which were subsequently replaced by his new cell culture method within the very same year.
When Enders created his cell culture method, it must be noted that steps one and two of the scientific method still had yet to be achieved, thus he was jumping into experimentation without observing a natural phenomenon, identifying the dependent variable (i.e. the effect), nor isolating the independent variable (i.e. “virus”) in order to establish a hypothesis to test against. Yet this did not stop his attempt to create pseudoscientific experiments designed to convince the world that these fictional entities exist. While I have covered the invalid cell culture practice in great detail here, I will provide a quick explanation for what Enders’ method consisted of. In his seminal measles paper, Enders took throat washings from suspected measles patients (which were obtained in gargled fat-free milk) and added the samples to human and monkey kidney cells. He mixed into the culture bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, antibiotics, soybean trypsin inhibitor, and phenol red as an indicator of cell metabolism. This mixture was then incubated for days and the fluids were passaged on the 4th and 16th days. Enders eventually observed what is called the cytopathogenic effect, which is a pattern of damage appearing in the culture as the cell breaks apart and dies. This effect was assumed by Enders to be the direct result of the invisible “virus” within the fat-free milk throat washings as it breaks into the cell through lysis of the cell wall membrane which resulted in the death of the cell and the replication of the “virus.” In other words, he assumed that the cellular debris from a poisoned cell was not the broken pieces of a once intact cell but were instead the newly created “viral” copies. Despite the unscientific nature of the method, the cell culture was quickly established as the “gold standard” for “virus isolation” and is still used by virologists today:
What needs to be understood is that, along with not having a valid independent variable in purified and isolated “viral” particles, Enders created his own dependent variable in the cytopathogenic effect. This effect is not a naturally observed phenomenon. It is only observed through experimentation and manipulation in the lab. Enders already assumed that the “virus” existed and that he would observe an effect if he added a sample containing the assumed “virus” to a cell culture. Once he witnessed this effect, Enders claimed that this was a direct result of the presence of a “virus” even though he could not see the “virus” within the cell culture. By doing so, Enders engaged in what is known as an affirming the consequent logical fallacy, normally expressed as such:
This is also an example of begging the question and circular reasoning as beautifully illustrated in this graph by Alec Zeck and Dr. Andrew Kaufman:
Thus, we can see that not only is the method that Enders created unscientific as it does not adhere to the scientific method, his conclusions were steeped in logical fallacies as well. However, these were not the only issues with Enders’ experimental method.
Enders Refuted Himself
Even though the cell culture was accepted as the “gold standard” proof for the “isolation” of a “virus,” one thing that is regularly neglected to be mentioned is that Enders himself was uncertain whether his method was even valid to begin with. In his 1954 paper, Enders questioned whether the experimental results created in a lab (in vitro) could be said to reflect what happens inside of a body (in vivo):
“The pathologic changes induced by the agents in epithelial cells in tissue culture resemble, at least superficially, those found in certain tissues during the acute stage of measles. While there is no ground for concluding that the factors in vivo are the same as those which underlie the formation of giant cells and the nuclear disturbances in vitro, the appearance of these phenomena in cultured cells is consistent with the properties that a priori might be associated with the virus of measles.“
Enders also admitted that his indirect evidence, which he used to associate with an invisible measles “virus,” was incomplete:
“Although we have thus already obtained considerable indirect evidence supporting the etiologic role of this group of agents in measles, 2 experiments essential in the establishment of this relationship remain to be carried out.”
However, the most damning revelation was the admission that during his experiments with assumed measles “virus” using the cell culture method that he invented, Enders observed the exact same cytopathogenic effects he had associated with the measles “virus” in normal control cultures without any “virus” present whatsoever:
“Monkey kidney cultures may, therefore, be applied to the study of these agents in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In so doing, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in the monkey kidney tissue (cf. last paragraph under G) or by unknown factors.“
“A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles. But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed. Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum. Obviously the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind.“
In other words, John Franklin Enders established through the use of uninoculated cultures that the cytopathogenic effect that he assumed was caused by the invisible measles “virus” occurred even when there was no assumed “virus” present within the culture. Thus, it was the cell culture process itself involving the starvation of the cell with minimal nutrients as well as the poisoning of the cell with toxic chemicals, additives, and foreign materials which eventually lead to the death of the cell resulting in the cytopathogenic effect. Therefore, it should have been concluded that the cytopathogenic effect was not the work of any fictional “virus.” This revelation should have ended virology right then and there.
However, Enders control results were instead swept under the rug and ignored. Rather than calling the time of death on virology as should have been done by anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty, those in charge doubled down on the invalid cell culture method as the standard that every virologist must adhere to in order to confirm the presence of a “virus” within a sample. This reliance on the cell culture evidence built upon a fraudulent cytopathogenic foundation cemented the entire field of virology even further into the mad world of pseudoscience as the scientific method continued to be forsaken.
Enders Refuted by Others
Interestingly, as more researchers began to attempt to recreate Enders results, the flaws in the methodology continued to pop up. In fact, different teams of researchers over the next five years found the exact same cytopathogenic results as Enders did when they performed uninoculated controls for themselves. Dr. Cowan did an excellent overview of three of these studies in this recent video:
Let’s take a look at excerpts from the three papers Dr. Cowan discussed in order to see exactly what these researchers discovered. I’ve included highlights from each paper as well as the methods sections showing the ridiculous culturing steps each team utilized to try and “isolate” their “viruses.”
In this first study from 1955 by Rustigian et al., it is stated that the researchers discovered an unidentified “agent” within their uninoculated controls while attempting to adapt dengue “virus” to roller tube cultures of rhesus monkey kidneys. This “agent” produced the exact same cytopathogenic effect that was observed by Enders with his uninoculated culture during his measles experiments. After preparing monkey kidney cultures for a poliomyelitis study, 3 more unidentified “agents” appeared in uninoculated cultures which created the very same cytopathogenic effect. The source of these kidney cultures were healthy monkeys exhibiting no symptoms of disease, thus there was no “virus” assumed to be present within the culture. After investigation into whether or not the observed CPE could have come from the media, the researchers concluded that there was something present within the healthy monkey kidney cells that brought about the cytopathogenic effect:
Infection of Monkey Kidney Tissue Cultures with Virus-Like Agents.
“The wide current interest in tissue cultures for the study of virus-host cell relationships and applied problems of virus diseases has emphasized the need of employing cells and tissues free of microbial agents. The hazard of introducing viruses into tissue cultures with contaminated media has been stressed recently (1). Of equal, if not greater importance, is the problem of the presence of viruses in tissue cultures as a result of unrecognized infection of cells and tissues employed as primary explants. Detection of such viral infections, in certain instances, may be complicated by the fact that no readily recognized changes are manifested. On the other hand, some viruses under the same conditions may subsequently interfere markedly with cellular growth as evidenced by inhibition of acid production or
In our attempts, in 1953, to adapt mouse-adapted Hawaii dengue virus(2) to roller tube cultures of rhesus monkey kidney, an unidentified agent was encountered which induced cytopathogenic changes in cultures of monkey kidney and cancer HeLa epithelial cells. The agent was filterable and could not be cultured in various non-living media. Subsequently, 3 additional agents with identical cytopathogenic characteristics were passed from uninoculated monkey kidney cultures prepared for poliomyelitis studies, to HeLa cell cultures. Enders and Peebles(3) have recently reported recovery of an agent from an uninoculated monkey kidney culture which appears to have the same cytopathogenic characteristics in monkey renal cultures as our agents have. However, other than a description of its cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cultures, no other data was given concerning their agent. In view of the wide use of monkey kidney cultures in virus studies it seems of importance to report our observations with these agents. These include their cytopathic effect in rhesus monkey renal tissue, in HeLa cell and certain other tissue cultures, the manner of their recovery and passage in tissue culture and other characteristics. In addition, evidence is presented that kidneys of apparently healthy monkeys are the source of these agents in monkey kidney tissue cultures and not the medium constituents.”
Materials and methods. Tissue culture technics. A. Roller tube cultures. Technics of Robbins, Weller and Enders (4) were essentially followed for preparation of roller tube cultures. In addition to rhesus monkey kidney, cultures were prepared frum monkey testes, human embryonic kidney, human embryonic skin and musclet and mouse infant kidney. In early studies the culture medium consisted of Hanks-Simms solution (70%) , beef embryo extract (10%) and horse serum (20%). Penicillin and streptomycin were added for final concentration of 100 units and 100 ug respectively. Later, bovine amniotic fluid was used in place of Hanks-Simms solution (5). Soybean trypsin inhibitor, in final concentration of .05 mg, was incorporated in medium for all cultures. One ml of medium was added to each culture tube containing 10 to 15 fragments of tissue. Culture fluids were changed every 3 to 4 days. At time of inoculation of agents, the medium was modified to contain 85% Hanks-Simms or bovine amniotic fluid, 10% beef embryo extract and 5% horse serum.
B. Stationary cultures of monkey kidney were prepared by trypsinization technic of Youngner(6) with bovine amniotic fluid containing 5% beef embryo extract and 10% horse serum. Following standardization of cell suspensions(7) 0.5 ml containing about 500,000 cells was added to culture tubes. When good cell growth occurred (7 to 9 days), the medium was changed to 95% bovine amniotic fluid and 5% horse serum.
C. HeLa cell strain of cancer epithelial cells, kindly supplied by Dr. J. T. Syverton of the University of Minnesota, was cultured as described by Scherer, Syverton, and Gey(8) and Syverton (9). Culture tubes were seeded with approximately 40,000 cells in 1 ml, and in 4 to 5 days a layer of growth was obtained containing 90,000 to 160,000 cells. The nutrient fluid was then replaced with maintenance solution containing 10% chicken serum(8,lO). With prolonged incubation of cultures in this fluid, degenerative changes were noted (granulation, rounding of cells). When this occurred the maintenance medium was replaced with nutrient fluid which restored normal morphology in 1 to 2 days. Accordingly, in experiments involving long incubation periods, nutrient fluid was substituted for maintenance medium and left on the cells for brief intervals.
“Recovery of agents MK1, MK3, and MK4 from uninoculated monkey kidney cultures. Shortly after encountering agent MK-D in attempts to adapt dengue virus to monkey kidney cultures, syncytial masses and vacuolatinn were again observed in an uninoculated roller tube culture 12 days after its preparation.
This culture and 16 others prepared from the same kidney were set aside for further study. By 15th day degeneration was marked in this culture and had appeared in 3 other cultures; and by 34th day in 7 of the 16 cultures. Fluids were harvested on 14th and 15th day from cultures showing degeneration, pooled and 0.2 ml inoculated into HeLa cell cultures. Lytic-like arm were present in 10 days. Fluids from these cultures were then harvested, pooled and 0.1 ml passed to fresh HeLa cultures. Similar degeneration with this second passage occurred in 6 days. Subsequent passages in HeLa cells were made with 0.1 to 0.2 ml of pooled fluids harvested at 1- to 2 day intervals for 4 to 6 days following definite signs of degeneration. The fluids were stored in a COz cabinet for varying periods between passages. This agent, designated MK1 has
now been passaged serially 101 times in HeLa cell cultures. Agents MK3 and MK4 were recovered similarly from uninoculated cultures prepared from kidneys of different rhesus monkeys. Thus, MK3 was recovered from a series of uninoculated cultures in which 8 of 72 roller tubes revealed moderate to strong degeneration 12 days after preparation and MK4 from 11 of 41 stationary cultures with degeneration 20 days after preparation with trypsinized cell suspension. These 2 agents have now been serially passed 10 and 6 times respectively in HeLa cultures. MK3 following 10 HeLa cell passages caused vacuolation and formation of syncytial masses in monkey kidney cultures. Same results were obtained with MK4 after 6 HeLa cell passages. Information has been obtained which suggests that frequency of occurrence of these agents in uninoculated cultures may be relatively high. Thus in 6 of 9 series of cultures prepared from kidneys of different monkeys one or more of 7 to 41 cultures in each series held 20 to 55 days showed characteristic degeneration (Table I); and the recovery of an agent from cultures of 3 different series was successful. One attempt to recover an agent from uninoculated cultures of a kidney series which did not show degeneration was unsuccessful after 3 blind passages in HeLa cells and subsequent passage in monkey kidney cultures. We have consistently observed in practically all cultures prepared from different monkey kidneys occasional small vacuoles apparent from the onset of cell outgrowth. In some cultures they persisted, but in others they apparently disappeared with continued incubation.”
“These findings provide evidence that the agents were derived from renal tissue of monkeys. Evidence that other tissue culture constituents are not the source of the agent is as follows: One agent was recovered at time Hanks-Simms solution was used instead of bovine amniotic fluid and the reverse was true for other 3 agents. Beef embryo extract has been routinely employed for cultivation of HeLa cells for over a year without resulting in progressive characteristic degeneration which occurred following inoculation of such cultures with the agents. Horse serum has been heated at 56°C for 30 minutes prior to its use as a medium constituent, and, as previously noted, 2 of the 4 agents so treated failed to produce cytopathic effects after 21 days. Finally 3 blind passages in HeLa cells and subsequent passage in monkey kidney cultures of fluids from one monkey kidney series failed to reveal an agent. But agents were recovered from cultures of 2 other monkey kidney series set up shortly prior to and after this series with the same lots of medium constituents.”
“Summary. During attempts to adapt dengue virus to rhesus monkey kidney cultures, an unidentified agent which causes formation of syncytial masses and vacuolation in such cultures was encountered. Subsequently, 3 additional agents with similar cytopathogenic effects were passed and maintained in HeLa cell cultures from uninoculated monkey kidney cultures. Renal tissue and not the medium constituents is the source of the agent. Bacteriological studies with one agent were negative. The same agent passed through a Selas filter. Accordingly it is considered to be virus-like in nature. Similar experiments were not done with 3 other agents but because of certain common characteristics are believed to be of the same nature.”
In this second study, also from 1955, Cohen et al. found the same cytopathogenic effect in their uninoculated control cultures as was observed in their inoculated samples supposedly containing a measles “virus.” Once again, this showed that the CPE was not a specific effect due to any “virus” and was therefore brought about by the experimental conditions. Cohen et al. realized that they could not use this effect to recognize the measles “virus” so they claimed that antibody results, which they admitted to presuming were due to a measles “virus,” was sufficient criteria to distinguish between the cultured samples:
Fluorescent Antibody and Complement-Fixation Tests of Agents Isolated In Tissue Culture from Measles Patients.
“Enders and Peebies(1) observed that human or monkey kidney tissue cultures inoculated with specimens from measles patients undergo, after one or more passages, characteristic nuclear and other cytologic changes. Both infectious virus and specific complement-fixation antigen appeared concurrently in the cultures and the cytopathogenic effect was neutralized by convalescent-phase measles serum. We have applied the fluorescent antibody technic of Coons and his colleagues (2,3) to similar cultures and find that the results parallel those of complement-fixation tests and thus provide immunochemical support for the data oi Enders and Peebles and in addition evidence that measles antigen(s) are present in the nuclei as well as in the cytoplasm of infected cells.
Methods. Patients were selected for study during a mild outbreak of typical rubeola. Clinical diagnosis was aided in certain cases by recognition of giant cells of the Warthin-Finkeldey type in stained films of nasal discharge obtained early in illness, as described by Tompkins and Mcaulay(4).
Collection of specimens and preparation of tissue cultures. The procedures outlined by Enders and Peebles (1) were followed. Blood, throat swabs or washings, or nasal discharge were obtained before or within a day after the appearance of the rash. When possible, specimens were inoculated into tissue cultures within a few hours after their collection. Tissue cultures consisted of trypsinized monkey kidney cells grown in sheets (5). Tubes were inoculated with 0.2 or 0.3 ml of the prepared specimens, fed with nutrient fluid to bring the volume to 1.0 ml, and incubated as stationary slants at 36.5°C. Nutrient fluid consisted of beef amniotic fluid containing 5% inactivated horse serum and 5% beef embryo extract. The first passage contained 100 units of penicillin, 100 ug of streptomycin, and 50 ug of nystatin (fungicidin) (6): others, 50 units and 50 and 10 ug, respectively. Transfers to fresh tubes were carried out at 14-day intervals with 0.2-ml aniounts of pooled fluids taken 5, 9, and 14 days after inoculation. Controls consisted of uninoculated cultures and of cultures passaged serially with fluids from uninoculated tubes.
Results. Transmissible agents, presumably viruses, were isolated from both blood and a throat swab of one patient, and from nasal discharge and a throat swab, respectively, of 2 others whose blood was not obtained. The throat swab specimens had been stored in a dry ice chest for 7 days. No agents were detected in specimens from 5 additional cases. Inocula from 3 of the latter had been stored at 4°-6°C for 2 days before culture; tests of inocula from the other 2 were discontinued after 3 apparently negative serial passages. These circumstances may have contributed to our failure to isolate agents.
Enders and Peebles(1) and Rustigian et al. (10) encountered latent virus-like agents that induce marked vacuolization and syncytial masses in monkey kidney tissue cultures. The cellular degeneration characteristic of these “monkey-kidney agents” frequently appeared in our cultures, both in those inoculated with specimens from measles patients and in controls; hence cytologic criteria for recognition of measles agents were difficult to apply. In some tissue culture series the “monkey-kidney agents” destroyed the cell sheets in 10 to 14 days. We therefore relied on tests for the presence of measles antigen to identify the 3 agents cultivated from measles inocula.”
“Discussion. Demonstration that tissue cultures inoculated with specimens from measles patients produce antigens that react specifically with convalescent-phase measles sera substantiates the findings of Enders and Peebles( 1). We did not repeat their filtration experiments, but were unable to recover fungi, nodes from rabbits immunized with diphtheria or bacteria including pleuropneumonia-like organisms and leptospira from infected tissue cultures and presume, therefore, that the antigens that produced specific reactions in fluorescent antibody and complement-fixation tests were derived from measles virus. On the whole, antigen in infected tissue cultures was detected earlier by the fluorescent antibody method than by complement-fixation tests. Preliminary data suggest, however, that the latter are of value in differential diagnosis of exanthemata and encephalitides of unknown origin.”
This final study which Dr. Cowan highlighted is from Von Magnus et al. in 1959. In lockstep with the previous researchers, they also came across the same exact cytopathogenic effect in uninoculated cultures from healthy monkeys. The researchers claimed that the changes were due to what they referred to as “foamy agents” and stated that these “agents” are regularly found in healthy monkey kidney cells. The CPE generated was indistinguishable from that which was associated with the measles “virus.” Thus, like Cohen et al. before them, Von Magnus et al. decided that this effect was of limited use in attempting to identify “viruses” and instead relied upon unreliable antibody tests to determine whether the measles “virus” was present in a sample. Also of interest is that these researchers failed in numerous attempts to “isolate” the measles “virus” as they were only “successful” in 5 of 13 cases. All attempts to isolate a “virus” failed 24 hours after onset of a rash. Regardless of their failures, Von Magnus et al. decided that their indirect evidence agreed with the assumption that the antibody results identified the measles “virus:”
Studies on Measles Virus in Monkey Kidney Tissue Cultures. 1. Isolation of Virus from 5 Patients with Measles.
“As described by Enders & Peebles (6), and later by Rustigian et al. (13) and by Cohen el al. (3) cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Figs. 4-5). These changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called “foamy agents”, which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys. Specific measles antigen is, however, produced only in cultures infected with measles virus. Iu the present study the ability of tissue culture passage material to fix complement in the presence of convalescent phase measles serum was therefore used as a criterion for the presence of measles virus.”
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Tissue Cultures: Cell of trypsinized kidneys from rhesus monkeys, cynomolgous monkeys or baboons were u sed routinely. The technique of Younger (15) for the preparation or these tissue cultures was used with some modifications as previously described (10). During the outgrowth of the cells, the growth medium consisted of lactalbumln hydrolysate 0.5 cent (11) in Hank’s solution (5) with 2 per cent horse serum.
Before seeding with the virus the medium was changed. Each tube received 1.8 ml of either synthetic medium 199 (12) or bovine amniotic fluid (5) containing phenol red as an indicator (final dilution 0.02 per cent). All media contained penicillin (100 U/ml) and streptomycin (0.1 mg/ml).
Collection of specimens: isolation of the virus was attempted from throat washings and blood.
Throat washings: Measles patients were askcd to gargle either with 15 ml of a mixture of one part ox-heart infusion broth and 2 parts of buffered salt solution or, in later experiments, with 15 ml of distilled water containing l percent Bacto tryptose “Difco”. Penicillin, 100 U. per ml and streptomycin 0.1 mg per m l were added to the fluid. From the throats of very young children specimens were obtained by cotton swabs which were subsequently immersed into 2 ml of one of the two fluids just described. In all instances, the specimens were immediately froten in C02-ice and then stored in an electrical deep-freeze (-60° C). Before inoculation into tissue culture the materials were thawed rapidly at 37°C in running tap water.
Blood: ln earlier experiments heparin was added to the blood (2 ml of an O.O5 per cent of heparin per 10 ml of blood). In later experiments the blood was allowed to coagulate. Red cells which had not become attached to the clot were resuspended In the serum, and this mixture was used as inoculum for tissue cultures. The blood samples were stored at +4° C until the time of inoculation.
Inoculation of tissue cultures: Tissue cultures were inoculated with 0.5 rnl of throat washing material or with 0.25 ml of blood. The final amount of fluid in the tubes was about 2 ml. The cultures were kept staUonary or placed in a rotating drum (1 rotation per minute).
Subcultures from the first passage were carried out between the 6th and the 16th day, usually on the 8th day after inoculation. The nutrient medium was as a rule not exchanged in the course of a passage. Subcultures from the later passages were made between the 6th and the 12th day of incubation. The passage material consisted of a suspension of cells and cell debris in culture medium. This mixture was obtained by loosening the cells still adhering to the glass through scraping with a pipette. The amount inoculated varied, but it was usually 0.2 mi, so that the final volume of fluid in the inoculated tubes was about 2 ml. Serial passages of material from control tubes were carried out in the same way.
“The present work confirms the findings of Endel’s & Peebles (G) and Cohen et al. that throat washings and blood frotn patients in the early stage of measles contain a virus which is able to produce characteristic cytopathic changes in cultures of human and simian kidney cells. In the inoculated cultures the same syncylical formations were observed as those described by Enders & Peebles (6). In addition it was found that in the tissue culture system employed in this other specific lesions developed on continued incubation. This second step of the degeneration resulted in the accumulation of cell debris with circular gritty-looking formations ,vhich had either a quite smooth or a wrinkled margin. These cytopathic changes appear to be as specific for measles virus as are the synctia.
However, monkey kidney viruses or “foamy agents,” may give rise to cellular degenerations which microscopically are indistinguishable from those caused by measles virus. For this reason the cytologic manifestations are of limited value in the study of measles and additional criteria ate required to establish the identity of the cultivated agents. This can be achieved by the demonstration of intranuclear inclusion bodies in the cell cultures (6) or by tests for the presence of measles anligen using either the fluorescent antibody technique (3) or the complement fixation reaction (3, 6). Because of its simplicity this last mentioned method has been employed in the present study. Observations on the development of measles antigen in the various cultures will be described in detail in a forthcoming publication (1).
In the study presented in this paper measles virus was isolated from five out of nine throat washings collected withln 24 hours after the outbreak of exanthem. The reason why the isolation failed in one patient (No. 12) may be that he had a vomiting immediately before gargling. In the remaining three cases (Nos. 2, 7 and 9) no obvious explanation for the negative results can be offered. Possibly it was because these isolations were all attempted with throat swabs in young children who were very excited and the sampling thus difficult to perform.
Virus was recovered from the blood in only one out of eight attempts made within 24 hours after the onset of the rash. This isolation rate is low compared with that obtained by Enders & Peebles (6) who recovered virus from the blood of four out of five patients. These authors used heparinized blood from which it may be easier to recover virus than from serum containing resuspended blood cells. In our laboratory the only isolation from the blood was made from one of the three samples to which heparin had been added. Also, Enders and Peebles used a larger inoculum (0.5 ml to 2 ml) than employed in this study (0.25 ml).
The possibility was considered that the failure to recover virus from 8 of the 13 patients examined might be due to an insusceptibility to measles virus of the particular cells employed. This, however, was apparently not the case, for when tubes prepared simultaneously with those employed in the unsuccessful isolation experiments were inoculated with measles infected fluid typical cytopathic changes developed together with the appearance of complement-fixing antigen in the nutrient media.
The observations presented in this paper agree well with the assumption that the isolated agents are the cause of measles.”
(1) Virus agents have been isolated in trypsinized monkey kidney tissue cultures from throat washings and blood from 5 out of 13 patients examined during the acute phase of measles. In all instances, virus was isolated from throat washings or throat swahs while one strain was recovered from the blood. All attempts to isolate virus later than 24 hours after onset of the rash failed.
2) The cytopathic manifestations observed in measles virus infected tissue cultures as well as in uninoculated tubes are described. Complement fixation tests for the presence of measles antigen have been used as criterion for the presence of this virus in the infected cultures.
(3) Intranasal and oral administration of material from late passages of one of the isolated agents to two Rhesus resulted in a pronounced measles-like rash in one of the animals, and both monkeys developed antibodies against the inoculated strain.
(4) In serological studies of acute and convalescent-phase sera from measles patients using measles virus infected cultures of monkey kidney tissue as antigen in complement fixation tests a clearcut rise in antibodies was observed in all cases.
What we can take away from these three studies in combination with Enders’ own uninoculated controls is that no “virus” was ever necessary in order for the cytopathogenic effect to occur. This effect was witnessed in cultures of kidney cells from healthy monkeys. It was stated that these findings were not rare as witnessing this cytopathogenic effect in uninoculated cultures from healthy monkeys was actually rather frequent. Thus, it is clear to see that it is the cell culture method itself, which consists of stressing and starving the cells which are outside of their natural environment and dousing them in kidney toxic antibiotics as well as mixing in foreign animal materials and other chemical additives that leads to the death of the cell. As this cytopathogenic effect was not specific to a “virus” and occurred in cultures without any “viruses” present, it can not be used to claim the presence of a “virus” as both Cohen et al. and Von Magnus et al. stated. Thus, there is no value to any results gained from this pseudoscientific experimentation.
While the above studies should be enough to wash away any doubt left about the fraudulent use of a cytopathogenic effect as confirmation that a “virus” is present in the sample, I am throwing a 1956 publication by Hull et al. into the mix as well which provides even more damning evidence supporting the discontinuation of this pseudoscientific practice. In this paper, the researchers stated that the use of the cell culture method led to the discovery of many unknown cytopathogenic agents that can only be detected through the use of this practice. The researchers used slight variations in the CPE observed during the culture for poliomyelitis vaccines to claim that there were at least 10 other invisible “virus-like agents” present at various times within the cultures. While Hull et al. believed that these agents most likely originated within the monkey kidney cells, they said there was a potential that these “agents” could represent contaminants from human sources, horse serum, nutrient medium or other solutions used in the preparation of the cultures. Regardless, they decided that these invisible agents, which were “recovered” from normal or uninoculated control cultures from healthy monkeys, were “simian viruses.” The researchers did so despite the fact that they were unable to make any animals sick through various routes of injection beyond two exceptions where two of the “viruses” caused death upon injection in the brain. However, upon injection of these two “viruses” into the muscles, no illness occurred. In other words, Hull et al. observed cytopathogenic effects that they subjectively determined were not caused by the polio “virus” in both inoculated and uninoculated cultures and decided that there must be different “viruses” present within the culture based on the pattern of cell death observed. These mixtures assumed to contain invisible “viruses” were consistently demonstrated not to be pathogenic, hence the unobservable entities from uninoculated cultures with the same pattern of CPE from healthy monkeys did not meet the definition of a “virus:”
Viral Agents Recovered from Tissue Cultures of Monkey Kidney Cells
“Increased use of the technique of cell cultivation for isolation, maintenance and study of viruses has resulted in the discovery of many hitherto unknown cytopathogenic agents. In screening human stool samples or rectal swabs for poliomyelitis viruses, Melnick (1) isolated several “orphan viruses” which do not type with poliovirus antiserums, and from the same source Sabin (2) obtained 5 viruses referred to as He1; He2, etc. The new RI series of viruses was isolated in tissue culture by Hilleman and Werner (3) from throat washings of patients with respiratory disease. Rowe, Huebner et al. (4) isolated a similar group of viruses, the APC group, which first appeared in tissue cultures of human adenoid and tonsillar tissue and later were recovered from eye washings of patients with a conjunctivitis. Recently Rustigian et al. (5) reported recovery of two cytopathogenic agents from cultures of monkey kidney cells. Thus, a number of viral agents are present in tissues and excreta of man and lower animals which defy detection by methods other than tissue culture.
During production and testing of poliomyelitis vaccine, hundreds of thousands of monkey kidney cultures prepared from thousands of monkeys were observed in our laboratories and in others participating in this program. Numerous filterable, transferable cytopathogenic agents other than poliovirus were also encountered. Although these agents were probably introduced into the cultures with the monkey kidney cells, there remains the remote possibility that some represent contaminants from human sources, horse serum, nutrient medium or other solutions used in the preparation of cultures. This report describes 8 immunologically distinct agents isolated and studied in our laboratories, and makes reference to 2 from other sources.”
“The agents isolated will be referred to as “Simian viruses” (S.V.) until such time as a definite association with some other host or identification can be established. These agents will be referred to as S.V.1, S.V.2, etc. Of the original group of agents which included S.V., through S.V.15, eight (S.V. 1, 2 4, 5. 6, 11, 12 and 15) will be described in this paper. The missing numbers were held by agents that were identified or reclassified after antiserum studies, or which have not yet been adequately studied for inclusion at this time. The latter category includes S.V.13 which is
the “lacy or foaming” agent frequently seen in cultures of monkey kidney cells.
The following is a brief account of the original isolation and description of the 8 agents referred to above. S.V.1 was recovered from roller-tube cultures of trypsinized monkey kidney cells planted on February 8, 1954. This series included 1,700 tubes prepared from a pool of kidneys from 4 apparently healthy cynomolgus monkeys. After 6 to 8 days of incubation the cultures appeared satisfactory and were used for titrations of poliovirus. After 6 more days of incubation a type of cell destruction was seen in some cultures beyond the end point of the poliovirus that was atypical of the damage produced by the latter. This atypical damage was observed in 17 percent of the cultures. This eytopathogenic effect (C.P.E.) was characterized by a reduction in size and distinct rounding of the cells.”
“Monkeys were inoculated intracerebrally, intramuscularly, and in some instances by other routes, with all the viruses. Serum from each monkey inoculated was first assayed for antibodies against the specific virus to be injected. Only negative animals were used. With the exception of S.V.12 and S.V.15 no evidence of clinical illness or of gross or histopathological lesions was seen. Monkeys inoculated intracerebrally with high titer undiluted S.V.12 and S.V.15 viruses succumbed within 4 to 6 days after inoculation. The specific type of virus inoculated was readily recovered from brain and cord tissues of these animals. These same two viruses, however, when inoculated intramuscularly into monkeys failed to produce clinical disease or gross or histopathological lesions. The histopathological lesions observed in the intracerebrally inoculated monkeys revealed necrosis and complete destruction of the choroid plexus plus a generalized aseptic type of meningitis. No other brain pathology or lesions resembling those of poliomyelitis were seen. The various organs studied exhibited no recognized lesions and it appeared that all involvement was limited to the central nervous system in the region of the virus inoculation. The lesions produced by S.V.12 and S.V.I5 were indistinguishable.
Although no recognizable disease was produced in the monkeys inoculated with these viruses, with the above noted exceptions, some evidence was obtained in our laboratories, and in others, that S.V.2 and S.V6, may have some etiological significance in enteric infections.”
“None of these monkey viruses infected embryonated eggs as determined by death of the embryo. However, one agent from the A.M.S.G.S. identified as S.V., had been recovered from embryonated eggs inoculated with monkey kidney tissue-culture fluids. Groups of adult and suckling mice were inoculated intracerebrally and intraperitoneally with each virus. However, no evidence of disease nor death of the mice was observed. Rats and rabbits which were inoculated with live virus for the production of antiserum also did not succumb to infection with any of these agents.”
The isolations and characteristics of 8 apparently new viruses have been described. Although definite proof has not been presented, these agents probably have been simian in origin. What diseases, if any, they might be responsible for in monkeys also has not been established. S.V.2 and S.V. 6, may be etiological agents in intestinal infections of monkeys inasmuch as both have been isolated from stool samples of animals suffering from diarrhea. None have produced experimental infections when inoculated intramuscularly although both S.V.12 and S.V.15 caused a prostrating type of paralysis and death in monkeys following intracerebral inoculation. Attempts which are being made to infect monkeys by other routes of inoculation are not yet completed.”
The greatest significance of these viruses has been their appearance in tissue cultures used to produce and to test poliomyelitis vaccine. This has been especially troublesome during tissue-culture safety testing of the vaccine as the occurrence of these viruses has in many instances invalidated tests for poliovirus, making retesting necessary and thereby delaying the release of vaccine. There has also been the problem of proving in some cases that the contaminating ” simian virus” isolated during a vaccine safety test was not in the vaccine sample under test. In general, however, this has not been a problem since many of these agents have been recovered from normal or uninoculated control cultures.”
“Eight apparently new submicroscopic, filterable, cytopathogenic agents recovered in tissue cultures of rhesus and cynomolgus monkey kidney tissue have been described. No definite associations have been made between any of these agents and naturally occurring diseases of monkeys or other animals. The significance of these viruses in the poliomyelitis vaccine program and the problems created by them during vaccine safety testing in tissue culture have been discussed.”
These studies in and of themselves should be enough to show that, when controls are done, the cytopathogenic effect observed and attributed to the presence of an invisible “virus” is shown not to be specific to any “virus.” In fact, no “viruses” are necessary to create this effect whatsoever. Luckily, we are fortunate enough that Dr. Stefan Lanka did not just rest on the work of others to show this and took it upon himself to verify these findings by doing his own set of control experiments, thus putting the proverbial final nail in the coffin of this pseudoscientific practice. As Dr. Cowan did an absolutely excellent job breaking down Dr. Lanka’s control experiments, I am providing excerpts from his book Breaking the Spell:
“Here is the essence of Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing. As seen in this series of photographs, each of the four vertical columns is a separate experiment. The top photo in each column was taken on day one, and the bottom photo was taken on day five.
In vertical column one, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics. As you can see, on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth.
In vertical column two, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium. Still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five.
The third vertical column shows what happened when Dr. Lanka’s group used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation experiment of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. This included changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration. As you can see, on day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.
The fourth and final vertical column is the same as vertical column three, except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added. This produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a virus—that is causing the CPE.”
Invalid Experiment = Invalid Controls
It should hopefully be clear by now why virology has a control problem. The cell culture method itself is not a valid experimental set-up as it was never designed through the adherence to the scientific method. The experiment creates the effect (CPE) and then assumes a cause (“virus”) without ever verifying that the assumed cause exists in the first place. Even if we were to give them leeway with the use of the cell culture as a valid experiment to prove the presence of a “virus,” the cytopathogenic effect is known to be caused by many other factors unrelated to any “virus” thus making the explanation of a fictitious “virus” as the culprit entirely unnecessary. The blaming of invisible “viruses” for observed CPE in place of other explanations was pointed out in a technical bulletin for cell culturing:
Understanding and Managing Cell Culture Contamination
“Since cytopathic viruses usually destroy the cultures they infect, they tend to be self-limiting. Thus, when cultures self-destruct for no apparent reason and no evidence of common biological contaminants can be found, cryptic viruses are often blamed. (See Figures 3a and 3b.) They are perfect culprits, unseen and undetectable; guilty without direct evidence. This is unfortunate, since the real cause of this culture destruction may be something else, possibly mycoplasma or a chemical contaminant, and as a result will go undetected to become a more serious problem.”
It is known that the CPE can be caused by factors other than “viruses” such as:
- Chemical contaminants
- Age and cell deterioration
- Environmental stress
And lest I forget, the also fictional “virus-like” entities (that are admitted to be impossible to separate from “viruses”) known as exosomes are also said to create cytopathogenic effects.
To reiterate, the cytopathogenic effect is not a valid dependent variable as it is not a naturally observed phenomena, and it can be explained by various factors other than an invisible “virus.” The unpurified fluids used during the culture is not a valid independent variable as the “virus” assumed to be within has never been shown to exist in a purified and isolated state before the experiment takes place. Thus, performing the cell culture as evidence for a “virus” is entirely unscientific as the scientific method can not be followed. However, for arguments sake, let’s allow virologists to have the cell culture and the cytopathogenic effect as a valid experiment. This would mean that they would need to have valid controls performed alongside the cell cultures every time. One would think that this would be commonly seen in virology papers as we saw in those from the 1950s. Yet, more often than not, either no mention of the controls are ever found within the studies provided as evidence for the existence of “viruses” or what was done to the control culture is ill-defined. Perhaps this is due to the disastrous conclusions made by the authors of the 1950’s studies, which irreparably damaged the claim of a “viral” cause of the CPE observed? In any case, if virologists do perform a control, they usually do what they refer to as mock infections:
“A control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus. Sometimes a non-virulent strain is used in the mock-infected specimen.”
What this means is that the virologists are supposed to use the same cell with the same additives (antibiotics, antifungals, minimal nutrient media, fetal bovine serum, etc.) but without the “virus” added in. Let’s take a look at a few examples in order to see if this is what they do. In this first instance, the authors of a CDC study state that the mock-infected culture was treated with the medium only, so this appears to match up to the above definition. However, it is not stated whether the medium was exactly the same as that of the experimental culture. We must assume this to be the case, which is a problem as will be shown later.
SARS–associated Coronavirus Replication in Cell Lines
This second study is one of the pivotal early “SARS-COV-2” studies by Zhu et al. We are only told that the control is mock-infected and thus we must once again assume that the researchers used exactly the same medium/ingredients as no other details were provided.
A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China
This third example is from an Australian study in April 2020 which is infamous for adding trypsin, a protein digester, to the culture in order to create the “spike” corona in EM images. The researchers give us what they call uninfected control cells. Again, we must assume that the uninfected cell was treated exactly the same as the infected cell as no details were provided.
Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia
In this final study from Zhou et al., which is one of the pillars of the “SARS-COV-2” fraud, we are told that a mock “virus” was used. What is a mock “virus?” Zhou et al. do not say.
A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin
Or they did not say so in public. However, in a private correspondence through e-mail, some further details were shed on this situation. From Dr. Mark Bailey’s amazing essay “A Farewell to Virology,” we find out that in the experimental culture, the antibiotics were doubled during the culture experiments to achieve a cytopathogenic effect in 1 out of 24 cultures. Not only is this a stunning failure rate to culture a “virus,” the addition of more antibiotics to the experimental culture completely invalidates the results as the control was not treated the same.
As can be seen in these examples, what was done to the mock-infected controls is not well-defined and must be taken as an assumption that the two cultures were treated the same minus the assumed “virus.” However, the Zhou et al. admission is exactly why we can not assume that the cultures are treated equally as this was obviously not the case. The addition of more antibiotics to the experimental culture was never mentioned anywhere within the paper. Zhou et al. committed scientific fraud. How many other “virus” studies would be shown to have done the same if the researchers were as honest as Xing-Lou Yang was in an e-mail exchange? The details of what was done to the mock infected controls must be provided with every paper yet this is rarely, if ever, the case.
However, there is an even bigger underlying problem for virology than a lack of ill-defined mock-infection controls even if all of the same additives are used. Remember, a control is supposed to eliminate only the one variable under study, i.e. the assumed “viral” particles. As the fluids that are utilized for the “inoculated” culture are admitted to not contain only purified and isolated “virus” particles but a whole gamut of potential substances such as host materials, bacteria, fungi, microvesicular bodies, etc., mock-infections where no human fluids are added to the culture are not proper controls. A proper control would be to use a sample from a healthy human which is treated in the exact same manner as the fluids with the assumed “virus.” This includes adding the healthy human fluids to “viral” transport media which contains added chemicals, nutrients, fetal bovine serum, antibiotics/antifungals, etc. as this step is done immediately to the “viral” sample upon collection. Leaving fluids from healthy subjects out of the control invalidates the mock-infection as there are numerous confounding variables present within the experimental culture that are missing from the mock-infected culture. Thus, while a mock-infected control can be said to be a control, it is not the proper control for the pseudoscientific cell culture experiments.
- A study with control(s) is designed to ensure that the effects are due to the independent variables in the experiment
- The use of controls allows to study one variable or factor at a time
- It is important that both the control and other (experimental) group(s) are exposed to the same conditions apart from the one variable under study
- Relating to virology, that one variable would be the assumed “viral” particles and thus it is imperative that since virologists use an unpurified sample from sick humans, they would need to use an unpurified sample from a healthy human as a control as well
- Throughout the early 20th century, very different interpretations of the nature of “viruses” arose, which were put forward against each other
- No experimental evidence for this or that concept, which all researchers should have accepted, could be presented by any side
- Findings often reported by certain “virus” researchers at the time were not confirmed by other researchers as a result of their own experiments, or the observations could not be reproduced by all scientists working with the “virus”
- Often, findings to the contrary were reported, or the findings that had been examined were considered artefacts
- Every version of the interpretation of the “virus” phenomenon remained open to attack
- Facts presented to the expert public could often be reinterpreted into fictions by opponents, who brought into play the dependence of the findings on the conditions of observation, the local situation of the experiments, the research-related nature of the attributions of characteristics, etc. as sources of error
- Findings that were used to empirically confirm a suspected connection were often soon joined by negative findings reported by other researchers
- At no time did one party offer compelling reasons that would have led the other party to finally abandon artifact accusations
- In 1954, the tissue culture practice, which had been shown to produce the same results in healthy tissues, fell out of favor for John Franklin Enders new cell culture method
- The cell culture relied on the creation of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE), patterns of cell death, as being specific to “viruses” in order to identify that they were present within the culture
- Even though this method was quickly accepted as the new gold standard for “virus isolation,” Enders himself questioned his results as he observed indistinguishable cell death in the healthy control cultures as seen in those with the measles “virus”
- According to Enders, a second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells
- The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the “viruses” isolated from measles
- He felt it was obvious that the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind
- Other researchers over the next 5 years came to the same conclusions as they also observed the same cytopathogenic effect in their own healthy control cultures
- The hazard of introducing “viruses” into tissue cultures with contaminated media has been stressed recently
- Detection of such “viral” infections, in certain instances, may be complicated by the fact that no readily recognized changes are manifested (a.k.a. the CPE-less “viruses” escape clause)
- In 1953, the researchers attempted to adapt mouse-adapted Hawaii dengue “virus” to roller tube cultures of rhesus monkey kidney and an unidentified agent was encountered which induced cytopathogenic changes in cultures of monkey
kidney and cancer HeLa epithelial cells
- Three additional agents with identical cytopathogenic characteristics were passed from uninoculated monkey kidney cultures prepared for poliomyelitis studies, to HeLa cell cultures
- Enders and Peebles reported recovery of an agent from an uninoculated monkey kidney culture which had the
same cytopathogenic characteristics in monkey renal cultures as their agents
- Evidence was presented that kidneys of apparently healthy monkeys are the source of these agents in monkey kidney tissue cultures and not the medium constituents
- Shortly after encountering agent MK-D in attempts to adapt dengue “virus” to monkey kidney cultures, syncytial masses and vacuolatinn were again observed in an uninoculated roller tube culture 12 days after its preparation
- Agents MK3 and MK4 were recovered similarly from uninoculated cultures prepared from kidneys of different rhesus monkeys
- Information was obtained which suggested that the frequency of occurrence of these agents in uninoculated cultures may be relatively high
- The researchers consistently observed in practically all cultures prepared from different monkey kidneys occasional small vacuoles apparent from the onset of cell outgrowth
- The researchers stated that these findings provided evidence that the agents were derived from renal tissue of monkeys and that it was the renal tissue and not the medium constituents which was the source of the agents
- Enders and Peebies observed that human or monkey kidney tissue cultures inoculated with specimens from measles patients undergo, after one or more passages, characteristic nuclear and other cytologic changes
- In cell culture experiments for ruebella by Cohen et al., controls consisted of uninoculated cultures and of cultures passaged serially with fluids from uninoculated tubes
- Transmissible agents, presumably “viruses,” were said to be isolated from both blood and a throat swab of one patient, and from nasal discharge and a throat swab, respectively, of 2 others whose blood was not obtained
- No agents were detected in specimens from 5 additional cases
- Inocula from 3 of the latter had been stored at 4°-6°C for 2 days before culture; tests of inocula from the other 2 were discontinued after 3 apparently negative serial passages and Cohen felt that these circumstances may have contributed to their failure to isolate agents
- Cohen reiterated that Enders and Peebles and Rustigian et al. encountered latent “virus-like” agents that induce marked vacuolization and syncytial masses in monkey kidney tissue cultures
- Keep in mind that they did not observe any “virus-like” agents, they just assumed that they must be present as the same CPE was observed in controls said to contain no “virus”
- The cellular degeneration characteristic of these “monkey-kidney agents” frequently appeared in our cultures, both in those inoculated with specimens from measles patients and in controls; hence cytologic criteria for recognition of measles agents were difficult to apply
- In other words, the CPE was identical as they could not tell any difference between the CPE observed in the uninoculated controls and the inoculated samples and could not use CPE as criteria to recognize the measles “virus”
- Cohen et al. did not repeat Enders filtration experiments, but were unable to recover fungi, nodes from rabbits immunized with diphtheria or bacteria including pleuropneumonia-like organisms and leptospira from infected tissue cultures so they presumed that the antigens that produced specific reactions in fluorescent antibody and complement-fixation tests were derived from measles “virus”
- In other words, as they could not use CPE to determine measles cases, they used non-specific antibody results which they presumed were specific to a measles “virus”
- As described by Enders & Peebles, and later by Rustigian et al. and by Cohen el al. cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles “virus” may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue
- These changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called “foamy agents”, which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys
- This second step of the degeneration resulted in the accumulation of cell debris with circular gritty-looking formations , which had either a quite smooth or a wrinkled margin (cell-debris with a circular formation sure sounds a lot like a “virus” 🤔)
- Monkey kidney “viruses” or “foamy agents,” may give rise to cellular degenerations which microscopically are indistinguishable
from those caused by measles “virus”
- They decided for this reason the cytologic manifestations are of limited value in the study of measles and additional criteria are required to establish the identity of the cultivated agents
- In the study presented in this paper measles “virus” was isolated from five out of nine throat washings collected within 24 hours after the outbreak of exanthem
- The reason why the isolation failed in one patient was thought to be because he had vomited immediately before gargling
- In the remaining three cases, no obvious explanation for the negative results can be offered but they thought it may possibly be because these isolations were all attempted with throat swabs in young children who were very excited and the sampling thus difficult to perform
- “Virus” was recovered from the blood in only one out of eight attempts made within 24 hours after the onset of the rash which was low compared with that obtained by Enders & Peebles who recovered “virus” from the blood of four out of five patients
- The possibility was considered that the failure to recover “virus” from 8 of the 13 patients examined might be due to an insusceptibility to measles “virus” of the particular cells employed but this theory was abandoned
- They stated that the observations presented in this paper agreed well with the assumption that the isolated agents were the cause of measles
- All attempts to isolate “virus” later than 24 hours after onset of the rash failed
- The cytopathic manifestations observed in measles “virus” infected tissue cultures as well as in uninoculated tubes were described
- Intranasal and oral administration of material from late passages of one of the isolated agents to two Rhesus resulted in a pronounced measles-like rash in one of the animals, and both monkeys developed antibodies against the inoculated strain
- Hull et al. stated that the increased use of the technique of cell cultivation for isolation, maintenance and study of “viruses” has resulted in the discovery of many hitherto unknown cytopathogenic agents
- Various researchers had found a number of “viral agents” which are present in tissues and excreta of man and lower animals which defy detection by methods other than tissue culture
- During production and testing of poliomyelitis vaccine, hundreds of thousands of monkey kidney cultures prepared from thousands of monkeys were observed in our laboratories and in others participating in this program and numerous filterable, transferable cytopathogenic agents other than “poliovirus” were also encountered
- Hull stated that although these agents were probably introduced into the cultures with the monkey kidney cells, there remained the remote possibility that some represent contaminants from human sources, horse serum, nutrient medium or other solutions used in the preparation of cultures
- The agents isolated were referred to as “Simian viruses” (S.V.) until
such time that a definite association with some other host or identification could be established
- One of these included S.V.13 which is the “lacy or foaming” agent frequently seen in cultures of monkey kidney cells discussed in the studies above
- For S.V. 1, 1,700 tubes prepared from a pool of kidneys from 4 apparently healthy cynomolgus monkeys were used
- After 6 to 8 days of incubation the cultures appeared satisfactory and were used for titrations of “poliovirus” and after 6 more days of incubation a type of cell destruction was seen in some cultures beyond the end point of the “poliovirus” that was atypical of the damage produced by the latter
- In other words, a longer incubation period resulted in further cytopathogenic effects which were (subjectively) considered not due to polio so they determined it must have been caused by another “agent”
- This atypical damage was observed in 17 percent of the cultures
- Monkeys were inoculated intracerebrally, intramuscularly, and in some instances by other routes, with all the “simian viruses” and with the exception of S.V.12 and S.V.15, no evidence of clinical illness or of gross or histopathological lesions was seen
- Monkeys inoculated intracerebrally with high titer undiluted S.V.12 and S.V.15 “viruses” succumbed within 4 to 6 days after inoculation
- These same two “viruses,” however, when inoculated intramuscularly into monkeys failed to produce clinical disease or gross or histopathological lesions
- It can be seen the assumed S.V.’s showed no signs of pathogenicity at any point, except for S.V. 12 & 15 which killed monkeys upon injections in the brain but did nothing upon injections in the muscles, thus they are not “viruses”
- No recognizable disease was
produced in the monkeys inoculated with these “viruses”
- None of these monkey “viruses” infected embryonated eggs as determined by death of the embryo
- Groups of adult and suckling mice were inoculated intracerebrally and intraperitoneally with each “virus” and yet no evidence of disease nor death of the mice was observed
- Rats and rabbits which were inoculated with live “virus” for the production of antiserum also did not succumb to infection with any of these agents
- The “isolations” and characteristics of 8 apparently new “viruses” have been described yet no definite proof had been presented and these agents were thought to be probably simian in origin
- What diseases, if any, they might be responsible for in monkeys had not been established
- In other words, the researchers could not produce disease with these “agents” found in both inoculated and uninoculated cultures based upon identification by CPE and thus they were not “viruses”
- Many of these agents have been recovered from normal or uninoculated control cultures
- Hull et al. reiterate that eight apparently new submicroscopic, filterable, cytopathogenic agents recovered in tissue cultures of rhesus and cynomolgus monkey kidney tissue were described
- No definite associations were made between any of these agents and naturally occurring diseases of monkeys or other animals
- Dr. Stefan Lanka performed his own cell culture control experiments exposing the CPE fraud
- In control #1, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics and on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth
- In control #2, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium and still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five
- Control #3 included changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration
- On day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the “virus”—except, at no point was a pathogenic “virus” added to the culture
- This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any “virus”
- Control #4 is the same control # 3 except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added which produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a “virus”—that is causing the CPE
- According to a cell culture technical bulletin, when cultures self-destruct for no apparent reason and no evidence of common biological contaminants can be found, cryptic “viruses” are often blamed
- It was stated that this is unfortunate, since the real cause of this culture destruction may be something else, possibly mycoplasma or a chemical contaminant, and as a result will go undetected to become a more serious problem
- The other factors which are said to be able to produce the CPE include:
- Chemical contaminants
- Age of the cell
- Environmental stress
- Cell culture experiments are supposed to include detailed mock-infections yet rarely do
- Mock-infections are supposed to be treated the same way as the experimental culture except without the “virus”
- Sometimes a “non-virulent strain” is used in the mock-infected specimen
- In a pivotal “SARS-COV-2” study by Zhou et al., the antibiotics in the experimental culture were doubled during the culture experiments to achieve a cytopathogenic effect in only 1 out of 24 cultures and this information was left out of the published study
- Regardless, mock-infections are not proper controls as only the variable being studied (the “virus”) should be eliminated
- As the unpurified fluids used also contain other host and foreign materials, contaminants, and pollutants, many confounding variables are eliminated as well if no human sample is used with the mock-infected culture
- Thus, a proper control for these pseudoscientific cell culture experiments would be utilizing a sample from a healthy host treated exactly the same way as the sample from the unhealthy host, “viral” transport media and all
If virology wants to be seen as a true science, it must adhere to the scientific method. This means that the experiments and the controls championed as the “gold standard” evidence for the field must be designed in adherence to this method. However, virology has it foundations rooted squarely in pseudoscience as there was never any naturally observed phenomena for which virology was built upon. The “virus” is an imaginary construct dreamt up in the minds of researchers who regularly failed to find a bacterial cause of disease who then assumed that there must be something else smaller and impossible to see contained within the fluids of sick humans. Like the very best Bigfoot hunters, virologists searched for these mythological entities for decades and failed to find direct evidence of them either directly within the fluids of a sick host or through various grotesque tissue cultures and inhumane animal experiments. The attempts to try and prove the existence of the fictional creations was on a downward trajectory, and by the 1950s, all was lost, and the field was ready to die its natural death.
However, things took a turn for the better for virology when John Franklin Enders introduced his fraudulent cell culture method in 1954 and ultimately revitalized the dying field. Virologists were now able to kill cells by combining various toxins in a Petri dish in order to create the picturesque works of art plastered all over the media as the representation of these mythological beings. The subsequent evidence and killing of the cell, referred to as the cytopathogenic effect, was redefined as a “virus” specific effect in order to establish an invalid dependent variable for the non-existent independent variable. Instead of direct evidence for the existence of these entities, a new form of indirect evidence was established in order to fool the masses with. Virology had successfully conjured up its own lab-created variables to play with rather than proving cause and effect through the study of any real-world phenomena.
While the field clung to the cell culture method in order to generate the pseudoscientific evidence needed to keep virology on life-support, there was a major problem that immediately popped up, as pointed out by Enders, the inventor of the technique, which he described witnessing during his initial experiments. The CPE blamed on the “virus” was observed during both the “infected” cultures as well as in his “uninfected” control cultures. This should have been the death knell for virology as it was clear that the toxic experimental design created the effect being blamed on the invisible “virus” as shown by the controls. If this wasn’t damaging enough, various other researchers throughout the remainder of the 1950’s reported the same findings as the identical CPE blamed on the “virus” was observed in healthy monkey control cultures said to contain no “viruses” whatsoever. Some researchers admitted that this effect could not be used to claim a “virus” was present and then relied on equally fraudulent antibody results to support their “virus” claims instead. Others attempted to state that the healthy control cultures contained “virus-like” agents yet failed miserably in attempts to prove pathogenicity using these fluids, thus showing instead that nothing meeting the definition of a “virus” was present. On top of this, many other factors became known to cause this same cytopathogenic effect other than the assumed “viruses” such as bacteria, amoeba, the antibiotics used, the age of the cell, etc. Virology had successfully refuted itself.
As the detailed descriptions of the control cultures proved the “virus” was not to blame for the observed CPE, many subsequent papers either stopped detailing what was done to the controls or simply avoided using controls all together. Controls known as mock-infections, if present in studies today, are ill-defined and have been shown in cases to be completely fraudulent, such as in the Zhou et al. paper, which treated the mock-infected control differently than the experimental culture, thus invalidating the results of a seminal “SARS-COV-2” paper. While these mock-infections are a form of control, they can hardly be considered proper controls as they do not eliminate only the “virus” particles from the equation. Also eliminated are the rest of the potential organisms, contaminants, chemicals, etc. within the fluids, which have been added to the “viral” sample that are subsequently left out of the mock-infected cultures, which contain no fluids from humans whatsoever. Thus, it can not be said that mock-infected cultures only change up the one variable being studied as there are many variables removed from the equation. Therefore, mock-infections without a comparable human sample minus the assumed “virus” is not a proper control.
If virology wants to be a true science, it must go back to the drawing board. Virologists must attempt to observe a natural phenoma where the independent variable (i.e. the cause; “virus”) can be observed in nature. At the very least, this means that they must find the particles that they believe are “viruses” directly in the fluids of a sick host and determine a way to get these particles away from everything else within the fluids. Virologists must determine a valid dependent variable (i.e. the effect being studied; symptoms of disease) in order to establish a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. Only then would a valid experiment be able to be designed, including the establishment of proper controls. Nowhere was this process carried out in order for Enders to create the cell culture method. As the cell culture is not a valid scientific experiment adhering to this process, any and all controls are scientifically invalid as a result. Thus, it really is a waste of time arguing whether or not virology uses controls as their methods are built upon a pseudoscientific foundation. We can argue for virologists to implement what would be proper controls given the pseudoscientific parameters of their experiment, but it is clear that even despite their lack of use of proper controls, virology disproved itself long ago.
It is time to focus instead on the heart of the issue, the lack of adherence to the scientific method. The best control of all is to have virologists walk us through how their field adheres to the scientific method. What natural phenomena was observed? How did the virologists identify and establish a valid IV? What is the DV? What hypothesis led to the creation of the cell culture method, and how was this determined? How was this cell culture method validated without first having successfully purified and isolated the “virus” in order to learn how to grow one? How can virologists justify using a lab-created effect to claim a cause that can not be observed until after the experiment takes place when this is the antithesis of the scientific method? Asking virology to show how it adheres to the scientific method is a control that they will fail at every time. It is the only control needed.
I confess to skimming as I’ve been in this over and again.
Transgenerational networks of organised crime in bed with Intelligence and MIC affiliated corporates (Whitney Webb) easily accounts for rigging the systems on and under which we operate or think. This insinuated if not stated regarding Gallo when I read the account of what he ‘published’ via Media release (sic) to launch that bandwagon effect – never truly rolled back – and so still actively wreaking incentivised degradation and death by pharma.
But credit for going the extra mile in your revealing of contradictions and falsifications in ‘the science’.
One thing I note hasn’t been followed up to my awareness is that when the first claims for discovery of the novel virus were published, there was the legal waiver of “No investigation as to causation of any disease was made”.
So where is the means of establishing that the disease symptoms in the cluster under study in Wuhan’s toxic smog were in any way linked to or caused by a novel pathogen that was therefore given full powers against a ‘lack of immune system’ because ‘new’, as well as maximal powers of threat.
I bet there is none such science anywhere – just as no one afaik empirically studies the mechanisms of presumed transmission – because life doesn’t support the model. The only clinical commonality that might qualify as a distinct symptom is the blood condition by which difficulty breathing is experienced. Only suspect causes within virological assumption are researched. Toxicology and radiation are not. Nocebo via shock cultured mistreatments and isolations are not. Otherwise the only basis for covid are the so called ‘tests’.
But the narrative ‘covid’ is a mass identity investment set in motion by shock, directed by investors following profits and incepted into the minds of common parlance as not only real, bit they lived the movie!
PS your email notifications come to me right aligned – almost off screen. Might be my old Mac system, might be a simple error affecting others too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My Substack email messes up a bit sadly. It’s probably best just to go straight to the site and read from there. Substack frustrates me. 😞
Thanks for the amazing Christmas present! You do an excellent job of being thorough yet keeping on the main point. It would be interesting to put together your articles into a book format, like an expanded “Farewell to Virology”. Greatly appreciate your efforts!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much Ben! I do plan to write a book eventually. Hopefully this coming year. 🤞🙂
Wow, Mike, what a great piece of research!! Thank you for the holiday season present!!
A couple of months ago, i was arguing with a FB “friend” (actually a couple using one name), they were trying to tell me that distilled water is a sufficient control for any experiment, proven what clowns they are. Performance artists trying to pass off as health freedom activists knowledgeable in science. They actually stated they have their audience take votes as to what positions to take on various matters regarding Operation “Pandemic,” which is why they persist as Virus Pushers Against Clotshots.
Again, thanks a LOT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome Jeffrey! Sooner or later we will either reach these people or they will be left in the dust as this house of cards comes tumbling down. 😉
Those pretenders had the chutzpah to call Christine Massey a “hag” who made up FOIs tailored to get negative answers, they weren’t counting on her responding with facts. 🙂 Already left in the dust. I unfriended them. Hard to believe they managed to become admins for a “health freedom” FB group.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christine is a warrior! She can easily dismantle false claims against her. It does sicken me how people in the “health freedom” community continue to mischaracterize her FOI’s as well as what the “No Virus” argument is all about. They either do not want to understand or they are deliberately trying to muddy the waters. I’m leaning towards the latter.
Mike, i am leaning toward a mixture of both. They don’t want to understand, and want to muddy the water, because they are invested in the “virus” narrative, either financially, or emotionally. The latter may be either direct emotional investment in having argued that line to where it would feel they’d be undermining what they’ve stood for were they to reverse course, or an emotional investment in movement “celebrities” like RFK Jr or Bigtree or… and not wanting to see them undermined in any way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I definitely agree that there is an emotional attachment to the narrative as well as running up against strong cognitive dissonance. Time will tell if they are able to be intellectually honest enough to see their own errors.
In your subsequent reply (which doesn’t have a “Reply” button), you mention your FB ‘friend’ saying that Christine Massey’s FOIA requests are designed to fail. Many half truthers make that criticism, including Kirsch, A Midwestern Doctor (whoever he is), and (slightly) RFK Jr.
At my suggestion, Christine wrote a web page to which people can link whenever that gaslighting happens. I’ve used it a few times already:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sanjoy, thanks for your response. The presence or lack thereof of “reply” buttons is not under my control, i have no idea why some responses have them and others do not. Many thanks for your excellent suggestion to Christine. She responded to them herself, as did i, in fact additionally demanding they remove the ad hominem used. I unfriended them when they failed to do so. But indeed, this is a common response of half truthers i’ve come to expect. Keep on doing the good work, please!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Truth”! The real gold-standard of reality. Thank you for this great piece, and all you do Mike! Have a blessed Christmas and beyond with you and yours! John 18:37-38
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the kind words and support Mike! I very much appreciate it. Have a wonderful Christmas and beyond with you and your as well. 🙂
In the so-called human sciences everything that belongs to the submicroscopic domain is the domain of the imaginary, starting with atoms.
As for so-called electron microscopy, this is one of the great scams of the so-called scientific world.
In fact, all the laboratory procedures by which so-called scientists claim to have proved the existence of atoms and molecules are mere scams biased to support the lies of materialistic evolution.
For example, agarose gel electrophoresis is claimed to separate DNA, RNA, and proteins based on their properties, such as size and electrical charge.
In reality, there are no control experiments to confirm the results of agarose gel electrophoresis, for the simple fact that no one has ever produced direct, uninterpretable evidence of the existence of any DNA, RNA, or protein “molecule” .
In other words, no one has ever isolated, purified, and visualized (not even two-dimensionally) a protein structure, a nucleotide, or a DNA/RNA chain.
All the particles that the so-called molecular biologists talk about are imaginary fables artistically represented by graphic representations (drawings, computer generated images).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great article Mike as usual.
I found the story about Fluorescent Antibody and Complement-Fixation Tests interesting.
These tests use Immunofluorescence Microscopy and use an enzyme called luciferase. This enzyme can attach to all living cells that contain ATP (adenosine triphosphate a nucleate). Note the fact “living cells”.
The same technique is used in PCR to determine the “qualitative” value of the test. They try and tell us that it can determine the viruses quantitatively. That is wrong and is misleading.
The interesting part is that only living cells contain contain ATP. We are told that “viruses” are not alive and need living cells in which to replicate.
Therefore this technique is not a valid method to detect viruses. It is detecting all the other stuff form the money cells etc., that are added to the petri dish for the cultures.
How do I know this? I used to sell bioluminescence assay testing equipment for surface contamination testing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If viruses are not alive, why do they say they can live on surfaces? And why do they sell products that claim to kill viruses?
Oh I agree with you. The purpose of the the product was to indicated the the surface was cleaned and there were no pathogens or bacteria that could could contaminate. The have tied to twist this technique as a tool to try and say that viruses can be detected using bioluminescence, but it cannot as it relies on ATP being present.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now this article is highly useful. It has excellent reference material and valuable historical information. It’s just what the virologist ordered. Anyone who has read it should be able to demonstrate the foolishness of the attempts to prove the existence of viruses. Thanks very much Mike. Make sure you keep backups of all your material because one day they make try to get rid of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks George! I am definitely backing everything up. Gotta be extra careful these days. 😉
Culture shock – Are lab-grown cells a faithful model for human disease?
. . .Study author Richard Meehan from the MRC Human Genetics Unit at the University of Edinburgh, UK, said: “We were astonished by the speed and spread of the changes. Many cultured cells used in research have been grown for decades and as a result are likely to have very different properties from the cells they are supposed to model. Our findings suggest that we have to be circumspect about the interpretation of some previous experiments, and our data reinforces a growing realisation that cell line models of human diseases, particularly cancer, can be poor surrogates for many aspects of in-vivo biology.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
My recent FOIA request to the CDC.
I am requesting information concerning the storage of SARS-COV-2 virus samples.
Specifically, in what kind of containers are samples stored? What are the containers
made from, how are they sealed and in what conditions are they stored, at what temperature are they stored, are they subject to any photon radiation, electromagnetic radiation or thermal radiation, and are they stored in a vacuum or in some type of gas or atmosphere? How are the containers, in which the samples are stored, marked? Are the
virions, which are the virus particles, the only thing present in the container? Is there any type of gas or mixture of gases present in the container with the virions? Are the virions quantified in the container? How many are stored in the containers and what is their total mass? Is there any kind of solution, element, compound, or genetic material present in the container with the virions? Are the virions in a mixture of any known or unknown substance or substances in the container?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sure the CDC does not have one smidgen of covid virus in stock and never has had any in stock. Good luck finding it. You might need to petition the Chinese in Wuhan. Or, better yet, get a hold of that fauci dude since he probably has some in his laboratory in the basement…along with some SARS CoV-3 to be used at a future date. He’ll need a hobby to become engrossed in during his retirement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The request I put to them and their pending answer is for the benefit of some of my coworkers.
Awesome! Let me know what they say! 😁
I got a response already. Here it is –
“Under the Freedom of Information Act, agencies are not required to respond to requests by creating records, conducting research, or answering questions posed as a FOIA request. For additional information concerning FOIA procedural requirements you may wish to visit the Department of Justice website at https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-
procedural-requirments. In order to respond to your request, we will need to conduct a search for agency records which may respond to your request. In accordance with the Act and the Department’s FOIA regulations, we ask that you provide a specific request for documents within a system of records controlled and maintained by this agency.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Imagine you are searching for something (an “it”) you believe might exist but have never seen before. How would you ever know you found “it”? You would have to eliminate all known “thats” and then perhaps the remains might be the “it” you seek. How could you ever be sure that if you were left with an “it”, it might really be a “them”? But then, you don’t know what a “them” looks like either. Do you make assumptions and hope you have found the “it” you seek? I see the virologist’s dilemma…so what do you do? Instead of wasting more time and money on research and evidence based science, you fake it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I recently purchased a one-half acre building lot. Afterwards, I rented a dump truck and went to the landfill, where I bought a ton of debris that people had dropped off for recycling. I brought the debris back to my property and dumped it there. Then I built a structure on the property from the debris. My neighbors came by and asked me what it was. I told them I had assembled the debris into their original structure. They asked me how I knew the structure had existed before. I told them a man who lived in my old neighborhood had built one in the same manner. Then they wanted to know how he knew that the structure he built from the material he bought from the landfill had existed before. I explained that he had had the same experience as me and that this process had taken place over and over again since landfills were invented.
They said the structure I had built was a copy of a copy, and so on as far back as the first one, and there is no proof the first one had prior existence, and neither is there proof any of these structures had prior existence. To establish proof of any structure’s prior existence, I would have needed the initial intact structure, then disassembled it, identified each component, and created a drawing or model of each component’s position in the structure. Then, after the disassembled components were taken to the landfill, they could be recovered by going through the debris, finding all of the identified components, and removing them for reconstruction. Furthermore, the reconstruction would have to match the drawing or model.
They went on to say that the first construction that was constructed from unidentified components brought from the landfill was constructed from an abstract concept, which, by definition, means that it existed in thought or as an idea without having a physical or concrete existence. The first construction, which was later copied, was an abstract creation, and I could not prove it was the reconstruction of an original structure.
Then I asked, can the duplication of a procedure to produce a construction from an abstract model produce a model of a reconstructed structure?
They said no. Only the duplication of a procedure to reconstruct a reconstructed structure can be proven to have produced a reconstructed structure.
I asked, “Why?”
They said because you must have the original construction at the beginning of the procedure to identify its components as components of the original structure. The components that you used were taken from the landfill but were not identified as coming from a specific, previously existing structure. You don’t know where they came from, and neither do those from whom you copied your procedure.
I told them that my structure was actually functional and that it performed a function that I assumed the original structure performed, and that this is how I know I reconstructed the original.
They said that because I never had the original structure, I couldn’t know what, if any, function it performed. They also said that I would have to prove my structure functions as I claim. And then, even if I did, I have no way of proving that my structure functions like the one I claim originally existed.
Then I told them that some of the parts in my structure must match the original because they align with some of the parts in the model of what I claim to be a reconstruction.
They said that was a logical fallacy and circular reasoning because you can’t create a structure, make a model of it, and claim that it was a reconstruction because some of the parts you used to construct it match your model. You must have the original with all of its assembled parts and make a model from that in order to make a valid comparison.
Now, I forgot to mention that all of these people believed in viruses. So I asked them, “Isn’t this the same procedure that your virologists use to prove the existence of viruses?” And isn’t their PCR test, which they claim detects the virus, the same as my claim that some of the parts in my structure match the original because they align with the model of what I claimed to be a reconstruction?
Bingo! “Fake it til you make it” is the virologists code of honor. 😉
It could take a while to get a response from the CDC. Most people think that the CDC has samples of all the viruses stored someplace. When they respond I’ll show it to these people I work with and see what their reaction is and I’ll let you know.
In the submicroscopic realm no one has ever isolated, purified, visualized and characterized anything, really.
All that is circulated in the so-called sub-microscopic sciences are fairy tales made up to impress the masses in order to keep people in fear and ignorance to be easily manipulated.
Scientific fraud is colossal even in the visible field of microscopy.
99.(9)% of the scientific claims made about the visible field of microscopy are assumptions presented to the public as firmly established facts.
Did you know that no one has ever isolated, purified, visualized, or characterized any “molecule” that could be called a “vitamin”?
Check this out and you will find that “vitamins” are just hypothetical, theoretical “molecules”… presented to the public through schematic drawings and computer images and animations.
Did you know that the same is true for so-called hormones… and for so-called enzymes… and for so-called proteins… and for so-called nucleotides… that is, more precisely, for all so-called “molecules” ?
Yes, although it seems unbelievable, in reality… that’s exactly how it is.
In other words, no one has ever isolated, purified, visualized, and characterized any “molecule” of anything…for the simple fact that “molecules” are purely hypothetical constructs, never proven to exist by direct and uninterpretable methods.
Investigate critically the claims of so-called scientists regarding the so-called electron microscopic visualization of so-called atoms and so-called molecules, and you will immediately be convinced that there is NO isolation, no purification, and no visualization of what they call atoms and molecules, but only an endless mass of “scientific explanations”, compiled in a highly sophisticated language inaccessible to the average person, which are seasoned with schematic drawings and computer-generated images by which naive people are fooled, gullible people and conceited people who are afraid of being ridiculed… just like the people in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale about the emperor’s invisible clothes.
Ultrafast Electronic Characterization of Proteins and Materials
One wonders when the technology will enable virologists to characterize viral particles in the air. Or perhaps they won’t use it because it won’t detect the presence of virus particles because they don’t exist.
“One wonders when the technology will enable virologists to characterize viral particles in the air.” They already claim to have this technology. But, at this point, it can only detect viruses out of thin air.
The sciences that are fed to the masses are far bigger and more perverse lies than even religions.
It is shocking to see how easily people believe the most stupid and idiotic lying claims issued by so-called scientists.
The more stupid a supposedly scientific claim is, the more people blindly believe it, even if they don’t understand anything about it because it is designed in such a way that it cannot be understood.
Unfortunately, the real problem is not the so-called scientists who lie in a shockingly stupid way, but the people who choose to blindly believe their ridiculous lies.
Have you noticed that 99.(9)% of people blindly believe all the claims of so-called scientists, never doubt the claims of so-called scientists, never critically analyze the claims of so-called scientists, and never demand evidence to support the claims of so-called scientists?
Observable biology is evidence.
Fact that you can culture bacteria from wound, would heal and you don’t die, all that without antibiotics.
Apart seeing it, control experiments can be carried. hopefully most do not believe it but red studies that actually sometimes unintentionally prove it.
Since microorganisms exist in healthy person no need to believe it, logical conclusion is evidence of homeostasis.
This is not really contradicting itself. And that is what we claim. If it is such process it’s both active and positive as death or illness (negative) is not outcome.
Well you are making these claims without evidence and I believe sourcing these claims could likely include references to your asked questions.
I can only speak for myself, I am not refusing to analyze anything. I analyzed virus hoax, I never seen the evidence of DNA and do question all of these you falsely include in list of what “we” allegedly do not question. I even analyzed Holocaust and ww2 enforced narrative for which questioning people are put in prison, which also ironically proves It is same (jewish) lie that is even bigger and even perverse then you can imagine if you haven’t.
The last question is also false dychotomy as most of us do just that.
Thanks Mike. Another in depth article.
On N L
What is the purpose of controls in science?
NEXT LEVEL – Knowledge rethought:
Answers to questions from the community
🅾️ Today on VirusTHEORY
What is the purpose of controls in science?
In science, it is imperative to control the methods and experiments used. Not only to exclude confounding factors and misinterpretation, and to be able to deduce causal relationships. But also to exclude the possibility that the experimental set-up itself is not responsible for the experimental result.
Experimental set-up and performance MUST be documented for each step.
In virus detection studies, there are occasionally papers that mention a certain degree of experimental control in the cell culture experiments in the text (“mock-infected”). However, if one then asks the authors for the exact experimental set-up or documentation, this cannot be provided.
👉 Part 2
deepL translate: https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal/90
What is the purpose of controls in science?
Often, for example, a so-called “mock-infection” is described, a cell culture that is carried in parallel, but which, for example, was not treated with the exact same additives and conditions, and/or which was not mixed with any sample.
Neither of these is a control for the certainty of results of the experimental set-up !
The necessary controls for this have not yet been carried out for whole genome sequencing, neither as a single experiment, nor as a parallel co-experiment. We have had this confirmed in writing by many of the major institutions and authors of the authoritative Sars-Cov-2 publications.
Russia’s Pasteur Institute confirms: Necessary control experiments were not carried out !
The Pasteur Institute in Saint Petersburg confirmed that necessary control experiments were not carried out. They interpreted the water sample as a control experiment, which, however, only excludes contamination.
The “negative control water sample” is NOT a control experiment to detect pathogenic “viruses” (see here).
No control experiments performed to construct SARS-CoV-2 from negative samples.
No control experiments performed to search with primers for Ebola, measles etc. in the SARS-CoV-2 positive samples and try to perform “whole genome sequencing” from them for these claimed “viruses” as well.
-For correspondence- see attachmed file
Source deepL Translate : https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal/85
What does “negative control samples” mean, such as buffer or water ?
The “water/buffer sample” is a WHO requirement/guideline.
A “water sample” should always be included in all sequencing steps to exclude the possibility of contaminating a sample or generating artefacts.
-Purified water contains no nucleic acid. If the water is sequenced in the laboratory and such nucleic acids are found, it is assumed that the gene sequences have entered the water through coughing or contamination, for example. Now it is automatically assumed that not only the water but also the sample(s) prepared for sequencing have been contaminated.
!! The “negative control water sample” is NOT a control experiment for the detection of pathogenic “viruses” . !!
(But is gladly referred to as such by the laboratories
Does water have DNA?
Source deepL tranlsate : https://t.me/NextLevelOriginal/84
As for Nike’s comments as will not dedicated the time to analyse how science is fabricated, it makes sense.
If the atom theory and electrons is an unproven model, following the rules of thought and logic, everything based on that model is also false..
Referring to my previous comment, I am already completely convinced that virology is a complete fraud. I am just looking for information out of interest. I like to try to understand as much as I can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a question. I don’t know where to ask it, so I thought here might be a good place. Here it is: You know Tom Cowan and others say that, when sequencing a ‘coronavirus,’ the virologists have a template to attempt to match the sequences to. And that the template they use is based on the previous template, and that one is also based on a previous template, and that one is also based on a previous template, etc, etc, all the way back to the VERY FIRST coronavirus. What I would like to know is, how EXACTLY did the virologists come up with the template of the VERY FIRST coronavirus if they didn’t have a template to try to match it to? I may not have explained myself very well here, but I’m sure a lot of people here will know what I mean anyway. This ‘infinite regress’ template thing has baffled me for ages.
I know Dr. Mark Bailey has traced it back to the Avian infectious bronchitis for “Coronaviruses” in the 80’s. He has an essay coming out in the future which will explore this. None of the samples were purified/isolated particles.
I did two articles on the creation of the 229E and OC43 genomes:
Neither came from purified/isolated “viral” particles.
I have a Influenza one that I have yet to update to the site which shows the same. Bottom line, no purified/isolated particles thus the provenance for the material that is assembled into a genome remains unknown.
Thanks. That’s my bedtime reading for tonight sorted out. I will also keep my eyes open for Mark Bailey’s essay and your influenza one. I can’t understand how people like McCullough and Hammond can read essays like yours and Mark Bailey’s and still refuse to admit that they know the truth. It really is bizarre.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It truly is bizarre. Regarding Hammond, while I won’t speak to motive, I defintely get the feeling he purposefully does not want to understand. He is very good at evading when caught in illogical statements. However, I going to keep poking him for fun on Twitter and see if I can get him to be intellectually honest for a change. 😉
There is a teaching (opposed to the theory of the pathogenesis of microorganisms) that says that microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia, all have only beneficial effects on the health of living organisms, because they feed on devitalized tissues and toxins to neutralize.
Question: – What is the evidence that confirms this teaching?
Question: – How do we know that this teaching corresponds to reality and is not, in fact, just a subjective interpretation, that is, an assumption?
Question: – Why do people who do not believe in the pathogenicity of microorganisms (because they have critically analyzed it and realized that it is a lie) unconditionally believe in the teaching that microorganisms have an active and beneficial role in maintaining health?
Question: – Why don’t those who do not believe in the pathogenicity of microorganisms ask whether microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia are nothing but simple stages of the decomposition of biological matter down to the level of microzymes, without any of active and positive effect in the mechanisms by which the body self-detoxifies and self-regenerates?
There is a teaching that says that microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia are living organisms that ingest, digest, excrete, multiply and produce their own vital energy.
Question: – How do we know that this teaching corresponds to reality and is not, in fact, just a subjective interpretation, that is, just an assumption?
Question: – Why do those who do not believe in the pathogenicity of microorganisms (because they have critically analyzed it and realized that it is a lie) believe unconditionally in this teaching and refuse to critically analyze it?
Question: – Can the actions by which microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia ingest, digest, excrete, multiply and produce their own vital energy be confirmed beyond doubt by realistic and honest control experiments?
Question: – Are there unfalsified in vitro and in vivo photo and video images showing how microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia ingest, digest, excrete, multiply and produce their own life energy?
Question: – Is there indisputable evidence that microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia have within themselves structures by which they swallow, digest, excrete, multiply and produce their own vital energy?
Question: – How is it that those who do not believe in the pathogenicity of microorganisms (because they have critically analyzed it and realized that it is a lie) do not critically analyze the so-called mitochondria, the so-called adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules and so on the so-called molecular chains of nucleic acids (DNA and RNA)?
Question: – What non-interpretable evidence (which excludes conjecture) exists regarding the existence and functions of the so-called mitochondria, the so-called adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules, and the so-called nucleic acid molecular chains (DNA and RNA)?
Question: – There is indisputable evidence that microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia multiply by themselves and that it is not a matter of misinterpretation regarding this aspect (for example: what appears to be a multiplication by division actually be a multiplication by the appearance of new microorganisms that are born from the biological material in the process of decomposition)?
Question: – What is the evidence that the so-called microbiologists (that the human species, in general) can correctly understand the structure and functions (if there are functions) of microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia if we think about the microscopic scale at which they exist these structures?
Question: – What realistic, correct and honest control experiments can be done on a microscopic scale regarding all that is stated about the structure and alleged functions of microorganisms called microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi, mycelia?
Another teaching says that:
1) that some of the microorganisms would contain in their structure toxic molecules called endotoxins, that they would be located intracellularly or intraparietal and that they would be released after the microorganisms are destroyed either by programmed death or by treatment with antibiotics
2) that some of the microorganisms would continuously produce toxic molecules called exotoxins, which they would send outside permanently, not only after the death of the respective microorganisms, that the respective toxins would be of protein nature, that they would have an enzymatic action, that they would be very active and that they would have an extremely high noxiousness, that their protein structure would give them antigenic character and that they would be able to trigger a strong immune reaction from the host organism
Question: – Has anyone ever isolated and purified any endotoxin or exotoxin molecule so that they could visualize, sequence and characterize it so that toxicity experiments could then be done with the pure substance?
Question: – How have the supposed internal processes by which some of the microorganisms create and release so-called exotoxins been documented beyond any doubt?
Question: – How is it that those who rightly deny the existence of viruses prefer to believe unconditionally in all the other statements of the so-called microbiologists and the so-called molecular biologists and never think to analyze them as well critically how did they analyze the existence of so called viruses?
There are only two schools of thought as far as I know. One is germ theory and the other is terrain theory. Obviously the germ theory is wrong. Is the terrain theory right?
Right now I believe some aspects of it are true and others remain to be proven. At least it’s a step in the right direction. Actually, I make all of my health decisions based on the terrain theory. So far I’m still alive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you sure that the same self-proclaimed scientists who issued lies about the existence, structure and functions of so-called viruses are telling us the truth about so-called microorganisms?
Are you convinced that the same self-proclaimed scientists who invented lies about the existence, structure and functions of so-called viruses that they presented to us as indisputable truths do not also invent lies about microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi and mycelia and present them to us as indisputable truths?
Have you cross-checked all the claims made by so-called scientists about microzymes, spores, bacteria, bacilli, microbes, fungi and mycelia as rigorously as you have cross-checked all the claims made by the same so-called scientists about so-called viruses?
Confessions of an electron microscopist.
“For transmission electron microscopy, a beam of electrons is passed through a sample. Because electron microscopes are operated in a vacuum, specimens need to be dehydrated. To avoid alterations in tissues caused by dehydration (like raisins from grapes), the tissue must be cross-linked or ‘fixed’ to preserve structure. Fixatives typically used in electron microscopy include glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. Conventionally fixation is performed on ice since tissue preservation is better in immobilized and inactive samples.”
“Conventional chemical fixation often leads to artifacts such as shrinkage, membrane distortion and aggregation of proteins. Rapid freezing is a widely used method for stopping cellular metabolism and activity instantaneously and can avoid some of the artifacts observed using ice-cold fixatives. Freezing of specimens, however, introduces new artifacts because the water in cells becomes crystallized during the process. Ice expands and breaks membranes. To avoid the formation of ice crystals, samples can be frozen under high-pressure (~2000 bar). Such samples exhibit excellent preservation (Figure 3). . .”
“How can an electron be used to image structure? Electrons are negatively charged particles, and are repelled by electrons surrounding the nucleus of atoms. This interaction causes propagating electrons to scatter. Thus, contrast can be generated by electron-dense materials in the path of the electron beam. There are two factors affecting scattering in transmission electron microscopy: sample thickness and the atomic number of the contrasting agent (Figure 6). . .
. . .Unfortunately, biological specimens do not generate much contrast because they are typically composed of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen – atoms with similar atomic number. Thus tissues are stained with heavy metals, such as osmium, uranium or lead. . .”
“A problem with electron microscopy is that it is not very well-suited for the identification of proteins in sections. Immuno-electron microscopy is difficult (Figure 7), and morphology is compromised. New methods are being developed which combine super-resolution fluorescence microscopy and electron microscopy (Figure 8). . .”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why are the so-called Human Sciences so prolific, vast and complicated?
The answer is in the quotes below.
„People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one.”
– Adolf Hitler
„He who tells a lie is not sensible of how great a task he undertakes; for he must be forced to invent twenty more to maintain that one.”
– Alexander Pope
I’ve added more “misinformation” to the internet. A fair amount of it is a compilation of my comments that I’ve posted on this website. And I’d like to thank those who post here for providing me with the stimulus (through their own comments) to collect and post information and also to Mike for providing the website and writing informative articles about the subjects we discuss.
Information for those seeking spiritual clarity on the subject of Covid-19 vaccination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So-called geneticists, virologists or molecular biologists, whatever they are, never collect any kind of genetic material, but only assume and claim to harvest it, to sequence it, to multiply it, to characterize it and that they alter it through targeted manipulation, even though they can produce no direct evidence, no uninterpretable evidence, to support their claims.
After which, manipulating fear, ignorance, credulity, convenience, indifference and, above all, vanity in people’s souls, through the appeal to scientific authority and scientific consensus (“it is as we say, because we are scientists and because most of us say the same”), the so-called scientists declare that anyone who questions their claims is a very big fool.
The wise man would agree with you.
“This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead.” – Ecclesiastes 9:3
So-called scientists claim that through RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) they are able to numerically multiply (not amplify in size, i.e. enlarge) a specific sequence of genetic material, resulting in a colossal number of sequences of genetic material that are identical in size to the original sequence that is subjected to the amplification process called RT-PCR.
So-called scientists claim that because sequences of genetic material are too small in size to be isolated, purified, visualized and processed for physical and bio-chemical characterization, they are forced to multiply them numerically by the RT-PCR test because by direct harvesting too little genetic material is obtained compared to what is needed to allow them to study the respective sequences of genetic material to be able to reconstruct the entire chain of specific genetic material of a virus, a bacterium or a cell (i.e., the complete DNA or RNA molecule).
Notice the contradictions?
Let’s summarize the statements of scientists:
1) – scientists claim that the sequences of genetic material are too small to be analyzed physically and bio-chemically;
2) – scientists claim that through direct harvesting too few sequences of genetic material are obtained to be analyzed;
3) – scientists claim that numerically multiplying a specific sequence of genetic material (not enlarging its size) by RT-PCR provides a large enough number of copies identical in size for the sequence of genetic material to be analyzed;
Shocking, don’t you think?
That is, although scientists claim that the too small sizes of genetic material sequences are to blame for their inability to analyze them, they still claim that if they obtain very large numbers of copies identical in size by numerical multiplication with RT-PCR, this will enable them to physically and bio-chemically analyze sequences of genetic material that are too small in size to be analyzed individually.
How would it come about: I can’t read what’s written on a grain of sand because it’s too small and I can’t see what’s written on it even with an electron microscope, but if I copy the grain of sand and get a few billion grains of sand identical including in size, then I will be able to read what is written on the original grain of sand, i.e. the one after which I made billions of identical copies including in size.
In other words, scientists declare that there is NO technology that enables them to physically and bio-chemically analyze specific sequences of genetic material because they are too small in size.
These same scientists admit that there is NO technology that enables them to physically and bio-chemically isolate and analyze entire chains of genetic material because they are too small in size.
Scientists also recognize that there is NO technology that enables them to magnify specific sequences or entire chains of specific genetic material in order to physically and bio-chemically analyze them.
For these same scientists to claim that problems related to the too small size of genetic material are solved not by developing microscopy technologies that can magnify images more but by producing very large numbers of copies identical in size to sequences of material genetic.
How is it possible for scientists to issue such hoaxes?
The answer is simple: take advantage of the blind trust that people have in them.
And for those who begin to ask deep questions, scientists come up with the explanation that a very large number of identical copies made of a sequence of genetic material by RT-PCR technology allows them to analyze it physically and bio-chemically by indirect methods .
And, coming to indirect methods, we enter the realm of life where everything that scientists claim must be true, simply because they have been given official status as scientists by the System.
Research the satire of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale about the invisible clothes of the emperor.
You’re correct. They are saying that since the whole thing is too small to detect then we have to resort to taking a smaller part of it and then multiply that in order to confirm the presence of the whole thing. If one is the limit to detecting the virus then the virus must be smaller than one. wv<1 or WV is less than one. And spwv<WV or a small part of the whole virus is less than the whole virus. But they say, we can take spwv*n or the small part of the whole virus times n and which is the number of cycles, and then claim that the product of that equation is greater than 1, which is the detection limit, and not the number of cycles. Actually we cannot perform the last calculation because we don't know what spwv is. We cannot quantify it, so we can't multiply it and come up with a sum because it is undefined.
Their test is supposed to pick up parts of the virus and then they say that the whole virus is present because we picked up parts of it. But they never had the virus to begin with. So how can they say they know what the parts are that they're priming the test for? They can multiply those parts as many times as they want but that does not mean that any of them were in the so-called virus to begin with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve finished with Jeremy Hammond now. He is completely ridiculous. Just like Steve Kirsch, he must be faking his level of stupidity. People like those two simply cannot be that stupid, particularly as they have been exposed for some time to the perfectly logical arguments from the no-virus team. They both know exactly what we are all saying. But their arguments are still totally illogical. For example, they both say that alternative explanations are required to properly refute a hypothesis. That is just obviously wrong, and a child could understand why it is wrong. They obviously have some kind of an agenda. So the most meticulous scientific proof possible would not change their minds. I just cant be bothered with those kind of people any more. They are just smug, pathetic individuals. Rant over. Peace out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I forgot to mention that I left Hammond with a pleasantry. Just in case I change my mind and decide to have a crack at the little weasel again. lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, wise move! I’ve been going back and forth with him on Twitter but it has devolved into Jeremy screaming that I am a liar over and over again. 🤣
In my recent article, I made the claim that virology was a form of divination and that vaccination was a form of sorcery. People who believe in the germ theory accept the teachings of diviners, whether they know that or not. People who believe in vaccines are involved with sorcerers. The virologist lays the foundation, and the sorcerer builds the house. People who are interested in making money will pay homage to the virologist and condemn the vaccinologist. They do this by writing and selling books about the dangers of vaccines, and they create videos about the dangers of vaccines and ask for donations to keep up the “good” work. The lawyers are the same way; they befriend the virologist and condemn the sorcerer. They make their money by suing vaccine manufacturers. If they admit that there are no viruses, then they will be out of business. They will have to get real jobs. They don’t want that.
It is pointless to argue with diviners or their friends because diviners do not use scientific methods. They seek to gain secret knowledge by supernatural means. This is not reasoning or the application of logic. I know that people debate with them and argue with them, but they get nowhere. They just waste their time.
We could debate whether they are self-deceived, have been deceived by others, or are simply outright liars, but we have no way of knowing. Now if we demonstrate the error to them and then they acknowledge that they were deceived, then we know at least they are not liars. But absent a confession, we can only conclude that they have a mental disorder or they’re lying.
It’s the sorcerer, the vaccinologist, that does the damage when he injects the poison into the ignorant. Like the virologist, the sorcerer is either self-deceived, has been deceived by others, or is outright lying. We can demonstrate the error to him in the same manner as we did with the diviner, with the same result.
So for me, it’s fairly simple:
1) Virology is divination
2) Vaccination is sorcery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. While I don’t like to give them any compliments, I feel they are smart enough to know better and completely understand how illogical they sound. There is definitely an agenda IMO.
Pretty interesting interview.
KARY MULLIS Y PETER DUESBERG VS LA FARMAFIA
LikeLiked by 1 person
Awesome article. Thanks for laying out a lucid treatment of the scientific process and fallacious cell-culture methodology, and demonstrating the obvious self-refutation of the pseudoscience of ‘virology’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome! 🙂
George. I tried to ‘Like’ your reply to me and your post after that, but my ‘Like’ button does not seem to be working. So, George, I liked both of those posts. You certainly know what is going on in this world. We need more people like you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the like. I very rarely run into anyone with the depth of knowledge that the people who make comments on this site have. It seems to me that only people who really want to know the truth search for it and find it. The rest just want to find someone in a position of authority to follow without question. That’s part of the problem with this virus issue (and many others), namely, validation by authority. The authority is always viewed as good and wise, ready to help, and of a benevolent nature. Nevertheless, it is a tremendous mistake to have this attitude toward authority. I am, of course, talking about human authority. These authority figures start out by touting their credentials, training, degrees, and awards. But they get their validation from other humans. So the issue stays within the human sphere. They are also able to influence courts and lawmakers into making bad decisions and passing bad laws; again, the issue stays within the human sphere. But what I’ve been trying to do is appeal to a higher authority to get the issue out of the human sphere and into the divine. If God says something is a sin, then that’s the end of it, regardless of what any human says. If I can prove that virologists are diviners, and diviners are an abomination based on the judgment of the higher authority, then the issue is infinitely more important, and people will look beyond authority figures and focus on the facts. And what else do these authority figures do? They call you an anti-vaxxer, a nutcase, and ignorant in matters of science. (Of course, they misrepresent science and try to obscure it in complexities.) But if vaccination is sorcery, an abomination, and anti-God, then they are simply persecuting you for your righteous stand, because you are anti-sorcery and pro-God. Now we’re on a higher plane, and more people will take notice of the argument and look into the facts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
(There’s a new kid on the block.)
How a scrappy African startup could forever change the world of vaccines
“The idea is to harness the game-changing potential of mRNA vaccines.” It’s a new approach that basically identifies what part of a virus or bacterium the human body’s immune system needs to latch on to in order to kill the pathogen.
What’s happening here?
They have the whole genome sequence of a computer-generated virus. By definition, it is not alive.
They believe the body’s immune system can “kill” (I guess they mean destroy) the whole thing by connecting to just the right part (I guess they mean a specific location in the sequence) of it.
According to their theory, the body will have to create antibodies to this particular partial sequence of the whole virus genome. So apparently the antibody is going to break into the viral particle through the protein coat, search for, and destroy this particular sequence. Apparently, thereafter, when the damaged virion enters the cell and hijacks the ribosome, the code is sufficiently damaged to prevent the replication process. So why doesn’t the ribosome just produce a copy of the damaged virion?
According to the theory, the virus has to bind to a specific cell receptor. Are they saying that the virion is still capable of binding after it has been damaged, or are they saying that it will not bind due to the damage done to the sequence? If it can’t bind, then it can’t replicate. If it can’t replicate, then it’s not dangerous. Why doesn’t the body do this to begin with without having to be taught to do it?
Are they saying that the mRNA contains the critical partial virus sequence that the ribosome reproduces so the body can generate antibodies to attack it? Wouldn’t this only teach the immune system to attack the specific partial sequence? Why would it comb through all larger sequences looking for just this partial sequence? Are antibodies this intelligent?
How would they test to determine if their procedure works? Antibody test? Cell culture after infection to determine if the partial sequence is missing or if the whole sequence is missing?
There are a lot of unanswered questions concerning this approach.
Needless to say, they created the virus in a computer, so there is no proof that it exists in nature. If the whole thing doesn’t exist in nature, then why should a part of it? If ribosomes are an artifact and do not replicate viruses, there is nothing to replicate. If cells do not have receptors, then there is nothing to bind to. If antibodies are nonspecific, then their test is meaningless. If the body has been trained to produce antibodies, and they culture after an infection and do not find the partial sequence, is it not because it was never there to begin with rather than the consequence of elimination by antibodies? So why would it matter what partial sequence of an imaginary virus is duplicated by mRNA? One could get the same result from any partial sequence. No?
Dear George, Thank you! “You ask too many (probing) questions and are disrupting the indoctrination…”
Once again Mike, you put the final nail into the coffin of virology! I would love to read your take on this post by A Midwestern Doctor from July: https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-the-existence-of-viruses
Most of his work is very modest and well reasoned, but he veered severely off the track with this post. It’s almost as if he has been fatally infected by the virology virus. He makes a good case for the anti-vaxx folks not making a contest out of the non-existence of viruses, but does us a very ironic disservice by accusing us of practicing pseudoscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve, it’s not our responsibility to prove the non-existence of a claimed “virus”, but rather, it is the ones claiming they have proven the existence (and have possession) of the claimed pathogenic entity they call “virus” (literally=poison) . Much as one accused of murder doesn’t prove their innocence of the murder… but the accuser must PROVE the accused guilty. Team Virus Inc. is simply trying to turn the tables of reason on the truth. The truth isn’t impressed.
I’m down with the burden of proof being on the one who makes the claim, Mike. I brought up Midwest Doc because his “The Forgotten Side of Medicine” series strikes me as completely reasonable and evidence driven. It would be leading edge if it weren’t based on what used to be common medical knowledge and practices.
His strong (and at points, naive) defense of the big V really surprised me. You’ve already demolished many of his arguments (e.g., rabies, ebola, phages, etc.). I thought you might find something unique in his writing. Plus he gets lots of eyeballs, many of which I can see turning your way if given an alternative view.
Thanks for the kind words Steve! I will give the link a look but it may take a bit as I’m kind of swamped at the moment. I’m curious what A Midwestern Doctor has to say. 😉
This might be out of context, but have you read the previous transmission study, posted in 2022, of sars 2 in macaques?
I can’t seem to find the methods section of this study, but they seem to show something that is characteristic in the CT scan of what is mostly found in patients labelled as COVID( bilateral ground glass veil at the periphery…..).
I’m not sure that I’ve read that but there are no specific biomarkers in “Covid” patients. The ground glass opacity is found with other diseases:
“Ground-glass opacities (GGO) are one of the main CT findings, but their presence is not specific for this viral pneumonia. In fact, GGO is a radiological sign of different pathologies with both acute and subacute/chronic clinical manifestations.”
This is my opinion.
I think the argument goes like this:
“Viral particles are too small to be seen.”
“So if you’ve never seen one, how do you know it exists?”
“We saw an effect and attributed its cause to viral particles.”
“How do you know that the effect you saw was caused by these invisible particles?”
“We found pieces of it, made computer models of the pieces, and put them back together using a computer program.”
“How did the program know what the complete assembly of the pieces looked like before it put them back together?”
That’s the end of the argument.
The real death knell for the virus theory is the control experiment. When you get the same effect (the cytopathic effect) without a patient sample, you know that the observed effect wasn’t caused by a virus.
The origin of the particles seen under electron microscopy cannot be determined. There is no way to prove they were in a sick person, that they replicate, that they are transmissible, or that they cause disease.
Now please consider this,
Divination is the practice of seeking knowledge of the unknown by supernatural means.
“Supernatural” is an event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding.
Thus, divination can be defined as the practice of seeking knowledge of the unknown by means of an event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding.
For the virologist (or diviner), the event is simply the cytopathic effect observed in cell cultures during a ritual process called “isolation,” which they attribute to the presence of a virus but which cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
Make no mistake, divination is a sin, a practice condemned by God, and it is also indicative of a mental disorder.
You’re right George, the more you look at the arguments, the more desperate and impossible they become.
Brilliant…. using logic and reason to connect the dots…You’ll never make it as a diviner…I mean, virologist!
Something is very fishy with mRNA technology.
The tangled history of mRNA vaccines
Yes, “Something is very fishy with mRNA technology”….(or, very
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an updated animal model of the supposed SARS 2 in macaques(2022). You made a previous article about this type of transmission study in 2021. It goes on to show the CT finding that’s most commonly associated with the condition they label COVID( bilateral bronchopulmonary ground glass veil at the periphery……). I would like to know what they did in the methods section to create such findings. Here is the link:
I have a guestion. This is from one of Jeremy Hammonds hit-pieces called “Cowan and Haberland Illuminate the Dogma of Virus Denialism.” It says this:
“Enders described isolating measles virus along with two additional “agents” during these cell culture experiments. The first of these was observed in an infected cell line and was distinguished from measles virus because it was “neutralized by herpes simplex immune rabbit serum”, suggesting that the agent was herpes simplex virus.
The second was obtained from the uninoculated control referenced by Cowan. Replacing the selected quote back into its context reveals Cowan’s deception: in fact, the paper states explicitly that the cytopathic effects caused by this agent were “easily distinguished” from the cytopathic effects of measles virus with subsequent observation, and antibodies generated to neutralize measles virus failed to bind with this other agent. Here is the very next sentence following the one Cowan deceitfully plucked from its context (emphasis added):
(“””But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the inter-nuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed. Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum. Obviously the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind.”””)
Thus, the Enders paper does not support Cowan’s claim that the observed cytopathic effects were caused by the treatment of the cell cultures since these effects were not observed in the other uninfected controls; and in the one uninfected control in which cytopathic effects were also observed, contrary to Cowan’s false claim, the effects were distinguished from those caused by the measles virus, and the cause of the cytopathic effects in this control culture were reasonably determined to be due to contamination of the monkey kidney cells with some other virus.”
My question is: What the hell is Hammond talking about?
Thanks everyone. Love from Doris. x
Hammond is claiming that, in the first instance, Enders isolated a non-measles “virus” in an infected culture as the indirect antibody results lined up with herpes rather than those deemed “specific” to measles
In the second instance, Enders noted the same CPE in an uninoculated control culture said to contain no “virus.” Hammond tried to rationalize that this was caused by an unknown monkey “virus” hiding in the kidney cells rather than the breakdown of the cell due to the experimental conditions.
Hammond is wrong as in no case was any “virus” ever directly observed or demonstrated, even the so-called measles “virus” being studied.
Excellent. Thank you. I am still learning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course! I am always happy to help. 🙂
Hi Mike. I am really grateful to you for helping me understand the scam of virology. But I have another question, I hope this is OK.
I was talking to someone yesterday and they said that covid and ‘asymptomatic transmission’ etc must be true because of what happened to all those old people in the care homes. This is one of many internet links about it:
I don’t even believe that any kind of ‘transmission’ is possible, let alone ‘asymptomatic transmission’. So, if you tell me what really happened to those poor old people, I would really appreciate it.
If I know the truth about this, it will be a good addition to my armory of information to defeat the arguments of the ‘covid believers’.
Many in these homes were mass tested by fraudulent PCR regularly. The results are scientifically meaningless as the PCR tests were never calibrated nor validated to a purified/isolated “virus,” amongst other reasons (high cycle thresholds, unknown disease prevalance, lack of standardization). This is why most people pegged as positive are asymptomatic as the test is not accurate. A positive result is just a label used to make it appear as if the “virus” spreads. If people are continually mass tested, they will eventually get a positive result. In the end, it all comes back to invalid labels of disease by a fraudulent test never meant as a diagnostic tool.
Just a heads up… Dr Cowan, or his team, are now deleting comments and blocking users who post critical feedback on his Bitchute channel
Hi Mike. I appreciate that the PCR test is just pure nonsense. But my grandson is a mobility equipment installer/servicer and he works in care homes all the time. And he told me that, during the covid ‘scamdemic’ (as I call it), the old people in those care homes were dying at a massive rate. I would appreciate your opinion about what might have caused this to happen. Personally, I wonder if if was due to old people, who should have stayed in hospital, being placed into care homes instead to ‘free up hospital beds’. And, obviously, care homes are not hospitals and they do not have the same medical facilities as hospitals. So the old people died due to the correct medical treatment not being available. Obviously they did not die from covid, because covid does not exist. Other possibilities could be that my grandson was mistaken or fooled into believing something that did not really happen. Or there could be a different explanation altogether. I have never found a really good explanation for this. And I think you may be able to give it to me. As always I really appreciate you helping me to understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it could be due to what you said as well as factors such as social isolation and increased fear. The elderly were cut off from seeing relatives, which alone can significantly impact health, especially in a time of increased fear and anxiety. The various drugs, treatments, and inappropriate care didn’t help matters either.
That’s odd. I wonder why.
I wrote in reply to another poster that Tom doesn’t read messages under BitChute videos (I made an assumption but meant he doesn’t answer them IME). She was appealing directly to him about the cost of his upcoming online seminar at $350 being too high for people who have recently lost jobs etc and really need the health support/information.
I agreed with her that Tom (and Andy) seemed to be slowly morphing into a kind of medical Tony Robbins 😉
I also said I had bought two of the analemma water wands on the strength of Tom’s recommendation, and the family had not noticed any effect whatsoever from them, and that I found the analemma marketing crass and manipulative and totally lacking in any kind of science. (I actually contacted Analemma at the time and asked where to find the science to back up their extraordinary claims, and they were defensive and told me nothing had been published.)
I said that I appreciate everyone has to make a living, but criticised Tom for not holding his pet interests to the same scientific standards he holds virology, whilst promoting products for personal financial gain (interestingly the exact same criticism JJ Couey now expresses, and reante ‘warned’ of, which the no-virus team dismiss as irrelevant in their response to Couey).
So yeah, it was worthy of deletion and blocking the poster if your priority is to protect your marketing image (grift).
LikeLiked by 1 person
It definitely looks bad. One of the reasons I do not promote products is because I feel it can damage credibility. If someone puts their name to a certain product whuch makes bold claims, then they must be able to defend it. We must hold whatever science supports the claims of any product to the same standards we hold virology to, especially if we sell it. Couey’s criticism does have validity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you put yourself up as a public ‘leader’ or spokesperson for a cause, it always damages your credibility AND your cause if you sell products on the back of your status.
Even worse if your reputation rests upon challenging pseudo-science and then you go enthusiastically promoting pseudo-scientific products for financial gain.
LikeLiked by 1 person