Challenging Influenza

“Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza.“

Bridges et al. 2003 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/37/8/1094/2013282?login=false

Last year, I took a look at the first ever human challenge trial for “SARS-COV-2” and showed why the results are fraudulent and completely pseudoscientific. Within the article, I provided an explanation from the WHO as to what a human challenge trail is and why these studies are considered mostly unethical today.

“Infectious human challenge studies involve deliberate exposure of human volunteers to infectious agents. Human challenge studies have been conducted over hundreds of years and have contributed vital scientific knowledge that has led to advances in the development of drugs and vaccines. Nevertheless, such research can appear to be in conflict with the guiding principle in medicine to do no harm. Well documented historical examples of human exposure studies would be considered unethical by current standards.”

Click to access Human_challenge_Trials_IK_final.pdf

Without rehashing everything here, let’s just say that the challenge studies conducted over the last 100 years, from the 1918 Rosenau Spanish flu experiments to many other similar studies, consistently failed to show human-to-human transmission of disease using the fluids of sick individuals. It was thus deemed much more ethical to create toxic soups from diseased brains and spinal cords of humans and animals and then inject these concoctions into the brain, eyes, throat, nose, stomach, veins, testicles, etc. of healthy animals. It was easier for the researchers to create experimental disease in this unnatural manner and then claim that the results seen from torturing animals were somehow relevant to humans.

As the results from human challenge studies have been consistently unsuccessful, as noted in the opening quote by Bridges et al., these studies are not performed very often. However, sometimes, we get lucky and see modern-day interpretations of these experiments using lab-manufactured cell cultured goo that is injected into the nose of willing participants. Interestingly, the most recent of these studies have both involved the same researcher, Jonathan S. Nguyen-Van-Tam. The study presented below is Mr. Nguyen-Van-Tam’s previous challenge trial that was performed prior to his “SARS-COV-2” paper that I looked at previously. In this February 2020 study that was published in June of the same year, Nguyen-Van-Tam attempted to determine and provide definitive proof for air-borne transmission of influenza A. With what can only be an amazing coincidence, this paper served as the perfect precursor to performing a “SARS-COV-2” human challenge trial a year later. I have interjected commentary throughout the study, pointing out some interesting highlights, as well as various flaws, within the paper. You will see that not only that the above statement by Bridges et al. from 2003 still remains true today, you will see why they shy away from carrying out such studies more often.

Minimal transmission in an influenza A (H3N2) human challenge-transmission model within a controlled exposure environment

To begin with, the authors immediately admit that there is still uncertainty about the importance of influenza transmission via airborne droplets. The authors openly express the fact that human-to-human transmission is poorly understood and that the importance of the varying routes of supposed transmission remains uncertain. Apparently, after over 100 years of studying the various influenza “viruses,” they still do not understand how it supposedly spreads. During this so-called challenge trial where everything is perfectly controlled, they could only show one “transmitted infection” by way of the always unreliable antibody testing. These results were not as they expected and were considered significantly lower than their proof-of-concept model, even taking into account that they had far more participants in this study and more days of “exposure.”

It is admitted by the authors that the current evidence for human-to-human transmission of influenza is based upon results aquired from “virus” deposition and survival in the environment; the epidemiology of disease; pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; animal models; and mathematical models of transmission. The evidence garnered from these means is said not to be conclusive. In other words, our current understanding of influenza transmission is based upon indirect evidence, and there is ZERO conclusive scientific evidence proving human-to-human transmission. Thus, it is ASSUMED that most influenza transmission occurs from symptomatic infection via large droplets at a short range. As there has been a failure to aquire definitive evidence, it was concluded that human-to-human challenge trials, which had “never been performed,” are the best way of obtaining direct definitive evidence. However, upon doing such a study, the authors admitted that this resulted in nothing but failure:

Introduction

“Uncertainty about the importance of influenza transmission by airborne droplet nuclei generates controversy for infection control. Human challenge-transmission studies have been supported as the most promising approach to fill this knowledge gap. Healthy, seronegative volunteer ‘Donors’ (n = 52) were randomly selected for intranasal challenge with influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2). ‘Recipients’ randomized to Intervention (IR, n = 40) or Control (CR, n = 35) groups were exposed to Donors for four days. IRs wore face shields and hand sanitized frequently to limit large droplet and contact transmission. One transmitted infection was confirmed by serology in a CR, yielding a secondary attack rate of 2.9% among CR, 0% in IR (p = 0.47 for group difference), and 1.3% overall, significantly less than 16% (p<0.001) expected based on a proof-of-concept study secondary attack rate and considering that there were twice as many Donors and days of exposure. The main difference between these studies was mechanical building ventilation in the follow-on study, suggesting a possible role for aerosols.

Influenza virus is a pathogen of global health significance, but human-to-human transmission remains poorly understood. In particular, the relative importance of the different modes of transmission (direct and indirect contact, large droplet, and aerosols (airborne droplet nuclei)) remains uncertain during symptomatic and asymptomatic infection [14].

The evidence base for influenza transmission is derived from studies that have assessed: virus deposition and survival in the environment; the epidemiology of disease; pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; animal models; and mathematical models of transmission. Those approaches have yet to produce conclusive data quantifying the relative importance of human-human transmission modes [1,2].

Infection control guidance for pandemic and seasonal influenza assumes that most transmission occurs during symptomatic infection, predominantly via large droplet spread at short range (1-2m) [1]. Thus, social distancing measures are often proposed to mitigate the spread and impact of a pandemic; and hand washing and respiratory etiquette are promoted to reduce transmission. Evidence to support the possibility of aerosol transmission has grown over recent years [57]. and leads to controversies about when and if filtering facepiece respirators (and other precautions designed to prevent inhalation of aerosols) versus surgical masks (mainly capable of reducing large droplets and some fine particles) should be used to protect healthcare workers, particularly during a severe pandemic [1,3,4,810].

An expert panel, after in-depth review of the challenges facing community- and workplace-based intervention studies and their failure thus far to provide definitive evidence regarding the relative contribution of the various modes, concluded that a human challenge-transmission study would be a more promising direction for future research [11]. Influenza challenge studies in humans have been conducted to investigate disease pathogenesis and the efficacy of antivirals and vaccines. Challenge studies assessing human-to-human transmission had not been performed [11]. In 2009, we demonstrated proof-of-concept that healthy seronegative volunteers inoculated intranasally with influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (A/WI), an H3N2 virus, would develop symptoms of influenza-like illness (ILI) and, under two days of household-like conditions without environmental controls, transmit infection to other seronegative volunteers. This suggested that larger scale human challenge-transmission models might be useful to evaluate transmission modes. A subsequent international workshop discussed the potential that human challenge-transmission studies, with appropriate interventions, monitoring of aerosol shedding, and environmental controls, could provide definitive results [12]. Here, we report a large follow-on study, including design factors (Fig 1) aimed at assessing the importance of aerosol transmission in human-to-human transmission of influenza virus. Although the study did not achieve the intended level of transmission required for a more conclusive interpretation, it has revealed important lessons about potential airborne transmission and study design that represent critical knowledge to support effective large-scale, costly studies in this area.

Results

Ready for some impressive results? Let’s start off with the fact that no serious adverse events occurred in any of the participants in the study, showing that this was not a very dangerous influenza “virus.” 52 donors were subjected to intranasal inoculation of the “virus,” which is obviously not a natural route of infection. This was said to produce an “infection” in 42 of the 52 donors, which was laboratory confirmed by qRT-PCR. Of these, 25 were said to have an influenza-like illness, while 10 were classified as asymptomatic. Only 36 donors had nasopharyngeal swabs that tested positive by qRT-PCR. It was claimed that of the 42 “infected” donors, they observed aerosol shedding from just 11 of them.

Despite the “successful infections,” none of the participants developed a fever. Only a single “transmission” was noted in a control recipient, which was confirmed by way of the inaccurate antibody testing. This person was said to be symptomatic but consistently failed when tested by the “gold standard” qRT-PCR. Two other control recipients tested positive by qRT-PCR, but they did not meet the laboratory confirmation criteria. This meant that there was only one “successful transmission,” and it was not confirmed by the “gold standard.”

Participation and safety

Between January and June 2013, 496 seronegative (HAI≤10 to the challenge virus antigen) volunteers underwent study-specific screening and 166 entered the quarantine unit, of whom 127 proved suitable for final study entry (Fig 2 –trial profile; S5 Text–volunteer baseline characteristics). Thirty-nine subjects were discharged before inoculation or exposure per protocol as described in Methods. Three separate quarantine EEs (exposure events) took place in March, April, and June 2013 involving Q1: 41 (20 Donors; 11 CR; 10 IR), Q2: 31 (12 Donors; 9 CR; 10 IR) and Q3: 55 (20 Donors; 15 CR; 20 IR) subjects respectively, with 4 Donors and 4 to 7 Recipients per exposure group. No serious adverse events were recorded in volunteers who commenced the study.

Environmental control

In Q1 relative humidity averaged 40% (Standard Deviation 9%), room temperature averaged 20.2 oC (0.4 oC) and CO2 concentration averaged 1430ppm (110ppm). For Q2 and Q3, respectively, the corresponding values were 44% (4%), 21.4°C (0.3 oC), 1810ppm (160ppm), and 57% (4%), 21.4°C (0.3 oC), 1810ppm (160ppm). Outdoor CO2 concentration proxies, taken from the average of CO2 measurements during 2:00am-3:00am were 418, 435, and 422 ppm, for Q1, Q2, and Q3, respectively.

Donor status

Donor status is summarised by quarantine study in Table 1. Over all quarantines combined, intranasal inoculation produced an infection rate of 81% (42/52) among inoculated volunteers. Of the 42 lab-confirmed infected Donors 25 (60%) had ILI and 10 (24%) were classified as asymptomatic (4 in Q1, 4 in Q2, and 2 in Q3).

Table 1. Infected donor status.doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704.t001

Ten Donors had greater immunity on admission, as identified by samples collected on day -2 (HAI>10 or MN≥80), than at their earlier screening. Four of the 10 seroconverted (i.e. had a 4-fold rise in HAI or MN titres) between admission to quarantine and follow-up. Five of the 10 met laboratory case definition by qRT-PCR including all four who seroconverted. The one additional qRT-PCR positive Donor had positive swabs on study days 2 and 3 in Q2.

Virus shedding by donors

Overall, 36 Donors had nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) that tested positive by PCR for A/WI. Of these 36: 53% (n = 19) were positive on day 1 post-challenge; 94% (34) on day 2; 97% (35) on day 3; 86% (31) on day 4; 92% (33) on day 5; and 67% (24) on day 6 (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Viral detection in Donors by day of exposure event.A) Columns show the proportion of all infected donors (n = 42) who were qRT-PCR positive for viral shedding for coarse (>5μm) and fine (≤5μm) aerosols, and nasopharyngeal swabs. B) Mean and standard deviation error bars for qRT-PCR cycle threshold values from the positive nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 19 on day 1; n = 34 on day 2; n = 35 on day 3; n = 31 on day 4). C) Virus quantified (log10 RNA copies) from detectable exhaled coarse (n = 6) and fine (n = 14) breath aerosols by qRT-PCR; the boxes show the inner-quartile range (IQR) with a band to indicate the median, and whiskers extending to highest and lowest data points within 1.5 IQR.
doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704.g003

Aerosol shedding was determined for 25 Donors on day 1, 31 on day 2, 30 on day 3, and 24 on day 4, and for a total of 36 person-days in Q1, 34 person-days in Q2, and 40 person-days in Q3. Aerosol shedding from infected Donors, detected in Gesundheit-II samples, is summarised in Table 2. Six (7%) of the coarse and 14 (16%) of the fine aerosol samples had detectable viral RNA. We observed aerosol shedding from 11 (26%) of the 42 successfully infected Donors. The geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) for coarse and fine aerosol viral RNA copy numbers per 30-min sample were 3.1E+3 (3.3) and 5.3E+3 (4.6), respectively. The maximum levels of shedding into coarse and fine aerosols were 2.79E+4 and 8.02E+4 RNA copies, respectively (Fig 3).

Table 2. Exhaled breath viral RNA detection and copy number among infected donors by quarantine event and aerosol fraction.doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704.t002

Recipient status

Recipient status is shown in Table 3. There were similar rates of symptoms in both IR and CR groups, although more in the CR group met the study definition of ILI, the rates were not significantly different (p = 0.23); no Recipient developed fever. One infection was confirmed by serology (HAI increased from ≤10 to 40 and MN increased from 10 to 320) in a CR subject who was symptomatic and whose symptoms met the definition of ILI, but whose qRT-PCR evaluations were persistently negative. Two other CR were transiently qRT-PCR positive but neither met laboratory positivity criteria (S6 Text). Both were asymptomatic and had no change from baseline serology. Thus, there was only one, confirmed transmission event. The CR and IR group SARs (2.9% and 0%) were not significantly different (p = 0.47).

thumbnail
Table 3. Recipient status.doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704.t003

To compare these results with the SAR from the proof-of-concept study, we recomputed the latter results using the current, more stringent outcome criteria. The adjusted proof-of-concept SAR was 8.3% giving an expected SAR of 16%. The observed SAR for the current study was not significantly different than that of the adjusted SAR from the proof-of-concept study, but was significantly lower than the expected doubling of the SAR (1.3% overall, p<0.0001; and 2.9% for CR, p = 0.035). Comparisons of observed and expected SAR using the proof-of-concept study outcome definitions were also statistically significant (p<0.0001, S6 Text).

Discussion

In this section, the researchers explain that they tried as best as possible to emulate environmental conditions that would be seen during the winter months when infections are at their peak. They even attempted to maintain low humidity in order to increase transmission. However, the experiment resulted in the “near absence” of transmission. They had to conclude that contact and large droplet spray did not contribute to infection in these optimal settings. In fact, they admitted that their findings did not allow for any definitive conclusion as to how influenza supposedly spreads.

Even though they doubled the duration of the exposure and the amount of donors, the researchers could not meet the secondary attack rate that they had expected to see. They attempted to blame this on the outcome criteria, as in the proof-of-concept study, only a single NPS positive by qRT-PCR without seroconversion was required. In the present study, they required two or more NPS positive by qRT-PCR in the absence of seroconversion. As they could not achieve transmission with their selected conditions, the researchers thought of various ways that they could try and create more infections in the future, including the type of “virus” used, the route of inoculation, susceptibility of the human volunteers, the rate of “viral” shedding into NPS and aerosols, and reducing ventilation of exposure rooms.

To our knowledge, this is the largest human influenza challenge-transmission study undertaken to date. We applied measures to control and standardise environmental conditions and ventilation rates within and between exposure events, to emulate as far as possible indoor winter conditions when respiratory virus spread is maximal. We particularly sought to maintain low humidity conditions which have been associated with enhanced transmission [13] and increased virus viability [14], together with a low ventilation rate to maximize recipient exposure to airborne virus. The near absence of transmission to control Recipients suggests contact and large droplet spray did not contribute substantially to transmission under the conditions used in these EEs. The significantly lower than expected SAR in this study compared with the proof-of-concept study, which had much lower ventilation rates, suggests aerosols as an important mode of influenza virus transmission in this model. The overall low SAR suggests that Donors in this model were minimally contagious and prevents definitive assessment of the modes of transmission.

Having reported an SAR of 25% (3/12) in our earlier proof-of-concept study, we expected to observe an SAR of >25%, having doubled both the duration of the exposure and the number of Donors in each quarantine [15]. Indeed, the study was designed to examine an SAR of 40% in CR versus 20% in IR which would have required 125 Recipient volunteers; this was not met (n = 75) and the study was underpowered.

However, the outcome criteria used in the proof-of-concept study, which included as positive a single NPS positive by qRT-PCR without seroconversion, were made more stringent in the present study by requiring two or more NPS positive by qRT-PCR in the absence of seroconversion (S6 Text). Applying the proof-of-concept criteria to the current study gives an SAR of 4% (3/75) overall, while applying the stricter criteria used in this study to the proof-of-concept study gives an SAR of 8.3% (1/12) rather than 25%. Given the lower than planned enrolment and the stricter outcome criteria, this study was doubly underpowered.

These observations raise two questions: 1) Why were SARs, using stringent criteria, low in both studies and what are the implications for future human challenge-transmission studies? 2) Why was the SAR significantly lower in the present study compared with the expected doubling of the rate observed for the proof-of-concept?

The low SAR in these studies suggests that, unless a much greater SAR can be achieved, type II error associated with underpowering will be a major obstacle to successful use of human challenge-transmission studies. Potential areas to consider addressing in order to raise the SARs in future studies include the virus used, the route of inoculation, susceptibility of the human volunteers, the rate of viral shedding into NPS and aerosols, and reducing ventilation of exposure rooms.

As far as the “virus” utilized in their challenge study, it was stated that they used a GMP A/WI challenge “virus” manufactured by Baxter BioScience (Vienna, Austria). Stocks of this “virus” preparation were evaluated in a separate 2016 study that was linked. From this 2016 reference, we can see that they did not take a sample directly from a sick human and use purified and isolated “viral” particles in an attempt to infect other humans naturally. What they used instead was a creation from an original sample that was passaged 3 times in avian primary chicken kidney (CK) cells, 4 times in embryonated chicken eggs, and then twice in GMP Vero cells to generate the “viral” stock that was used to inoculate intranasally the challenge study subjects. Sequencing data told them that it “was at least partially adapted” to the egg and/or tissue environments in which it was produced. In other words, it contained chicken and monkey kidney contaminants. What exact chemicals and media used were not listed. As usual, the “virus” is nothing but a toxic cell culture soup that was administered in an unnatural way through the nose.

Deep Sequencing of Influenza A Virus from a Human Challenge Study Reveals a Selective Bottleneck and Only Limited Intrahost Genetic Diversification

“Production of challenge virus.
The virus used for experimental challenge was produced under current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) at Baxter Bioscience (Vienna, Austria). The original virus was obtained from a human isolate of A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2) (GenBank accession numbers CY114381 to CY114388). We here refer to this human isolate as the “reference strain.” This virus was passaged 3 times in avian primary chicken kidney (CK) cells, 4 times in embryonated chicken eggs, and then twice in GMP Vero cells to generate the viral stock used to inoculate the challenge study subjects (Fig. 1).”

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.01657-16

The researchers admitted that they only observed symptoms ranging from asymptomatic (i.e. none) to febrile symptomatic infection, which usually consists of a fever. However, no fevers were observed in this study. They attempted to blame “positive selection” of the challenge “virus” for growth in the production environment, rather than for human transmissibility, as a reason for why their study was unsuccessful. They also blamed the route of infection, stating that experimental infection with aerosolized “virus” at lower doses was more likely to result in ‘typical influenza-like disease’ (fever plus cough) than was intranasal inoculation. Even though the exact correlates of immunity and severity using novel immunological assays had not been validated, the researchers could not blame their antibody results since prior immunity, as measured by the HAI and MN assays, ruled it out. Thus, they concluded that antibodies were not a major limitation and could not account for their failure to transmit from readily infected individuals to identically screened uninfected individuals.

In the proof-of-concept (2009) and follow-on (2013) studies we used a GMP A/WI challenge virus manufactured by Baxter BioScience (Vienna, Austria). Both studies produced similar clinical and serological infection rates (typically 60–70% and 70–75%, respectively) after inoculation via nasal instillation, and similar spectrums of clinical illness severity in Donors. These rates were higher than reported by a previous study using lower doses of the same viral preparation [16] and consistent with rates reported in a review of 56 challenge studies [17]. The illnesses we observed were similar to the range seen in healthy adults in the community, from asymptomatic to febrile symptomatic infection [18]. Thus, skewed illness severity does not seem to explain the low SAR.

The virus preparation has been used in other human challenge studies with similar rates of infection via nasal instillation [19]. Using deep sequencing, Sobel Leonard and colleagues showed that a sample of the Baxter stock “was at least partially adapted” to the egg and/or tissue environments in which it was produced [19]. They also found that nasal instillation of the stock into human volunteers resulted in rapid purification selection, although a fixed variant in the HA gene remained. We have performed a BLAST search and identified the fixed variant (G70A/D8N) in deposited sequences of wild-type H3N2 viruses. This suggests that, on its own, the fixed HA variant is unlikely to have been a key alteration. These results suggest that it is unlikely that the virus stock was the primary cause of the low SARs. But, the impact of positive selection of the challenge virus for growth in the production environment, rather than for human transmissibility, remains a potential contributing factor to consider in choosing challenge viruses for future transmission studies.

The route of infection with influenza virus is known to matter in the setting of experimental infection, with aerosolized virus infectious at lower doses and more likely to result in ‘typical influenza-like disease’ (fever plus cough) than intranasal inoculation [20,21]. This anisotropic property [22] of influenza virus is not unique among respiratory viruses; e.g. it is exploited by the live, unattenuated adenovirus vaccine [23]. The implication for human challenge-transmission studies, however, may be that increased rates of lower respiratory tract infection via aerosol inoculation might be required to achieve sufficiently high rates of donors with fever, cough, and contagiousness to achieve a useful SAR.

In the current quarantine-based human challenge-transmission model, consistent with historical precedent, screening for susceptibility was undertaken primarily by HAI antibody screening, although it is recognised that screening by MN titre or other assays [24,25] could be an alternative or adjunctive approach. The exact correlates of immunity and severity using novel immunological assays have not been validated and selecting subjects based on these assays would have added substantial complexity and costs. Six Donors and five Recipients in the present study were discovered, in retrospect, to have seroconverted during the 3 to 56-day interval prior to entering the quarantine facility, despite having as short a delay as possible between final screening for HAI and quarantine entry. However, the majority of Donors and Recipients were susceptible according to the results of microneutralization tests. Prior immunity, as measured by the HAI and MN assays, does not therefore, appear to have been a major limitation nor account for failure to transmit from readily infected Donors to identically screened Recipients. Regarding future studies, as novel immune correlates of influenza protection and severity become established, additional approaches beyond HAI and MN assays could be employed for volunteer selection. This might enable selection of those likely to become infected, febrile, and have greater symptomatology including more frequent and greater levels of cough and runny nose. Unfortunately, such screening might also dramatically reduce the yield of suitable volunteers and substantially increase overall study costs.

Interestingly, the researchers measured “viral” load via qRT-PCR and noted that the amount of “virus” present was sufficiently high. Thus, it could not be stated that low “viral” secretions from nasal discharge could be blamed for the failure to transmit infection. It was also noted that 26% of the “infected” donors had detectable “virus” in their breath samples. When compared with “naturally infected” influenza cases, the experimentally “infected” individuals shed less “virus” than their counterparts. Thus, the researchers hypothesized that aerosols largely derived from the lower respiratory tract will lead to an increase in the frequency of lower respiratory tract infection and that future challenge studies needed to reflect this guess. The researchers also decided that their failure may have been due to different ventilation conditions from their proof-of-concept study that may not have allowed for successful aerosol infection in the current study. They felt that this possibility would be especially important if the “infected” in future studies continued to represent the lower end of the aerosol shedding spectrum not observed in “naturally infected” cases. While ventilation was considered a possible reason for their failure, the humidity in the hotel rooms was not. The researchers attempted to achieve conditions that led to volunteer comfort as well as those favorable to “transmission.”

Although their study was a failure, the researchers tried their best to point out “important findings” from this experiment. They were as follows:

  • Even though fewer “viral” challenged subjects had “virus-laden” aerosols than seen in people with “natural infections,” those volunteers who did produce “viral” aerosols did so at a rate similar to the average symptomatic “naturally infected” case
  • Observation of transmission via aerosols in quarantine studies may be strongly dependent on the dilution ventilation rate
  • Low risk of transmission to control recipients suggested that contact and large droplet spray transmission were not important modes of transmission in this model
  • Aerosol transmission may be an important mode of influenza “virus” transmission between adults
  • However, sensitivity to experimental conditions demonstrated that it will be challenging to generalize the results of the quarantine-based transmission model to broad conclusions about the relative importance of aerosol, droplet spray, and contact modes of transmission
  • Although an important role for aerosols in transmission of influenza is hinted at when comparing the proof-of-concept and current studies, this challenge model cannot provide a definitive answer to the importance of this mode for influenza “virus” transmission between humans

Results from serial nasopharyngeal swabs in Donors indicate that over 80% were positive by qRT-PCR testing on one or more post-challenge days. Viral load detected by swabs was substantial with qRT-PCR Ct values in the mid 20s on days two and three (Fig 3). Thus, failure to shed virus into nasal secretions cannot explain the low SARs. Minimal transmission despite days of prolonged exposure to Donors shedding virus into nasal secretions provides strong evidence that contact and large droplet transmission are not important in this model.

The results from breath sampling with the Gesundheit-II device indicate that 26% (11/42) of infected Donors had virus detectable in exhaled air during the same period. By comparison, virus shedding into exhaled breath was detected in 84% (119 of 142) of influenza cases selected on the basis of having fever or a positive rapid test and sampled on one to three days post onset of symptoms, mostly recruited from young adults on a college campus [7]. When compared on a per-sample basis, infected Donors shed detectable virus less frequently than naturally infected college campus cases [7] in both coarse (7% and 40%, respectively) and fine aerosols (15% and 76%); all assays for both groups were performed in the same laboratory using the same methods. However, when the comparison was limited to positive aerosol samples from each study population, the average quantities of virus detected were similar (within 1 log), for the Donors as for the college community cases (GM coarse 3.1E+3 and 1.2E+4, GM fine 5.3E+3 and 3.8E+4, respectively). The maximum exhaled breath viral aerosol from the 11 Donors was two to four logs lower than from the college campus cases selected for having fever or a high viral load in the NPS (maximum coarse 2.8E+4 and 4.3E+8, and maximum fine 8.0E+4 and 4.4E+7, respectively) [7]. While this difference may merely represent the low probability of sampling from the tail of a log-normal distribution with only 11, as compared with 119 cases, it may be relevant to the low SAR in the challenge-transmission model if aerosols disseminated by more symptomatic individuals, such as the selected community cases, and rare supershedders account for most transmission. If aerosols are largely derived from the lower respiratory tract, as has been suggested by analysis of the college community cases, this would also suggest that future challenge-transmission studies should employ methods designed to increase the frequency of lower respiratory tract infection.

The proof-of-concept study was conducted in a hotel room with closed windows and thermal control provided only by a recirculating air conditioning unit. While the ventilation rate was not measured, it was likely to have been extremely low for the number of occupants, with only small, intermittent, bathroom extract and natural building infiltration providing fresh air. The ventilation rate of 4 l/s/person during the main study was low compared to 10 l/s/person recommended in UK design standards [26] but was likely substantially greater than in the proof-of-concept study. This would have produced significantly higher viral aerosol concentrations during the proof-of-concept EEs, assuming similar generation rates from Donors in both experiments. Given that the Donors in the two studies were similar in other respects, differences in shedding rates seem unlikely. Therefore, the difference in SAR between this study and the expected SAR based on design changes and prior results are possibly due to differing ventilation conditions. The implication for future challenge-transmission studies, given that the ventilation rate in the current study was as low as possible with a single pass ventilation system, is that recirculating air conditioning systems similar to that in the proof-of-concept study should be employed to limit dilution ventilation and maximize exposure to aerosols. This will be especially important if Donors in future studies continue to represent the lower end of the aerosol shedding spectrum seen in naturally infected cases.

Achieving temperature and humidity to simulate winter conditions was challenging, particularly in Q3, conducted in June 2013 when the average external conditions were 16°C and 64% relative humidity. It was necessary to strike a balance between volunteer comfort and conditions favourable to transmission, both of which were constrained by the capability of the mechanical systems in the building. However, the relative humidity in the current study overlapped with that during the proof-of-concept study, which ranged between 38 and 53%, and thus, eliminated humidity as a potential explanation for the difference in transmission rates.

Despite this study not having produced the planned SAR, it yields important findings. First, although fewer viral challenged subjects had virus-laden aerosols than seen in people with natural infections presenting with influenza-like symptoms, those volunteers who did produce viral aerosols did so at a rate similar to the average symptomatic naturally infected case. Second, given that a subset of the infected volunteers had moderate viral aerosol shedding in this model, observation of transmission via aerosols in quarantine studies may be strongly dependent on the dilution ventilation rate. Third, low risk of transmission to Control Recipients suggests that contact and large droplet spray transmission were not important modes of transmission in this model. The overall low SAR compared to that observed in the proof-of-concept study suggests that, given the main difference between the studies was the indoor air ventilation rate, aerosol transmission may be an important mode of influenza virus transmission between adults. Finally, sensitivity of transmission to details of the Donors selected, environment, and activity during exposure events, suggest that if a successful transmission model can be developed, carefully designed studies may be useful for investigating specific, targeted intervention strategies for prevention of specific transmission modalities. However, sensitivity to experimental conditions also demonstrates that it will be challenging to generalize the results of the quarantine-based transmission model to broad conclusions about the relative importance of aerosol, droplet spray, and contact modes of transmission. These complexities of the challenge-transmission model suggest that community-based transmission studies employing deep-sequencing based molecular epidemiologic methods in natural experiments, e.g. comparing high and low ventilation dormitories or barracks, may be more attractive alternatives than previously thought. Unfortunately, although an important role for aerosols in transmission of influenza, at least between adults, is hinted at when comparing the proof-of-concept and current studies, this challenge model cannot provide a definitive answer to the importance of this mode for influenza virus transmission between humans.

Materials and Methods

I’m only hightling a few areas from the methods section to emphasize some points. First, the intervention recipients (IR’s) wore face shields, hand sanitized once every 15 minutes, and could only touch their faces with once-use wooden spatulas. This was to ensure that they could only come into contact with aerosolized “virus.” The control recipients could apparently do whatever they wanted.

Second, as stated earlier, the “virus” was a lab-created concoction manufactured and processed under current good manufacturing practices (cGMP). This goo was inoculated intranasally, which is not a natural route of exposure and infection.

Third, individual donors and recipients were each set up in a single exposure room per day where they interacted at close distances for approximately 15 hours a day for four consecutive days. This should make one question how “contagious” this lab-created goo truly is if only one person was potentially “infected” via airborne particles.

Fourth, the rooms were adjusted in order to create conditions favorable to influenza transmission. The temperature, humidity, and ventilation were all carefully controlled in order to increase transmission, and yet this did not occur, and the study was considered a failure.

Fifth, all participants had to undergo monitoring of respiratory and systemic symptoms three times a day. Nasopharyngeal swabs were done daily. Despite this intense monitoring, no transmission occurred.

Finally, influenza-like Illness (ILI) was defined as an illness >24 hours duration with: either fever and at least one respiratory symptom. That seems like a really loose definition of influenza, and yet, the study failed to achieve its intended goals even with the watered-down criteria.

Overview

Volunteers, screened for serologic susceptibility, were randomly selected for intranasal challenge with A/WI [15]–becoming ‘Donors’. After allowing for a short incubation period, Donors were introduced to other sero-susceptible volunteers–‘Recipients’–under controlled household-like conditions for four days. Recipients were randomised as Intervention Recipients (IR) or Control Recipients (CR). IRs wore face shields evaluated to interrupt large droplet transmission but to be permissive to aerosols (S3 Text); in addition, IRs hand sanitised (using alcohol-based Deb InstantFOAM, 72% ethyl alcohol) once every 15 minutes to minimise the possibility of contact transmission. IRs were only allowed to touch face via single-use wooden spatulas. Thus, IRs would be exposed to influenza only via aerosols. CRs did not wear face shields or use hand sanitiser and were allowed to touch face freely; therefore, CRs would have been exposed via all routes of transmission consistent with close proximity human-human contact. Fig 1 shows an overview of the study design.

Influenza virus

Influenza A/WI manufactured and processed under current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) was obtained from Baxter BioScience, (Vienna, Austria). Stocks of this virus preparation have been sequenced and its evolution in the upper respiratory track of inoculated volunteers extensively analysed [19].”

Exposure events

“The study was conducted in three, separate, identically-designed quarantine events (Q1, Q2, and Q3). From Day 1 to Day 4 of each quarantine event, all volunteers took part in an Exposure Event (EE). Individual Donors and Recipients were each allocated to a single exposure room per day where they interacted at close distances for approximately 15 hours/day, for four consecutive days. In-room staff supervised activities such as playing board games, pool, and table football, and watching films, whilst ensuring that volunteers mixed freely, and that IRs complied with face shield use, hand sanitisation, and no-touch-face rules. Donor, IR and CR groups were moved into different corners of the rooms for meal breaks, and Donor and Recipient groups were housed separately at night, including further separation and withdrawal of any Recipients with symptoms to prevent any contamination of the results by Recipient-Recipient secondary transmission. Five exposure rooms were used ranging from 17-30m2 floor area and 50-87m3 volume. Four Donors were non-randomly allocated to each exposure group to ensure even distribution of subjects actively shedding virus. This was achieved by assessing symptom scores and the results of influenza rapid tests (Quidel Sofia) performed on Days 1 and 2. From Day 2 onwards, Donors remained in their allocated group and were not redistributed further. Once assigned to an exposure group, Recipients remained in the same group until the end of the EE or until they developed ILI and were withdrawn to a separate isolation area. On each day of EE, each exposure group rotated to a different exposure room.

Environmental controls

Each exposure room was assessed pre-quarantine by building and ventilation engineers and modified to achieve a ventilation rate of approximately 4L/second/person (based on planned occupancy during EEs), temperature 18–22°C, and relative humidity 45–65%, to produce conditions favourable to influenza transmission [13], balanced against tolerability for occupants, and the capability of building systems to provide controlled environments comparable across all three quarantine studies. During each EE, rooms were monitored at 5-minute intervals for CO2 concentration (as a proxy for ventilation rate), temperature and humidity; heating, cooling and humidity were remotely adjusted to maintain optimal conditions.

Clinical assessment

All subjects underwent thrice daily monitoring of respiratory and systemic symptoms; each symptom was reported as grade 0 (not present) to 3 (severe). Paired venous blood specimens for serology were taken on Day -2 and Day 28. NPS were taken daily from all subjects. Respiratory specimens were analysed by quantitative reverse-transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) and serological specimens by HAI and microneutralisation (MN) assays. The qRT-PCR and HAI were performed in duplicate at the MRC University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research (with Fast Track Diagnostics qRT-PCR kit) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta; MN assays were performed by CDC as described previously [28].”

Outcome definitions

“Respiratory symptoms were defined as self-reported grade ≥1 of runny nose, stuffy nose, sneeze, sore throat, cough, or shortness of breath ‘lasting ≥24 hours’ (S4 Text). Fever was defined as temperature >37.9 oC. Symptomatic was defined as evidence of any respiratory symptom lasting ≥24 hours during study days 1–6. Influenza-like Illness (ILI) was defined as an illness >24 hours duration with: either fever and at least one respiratory symptom; or two or more symptoms of grade ≥1, one of which must have been respiratory; eligible non-respiratory symptoms were headache, muscle/joint ache, and malaise; lasting ≥24 hours means report of a respiratory symptom during 3/3 observations within a single day, or at least once per day over two consecutive days. Laboratory confirmed infection was defined as: a 4-fold or greater rise in HAI or MN titres between Day -2 (baseline) and Day 28; or two or more positive NPS test results by qRT-PCR. These differed from the proof-of-concept study, which used seroconversion or a single positive nasal wash (S6 Text).”

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008704

Totally natural. 👍

In Summary:

  • Uncertainty about the importance of influenza transmission by airborne droplet nuclei generates controversy for infection control
  • Only one “transmitted infection” was confirmed by antibody testing in a control, yielding a secondary attack rate of 2.9% among the control and 1.3% overall, significantly less than 16% (p<0.001) expected based on a proof-of-concept study secondary attack rate and considering that there were twice as many donors and days of exposure
  • The authors admit that human-to-human transmission remains poorly understood
  • The relative importance of the different modes of transmission (direct and indirect contact, large droplet, and aerosols (airborne droplet nuclei)) remains uncertain during symptomatic and asymptomatic infection
  • The current evidence for transmission comes from indirect means such as:
    • “Virus deposition and survival in the environment
    • The epidemiology of disease
    • Pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions
    • Animal models
    • Mathematical models of transmission
  • Infection control guidance for pandemic and seasonal influenza assumes that most transmission occurs during symptomatic infection, predominantly via large droplet spread at short range (i.e. they have no clue nor any scientific evidence supporting their assumption)
  • An expert panel, after in-depth review of the challenges facing community and workplace-based intervention studies and their failure thus far to provide definitive evidence regarding the relative contribution of the various modes of transmission, concluded that a human challenge-transmission study would be a more promising direction for future research
  • Challenge studies assessing human-to-human transmission had not been performed (I guess they would like to conveniently ignore Rosenau’s studies and those that came afterward in the early 1900’s 🤷‍♂️)
  • A proof-of-concept study in 2009 suggested that larger scale human challenge-transmission models might be useful to evaluate transmission modes
  • This was the large-scale version of the 2009 study, and it did not achieve the intended level of transmission required for a more conclusive interpretation
  • No serious adverse events were recorded in any of the volunteers who commenced the study
  • The unnatural method of intranasal inoculation produced an “infection” rate of 81% (42/52) among inoculated volunteers
  • Of the 42 “lab-confirmed” infected donors 25 (60%) had ILI and 10 (24%) were classified as asymptomatic
  • Only 36 of 52 donors had nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) that tested positive by PCR
  • They “observed” aerosol shedding from only 11 (26%) of the 42 successfully “infected” donors
  • None of the recipients developed fever
  • Only one secondary “infection” was confirmed by antibody testing
  • One control subject was symptomatic, and the symptoms met the definition of ILI, but the qRT-PCR evaluations were persistently negative
  • Two other control patients were transiently qRT-PCR positive, but neither met laboratory positivity criteria
  • The observed secondary attack rate (SAR) for the current study was not significantly different than that of the adjusted SAR from the proof-of-concept study but was significantly lower than the expected doubling of the SAR
  • The researchers applied measures to control and standardise environmental conditions and ventilation rates within and between exposure events, to emulate as far as possible indoor winter conditions when respiratory “virus” spread is maximal
  • The near absence of transmission to control recipients suggested contact, and large droplet spray did not contribute substantially to transmission under the conditions used in these EEs
  • The overall low SAR suggested that donors in this model were minimally contagious and prevented definitive assessment of the modes of transmission
  • They expected to observe an SAR of >25% as they doubled both the duration of the exposure and the number of donors in each quarantine yet did not come close to achieving this outcome
  • This led the researchers to 2 questions:
    • Why were SARs, using stringent criteria, low in both studies and what are the implications for future human challenge-transmission studies?
    • Why was the SAR significantly lower in the present study compared with the expected doubling of the rate observed for the proof-of-concept?
  • The researchers used a “Good Manufacturing Practice” (GMP) A/WI challenge “virus” manufactured by Baxter BioScience (Vienna, Austria)
  • From a linked 2016 study, we find that the “virus” was a creation stemming from being passaged 3 times in avian primary chicken kidney (CK) cells, 4 times in embryonated chicken eggs, and then twice in GMP Vero cells to generate the “viral” stock used to inoculate the challenge study subjects
  • The “virus” was “at least partially adapted” to the egg and/or tissue environments in which it was produced (i.e. it contained chicken and monkey contaminants)
  • The illnesses observed were similar to the range seen in healthy adults in the community, from asymptomatic to febrile symptomatic infection
  • The researchers attempted to blame “positive selection” of the challenge “virus” for growth in the production environment, rather than for human transmissibility, for their failure
  • They also attempted to blame the route of infection with influenza “virus” with aerosolized “virus” infectious at lower doses being more likely to result in ‘typical influenza-like disease’ (fever plus cough) than intranasal inoculation
  • It was admitted that the exact correlates of immunity and severity using novel immunological assays have not been validated
  • Prior immunity, as measured by the HAI and MN assays, was not a major limitation, nor could it account for their failure to transmit from readily infected donors to identically screened recipients
  • They felt that, as novel immune correlates of influenza protection and severity become established, they might be better able to screen individuals
  • “Viral” load detected by swabs was substantial with qRT-PCR Ct values in the mid 20s on days two and three
  • Thus, failure to shed “virus” into nasal secretions cannot explain the low SARs
  • The results from breath sampling with the Gesundheit-II device indicated that 26% (11/42) of infected donors had “virus” detectable in exhaled air during the same period
  • They concluded that ventilation in the hotel rooms would have produced significantly higher “viral” aerosol concentrations during the proof-of-concept EEs, assuming similar generation rates from donors in both experiments
  • They decided that the difference in SAR between this study and the expected SAR based on design changes and prior results were possibly due to differing ventilation conditions
  • The researchers felt that ventilation would be important to future studies if the experimentally “infected” continued to represent the lower end of the aerosol shedding spectrum in comparison to “naturally infected” cases
  • As it was necessary to strike a balance between volunteer comfort and conditions favourable to transmission, they eliminated humidity as a potential explanation for the difference in transmission rates
  • Despite their failure, the researchers noted “important findings” from their research:
    • Although fewer “viral” challenged subjects had “virus-laden” aerosols than seen in people with “natural infections” presenting with influenza-like symptoms, those volunteers who did produce “viral” aerosols did so at a rate similar to the average symptomatic naturally infected case
    • Observation of transmission via aerosols in quarantine studies may be strongly dependent on the dilution ventilation rate
    • Low risk of transmission to control recipients suggested that contact and large droplet spray transmission were not important modes of transmission in this model (i.e. they could not spread the “virus” through the two main modes of transmission)
    • The overall low SAR compared to that observed in the proof-of-concept study suggests that, given the main difference between the studies was the indoor air ventilation rate, aerosol transmission may be an important mode of influenza “virus” transmission between adults
    • Sensitivity to experimental conditions demonstrated that it will be challenging to generalize the results of the quarantine-based transmission model to broad conclusions about the relative importance of aerosol, droplet spray, and contact modes of transmission
    • Although an important role for aerosols in transmission of influenza, at least between adults, is hinted at when comparing the proof-of-concept and current studies, this challenge model could not provide a definitive answer to the importance of this mode for influenza “virus” transmission between humans

We are now over a century into investigating the influenza “virus,” and researchers are still unable to definitively say how the “virus” spreads. Virologists have repeatedly failed in the past to prove human-to-human transmission via “natural” routes of exposure, and even under highly controlled conditions using lab-created “viral” soup injected intranasally into volunteers, only 25 of 52 had “influenza-like” symptoms. These symptoms consisted mainly of runny nose, stuffy nose, sneeze, sore throat, cough, or shortness of breath lasting ≥24 hours. Logically, these symptoms would be the expected reactions to having chemical goo injected into the nose that seeps down the throat and into the respiratory tract. None of those who were “infected” via intranasal injection developed a fever, and 10 of the 42 lab-confirmed cases were asymptomatic. Only one secondary “infection” was confirmed by antibody testing as the gold standard PCR test failed to detect it. In fact, only 36 of 52 of the donors had nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) that tested positive by PCR. In other words, while the researchers attempted to claim successful “infection” via an unnatural route of “infection” with evidence based upon indirect means such as PCR results, antibody measurements, and vague symptoms (or even a lack of symptoms), they could not definitively show human-to-human transmission. The researchers could only show one secondary “infection,” which was statistically insignificant and could have easily been due to errors in the admittedly unreliable antibody measurements. This failure to show secondary transmission happened in highly controlled conditions meant to enhance this supposed transmission, which makes this inability to transmit “infection” even more damning for virology.

Thus, even though we are well over a century into investigating influenza, there is still no scientific evidence of human-to-human transmission. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that this does not occur. With this abject failure to prove contagion, we are left with pseudoscientific evidence such as “virus” deposition and survival in the environment; the epidemiology of disease; pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; animal models; and mathematical models of transmission as the means to create this fictional narrative to convince the uninformed that such a process occurs. In light of this failure to prove human-to-human transmission of influenza in humans, it is safe to conclude that Bridges et al. 2003 statement still stands:

There are no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza.

41 comments

  1. The different types of microbial particles observed on the glass slide of the optical microscope are nothing but stages of the decomposition of biological matter down to the level of microzymes.

    Claims that microbial particles have a life of their own because they have their own metabolism because they ingest, digest, excrete, and secrete are mere assumptions that have never been confirmed by direct and repeatable evidence, which cannot be said to interpretation.

    No human can learn what structures exist and what processes take place at the microscopic level in organisms that are alive, for the simple fact that humans do not possess the technologies by which they can learn these things.

    All so-called knowledge in the field of microbiology comes from the examination under the optical microscope of dead or dying tissues, which are totally or partially devoid of vital energy, which are in the process of decomposition, and which are also very damaged due to traumatic procedures through which are prepared to be examined under the optical microscope.

    Assumptions that there are certain microbial particles that poison and injure our tissues have been challenged by the contagion experiments conducted by Koch (see Koch’s Postulates) and many others.

    However, the same contagion experiments conducted by Koch and many others could not show any positive effects of certain microbial particles on our health.

    So not only has no one ever been able to prove that there are certain microbial particles that make us sick and kill us, but in reality no one has ever been able to prove that there are certain microbial particles that it would help keep us healthy and heal us.

    It is an affront to reason and truth to assert that the assumptions and interpretations made of what is seen on the glass slide of the optical microscope, where dead, injured, and decaying tissues are examined, correctly express the structures that exist and the processes that takes place at the microscopic level in organisms that are alive.

    P.S.
    I did not bring up electron microscopy because the so-called electron microscope and all the alleged discoveries made with its help are pure scams.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hey Mike. Just wanted to let you know that the link called “Click to access Human_challenge_Trials_IK_final.pdf” is broken. Takes me to an error 404 WHO page

    Liked by 1 person

  3. What surprises me about these transmission experiments is, since viruses have never truly been proven to exist, and are not the cause of disease, yet are diagnosed so frequently and via such broad and flaky methods, why didn’t these scientists simply ‘find’ the virus in the subjects anyway? After all, you run a PCR test for enough cycles, you’re almost guaranteed to test ‘positive’. I guess what I mean is, since the entire bedrock of virology is a lie, why not just continue the lie with the results, and claim that transmission did occur, because we found certain particles, and we ran a test to 40 cycles? (Although I understand one of the criteria was fever, which can’t be faked).

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I would like an article that discusses the lack of direct evidence (the non-existence of that evidence that cannot be interpreted) regarding the so-called material structures in the sub-microscopic realm that so-called scientists claim exist beyond all doubt.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Direct evidence is to be the event or experience.
      Anything then said about the experience is a selective act of defining interpretations that was not present in the quality of knowing prior to subject & object division or judgements.

      Real or honest scientists would never claim ‘beyond all doubt’, but within the bubble of their collective thinking they will share the experience of ‘knowledge’ as serving a gain of functions to their personal sense of identity as continuous and protected or boosted. This is by the applications of such ‘science’ for invested agenda seeking to profit or progress their own current sense of self and world.

      the Nature of Everything All At Once is so far beyond computation in terms of the linear thinking of human concepts (made form blocks to communication) that the only Rest is in That Existence Is. or in terms of a Self-Awareness; I Am.
      Anything added to this is what we give, and determines what we then receive.
      Giving and receiving as one is ‘knowing’ but where receiving is generated with a bias, we perceive an experience that finds reinforcement in mutual or socially agreed masking – as in learning how to see the Emperor’s new clothes.

      So my sense is to focus in what truly serves who we now accept ourselves to be, so as to release what doesn’t, instead of engaging in war on the unreal, as if its proponents must concede, confess and stand as damned by.

      I have no direct evidence of a world outside and separate from me.
      But in our bubble of group identity, I share in the wonder and drama, as well as experiences of dissociated subjection.

      So your question resonates to me desire for a psycho-physical honesty, regarding information usually masked or hidden – for reasons of saving face, maintaining credibility or social inclusion -relative to the Old Paradigm.

      Like

  5. Hey Mike, first time commenting here. Firstly, thank you so much for all your extremely valuable work. I actually just have a few questions I was hoping you or one of your readers could assist with. In layman’s terms, what exactly is bacteria? Where does it come from and how does it work? Why is it that antibiotics seem to work for ‘infections’? I sorta developed my own little hypothesis on that but I’m just curious what your have to say about first. Thanks in advance 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. To understand why so-called antibiotics seem to work for so-called infections, we need to understand what so-called infections actually are.

      Only when we understand that the so-called infections are not generated by the so-called microbes, but that they are local or generalized processes through which the body neutralizes and eliminates toxins, evacuates metabolic residues, cleanses itself of devitalized tissues and regenerates its tissues (as in the case of any other so-called disease, regardless of its location in the tissues or organs), we will be able to understand that the so-called antibiotics are nothing but toxic substances that do nothing but decrease our vital energy due to the fact that our body has to neutralize and expel them.

      So, due to the fight with the so-called anti-biotic toxins, the body no longer has enough vital energy to efficiently carry out the initial self-healing processes that are manifested including through the unpleasant symptoms attributed to the so-called microbial infection.

      The depletion of vital energy due to the body’s struggle with pharmaceutical toxins called anti-biotics is the real reason why the symptoms of the disease state, which is misdiagnosed as a microbial infection, completely subside or weaken in intensity, leaving the impression of healing.

      The same thing happens in our body when we take anti-inflammatory, anti-spasmodic, analgesic, anti-pyretic and all other anti-symptomatic pharmaceutical chemicals.

      They manage to block or weaken the intensity of the unpleasant symptoms of the self-healing condition called disease, through the same mechanism as the so-called anti-biotics.

      And these are just some poisons that force the body to exhaust its vital energy in order to neutralize and eliminate them, which is why our being no longer has enough vital energy to be able to effectively carry out the self-healing processes (the so-called disease processes) that it manifests itself, at the level of conscious perception, through all kinds of unpleasant symptoms.

      Experiments carried out by the pharmaceutical industry have proven that some toxic pharmaceutical substances predominantly deplete vital energy at the level of specific tissues.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Antibiotics – sense and nonsense of drugs that are directed against life.
      https://www.medicdebate.org/node/3029

      ————-
      Antibiotic Resistance

      Before the introduction of penicillin, streptococci dominated hospitals, that is, they took over the clean-up work (e.g. removing dirt from patients’ wounds and helping to build up tissue) after injuries and operations.

      After the introduction of penicillin, streptococci were replaced by staphylococci. This was called staphylococcal hospitalism because more and more antibiotics had to be used to destroy the germs. As a result, infections after an operation or injury first decreased, but later rapidly increased again.

      With the introduction of semi-synthetically produced antibiotics, this “danger” was initially averted: The staphylococci were destroyed. But it was not long before the gram-positive germs were replaced by the gram-negative ones 😊 special staining method for bacteria; gram-positive bacteria appear blue; gram-negative ones have no colour).

      Salvation was at hand: synthetically produced antibiotics 😊 chemo drugs) came onto the market. And again, it did not take long for the germ Pseudomonas, and with it other pathogens, to conquer the hospital world. That took place about 20 years ago.

      In the meantime, multi-resistant germs dominate the hospitals, such as MRSA 😊 methicillin-resistant or multi-resistant Staphylococcus aureus).
      If a multi-resistant germ is discovered in you, you end up in the isolation ward. It is becoming apparent that there will be more and more “infectious diseases” leading to death, because the germs appear in a different way due to the administration of antibiotics.

      The bacteria cannot do their actual job – cleaning up or building up – because the balance is upset. If the bacteria, our symbionts, are missing due to an imbalance, the person can die. An exitus due to a lack of germs is usually caused by frequent administration of antibiotics and/or by exaggerated hygiene measures.

      These will be the next home-made diseases of civilisation that we will have to deal with. For example: If you take antibiotics, the composition of the intestinal bacteria is also upset and you get diarrhoea.

      Another development and consequence of frequent antibiotic administration is the so-called drug fever. It is characterised by high fever (over 40°C) and high inflammation levels (e.g. CRP, C-reactive protein, which rises when the body is in a recovery phase), which cannot be lowered by antibiotics or other measures.

      Unfortunately, most medical practitioners do not recognise drug fever and give even more antibiotics until it comes to an exitus. The only sensible measure is: stop all antibiotics immediately! It must also be said: If a doctor stops all antibiotics and the patient dies, he is legally on very thin ice, because he must adhere to the Guideline treatment.

      You can calculate with this knowledge what actual wave is rolling towards us, through the everyday use of disinfectants in the “corona era”.

      LG
      NEXT LEVEL TEAM

      deepL translate:

      https://t.me/NEXTLEVEL_OnlineForum/8957/28193

      —————-
      The Steps of Life – part 1

      The basis of medicine is biology, which has the same processes in all people and organisms. the same processes in all people and organisms.
      The basis of biology is a viscous substance and its properties, which comes from water and is quite different from liquid water.

      “A change in the situation of mankind is only possible when man understands his biology and thus himself.”( Ivan Illich )

      Source: https://wissenschafftplus.de/

      —————
      
      What is life?
      6 September 2013

      Summary
      Source: https://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/newsletter-archiv
      deepL translate

      – Life is the maintenance and increase of energy and matter flows.
      – All substances and biomolecules of all kinds are formed in water.
      – first visible structures – Sugar molecules as energy stores and nucleic acids that produce energy
      – stabilised structures shape life
      -structures develop in the water without a template – form giant ‘viruses’ / mini-spores, the biomass – virioplankton
      – when giant ‘viruses’ grow larger , bacteria develop from them
      – when bacteria fuse togethers cells are created
      -all bacteria, cells and tardigrades that have a circular nucleic acid are theoretically immortal, because when it is wetted with water, it immediately generates energy again.
      -symbiosis is the basis of life.

      – 1858- birth of orthodox medicine ,
      the consequences of plagiarism by Rudolph Virtchow
      Virchow abandoned his insight that life originates from water and claimed that only cells are alive and that diseases arise from defects in cells.
      The fixation on cells became the new dogma
      diseases were and still are explained by the fact that cells would be defective and yet have the power to multiply more than healthy cells.
      western university medicine, with its tunnel vision of cells, is unable to grasp the fundamentals of life and recognise connections. The big questions about life, health and disease cannot be answered from this perspective.

      Like

  6. Any belief that is used to serve a purpose will come with its own built in self-reinforcing reflections, interpreted evidences, and justifications.

    The influenza phenomena has a body of its own evidences apart from the modern gain of funding and control running via enemy germ-cum pathological code fragment theory.. It opening chapter documentts some of the controversy that ran as open dispute until the ‘electroscopy’ was accepted a decisive argument in terms of open critiques – though there are innumerable anomalies that call the official belief/science into question.
    He brings out the Solar/seasonal shaping of its cycle and has a lot of interesting information – regardless the virus constraint.

    I haven’t read it all but obtained a copy of “The Transmission of Epidemic Influenza”. by R. Edgar Hope-Simpson (1994)

    A subsequent 2008 article in orthodox literature raises many incongruities in standard model, but does not question the fundamental premises of existence – not just of a virus but of a detached observer to events and evidences framed to pathological theory. But its not long and you’d find it interesting.

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29

    For myself, I align with Seth (among others) in a different framing of belief systems as identity complex, as well as interactive communications or energetic states that are in truth symbiotic or ultimately aligned – regardless the generation of conflicts and conflicted beliefs as a tool to use and be used by.

    In simple terms I ‘catch’ my own version of whatever is available and of service to who I am currently accepting to be by acting as the expression of.
    Because this is very complex, it cannot be generalised to rules without becoming divorced from the individual or specific occurrences.

    My sense is that a masking ‘reality’ operates as a valid tool for exploration as experience for the development of consciousness. We could call that mythic beliefs or symbolic values running as augment or override to Natural Function – ie life of its own unfolding gift. This usurping function is where our own imaginations phish our identity, such as to perceive only as its continuity development dictates.

    Some of what we call sickness is in fact adaptive resilience and evolutionary development – in terms of value-fulfilment, that translates in physical terms as growth – personal and cultural

    Liked by 1 person

  7. (Please disregard and/or delete my previous comments due to typos) Hey Mike, first time commenting here. Firstly, thank you so much for all of your extremely valuable work. I actually just have a few questions I was hoping you or one of your readers could assist with. In layman’s terms, what exactly is bacteria? Where do they come from, what is their purpose, and how do they work? Why is it that antibiotics seem to work for so-called ‘infections’? I sorta developed my own little hypothesis on that but I’m just curious as to what you have to say about it first. Thanks in advance 🙂

    Like

  8. Thanks Mike!
    —-

    The truth is we have been taken in by charlatans.
    Carl Sagan Important Advice from One of His Final Interviews

    1 min 30 sec.

    https://brandnewtube.com/watch/PGJFPI86HnZRRtu

    —-

    When it comes to the so called scientist and experts.
    And the so called critics that keep presenting us science fiction eg. genetic engineering, cloning, neuralink, transhumanism, how the jabs have self assembly technology activated by radio-frequency., etc.

    Do these people actually do much science, let alone true science?
    I listened to a few of them at the start of covid , some made a bit of sense but then you soon realise it does nor correlate with what happens clinically.

    —-
    This link popped up, still approached from a false understanding of biology but mentions what is an authentic and an imitation scientists.
    From what I have listened in videos, Dr Lanka is one of the very few that uses falsification ie is trying to prove himself wrong. The rest are selling us stories as only they can do or understand the “science.”

    https://www.biznews.com/health/2023/03/29/covid-crimes-2

    “You can never reach the truth.
    You do not know that this experiment is the final experiment.

    The statements of science are not of what is true or not true but what is known with different degrees of certainty

    When you hear scientists telling you with absolute certainty that this is the reality you must question them.

    An authentic scientist is engaged in a lifetime expedition to uncover any evidence that challenges his or her most ‘halo ‘teaching.

    If you see them on TV or media- ask yourself – Does this person ever tests his beliefs
    If he does not , you do not believe them.

    We have been taken over by imitation scientists who believe that science is a religion and he/she is the high priest/ priestess.

    How do you identify an imitation scientist?
    – They have zero interest in all the evidence
    -They never read beyond what they are allowed to read -especially , in any evidence that challenges the dominant paid for doctrine , they are without doubt
    – they never question, never debate,
    – they say only what he/ she are allowed to say
    -the media today gives you the message that only they are allowed to say it
    -they are only allowed to say what you get

    You cannot believe the main stream media. It is all paid for , it has a doctrine that is telling you and it is false.

    Pseudoscience- they disregard any data that disagrees with them, the most important data.

    The outcome in science is decided beforehand and that is paid for science.
    —-

    Liked by 1 person

  9. In the 1950s two British military doctors discovered that most/all cases of atypical (i.e. “virus”-caused) pneumonia can be explained by other causes:

    “PRIMARY atypical pneumonia” and
    “virus pneumonia,” which have
    been diagnosed in many thousands of
    patients in the last 15 years, are mean-
    ingless labels for a nonexistent condition,
    according to two British researchers.
    https://archive.org/details/sim_scientific-american_1952-01_186_1

    Liked by 1 person

  10. To understand why so-called antibiotics seem to work for so-called infections, we need to understand what so-called infections actually are.

    Only when we understand that the so-called infections are not generated by the so-called microbes, but that they are local or generalized processes through which the body neutralizes and eliminates toxins, evacuates metabolic residues, cleanses itself of devitalized tissues and regenerates its tissues (as in the case of any other so-called disease, regardless of its location in the tissues or organs), we will be able to understand that the so-called antibiotics are nothing but toxic substances that do nothing but decrease our vital energy due to the fact that our body has to neutralize and expel them.

    So, due to the fight with the so-called anti-biotic toxins, the body no longer has enough vital energy to efficiently carry out the initial self-healing processes that are manifested including through the unpleasant symptoms attributed to the so-called microbial infection.

    The depletion of vital energy due to the body’s struggle with pharmaceutical toxins called anti-biotics is the real reason why the symptoms of the disease state, which is misdiagnosed as a microbial infection, completely subside or weaken in intensity, leaving the impression of healing.

    The same thing happens in our body when we take anti-inflammatory, anti-spasmodic, analgesic, anti-pyretic and all other anti-symptomatic pharmaceutical chemicals.

    They manage to block or weaken the intensity of the unpleasant symptoms of the self-healing condition called disease, through the same mechanism as the so-called anti-biotics.

    And these are just some poisons that force the body to exhaust its vital energy in order to neutralize and eliminate them, which is why our being no longer has enough vital energy to be able to effectively carry out the self-healing processes (the so-called disease processes) that it manifests itself, at the level of conscious perception, through all kinds of unpleasant symptoms.

    Experiments carried out by the pharmaceutical industry have proven that some toxic pharmaceutical substances predominantly deplete vital energy at the level of specific tissues.

    Like

  11. No one can prove that what is seen on the glass slide of the optical microscope corresponds to what exists and what happens in the tissues of living organisms.

    So-called understandings of the characteristics of so-called microbial particles are only guesses that have never been confirmed by truly valid control experiments, due to the fact that the microscopic realm is beyond man’s ability to create and conduct control experiments valid for the microscopic scale.

    As for the alleged characteristics of the so-called microbial particles that are observed on the glass slide of the optical microscope, no one can prove, by really valid control experiments, that the said alleged microbial particles ingest, digest, excrete, secrete, and have own metabolism.

    No one can prove that the so-called microbial particles seen on the glass slide of the optical microscope exist in the same form in living organisms and that they have any effect, harmful or beneficial, on the health of the living organism.

    Like

  12. I need a little help on this one. Are my answers right or wrong, or is there more to the story?

    The Polio Puzzle 

    Putting Together the Pieces of Polio: How Dorothy Horstmann Helped Solve the Puzzle

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117421/

    “Horstmann made significant contributions to the fields of public health and virology, her most notable being the demonstration that poliovirus reached the central nervous system via the bloodstream, upsetting conventional wisdom and paving the way for polio vaccines.”

    Just a few questions.

    1a) How was the existence of viral polio particles determined?

    2a) Why would Horstmann think polio particles were present in the blood?

    Answer to 1a) – it wasn’t.

    Answer to 2a) – antibodies were found in the blood and arbitrarily determined to have been developed specifically to neutralize the virus.

    At this point, polio vaccines were created and used to stimulate antibody production against the polio virus.

    More questions:

    1b) How would one know if the vaccines were working?

    2b) What if the cause of the most severe form of polio, paralysis, was caused by toxins in the environment and not a virus?

    3b) If the body developed an immune response to the toxins, who could prove it wasn’t against polio if the antibodies were non-specific and no one believed it?

    4b) If the toxins that caused polio were removed from the environment when the vaccine came out, why wouldn’t the vaccine be credited with eradicating polio?

    Answer to 1b) – if the toxins that caused polio had not been removed from the environment, then the vaccine would not have been considered effective and probably blamed on fast-developing variants.

    Answer to 2b) – that’s what happened.

    Answer to 3b) – nobody.

    Answer to 4b) – it was.

    One more question:

    1c) When they gave the injections, was the immune response to the virus in the vaccine or to the adjuvants?

    Answer to 1c) – to the adjuvants, because there was no virus in the vaccine.

    How did I do? Is there more to the story?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Someone pitched that Dorothy Horstmann business to me the other day. I went back and forth with him for a while, but it didn’t do much good because the poor fellow really didn’t understand what virologists actually do. He had an idea but it wasn’t accurate. Another person thought electron microscopy worked like light microscopy only better.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. There are also no studies providing evidence for the existence of influenza… 😉

    Impressive how well-paid, well-educated people can waste time and money on chasing ghosts and coming up with these nonsense “studies”.

    How sad is the state that “science” is in today.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Perhaps off the topic though I do wonder if Kaufman and Cowan are controlled opposition or at least do not care if they spoil their popular image
    by marketing different products.
    Recently they have been interviewed on Swedish you tube channels that are obviously controlled, at least in my opinion; though channels with not so many subscribers.
    What’s your opinion dear commenters?
    Nowadays I really don’t know who I can trust.
    If my language is strange it’s perhaps because English is not my mother tongue; I’m Swedish.

    Like

    1. Hi Patrik, I have not really seen anything from either that makes me suspicious at this time. I believe both Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Cowan have done a great job waking many people up to the lies of germ theory. Without them, I don’t believe we would be as far along today as we are. That being said, I think that there is nothing wrong with maintaining a healthy skepticism of anyone. 🙂

      Like

  15. Dear Mike

    I have a new take on lung physiology that dismisses the idea that gases, oxygen and carbon dioxide, are dissolved in our blood and are exchanged in the lungs.

    My Substack article is titled: We breathe air not oxygen

    I discuss the difference between air and oxygen and the cause of oxygen toxicity.

    I discuss the role of salt – water must follow salt not lead in the equation of hydration

    If we are to dismantle the multiple layers of medical retardation, this new way of viewing lung physiology must be explored robustly.

    Underpinning my research is Peter Peterson’s free eBook available at smashwords

    100 reasons water is not H2O

    The corruption of how we are schooled to view water as a chemical equation is the MAJOR disruptor in science and medicine.

    May curiosity be your friend
    Jane333.Substack.com

    Search: Smashwords – 100 Reasons Water Is Not H2O – a book by Peter Peterson

    Liked by 1 person

  16. „In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit.”

    – Max Planck

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Of course, energy is organized and works intelligently beyond the realm of visibility, that is, in the sub-microscopic realm.
    But to claim that beyond the visible realm—that is, in the sub-microscopic realm—energy is specifically structured as “electrons, neutrons, protons, atoms, and molecules” is like claiming to have succeeded, based of direct and uninterpretable evidence, to know what God looks like.
    In reality, no human can find out how energy is structured, intelligently, in the sub-microscopic realm, that is, beyond what passes the realm of visibility.
    The so-called intelligent structuring of energy in the form of “electrons, neutrons, protons, atoms and molecules” is just a simple assumption that has never been proven to be real.
    No one has ever produced direct and uninterpretable evidence (ie, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) that in the realm below what we can see through the most powerful optical microscopes, energy is organized, intelligently, in the form of “electrons, neutrons, protons, atoms and molecules’.
    ————————-
    Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
    – Nikola Tesla
    ————————-
    If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.
    – Nikola Tesla

    Like

  18. Single-molecule localization microscopy

    (The current level of reductionism and a remarkable claim.)

    Microorganisms

    ” . . . SMLM is well adapted to study the inner structure of microorganisms and how they can subvert host cellular machinery for their own purposes. SMLM is especially useful for studying viruses, most of which are smaller than the diffraction limit. The HIV virion, for example, has a diameter of only ~100 nm. SMLM methods including spt-PALM have been used to characterize all aspects of the viral replication cycle from cellular entry, intracellular transport, replication, assembly, release and maturation for viruses such as HIV, herpes simplex virus and respiratory syncytial virus176,177,178,179,180,181,182. Further, SMLM approaches are expected to shed light on interactions of SARS-CoV-2 with host cells.”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s43586-021-00038-x

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Mike, I read the HPV article. I asked a person I respect about the no viruses thing. He believes that HIV does not equal AIDS btw. He suggested I ask you this:

    Well, if any of them can explain why we reliably produce IgG for specific viral proteins and/ or explain what Giruses are, if they aren’t giant viruses, I’d love to hear their response.
    Also, if viruses don’t exist, how can we eg. use them in lab experiments to immortalise cell lines?”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortalised_cell_line
    EBV and adenoviruses are commonly used for this purpose.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_virus
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20690825/
    https://www.sciencealert.com/new-discovery-adds-an-unexpected-twist-to-the-ongoing-debate-are-viruses-alive
    There’s a lot we don’t know .. and a lot we do. We’ve even got data on the footprint of genetic alterations made by specific viral infections, eg. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/49/6/3217/6155940
    A fresh article around this topic that people may enjoy – https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/7/3223/7084602

    Like

    1. I would ask your friend a few simple questions:

      1. Do you have evidence of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal without culturing that are then confirmed via EM?

      2. Do you have evidence that these purified and isolated particles were proven pathogenic naturally via adherence to the scientific method?

      As for creating “viruses” in a lab, it is not possible to create an entity never scientifically proven to exist and cause disease. These articles may be helpful:

      https://viroliegy.com/category/gain-of-function/

      Antibodies are not specific and can bind to many “non-viral” targets. There is a reproducibility crisis in antibody research where many of the findings can not be reproduced or replicated. Antibodies themselves are scientifically unproven and entirely hypothetical. These articles on antibodies may be helpful:

      https://viroliegy.com/2021/11/12/antibody-specificity/

      https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/22/the-reproducibility-crisis-in-antibody-research/

      Like

  20. People who idolize the so-called System Sciences will not stop loving their scams and blindly believing them, the more bogus they are. This kind of people are incorrigible.

    Like

Leave a comment