Just the facts on the CoronaVirus

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://dogperday.com/coronavirus-p...JzuIXYUFe4lXfaCUkzjP9ET1T-KR6iHZsA0-QlNfARE#c

Are “Viruses” Contagious? Quotations and Revelations About Germ Theory: The Lynchpin Holding the Entire Hoax Together


There’s no such thing as a contagious “virus.” Unbelievable? Shocking? Yes, it is. Here are quotations from doctors, authors and experts that refute Louis Pasteur’s fraudulent “germ theory.” This is the lynchpin issue that holds this entire planned-demic together. When you disprove the theory that so-called viruses can be transmitted through the air from one person to another, the entire house of cards falls to the ground:

“The entire fabric of the germ theory of disease rests upon assumptions which not only have not been proved, but which are incapable of proof, and many of them can be proved to be the reverse of truth. The basic one of the unproven assumptions, wholly due to Pasteur, is the hypothesis that all the so-called infections and contagious disorders are caused by germs.” — M.L. Leverson, M.D.

“… Viruses are simply the excretions of a toxic cell. Viruses are pieces of DNA or RNA, with a few other proteins. They butt out from the cell. They happen when the cell is poisoned. They are not the cause of anything.” — Dr. Thomas Cowan, M.D., commenting on Rudolf Steiner’s insights

“We said before that so-called ‘germs’ are ubiquitous. They are ever present, in many varying forms in both healthy and sick people. These microbes kick into what modern scientists call ‘pathogens,’ when the media is toxic and conducive to clean up. When you enter into a healing crisis, and your body is throwing off toxins, these ‘germs’ appear out of your very substance, to help eliminate, process and break down these toxins. Germs have absolutely no causal relationship to disease. But germs do appear to help you clean out, because put quite simply, your disease is your cure!” — Dr. William P. Trebing, author of “Good-Bye Germ Theory,” page 154

“If the Germ Theory were true, no one would be alive to believe it.” — B.J. Palmer, D.C.

“Three criteria are, according to the scientific method needed to properly identify a virus. It must be isolated from a host cell. As of 2016 this has never been accomplished in humans. It must be photographed and it’s diameter measured. As of 2016 this has never been accomplished in humans. It must be biochemically characterized. As of 2016 this has never been accomplished in humans. This has never been done with any virus (herpes, hepatitis, h1n1, bird flu, swine flu, influenza, polio, measles) let alone HIV, HPV, SARS, Zika or Ebola.” — Viruses. How Much is that Dogma in the Window?, New Medicine Online

“We agree with those members of the profession who hold that no germ causes tuberculosis. Germs do not cause any disease. Further, we agree that there is more harm in the fear of germs than there is in the germs themselves.” — Simon Louis Katzoff, M.D., author of Timely Truths on Human Health, 1921

“Germs seek their natural habitat: diseased tissue, rather than being the cause of diseased tissue.” Rudolf Virchow

“The general public have been told that we do not become ill except when germs penetrate into from without. The germ theory of disease is ridiculous.” — E. Douglas Hume, author of Bechamp or Pasteur, A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology

“Medical doctors are working on the germ theory of disease… But the germ theory is already weakening and is due for being thrown aside. Dr. Fraser of Canada and Dr. Powell of California have experimented with billions of germs of all varieties, but they have been unable to produce a single disease by the introduction of germs into human subjects. Dr. Waite tried for years to prove the germ theory, but he could not do so. During the World War an experiment was conducted at Gallop’s Island Massachusetts, in which millions of influenza germs were injected into over one hundred men at the Government hospital, and no one got the flu. Germs are scavengers.” — Principles and Practice of Naturopathy, E.W. Cordingley, M.D., N.D., A.M.

“You’re working under a wrong premise to begin with and you’re never going to find the answer if you do that. Viruses have no nucleus. There’s no respiratory system. There’s no circulatory system. There’s no digestive system. Viruses are not alive. That’s like saying soap is alive. They’re not alive. They are solvents. They are soaps. However, more accurately, they are enzymes to fractionate tissue for waste elimination.” — Aajonus Vonderplanitz

“We must infer that at least some and probably all three of those Russian peasants died because of Pasteur’s vaccine, as did uncounted people later on… Only one thing is sure: ever since Pasteur developed his “vaccine,” the cases of death from rabies have increased, not diminished.” — Hans Ruesch, animal rights activist and pioneer of the anti-vivisection movement

“Had it not been for the mass selling of vaccines, Pasteur’s germ theory of disease would have collapsed into obscurity.” — E. Douglas Hume, author of Bechamp or Pasteur, A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology

“The culprit however, is not the microbe. It is the level of toxicity you have in your own blood stream.” — Good-Bye Germ Theory, Dr. William P. Trebing, 2006

“We must look rationally at the bacterial issue. Consider the fact that many tribes ate primarily unsalted raw meat, unsalted raw fats and/or unsalted raw dairy products from the beginning. They did not wash their hands or sterilize their food before eating. Every form of natural bacteria, including salmonella, E. coli and campylobacter were eaten with their food abundantly and constantly. Why were they vibrant, healthy and disease free if microbes are the culprits?” — Aajonus Vonderplanitz, The Recipe for Living Without Disease

“In all that I have witnessed inside and outside of laboratories, there is only one cause of disease: Industrial pollution in medication, food, air, soil and water. Strengthening a body’s constitution and lymphatic system is the first step to reversing/curing disease” — Aajonus Vonderplantiz

“Germs cannot be the cause of disease, because disease germs are also found in healthy bodies.” — H. Lindlahr, M.D., author of Nature Cure

“In 1915, another medical doctor wrote an article for the top British medical journal Lancet. Dr. Montais studied 21 cases of tetanus, each of whom had received Pasteurian inoculation. The conclusion of the article, which appeared in the 23 Oct 1915 issue, was that in every case, the tetanus had been caused by the inoculation. Dr. Montais said that ‘Pasteur had created a new form of disease.'” — The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory, Dr. Tim O’Shea

“What’s happening is, like I said, we have colds, which are mainly bacterial, which go feed on toxic tissue that’s been damaged – we don’t eat well enough, we don’t eat all raw and therefore we accumulate toxicity. So bacteria have to come in and eat that waste product because we can’t keep up with all the waste. OK. So that’s what a cold is. Flu is mainly viral. Some bacteria may be active during flu. Some areas of our bodies may not be so contaminated that bacteria – the natural way that we cleanse with bacteria when we’re overloaded with toxicity or waste products, will help us. But when we are so toxic that the bacteria are poisoned by the tissue, from chemical inundation, then we have to make solvents. Each cell makes a solvent. Each cell makes a soap to help clean itself. And it’s a union. It’s like a factory. All the particular cells get together and say, “Let’s make this to help clean ourselves.” So they make enzymes which we will call soap to do that. So there’s nothing dormant about it. It’s just that when the accumulation of industrially contaminated waste is so great and you can’t use microbes then the cells make solvents, that is, viruses we call flu.” — Aajonus Vonderplanitz

“Any kind of flu is the same thing. When the climate and temperature are right, certain tissues will cleanse. They may have a 7-years cycle. They may have a 6-months cycle. It depends upon the tissue and how contaminated it is. If certain tissue needs to cleanse every two years, our bodies will create, if waste tissue is too toxic for mircrobes, our bodies will create a solvent (a virus) that fractionates and cleanses that particular tissue every two years, every 6 months, every 3 months, every 7 years, every 12 years, depending upon that tissue and how contaminated it is. The myth that herpes is contagious is pharmaceutical industry fiction to scare you into taking medication.” — Aajonus Vonderplanitz

“Actually bacteria are our symbiotic partners in both health and disease. They serve a useful role. As scavengers they make harmless or remove undesirable substances within our bodies. They also elaborate certain of our body needs. That is, they help build complex organic compounds from simple ingredients. A notable example of this is the production of vitamin B-12 in our intestines.” — Dr. T.C. Fry, author of The Vibrant Diet: The Timeless Guide to Eating Our Natural Biological Diet

“‘Infection’ is no war in which the body is fighting invaders. The bacteria that come to these sites are symbiotic and help the body in elaborating dead cells and tissues for expulsion-they are partners in the cleanup process. When this has been accumulated the bacteria disappear and the wound heals. Infection… is a body-cleaning process for a body burdened with toxic materials.” — Dr. T.C. Fry, author of The Vibrant Diet: The Timeless Guide to Eating Our Natural Biological Diet

“We need to re-direct our perspectives of microbes and see them in a new light. In terms of bacteria, for example, we need to appreciate them as: Bodily inhabitants who assist us in such ways as protecting us from other organisms (e.g. fungi), assisting in digestion and metabolism of food, synthesizing vitamins, and helping to eliminate waste materials.” — Dr. Paul Goldberg

“Do germs cause disease? Or could it be the other way around… first, the disease, then the germs. Natural Hygiene contends that germs do not cause disease. They are not the originators. Most diseases occur when people allow themselves to become enervated, that is, low in nerve energy. As a consequence, the organs of excretion fail to function normally and waste material accumulates in the body. When this waste continues to build up, exceeding the body’s toleration point, a crisis arises. The body, to offset this overabundance of poisonous matter, begins to react. The result of this reaction is sometimes a cold, the flu, pneumonia, or some such, depending on the individual. At this crisis point of elimination, germs may or may not be present. They are sure to come later, not to attack, but to assist in the cleanup or cleansing process.” — Dr. Alec Burton, M.Sc., D.O., D.C.

“Hygienists object to the germ theory of disease because germs do not cause disease. They may be present in disease processes, and they many complicate a disease with their waste products which can be very toxic at times, but the germ or virus alone is never the sole cause of disease.” — Dr. Virginia Vetrano, D.Sc

“Germs are saprophytes; that is, they live off dead and decaying organic matter. Bacteria are actually our benefactors. They decompose our excretions, helping to rid the system of them. Bacteria are non-toxic, and non-virulent as long as body secretions and excretions are normal. When toxemia exists, that is, when metabolic wastes accumulate in the system in excess, causing the secretions and excretions of the body to become abnormal and poisonous, a non-pathogenic bacterium can turn into a so-called pathogenic one simply by feeding on toxic wastes. Bacteria excrete toxic waste only when human secretions are abnormal and when the cells of the body are killed by excessive toxic saturation, bacteria go to work to disorganize them and help the body rid itself of dead tissue. ‘Disease producing’ germs are often present in the absence of the disease they are supposed to cause. They are often found when an individual has not had the disease that a particular germ is supposed to cause and when the individual never develops the disease. Furthermore, in myriads of cases, a particular pathogenic germ is not present when the disease it is supposed to cause exists.” — Dr. Virginia Vetrano, D.Sc

“Germs do not cause disease! Nature never surrounded her children with enemies. It is the individual himself who makes disease possible in his own body because of poor living habits… Do mosquitoes make the water stagnant; or does stagnant water attract the mosquitoes? We should all be taught that germs are friends and scavengers attracted by disease, rather {than} enemies causing disease… As their internal environment is, so will be the attraction for any specific micro-organism… The germ theory and vaccination are kept going by Commercialism.” — Dr. Robert R. Gross


“Warmth, moisture, food-these are the causes that activate latent germs and arouse them to activity. They exist, all except the food, in the mouth, nose and throat at all times. The food is thrown out into these, as excretions, in disease. The germs feed on the excretions. They are scavengers. They were never anything else and will never be anything else. They break up and consume the discharge from the tissues. This is the function ascribed to germs everywhere in nature outside the body and is their real and only function in disease. They are purifying and beneficial agents. The medical profession has worked itself into hysteria over the germ theory and is using it to exploit an all too credulous public. Germs are ubiquitous. They are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. We cannot escape them. We can destroy them only to a limited extent. It is folly to attempt to escape disease by attempting to destroy or escape germs. Once they are in the body the physician has no means of destroying them that will not, at the same time, destroy the patient. We cannot avoid germs. We must be proof against them. We have to accept them as one of the joys of life.” — Dr. Herbert Shelton

“Just remember that there are no contagious diseases, just contagious habits which lower your vitality. There have been many people who have had diphtheria and yet no germ could be found. The same can be said of tuberculosis and other diseases. This is why the virus had to be discovered — to save the germ theory.” — Dr. Virginia Vetrano, D.Sc.

“Medical science is based on a false premise: namely, that diseases are caused by extraneous influences.” — Dr. John Henry Tilden, M.D., author of Toxemia Explained

“At the present time, the medical profession prescribes innumerable poisons, such as arsenic, strychnine, morphine, mercury and other destructive drugs that ruin the health of the human race… and the greatest of all delusions is the germ theory, and the consequent introduction of serum therapy, with its various antitoxins. Notwithstanding the fact that these medical delusions have been the cause of more injury and death than pestilence, famine and war combined, the medical doctors have agreed to meet each other half way, on the common ground of self-interest, for the purpose of formulating and enforcing the tyrannical laws to prevent anyone outside their ring from practicing medicine.” — Dr. Thomas Morgan, author of Medical Delusions
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
from 5/17/20 "You will learn:
  • What Andy experienced going through medical school - and the toxic pressure and strain med students are systemically put under just to survive,
  • Why med students graduate as doctors with no real information about vaccination,
  • How and why the medical education system does not allow students to develop critical thinking abilities,
  • Why Andy is risking his career and reputation to speak up now,
  • Why covid-19 has not really been truly identified or definitively sequenced,
  • The inability of virologists to truly purify and isolate a virus for identification,
  • Why exosomes are so important regarding the current plandemic,
  • Limitations of germ theory and why viruses are not "bad guys" out to get us,
  • How the "Elite" are using covid-19(84) as a means to install their technocracy and eliminate all human freedom,
  • How this historical time right now offers us a choice to choose between freedom and tyranny; fear and growth/evolution...
...and much, much more."

https://truthiverse.com/4?fbclid=IwAR0T6DBmppyE8H-vPObs-sxf3yn6AG7ZHw9gJnZZZDSV1nmJuUcg1eyf2Xg
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
Jordan Grant, Allopathic Physician says:
May 18, 2020 at 5:59 am

Thanks for posting. I’m going to say something a bit radical, but as an allopathic physician, frustrated with the “system” for awhile, and never ONCE taught about “Terrain theory” in medical training, I have found recent events quite enlightening. I stumbled upon Dawn and David’s views only recently, and being one of the few rogue “doctors” left who still asks questions, I had to look into their thoughts.

This took me on a big journey back to the fraud of Pasteur, and on to many great minds in the early 20th century who disagreed with germ theory.

I will say this: in my practice, I’ve always had lingering issue with “germ theory”, but never really questioned it. Why do we live with trillions of bacteria, yet aren’t sick? Why can I leave a massive wound open to heal, without antibiotics at all, and the wound does not become “infected”? Why do I only see “infection” in the setting of an already diseased tissue?

The terrain theory explains all of this much better.

Now that I’ve looked deeper into the viral theory, my mind has been blown a bit. It’s heresy to say these things in public, but anyone can look at the viral research papers themselves and quickly see their flawed methodology.

They claim “isolation” yet never do. They never isolate pure particles, and then show those particles to be “pathogenic”. They never account for the extracellular vesicles we all make ourselves, which WILL be there in these papers. That is a massive flaw.

This will never be overturned, at least not in our lifetime. There is too much money and too much pride at stake. It would be massive “egg on the face” of too many people, who would realize they were duped by bad science based on a faulty premise.

Scientism has now taken over, and good science is not done any longer (as a whole). If one questions the dogma, they will have no funding. Peter Duesberg is a good example of this.

For those who are curious, simply look into the HIV debacle. It was eye opening, and again, it was something I never learned in training. I recommend “House of Numbers” documentary to start. Since watching that, and becoming more interested in these things, I’ve befriended many people on FB with amazing stories. People who were told they were HIV +, and would need to take toxic medicines, yet they didn’t buy it – they looked into the charade, and they refused the meds. They are still trucking along, healthy as they ever were. These cases are not isolated.

The main issue in all of this is germ theory. One can build entire libraries of “science”, and have many classes across the world on “virology”, that are entirely wrong. There are “experts” in fields that are diametrically opposed. We see this all the time.

Most will never look in to this, but I think if they do, and approach it with an open mind and a logical eye, they will see the flaws in the virus papers.

Mixing body fluids with cell cultures, adding toxins and antibiotics, and then looking at pictures under EM, and seeing “particles” in the cell culture, is NOT isolating a virus. Not even close.

Finding genetic material from this mishmash of cells and particles is not “isolating” a viral genome. Not even close.

if the researchers want to isolate the supposed “virus”, there are ways to do it. They do it with exosomes. Tiny “virus sized” particles that we all excrete. There are very complex ways to isolate those. Those particles WILL be there in these cell cultures. So if they do not ever isolate the particles, THEN differentiate them from exosomes, the whole thing is moot.
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://news-intech.blogspot.com/2020/02/dawn-lester-david-parker-what-really.html

What Really Makes You Ill?

But wait. I ain't done yet. As I mentioned in the introduction, I've been reading a quite good, quite thick and quite shocking book entitled “What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong” by Dawn Lester and David Parker. While I plan on hosting the authors on a podcast soon, I found their section on viruses and the 1918 flu pandemic so interesting and so contrary to much of what you may have been led to believe regarding viruses, germs and the flu, that I received the authors' gracious permission to feature the same sections I've been furiously highlighting and taking notes in.

This book basically explains what really makes you ill and why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong. It defies quite a few of the assumptions that ‘medical science’ has made significant advances since the 18th century and that 21st century doctors therefore possess a thorough, if not quite complete, knowledge of medicines, diseases and the human body. Unfortunately, however, this would be a mistaken assumption; as the book quite elegantly demonstrates.

Pardon me for the length, but here is what is written in the quite thorough section on viruses, which is quite relevant to what I've written above when you begin to realize that you are in more control than you may think – meaning that caring for your body and immune system is going to vastly reduce the risk of you being debilitated by a virus, and furthermore, if you've done that and you do contract a virus, it's not very likely to slow you down for long:

“The establishment definition of a virus refers to it as,

“a minute particle that is capable of replication but only within living cells.”

All viruses have a basic structure described by the definition as follows,

“Each consists of a core of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) surrounded by a protein shell.”

In addition, some types of virus have a lipid ‘envelope’, which gives rise to their classification as ‘enveloped’; viruses without this structure are called ‘non enveloped’.

The definition also claims that viruses are the causes of many diseases, as if this has been definitively proven. But this is not the case; there is no original scientific evidence that definitively demonstrates that any virus is the cause of any disease. The burden of proof for any theory lies with those who propose it; but none of the existing documents provides ‘proof’ that supports the claim that ‘viruses’ are pathogens.

Although Dr Leverson and Dr Beddow Bayly wrote their comments exposing the lack of scientific proof prior to the invention of the electron microscope, Dr Hillman’s work was subsequent to its invention; he exposed many flaws that arise from the use of that particular piece of technology for the study of viruses.

The fundamental problem lies with the use of the term ‘virus’ and the idea that it refers to a pathogenic microorganism.

During the 19th century, scientists who believed in the ‘germ theory’ had been able to discover a variety of bacteria that appeared to be associated with a number of the diseases they were investigating. However, they were unable to find a bacterial or even fungal agent associated with some of those diseases. This led them to the belief that there had to be some other ‘organism’ that was responsible for those other diseases. They believed that it must be an organism that was too small to be seen through the optical microscopes of the period.

It was only after the invention of the electron microscope in the 1930s that particles smaller than bacteria could be observed in samples taken from people with certain diseases. It was these tiny particles that became known as ‘viruses’ and assumed to be the causal agents of all diseases that could not be attributed to bacteria.

The discovery of ‘particles’ in samples taken from people with a disease, and the assumption that this represents a causal relationship, is akin to blaming firemen as being the causes of fires, because they are directly associated with fire and often found at premises that are ablaze. This analogy serves to highlight the potentially dire consequences that can result from the misinterpretation of an observed phenomenon, and from incorrect assumptions about an association between the different factors involved.

It may be claimed that the association between viruses and human disease has been experimentally observed and scientifically established; but, as will be demonstrated, this would be an incorrect claim.

The word ‘virus’ had been used for centuries in connection with diseases, and was certainly in use long before the particles now called ‘viruses’ were first seen or even theorised; this situation is a major source of much confusion on the topic. It is however, incorrect to assume that the particles that are now called ‘viruses’ are the same ‘entities’ to which the earlier writings referred.

All the evidence indicates that the early writings used the word ‘virus’ in the context of its original meaning, which is from the Latin for a ‘poison’ or ‘noxious substance’. Careful reading of 18th and 19th century writings, particularly those that refer to smallpox inoculation and vaccination, show that the use of the word ‘virus’ is clearly intended to refer to some kind of ‘noxious matter’. This can be demonstrated by the practice of inoculation, which used the ‘pus’ from sores on the skins of people with the disease called smallpox; this pus was often referred to by the word ‘virus’. The same word was also used to refer to the ‘pus’ from the sores on the udders of cows with the disease called cowpox. The ‘pus’ from sores bears a far closer resemblance to the original meaning of ‘virus’ as a poison or a noxious substance than to an ‘infectious’ particle.

The word ‘infection’ was also used in many of the writings of the 18th and 19th centuries, but not in the context in which it is now used to refer to the invasion of a ‘germ’. In those writings the word was used in the context of referring to something that contaminates or pollutes. Taking the ‘pus’ from a person’s skin sores and ‘inoculating’ it into cuts made in the skin of a healthy person, will certainly contaminate and pollute that person’s bloodstream; there is no need to invoke the existence of a minute particle to explain an ensuing illness resulting from blood poisoning.

The definition of a ‘germ’ refers to it as a microorganism; the definition of an organism refers to a ‘living thing’. Interestingly the establishment definition of a virus does not refer to it as an ‘organism’, which would tend to suggest that a virus is not considered to be alive. There is an ongoing, lively debate on the issue of whether viruses are alive or not; but there are some basic functions that an ‘entity’ must exhibit in order for it to be defined as ‘living’, which shows that the issue cannot be one of differing opinions; it is a matter of ascertaining the facts.

Dr Lynn Margulis PhD, a renowned biologist and member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) from 1983 until her death in 2011, provides an explanation in her book entitled Symbiotic Planet, of the distinction between living and non-living. She refers to viruses as non-living and explains that,

“They are not alive since outside living cells they do nothing, ever. Viruses require the metabolism of the live cell because they lack the requisites to generate their own. Metabolism, the incessant chemistry of self-maintenance, is an essential feature of life. Viruses lack this.”

An August 2008 Scientific American article entitled Are Viruses Alive provides an interesting insight into the changing perception of viruses,

“First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then as biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and non-living…”

Although categorising viruses as being in a ‘gray area’, the article nevertheless asserts that they are pathogenic,

“In the late 19th century researchers realized that certain diseases, including rabies and foot-and-mouth, were caused by particles that seemed to behave like bacteria but were much smaller.”

This assertion tends to support the idea that viruses must be alive because they are claimed to behave like bacteria, which are living entities, as will be discussed in the next section. The use of the word ‘realised’ is intended to convey the impression that these diseases have been proven to be caused by those smaller particles; this impression is however, misleading.

There is clearly a significant effort to promote the view that viruses are living entities; the main reason for this is because this view helps to justify the claims that viruses are ‘infectious agents’ that can be transmitted between people and cause deadly diseases. But there is a major problem with the idea that viruses can be transmitted between people, because, as Dr Margulis states,

“…any virus outside the membrane of a live cell is inert.”

Widespread public knowledge that viruses are ‘non-living’ particles that are inert outside of the host cell, would make it a great deal more difficult for the medical establishment to justify their claims that these particles are dangerous and cause many ‘deadly’ diseases.

The revelation that viruses are not living particles clearly raises two fundamental questions about their alleged functions: the first is how inert particles are able to move and be transmitted between people; the second is how viruses are able to enter the body and ‘infect’ cells.

The description of a virus as inert means that it lacks the ability to move by itself. This lack of self-propelled motion is acknowledged by the medical establishment that refers to viruses as ‘not motile’. Nevertheless, they attempt to explain the apparent ability of viruses to ‘move’ and be transmitted between people by the claim that they ride, or ‘hitchhike’ on various other particles that can travel through the environment. This ‘ride’ is said to cease when the virus particle makes contact with a new host to ‘infect’.

The problem with this explanation is that it fails to explain how a virus escapes from the host cell if it is ‘not motile’. It also fails to explain how the ‘virus’ is able to find and ‘hitch’ itself to the appropriate particle that is going to be ejected from the body during a sneeze or a cough.

The second question requires an explanation of the method by which a virus is claimed to be able to ‘infect’ a cell. The web page of UCMP (University of California Museum of Paleontology) Berkeley entitled Introduction to Viruses, states that,

“When it comes into contact with a host cell, a virus can insert its genetic material into its host…”

The purported mechanism is described in a little more detail in a July 2007 article entitled, Imaging Poliovirus Entry in Live Cells, the abstract of which begins,

“Viruses initiate infection by transferring their genetic material across a cellular membrane and into the appropriate compartment of the cell.”

This ‘insertion’ or ‘transfer’ assumes that the virus takes an active part in these mechanisms, but the idea that a virus can be active is contradicted by Dr Margulis and others who state categorically that a virus is inert outside of a living cell. The 2007 article makes the highly revealing statement that,

“The mechanisms by which animal viruses, especially non enveloped viruses, deliver their genomes are only poorly understood.”

The article also reveals that,

“How non enveloped viruses, such as poliovirus, enter target cells is not well understood.”

These statements are not only profoundly revealing but also astounding, considering that the idea of ‘viral infection’ rests on the theory that viruses enter cells in order to cause disease. These statements clearly demonstrate how little is actually known about viruses and their alleged mechanism of action in causing an ‘infection’. It should be obvious that a great deal of the ‘information’ about viruses promulgated by the medical establishment is based on a collection of unproven assumptions and suppositions.

The lack of known facts about viruses can be demonstrated by the example of a cold ‘virus’ that is claimed to be transmitted via saliva or mucous particles when a person sneezes or coughs. These particles are said to be inhaled by another person, who then becomes ‘infected’ by the virus, which travels through the person’s body to the appropriate cells of their lung tissues. The transmission of any viral particle attached to saliva or mucous travelling through the air has never been observed; viral particles are only ever observed in a laboratory under an electron microscope. The transmission of viruses in the air is an assumption; as is their ability to travel through a human body.

A further contradiction of the theory that viruses are transmitted between people can be seen from another common ‘infectious disease’, namely, influenza or ‘the flu’. The worst outbreak of this disease is reported to have occurred during 1918 and to have killed many tens of millions of people. The number of people reported to have died as the result of this epidemic varies widely from about 20 million to about 100 million people, which raises many questions about the veracity of these claims and about the number of genuine casualties from the flu rather than from the effects of WWI. There are also many reports that claim the real duration of the ‘epidemic’ to have been far longer than a single year. The reason that a huge number of people died during this period is claimed to be because the disease was highly contagious; there are however, many problems with such claims; the ‘1918 Flu’ is discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

The epidemic of 1918 is usually referred to as a ‘viral’ disease, although initially there were ideas that it was caused by a bacterium. Herbert Shelton describes some of the early experiments conducted on volunteers from the US Naval Detention camp to determine the alleged bacterial cause and to test the transmission of the disease. In his book entitled The Hygienic System: Vol VI Orthopathy, he describes one of the experiments conducted to test the transmission of the disease and explains that,

“Ten other men were carried to the bedside of ten new cases of influenza and spent 45 minutes with them. Each well man had ten sick men cough in his face.”

He records that the results of these experiments were that,

“None of these volunteers developed any symptoms of influenza following the experiment.”

It may be suggested that 10 is too small a number to be a statistically significant sample size, but this argument would miss the salient point, which is that each healthy man had ten sick men cough in his face and none of them became ill; a fact that contradicts the idea that viral particles ‘hitchhike’ onto saliva or mucous that is ejected from the body during a sneeze or cough. According to the ‘germ theory’, all of the healthy men should have been ‘infected’ by the viruses and become ill. The fact that they did not fall ill poses a direct and serious challenge to the basic assumption that ‘flu’ is infectious.

Exceptions to any rule is an indication that the ‘rule’ is flawed and needs to be re-examined; the empirical evidence is primary.

The lack of understanding by the medical establishment about the mechanism for the viral ‘infection’ of cells has not improved since the publication of the 2007 poliovirus article previously referred to; there remain both a lack of understanding about and an absence of proof of the mechanism involved. This lack of progress is indicated by an August 2015 article entitled A Non-enveloped Virus Hijacks Host Disaggregation Machinery to Translocate across the Endoplasmic Reticulum Membrane, which states that,

“How non-enveloped viruses penetrate a host membrane to enter cells and cause disease remains an enigmatic step.”

Dr Hillman identified the ‘endoplasmic reticulum’ as one of the artefacts that are generated as the result of the preparation procedures necessary to view viruses under an electron microscope.

The website of the Encyclopedia of Life (EoL), a project that promotes the medical establishment view, contains a page about ‘viruses’ and refers to them as ‘microscopic organisms’, which demonstrates the efforts to present the case that viruses are ‘alive’. To further promote this view, the EoL web page provides information about the stages in a ‘viral life cycle’, the first stage of which is claimed to be one in which a virus attaches itself to a cell; the page states that,

“Attachment is the intermolecular binding between viral capsid proteins and receptors on the outer membrane of the host cell.”

The problem with this explanation is that Dr Hillman also identified ‘receptors’ as cellular artefacts that are generated by the preparation procedures used in such experiments.

It is claimed that once a virus has penetrated the cell, it will replicate, which is said to initiate the ‘disease’ process. The EoL web page refers to numerous mechanisms involved in this process that include cell lysis and the ultimate death of the cell. The page makes the significant statement that,

“In multicellular organisms, if sufficient numbers of cells die, the whole organism may suffer gross metabolic disruption or even mortality.”

There is a huge problem with this statement, which is that many billions of human cells die every day; ‘cell death’ is a normal part of the processes of human life. The idea that cell death is synonymous with ‘disease’ is therefore highly misleading; it completely contradicts known biological functions of the human body.

The reason that cell death is perceived to be a ‘disease process’ is because this is what is likely to have been observed during laboratory experiments. However, there are genuine reasons for cells to die after tissue samples have been subjected to the various preparation procedures used in laboratory experimentation; as explained by Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr Köhnlein in Virus Mania,

“This phenomenon is particularly virulent in bacterial and viral research (and in the whole pharmaceutical development of medicines altogether) where laboratory experiments on tissue samples which are tormented with a variety of often highly reactive chemicals allow few conclusions about reality. And yet, conclusions are constantly drawn – and then passed straight on to the production of medications and vaccines.”

This explanation exposes the fundamental error in conducting laboratory research without an adequate understanding of the living organism that is the human body. It also clearly supports the conclusions drawn by Dr Hillman, that laboratory procedures affect the samples being investigated to the point that they bear no resemblance to ‘reality’.

Yet most scientific information about viruses is derived from laboratory experiments of this nature. In these experiments ‘viruses’ are reported to have replicated inside a cell, after which the cell dies. This process does not prove that the ‘virus’ killed the cell nor does it prove that the ‘virus’ initiates any disease processes; it merely proves that the cell died after the processes used in the experiments. These points are also raised in Virus Mania, in which the authors state that,

“Another important question must be raised: even when a supposed virus does kill cells in a test-tube (in vitro) … can we safely conclude that these findings can be carried over to a living organism (in vivo)?”

The assumption that a particular ‘viral particle’ causes a particular ‘infection’ is solely based on the claim that certain antibodies have sometimes been found in samples extracted from some people exhibiting certain symptoms; in other words, there appears to be a correlation between symptoms and antibodies. It should be noted that viruses are not detected directly.

However, many people are diagnosed as suffering from a ‘viral illness’ without any investigations or tests having been conducted to ascertain whether they have been infected by an allegedly pathogenic virus. A diagnosis is frequently based on the different symptoms that a patient experiences and reports to their doctor. People can also be discovered to have a ‘virus’ in their bodies without exhibiting the specific symptoms of the disease it is alleged to cause; this is claimed to represent the ‘dormant’ stage of the virus, as discussed on the EoL web page that states,

“Although viruses may cause disruption of normal homeostasis resulting in disease, in some cases viruses may simply reside inside an organism without significant harm.”

Although the virus may be ‘dormant’ and therefore harmless, it is claimed that there is a potential for the virus to be ‘activated’ and to initiate the relevant disease. In their efforts to justify the existence of an allegedly ‘dormant’ virus in the body, the medical establishment has created the term ‘latent infection’. The following extract from the Yale Medical group website page entitled All About Viruses shows how the medical establishment attempts to explain what is clearly an anomaly,

“Varicella viruses are examples of viruses that cause latent infections. The varicella-zoster virus remains in the body after causing the initial infection known as chicken pox. If it is re-activated, it travels through nerves to the skin, where it causes the blister-like lesions of shingles. The virus then returns to its dormant state.”

Despite the claim that they explain ‘all about viruses’, these statements are made without any supportive evidence; there is no explanation for any of these stages of an allegedly ‘latent infection’; nor is there any explanation for the mechanisms by which a virus becomes ‘dormant’ or is re-activated. Yet the ‘germ theory’ is still claimed to have been scientifically proven, and to provide a comprehensive and compelling explanation for ‘viruses’ and the ‘infectious diseases’ they are alleged to cause.

There are only a very few brave scientists who have been prepared to contradict the medical establishment and acknowledge publicly that viruses are not pathogenic. One such scientist is Dr Lynn Margulis, who states in Symbiotic Planet that,

“The point that bears mentioning, however, is that viruses are no more ‘germs’ and ‘enemies’ than are bacteria or human cells.”

Another of these brave scientists is Dr Stefan Lanka PhD, a German biologist who studied virology as well as molecular biology, ecology and marine biology.

An interview with Dr Lanka was conducted in 2005 for the online German newspaper Faktuell. The interview, which has fortunately been translated into English, reveals that the topics of discussion included bird flu and vaccination. During the interview Dr Lanka referred to his studies in molecular biology and made the bold claim that,

“In the course of my studies, I and others have not been able to find proof of the existence of disease-causing viruses anywhere.”

He continues to discuss his research and further explains that,

“Later we have discoursed on this publicly and have called on people not to believe us either but to check out themselves whether or not there are disease causing viruses.”

He also stated in the interview that he and a number of other people had been questioning the German authorities for the ‘proof’ of pathogenic viruses. He reports that the result of their efforts revealed that,

“…the health authorities are no longer maintaining that any virus whatsoever purportedly causing a disease has been directly proven to exist.”

This statement that no ‘disease-causing’ virus has been directly proven to exist highlights another crucial fact, which is that the ‘presence’ of a virus in the body is not determined directly, but only through the detection of antibodies that the body is alleged to have produced against the virus; there is no test that is able to directly detect the presence of a ‘whole virus’. The real purpose and function within the human body of these particles of genetic material contained within a protein coating are unknown; the claim that they cause disease remains entirely unproven.

Dr Lanka was also interviewed in April 2016; this time by David Crowe for his internet programme, The Infectious Myth, on the Progressive Radio Network. In this interview Dr Lanka again asserted that there is no evidence that proves any virus to be the cause of any disease, and that the theories about infectious diseases are wrong. He also discussed the details of his recent court case that arose from a challenge he had set a number of years earlier. This challenge was that a certain sum of money would be paid to anyone who produced genuine scientific ‘proof’ of the existence of the measles virus. The purpose of this challenge was to expose the fallacy of the claim that measles is caused by a virus.

In 2015 a German doctor accepted the challenge; the basis of his ‘proof’ was a set of six published papers that he claimed provided the necessary evidence. Dr Lanka, however, claimed that the papers did not contain the required evidence, and refuted the doctor’s claim to the ‘reward’ money. This dispute resulted in a court case that found in favour of the German doctor. The court’s decision that the papers provided the required ‘proof’ and that Dr Lanka had therefore ‘lost’ his case were widely reported in many media outlets, some of which also contained disparaging comments about Dr Lanka personally.

However, Dr Lanka maintained his claim that the papers did not provide the required proof and appealed against the court’s decision. The appeal was heard in early 2016 and the decision this time found in favour of Dr Lanka; in other words, it was found that the papers failed to provide the necessary ‘proof’. The mainstream media, however, were noticeably silent about the result of the appeal. The lack of media coverage of Dr Lanka’s successful appeal is revealing, especially as it coincided with reports about a number of ‘outbreaks’ of measles cases in the early months of 2016. But these reports studiously avoided making any reference to the court case that had demonstrated that no evidence exists that proves measles to be caused by a virus.

It should be clear from this discussion that no disease is caused by a virus.

In his interviews, Dr Lanka urges people to investigate for themselves if there is any genuine evidence for any ‘disease-causing viruses’. The authors of this book make the same request and ask people to investigate for themselves whether any ‘virus’ has been conclusively proven to be the cause of any infectious disease. Any investigation of this nature should involve contact with the organisations that claim viruses to be the cause of disease to ask them the following questions:

Is there an electron micrograph of the pure and fully characterised virus?

What is the name of the primary specialist peer reviewed paper in which the virus is illustrated and its full genetic information described?

What is the name of the primary publication that provides proof that a particular virus is the sole cause of a particular disease?

It is vitally important that any documents referred to by the organisation, should they reply, must be primary papers; textbooks or other reference materials that are not primary documents are not acceptable; they must provide primary evidence.

It should be noted that investigations of this nature, including those undertaken by virologists such as Dr Lanka, have failed to unearth any original papers that conclusively prove that any virus is the cause of any disease. In addition, as this discussion has demonstrated, the functions attributed to viruses in the causation of disease are based on assumptions and extrapolations from laboratory experiments that have not only failed to prove, but are incapable of proving, that viruses cause disease. The inert, non-living particles known as viruses do not possess the ability to perform such functions because they lack the necessary mechanisms.”

The authors then go on, after reasoning elsewhere in the book that there is no scientific basis for the idea that ‘germs’ cause disease, to point out how the 1918 flu pandemic is a perfect example the questions the actual transmissibility of viruses.

“Our previous article, entitled The Germ Theory: A Deadly Fallacy, revealed that there is no scientific basis for the idea that ‘germs’ cause disease.

This revelation raises a fundamental question about the transmission of diseases claimed to be infectious; a question that is answered by the statement that because diseases are not caused by germs, they cannot be transmissible.

The vast majority of people will consider this statement to be highly controversial as it contradicts their everyday experience of seeing people with the same symptoms at the same time; an experience that is invariably interpreted to provide ‘proof’ that those people have all ‘caught’ the same disease that has been spread by germs. Although a popular interpretation of simultaneous ill-health, it is nevertheless an erroneous one.

This statement will inevitably raise yet further questions in people’s minds, the main ones being: why do diseases appear to be infectious; and what causes them if not germs? The answer to the first question is that appearances are deceptive. The answer to the second question is that people are exposed to complex combinations of harmful substances and influences that induce the symptoms associated with disease. Furthermore, as we explain in our book What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong, symptoms represent the body’s innate self-healing processes; they are the body’s efforts to expel toxins, repair damage and restore health. The reason that people in close proximity to each other experience similar symptoms is because they have been exposed to similar combinations of harmful substances and influences.

The best way to expand on these explanations is through an example: the most pertinent example, in view of the current alleged ‘pandemic’, is the 1918 Flu.

Influenza is defined on the November 2018 WHO fact sheet entitled Influenza (Seasonal) as a seasonal illness that is said to be characterised by certain symptoms, especially fever, cough, headache, muscle and joint pain, sore throat and runny nose. Although not regarded as inherently dangerous, influenza is said to be potentially fatal for people ‘at high risk', which refers to children under 5, adults over 65, pregnant women and people with certain other medical conditions.

It is claimed that the pandemic of 1918 was responsible for the deaths of 20 to 100 million people. However, unlike the ‘seasonal’ variety, the 1918 flu affected a completely different demographic; the majority of deaths occurred in adults in the 20 to 40 age range. In addition, the symptoms they experienced are reported to have been very different from those described by the WHO. A Stanford University article entitled The Influenza Pandemic of 1918 refers to physicians’ reports and states that,

“Others told stories of people on their way to work suddenly developing the flu and dying within hours.”

Nevertheless, this illness is claimed to be merely a variation of ordinary influenza; as indicated by a 2006 CDC article entitled 1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics that claims,

“All influenza A pandemics since that time, and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide…have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus…”

It should be emphasised that viruses are not alive; they cannot therefore have descendants.

A significant aspect of the 1918 ‘pandemic’ is that it occurred towards the end of WWI. Although military personnel are usually amongst the fittest and healthiest members of the population, it is reported that soldiers were often the most severely affected, especially in the US; as indicated by a 2014 article entitled Death from 1918 pandemic influenza during the First World War that states,

“Pandemic influenza struck all the armies, but the highest morbidity rate was found among the Americans as the disease sickened 26% of the US Army, over one million men.”

The article also claims that,

“The origin of the influenza pandemic has been inextricably linked with the men who occupied the military camps and trenches during the First World War.”

There are reasons that these men became ill or died; one key reason is the use of medicines and vaccines, both of which have been directly linked to morbidity and mortality. In her booklet entitled Swine Flu Exposé, Eleanor McBean refers to the 1918 Flu and explains that,

“It was a common expression during the war that ‘more soldiers were killed by vaccine shots than by shots from enemy guns.’ The vaccines, in addition to the poison drugs given in the hospitals, made healing impossible in too many cases. If the men had not been young and healthy to begin with, they would all have succumbed to the mass poisoning in the Army.”

The medicine commonly prescribed for the treatment of influenza during the early 20th century was aspirin, the dangers of which were unknown at the time, but have since been recognised to include respiratory problems; as indicated by a November 2009 article entitled Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918-1919 Pharmacology, Pathology and Historic Evidence that states,

“Pharmacokinetic data, which were unavailable in 1918, indicate that the aspirin regimens recommended for the ‘Spanish influenza’ predispose to severe pulmonary toxicity.”

The disease was originally believed to be caused by a bacterium, against which a number of vaccines were developed; as discussed in a 2009 article entitled The fog of research: Influenza vaccine trials during the 1918-19 pandemic which states that,

“Bacterial vaccines of various sorts were widely used for both preventive and therapeutic purposes during the great influenza pandemic of 1918-19.”

In his book, The Hygienic System: Vol VI Orthopathy, Herbert Shelton refers to epidemics as ‘mass sickness’ and adds that,

“In the training camp where the writer was stationed, hundreds of cases of mumps developed during the influenza pandemic. But these did not make the front page. During this pandemic there were as many or more colds as ever, but almost nobody had a cold. Colds were influenza. Influenza was a blanket term that covered whatever the patient had.”

The similarity to the 2020 ‘pandemic’ is striking!

Although the vaccines of the early 20th century differed from those of the early 21st century, their ingredients share many characteristics, most notably toxicity and neurotoxicity. The 20th century vaccines were associated with many adverse effects, including lethargic encephalitis; as described by Annie Riley Hale in her book entitled The Medical Voodoo,

“In the British Journal of Experimental Pathology August 1926, two well-known London medical professors, Drs Turnbull and McIntosh, reported several cases of encephalitis lethargica – ‘sleeping sickness’ – following vaccination which had come under their observation.”

Post-vaccination encephalitis is a recognised phenomenon; as indicated by a September 1931 article entitled Post-Vaccination Encephalitis that states,

“Post-vaccination encephalitis is a disease of unknown etiology that has appeared in recent years and which occurs without regard to the existence of known factors other than the presence of a recent vaccination against smallpox.”

The adverse effects of medicines and vaccines are unsurprising, considering the toxic nature of their ingredients; as explained by the authors of Virus Mania,

“Additionally, the medications and vaccines applied in masses at that time contained highly toxic substances like heavy metals, arsenic, formaldehyde and chloroform…”

Medicines and vaccines were not the only hazardous material to which soldiers were exposed. In his book entitled Pandora’s Poison, Joe Thornton discusses chlorine, which, in its natural state within a chloride salt, is stable and relatively harmless. Chlorine gas, by comparison, is highly reactive, destructive and deadly; as he explains,

“If released into the environment, chlorine gas will travel slowly over the ground in a coherent cloud, a phenomenon familiar to World War I soldiers who faced it as a chemical weapon, one of chlorine’s first large-scale applications.”

Survivors of a chlorine gas attack would have suffered respiratory problems for the rest of their lives; Joe Thornton describes the effects,

“Chlorinated chemicals were particularly effective chemical weapons because they were highly toxic and oil soluble, so they could cross cell membranes and destroy the tissues of lungs, eyes and skin, incapacitating soldiers and causing extreme pain.”

There were other toxic chemicals that could induce respiratory problems that may have been mistakenly identified as ‘influenza’, such as Nitroglycerin, which was manufactured in large quantities and used extensively during WWI. Its significance is explained by Nicholas Ashford PhD and Dr Claudia Miller MD in their book entitled Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, in which they state that,

“Nitroglycerin, used to manufacture gunpowder, rocket fuels and dynamite, may cause severe headaches, breathing difficulties, weakness, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting as a result of inhalation.”

The ‘war effort’ inevitably created a substantially increased demand for the industrial manufacture of machinery, equipment and weapons, many of which needed to be welded; welding is a hazardous occupation as the authors explain,

“Welding and galvanised metal causes evolution of zinc oxide fumes that, when inhaled, provoke an influenza-like syndrome with headaches, nausea, weakness, myalgia, coughing, dyspnea and fever.”

Dyspnoea refers to breathing difficulties.

Influenza of the seasonal variety is said to affect millions of people worldwide every year; as the WHO fact sheet states,

“Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness and about 290,000 to 650,000 respiratory deaths.”

Many countries were affected by the 1918 ‘pandemic’, although India is claimed to have been the most severely affected; a 2014 article entitled The evolution of pandemic influenza: evidence from India 1918-19 states that,

“The focal point of the epidemic in terms of mortality was India, with an estimated death toll range of 10-20 million…”

In 1918, India had an established pharmaceutical industry and a growing vaccination programme; as described in a 2014 article entitled A brief history of vaccines and vaccination in India that states,

“The early twentieth century witnessed the challenges in expansion of smallpox vaccination, typhoid vaccine trial in Indian personnel, and setting up of vaccine institutes in almost each of the then Indian states.”

Cholera and plague vaccines were also used in India. The article also refers to one of the common explanations for the alleged ‘spread’ of the flu throughout the population in the comment that,

“The pandemic is believed to have originated from influenza-infected World War I troops returning home.”

There is little, if any, evidence to support this claim; but there is a major flaw in the idea that returning troops were responsible for the spread of the ‘1918 Flu’. This disease is claimed to have been so deadly that it could kill within days, or even hours. It is clear therefore that Indian soldiers afflicted by this deadly form of ‘influenza’ would not have survived the long journey from a European war zone back to their home country.

Another particularly interesting circumstance that would have affected the health of large numbers of people is the ‘crippling drought’ that India experienced in 1918-19, which is said to have been the result of the El Niño Southern Climatic Oscillation (ENSO). This is reported in a December 2014 article entitled Malaria’s contribution to World War One – the unexpected adversary that states,

“The ENSO for 1918-1919 was one of the strongest in the twentieth century.”

India is not the only country to have been affected by the strong ENSO of 1918-19; many regions in the southern hemisphere were also affected. Parts of Australia, for example, are reported to have experienced severe droughts between 1918 and 1920. Other regions known to have been affected by the ENSO of 1918-19 include Brazil, Central America, Indonesia and the Philippines, as well as parts of Africa. Yet adverse health problems in these countries during that period are invariably attributed to influenza; as indicated by a July 2013 article entitled Mortality from the influenza pandemic of 1918-19 in Indonesia, which states that,

“For Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous country, the most widely used estimate of mortality from that pandemic is 1.5 million.”

The article makes no reference to the ENSO of 1918-19 and only discusses the decline in the population due to influenza.

WWI also involved men drawn from African countries that were colonies of European countries; as discussed in an article entitled War Losses (Africa) that refers to the,

“…vast mobilization of African soldiers and laborers for service in Europe between 1914 and 1918…”

It should be noted that soldiers and labourers were not the only casualties; the article also states that,

“…very large, but unknown numbers of African civilians perished during the war.”

The article refers to some of the reasons that African civilians died and these include,

“…famine prompted by a lack of manpower to till the fields, and diseases exacerbated by malnourishment…”

Famines throughout the regions of the southern hemisphere are likely to have been triggered by the droughts that are frequently associated with an ENSO, and especially the strong ENSO of 1918-19.

It is abundantly obvious that the ‘pandemic’ referred to as the 1918 Flu occurred during a unique time in history. The refutation of the ‘germ theory’ means, however, that the high levels of morbidity and mortality experienced during that time cannot be attributed to an ‘infectious virus’.

Instead, as we have shown in this article and as we show in depth in our book, that worldwide phenomenon can be explained by a number of causal factors that include, but are not restricted to: the stresses of war and combat; multiple toxic vaccinations; toxic medicines; the appalling conditions in which soldiers lived and fought; exposures to deadly chlorine gas and other toxic materials; and the effects of a strong ENSO.

These factors, occurring simultaneously and acting synergistically, provide a far more compelling explanation for the morbidity and mortality suffered during 1918 than that of an infection by a non-living particle of genetic material in a protein coating that has been labelled ‘virus’.”
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://assets.fireside.fm/file/fir...97-be9b-41f3-913c-35271d53f33e/transcript.txt

[01:06:52] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:06:52] And if we don't, if we don't value freedom enough, that much, then I guess, you know, we're gonna I think, well, here we are.

[01:07:00] Dr. Andrew Kaufman: [01:07:00] Yeah. Well, we're not going to have it at all. Because, I mean, think about it, everybody who, I mean, you know, in our country, right? It's very mainstream to support all of our [01:07:13] military veterans and soldiers, right? And the holidays, Veterans Day and Memorial Day, they're always a big deal, right? Every time I get in an airplane, what are they doing? You know, they're like letting the soldiers go first. Right? They're giving them free drinks, right? There's like all this special treatment and what's the reason that everybody does that? Right? The reason is because they are protecting our freedom, right? Our freedom as Americans had to be fought for, right? And we're taught this all throughout school, and this is a central theme that's part of our identity.
[01:07:56] And now what's happening is the opposite, right? It's like our own government is taking our freedom away from us. Something that we always thought they were there to preserve and protect, right? That's what it says in the Constitution, in their oath. [01:08:13] So it's really just so backwards. But now the burden is on us as individuals. To fight for our own freedom because we can't rely on anyone else to do it for us. You know, it's, it's gotta be us. And so that's what I really is my main message that I want everyone to think about is, "What is it worth to you and what are you going to do to stand up for yourself and protect your own freedoms?"

[01:08:40] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:08:40] Yeah. Beautiful. Beautiful. And you know, I would love to, I know I don't want to take up too much of your time cause we've done a good solid hour here already and that would be a fantastic note to finish on, but I would like to actually return to a couple of points to wrap up with, if that's cool with you.
[01:08:56] Coronavirus, exosomes, toxicity. You know, you've talked about exosomes being endogenously produced as a response, you know, they're part of a cleanup crew. So I would just love you to maybe elaborate on that a little bit for people who may not be that familiar [01:09:13] with the idea of what this, what's going on here.

[01:09:16] Dr. Andrew Kaufman: [01:09:16] Yeah, sure. Well, you know, all, all of our cells make a variety of different kinds of particles and they're essentially just little pieces that break off our membrane and form little like, like water balloon type structures.
[01:09:29] And these occur in a variety of conditions. but there's one specific type that has some significance because it seems to have an important function, and they're called exosomes. And so they're made by our own cells, in fact, they're made by almost all what's known as eukaryotic cells or higher cells that have formed nucleus.
[01:09:51] And, so that's every kind of animal and plant and even some microorganisms. And so, all these kinds of cells make these exosomes. And one of the main functions that's reported is that they are involved in communication. So they carry some genetic material, just like they say, the viruses do, right? RNA or DNA or a variety of kinds. [01:10:13] And they deliver that to a target cell. They have a special receptor, which is like a key, a lock mechanism, and they deliver it to the target cell where they have the right, lock for the key and give that genetic material and it's information about how the body could better prepare for whatever's coming in the environment.
[01:10:31] And usually these exosomes are upregulated when there's some kind of insult, like exposure to a toxin like antibiotics or heavy metals, or if there's a psychological shock or if there's exposure to ionizing radiation or an acute illness, like almost anything that would affect your health causes our cells to put out these exosomes and communicate.
[01:10:53] Now, there's also been shown in experiments that some of these exosomes at least can take up toxic substances outside our cells and protect us from the effects of those toxins. So that's an additional role, but essentially they're a response to disease so they don't cause disease. The field of [01:11:13] study of exosomes is relatively new, 30 years old, but it's expanding greatly. So there are, there's quite a wealth of information, but not everything is understood. And the reason why exosomes are so important to this discussion is because they are so similar to what they've identified and called virus particles, that it would be very easy to confuse them. And not only that, they actually have the same DNA or RNA sequences.
[01:11:41] So there's lots of studies that show basically that part of the RNA or DNA in an exome is what they would call a human. And then part of it is what they would call viral. And if you remember when I was explaining about how the test was developed and how those sequences were determined, I was saying that they're basically a patchwork of human sequences with filled in from a viral database.
[01:12:06] Right. So that kind of fits the exact description of what I just said were found in exosomes. [01:12:13] Right. But they're not recognized as the same thing, they're recognized as something different because we know that they originate from our own cells, and at least have some of our own sequences, genetic sequences. Right? But really what we're saying is here, they're almost the same thing.
[01:12:29] There are many other similarities, but here's what I think is the most important thing when they do experiments with exosomes, since they'd have the same exact physical properties, pretty much, why are they able to isolate and purify the exosomes in the experiment, but not the virus?
[01:12:47] Like they use the same technique, you know, they filter it and then they put it through a centrifuge and then they isolate it. And then you could see in many of these studies, photographs where you see a pure particle and then they can take that particle and they can take the genetic material out of it and they can sequence it as one whole thing. They don't have to piece it together from these tiny fragments that they're amplifying and there's error and they have to fill in the gaps. They could just [01:13:13] take one continuous sequence and they do this for exosomes. So I think it's really, really telling that you have these scientists who are like right down the hall, doing this procedure to isolate exosomes and show that they're real and can tell exactly where they come from and they know their genetic structure and they can't walk down the hall and say, "Hey, virus guys, you know, can you swap procedures? We'll try yours. You try ours or something. Right. And see how it goes?"
[01:13:41]It would be that simple really. And so, when they do the experiments where they claim to isolate viruses, where they mix it with that cell culture that they damage by giving it antibiotics and such, I think it's very likely that what they're showing under the microscope and saying is a virus are actually exosomes.
[01:14:02] Now they could be some other kind of cellular debris as well, so I'm not saying I know for sure exactly what they were, because they don't characterize them. They don't take those [01:14:13] particles, purify them out from the rest of the mess and then look at exactly what they're made of. Right? If you get a bunch of things, they're all identical, then you could say, okay, they're all made of the same thing. Let's do some analysis and see exactly what they're made of. Take out the genetic material. They don't do that in any of these studies, so I can't say for sure that it's an exosome, but if they did that, I would be able to, but I know that they create the recipe for exosomes because they have mammalian cells plus antibiotics. That is known to make exosomes, right? Cause the antibiotics cause the cell to make them because of their toxicity. So if they're not accounted for in the experiment and there's not a control where they have the same thing, minus the lung fluid, the source of the virus, well then you know, how can you say they're not exosomes, right? You can't.
[01:15:08] And this is the problem. you know, with the science. And, so [01:15:13] that's, that's really my main discovery about why the exosomes are valuable because you can't distinguish them without this kind of proof of doing a chemical analysis and sequencing the genetic material. And that's just never been done in the context of a virus paper.

[01:15:30] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:15:30] Yeah, right. And one of the things that I think if some of us find galling is that when they do say that they found a virus in you, a virus in you, it is the cause of a disease. How can they actually tell, how can they even distinguish that that virus was not endogenously produced? It doesn't even seem to be able to be discussed. It's like how do they discern? How do they know?

[01:15:54] Dr. Andrew Kaufman: [01:15:54] Yeah, well, so Brendan, they, you know, they, they don't know that, but I'll tell you, it's even much worse because if you look at the papers, so some of these scientists that do these papers are actually honest people. And so the first two papers that claim to isolate the SARS-Cove-2, which is the COVID-19 [01:16:13] related virus, they actually put in their conclusion that their experiment only showed an association. So, not, not a cause. Right. And one of them I think, used the word potential. And, you know, and they both said that further studies need to be done.
[01:16:33] And then what happened is that there was, basically a miracle in the third paper. In the third paper in the introduction section, it says, "It has been determined that this virus is the cause of this respiratory illness." Right. But it didn't say that based on any experiment it did in the paper. It said it in the intro, so it gave a reference to this other paper. But the other paper didn't say any such thing at all. The other paper actually hedged it even worse. They said like, "a potential relationship between the genetics of this and the genetics of a bat virus." Not even like whether there's a virus that exists. Right. So [01:17:13] basically the authors of this paper in the intro section, they just completely made up that it's the cause.
[01:17:19] And then what happened from there is that everyone carried that forward. So they can now reference that paper and say, "Hey, this is the paper that says it's the cause of the illness." Right? And all this policy then came out about this virus being a cause, right? I mean, we have to stay away from people because a virus causes this, but there's never been one paper that had said, and the conclusion is, "as a result of our findings, this proves the virus causes this illness."
[01:17:47] You can't find that. You can't find that it doesn't exist. So, so, you know, really, it's like, it doesn't, I don't have to be the one to say this or conclude this. The authors of the studies right there can't make this conclusion of any causality. Right? So why do we have all of this hysteria around it when there's no evidence of people dying or of a new illness, and then no evidence [01:18:13] of causality with any virus that hasn't really even been identified.
[01:18:18]There's so many layers of separation from the truth, but all of these things, you know, are just not being scrutinized by hardly anybody.

[01:18:26] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:18:26] And it seems like, River's admission from, what was it, 1937 when he said "no one has fulfilled Koch's postulates for any virus". It's doesn't seem like anything's changed since then. I mean, could you give us a quick breakdown of what Koch's postulates off for anyone not familiar?

[01:18:42] Dr. Andrew Kaufman: [01:18:42] Yeah, I mean, it's a kind of a common sense set of four rules of how you prove that some germ or microorganism causes an illness. And you're right, it's never been satisfied for any virus. And, the first rule is that there's a set of symptoms that constitutes an illness and that you can, find this particular germ present in people with that illness and not present in people without the illness. That's the first one.
[01:19:08] The second one is you can isolate this germ out of the person with the [01:19:13] illness and purify it so it's gotta be separated from everything else, not mixed with a bunch of other things, like in these papers, what they call isolation is mixed with a bunch of other things.
[01:19:23]Then the third step is that you take the isolated germ and you put it in a healthy host. And you know, some people say that it's illegal or unethical to do this experiment, but I actually completely disagree because if you don't do this experiment and prove the cause of a disease, then any treatment that you give is unethical based on that. So if you give millions of people vaccines based on an illness that's not proven to exist, you're doing harm to every single person, right? So, and that's justified because you didn't want somebody to volunteer, you know, for an experiment with a non deadly illness. So, you know, you have to think about these things carefully. And they could be, they could be used in animal hosts as well, but it really should be human to give you the proper information. So you take this germ and you put it in a human host, and [01:20:13] then it's supposed to cause the same disease, not a similar one, but the same one. Right.
[01:20:19]And then the last step is that you re-isolate that germ from the person you've infected. And that's it. So if you've done those four steps, you've proven that, that germ causes the disease.

[01:20:31] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:20:31] All very eminently logical and reasonable, it seems.

[01:20:36] Dr. Andrew Kaufman: [01:20:36] Absolutely.

[01:20:37] Brendan D. Murphy: [01:20:37] And yet no one seems to be able to do it for a virus.
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
http://arizonaenergy.org/BodyEnergy...TFYyFOxh6TWIVevY0vkGrGUmVLSfGTV2r8jP88rXmf0n8

Béchamp’s Politically Incorrect Science, Part I
In her book, Béchamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology, Ethel Douglas Hume cites an observation by Florence Nightingale, the famous pioneer of nursing, who worked long hours in sick wards. As she observed people’s symptoms, she noticed them changing spontaneously form one “disease” to another. As a result of her observations, she wrote: “The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease-conditions.” What this means is that a single underlying condition can bring about a variety of outward signs and symptoms, depending on the individual. You see, this is so logical and explains a lot. But the specific disease doctrine, like a plague itself, infests the power structure of mainstream Western medicine.

Hume’s book is a masterwork of history. It carefully verifies the details of the life and research of Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908): Master of Pharmacy, Doctor of Science, Doctor of Medicine, Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy, Fellow and Professor of Physics and Toxicology, Professor of Biological Chemistry, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. In spite of the historical and scientific importance and many accomplishments of Béchamp, relatively few people are aware of him. His story is a prime example of genius and profound discoveries reaping ignorance. This usually happens when information threatens the statues quo or special interests.

Béchamp attained so many achievements that it took eight pages of a scientific journal to list them when he died. Among many other things, he saved the French silk industry form devastation by silkworms (although some historically incorrect publications attribute this to Pasteur). Also, he clearly described the process of fermentation for what it is: a process of digestion by microscopic beings. He was the first to assert that the blood is not a liquid, but a flowing tissue. And he developed a cheap process for the production of a chemical (aniline) which was the foundation of the dye industry.

His biological work might then have revolutionized medicine with profound insight into the nature of life. But, in a political world, he found himself up against a skillful politician with wealthy connections – Louis Pasteur. Unfortunately for himself and the world, Béchamp was a man of science and not of politics. According to Hume’s book, Pasteur, a chemist with no education in life sciences, repeatedly plagiarized Béchamp’s work, distorted it, and submitted it to the French Academy of Science as his own! This accusation is supported by dates of entry in the annals of the Academy (Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences). Provocation for this activity may have come when Béchamp solved the silkworm problem and saved the day right under the nose of Pasteur, who had been commissioned to solve it. The whole story is too complex to tell here, but he earned the undying ingratitude and hate of the apparently vindictive chemist. Ultimately, the well-connected manipulator and plagiarist “won the day” in a world and a scientific community content to be swayed by superficiality.

In Hume’s book, Béchamp is said to have stated the following in regard to germ theory: “There is no doctrine so false that it does not contain some particle of truth. It is thus with microbian doctrines.” He is later quoted, “Above all, men of the world are carried away by a specious easy doctrine, all the more applicable to vague generalities and vague explanations in that it is badly based upon proved and tried scientific demonstrations.” In other works, although they were drawing the right conclusions from scientific demonstrations, these demonstrations were based upon a false premise. What makes the germ theory so dangerous is that it seems so obviously true. But it is true only secondarily, as we shall see.

Pasture made his theories seem correct by promoting the practice of injecting animals. In fact, Pasteur was responsible in large part for the onslaught of animal experimentation in medical research. (One note here: though animal experiments are used as references in this book, this is done to appease doubters and professionals who live by this sort of thing, but it is by no means a sanction.)

Pasteur used preparations made from the diseased tissues of previously sick animals, thus making the injected ones sick. This gave the appearance that a germ caused a disease, when in fact these preparations were extremely poisonous. This is not a scientific procedure, but simply demonstrates the fact that you can make someone sick by poisoning their blood. The attentive reader will see the errors here: first, Pasteur was confusing disease with its symptoms. Second, the method of injection can by no means be said to duplicate a natural “infection.” Based on his theory of microzymas, Béchamp warned emphatically against such direct and artificial invasion of the blood.

Thirty years prior to the rise of monomorphism, Béchamp brought his attention to tiny “molecular granulations” found in body cells, which other observers had noted before him. They had been scantily defined, and no one had identified their status or function. After 10 years of careful experimentation, Béchamp brought to the world in 1866 the profound revelation that the granules were living elements. He renamed them microzymas, meaning “small ferments.” During the following 13 years, Béchamp, with his devoted co-worker, Professor Estor, developed and refined the Theory of Microzymas. The essence of this theory is that the microzymas, an independently living element, exists within all living things, and is both the builder and recycler of organisms. It inhabits cells, the fluid between cells, the blood and the lymph.

Béchamp’s Politically Incorrect Science, Part II
Béchamp’s microzymas is capable of multiplying, and, like Enderlein’s profit, it reflects either health or disease. In a stare of health, the microzymas act harmoniously and fermentation occurs normally, i.e., beneficially. But in the condition of disease, microzymas become disturbed and change their form and function. They evolve into microscopic forms (germs) that reflect the disease and produce the symptoms, becoming what Béchamp called “morbidly evolved” microzymas. Again, this occurs due to modification of our terrain by an inverted way of eating and living. Béchamp observed granules linking together and “lengthening into bacteria.” He therefore observed, explored and expressed the concept of pleomorphism as its earliest, and certainly its most eloquent, spokesman.

Thus, being at the foundation of organization in the body, microzymian transformations build up cells and eventually the whole organism in which they exist. However, as noted, their function is twofold, and they are poised to recycle the physical body upon death. I describe the microzymas as matter which cannot be created or destroyed and is the precursor to all living organized matter. Now we can answer the question: “What comes first, the chicken or the egg?” The answer is neither: it is the microzymas. Our Creator describes the microzymas simply as: “from dust you are and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). This will be further discussed below.

The microzymas is a ferment: a living element capable of fermenting sugar. This is a digestive (chemical) process carried on by enzymes (from a Greek word meaning “to ferment”), the directors of chemical reactions. There are various classifications of fermentations, based on the final products. Alcohol is one such product, so there are alcoholic fermentations. There are also lactic fermentations, resulting in the production of lactic acid. This kind of fermentation happens in muscle, creating the fatigue and pain we’re all familiar with. Béchamp saw the life process as a continual cellular breakdown by microzymian fermentation – even in a healthy body. Of course, renewal is happening as well, which is also being done by the microzymas, as we’ll see. Where illness is concerned, my position is that in an unbalanced terrain, fermentative breakdown is not only accelerated, but is taken over by morbid evolutions, including bacteria, yeast, fungus, and mold. These are the upper development forms of the microzymas, which feed on vital body substances. This results in degenerative disease symptoms, as we shall also see.

Not only fermentation, but nearly all chemical reactions in the body are done, or controlled, by enzymes. Enzymes are catalysts – substances that assist chemical processes. They are complex proteins and perhaps the most amazing body substances. They quickly accomplish complex reactions at body temperature that would take days in a lab with very special equipment, or would be impossible altogether. But here is an astounding aspect of Béchamp’s discoveries: it is possible that enzymes create, or themselves become, microorganisms.

This explains a lot, because it is known that enzymes take part in repairing damaged genes – the elements that define and control our heredity and function. (Béchamp suggested that microzymas coagulate to become genetic material.) Enzymes, then, are quite magical and mysterious substances. Think about something that can repair the molecule that controls what you are! Of course, there is always the possibility that behind every enzyme is a microzymas. In one sense, the gene may be seen as the tool of the microzymas. The mechanism for repair could be that enzymes construct or become repair proteins, which are then spliced into the gene. There is a good possibility that this is what “viruses” actually are – repair proteins, or structures that do gene repair, not forms that cause symptoms. Most viruses are made of a core of genetic material surrounded by a protein coat. The repair process has probably been misconstrued by mainstream bioscience as a disease process, and its tools, the repair proteins, have been called viruses, particularly retroviruses. Retroviruses have the ability to insert themselves into our DNA (genetic material). Supposedly, this is what the retrovirus HIV does. Observers with a certain bias could easily assume the thing shouldn’t be there. Such is the kind of error to which the conditioned scientific mind can be led by germ theory. But maybe viruses are good guys, not bad!

Since viruses don’t have a reproductive mechanism, they must use the host cell to reproduce. But perhaps the reason they can’t replicate outside the cell is that they’re not intended to. Perhaps something in the cell is producing or becoming a virus for a reason. There is the possibility that a virus may have a complex of microzymas in the center. And, as with bacteria, monomorphic medical science offers no explanation as to where these forms come from in the first place. Pleomorphism, however, easily suggests and answer.

To speculate further, what if the disease condition weakens our enzyme system so that “improper” repair structures result? Since enzymes (and vitamins) must have minerals to function, even a simple mineral deficiency could be involved in the failure of gene repair. A faulty protein structure may still have the ability to get into the DNA, but it may “have a screw loose.” If so, it would fail to fulfill properly its original purpose, and possibly instigate another morbid situation in the cell as well. Another possibility is that even if the repair structure is correct, nutritional deficiency or depletion of the enzyme potential may prevent proper function.

To make matters more interesting, once a protein structure is floating around, it could evolve into a higher morbid form itself, depending on circumstances. It may evolve into a bacterium. This has been well documented in the lost, ignored, suppressed chapter in the history of medical biology. And in a compromised terrain, today’s bacterium (which can be bad enough itself) can be tomorrow’s terrain-poisoning yeast, fungus, or mold.

Pasteur denied that bacteria could change their form. Only the unchanging, specific germs of the air were the cause of disease, he said. Béchamp, on the other hand, never denying that the air carried germs, maintained that airborne forms were not necessary for disease. So you see, the well-connected politician wished to establish that we must be invaded (and therefore be protected by profitable vaccination). But the true scientist showed that an independently living element, which could morbidly evolve, already exists in all cells of the body, and showed evidence that it is all that is needed for the appearance of symptogenic organisms.

For us now, this is the important thing: whatever that living element may or may not be, the body naturally has within it the factors and potential necessary to produce the symptoms of disease, including microorganisms. This may seem a little scary, but it is empowering at the same time. It means we also have the innate ability to become, and to stay, healthy. So, how’s that for a gem of a theory?

Whether Pasteur or Béchamp is correct may still be an issue for some people. It does seem unusual, though, that Antoine’s name, and the controversy itself, have been omitted from history, medical and biology books – even encyclopedias. Given the magnitude and number of Béchamp’s discoveries, it is fair to ask if this omission is more than oversight. What is someone afraid of?

Based on my personal research and that of others, it seems that the historical/scientific “assassination” of Antoine Béchamp resulted in medical science drawing conclusions from a half-truth. This has meant untold misery for the human race, especially in the West. The resulting concept of diseases as entities that attack us is highly questionable (even without Béchamp) and is a major block to resolving health care issues today. The odd thing is, Pasteur himself was reported to have admitted on his deathbed that, “Claude Bernard was right – the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything.” But, even as he was dying, he would not give credit for the demonstration of this fact to whom it was due – Antoine Béchamp.
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://joedubs.com/the-fallacious-germ-theory/
Fear is employed by the authorities to manufacture consent. Fear is the opposite of Love, and Love is ultimately knowledge. Knowledge must be cultivated, free of bias and cognitive dissonance.

“If I could live my life over again, I’d devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat, disease tissue, rather than being the cause of disease tissue.” -Dr. Rudolph Virchow, renowned scientist, considered the ‘Father of Pathology’

You could think of it like this; Mosquitoes seek the stagnant water, but don’t cause the pool to become stagnant. Its the same way with germs.

“Germs seek their natural habitat – diseased tissue – rather than being the cause of diseased tissue.” -Antoine Béchamp

“if we see flies on a manure pile which do we think is more intelligent – to fight disease be swatting flies or to remove the pile of manure.” -Dr. J. Baldor, Surgeon, Florida

It is more important to know what sort of person has a disease than to know what sort of disease a person has.
-Hippocrates

There was another theory at the time that actually made sense. I’m talking about the Terrain Theory, or Pleomorphism, or the Cellular Theory of disease causation. The idea that, instead of poisoning our bodies, like we would do with antibiotics(anti-life) to kill an ‘infection’, we would instead provide the right conditions for the body to heal itself, and forget about trying to kill everything in sight.

Which one makes more sense to you? Most healthy people live their lives according to the Terrain Theory just out of common sense. Most people will never hear about this suppressed medical science, and will take the authority figure’s advice as sacrosanct truth.

It makes sense that if you are sick you probably shouldn’t consume poison. Western medicine, in their infinite wisdom, begs to differ. They think the germ is all that matters and it just needs to be eliminated. But germs only thrive under certain conditions.

Perhaps we should just provide the right conditions for our body and if we do encounter one of these pernicious ‘germs’, we can rest assured because it won’t ‘stick’. Using their own flawed and ambiguous terminology, you would be ‘immune’ to the ‘germs’.

So, what’ll it be? Should we continue living in the flawed paradigm of disease-management by treating the symptom? Or should we reject the belief system that passes for modern science and create HEALTH by addressing the root cause of the problem?

Treating the root cause of dis-ease with diet and lifestyle makes a lot of sense,
But unfortunately suppressing the symptoms with drugs and surgery makes a lot of dollar$

Foolish the doctor who despises the knowledge acquired by the ancients. ~Hippocrates

Whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm.
Hippocrates

Natural forces within us are the true healers of disease.
Hippocrates

“Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.”
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. Marcia Angell, M.D.

The description of the disease seems to change according to the drug that’s being marketed.
-Ray Peat, PhD

“If the germ theory were founded on facts, there would be no living being to read what’s written.”
Dr. George White

“Disease is the crisis of purification of toxic elimination. Symptoms are the natural defenses of the body” – Hippocrates – 460 bc

“The most serious disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms into the blood…into a medium not intended for them may provoke redoubtable manifestations of the gravest morbid phenomena.”
– Bechamp

“…doctors fight the imaginary foe without ceasing. The people are so saturated with the idea that disease must be fought to a finish that they are not satisfied with conservative treatment. Something must be done, even if they pay for it with their lives, as tens of thousands do every year. This willingness to die on the altar of medical superstition is one very great reason why no real improvement is made in fundamental medical science.”
– Toxemia Explained 1926

Again Dr. Tilden nails it:
“… every so-called disease is a crisis of Toxemia; which means that toxin has accumulated in the blood above the toleration point, and the crisis, the so-called disease – call it cold, flu, pneumonia, headache, or typhoid fever – is a vicarious elimination. Nature is endeavoring to rid the body of toxin. Any treatment that obstructs this effort at elimination baffles nature in her effort of self-curing.”

“Bacteria and parasites cannot cause disease processes unless they find their own peculiar morbid soil in which to grow and multiply.” -Henry Lindlahr, MD

Rene Dubos of the Rockefeller Institute: “Reasons why the germ theory became popular are: First, it fit neatly into the mechanistic theories of the universe that were popular in the nineteenth century. Second, it fit human nature. Man, apparently, ever ready to avoid responsibility and place causation outside himself, found an easy scapegoat in the bad little organisms that flew about and attacked him. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that evil spirits had been responsible for man’s ills. Third, it fit ‘commercial nature’ When we place causation outside ourselves, we create vast armies of attackers and defenders, assailants and protectors.

The reason why Béchamp was mainly ignored and Pasteur elevated to hero status is to be found in the different personalities and the lure of commercial success. Bechamp was a dedicated scientist and researcher, but he had no skills at politics and ass-kissing. Pasteur, on the other hand, was an expert at both. He ingratiated himself with the rich and powerful, and even became a favorite of French royalty.”

“Do not automatically believe in anything , especially what you are told. Convince yourself of something by observing it with your own eyes. And, after having perceived a new fact, do not lose sight of it again until it is fully explained.” — Wilhelm Reich

People have been educated to be terrified of bacteria and to believe implicitly in the idea of contagion: that specific, malevolently-aggressive disease germs pass from one host to another. They also have been programmed to believe that healing requires some powerful force to remove whatever is at fault. In their view, illness is hardly their own doing.

The ‘germ era’ helped usher in the decline of hygienic health reform in the 19th century and, ironically, the people also found a soothing complacency in placing the blame for their ill health on malevolent, microscopic ‘invaders’, rather than facing responsibility for their own insalubrious lifestyle habits and their own suffering.

Pasteur was a chemist and physicist and knew very little about biological processes. He was a respected, influential and charismatic man, however, whose phobic fear of infection and belief in the “malignancy and belligerence” of germs had popular far-reaching consequences in the scientific community which was convinced of the threat of the microbe to man. Thus was born the fear of germs (bacteriophobia), which still exists today. Before the discoveries of Pasteur, medical science was a disorganised medley of diversified diseases with imaginary causes, each treated symptomatically rather than at their root cause. Up to this time, the evolution of medical thought had its roots in ancient shamanism, superstition and religion, of invading entities and spirits. The profession searched in vain for a tangible basis on which to base its theories and practices. Pasteur then gave the profession the “germ”.

By the 1870s, the medical profession fully adopted the germ theory with a vengeance that continues today. The advent of the microscope made it possible to see, differentiate and categorise the organisms. Invading microbes were now seen as the cause of disease.

The medical-pharmaceutical industry began their relentless search for the perfect drug to combat each disease-causing microbe—of which there are now over 10,000 distinct diseases recognised by the American Medical Association.
The universal acceptance of the germ theory and widespread bacteriophobia resulted in frenzied efforts to avoid the threat of germs. A whole new era of modem medicine was then inaugurated, including sterilisation, pasteurisation, vaccination, and fear of eating raw food.


It is frequently overlooked that around 1880, Pasteur changed his theory. According to Dr Duclaux, Pasteur stated that germs were “ordinarily kept within bounds by natural laws, but when conditions change, when its virulence is exalted, when its host is enfeebled, the germ is able to invade the territory which was previously barred to it.”

This is the premise that a healthy body is resistant and not susceptible to disease. With the advent of Pasteur’s mysterious germ, however, medicine cloaked itself under the guise of ‘science’ and ever since has succeeded in keeping the public ignorant of the true nature of dis- ease. -Arthur M. Baker – Exposing the Myth of the Germ Theory

 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
http://www.shotsoftruth.com/germ-theory-.html
The Medical Mafia claims that germs cause dis-ease, like the common cold. The coronavirus is defined in the medical dictionary as common cold.


And they claim that these germs are everywhere-in us-on us-around us-on doorknobs-on our money-everywhere.

And they claim that we can be healthy one minute and the germs attack us and we will be sick the next minute.

If you believe that let me ask you a question-why don't you have a cold right now?

Once in awhile some smarter than the average bear will say Jim I do not have a cold right now because I eat lots of good nourishing food, I take my vitamins, I exercise, so my immune system is strong. And that is why I don't have a cold.

And I say so you admit that germs are not the cause?

And now that non-thinking person has a puzzled look on their face, and says huh?

I respond to that person if the germ can't break through a strong immune system, then the germ cannot be the cause.

Because if the germs were the cause it wouldn't matter how strong your immune system was.

That is not fake science, that is pure unadulterated logic and common sense.

I repeat if the germs were the cause it would make no difference how strong or weak your immune system was.
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1

#242 Are germs the enemy? 0
May 18, 2020
Most of our lives we've been told to avoid spreading or catching germs, in order to not get sick or make someone else ill. But what if we've misunderstood the role of germs in our body? What if germs do not actually cause disease?

Today, Dr. Andy Kaufman, molecular biologist and psychiatrist, helps us wrap our heads around germ theory and contrasts it with terrain theory. He defines both and clarifies how our modern medical system is largely based on the former. He also gives his take on the coronavirus and offers some surprising ideas about how to nurture health. It's a deep dive on the true manifestation of disease that is especially important at this time.

Visit Dr. Kaufaman's website: andrewkaufmanmd.com
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
http://rawschool.com/disease/

Do bacteria cause disease? Do viruses?

What if I told you that they didn’t? Does HIV cause AIDS? Do immunizations prevent disease? Does anthrax, Ebola, E. Coli, the Hanta virus, smallpox, influenza, the West Nile virus, or any other so-called deadly pathogen cause sickness or pose any deadly threat whatsoever? What if I said the answers to all of these questions was no? What if I were to tell you that no matter how many sick people you come in contact with, you can’t catch disease? Am I insane? Crazy? Nuts? The truth is, we’ve all been duped into believing a theory-the germ theory of disease-that just isn’t true. We’ve all been tricked since birth into embracing the idea that when we are around someone who is sick, we can also become sick, regardless of how healthy we are at the time. Call it what you will-brainwashing, hypnosis, or whatever-this trickery runs so deep until we never notice all the times when we are around sick people and we don’t catch their illnesses. We only remember the times when contagion appears to occur, and this only strengthens our belief in disease transmission. This belief, of course, is not true. We have been convinced of the existence of vampires and ghosts, and now, more than any other time in history, we must open our eyes and stop embracing the lies we are being told.

Scientists since the late 1800s, including Louis Pasteur, have all been part of a rather disorganized conspiracy to convince the public that the true cause of disease is pesky germs. Of course, there was no real conspiracy. Medical practitioners have also duped themselves into believing these deceptions just as much as they’ve duped us into believing their irrational propaganda. The germ theory of disease came on the heels of the Middle Ages when people believed that demons and evil spirits caused all diseases, so it wasn’t that big of a transition to go from demons to microscopic bacteria. The belief in viruses came later, but they don’t cause disease, either. Wait a minute! Am I saying that Ebola, HIV, and other viruses don’t cause disease? Am I saying that anthrax, pneumonia, and other diseases are not caused by bacteria? The answer to both questions is a resounding yes! Viruses and bacteria cause disease about as much as trees cause the wind to blow. It might look like this is the case, and that’s why scientists have duped themselves into believing such a fallacy, but in truth, health is caused by healthy living. I can’t transmit my bad health any more than I can transmit my good health. It’s easy to blame germs, but what we should be doing is blaming ourselves when we get sick. We’re responsible, and that’s something a lot of people just don’t want to hear.

I know what I’ve said so far is pretty hard to swallow. After all, you’ve believed all of your life that diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses. You’ve believed that the common cold is contagious, that the flu can only be prevented by vaccination, and that Ebola, AIDS, anthrax, and other dreaded diseases are highly lethal and to be avoided at all costs. But you’ve been tricked into believing all of these myths by a medical establishment that has been built upon the shaky foundation of the germ theory of disease. Combine this with the fact that the business of medicine is just that-a business, and a rather large and profitable one, to say the least-there’s no mystery as to how an entire establishment of medical practitioners could fall prey to the same deceptions they have used to deceive us into believing in their scare tactics and lies.

It wasn’t that long ago that a guy by the name of Louis Pasteur convinced an entire nation-and eventually, the entire world-to believe in his germ theory. Most people think of Pasteur as the guy who invented pasteurization, but he was responsible for so much more. Men like Pasteur, Edward Jenner, and Robert Koch are among those responsible for the perpetuation of both the germ theory of disease and the theory of immunization-two ideas that have set the foundation for the vast majority of today’s medical establishment. With so much resting on the backs of these two outdated theories, it is interesting to note that they are rarely tested under strict scientific scrutiny; instead, they are oftentimes believed to be true without question, making the belief in the medical model more a religion than a science. What’s worse, the germ theory of disease as well as the theory of immunization are both outdated, erroneous, and unnecessary in today’s world. Both ideas were even questioned and opposed at their inception, but dissention fell on deaf ears. The truth is quite the opposite from all you have ever learned, and slowly but surely, the truth is making itself known-truths such as the AIDS hoax, the lie of childhood immunization, and most importantly, the myth of contagion.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,794
25,373
1
2020evidence.org
“Three criteria are, according to the scientific method needed to properly identify a virus. It must be isolated from a host cell. As of 2016 this has never been accomplished in humans. It must be photographed and it’s diameter measured. As of 2016 this has never been accomplished in humans. It must be biochemically characterized. As of 2016 this has never been accomplished in humans. This has never been done with any virus (herpes, hepatitis, h1n1, bird flu, swine flu, influenza, polio, measles) let alone HIV, HPV, SARS, Zika or Ebola.” — Viruses. How Much is that Dogma in the Window?, New Medicine Online
By all means I have an open mind to change my views on topics but this ^^^^ doesn't seem accurate. For example, for people that had chronic fatigue syndrome virologists in 2009 isolated XMVR virus from host cells, they photographed the virus, then they characterized it as a gammaretrovirus.

https://www.virology.ws/2009/10/15/xmrv-and-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/
 

macdad25

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2012
5,128
2,920
1
Montville NJ
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/05/05/covid-the-numbers-game-the-fraud-and-the-final-answer/
And I’ll simply say: ALL COVID-19 case numbers are meaningless.

Why?

ONE: Researchers never properly discovered a new virus in China in the first place. Their claim of having done so is false.

TWO: The widespread diagnostic test for the virus in a patient, the PCR, is riddled with irreparable flaws. It spits out false-positives, because the test reacts to the presence of irrelevant germs that have nothing to do with a purported COVID. Most importantly the test has never been vetted, in the real world, for its claimed ability to detect whether a patient is ill or is going to become ill.

THREE: Many diagnoses of COVID in patients are based on no tests at all, but rather eyeball assessment, guesswork, unproven assumptions, outright lying, or, in China, CT scans of the lungs, which prove nothing about the presence of COVID or any other supposedly causative virus.

To explore the particulars of my reasons ONE and TWO, you need to read my prior articles on the fake COVID pandemic. The link to my COVID articles is below. In particular, I suggest reading, “Two vital experiments that have never been done,” for my refutation of both the discovery of a new virus and the validity of the PCR test. (link also below)

Therefore, again, ALL case numbers of COVID are meaningless.

Likewise, all seasonal flu or flu-like numbers are meaningless. As just one illustration of this fact, I have published, many times, Peter Doshi’s shocking investigation of US flu deaths. Doshi reported in the online BMJ, on December 10, 2005, “…CDC claims 36,000 Americans annually die from flu…Meanwhile, according to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), “influenza and pneumonia” took 62,034 lives in 2001—61 777 of which were attributed to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was flu virus positively identified…”

After both stepping outside the numbers game, and momentarily stepping into it, what are we left with? We know that people have been falling ill, for a long, long time, with respiratory problems of various kinds. The human race has survived, without a lockdown on the scale we have now, and without the deaths caused by economic devastation. If you wanted to enable general immunity (aka health), regardless of how you define and describe it, you would now promote people being in close contact with one another. If you wanted to postpone immunity/health, you would lock people up and separate them.

As for the true causes of illness and disease, I have commented on that subject in other places. It’s not the purpose of this article. I will say this: In modern times, we must never ignore poisonous vaccination campaigns; other toxic medical treatments, including many drugs; the insults delivered by pesticides, GMOs, industrial pollutants, and electromagnetic technologies; and the promotion of fear. Germ theory is not king. It never was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bplionfan

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
By all means I have an open mind to change my views on topics but this ^^^^ doesn't seem accurate. For example, for people that had chronic fatigue syndrome virologists in 2009 isolated XMVR virus from host cells, they photographed the virus, then they characterized it as a gammaretrovirus.

https://www.virology.ws/2009/10/15/xmrv-and-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/

They have retracted that article.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/198...XI3snCfZX0OFT6uInXkvzozHfMYM-giaRLepl_QocV-kU

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426297/

https://paradigmchange.me/me/xmrv/
 
Last edited:

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/283...q0QcI-MaT6JpViUOSCr6m1rElhWqjaNnz1EJBcYw1Q104

Abstract
Background: China's rapid economic development has resulted in severe particulate matter (PM) air pollution and the control and prevention of infectious disease is an ongoing priority. This study examined the relationships between short-term exposure to ambient particles with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5µm (PM2.5) and measles incidence in China.

Methods: Data on daily numbers of new measles cases and concentrations of ambient PM2.5 were collected from 21 cities in China during Oct 2013 and Dec 2014. Poisson regression was used to examine city-specific associations of PM2.5 and measles, with a constrained distributed lag model, after adjusting for seasonality, day of the week, and weather conditions. Then, the effects at the national scale were pooled with a random-effect meta-analysis.

Results: A 10µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 at lag 1day, lag 2day and lag 3day was significantly associated with increased measles incidence [relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were 1.010 (1.003, 1.018), 1.010 (1.003, 1.016) and 1.006 (1.000, 1.012), respectively]. The cumulative relative risk of measles associated with PM2.5 at lag 1-3 days was 1.029 (95% CI: 1.010, 1.048). Stratified analyses by meteorological factors showed that the PM2.5 and measles associations were stronger on days with high temperature, low humidity, and high wind speed.

Conclusions: We provide new evidence that measles incidence is associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5 in China. Effective policies to reduce air pollution may also reduce measles incidence.

Keywords: China; Measles; PM2.5.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
Who planned it
All the links are in this thread already but here you go.

2010 The “Lock Step” scenario Rockefeller Foundation’
https://therulingclassobserver.com/2020/03/23/plandemic-planet-part-i/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/all-s...-lock-step-deep-states-latest-bio-war/5702773
https://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller Foundation.pdf

2010 Project Camelot video where they mention how China will catch a “cold”
In October of 2019 Bill Gates and Johns Hopkins run a pandemic practice drill for coronavirus called Event 201.
https://i.postimg.cc/6Q0vsP43/Capture12.jpg
https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/11/06/event-201-health-security/
https://www.hopkins-cepar.org/on-alert/two-different-drills-with-two-different-goals
https://www.mededportal.org/publication/10823/

Sept 2019, Wuhan China ran a pandemic practice drill for coronavirus
https://thefreedomarticles.com/chin...wledge-coronavirus-drill-30-days-wuhan-games/
https://i.postimg.cc/Wp0NGnpG/military-games.jpg

2019 Crimson Contagion was a simulation drill administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from January to August 2019 that tested the capacity of the U.S. federal government and twelve U.S. states to respond to a severe influenza pandemic originating in China.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...arned-of-pandemic-implications-in-us/2243832/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Contagion

In 2017 Military says coronavirus is coming
https://i.postimg.cc/Z5tzzK26/2017.jpg

In 2017 Fauci says Trump will definitely have a surprise infectious disease outbreak
https://i.postimg.cc/QxPSNYLh/Fauci.jpg
https://ghss.georgetown.edu/pandemicprep2017/#

2015 Bill Gates talks about necessity of virus practice drills
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XuC44lwMqg3t/
https://i.postimg.cc/L6xVWL11/drill.jpg

2014 Obama predicts pandemic possible in 5 years or maybe 10
https://i.postimg.cc/cJfstgq1/obama.jpg

The gov't has come out and said we are in a live drill
Gov Cuomo in press conference April 11th 2020 admits this is a preparation drill
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QifJjdUVmSTt/

Pompeo in press conference admits we are in a live drill
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zq2WfRzj9zOw/
https://i.postimg.cc/2SYgGM1T/Pompeo.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/Y0W56jgD/Defend20.jpg
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,794
25,373
1
2020evidence.org
Of course it got retracted, due to political pressure. It was showing that contagious retroviruses were causing cancer and other chronic diseases and tainting the blood supply. It got too close to the truth. Were the pics they took of the viruses they isolated faked? No. Your post claimed no one had ever isolated and photographed a virus from a host cell and that's flat out false. It's been done many many times buy numerous different scientists (other than Mikovits).

HTLV was also isolated and photographed in early 80's. Same with HIV, etc. etc.:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-cancer-causing-htlv-virus-common-australia.html
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
Of course it got retracted, due to political pressure. It was showing that contagious retroviruses were causing cancer and other chronic diseases and tainting the blood supply. It got too close to the truth. Were the pics they took of the viruses they isolated faked? No. Your post claimed no one had ever isolated and photographed a virus from a host cell and that's flat out false. It's been done many many times buy numerous different scientists (other than Mikovits).

HTLV was also isolated and photographed in early 80's. Same with HIV, etc. etc.:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-cancer-causing-htlv-virus-common-australia.html

LOL, come on now. Too close to the truth... They could just make more money off of it. Fake vaccines, more drugs. You need something proof than that.

And you believe this story?
“The HTLV-I virus is thought to have originated from multiple zoonotic events, likely involving the transmission of the virus from monkeys to humans. In Australia, where monkeys do not occur, the origin of this virus likely involved human migration, possibly from Indonesia a long time ago, Robert says.

You will need to provide proof the pictures are from a virus isolated/purified from human cells. As well as proving they have met the requirements of Koch Postulates. Until every virus undergoes Koch's Postulates there is no virus. If you can send that to me.

https://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/dr-stefan-lanka-debunks-pictures-of-isolated-viruses/

“All these photos have in common that they, respectively the authors, can´t claim that they represent a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated. Such original publications are cited nowhere.
Indeed, in the entire scientific medical literature there´s not even one publication, where the fulfillment of Koch´s first postulate is even claimed for such viruses. This means that there is no proof that the viruses held responsible for these diseases have been isolated from humans afflicted by them. Nevertheless, this is precisely what they publicly claim.

CaptureUSE1.png


Now, regarding the photos submitted:

1. Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the (art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.

2. The images of the so called HIV-, measles (Masern)- and smallpox (Pocken) viruses clearly show, as the image descriptions partly already indicate, that these are cells wherein the viruses can allegedly be found. Thus, nothing has been isolated. The photos actually show cells and typical endogenous particles in them. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and inter-cellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind – which are consistently the same size and same shape – they differ in size and shape and therefore can´t have been isolated.

3. In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that they´re isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated from humans.

These particles are partially the cellular particles mentioned above (#2) resp. typical artifacts which means: structures that accrue after inappropriate fixing and drying of the probes, while being prepared for the electron microscope.

4. The “isolated” polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones of the “viruses” in the cells. Here the information is essential that a biochemical characterization of those “isolated” viruses, although “isolation” is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody even claimed such a characterization.

5. The photo of the hepatitis B “viruses” does not show isolated structures, but – as the image title already says, an agglutinate. This is the scientific/medical term for proteins from the blood that are clumped together, as is typical for coagulations. Typically, round and also crystal structures accrue – depending on the condition of the blood sample – as a consequence .

In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have contributed to this fraud knowingly or only out of gross negligence, I don´t know. Everyone who starts researching the medical literature, will quickly encounter statements and references that Koch´s first postulate can´t be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben, 1997 [“A short history of the microbes”]; editor: Verlag für angewandte Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could overlook that, remains a riddle.

Could it be that the term “Contagium” = “Gift” (poison/toxin) = “Virus” from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell components which were named “viruses” since the electron microscope was introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the “disease causing viruses” have often been described, yet have never been isolated? And then they were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985 following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations? The copies in the textbooks show only homogenous structures within cells and nothing that looks like something which has been isolated. The biochemical characterization, which is crucial, is completely lacking.

HIV/AIDS fraud:

Brussels – European Parliament – Dec 08, 2003 PROBLEMS WITH ISOLATING HIV Etienne de Harven, MD.

Source: https://www.robertogiraldo.com/.../ProblemsWithIsolatingH...

HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS PATIENTS

Source: https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/.../hiv-has-never-been.../

IS “HIV” REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS?
ARE THERE REALLY ONLY “A FEW”
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?

Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record that the “Hiv-Aids” theories, routinely reported to the public as if they were facts, are dubious to say the least.

Source: http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm...

The Perth Group
The HIV-AIDS debate

Source: http://theperthgroup.com/

HIV Twenty-Eight Years Later: What is the Truth? – Gary Null

Source: https://prn.fm/hiv-twenty-eight-years-later-what-is.../...

Reply to Bennett: There is no Gold Standard 'HIV' Genome

Source: https://www.bmj.com/.../reply-bennett-there-no-gold...

Stop Giving People Toxic Drugs: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS

Source: https://www.bmj.com/.../stop-giving-people-toxic-drugs...

Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/

AIDS INC.
Copyright 1988 Jon Rappoport

Source: http://www.pauladaunt.com/.../Jon%20Rappoport%20-%20AIDS...

Judy Mikovits admits she didn't isolate HIV in 2017 interview with David Crowe

Mikovits HIV info is also discussed in this recent interview about the 1:35:00 mark
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,794
25,373
1
2020evidence.org
LOL, come on now. Too close to the truth... They could just make more money off of it. Fake vaccines, more drugs. You need something proof than that.

And you believe this story?
“The HTLV-I virus is thought to have originated from multiple zoonotic events, likely involving the transmission of the virus from monkeys to humans. In Australia, where monkeys do not occur, the origin of this virus likely involved human migration, possibly from Indonesia a long time ago, Robert says.

You will need to provide proof the pictures are from a virus isolated/purified from human cells. As well as proving they have met the requirements of Koch Postulates. Until every virus undergoes Koch's Postulates there is no virus. If you can send that to me.

https://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/dr-stefan-lanka-debunks-pictures-of-isolated-viruses/

“All these photos have in common that they, respectively the authors, can´t claim that they represent a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated. Such original publications are cited nowhere.
Indeed, in the entire scientific medical literature there´s not even one publication, where the fulfillment of Koch´s first postulate is even claimed for such viruses. This means that there is no proof that the viruses held responsible for these diseases have been isolated from humans afflicted by them. Nevertheless, this is precisely what they publicly claim.

CaptureUSE1.png


Now, regarding the photos submitted:

1. Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the (art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.

2. The images of the so called HIV-, measles (Masern)- and smallpox (Pocken) viruses clearly show, as the image descriptions partly already indicate, that these are cells wherein the viruses can allegedly be found. Thus, nothing has been isolated. The photos actually show cells and typical endogenous particles in them. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and inter-cellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind – which are consistently the same size and same shape – they differ in size and shape and therefore can´t have been isolated.

3. In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that they´re isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated from humans.

These particles are partially the cellular particles mentioned above (#2) resp. typical artifacts which means: structures that accrue after inappropriate fixing and drying of the probes, while being prepared for the electron microscope.

4. The “isolated” polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones of the “viruses” in the cells. Here the information is essential that a biochemical characterization of those “isolated” viruses, although “isolation” is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody even claimed such a characterization.

5. The photo of the hepatitis B “viruses” does not show isolated structures, but – as the image title already says, an agglutinate. This is the scientific/medical term for proteins from the blood that are clumped together, as is typical for coagulations. Typically, round and also crystal structures accrue – depending on the condition of the blood sample – as a consequence .

In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have contributed to this fraud knowingly or only out of gross negligence, I don´t know. Everyone who starts researching the medical literature, will quickly encounter statements and references that Koch´s first postulate can´t be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben, 1997 [“A short history of the microbes”]; editor: Verlag für angewandte Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could overlook that, remains a riddle.

Could it be that the term “Contagium” = “Gift” (poison/toxin) = “Virus” from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell components which were named “viruses” since the electron microscope was introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the “disease causing viruses” have often been described, yet have never been isolated? And then they were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985 following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations? The copies in the textbooks show only homogenous structures within cells and nothing that looks like something which has been isolated. The biochemical characterization, which is crucial, is completely lacking.

HIV/AIDS fraud:

Brussels – European Parliament – Dec 08, 2003 PROBLEMS WITH ISOLATING HIV Etienne de Harven, MD.

Source: https://www.robertogiraldo.com/.../ProblemsWithIsolatingH...

HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS PATIENTS

Source: https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/.../hiv-has-never-been.../

IS “HIV” REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS?
ARE THERE REALLY ONLY “A FEW”
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?

Over 2,000 scientists, medical professionals, authors and academics are on record that the “Hiv-Aids” theories, routinely reported to the public as if they were facts, are dubious to say the least.

Source: http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm...

The Perth Group
The HIV-AIDS debate

Source: http://theperthgroup.com/

HIV Twenty-Eight Years Later: What is the Truth? – Gary Null

Source: https://prn.fm/hiv-twenty-eight-years-later-what-is.../...

Reply to Bennett: There is no Gold Standard 'HIV' Genome

Source: https://www.bmj.com/.../reply-bennett-there-no-gold...

Stop Giving People Toxic Drugs: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS

Source: https://www.bmj.com/.../stop-giving-people-toxic-drugs...

Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/

AIDS INC.
Copyright 1988 Jon Rappoport

Source: http://www.pauladaunt.com/.../Jon%20Rappoport%20-%20AIDS...

Judy Mikovits admits she didn't isolate HIV in 2017 interview with David Crowe


Mikovits HIV info is also discussed in this recent interview about the 1:35:00 mark
I don't believe a lot of the virus origin stories but that doesn't mean people haven't isolated viruses and taken pictures of them.

Your standard is impossible to satisfy. Unless someone was with the scientist when they collected the sample from the affected person, watched them walk it into a lab, isolate a virus from it, and then take a pic with the electron microscope you'll always be able to claim a "lack of proof." The studies do describe in detail how the samples were collected, how the viruses were isolated, etc..

I never claimed Mikovits isolated HIV. That was done by the French scientist Luc Montagnier (then Gallo tried to take all the credit for it like a scumbag). I think she worked downstream from his work though.

I do think there's a lot of dinfo about HIV-AIDS but I do think HIV was isolated from the early French patients by Montagnier. You could claim the HIV virus isn't the only cause of AIDS (this is pretty much what Mikovits says in the interview you linked >> there are cofactors besides the HIV virus) but to say it has no role is a stretch IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bplionfan

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
I don't believe a lot of the virus origin stories but that doesn't mean people haven't isolated viruses and taken pictures of them.

Your standard is impossible to satisfy. Unless someone was with the scientist when they collected the sample from the affected person, watched them walk it into a lab, isolate a virus from it, and then take a pic with the electron microscope you'll always be able to claim a "lack of proof." The studies do describe in detail how the samples were collected, how the viruses were isolated, etc..

I never claimed Mikovits isolated HIV. That was done by the French scientist Luc Montagnier (then Gallo tried to take all the credit for it like a scumbag). I think she worked downstream from his work though.

I do think there's a lot of dinfo about HIV-AIDS but I do think HIV was isolated from the early French patients by Montagnier. You could claim the HIV virus isn't the only cause of AIDS (this is pretty much what Mikovits says in the interview you linked >> there are cofactors besides the HIV virus) but to say it has no role is a stretch IMO.
It's not my standard. It's the industry standard. It's not my problem they haven't met that standard, it's the germ theorys problem that no one has met that standard. One would think with so many "infectious" diseases there would be so much documented proof with studies but there is none. Yet there are human studies like the 1918 Spanish flu see video a few posts above that they tried to spread, yet not one got the flu.
That is because it's obvious environmental, toxins and such as to why we get sick. The terrain theory. See the measles study above showing people getting measles from environmental particles.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
19,794
25,373
1
2020evidence.org
It's not my standard. It's the industry standard. It's not my problem they haven't met that standard, it's the germ theorys problem that no one has met that standard. One would think with so many "infectious" diseases there would be so much documented proof with studies but there is none. Yet there are human studies like the 1918 Spanish flu see video a few posts above that they tried to spread, yet not one got the flu.
That is because it's obvious environmental, toxins and such as to why we get sick. The terrain theory. See the measles study above showing people getting measles from environmental particles.
Environmental toxins certainly play a large part. Just bc people were exposed to a virus and didn’t get sick doesn’t mean germ theory is wrong or viruses aren’t contagious or don’t cause disease. Another explanation is it’s hard to spread disease to healthy people. The people in your example could have been infected with the viruses but they never showed symptoms or got the corresponding disease bc their immune systems neutralized them. Similar to people having HIV but never developing AIDS.

The environmental toxins are a cofactor bc they deplete glutathione and weaken the immune system which then allows dormant viruses to “activate” and then you see the disease appear. So they work hand in hand with viruses to cause disease.

The standard has been met (viruses isolated and photographed) but you claim all the pics are fake or misleading and the scientists could be lying.

Are all the below pics fake?
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04...ona-walkers-and-operation-cosmic-confinement/

Numbers: Diagnosis

As David Crowe, in his painstakingly researched, meticulously argued paper, “Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory,” notes, despite what Big Media and Big Government would have the rest of us believe, “There is very little science happening” vis-à-vis The Virus.

“If the virus exists,” Crowe writes, “then it should be possible to purify viral particles.” He elaborates:

From these particles RNA can be extracted and should match the RNA used in this test. Until this is done it is possible that the RNA comes from another source, which could be the cells of the patient, bacteria, fungi etc. There might be an association with elevated levels of this RNA and illness, but that is not proof that the RNA is from a virus. Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present.

In order to know that a virus is causing disease or illness, we first need to be able to isolate the viral particles from everything else that is transpiring around it and extract RNA from those particles. Only then, upon matching it with the RNA in the test, would it be possible to determine whether the RNA found is actually that belonging to a virus.

This has not been done.

Another problem is that the illness of which The Virus is said to be the cause is constituted by symptoms that are loose and scarcely unique, or even particularly distinctive. “Definitions of important diseases are surprisingly loose,” Crowe continues, “perhaps embarrassingly so.” He observes that while the definition of SARS was “self-limiting,” that of “COVID-19…is open-ended” (emphasis added) [.]

“This strange new disease, officially named COVID-19, has none of its own symptoms. Fever and cough, previously blamed on uncountable viruses and bacteria, as well as environmental contaminants, are most common, as well as abnormal lung images, despite those being found in healthy people.”

Brilliantly, Crowe delivers the coup de grace of his argument through a piece of logic that is unanswerable:

“Yet, despite the fact that only a minority of people tested will test positive (often less than 5%), it is assumed that this disease is easily recognized. If that was truly the case, the majority of people selected for testing by doctors should be positive” (emphases added).

Investigative journalist Jon Rappoport expands upon the unreliability of the diagnostic test for The Virus. Before the PCR (the standard COVID-19 test) “was ever permitted to make claims about THE QUANTITY OF VIRUS that is replicating in a patient’s body,” Rappoport remarks, an experiment should have been undertaken that would have determined whether the PCR “can actually predict illness in the real world, in humans, not in the lab” (boldface original, emphasis added).

This experiment has never been performed.

Rappoport explains why this renders the PCR virtually worthless or, at the very least, scientifically disreputable:

“Quantity is vital, because, in order to even begin talking about whether a virus can cause disease, millions and millions of virus must be actively replicating in a patient’s body.”

If the reporting of confirmed cases of The Virus was truly science-based, the following experiment, or something very much like it, would have been performed at the outset of the Great Pandemic:

“Here is the experiment. Assemble a group of 500 volunteers, some sick, some healthy. Take tissue samples from them, and give the samples to PCR technicians. The technicians will never see or know who the 500 volunteers are.

“The techs run these samples through the PCR. For each sample, they report which virus they found, and how much of it they found.

“In patients 34, 57, 83, 165, and 433, we found a great deal of the following disease-causing viruses.

“Now we un-blind those specific patients. By the test results, they should all be sick. Are they? Aren’t they? Then we would know. We would know how accurate and relevant the test is in the real world.”

Well, we would be significantly closer to knowing than we are at the present moment, for this experiment would have to be repeated numerous times with new groups of 500 or so patients per group and new sets of PCR technicians before we could claim to know that The Virus causes the illness with which it’s being identified. The subsequent rounds of testing are necessary in order to confirm or refute the initial findings.

As Rappoport says, “This is the way the scientific method is supposed to work” (emphasis added).

His verdict is to the point: Until such time as this experiment occurs, “all case numbers [of COVID-19] derived from the PCR should be thrown out.”

There is still another reason why the case numbers cannot be trusted and it has to do with the absence of a “second vital experiment.”

Since it is impossible to look into the human body in real time to discern whether millions of virus are actively replicating, the only alternative in the real world consists of electron microscopy. Rappoport tells us how this would pan out:

“Suspecting the existence of a new disease-causing virus, researchers should line up, at the very least, several hundred people who seem to have the new disease. Tissue samples should be taken from them. Using correct steps of centrifuging these samples, specimens of the results should be examined and photographed under the electron microscope.”

Then researchers must ask:

“In every one of the several hundred photos, do the researchers see many identical particles of a virus they’ve never seen before; and do the researchers see that these many particles are the same from photo to photo?”

Rappoport informs us that if the answer to this inquiry is in the affirmative, “and if more than one group of researchers independently carrying out this procedure on the patients’ tissue sampled achieves the same result…then, this is as close as you can come to saying you’ve discovered a new disease-causing virus” (italics added).

Yet even this is not the end of the story, for other “researchers with other patients should attempt to replicate the above findings.”

Rappoport reveals the damning truth:

“This vital experiment has never been done in the case of COVID-19. Not even close. Therefore, researchers can’t make a true claim to have discovered a new disease-causing virus.”

These skeptics belong to the ranks of numerous distinguished doctors from around the world who have been busy challenging the official narrative from day one—but whose voices, tellingly, have not received any attention by either Big Government or Big Media.
 
Last edited:

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...jKAiIiWlS0o5lepK-Fcys74L5tH1t-T-v3YK7SSk7l3do

How Could the CDC Make That Mistake?’

The government’s disease-fighting agency is conflating viral and antibody tests, compromising a few crucial metrics that governors depend on to reopen their economies. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, and other states are doing the same.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is conflating the results of two different types of coronavirus tests, distorting several important metrics and providing the country with an inaccurate picture of the state of the pandemic. We’ve learned that the CDC is making, at best, a debilitating mistake: combining test results that diagnose current coronavirus infections with test results that measure whether someone has ever had the virus. The upshot is that the government’s disease-fighting agency is overstating the country’s ability to test people who are sick with COVID-19. The agency confirmed to The Atlantic on Wednesday that it is mixing the results of viral and antibody tests, even though the two tests reveal different information and are used for different reasons.


This is not merely a technical error. States have set quantitative guidelines for reopening their economies based on these flawed data points.

Several states—including Pennsylvania, the site of one of the country’s largest outbreaks, as well as Texas, Georgia, and Vermont—are blending the data in the same way. Virginia likewise mixed viral and antibody test results until last week, but it reversed course and the governor apologized for the practice after it was covered by the Richmond Times-Dispatch and The Atlantic. Maine similarly separated its data on Wednesday; Vermont authorities claimed they didn’t even know they were doing this.


The widespread use of the practice means that it remains difficult to know exactly how much the country’s ability to test people who are actively sick with COVID-19 has improved.

“You’ve got to be kidding me,” Ashish Jha, the K. T. Li Professor of Global Health at Harvard and the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told us when we described what the CDC was doing. “How could the CDC make that mistake? This is a mess.”

Viral tests, taken by nose swab or saliva sample, look for direct evidence of a coronavirus infection. They are considered the gold standard for diagnosing someone with COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus: State governments consider a positive viral test to be the only way to confirm a case of COVID-19. Antibody tests, by contrast, use blood samples to look for biological signals that a person has been exposed to the virus in the past.

A negative test result means something different for each test. If somebody tests negative on a viral test, a doctor can be relatively confident that they are not sick right now; if somebody tests negative on an antibody test, they have probably never been infected with or exposed to the coronavirus. (Or they may have been given a false result—antibody tests are notoriously less accurate on an individual level than viral tests.) The problem is that the CDC is clumping negative results from both tests together in its public reporting.

Mixing the two tests makes it much harder to understand the meaning of positive tests, and it clouds important information about the U.S. response to the pandemic, Jha said. “The viral testing is to understand how many people are getting infected, while antibody testing is like looking in the rearview mirror. The two tests are totally different signals,” he told us. By combining the two types of results, the CDC has made them both “uninterpretable,” he said.

The public-radio station WLRN, in Miami, first reported that the CDC was mixing viral and antibody test results. Pennsylvania’s and Maine’s decisions to mix the two tests have not been previously reported.

Kristen Nordlund, a spokesperson for the CDC, told us that the inclusion of antibody data in Florida is one reason the CDC has reported hundreds of thousands more tests in Florida than the state government has. The agency hopes to separate the viral and antibody test results in the next few weeks, she said in an email.

But until the agency does so, its results will be suspect and difficult to interpret, says William Hanage, an epidemiology professor at Harvard. In addition to misleading the public about the state of affairs, the intermingling “makes the lives of actual epidemiologists tremendously more difficult.

The CDC stopped publishing anything resembling a complete database of daily test results on February 29. When it resumed publishing test data last week, a page of its website explaining its new COVID Data Tracker said that only viral tests were included in its figures. “These data represent only viral tests. Antibody tests are not currently captured in these data,” the page said as recently as May 18.

Yesterday, that language was changed. All reference to disaggregating the two different types of tests disappeared. “These data are compiled from a number of sources,” the new version read. The text strongly implied that both types of tests were included in the count, but did not explicitly say so.


The CDC’s data have also become more favorable over the past several days. On Monday, a page on the agency’s website reported that 10.2 million viral tests had been conducted nationwide since the pandemic began, with 15 percent of them—or about 1.5 million—coming back positive. But yesterday, after the CDC changed its terms, it said on the same page that 10.8 million tests of any type had been conducted nationwide. Yet its positive rate had dropped by a percent. On the same day it expanded its terms, the CDC added 630,205 new tests, but it added only 52,429 positive results.

This is what concerns Jha. Because antibody tests are meant to be used on the general population, not just symptomatic people, they will, in most cases, have a lower percent-positive rate than viral tests. So blending viral and antibody tests “will drive down your positive rate in a very dramatic way,” he said.

The absence of clear national guidelines has led to widespread confusion about how testing data should be reported. Pennsylvania reports negative viral and antibody tests in the same metric, a state spokesperson confirmed to us on Wednesday. The state has one of the country’s worst outbreaks, with more than 67,000 positive cases. But it has also slowly improved its testing performance, testing about 8,000 people in a day. Yet right now it is impossible to know how to interpret any of its accumulated results.

Texas, where the rate of new COVID-19 infections has stubbornly refused to fall, is one of the most worrying states (along with Georgia). The Texas Observer first reported last week that the state was lumping its viral and antibody results together. On Tuesday, Governor Greg Abbott denied that the state was blending the results, but the Dallas Observer reports that it is still doing so.
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
So WeR, you are fully on board with the germ theory? I see what you said above it sounds conflicting to me. I am just trying to get a handle on what exactly you are looking for as far as proof of this whole thing?

I think I have been clear in my belief that I think this was all 100% preplanned and what we are going through is a live drill. I think there is no new disease called "covid". Any testing being done is faulty and has no merit. It wasn't until I started researching the disease aspect that I came to realize that the what I believe about germs is wrong, so I changed my mind from thinking that we got sick from others and germs to we get sick as a means of our bodies way of healing by disposing of toxins in our bodies that manifest themselves as symptoms of illnesses like colds and flu.

https://principia-scientific.org/covid19-pandemic-hoax-re-opens-great-germ-theory-debate/

debate.jpg
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
How many times and ways does Trump have to tell people this is fake "artificial" before they start to believe it?


 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
455 contacts who were exposed to the asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carrier became the subjects of our research.

No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.

Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak

A Study on Infectivity of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Carriers
PMID: 32405162 PMCID: PMC7219423 DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106026
Background: An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world. It is debatable whether asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers are contagious. We report here a case of the asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts, which aims to study the infectivity of asymptomatic carriers.
Material and methods: 455 contacts who were exposed to the asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carrier became the subjects of our research. They were divided into three groups: 35 patients, 196 family members and 224 hospital staffs. We extracted their epidemiological information, clinical records, auxiliary examination results and therapeutic schedules.
Results: The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 25% among original diseases of patients. Apart from hospital staffs, both patients and family members were isolated medically. During the quarantine, seven patients plus one family member appeared new respiratory symptoms, where fever was the most common one. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test.
Conclusion: In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/324...DlX-N0tCGJ-SYmA4hW05Dxzss8L16UMVKXNw2MM5WfAIk
 

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ab...r2AFBgezGsqiy4ElTMcoU9vYvkha1N6DeCwCSfZ7Yuu4&

Does Influenza Transmission Occur from Asymptomatic Infection or Prior to Symptom Onset?



Abstract
A better understanding of transmission dynamics is essential in influenza pandemic planning. If a substantial proportion of transmissions were to occur during the presymptomatic phase or from asymptomatic individuals, then infection control measures such as contact tracing and quarantine of exposures would be of limited value. Infectiousness has been inferred based on the presence of influenza in the upper respiratory tract rather than from transmission experiments. Although asymptomatic individuals may shed influenza virus, studies have not determined if such people effectively transmit influenza.

We performed a systematic review of published studies describing the relationship between viral shedding and disease transmission. Based on the available literature, we found that there is scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals play an important role in influenza transmission. As such, recent articles concerning pandemic planning, some using transmission modeling, may have overestimated the effect of presymptomatic or asymptomatic influenza transmission. More definitive transmission studies are sorely needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

bplionfan

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2014
2,023
1,372
1
"Jeff G.
@Jonathan Brett Consider that the body can observe another body and learn how to detoxify his/her own body. For instance, if I see how someone else's body is detoxifying through a skin rash, my own body may learn the processes by observing another's body in action. This occurs by observing with our 5 senses, specifically our eyes, which transmits energy throughout the nervous system that can inform cellular behavior. However, this will ONLY occur if detoxification is needed by the body. In a child, this is much more likely as their bodies are still forming and the immune system is learning and strengthening. Note: Immunity comes from a relationship with microbes, which is developed at an early age when children begin sticking their fingers in their mouths, etc. If we prevent this, this relationship will be hindered.
The microbial and cellular functions in the body are intelligent and alive and can be informed via the 5 senses of the body. But it is not entirely down to touch or sight—It is reliant upon if there is a toxic accumulation in the body, and only then will such processes likely be signaled to occur. One way I can prove this is through mass hysteria, and the 'row of dominoes' effect that plays out during pandemics. Fear, for example, can bring about bodily changes that were on the precipice of occurring anyway. So then, the mind and body are powerful.

This is merely one way detoxifications can occur. Of course, if a toxic accumulation is too strong, it will be forced to do it eventually anyway. However, observation of another's body is helpful in teaching our own body how it can detoxify.
Also, do not rule out coincidence; the illusion of viral activity."
-
"In a Strange Land
Chickenpox will occur in a child without ever being around another child. Consider that 100's of school children in a school will develop colds and flu, or measles, and chickenpox, or any various number of viruses, and many others will not. Merely having a large group of people in one area is going to increase the number of illnesses because of the fact that so many people are able to be monitored and tracked at once. I have observed many children around those that were sick that never 'contracted' any illness whatsoever. I have observed the same behavior in adults.“What’s happening is, like I said, we have colds, which are mainly bacterial, which go feed on toxic tissue that’s been damaged – we don’t eat well enough, we don’t eat all raw and therefore we accumulate toxicity. So bacteria have to come in and eat that waste product because we can’t keep up with all the waste. OK. So that’s what a cold is. Flu is mainly viral. Some bacteria may be active during flu. Some areas of our bodies may not be so contaminated that bacteria – the natural way that we cleanse with bacteria when we’re overloaded with toxicity or waste products, will help us. But when we are so toxic that the bacteria are poisoned by the tissue, from chemical inundation, then we have to make solvents. Each cell makes a solvent. Each cell makes a soap to help clean itself. And it’s a union. It’s like a factory. All the particular cells get together and say, “Let’s make this to help clean ourselves.” So they make enzymes which we will call soap to do that. So there’s nothing dormant about it. It’s just that when the accumulation of industrially contaminated waste is so great and you can’t use microbes then the cells make solvents, that is, viruses we call flu.”- Aajonus Vonderplanitz

“Any kind of flu is the same thing. When the climate and temperature are right, certain tissues will cleanse. They may have a 7-years cycle. They may have a 6-months cycle. It depends upon the tissue and how contaminated it is. If certain tissue needs to cleanse every two years, our bodies will create, if waste tissue is too toxic for mircrobes, our bodies will create a solvent (a virus) that fractionates and cleanses that particular tissue every two years, every 6 months, every 3 months, every 7 years, every 12 years, depending upon that tissue and how contaminated it is. The myth that herpes is contagious is pharmaceutical industry fiction to scare you into taking medication.” – Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Dr. William P. Trebing says this in the book Good-Bye Germ Theory:
“The Human body’s energy fields are more powerful than most can even imagine. When one Human body is detoxing, an almost magnetic effect radiates out from such individuals causing the same purifying effects in the immediate environment of people around them. We are not witnessing epidemics or contagious infections; we are witnessing a group healing process which is totally natural to our species.”

We can also perhaps compare it to how women all living in the same house synchronise their menstrual cycles.
This, from the video ‘Germ Theory Deception Part 2’, can also help us understand what is occurring – Alex Loglia reciting the work of Dr. Bill Holub:

“What is really happening with these supposed epidemics is the following. Actually the word epidemic from the Greek, means literally on or at and people. And means something that happens to people as a group all at once – NOT a slow contagion. The actual epidemic process is very simple – remember that everyone already has their daily compliment of germs and remember also a large population of people, such as a town or a region of a city, is continually being exposed to the same environmental hazards all at the same time. For example large numbers of people are exposed to the same weather changes, water quality changes, pesticides, foods and water, contaminated food of a fast food chain, bad news in the media, batches of drugs and medication, holiday moods, air quality changes and many other toxic insults.
The, quote on quote, group healing reaction to these toxic challenges is what you are seeing when people start coughing, sneezing or whatever. They are not catching it from each other. They are experiencing it with others. In addition, at many levels, we are all connected. About the only thing that is catching about all of this is paranoia. After all, medicine has had about a century to literally instill the fear of germs into our culture. So people fear the germs in the air, in the water – they fear germs from touching people, which, in turn leads to our general fear of people. When they read or see reports about infections going around, so to speak, the fear, paranoia and anticipation has been shown to lower ‘immunity’ and precipitate illness – now isn’t that interesting. Our self imposed stress about holidays has the same effect.”

 

Latest posts