No, and she also cannot prove that all Unicorns, Jackalopes, and Sasquatch do not exist.
No science or logic or observational study can prove the non-existence of something which has never been seen.
But this is something all of you virus pushers constantly engage in, is the "Shifting the Burden of Proof" fallacy. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that these particles a) exist, and b) are pathogenic.
Neither of these have you accomplished here.
(Let's recall the definition of a virus is, “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”)
"Jeff’s “challenge” is based on the faulty notion that there is an onus on my colleagues and I to provide explanations for each and every phenomenon related to claims of “viruses”, when in fact the onus is on those who are making the positive claim that pathogenic viruses – replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure – exist to prove their claim."
What is your definition of "isolation" as used by virologists?
How do you explain cohesive readily visible intelligent structures of those like non-enveloped viruses?
How do you explain such cohesive structures of viruses which could never be manmade or caused by man, since they exhibit clear intelligent creation by living cells?
I've read it thoroughly, but you did not answer my questions.
Also, for the micrograph I provided of the adenoviruses, you could easily go find hundreds of other photos attached to completely different studies. Then, you also have to contend with bacteriophages, which also have an icosahedral form like the adenovirus. Both of these are intelligent structures, whether caused from the cell culture or not. They are still produced by cells.
I don't have time to look up hundreds of studies on alleged "adenoviruses" and I did address your questions.
I don't need to contend with anything.
And it doesn't matter what structure a tiny particle has. So what? Who cares? I have no idea what your point is.
I'm pointing out the flaws in virology and you're asking me to explain every tiny particle that's been passed off as a virus. Logic please. It's not necessary to provide an alternative theory or hypothesis in order to show that an existing theory is not supported by science.
Here's me answering your questions in the article that you say you already read:
1. "This question is nonsensical. We’re not a virologists. The definition of “isolation” as used by virologists is their definition, not ours."
2. "Jeff cited a paper that presumably evidences his claims about these structures. However the paper indicates in the very first paragraph, the abstract, that it is a review. This paper makes claims about structures referred to as “adenoviruses” without presenting evidence to back up those claims.
Jeff displayed an image from this review paper, so I will address that particular image.
The review authors labelled the image:
“Figure 3. Structure of human adenovirus 36 (38). Human adenovirus 36 is nonenveloped isosahedral structure and medium size (90~100 nm). Purified virion fraction is symmetry (rotational axes) and the architecture of the hexon-penton-relation becomes apparent.
The review authors cited the following 1980 study as the source of the image:
The study appears to be shielded from public scrutiny behind a paywall.
Thus I have no way of assessing the claims made, by either Jeff or the review authors, about this (alleged “adenovirus”) structure, nor do I know what methods (i.e. “culturing”) were or were not applied in this study.
Jeff then made irrelevant, distracting comments about exosomes, then moved onto the second part of his second “challenging” question – which is basically a rehash of the first part.
Jeff goes on to insist/assume that if cell “culturing” followed by EM imaging produced cellular debris, none of the cellular debris would have a cohesive structure. And he wants me to explain the cohesive structure that is shown in the EM image above… taken from a paper where the Methods are hidden behind a paywall.
Interestingly/confusingly, Jeff also says that the structure in question is created “from a living organism (cell)“.
I guess we’re supposed to assume that a “living virus” (or part thereof) could survive the methods in question with its cohesive structure intact, but no part of monkey or human cells, bacteria or fungi possibly could.
Jeff has not put forth any scientific evidence of a virus and there is no need for my colleagues or I to explain the structure in this image.
Summary
Jeff insisted that we completely side-step the issue of disease-causation (!!) and the alleged “sequencing” of “viruses”. His “challenge” questions are not focused on the faulty methods used to allegedly prove the existence of viruses. His questions are focused on a nonexistent “confusion” over words and on the coherent appearance of some tiny particles in an EM image – particles that were never seen in bodily fluid/tissue or scientifically investigated for causation of anything.
Jeff’s “challenge” is based on the faulty notion that there is an onus on my colleagues and I to provide explanations for each and every phenomenon related to claims of “viruses”, when in fact the onus is on those who are making the positive claim that pathogenic viruses – replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure – exist to prove their claim.
My colleagues and I are not putting forth a theory, we are pointing out the unscientific nature of the evidence put forward to support virus theory."
Dots on an SEM photograph do not prove that viruses, that is, “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell” (according to Harvey Lodish, et al., in Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:
False equivalencies. If you believe that the micrograph is mere dots, where you can clearly see the hexon proteins of the capsid, and the icosahedral shape, you are delusional. You simply do not understand the makeup of such a virus and how it is put together. You cannot legitimately refute what I have written.
You claim the definition for virus has no leeway. Yet, the definition of "virus" has changed over the years. You all are using the definition of "virus" to try to prove your point. In reality, the so-called infectiousness of an entity is irrelevant to proving if the structure actually exists. Bacteria are also claimed to be pathogenic, which does not occur in nature as theorized and is mostly a misobservation of the actions of those entities. Do bacteria exist?
Continually shifting the definition of the word "virus" is ... shifty.
We are told that "viruses" are replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure. That is what my colleagues and I have been discussing for the last 2+ years.
Who cares if you can point at tiny particles in a cell "culture" (that were never even seen in bodily fluid/tissue/excrement)? I don't know anyone who has ever denied the existence of tiny particles.
The question is whether or not viruses have been proven to exist. Why come to us demanding an explanation of a tiny particle if you aren't claiming it's a replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure??
Viruses are not parasites because they are not alive. What science infers in their definition is that they are parasites in the sense that they require a cell to exist.
What I have posited is that viruses only appear to be indiscriminately infectious in cultures. This inevitably gives rise to the misobservations of overt pathogenicity in cell cultures by researchers—not to the observation and characterization of the makeup of the entity itself.
You are using a archaic definition from 320+ years ago when claiming viruses are "poison." You are engaged in wordplay. You left out the rest of the definition that says a virus is a cellularly created protein with RNA encapsulated into a capsid.
What you and your colleagues are doing is ignoring this vital need of the body and saying that viruses simply do not exist. Without some form of non-living solvent structure widely replicated by cells during the disease state, no living organism would be capable of surviving a toxic insult from their environment. You cannot grapple with this fact.
Viruses are very important and intrinsic parts of all organisms, insects, and plants.
My colleagues are not the ones who claims that replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure exist and call them "viruses".
The word comes from Latin for poison / disease toxin.
The story for decades has been that viruses invade our cells, take over, replicate, spread to other cells and hosts and cause disease (via natural modes of exposure).
If you use "virus" to mean something entirely different you are adding confusion where there doesn't need to be any.
I'm not spending my time on discussions about "viruses" when someone is talking about something other than replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure. My work is devoted to debunking the anti-science field of virology and their claims.
Exactly, if you are talking about something else don't use the word "virus"!!
Talk about the particles that are claimed to be "viruses", but don't actually use terms like "viral" this and "viral" that as if viruses exist. It just confuses everyone.
Having said that, given that these particles haven't been found in hosts and purified and studied scientifically, I don't believe there is a scientific basis for any claims about them.
And who is to say that a virus is a parasite (outside invader) and pathogenic?! Maybe that is where a switch in reasoning/observation is needed! Cuz that keeps you in line with the medical and pharma cartels... How about looking at viruses in a positive light?! Something created by our own cells (with our own RNA/DNA; thus not compatible with others’ RNA/DNA nor that of animals, as Fauci said molecularly impossible in his anger, ha ha) to finish the job our living bacteria did not/could not finish yet giving our whole body immune system another avenue?! Think positive! Get rid of the fear...
Virologists, that's who. And the W.H.O. And governments and health authorities around the world. They came up with this story, and my colleagues and I are showing that it has never been proven for any alleged "virus". (And "virus" means poison in Latin.) For this, Jeff has us in his sights.
Switching up the meaning of the word "virus" only adds another layer of confusion, like virologists' use of the word "isolation". If you 're talking about something else, use another word. Words matter.
You are entirely missing the points presented in my writing. The word "virus", and the so-called pathogeny of the virus does not negate the fact that the particles themselves exist and arise in the disease state. You are conflating the two together to try to prove your point, hopelessly.
As I already put forth: Bacteria are also claimed to be pathogenic, which does not occur in nature as theorized and is mostly a misobservation of the actions of those entities. Do bacteria exist?
I read your rebuttal to my challenge, but you did not answer a single point that I presented.
Words do indeed matter, and you should follow that advice yourself. I already explained how virologists are not changing the definition of isolation to suit themselves. The word "virus" meaning "poison" has no bearing on the existence of the entity itself. One can still observe their makeup, and their construction, but only infer a fraction of their true actions as would occur in the whole of the body; the actions of the entity itself will not appear in a lab culture as it would in the body.
In this way, you are fundamentally misunderstanding my position.
Jeff, I answered someone's else's question as to who decided that viruses are pathogenic and I answered accurately.
Ask the average man or woman what "isolation" means. Virologists use the word in an entirely different and misleading manner.
I never said that the word "virus" meaning "poison" has any bearing on the existence of the entity itself. I said that changing the meaning of words creates confusion.
If you are claiming "viruses" exist, then you are either claiming that infectious, pathogenic tiny particles exist, or you are creating confusion.
I agree with you on one thing, I do believe there has been misunderstanding.
When my colleagues and I talk about "viruses", we are talking about the alleged (but never proven) replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that allegedly transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure.
You are actually claiming that no viruses exist, whether they are pathogenic or not. Many of you have claimed this verbatim, multiple times in the past. If science claims viruses are pathogenic, this does not mean the actual particles themselves do not exist just because this portion is misobserved. It means that part of the definition of "virus" must change with regard to so-called pathogeny.
It is no different than bacteria or parasites. No one would rightfully claim these do not exist just because science falsely attributes many of them with pathogenic qualities where there are none in practice.
I have clarified my position in a separate reply to you. You have not merely claimed the non-existence of the pathogenic part of viruses. You have denied the full existence of the protein called "virus" altogether.
Once again, we are not saying that the tiny particles shown in EM images don't exist. We are saying that "SARS-COV-2" (or any other alleged virus) has not been shown to have whatever genome it is alleged to have, and has not been shown to have whatever proteins it is said to have, etc. We are told that these things have been sequenced and characterized and that there are valid tests for them, blah, blah... but none of that is true. AND those particles have never been shown to cause disease. AND "pathogenic" is part of the definition of "viruses".
This IS different from what we say about bacteria. I don't know anyone saying that bacteria don't exist. We are not saying that bacteria have never been sequenced, characterized. But we are saying that bacteria have not been scientifically shown to be the CAUSE of any disease.
No; "virus" means "venom". I suggest you confer with Dr. (of Chiropractic, I think) Brian Ardis. Mercury and arsenic are not viruses, under any definition of the term.
Brian Ardis? You've got to be kidding! Of course Mercury and Arsenic are not "viruses" in the way that term has been used the last hundred or more years. They are, however, toxins. You and Jeff make zero sense and have nothing at all credible to argue. It's clear you're just hoping enough people will become confused that they give up searching for the actual facts and fall for your garbage.
That's a good point and hopefully some virologists will pivot because it's clear that those structures don't always cause disease. Maybe they don't cause disease at all and are a bystander being blamed for the disease.
WOW! ‘No science or logic or observational study can prove the non-existence of something which has never been seen.’ WOW! Cells, bacteria, viruses, etc. have all been seen and have since with the improvements in technology been easily detected and monitored--says me, a lab rat.
They have, but the reason this occurs is because viruses are replicated in cells deep in the tissues of a body, such as the lung cells, which complicates the extraction of a sample that contains enough viral load for research. They do not occur in large number in the mucus membranes, for example.
If cells can produce viruses in unnatural lab conditions, cells can do likewise in the body itself.
Virologists don't even bother looking for a "virus" in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement taken from an alleged host. They stress a cell line and point at particles in the monkey/cow/host/bacteria/fungi mixture and insist it's a virus.
You're saying that cells create viruses, but that is not what virus theory says.
If you are using the word "virus" to mean something other than replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure you are creating unnecessary confusion and maybe we don't disagree on much.
If you do mean replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure, please show us the scientific proof of such.
They do not claim that cells create viruses of their own accord, they claim that viruses hijack the machinery of cells. And it's all an unproven theory.
There you go again; shoving electron microscopes into people's innards! Did you get this idea from the Malleus Maleficarum? Are you Heinrich Kramer come back to haunt us?
> Cells, bacteria, viruses, etc. have all been seen
1: Dr Cowan has pointed out that no cells have ever been seen in a living organism.
2: bacteria have been seen: OK
3: "Viruses", that is, “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.” are theoretical objects which have never been proven to EXIST, let alone have been observed or proven to be pathogenic.
Just because you can show me some dots on am SEM photograph DOES NOT MEAN that "viruses exist" or cause disease.
That's the non sequitur of the century.
You have to FIRST produce a SAMPLE of purified, isolated "live viruses" obtained from a sick person using simple, common techniques (filtration, ultracentrifugation, etc) WITHOUT CONTAMINATION with foreign DNA, e.g., Vero (monkey kidney) cells, Fetal Bovine Serum, A549 (human lung cancer cells) etc.
If Tom Cowan uttered those words, then he is also delusional. In my article, I provided a video of a cell in living tissue. You have zero reasoning skills. This is why most of you have no credibility.
Pathogenicity has no bearing on existence itself.
You claim you must take a sample from a host and purify it. That's exactly what is done. You simply do not understand the language.
And I find it laughable that you include fetal bovine serum in your list when it is less toxic than many of the toxins found in the body itself. You literally ignore the byproducts of illness that occur in the body, which also appear in the sample. The sample from a body is a crude soup by nature. Because of this, there is never "without contamination".
You need serious education before you even approach the level needed to ascertain the truth. That much is clear.
@Bill Huston. That's your argument? Your first comment here was an insult, then you throw around tangential non-points with no relevance to the content of my article. You've already proven just how insulting you can be on many various blog comment sections, including my own. You are very adept at gaslighting and provoking others. My comments about you being "delusional" are not without good reason.
With that said, you are now banned from commenting. Do not waste my time and the time of those commenting here.
Fetal bovine serum is a source of genetic contamination/adulteration (problematic when it comes to sequencing), and also a potential source of the tiny particles that get pointed at and irrationally blamed for cytopathic effects in the dish of stressed cells.
No, it's not. Sequencing machines throw out small errors and construct a sequence in a logical flow. You believe that even the most minor contaminants will cause the inability to sequence, but this is wholly inaccurate.
CPE has no bearing on the existence of a virus itself.
Fetal bovine serum is one of the MANY sources of genetic contamination that comes into play in the so-called sequencing of "viruses".
Never are the particles alleged to be "viruses" purified and the genetic material extracted specifically from those particles. Instead, all of the genetic material (or RNA as in the case of the theoretical SARS-COV-2) is extracted from either the bodily fluid from the alleged host, or from cell "culture" supernatant, which is a monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mixture and only ASSUMED to contain a "virus".
Further, some "sequencing" procedures involve running PCR with many cycles to "detect" sequences that weren't even present in the starting material.
I wouldn't count on a Pasteur-Chamberland filter, even with ultracentrifugation, removing all those things. Granted, most of them shouldn't be in humans to start with.
I'm getting the impression that Jeff has misunderstood something re the "no virus" people / virus skeptics.
When we say that the specific particles called "viruses" have not even been shown to exist, we are not simply saying that the tiny particles in EM images don't exist.
We are told stories of "viruses" that allegedly have specific known properties. For example SARS-COV-2 is said to have a specific alleged genome (of which there are now millions and millions of variations uploaded) surrounded by a shell with a specific "spike" protein. That specific particle has not been shown to exist (the in silico "genomes" are all meaningless and fabricated, and have never been shown to exist in the physical realm), and the alleged spike protein has not been shown to come from the particles that are pointed at and labelled "SARS-COV-2".
It's an enveloped virus with a positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome. Those mutate notoriously. If you get a SARS-COV-2 and pass it on to someone else, that will be a different variant! Go tell the NSA and CIA cryptography is "meaningless and fabricated"!
I'm not piggybacking anything. The "do not exist" Gang came about well after I had already established my website, my book, and my writings on this topic in March 2020. It wasn't until later that the "do not exist" Gang began to use Stefan Lanka to try to push the narrative that all viruses do not exist and lead into the current denial of all things science.
The fact you would claim we have the same views shows that you are hardly familiar with what they really believe.
My positions are stated clearly in this comment thread. I suggest you read them carefully and understand them.
Well, the term virus is a well known term, but misunderstood as a poison, which is now reflected in modern day dictionaries as a contagion. Unfortunately, as a result, taken advantage of by modern medicine/big pharma to keep people in fear of bacteria/viruses as attackers of our bodies instead of part of our immune system, thus keeping folks as lab rats/guinea pigs and in continued $ickne$$ and di$eaSe and premature death…. With more information, positive information of how our bodies are wonderfully created, the definition could change! In this case it seems to me that Green and the Gang (with their WHO definition) are not on the same page. To me what is being said, ‘I agree, viruses do not exist as the WHO definition as pathogenic parasites. BUT viruses DO exist as non-living, toxin dissolvers,etc.’. It is a positive!
The statement you make at the end of your piece is something you should further ponder in depth, just as I am trying to get Massey to do.
The definition from Oxford for "virus" states: "An infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host."
This definition is almost entirely true, except for the broad statement of viruses being infectious, which implies pathogeny and indiscriminatory 'attackers' coming from outside the body. If viruses exist but are instead non-pathogenic entities that arise in the disease state, as I have posited, then Massey and her colleagues are doing a great disservice to those like myself who logically formulate in-depth and scientifically reasoned theories to explain disease manifestation. Without a particle such as a virus—the very same particle science proclaims pathogenic—there can be no dissolution of non-bioactive compounds in the body, outside of cancer. There exists nothing produced by organisms that is rapidly and widely replicated by cells like viral proteins.
I know that viruses are the agent carrying out this dissolution because they have the exact makeup necessary to do so. They resist heat and chemicals. They contain glycoprotein (spikes) to latch onto compatible cells and tissue to begin enzymatic hydrolysis via glycoprotein amino acids. The virus is an enzyme carrier with many glycoprotein enzymes on its surface. The glycoproteins meet with the inner nucleocapsid which contains tightly coiled mRNA in the viral core that directs viruses on what they bind with and when to turn on; the lock-and-key system. If this was not so, viruses would literally dissolve everything they touch, and everyone who develops them would die.
Even science itself is beginning to tell us that viruses are our helpers. When you say they do not even exist, you discard the needs of the terrain to your own demise. Science itself readily admits viruses increase in the presence of toxicity.
Without a non-living enzyme, like the virus, cells would die from the inability to sustain themselves in the presence of overt toxins which cannot be readily dissolved by those living microorganisms without being poisoned to death. Do you prefer widespread cellular death when confronted with industrial toxins? Because that is what happens if the body cannot dissolve and expel those toxins. This is one of the fundamental points I am making.
if you're wondering what this virus debate is all about, on a really basic level, i'm doing my best to describe it in very simple language for the average person here: https://dawnfrench.substack.com/
Please tell us if you know, can, and/or will what convinces you that the physicians in the original two papers reporting a novel coronavirus (n-CoV-19 later renamed as SARS-CoV-2) have carried out the proper investigations for the cause of admission of the patients complaining of respiratory symptoms.
The first linked study states: "Full-length genome sequences were obtained from five patients at an early stage of the outbreak. The sequences are almost identical and share 79.6% sequence identity to SARS-CoV." [i.e., such as SARS-CoV-1] and "1,378 (87.1%) sequences matched the sequence of SARSr-CoV"
"The disease was determined to be caused by virus-induced pneumonia by clinicians according to clinical symptoms and other criteria, including a rise in body temperature, decreases in the number of lymphocytes and white blood cells"
I have maintained that there are errors in the assumptions made by researchers with regard to the so-called infectiousness of disease, in particular viruses. The initial investigations leading to admission appear to be congruent with legitimately finding real case patients that suffer from similar illnesses. However, that does not mean I agree with their conclusions on infectiousness—I do not.
"Coronaviruses have caused two large-scale pandemics in the past two decades, SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)8,9."
Coronaviruses, like many viruses, are expressed in a cyclical way when the climactic conditions are ripe for cells to dump stored toxins and initiate a cleansing event. This will take place in an entire population at similar times. This is why annual flu rates fluctuate. Wuhan, with its large-scale industry, would be prone to these kinds of concentrated outbreaks because there are many people living close together in a cramped industrial polluted city.
"Do note that isolation of particles the size of viruses must naturally allow for a very small percentage of minute debris in the purified sample."
As a layperson who can't understand most of the technical minutiae, I find that Mike Stone's article & argument "Just One Particle" goes a long way to refute what I think is mainstream virology and its claim that viruses are "too small" to find them without going through the elaborate procedures they do.
Mike Stone continuously misreads and mischaracterizes studies, so be aware of that. His claims that there should be enough viruses in a sample is false. Also, his article is far longer than necessary to prove his point, which he failed to do. I have read most of it before. The fact is, there are a few different reasons why there is usually not enough viruses in a given sample, which requires the use of cultures.
These can include:
Low viral load
Presence of inhibitors
Viral diversity
Host response
Virologists typically aim to detect and quantify viruses in various biological samples, including fluids from sick individuals. The number of viruses present in a sample can vary depending on several factors, such as the stage of infection, viral load, and the specific virus being studied.
While it is true that viruses can be present in saliva or mucous discharge, the concentration of viruses can vary widely. It is not accurate to claim that every bit of saliva or mucous discharge from a sick person contains millions of viruses per milliliter. The viral load can be quite low in some cases, particularly during the early stages of infection or in individuals with mild symptoms.
Human samples are commonly used to detect viruses. In fact, human samples are the primary source of material for virus detection and diagnosis in clinical settings. Various types of human samples can be collected and tested to detect the presence of viruses.
I don't think in the article he's claiming the number of virus particles -- he's citing Mainstream scientists/science guys who claim the copious number + claim what's necessary (including the punch line, just one) -- thus revealing an apparent incoherence in the Mainstream narrative.
His assertion that sufficient viral load can be extracted from a mucus sample for repeated purification, isolation, characterization, and sequencing of the viral particle is a misrepresentation of the scientific process involved. While it is feasible to obtain a sample from a living organism initially, replicating this procedure continuously throughout virus studies would require impractical and unachievable resources. Hence, the typical requirement of a culture medium to facilitate virus research.
His citations reflect a complete misinterpretation of the underlying science and its contextual significance.
"While it is feasible to obtain a sample from a living organism initially,"
If that's the case, in our day and age of recording technology, the initial obtaining of it could/should be recorded a million times over, instead of zero times (apparently).
"replicating this procedure continuously throughout virus studies would require impractical and unachievable resources."
One problem with this issue/debate is that it takes a certain level of expertise to understand phrases like the second one I quoted, an expertise that probably only less than 10% of the world has; and then were you to verify it (which also needs to be done), the verification would likely involve more text that is beyond my ability to understand. In such a situation, if the issue is of general public concern, those of us laypersons who don't understand have to find authorities we trust -- a long and complex process in and of itself, one which may never satisfactorily succeed.
The authority lies not in mere figures of authority but in the scientific literature itself. It becomes abundantly evident that the No-Virus proponents lack a profound understanding of the actual scientific principles. This deficiency is precisely why they fail to present a comprehensive counter-theory or contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
In virus research, the utilization of culture methods is necessary to cultivate a sufficient quantity of viruses for study purposes. This stands as an objective reality concerning the limitations of studying viruses. When individuals like Stone cite other scientists or papers, claiming that a single viral particle can cause infection, they are referring to controlled laboratory conditions where a solitary particle could theoretically damage or affect a cell—yet, this does not align with real-world scenarios. In the context of so-called contagion, a single viral particle would be insufficient to cause infection in a person.
The information is readily accessible, and every individual possesses the ability to acquire knowledge. Those who choose not to do so will inevitably persist in ignorance, and that remains their own problem.
"The authority lies not in mere figures of authority but in the scientific literature itself. It becomes abundantly evident that the No-Virus proponents lack a profound understanding of the actual scientific principles."
That may well be, but the non-expert laypersons (the vast majority of the population) need to be persuaded of this (and other related matters), and the catch-22 is that they will not be able to adjudicate the matter by reviewing the scientific literature themselves -- they will need guides with expertise. Obviously the laypersons can't base their selection of suitable guides on scientific knowledge, since they (the laypersons) don't have the knowledge necessary. Thus they need to base their selection on other factors. Before 2020 and the Covid Shitshow, I might have been amenable to erring on the side of "consensus" and what the Mainstream finds "respectable". By now, 3 years later, my trust in the Mainstream has been nearly ruined, and I can no longer trust any authority whose authority is enmeshed with the Mainstream.
Jeff, your questions could be better directed to the multiplicity of 'authorities' institutions, international and national entities that clearly and tacitly state they have not identified SARS CoV-2 "virus."
Latus, Christine Massey's FOIs do not prove the non-existence of viruses as a whole. In fact, they do not disprove SARS-CoV-2, either. And that is because her FOI requests are far too narrow in their request, and inevitably leads to the entity claiming they have no record. Yet, there are studies that show the existence of what is known as SARS-CoV-2 (whether you believe their conclusions is another matter). Those ARE the records carried out by research facilities.
I have stated numerous times that SARS-CoV-2 is a 'proxy virus', that was sent out to labs as a real construct but is an ordinary coronavirus mutated in a lab to be 'new'. It is not a special or unique virus, nor is it in widespread circulation, since viruses are not contagious. In fact, researchers have said there are more than 500+ coronaviruses that are known, with likely many more than that.
Lastly, I speak about the institutions quite regularly, when I get the chance. But the fact remains that Massey and her associated team of virus denialists are not interested in the science and human biology, and I can say that with certainty because they have shown time and time again, through their interviews and meetings, that they have no issue twisting the involved complex science terminology to distract their audience away from a real theory of disease (which I provide).
Jeff, the existence of an in silico sequence with some computer modelled addition is the identified entity deemed to "exist."
The evident interchangeable language around 'virus', 'exosome', 'virion' is a subject of record in the literature.
As I wrote, and to clarify, Christine Massey's FOIs have nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, the statements made by the multiplicity of addressed authorities make it clear enough. The "narrowness" of the request is a straw man. Had they a demonstrable pathological entity satisfying the definition of a "virus" or even quasi-believable proxy, we would be hearing about it endlessly.
Your choice of language "denialist" is as blatantly dismissive as it is pejorative, a transparent and hackneyed tactic seen elsewhere, most obviously in the climatism narrative.
Real "theories" have no trouble providing concrete evidence. The segueing theory of virology is a goal post dance that has currently morphed into genomics and in silico sequencing, having failed to demonstrate the entity.
So in summary.
1. No virus has ever been isolated directly from human.
2. The particles that are produced in cell cultures (with fake proxies using abnormal cell lines) have never been shown to cause disease by themselves.
3. The genomes of "viruses" cannot be confirmed because the provenance of the genetic material cannot be PROVEN from mixed cultures.
4. The definition of a virus as a self-replicating particle, with a proteinaceous mantle containing a genome that may infect and cause disease in a new host. It has to fulfil ALL the criteria.
5. Influenza "virus" transmission has never been demonstrated in humans (and this has been attempted quite hard).
Massey's FOI requests are inconsequential because virologists do not purify and isolate viral particles like her requests state. That is the misnomer.
"The evident interchangeable language around 'virus', 'exosome', 'virion' is a subject of record in the literature."
Viruses and exosomes are certainly not interchangeable. This is another myth that those in the no-virus group have pushed. I have proven such statements wrong before using the very studies they claim state that exosomes and viruses are the same. They are not the same.
Secondly, viruses have been taken and purified directly from living organisms without artificial culture. Insect and plant viruses can be cultured directly from their respective organisms. On the other hand, it is very difficult to get a human viral sample with enough viruses due to where cells replicate viruses, which are deep in tissue.
Animal cell viruses are harder to culture. Many viruses are replication-incompetent and can't replicate in certain cell lines, compounding the problem further. In order to purify a virus, enough viruses must be contained in the sample. You must have enough sample to sustain through the purification and centrifugation processes, including culturing.
Viruses do not "self-replicate", as you state. Not even science claims this. Viruses are produced by living cells from beginning to end. I have already stated they are not contagious, and my theory of viral particles not being contagious, but being cellular solvents, is well-established in the scientific literature and can be backed up by real microbiology and physiology. I have made that clear in my past articles. The claim that the viral particles themselves do not exist at all as intelligently created cell constructs, is completely wrong. The so-called pathogeny of the particle is irrelevant to their existence.
Lastly, viral genomes can indeed be determined from a mixture because current technology allows the sequencing of viral genomes directly from an unpurified culture since all relevant RNA information will stack in a cohesive way, very much like a puzzle. It is infinitesimally small that RNA parts that do not fit together would ever overlap, much like a puzzle piece would never fit into another puzzle piece's spot. Thus, the margin of error is incredibly low or non-existent altogether.
It responds clearly to the points you raise. There is also the self-evident meaninglessness of, "deep within tissue."
"A viral particle must fulfill defined physical and biological properties including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human."
Meanwhile, this is a good read: Khmelinskii, Stallinga, Woodcock (2021) Letter to Nature.
> Can Massey prove that all viruses do not exist?
No, and she also cannot prove that all Unicorns, Jackalopes, and Sasquatch do not exist.
No science or logic or observational study can prove the non-existence of something which has never been seen.
But this is something all of you virus pushers constantly engage in, is the "Shifting the Burden of Proof" fallacy. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that these particles a) exist, and b) are pathogenic.
Neither of these have you accomplished here.
(Let's recall the definition of a virus is, “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”)
You cannot answer the questions posed in my article and you cannot read. The burden is now on you. Prove the micrographs I provided are not real.
Re-read what you wrote: "No science or logic or observational study can prove..."
"Jeff’s “challenge” is based on the faulty notion that there is an onus on my colleagues and I to provide explanations for each and every phenomenon related to claims of “viruses”, when in fact the onus is on those who are making the positive claim that pathogenic viruses – replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure – exist to prove their claim."
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-jeff-green/
I posed three main questions:
What is your definition of "isolation" as used by virologists?
How do you explain cohesive readily visible intelligent structures of those like non-enveloped viruses?
How do you explain such cohesive structures of viruses which could never be manmade or caused by man, since they exhibit clear intelligent creation by living cells?
I gave you my response, please read it:
Response to Jeff Green’s “Challenge”
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-jeff-green/
I've read it thoroughly, but you did not answer my questions.
Also, for the micrograph I provided of the adenoviruses, you could easily go find hundreds of other photos attached to completely different studies. Then, you also have to contend with bacteriophages, which also have an icosahedral form like the adenovirus. Both of these are intelligent structures, whether caused from the cell culture or not. They are still produced by cells.
I don't have time to look up hundreds of studies on alleged "adenoviruses" and I did address your questions.
I don't need to contend with anything.
And it doesn't matter what structure a tiny particle has. So what? Who cares? I have no idea what your point is.
I'm pointing out the flaws in virology and you're asking me to explain every tiny particle that's been passed off as a virus. Logic please. It's not necessary to provide an alternative theory or hypothesis in order to show that an existing theory is not supported by science.
Here's me answering your questions in the article that you say you already read:
1. "This question is nonsensical. We’re not a virologists. The definition of “isolation” as used by virologists is their definition, not ours."
2. "Jeff cited a paper that presumably evidences his claims about these structures. However the paper indicates in the very first paragraph, the abstract, that it is a review. This paper makes claims about structures referred to as “adenoviruses” without presenting evidence to back up those claims.
Jeff displayed an image from this review paper, so I will address that particular image.
The review authors labelled the image:
“Figure 3. Structure of human adenovirus 36 (38). Human adenovirus 36 is nonenveloped isosahedral structure and medium size (90~100 nm). Purified virion fraction is symmetry (rotational axes) and the architecture of the hexon-penton-relation becomes apparent.
The review authors cited the following 1980 study as the source of the image:
The study appears to be shielded from public scrutiny behind a paywall.
Thus I have no way of assessing the claims made, by either Jeff or the review authors, about this (alleged “adenovirus”) structure, nor do I know what methods (i.e. “culturing”) were or were not applied in this study.
Jeff then made irrelevant, distracting comments about exosomes, then moved onto the second part of his second “challenging” question – which is basically a rehash of the first part.
Jeff goes on to insist/assume that if cell “culturing” followed by EM imaging produced cellular debris, none of the cellular debris would have a cohesive structure. And he wants me to explain the cohesive structure that is shown in the EM image above… taken from a paper where the Methods are hidden behind a paywall.
Interestingly/confusingly, Jeff also says that the structure in question is created “from a living organism (cell)“.
I guess we’re supposed to assume that a “living virus” (or part thereof) could survive the methods in question with its cohesive structure intact, but no part of monkey or human cells, bacteria or fungi possibly could.
Jeff has not put forth any scientific evidence of a virus and there is no need for my colleagues or I to explain the structure in this image.
Summary
Jeff insisted that we completely side-step the issue of disease-causation (!!) and the alleged “sequencing” of “viruses”. His “challenge” questions are not focused on the faulty methods used to allegedly prove the existence of viruses. His questions are focused on a nonexistent “confusion” over words and on the coherent appearance of some tiny particles in an EM image – particles that were never seen in bodily fluid/tissue or scientifically investigated for causation of anything.
Jeff’s “challenge” is based on the faulty notion that there is an onus on my colleagues and I to provide explanations for each and every phenomenon related to claims of “viruses”, when in fact the onus is on those who are making the positive claim that pathogenic viruses – replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure – exist to prove their claim.
My colleagues and I are not putting forth a theory, we are pointing out the unscientific nature of the evidence put forward to support virus theory."
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-jeff-green/
> Prove the micrographs I provided are not real.
Dots on an SEM photograph do not prove that viruses, that is, “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell” (according to Harvey Lodish, et al., in Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6) exist, any more than these dots prove that "the moon is made of cheese" or that "Unicorn bites can be fatal".
False equivalencies. If you believe that the micrograph is mere dots, where you can clearly see the hexon proteins of the capsid, and the icosahedral shape, you are delusional. You simply do not understand the makeup of such a virus and how it is put together. You cannot legitimately refute what I have written.
You claim the definition for virus has no leeway. Yet, the definition of "virus" has changed over the years. You all are using the definition of "virus" to try to prove your point. In reality, the so-called infectiousness of an entity is irrelevant to proving if the structure actually exists. Bacteria are also claimed to be pathogenic, which does not occur in nature as theorized and is mostly a misobservation of the actions of those entities. Do bacteria exist?
Continually shifting the definition of the word "virus" is ... shifty.
We are told that "viruses" are replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure. That is what my colleagues and I have been discussing for the last 2+ years.
Who cares if you can point at tiny particles in a cell "culture" (that were never even seen in bodily fluid/tissue/excrement)? I don't know anyone who has ever denied the existence of tiny particles.
The question is whether or not viruses have been proven to exist. Why come to us demanding an explanation of a tiny particle if you aren't claiming it's a replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure??
Viruses are not parasites because they are not alive. What science infers in their definition is that they are parasites in the sense that they require a cell to exist.
What I have posited is that viruses only appear to be indiscriminately infectious in cultures. This inevitably gives rise to the misobservations of overt pathogenicity in cell cultures by researchers—not to the observation and characterization of the makeup of the entity itself.
You are using a archaic definition from 320+ years ago when claiming viruses are "poison." You are engaged in wordplay. You left out the rest of the definition that says a virus is a cellularly created protein with RNA encapsulated into a capsid.
What you and your colleagues are doing is ignoring this vital need of the body and saying that viruses simply do not exist. Without some form of non-living solvent structure widely replicated by cells during the disease state, no living organism would be capable of surviving a toxic insult from their environment. You cannot grapple with this fact.
Viruses are very important and intrinsic parts of all organisms, insects, and plants.
My colleagues are not the ones who claims that replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure exist and call them "viruses".
The word comes from Latin for poison / disease toxin.
The story for decades has been that viruses invade our cells, take over, replicate, spread to other cells and hosts and cause disease (via natural modes of exposure).
If you use "virus" to mean something entirely different you are adding confusion where there doesn't need to be any.
I'm not spending my time on discussions about "viruses" when someone is talking about something other than replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure. My work is devoted to debunking the anti-science field of virology and their claims.
Exactly, if you are talking about something else don't use the word "virus"!!
Talk about the particles that are claimed to be "viruses", but don't actually use terms like "viral" this and "viral" that as if viruses exist. It just confuses everyone.
Having said that, given that these particles haven't been found in hosts and purified and studied scientifically, I don't believe there is a scientific basis for any claims about them.
"They are indistinguishable from each other."
This is not accurate. Only enveloped and 'defective' incomplete viruses can appear as vesicles because they contain an outer lipid bilayer coat.
I addressed that here: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/the-no-virus-delusion
And who is to say that a virus is a parasite (outside invader) and pathogenic?! Maybe that is where a switch in reasoning/observation is needed! Cuz that keeps you in line with the medical and pharma cartels... How about looking at viruses in a positive light?! Something created by our own cells (with our own RNA/DNA; thus not compatible with others’ RNA/DNA nor that of animals, as Fauci said molecularly impossible in his anger, ha ha) to finish the job our living bacteria did not/could not finish yet giving our whole body immune system another avenue?! Think positive! Get rid of the fear...
Virologists, that's who. And the W.H.O. And governments and health authorities around the world. They came up with this story, and my colleagues and I are showing that it has never been proven for any alleged "virus". (And "virus" means poison in Latin.) For this, Jeff has us in his sights.
Switching up the meaning of the word "virus" only adds another layer of confusion, like virologists' use of the word "isolation". If you 're talking about something else, use another word. Words matter.
You are entirely missing the points presented in my writing. The word "virus", and the so-called pathogeny of the virus does not negate the fact that the particles themselves exist and arise in the disease state. You are conflating the two together to try to prove your point, hopelessly.
As I already put forth: Bacteria are also claimed to be pathogenic, which does not occur in nature as theorized and is mostly a misobservation of the actions of those entities. Do bacteria exist?
I read your rebuttal to my challenge, but you did not answer a single point that I presented.
iya,
The 'adenovirus' picture shows some icosahedral forms. 'Tobacco mosaic virus' pictures show some rod like structures with hollow cavities.
Neither has been shown to transmit between hosts or to be pathogenic- the definition of a virus.
Correlation is not causation.
They may well be part of the disease detoxification and healing process.
Why didn't the SARS2 virus gather in a density gradient band for a similar picture to be produced?
Jo
Words do indeed matter, and you should follow that advice yourself. I already explained how virologists are not changing the definition of isolation to suit themselves. The word "virus" meaning "poison" has no bearing on the existence of the entity itself. One can still observe their makeup, and their construction, but only infer a fraction of their true actions as would occur in the whole of the body; the actions of the entity itself will not appear in a lab culture as it would in the body.
In this way, you are fundamentally misunderstanding my position.
Jeff, I answered someone's else's question as to who decided that viruses are pathogenic and I answered accurately.
Ask the average man or woman what "isolation" means. Virologists use the word in an entirely different and misleading manner.
I never said that the word "virus" meaning "poison" has any bearing on the existence of the entity itself. I said that changing the meaning of words creates confusion.
If you are claiming "viruses" exist, then you are either claiming that infectious, pathogenic tiny particles exist, or you are creating confusion.
I agree with you on one thing, I do believe there has been misunderstanding.
When my colleagues and I talk about "viruses", we are talking about the alleged (but never proven) replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that allegedly transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure.
You are actually claiming that no viruses exist, whether they are pathogenic or not. Many of you have claimed this verbatim, multiple times in the past. If science claims viruses are pathogenic, this does not mean the actual particles themselves do not exist just because this portion is misobserved. It means that part of the definition of "virus" must change with regard to so-called pathogeny.
It is no different than bacteria or parasites. No one would rightfully claim these do not exist just because science falsely attributes many of them with pathogenic qualities where there are none in practice.
I have clarified my position in a separate reply to you. You have not merely claimed the non-existence of the pathogenic part of viruses. You have denied the full existence of the protein called "virus" altogether.
Once again, we are not saying that the tiny particles shown in EM images don't exist. We are saying that "SARS-COV-2" (or any other alleged virus) has not been shown to have whatever genome it is alleged to have, and has not been shown to have whatever proteins it is said to have, etc. We are told that these things have been sequenced and characterized and that there are valid tests for them, blah, blah... but none of that is true. AND those particles have never been shown to cause disease. AND "pathogenic" is part of the definition of "viruses".
This IS different from what we say about bacteria. I don't know anyone saying that bacteria don't exist. We are not saying that bacteria have never been sequenced, characterized. But we are saying that bacteria have not been scientifically shown to be the CAUSE of any disease.
No; "virus" means "venom". I suggest you confer with Dr. (of Chiropractic, I think) Brian Ardis. Mercury and arsenic are not viruses, under any definition of the term.
Brian Ardis? You've got to be kidding! Of course Mercury and Arsenic are not "viruses" in the way that term has been used the last hundred or more years. They are, however, toxins. You and Jeff make zero sense and have nothing at all credible to argue. It's clear you're just hoping enough people will become confused that they give up searching for the actual facts and fall for your garbage.
> who is to say that a virus is a parasite (outside invader) and pathogenic?!
That's the definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6
Please don't change the definition to suit your purposes. We cannot have a conversation if we do not agree on foundational terms.
That is to deceive you and me $$$$
That's a good point and hopefully some virologists will pivot because it's clear that those structures don't always cause disease. Maybe they don't cause disease at all and are a bystander being blamed for the disease.
Viruses (and I don't mean exosomes) has some function beyond self-replication? Do tell!
WOW! ‘No science or logic or observational study can prove the non-existence of something which has never been seen.’ WOW! Cells, bacteria, viruses, etc. have all been seen and have since with the improvements in technology been easily detected and monitored--says me, a lab rat.
Alleged "viruses" have not been seen in bodily fluid/tissue/excrement, only in unnatural lab conditions involving stressed cell lines.
They have, but the reason this occurs is because viruses are replicated in cells deep in the tissues of a body, such as the lung cells, which complicates the extraction of a sample that contains enough viral load for research. They do not occur in large number in the mucus membranes, for example.
If cells can produce viruses in unnatural lab conditions, cells can do likewise in the body itself.
Virologists don't even bother looking for a "virus" in the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement taken from an alleged host. They stress a cell line and point at particles in the monkey/cow/host/bacteria/fungi mixture and insist it's a virus.
You're saying that cells create viruses, but that is not what virus theory says.
If you are using the word "virus" to mean something other than replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure you are creating unnecessary confusion and maybe we don't disagree on much.
If you do mean replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure, please show us the scientific proof of such.
Science claims viruses are replicated in cells. Thus, they admit cells create viruses. We do not differ in that aspect.
They do not claim that cells create viruses of their own accord, they claim that viruses hijack the machinery of cells. And it's all an unproven theory.
There you go again; shoving electron microscopes into people's innards! Did you get this idea from the Malleus Maleficarum? Are you Heinrich Kramer come back to haunt us?
> Cells, bacteria, viruses, etc. have all been seen
1: Dr Cowan has pointed out that no cells have ever been seen in a living organism.
2: bacteria have been seen: OK
3: "Viruses", that is, “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.” are theoretical objects which have never been proven to EXIST, let alone have been observed or proven to be pathogenic.
Just because you can show me some dots on am SEM photograph DOES NOT MEAN that "viruses exist" or cause disease.
That's the non sequitur of the century.
You have to FIRST produce a SAMPLE of purified, isolated "live viruses" obtained from a sick person using simple, common techniques (filtration, ultracentrifugation, etc) WITHOUT CONTAMINATION with foreign DNA, e.g., Vero (monkey kidney) cells, Fetal Bovine Serum, A549 (human lung cancer cells) etc.
If Tom Cowan uttered those words, then he is also delusional. In my article, I provided a video of a cell in living tissue. You have zero reasoning skills. This is why most of you have no credibility.
Pathogenicity has no bearing on existence itself.
You claim you must take a sample from a host and purify it. That's exactly what is done. You simply do not understand the language.
And I find it laughable that you include fetal bovine serum in your list when it is less toxic than many of the toxins found in the body itself. You literally ignore the byproducts of illness that occur in the body, which also appear in the sample. The sample from a body is a crude soup by nature. Because of this, there is never "without contamination".
You need serious education before you even approach the level needed to ascertain the truth. That much is clear.
@Bill Huston. That's your argument? Your first comment here was an insult, then you throw around tangential non-points with no relevance to the content of my article. You've already proven just how insulting you can be on many various blog comment sections, including my own. You are very adept at gaslighting and provoking others. My comments about you being "delusional" are not without good reason.
With that said, you are now banned from commenting. Do not waste my time and the time of those commenting here.
Fetal bovine serum is a source of genetic contamination/adulteration (problematic when it comes to sequencing), and also a potential source of the tiny particles that get pointed at and irrationally blamed for cytopathic effects in the dish of stressed cells.
No, it's not. Sequencing machines throw out small errors and construct a sequence in a logical flow. You believe that even the most minor contaminants will cause the inability to sequence, but this is wholly inaccurate.
CPE has no bearing on the existence of a virus itself.
Fetal bovine serum is one of the MANY sources of genetic contamination that comes into play in the so-called sequencing of "viruses".
Never are the particles alleged to be "viruses" purified and the genetic material extracted specifically from those particles. Instead, all of the genetic material (or RNA as in the case of the theoretical SARS-COV-2) is extracted from either the bodily fluid from the alleged host, or from cell "culture" supernatant, which is a monkey/cow/human/bacteria/fungi mixture and only ASSUMED to contain a "virus".
Further, some "sequencing" procedures involve running PCR with many cycles to "detect" sequences that weren't even present in the starting material.
The "virus genomes" are all meaningless.
I wouldn't count on a Pasteur-Chamberland filter, even with ultracentrifugation, removing all those things. Granted, most of them shouldn't be in humans to start with.
Hiya,
The 'adenovirus' picture shows some icosahedral forms. 'Tobacco mosaic virus' pictures show some rod like structures with hollow cavities.
Neither has been shown to transmit between hosts or to be pathogenic.
Correlation is not causation.
They may well be part of the disease detoxification and healing process.
Why didn't the SARS2 virus gather in a density gradient band for a similar picture to be produced?
Jo
I'm getting the impression that Jeff has misunderstood something re the "no virus" people / virus skeptics.
When we say that the specific particles called "viruses" have not even been shown to exist, we are not simply saying that the tiny particles in EM images don't exist.
We are told stories of "viruses" that allegedly have specific known properties. For example SARS-COV-2 is said to have a specific alleged genome (of which there are now millions and millions of variations uploaded) surrounded by a shell with a specific "spike" protein. That specific particle has not been shown to exist (the in silico "genomes" are all meaningless and fabricated, and have never been shown to exist in the physical realm), and the alleged spike protein has not been shown to come from the particles that are pointed at and labelled "SARS-COV-2".
It's an enveloped virus with a positive-sense single-stranded RNA genome. Those mutate notoriously. If you get a SARS-COV-2 and pass it on to someone else, that will be a different variant! Go tell the NSA and CIA cryptography is "meaningless and fabricated"!
More illogical, non-scientific nonsensical babble. You either know it and are paid to repeat that or you're stuck at grade school level.
I'm not piggybacking anything. The "do not exist" Gang came about well after I had already established my website, my book, and my writings on this topic in March 2020. It wasn't until later that the "do not exist" Gang began to use Stefan Lanka to try to push the narrative that all viruses do not exist and lead into the current denial of all things science.
The fact you would claim we have the same views shows that you are hardly familiar with what they really believe.
My positions are stated clearly in this comment thread. I suggest you read them carefully and understand them.
Well, the term virus is a well known term, but misunderstood as a poison, which is now reflected in modern day dictionaries as a contagion. Unfortunately, as a result, taken advantage of by modern medicine/big pharma to keep people in fear of bacteria/viruses as attackers of our bodies instead of part of our immune system, thus keeping folks as lab rats/guinea pigs and in continued $ickne$$ and di$eaSe and premature death…. With more information, positive information of how our bodies are wonderfully created, the definition could change! In this case it seems to me that Green and the Gang (with their WHO definition) are not on the same page. To me what is being said, ‘I agree, viruses do not exist as the WHO definition as pathogenic parasites. BUT viruses DO exist as non-living, toxin dissolvers,etc.’. It is a positive!
Here is my reply
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/dandelions-and-virology
The statement you make at the end of your piece is something you should further ponder in depth, just as I am trying to get Massey to do.
The definition from Oxford for "virus" states: "An infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host."
This definition is almost entirely true, except for the broad statement of viruses being infectious, which implies pathogeny and indiscriminatory 'attackers' coming from outside the body. If viruses exist but are instead non-pathogenic entities that arise in the disease state, as I have posited, then Massey and her colleagues are doing a great disservice to those like myself who logically formulate in-depth and scientifically reasoned theories to explain disease manifestation. Without a particle such as a virus—the very same particle science proclaims pathogenic—there can be no dissolution of non-bioactive compounds in the body, outside of cancer. There exists nothing produced by organisms that is rapidly and widely replicated by cells like viral proteins.
I know that viruses are the agent carrying out this dissolution because they have the exact makeup necessary to do so. They resist heat and chemicals. They contain glycoprotein (spikes) to latch onto compatible cells and tissue to begin enzymatic hydrolysis via glycoprotein amino acids. The virus is an enzyme carrier with many glycoprotein enzymes on its surface. The glycoproteins meet with the inner nucleocapsid which contains tightly coiled mRNA in the viral core that directs viruses on what they bind with and when to turn on; the lock-and-key system. If this was not so, viruses would literally dissolve everything they touch, and everyone who develops them would die.
Even science itself is beginning to tell us that viruses are our helpers. When you say they do not even exist, you discard the needs of the terrain to your own demise. Science itself readily admits viruses increase in the presence of toxicity.
Without a non-living enzyme, like the virus, cells would die from the inability to sustain themselves in the presence of overt toxins which cannot be readily dissolved by those living microorganisms without being poisoned to death. Do you prefer widespread cellular death when confronted with industrial toxins? Because that is what happens if the body cannot dissolve and expel those toxins. This is one of the fundamental points I am making.
if you're wondering what this virus debate is all about, on a really basic level, i'm doing my best to describe it in very simple language for the average person here: https://dawnfrench.substack.com/
Response to Jeff Green’s “Challenge”
Posted July 30, 2022
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/response-to-jeff-green/
Please tell us if you know, can, and/or will what convinces you that the physicians in the original two papers reporting a novel coronavirus (n-CoV-19 later renamed as SARS-CoV-2) have carried out the proper investigations for the cause of admission of the patients complaining of respiratory symptoms.
I am referring to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7 and,
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
Waiting for a response since July 19th.
Thank you.
The first linked study states: "Full-length genome sequences were obtained from five patients at an early stage of the outbreak. The sequences are almost identical and share 79.6% sequence identity to SARS-CoV." [i.e., such as SARS-CoV-1] and "1,378 (87.1%) sequences matched the sequence of SARSr-CoV"
"The disease was determined to be caused by virus-induced pneumonia by clinicians according to clinical symptoms and other criteria, including a rise in body temperature, decreases in the number of lymphocytes and white blood cells"
I have maintained that there are errors in the assumptions made by researchers with regard to the so-called infectiousness of disease, in particular viruses. The initial investigations leading to admission appear to be congruent with legitimately finding real case patients that suffer from similar illnesses. However, that does not mean I agree with their conclusions on infectiousness—I do not.
"Coronaviruses have caused two large-scale pandemics in the past two decades, SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)8,9."
Coronaviruses, like many viruses, are expressed in a cyclical way when the climactic conditions are ripe for cells to dump stored toxins and initiate a cleansing event. This will take place in an entire population at similar times. This is why annual flu rates fluctuate. Wuhan, with its large-scale industry, would be prone to these kinds of concentrated outbreaks because there are many people living close together in a cramped industrial polluted city.
Thank you for your response.
I can tell you are not a physician but thanking you for the time you took to provide your insight into the subject matter.
"Do note that isolation of particles the size of viruses must naturally allow for a very small percentage of minute debris in the purified sample."
As a layperson who can't understand most of the technical minutiae, I find that Mike Stone's article & argument "Just One Particle" goes a long way to refute what I think is mainstream virology and its claim that viruses are "too small" to find them without going through the elaborate procedures they do.
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/just-one-particle
Mike Stone continuously misreads and mischaracterizes studies, so be aware of that. His claims that there should be enough viruses in a sample is false. Also, his article is far longer than necessary to prove his point, which he failed to do. I have read most of it before. The fact is, there are a few different reasons why there is usually not enough viruses in a given sample, which requires the use of cultures.
These can include:
Low viral load
Presence of inhibitors
Viral diversity
Host response
Virologists typically aim to detect and quantify viruses in various biological samples, including fluids from sick individuals. The number of viruses present in a sample can vary depending on several factors, such as the stage of infection, viral load, and the specific virus being studied.
While it is true that viruses can be present in saliva or mucous discharge, the concentration of viruses can vary widely. It is not accurate to claim that every bit of saliva or mucous discharge from a sick person contains millions of viruses per milliliter. The viral load can be quite low in some cases, particularly during the early stages of infection or in individuals with mild symptoms.
Human samples are commonly used to detect viruses. In fact, human samples are the primary source of material for virus detection and diagnosis in clinical settings. Various types of human samples can be collected and tested to detect the presence of viruses.
Cultures will be used for the following reasons:
Amplification and isolation of viruses
Virus propagation and study
Isolation of specific viral strains or variants
Experimental control
If you are interested in more information, consider subscribing: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/misused-terms-by-team-no-virus
I don't think in the article he's claiming the number of virus particles -- he's citing Mainstream scientists/science guys who claim the copious number + claim what's necessary (including the punch line, just one) -- thus revealing an apparent incoherence in the Mainstream narrative.
His assertion that sufficient viral load can be extracted from a mucus sample for repeated purification, isolation, characterization, and sequencing of the viral particle is a misrepresentation of the scientific process involved. While it is feasible to obtain a sample from a living organism initially, replicating this procedure continuously throughout virus studies would require impractical and unachievable resources. Hence, the typical requirement of a culture medium to facilitate virus research.
His citations reflect a complete misinterpretation of the underlying science and its contextual significance.
"While it is feasible to obtain a sample from a living organism initially,"
If that's the case, in our day and age of recording technology, the initial obtaining of it could/should be recorded a million times over, instead of zero times (apparently).
"replicating this procedure continuously throughout virus studies would require impractical and unachievable resources."
One problem with this issue/debate is that it takes a certain level of expertise to understand phrases like the second one I quoted, an expertise that probably only less than 10% of the world has; and then were you to verify it (which also needs to be done), the verification would likely involve more text that is beyond my ability to understand. In such a situation, if the issue is of general public concern, those of us laypersons who don't understand have to find authorities we trust -- a long and complex process in and of itself, one which may never satisfactorily succeed.
The authority lies not in mere figures of authority but in the scientific literature itself. It becomes abundantly evident that the No-Virus proponents lack a profound understanding of the actual scientific principles. This deficiency is precisely why they fail to present a comprehensive counter-theory or contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
In virus research, the utilization of culture methods is necessary to cultivate a sufficient quantity of viruses for study purposes. This stands as an objective reality concerning the limitations of studying viruses. When individuals like Stone cite other scientists or papers, claiming that a single viral particle can cause infection, they are referring to controlled laboratory conditions where a solitary particle could theoretically damage or affect a cell—yet, this does not align with real-world scenarios. In the context of so-called contagion, a single viral particle would be insufficient to cause infection in a person.
The information is readily accessible, and every individual possesses the ability to acquire knowledge. Those who choose not to do so will inevitably persist in ignorance, and that remains their own problem.
"The authority lies not in mere figures of authority but in the scientific literature itself. It becomes abundantly evident that the No-Virus proponents lack a profound understanding of the actual scientific principles."
That may well be, but the non-expert laypersons (the vast majority of the population) need to be persuaded of this (and other related matters), and the catch-22 is that they will not be able to adjudicate the matter by reviewing the scientific literature themselves -- they will need guides with expertise. Obviously the laypersons can't base their selection of suitable guides on scientific knowledge, since they (the laypersons) don't have the knowledge necessary. Thus they need to base their selection on other factors. Before 2020 and the Covid Shitshow, I might have been amenable to erring on the side of "consensus" and what the Mainstream finds "respectable". By now, 3 years later, my trust in the Mainstream has been nearly ruined, and I can no longer trust any authority whose authority is enmeshed with the Mainstream.
Jeff, your questions could be better directed to the multiplicity of 'authorities' institutions, international and national entities that clearly and tacitly state they have not identified SARS CoV-2 "virus."
Exhaustive FOIs to such entities seen at: https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com
Latus, Christine Massey's FOIs do not prove the non-existence of viruses as a whole. In fact, they do not disprove SARS-CoV-2, either. And that is because her FOI requests are far too narrow in their request, and inevitably leads to the entity claiming they have no record. Yet, there are studies that show the existence of what is known as SARS-CoV-2 (whether you believe their conclusions is another matter). Those ARE the records carried out by research facilities.
I have stated numerous times that SARS-CoV-2 is a 'proxy virus', that was sent out to labs as a real construct but is an ordinary coronavirus mutated in a lab to be 'new'. It is not a special or unique virus, nor is it in widespread circulation, since viruses are not contagious. In fact, researchers have said there are more than 500+ coronaviruses that are known, with likely many more than that.
Lastly, I speak about the institutions quite regularly, when I get the chance. But the fact remains that Massey and her associated team of virus denialists are not interested in the science and human biology, and I can say that with certainty because they have shown time and time again, through their interviews and meetings, that they have no issue twisting the involved complex science terminology to distract their audience away from a real theory of disease (which I provide).
Jeff, the existence of an in silico sequence with some computer modelled addition is the identified entity deemed to "exist."
The evident interchangeable language around 'virus', 'exosome', 'virion' is a subject of record in the literature.
As I wrote, and to clarify, Christine Massey's FOIs have nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, the statements made by the multiplicity of addressed authorities make it clear enough. The "narrowness" of the request is a straw man. Had they a demonstrable pathological entity satisfying the definition of a "virus" or even quasi-believable proxy, we would be hearing about it endlessly.
Your choice of language "denialist" is as blatantly dismissive as it is pejorative, a transparent and hackneyed tactic seen elsewhere, most obviously in the climatism narrative.
Real "theories" have no trouble providing concrete evidence. The segueing theory of virology is a goal post dance that has currently morphed into genomics and in silico sequencing, having failed to demonstrate the entity.
So in summary.
1. No virus has ever been isolated directly from human.
2. The particles that are produced in cell cultures (with fake proxies using abnormal cell lines) have never been shown to cause disease by themselves.
3. The genomes of "viruses" cannot be confirmed because the provenance of the genetic material cannot be PROVEN from mixed cultures.
4. The definition of a virus as a self-replicating particle, with a proteinaceous mantle containing a genome that may infect and cause disease in a new host. It has to fulfil ALL the criteria.
5. Influenza "virus" transmission has never been demonstrated in humans (and this has been attempted quite hard).
Massey's FOI requests are inconsequential because virologists do not purify and isolate viral particles like her requests state. That is the misnomer.
"The evident interchangeable language around 'virus', 'exosome', 'virion' is a subject of record in the literature."
Viruses and exosomes are certainly not interchangeable. This is another myth that those in the no-virus group have pushed. I have proven such statements wrong before using the very studies they claim state that exosomes and viruses are the same. They are not the same.
Secondly, viruses have been taken and purified directly from living organisms without artificial culture. Insect and plant viruses can be cultured directly from their respective organisms. On the other hand, it is very difficult to get a human viral sample with enough viruses due to where cells replicate viruses, which are deep in tissue.
Animal cell viruses are harder to culture. Many viruses are replication-incompetent and can't replicate in certain cell lines, compounding the problem further. In order to purify a virus, enough viruses must be contained in the sample. You must have enough sample to sustain through the purification and centrifugation processes, including culturing.
Viruses do not "self-replicate", as you state. Not even science claims this. Viruses are produced by living cells from beginning to end. I have already stated they are not contagious, and my theory of viral particles not being contagious, but being cellular solvents, is well-established in the scientific literature and can be backed up by real microbiology and physiology. I have made that clear in my past articles. The claim that the viral particles themselves do not exist at all as intelligently created cell constructs, is completely wrong. The so-called pathogeny of the particle is irrelevant to their existence.
Lastly, viral genomes can indeed be determined from a mixture because current technology allows the sequencing of viral genomes directly from an unpurified culture since all relevant RNA information will stack in a cohesive way, very much like a puzzle. It is infinitesimally small that RNA parts that do not fit together would ever overlap, much like a puzzle piece would never fit into another puzzle piece's spot. Thus, the margin of error is incredibly low or non-existent altogether.
I'll refer you to this: https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
It responds clearly to the points you raise. There is also the self-evident meaninglessness of, "deep within tissue."
"A viral particle must fulfill defined physical and biological properties including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human."
Meanwhile, this is a good read: Khmelinskii, Stallinga, Woodcock (2021) Letter to Nature.
Then what does spread such disease?
Christine Massey is a pathological liar, as is her shill, Michael McKay.