Mr. Green, with all due respect, this rant of yours is just that a rant. It's your opinion and you make assumptions of what happens inside the body. Have you observed any of what you say happens inside the body. I don't think so. I have an easy question. Lanka has isolated bacteriophages, which are smaller that "viruses", Why can't they find viruses the same way, by just centrifuge?
Polio virus infects the anterior horn cells, why can NO virus be found in these cells?
HIV virus is said to damage the blood vessels. Why can't ANY virus be found in a tissue sample?
Sars-CoV-2 infects lungs and nasal cavity. Why can't virologists find ANY virus in the fluid or tissue. And if no virus can be found in a "sick" person's sputum, doesn't that question the whole transmission theory. Someone coughs and the droplets have viruses which then infect other people. Can we find viruses in those droplets. No. Why not? "Oh you're not a virologist, you cannot possibly understand.
Finally, I do not think God would make a viral particle. Everything he made was for a purpose.
You already called what I am saying "babble" on another thread without truly understanding what I am imparting, but I will take the high road and respond in earnest to your comments. My website is https://virusesarenotcontagious.com - You may surmise by this name that I do not believe in contagion.
Bacteriophages are some of the largest of viruses, along with those like mimi viruses—not the smallest, as you wrote. That is why they are more easily isolated, purified, and easier to observe. Coronaviruses, and viruses of these smaller sizes, are so small that they hardly reflect light. They are more difficult to isolate and observe, but not impossible.
Researchers find viruses in clinical samples routinely. There are multiple ways of isolation—from in-vivo isolation, to in-vitro, etc. They then add purified samples to cell cultures and incubate the sample, wherein cells produce viruses. They can then isolate that sample thereafter and deem it an 'isolate'. It can then be observed, and its viral structure documented. Over many years, researchers gain knowledge of the proteins therein. Terms are important, and isolate does not necessarily mean isolation itself. It means the viral sample has been shown to cause what they class as CPE. These are terms mainly being used without regard to their proper definition.
What I am claiming is not mere assumption. Viruses contain nucleic acids and other biomarkers from their replication by cells that can be identified, and their existence is inferred through that alone, among other avenues.
Further, viruses are shed from the body like any other tissue that comes from the body, like dead skin. This occurs when cells excrete toxins out of the skin, mucus, or through the breath, etc. These can technically be transmitted but are not contagious. If they were, everyone would become sick in the presence of a person who is ill with viral illness. This does not occur.
Just as roosters do not cause the rising of the sun. The sun signals to roosters, one by one, to awaken. And perhaps not all at once, but in an orderly way. Just as bears come out of hibernation in various spots one after the other, so too do the annual seasons of viral detoxifications take place in the animal kingdom when cells are biochemically signaled to dump their toxins and begin their cleansing phases.
Everything is cyclical in nature, and the human body is part of nature. Heat, humidity, and pressure, all beget physiological changes at the cellular level.
"Finally, I do not think God would make a viral particle. Everything he made was for a purpose."
So is cancer. It is for a purpose in the disease state, being a natural byproduct of man's ignorance toward what causes disease and how to prevent it. There are endless ways the body will attempt to resolve insults. Look at polio, smallpox, and many other severe degenerative diseases caused from toxicity. The body is capable of producing all sorts of severe lesions inwardly and outwardly, to the point of incredibly severe mutations of the body, widespread severe inflammation and infection, and so on. The body becomes overly acidic in the disease state to try to dissolve toxic cells and tissues. Viruses are a strong part of the disease process and are acidic in their nature.
That is why they occur more severely in those who have weakened bodily systems from toxicity. This is not my assumption, this is an observable scientific fact, and one that I have lived and seen personally and up close. If you do not have this first-hand knowledge, you will likely not come close to understanding it.
That is why I tell everyone to observe nature deeply and with intent in order to determine the inner workings of the body itself.
My comment above to reante applies to much of your question as well. I suggest reading that a few times and then reading my other written works.
Yeah, you seem more like Peter Duesberg or Larry Palevsky.
"Viruses exist but are not contagious".
However you seem dogmatically wedded to the idea that viruses exist (IMHO, without evidence), and respond with great hostility to those who question the purported evidence.
The "Settling the Virus Debate" proposal is simply to try to verify the major claims of Virology *by their own methods*. It's not jumping through hoops or making unreasonable demands.
In another comment, you seem to admit that even agreeing on the initial conditions is problematic and paradoxical:
How can we all agree upon a study design to show that labs can, with repeatability and accuracy (sensitivity and specificity/discrimination), and with proper controls, identify Influenza virus in a patient with influenza, SARS-CoV-2 in a patient with COVID?
Because this begs the question:
How do we decide who "has COVID" in order to determine a suitable serum donor for the experiment?
ANSWER: There is NO WAY to diagnose COVID. There is NO objective diagnostic criteria or rational basis for a "COVID" diagnosis!
There is only
a) An AMBIGUOUS clinical diagnosis of a non-distinguishing syndrome,
--OR--
b) A 100% bogus "test"(*) never calibrated to any real-world reference standard, that is, an unadulterated, purified sample of the pathogen obtained from a sick patient.
(* Reminder: PCR is completely unsuitable as a diagnostic for clinical disease. This is straight from the Nobel Prize-winning inventor Kary Mullis. "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron".)
I misunderstood your stance initially. But probably more because of the vitriol you expressed towards Cowan and Kaufman and the rest. And I think you're confused at what Cowan thinks. Have you read or listened to him? Cowan does think that the body makes what they call "viruses" in response to toxins. It is confusing when he or others say viruses aren't real, because the body does make a particle when dealing with toxins. Maybe that side should be more clear. But you and he are on the same page so why do attack him like you do? Not sure why the $1000+ shower head triggers you so. He doesn't make that shower head. He is just a retailer. And how do you know that the crystals inside the shower head don't do anything. Maybe it changes the frequency and is more healing. You seem like a smart guy but come on, you do not know.
And not sure why the challenge to you is so problematic. If you say that virologists can find viruses in the human fluid sample, then why the need for the nutty monkey kidney cell culture with other toxins. Why can't they take fluid out the lungs, filter it, then sequence it? These are supposedly human viruses so shouldn't the human culture be the best place to grow viruses. Sars-CoV-2 should grow just fine in the lung tissue and should be seen in lung fluid, right. I think the labs would fail the challenge miserably. Let's just take Sars-CoV-2. Do you think giving 5 labs the same sample to process will result in the exact same genome? They need to be blinded from each other so they can't cheat. If not, you should be a supporter of this challenge.
": any of a large group of submicroscopic infectious agents that are usually regarded as nonliving extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, animals, and plants
As there is no infectious/contagious agent, just like you tell us, I do think we should not call these particles viruses but exosomes. Virology thinks these exosomes are parts of viruses like sars-cov2 which only exist as an idea, a computermodel which is never found in nature as a whole or in 1 piece.
Sars-cov2 does not exist in the physical world/ reality.
We are all in team truth and against the genocide by injection.
Jeff, do you realize that what virology calls isolation, is not purification? So no so called 'virus' is ever purified and thus proven to exist.
And do you realize that virology never did control experiments and when Stefan Lanka did these, he could find any so called virus in a clean sample after 'isolation', which was the only source of genetic material.
I would love the see you have a debate about this with Stefan Lanka.
Lanka did not show any intelligent structure in his micrographs. What he showed was mere cell breakdown, which is multi-varied and does not have any cohesive structure as viruses do. If Lanka had shown an intelligent structure, as has been photographed by researchers since the 1930s, there would be something there he could proclaim to be significant. His claim seemingly is that any type of virus can be created by cells when cells are starved outside the body, no matter the circumstances per se.
Yes, cells break down in the absence of the microbiome and can produce and excrete viruses during cellular survival. But the type of virus that manifests is entirely dependent it seems on the tissue being placed in the presence of the cell, the type of cell that is involved, and perhaps any chemicals used therein.
What they argue is, in hindsight, problematic on a few different fronts. One is that they should realize that monkey cells (Vero), or HeLa cells, are both still cells, and if those cells can produce viruses under duress, then other cells can do likewise. Therefore, it is basically irrelevant what cells are used in actually proving the existence of viruses as a whole.
The fact is, cells are producing structures of intelligent design that can not be produced entirely by man. Yes, the practices of man can cause the degeneration of cells that leads to viral creation by cells. As well, some of the structure of the virus can be damaged IF improperly done, such as through heavy-handed staining or EM. However, you can most times still determine a burned-down house was indeed a house because the walls are still standing. As such, intelligent structures, even in the most unlikely circumstances, can still be determined as having been purposefully created by cells—not solely having been created by man and his actions. What man would create through his chemicals would be aberrations and mutations—not something like a bacteriophage or an adenovirus, for example.
In short, procedures can produce viruses but cannot create the viral structure itself. The latter is entirely at the behest of the cell itself. This is why Lanka is only partially correct in his assertions about cell breakdown. To call viruses mere cell debris is wrong. Cell debris is made of vesicles of many different shapes and sizes that do not have the makeup that viral structures have whatsoever.
The only time a vesicle may appear as a virus is if a virus is ‘defective’ (incomplete), or, is an enveloped virus that somewhat disguises the virus to the observer, making it appear at first like a vesicle since it contains a lipid bilayer obtained from the cell or the cell wall.
"if those cells can produce viruses under duress, then other cells can do likewise. Therefore, it is basically irrelevant what cells are used in actually proving the existence of viruses as a whole."
But since decades they are using the same standard 'cell culture protocol' they call isolation, right?
And what if they are adding the same genetic material (by doing the cell culture), they later look for and think they have found a part of a virus?
"The fact is, cells are producing structures of intelligent design that can not be produced entirely by man. Yes, the practices of man can cause the degeneration of cells that leads to viral creation by cells. "
Can a virus be an intelligent (designed), toxin dependent breakdown of a cell to act like a soap to get rid of a toxin/poison?
So can the intelligence be already in the cell (design)? (or elsewhere in creation) Instead of man 'doing this', man is just creating the environment this intelligent creation happens in.
Man is creating an artificial culture to mimic viral creation as it would appear in the body. But static cultures are artificial and do not contain the whole of the body, its microbiome, or excretory pathways to regulate and move toxins away from sensitive living cells. The fact remains that cells put under duress and starved will produce viral constructs that are easily determined to be viruses by their clear and apparent structure and nucleic acid biomarkers.
The creation of a virus occurs wholly by a cell, from beginning to end. Man can influence the cell to create viruses by placing specific stressors into their cellular environment, however, cells are still creating the virus itself.
The blueprint for all viruses exists in the cell genome which dictates protein creation. Each type of nucleated cell, in every region and organ in the body, can produce their own types of virus—hepatitis in the liver, polio in the spine, coronavirus in the lungs, and so on.
In static culture, cells will dissolve themselves by their own solvents (virus) because there is no cellular or viral regulation as noted above. Thus, you will see viruses infecting and dissolving cell walls or whole degenerated cells in an artificial culture. Trypsin can be placed into a culture to quicken the degeneration of cells by stressing those cells to produce more viruses, more quickly. This is due to cell breakdown wherein cells enter cellular survival mode. Solvents are therefore produced during this time to attempt to save themselves.
Read my article "Science Confirms My Writings on Viruses", where I show the scientific studies that show how viruses are non-living solvents that enzymatically break down specific tissues and their toxins.
Hi Jeff, it’s been an informative discussion in the comments as usual (here and elsewhere you contribute to). You make a lot of sense. However, I don’t know why there often seems to be a combative nature to your exchanges. Perhaps prior discussions are influencing current ones with regard to certain people? Personally I think ridicule is too quickly adopted in these exchanges and it evolves into animosity such that one can never see the truth that the other is saying, despite it being there.
Anyway, irrespective of the issues you point out with regard to the suggested procedure, doesn’t the virus challenge seek to establish what you yourself propose doesn’t exist - that being the existence of pathogenic viruses? “We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…”. An aside, have you reached out to these people? Kaufman, Lanka et al and attempted to combine your knowledge? If so, have they dismissed you? Disrespected you? If not, you should. Again, maybe I’m late to the party in terms of your relationships. In any case, I appreciate the knowledge you share.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, there is certainly history. I have been routinely attacked by many in what I call the "Gang" for nearly three years. So, please do not think I am being combative for no reason.
I have had contact with a few from the Gang, like Kaufman (briefly). They wanted nothing to do with me when they found out I do not adhere to their positions that also help promote snake oil products.
My position is simple. Viruses are real and have been purified and isolated. That they are carriers of genetic information. That they infect industrial toxic cells to dissolve them. That they arise from a state of disease. And that they coexist within the ecosystem of all living things.
Science agrees with all of this. One of my main divergences is that I state viruses are not contagious or indiscriminately pathogenic/infectious. Which science is currently catching up to.
The Gang is completely attacking these ideas on health and disease and misleading many into a dead end. The "challenge" is one such dead end because it seeks, not the truth, but an egotistic chest beating by which they attempt to 'prove' their positions. It is merely masquerading as good intentions.
Thanks for the response and insight into your grievance, Jeff. And fair enough if that’s what you’ve been subjected to. Personally I’ve been reading and following the progress of Cowan, Kaufman, the Baileys, etc throughout this pandemic and I’ve found them to be most sincere in what they are attempting to bring to light. I personally have a tendency to poo poo scientifically orthodox theories that appear to have such a big margin for error. To me it seems pretty logical that the models they use are incomplete at best, given they focus only on the material aspects of cellular life. So I don’t really have a problem with them attacking those ideas on health and disease. But as a time starved person I do tend to outsource my knowledge on these issues more than I’d like. Anyway, I was hoping you could clarify some points in your reply to me.
When you say, “That they infect industrial toxic cells to dissolve them.” Do you mean viruses develop in the cell and only destroy the cell they originate in?… Or that they originate in particular cells then escape and infect other cells that are susceptible to being infected?… From what I’ve read from you previously I thought it was the former, but if it’s the latter I’d appreciate you point me to where you have elaborated on this.
Also, this was interesting; “One of my main divergences is that I state viruses are not contagious or indiscriminately pathogenic/infectious. Which science is currently catching up to.” Can I ask where you see evidence of this happening? (i.e. science currently catching up to this error) Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
They are not sincere if they are twisting information for their own gain and fostering anti-science mindsets, but nevertheless, you are entitled to your view.
Viruses are created and multiplied in cells that are still healthy enough to synthesize proteins. Viruses then leave cells through budding or lysis—different viruses leave cells differently based on replication levels. Rarely are replicating cells destroyed by lysis. In fact, such cells used to manufacture viruses go on to produce proteins afterward. Viruses leave the cell and enter the extracellular fluid where they are guided via mRNA. They enter toxic cells that cannot self-regulate.
Viruses dissolve parts of cells and/or dissolve whole degenerated cells. Most of the time, those degenerated cells are filled with industrial non-bioactive toxins that living janitorial cleansers, like bacteria, cannot break down without being poisoned to death. Thus, a non-living solvent is produced by cells to help turn the toxin into a diluted and water-soluble form. Viruses transfer their genetic material between cells to help other unhealthy cells facilitate the replication of viruses in the disease state (cells still able to produce proteins). Viruses and cells work together in symbiosis in the body.
Infection is necessary when the body is unable to remove foreign/toxic matter. Infection helps initiate the healing phase of such a type of conflict
With regard Kaufman, Cowan etc, I don’t believe they are ‘deliberately’ twisting information for their own gain. My read is that they’re genuine in what they’re promulgating because they believe their position is accurate. When it comes to products they’re selling, perhaps they’re opportunistically taking advantage of a forced career pivot. But that’s a separate thing, and one I personally don’t begrudge.
I do agree their stance naturally fosters an anti-science mindset in those who come to their information without a strong knowledge base in this area (I put myself in that camp somewhat). But this I see as just a consequence of virology’s shaky foundation. It’s quite easy to poke holes in every step of the process of how virologists discover pathogenic viruses, due to the margin for error in each step. Couple this with virology being inextricably linked to the pharmaceutical industry, and it’s not difficult for people to conclude it to be absolute pseudoscience after being exposed to Lanka and others.
Anyway, thanks for your clarifying response regarding virus cell infection. I did some further reading on your website and went over your ‘commentary on isolation’ document which gave me more insight. It does indeed make logical sense, and I intuitively think you’re correct with regard to the creation of viruses and their subsequent cell infection. I guess with some time and arms length reflection your ideas might penetrate some of those insistent on them being non-existent.
Regarding the linked Harvard article, it was promising in parts. However, I don’t see the medical-scientific orthodoxy ever getting to the stage where an ‘injection’ is not part of the procedure. Do you? My inner-cynic reasoning tells me this research and advancement is a side show for well intentioned scientists that will amount to nothing positive for health so long as profit streams are attached to the idea of virus contagion.
On another note, can I ask your opinion on the possibility of bio-resonance transmission from person to person? When I observe what little I have with regard to microscopy it appears more like oscillating vibrational movement that is inducing pleomorphism or lysis. If electrical and vibrational frequency are involved in transmitting information on a cellular level, this somewhat supports the theory that transmission of sickness may also occur via this mechanism on a larger scale externally (i.e. A sick person emits a frequency that triggers a detox reaction in someone who also needs to detox themselves from the build up they’ve accumulated over the weeks, months, years, etc). I’d love to hear your take on this. Or again please point me to where you already have given it. Many thanks.
Mainstream media are the main promulgators of contagion fear, along with the CDC and WHO government agencies. Science itself is far more evolved than those agencies. That is not to say everything they say is false, because that would not be accurate either. Those agencies, along with media, are mainly arms of the government(s).
Virology and vaccinology are separate studies. In vaccine studies, there is shown the so-called prevention of disease, when in actuality, it is a suppression of the detoxification system. Of course, I can also see how researchers would misinterpret such results without it being an outright deception in and of itself. Vaccines suppress disease like a drug irritates cells to cause a high, but they do not create immunity because immunity itself is a misnomer. And remember that disease is necessary to heal the body when toxicity is present. Disease is a natural and necessary byproduct. Without disease, the body could not heal a systemic toxic state.
A close relationship between our body, and the natural world, replete with bacteria and parasites, are what create and foster natural health and robust organisms, all of which help regulate the body. Without this natural relationship, which is formed from the moment you exit the womb and begin introducing bacteria from the world into your body, there can be no 'immunity'.
If the body becomes unnaturally 'separated' from its outward environment, and bacterial levels are reduced, the body cannot regulate itself properly. It has been designed to live in symbiosis with microorganisms, of which the body is composed of around 90% bacteria currently. In previous generations, that number was higher, and I estimate roughly 98-99%.
Remember that there are many types of bacterial cells, and this accounts for many cells in the body, which is why the number is so high.
I often say we are 99% bacterial and 1% human gene. This is not an exact number, (so do not hold me to the 99% figure exactly) but is a generalized statement that I use.
Including this, we have trillions of viruses that exist in symbiosis in the body. However, because of their small size and weight, they make up far less percentage than cells and bacteria.
Thanks, Jeff, for your replies and further reading links. A most interesting breakdown you give again. The below resonates (no pun intended) with my current understanding…
“Also worth considering: 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 someone 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.”
Question: do you not suppose there is a sixth sense also at play? Receiving or transmitting frequencies carrying similar or different information? The self evident reality of life as I see it suggests there’s more at play than just physical biochemical processes. Models or theories that don’t account for some kind of metaphysical or spiritual symbiosis with the physical don’t really reflect that reality of life for me. It perhaps isn’t scientifically measurable, but surely it’s not such a leap to assume this can happen?
Also, I’ve read the below passage a few times, and I think it’s great. However I can’t help but feel you’re saying in a round about way that there is such a symbiosis at play between the physical biochemical and metaphysical without wanting to come right out and say it…
“I suggest a biochemical process that is created when emotions create stress hormones and adrenaline. Many times, excess adrenaline stores in the skin and nerves when it is not burned through activity. These occur through emotional changes to the body through the perception of the mind; through the visual-auditory system. The same system creates anxiety and fear, and so forth, which are all related. Seeming resonances/synchronicity may occur when two people are together since emotional energy is usually shared between people; laughing, yawning, crying, fear, etc. That is, certain shared events may spark a detoxification to occur simultaneously in two people.”
In any case, it was a very informative comment you replied with to Kat. You have a great way of succinctly putting a lot of information into a digestible chunk of words. It’s appreciated. Thank you.
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.
Hi again reante... I agree with you. If the word virus is defined as pathogenic, then we must either redefine the meaning of virus completely or change the word itself. That is why in my writings, I try to make it clear what my definition of viruses is, so there is no confusion.
In the same vein, most bacteria are classed as pathogenic that are not pathogenic, and we still call them by their bacterial names. This, of course, does not mean those bacteria do not exist just because science falsely attributes pathogeny to these entities. I am of the belief that the meaning of the word virus will change again in the coming generations if truth prevails.
But to compound this issue further, viruses may appear pathogenic in the presence of a sick and completely toxic cell that cannot be renewed. They are not pathogenic, but they will dissolve wholly toxic cells. There are likely ways in which viruses and cells comingle that on their surface appear to be 'infectious' agents. In this way, researchers may attribute pathogenic functions to viruses, that in reality is only illusory. This is why I attribute some of what science does to errors and not some outright deception.
The same is true for bacterial infections that I have personally observed. Bacteria replicate in the presence of toxic matter being dumped into the blood. Septicemia bacterial infection is one such example, wherein cells and toxins cannot be regulated properly due to imbalances in the whole of the body (usually from poisoning, drug use, or alcohol use). Bacteria replicate to consume toxic waste now floating in the blood. They will class these as pathogenic bacteria, but bacteria only feed upon dead and dying tissue, much like a termite only eats dead and decaying wood, or a crow consumes roadkill.
So, these are all our helpers, and they each have a specific role in the body. In the disease state, many things become illusory, wherein the body appears to be attacking itself. As you have stated: We have in us the primordial soup of life, by which all things work in harmony together in nature. If not true, we would all have become extinct millions of years ago.
The body never attacks itself. It is attempting to reverse a toxic condition and restore homeostasis. Sometimes, cells and tissues are so toxic that the body appears to be attacking itself as those tissues are attempting to be discarded and removed by cells, bacteria, or viruses. So, you can surmise how science makes these errors in judgment in their static environments of observation.
Above all, I think it is many steps in the wrong direction to claim such solvent constructs of cohesive nature do not exist, as I explained in my audio lecture. This is one of the glaring oversights with the high-level players who deny the actual existence of viruses (and now many basic constructs of the body itself).
I hope this helps, and by the way, I have been in agreement with you on a number of things that I have read from you, and we are coming from the same angle I believe.
Mr. Green, with all due respect, this rant of yours is just that a rant. It's your opinion and you make assumptions of what happens inside the body. Have you observed any of what you say happens inside the body. I don't think so. I have an easy question. Lanka has isolated bacteriophages, which are smaller that "viruses", Why can't they find viruses the same way, by just centrifuge?
Polio virus infects the anterior horn cells, why can NO virus be found in these cells?
HIV virus is said to damage the blood vessels. Why can't ANY virus be found in a tissue sample?
Sars-CoV-2 infects lungs and nasal cavity. Why can't virologists find ANY virus in the fluid or tissue. And if no virus can be found in a "sick" person's sputum, doesn't that question the whole transmission theory. Someone coughs and the droplets have viruses which then infect other people. Can we find viruses in those droplets. No. Why not? "Oh you're not a virologist, you cannot possibly understand.
Finally, I do not think God would make a viral particle. Everything he made was for a purpose.
You already called what I am saying "babble" on another thread without truly understanding what I am imparting, but I will take the high road and respond in earnest to your comments. My website is https://virusesarenotcontagious.com - You may surmise by this name that I do not believe in contagion.
Bacteriophages are some of the largest of viruses, along with those like mimi viruses—not the smallest, as you wrote. That is why they are more easily isolated, purified, and easier to observe. Coronaviruses, and viruses of these smaller sizes, are so small that they hardly reflect light. They are more difficult to isolate and observe, but not impossible.
Researchers find viruses in clinical samples routinely. There are multiple ways of isolation—from in-vivo isolation, to in-vitro, etc. They then add purified samples to cell cultures and incubate the sample, wherein cells produce viruses. They can then isolate that sample thereafter and deem it an 'isolate'. It can then be observed, and its viral structure documented. Over many years, researchers gain knowledge of the proteins therein. Terms are important, and isolate does not necessarily mean isolation itself. It means the viral sample has been shown to cause what they class as CPE. These are terms mainly being used without regard to their proper definition.
What I am claiming is not mere assumption. Viruses contain nucleic acids and other biomarkers from their replication by cells that can be identified, and their existence is inferred through that alone, among other avenues.
Further, viruses are shed from the body like any other tissue that comes from the body, like dead skin. This occurs when cells excrete toxins out of the skin, mucus, or through the breath, etc. These can technically be transmitted but are not contagious. If they were, everyone would become sick in the presence of a person who is ill with viral illness. This does not occur.
Just as roosters do not cause the rising of the sun. The sun signals to roosters, one by one, to awaken. And perhaps not all at once, but in an orderly way. Just as bears come out of hibernation in various spots one after the other, so too do the annual seasons of viral detoxifications take place in the animal kingdom when cells are biochemically signaled to dump their toxins and begin their cleansing phases.
Everything is cyclical in nature, and the human body is part of nature. Heat, humidity, and pressure, all beget physiological changes at the cellular level.
"Finally, I do not think God would make a viral particle. Everything he made was for a purpose."
So is cancer. It is for a purpose in the disease state, being a natural byproduct of man's ignorance toward what causes disease and how to prevent it. There are endless ways the body will attempt to resolve insults. Look at polio, smallpox, and many other severe degenerative diseases caused from toxicity. The body is capable of producing all sorts of severe lesions inwardly and outwardly, to the point of incredibly severe mutations of the body, widespread severe inflammation and infection, and so on. The body becomes overly acidic in the disease state to try to dissolve toxic cells and tissues. Viruses are a strong part of the disease process and are acidic in their nature.
That is why they occur more severely in those who have weakened bodily systems from toxicity. This is not my assumption, this is an observable scientific fact, and one that I have lived and seen personally and up close. If you do not have this first-hand knowledge, you will likely not come close to understanding it.
That is why I tell everyone to observe nature deeply and with intent in order to determine the inner workings of the body itself.
My comment above to reante applies to much of your question as well. I suggest reading that a few times and then reading my other written works.
Yeah, you seem more like Peter Duesberg or Larry Palevsky.
"Viruses exist but are not contagious".
However you seem dogmatically wedded to the idea that viruses exist (IMHO, without evidence), and respond with great hostility to those who question the purported evidence.
The "Settling the Virus Debate" proposal is simply to try to verify the major claims of Virology *by their own methods*. It's not jumping through hoops or making unreasonable demands.
In another comment, you seem to admit that even agreeing on the initial conditions is problematic and paradoxical:
How can we all agree upon a study design to show that labs can, with repeatability and accuracy (sensitivity and specificity/discrimination), and with proper controls, identify Influenza virus in a patient with influenza, SARS-CoV-2 in a patient with COVID?
Because this begs the question:
How do we decide who "has COVID" in order to determine a suitable serum donor for the experiment?
ANSWER: There is NO WAY to diagnose COVID. There is NO objective diagnostic criteria or rational basis for a "COVID" diagnosis!
There is only
a) An AMBIGUOUS clinical diagnosis of a non-distinguishing syndrome,
--OR--
b) A 100% bogus "test"(*) never calibrated to any real-world reference standard, that is, an unadulterated, purified sample of the pathogen obtained from a sick patient.
(* Reminder: PCR is completely unsuitable as a diagnostic for clinical disease. This is straight from the Nobel Prize-winning inventor Kary Mullis. "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron".)
Jeff,
I misunderstood your stance initially. But probably more because of the vitriol you expressed towards Cowan and Kaufman and the rest. And I think you're confused at what Cowan thinks. Have you read or listened to him? Cowan does think that the body makes what they call "viruses" in response to toxins. It is confusing when he or others say viruses aren't real, because the body does make a particle when dealing with toxins. Maybe that side should be more clear. But you and he are on the same page so why do attack him like you do? Not sure why the $1000+ shower head triggers you so. He doesn't make that shower head. He is just a retailer. And how do you know that the crystals inside the shower head don't do anything. Maybe it changes the frequency and is more healing. You seem like a smart guy but come on, you do not know.
And not sure why the challenge to you is so problematic. If you say that virologists can find viruses in the human fluid sample, then why the need for the nutty monkey kidney cell culture with other toxins. Why can't they take fluid out the lungs, filter it, then sequence it? These are supposedly human viruses so shouldn't the human culture be the best place to grow viruses. Sars-CoV-2 should grow just fine in the lung tissue and should be seen in lung fluid, right. I think the labs would fail the challenge miserably. Let's just take Sars-CoV-2. Do you think giving 5 labs the same sample to process will result in the exact same genome? They need to be blinded from each other so they can't cheat. If not, you should be a supporter of this challenge.
I hear you saying the same as Kaufman, Lanka and Cowan, the only difference is that what you call viruses, they refer to as exosomes or cell debri.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virus
": any of a large group of submicroscopic infectious agents that are usually regarded as nonliving extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, animals, and plants
As there is no infectious/contagious agent, just like you tell us, I do think we should not call these particles viruses but exosomes. Virology thinks these exosomes are parts of viruses like sars-cov2 which only exist as an idea, a computermodel which is never found in nature as a whole or in 1 piece.
Sars-cov2 does not exist in the physical world/ reality.
Christine Massey has now collected FOIs from 200 institutions looking for SARS-CoV-2: so far, "NO RECORD FOUND" https://apocalypticyoga.substack.com/p/christine-massey-200
Virus Theory vs Exosome Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yRSKLs2OrY
The website exosomes.nl was removed when covid started, but look who we see here: http://web.archive.org/web/20210412053707/http://www.exosomes.nl/bill--melinda-gates-foundation.html
We are all in team truth and against the genocide by injection.
Jeff, do you realize that what virology calls isolation, is not purification? So no so called 'virus' is ever purified and thus proven to exist.
And do you realize that virology never did control experiments and when Stefan Lanka did these, he could find any so called virus in a clean sample after 'isolation', which was the only source of genetic material.
I would love the see you have a debate about this with Stefan Lanka.
Lanka did not show any intelligent structure in his micrographs. What he showed was mere cell breakdown, which is multi-varied and does not have any cohesive structure as viruses do. If Lanka had shown an intelligent structure, as has been photographed by researchers since the 1930s, there would be something there he could proclaim to be significant. His claim seemingly is that any type of virus can be created by cells when cells are starved outside the body, no matter the circumstances per se.
Yes, cells break down in the absence of the microbiome and can produce and excrete viruses during cellular survival. But the type of virus that manifests is entirely dependent it seems on the tissue being placed in the presence of the cell, the type of cell that is involved, and perhaps any chemicals used therein.
What they argue is, in hindsight, problematic on a few different fronts. One is that they should realize that monkey cells (Vero), or HeLa cells, are both still cells, and if those cells can produce viruses under duress, then other cells can do likewise. Therefore, it is basically irrelevant what cells are used in actually proving the existence of viruses as a whole.
The fact is, cells are producing structures of intelligent design that can not be produced entirely by man. Yes, the practices of man can cause the degeneration of cells that leads to viral creation by cells. As well, some of the structure of the virus can be damaged IF improperly done, such as through heavy-handed staining or EM. However, you can most times still determine a burned-down house was indeed a house because the walls are still standing. As such, intelligent structures, even in the most unlikely circumstances, can still be determined as having been purposefully created by cells—not solely having been created by man and his actions. What man would create through his chemicals would be aberrations and mutations—not something like a bacteriophage or an adenovirus, for example.
In short, procedures can produce viruses but cannot create the viral structure itself. The latter is entirely at the behest of the cell itself. This is why Lanka is only partially correct in his assertions about cell breakdown. To call viruses mere cell debris is wrong. Cell debris is made of vesicles of many different shapes and sizes that do not have the makeup that viral structures have whatsoever.
The only time a vesicle may appear as a virus is if a virus is ‘defective’ (incomplete), or, is an enveloped virus that somewhat disguises the virus to the observer, making it appear at first like a vesicle since it contains a lipid bilayer obtained from the cell or the cell wall.
"if those cells can produce viruses under duress, then other cells can do likewise. Therefore, it is basically irrelevant what cells are used in actually proving the existence of viruses as a whole."
But since decades they are using the same standard 'cell culture protocol' they call isolation, right?
And what if they are adding the same genetic material (by doing the cell culture), they later look for and think they have found a part of a virus?
"The fact is, cells are producing structures of intelligent design that can not be produced entirely by man. Yes, the practices of man can cause the degeneration of cells that leads to viral creation by cells. "
Can a virus be an intelligent (designed), toxin dependent breakdown of a cell to act like a soap to get rid of a toxin/poison?
So can the intelligence be already in the cell (design)? (or elsewhere in creation) Instead of man 'doing this', man is just creating the environment this intelligent creation happens in.
Man is creating an artificial culture to mimic viral creation as it would appear in the body. But static cultures are artificial and do not contain the whole of the body, its microbiome, or excretory pathways to regulate and move toxins away from sensitive living cells. The fact remains that cells put under duress and starved will produce viral constructs that are easily determined to be viruses by their clear and apparent structure and nucleic acid biomarkers.
The creation of a virus occurs wholly by a cell, from beginning to end. Man can influence the cell to create viruses by placing specific stressors into their cellular environment, however, cells are still creating the virus itself.
The blueprint for all viruses exists in the cell genome which dictates protein creation. Each type of nucleated cell, in every region and organ in the body, can produce their own types of virus—hepatitis in the liver, polio in the spine, coronavirus in the lungs, and so on.
In static culture, cells will dissolve themselves by their own solvents (virus) because there is no cellular or viral regulation as noted above. Thus, you will see viruses infecting and dissolving cell walls or whole degenerated cells in an artificial culture. Trypsin can be placed into a culture to quicken the degeneration of cells by stressing those cells to produce more viruses, more quickly. This is due to cell breakdown wherein cells enter cellular survival mode. Solvents are therefore produced during this time to attempt to save themselves.
Read my article "Science Confirms My Writings on Viruses", where I show the scientific studies that show how viruses are non-living solvents that enzymatically break down specific tissues and their toxins.
Hi Jeff, it’s been an informative discussion in the comments as usual (here and elsewhere you contribute to). You make a lot of sense. However, I don’t know why there often seems to be a combative nature to your exchanges. Perhaps prior discussions are influencing current ones with regard to certain people? Personally I think ridicule is too quickly adopted in these exchanges and it evolves into animosity such that one can never see the truth that the other is saying, despite it being there.
Anyway, irrespective of the issues you point out with regard to the suggested procedure, doesn’t the virus challenge seek to establish what you yourself propose doesn’t exist - that being the existence of pathogenic viruses? “We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…”. An aside, have you reached out to these people? Kaufman, Lanka et al and attempted to combine your knowledge? If so, have they dismissed you? Disrespected you? If not, you should. Again, maybe I’m late to the party in terms of your relationships. In any case, I appreciate the knowledge you share.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, there is certainly history. I have been routinely attacked by many in what I call the "Gang" for nearly three years. So, please do not think I am being combative for no reason.
I have had contact with a few from the Gang, like Kaufman (briefly). They wanted nothing to do with me when they found out I do not adhere to their positions that also help promote snake oil products.
My position is simple. Viruses are real and have been purified and isolated. That they are carriers of genetic information. That they infect industrial toxic cells to dissolve them. That they arise from a state of disease. And that they coexist within the ecosystem of all living things.
Science agrees with all of this. One of my main divergences is that I state viruses are not contagious or indiscriminately pathogenic/infectious. Which science is currently catching up to.
The Gang is completely attacking these ideas on health and disease and misleading many into a dead end. The "challenge" is one such dead end because it seeks, not the truth, but an egotistic chest beating by which they attempt to 'prove' their positions. It is merely masquerading as good intentions.
Thanks for the response and insight into your grievance, Jeff. And fair enough if that’s what you’ve been subjected to. Personally I’ve been reading and following the progress of Cowan, Kaufman, the Baileys, etc throughout this pandemic and I’ve found them to be most sincere in what they are attempting to bring to light. I personally have a tendency to poo poo scientifically orthodox theories that appear to have such a big margin for error. To me it seems pretty logical that the models they use are incomplete at best, given they focus only on the material aspects of cellular life. So I don’t really have a problem with them attacking those ideas on health and disease. But as a time starved person I do tend to outsource my knowledge on these issues more than I’d like. Anyway, I was hoping you could clarify some points in your reply to me.
When you say, “That they infect industrial toxic cells to dissolve them.” Do you mean viruses develop in the cell and only destroy the cell they originate in?… Or that they originate in particular cells then escape and infect other cells that are susceptible to being infected?… From what I’ve read from you previously I thought it was the former, but if it’s the latter I’d appreciate you point me to where you have elaborated on this.
Also, this was interesting; “One of my main divergences is that I state viruses are not contagious or indiscriminately pathogenic/infectious. Which science is currently catching up to.” Can I ask where you see evidence of this happening? (i.e. science currently catching up to this error) Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
They are not sincere if they are twisting information for their own gain and fostering anti-science mindsets, but nevertheless, you are entitled to your view.
Viruses are created and multiplied in cells that are still healthy enough to synthesize proteins. Viruses then leave cells through budding or lysis—different viruses leave cells differently based on replication levels. Rarely are replicating cells destroyed by lysis. In fact, such cells used to manufacture viruses go on to produce proteins afterward. Viruses leave the cell and enter the extracellular fluid where they are guided via mRNA. They enter toxic cells that cannot self-regulate.
Viruses dissolve parts of cells and/or dissolve whole degenerated cells. Most of the time, those degenerated cells are filled with industrial non-bioactive toxins that living janitorial cleansers, like bacteria, cannot break down without being poisoned to death. Thus, a non-living solvent is produced by cells to help turn the toxin into a diluted and water-soluble form. Viruses transfer their genetic material between cells to help other unhealthy cells facilitate the replication of viruses in the disease state (cells still able to produce proteins). Viruses and cells work together in symbiosis in the body.
Infection is necessary when the body is unable to remove foreign/toxic matter. Infection helps initiate the healing phase of such a type of conflict
For your last question:
Here's a wonderful article by Harvard that delves into the true nature of viruses - https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/viral-world/good-viruses-do
With regard Kaufman, Cowan etc, I don’t believe they are ‘deliberately’ twisting information for their own gain. My read is that they’re genuine in what they’re promulgating because they believe their position is accurate. When it comes to products they’re selling, perhaps they’re opportunistically taking advantage of a forced career pivot. But that’s a separate thing, and one I personally don’t begrudge.
I do agree their stance naturally fosters an anti-science mindset in those who come to their information without a strong knowledge base in this area (I put myself in that camp somewhat). But this I see as just a consequence of virology’s shaky foundation. It’s quite easy to poke holes in every step of the process of how virologists discover pathogenic viruses, due to the margin for error in each step. Couple this with virology being inextricably linked to the pharmaceutical industry, and it’s not difficult for people to conclude it to be absolute pseudoscience after being exposed to Lanka and others.
Anyway, thanks for your clarifying response regarding virus cell infection. I did some further reading on your website and went over your ‘commentary on isolation’ document which gave me more insight. It does indeed make logical sense, and I intuitively think you’re correct with regard to the creation of viruses and their subsequent cell infection. I guess with some time and arms length reflection your ideas might penetrate some of those insistent on them being non-existent.
Regarding the linked Harvard article, it was promising in parts. However, I don’t see the medical-scientific orthodoxy ever getting to the stage where an ‘injection’ is not part of the procedure. Do you? My inner-cynic reasoning tells me this research and advancement is a side show for well intentioned scientists that will amount to nothing positive for health so long as profit streams are attached to the idea of virus contagion.
On another note, can I ask your opinion on the possibility of bio-resonance transmission from person to person? When I observe what little I have with regard to microscopy it appears more like oscillating vibrational movement that is inducing pleomorphism or lysis. If electrical and vibrational frequency are involved in transmitting information on a cellular level, this somewhat supports the theory that transmission of sickness may also occur via this mechanism on a larger scale externally (i.e. A sick person emits a frequency that triggers a detox reaction in someone who also needs to detox themselves from the build up they’ve accumulated over the weeks, months, years, etc). I’d love to hear your take on this. Or again please point me to where you already have given it. Many thanks.
Mainstream media are the main promulgators of contagion fear, along with the CDC and WHO government agencies. Science itself is far more evolved than those agencies. That is not to say everything they say is false, because that would not be accurate either. Those agencies, along with media, are mainly arms of the government(s).
Virology and vaccinology are separate studies. In vaccine studies, there is shown the so-called prevention of disease, when in actuality, it is a suppression of the detoxification system. Of course, I can also see how researchers would misinterpret such results without it being an outright deception in and of itself. Vaccines suppress disease like a drug irritates cells to cause a high, but they do not create immunity because immunity itself is a misnomer. And remember that disease is necessary to heal the body when toxicity is present. Disease is a natural and necessary byproduct. Without disease, the body could not heal a systemic toxic state.
A close relationship between our body, and the natural world, replete with bacteria and parasites, are what create and foster natural health and robust organisms, all of which help regulate the body. Without this natural relationship, which is formed from the moment you exit the womb and begin introducing bacteria from the world into your body, there can be no 'immunity'.
If the body becomes unnaturally 'separated' from its outward environment, and bacterial levels are reduced, the body cannot regulate itself properly. It has been designed to live in symbiosis with microorganisms, of which the body is composed of around 90% bacteria currently. In previous generations, that number was higher, and I estimate roughly 98-99%.
Remember that there are many types of bacterial cells, and this accounts for many cells in the body, which is why the number is so high.
I often say we are 99% bacterial and 1% human gene. This is not an exact number, (so do not hold me to the 99% figure exactly) but is a generalized statement that I use.
Including this, we have trillions of viruses that exist in symbiosis in the body. However, because of their small size and weight, they make up far less percentage than cells and bacteria.
Bio-resonance: I have written briefly about that here - https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/stds-what-are-they-what-is-their-role/#comment-415
Hope his helps...
Thanks, Jeff, for your replies and further reading links. A most interesting breakdown you give again. The below resonates (no pun intended) with my current understanding…
“Also worth considering: 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 someone 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.”
Question: do you not suppose there is a sixth sense also at play? Receiving or transmitting frequencies carrying similar or different information? The self evident reality of life as I see it suggests there’s more at play than just physical biochemical processes. Models or theories that don’t account for some kind of metaphysical or spiritual symbiosis with the physical don’t really reflect that reality of life for me. It perhaps isn’t scientifically measurable, but surely it’s not such a leap to assume this can happen?
Also, I’ve read the below passage a few times, and I think it’s great. However I can’t help but feel you’re saying in a round about way that there is such a symbiosis at play between the physical biochemical and metaphysical without wanting to come right out and say it…
“I suggest a biochemical process that is created when emotions create stress hormones and adrenaline. Many times, excess adrenaline stores in the skin and nerves when it is not burned through activity. These occur through emotional changes to the body through the perception of the mind; through the visual-auditory system. The same system creates anxiety and fear, and so forth, which are all related. Seeming resonances/synchronicity may occur when two people are together since emotional energy is usually shared between people; laughing, yawning, crying, fear, etc. That is, certain shared events may spark a detoxification to occur simultaneously in two people.”
In any case, it was a very informative comment you replied with to Kat. You have a great way of succinctly putting a lot of information into a digestible chunk of words. It’s appreciated. Thank you.
Don't you mean inflammation instead of infection as a way to detox?
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
Hi again reante... I agree with you. If the word virus is defined as pathogenic, then we must either redefine the meaning of virus completely or change the word itself. That is why in my writings, I try to make it clear what my definition of viruses is, so there is no confusion.
In the same vein, most bacteria are classed as pathogenic that are not pathogenic, and we still call them by their bacterial names. This, of course, does not mean those bacteria do not exist just because science falsely attributes pathogeny to these entities. I am of the belief that the meaning of the word virus will change again in the coming generations if truth prevails.
But to compound this issue further, viruses may appear pathogenic in the presence of a sick and completely toxic cell that cannot be renewed. They are not pathogenic, but they will dissolve wholly toxic cells. There are likely ways in which viruses and cells comingle that on their surface appear to be 'infectious' agents. In this way, researchers may attribute pathogenic functions to viruses, that in reality is only illusory. This is why I attribute some of what science does to errors and not some outright deception.
The same is true for bacterial infections that I have personally observed. Bacteria replicate in the presence of toxic matter being dumped into the blood. Septicemia bacterial infection is one such example, wherein cells and toxins cannot be regulated properly due to imbalances in the whole of the body (usually from poisoning, drug use, or alcohol use). Bacteria replicate to consume toxic waste now floating in the blood. They will class these as pathogenic bacteria, but bacteria only feed upon dead and dying tissue, much like a termite only eats dead and decaying wood, or a crow consumes roadkill.
So, these are all our helpers, and they each have a specific role in the body. In the disease state, many things become illusory, wherein the body appears to be attacking itself. As you have stated: We have in us the primordial soup of life, by which all things work in harmony together in nature. If not true, we would all have become extinct millions of years ago.
The body never attacks itself. It is attempting to reverse a toxic condition and restore homeostasis. Sometimes, cells and tissues are so toxic that the body appears to be attacking itself as those tissues are attempting to be discarded and removed by cells, bacteria, or viruses. So, you can surmise how science makes these errors in judgment in their static environments of observation.
Above all, I think it is many steps in the wrong direction to claim such solvent constructs of cohesive nature do not exist, as I explained in my audio lecture. This is one of the glaring oversights with the high-level players who deny the actual existence of viruses (and now many basic constructs of the body itself).
I hope this helps, and by the way, I have been in agreement with you on a number of things that I have read from you, and we are coming from the same angle I believe.