I am curious why there is such gag-reflex resistance to the notion that a virus as we are told it exists might not. Everyone claiming there is a virus is avoiding, eschewing or refusing to address the issue of metagenomics, and the in idea of an silico sequence, created by AI.
What the "pro virus" camp is not saying is that everything claimed to be a virus, and tested for, is based entirely on metagenomics, which is construction of theoretical sequences using AI programs such as Kraken2, Blast, and others. They are **entirely hypothetical**. I konw that Mike Stone understands this.
We may all agree that hypothetical viruses exist as computer files; we may all agree that these in silico genomes are used to prime the PCR, which every paper about the test admits; they are therefore looking for made-up genetic code in real humans; and then falsely claiming that testing "positive" is proof of infection.
Yet the FDA's EUA for the test says it is not a diagnosis. It is not proof of infection. Finding one molecule inside of a person alleged to be a random strand of viral genetic code, multiplied by a trillion times at cycle 40, is not proof of anything except how gullible people are.
Tell me, which of these in silico sequences is "SARS-CoV-2"? Why does nobody point to the Fan Wu paper or the Li-Li Ren paper and say here's your proof of virus? When WHO claimed they had one, they relied on the as-yet-unpublished work of Fan Wu. As Rimbaud said, "Simple as a musical phrase."
Which is the real virus?
January 5, 2020 — GenBank receives a claimed viral sequence given the accession number MN908947. This is submitted for review by Wu, et al. (first claimed to exist in the published scientific literature in the Fan Wu paper, see entry of Feb. 3, 2020.) [bby] [iap]
January 10, 2020 — Claimed viral genome sequence was released by China and given GenBank MN908947 [c-d]. This is a claimed partial, in silico sequence of the N-gene [db]. WHO issued a comprehensive package of technical guidance online with advice to all countries on how to detect, test and manage potential cases, based on what was known about the virus at the time. This guidance was shared with WHO's regional emergency directors to share with WHO representatives in countries [who]. Also see this 2018 paper relating to 2003 SARS.
January 12, 2020 — MN908947.1 - made public on GenBank replaces MN908947. It is a revision of the in silico sequence. [bmin]
January 14, 2020 — MN908947.2 - replaces MN908947.1 on GenBank [bmin]
January 17, 2020 — The WHO publishes its PCR protocols, based on the Corman-Drosten test. Sequence updated: MN908947.3 - replaces MN908947.2 on GenBank [bmin]
Because viruses are intra and extra-cellular solvents manufactured by intelligent living cells in the presence of industrial toxins. Such toxins accumulate in the cells, organs, and all tissues of organisms. If cells cannot break down toxins and turn them water-soluble, those toxins will eventually destroy all cellular life they contact, leading to severe mutations and death. Viral solvents are produced and excreted as survival mechanisms by cells to cleanse. I have established this in all of my work.
We find ourselves in the midst of an incredible increase in pollution from industry, including new toxins introduced to the body on a daily basis. Without viruses, there can be no chance of an organism's survival in the face of widespread environmental toxicity. There is nothing else in the body, other than a non-living solvent, that can widely dissolve toxins such as plastic or heavy metals. Only a viral structure, which contains enzymatic solvents in glycoproteins, can break the bonds of such structures over time and prepare them for cells to expel from the body.
Without viruses, all living cells, bacteria, and parasites would eventually all be poisoned to death by such toxins, and the body would die from the inability to regulate toxicity.
Viruses are a necessary byproduct of our modern age with increasing toxicity. We should all be thankful that the body is intelligent enough to be able to find ways to cleanse, even in the most toxic of events. Simply claiming viruses do not exist shows a great lack of awareness of the needs of the body and the intelligence therein.
That is why this is so vitally important to call out. The "no virus" crowd is doing a great disservice to those like me, who are proposing scientific theories to counter the so-called "infectiousness" of viruses. They will not succeed because they highly lack a logical or reasonable explanation for the symptoms associated with the breakdown of toxins through solvent means, wherein those toxins are then expelled out of the body in the various modes of excretion.
Jeff, you're description of a virus is very different from a replication-competent bomb that floats from person A to person B and then takes up lodging in a cell, turns it into a virus factory, gets a disease, and then spreads that disease via replication competent bomb to person C. That is what public THINKS IT KNOWS that a virus is.
You are describing biochemical process within the body, not between bodies. That has what has never been shown and what has fallen flat when someone tries to demonstrate it (Rosenau and many others). The symptoms are not relevant at this stage of the discussion, and add a new layer of complexity; however, for the "virus" to be real, that is, a replication-competent infectious bomb, persons A, B and C have to have the SAME symptoms where no other cause can be shown. It could be anything. But we are looking for a cause-effect match to determine the reality of these little bombs.
Eric, you are missing the fact that those in the virus denial crowd are claiming viruses, (which I claim are real and do what I described in my comment to you) are all fake and exist only as cellular debris and artifacts.
Your rationale here is not nearly what they are claiming.
This is not a case of "We think these structures exist, but they are not infectious."
This is a case of outright denial of all things science, which occurs in the fringe of conspiracy theorist groups—that none of it exists whatsoever. To back this up, many of them now claim exosomes, cell walls, cell parts, and much more simply do not exist.
Jeff, why the use of metagenomics and in silico primers, rather than sequencing actual virus and making real primers? This is in all of the claims of virus purification; and all PCR assays.
This is the central issue of the entire discussion, in my view. Do you understand what the primers are, as related to the PCR?
Second, there are at least two ways to come up with what people call the "sequence" of genetic material. One way is to have the thing and slice it up (such as a grapefruit). That is not being done. The other way is to take a sample of something else (dust from the produce department floor) and assemble a theoretical model of the genetic code, which is metagenomic transcription. That is what is being done with "SARS-CoV-2."
There is no grapefruit here. There are only theoretical models of them that can never be matched against the real thing because nobody has a sample. Borrowing from Buddhism, "It's in silico all the way down."
All of the known claimed sequences (1.7 million of them so far) are based on metagenomics, not actual sequencing the thing; and all PCR assays are designed with the resulting in silico primers.
The result is that the PCR as designed searches for snips of theoretical, computer-modeled code **in a person** and if they "match" that code (at cycle threshold 40 to 45, absurd) they are said to "have the virus" or "be infected" or be a "confirmed case."
But even the EUA documents admit that is not true — that the PCR "finding something" is not proof of infection, or even evidence of infection. We have been through this all before.
Oh, but there is more mud to be uncovered. Even before getting to a damn virus. All sorts of wild assumptions were made to reach that point (a virus). I think we should chat in private
Actually, you usually win a hearts and minds with grease, salt and sugar. They are lined up at BK right now for a nutritious breakfast, entirely won over.
Thank you so much Jeff for writing this and letting us know the dangerous deceptions out there.
I have a request unrelated to this particular post: could you please write an article about why viruses seem to be contagious - I.e people always get sick together. We’ve had a flu virus twice this year - once with my mum and dad at their home - everyone got it together - at various degrees. My dad was the worst - I guess, the most toxic. Then we all just got another flu virus together the last couple of days.
Is there anything about viral activity that IS contagious?? Or is it simply bodies cycling together?
Is it a similar thing to when girls who hang out a lot always start their period on the same day?
You don’t have to answer this here and now - I’d love to see a post about this that I can also point others like my parents and my husband towards.
For menstrual cycle syncing it has been demonstrated that this is a myth that is based upon mere chance of having people together in the same place for a period of time wherein you will observe syncs, and at other times, no syncs. It was later found that such cycles, in large part, are due to this fact.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, that's what I understand from your post:
Your stance is that viruses DO exist, but they are not infectious in nature, they are products of a cell which is trying to defend itself from toxicity.
Did I understand it correctly?
If yes, your definition of a 'virus' is quite different from the commonly accepted definition. Which is a microorganism which can travel from person to person, replicate and infect another person.
If it doesn't travel from person to person, and doesn't infect another person, then it's not a 'virus' by common definition. Am I missing something, or you are redefining what a 'virus' is??
Secondly, I believe your position is almost identical to the 'no virus' camp. You just misunderstood what they are saying.
I've watched some videos from Dr Sam Bailey and others, and it seems to me that they are claiming that what virologists call 'viruses' are nothing more than some cell debree, or exozomes, that get released from the cell, when the cell is under duress (being poisoned, under starvation, or dying).
They claim that virologists mislabel those particles (exozomes, whatever they are) as 'viruses', but they actually are not contagious, and they are not caused by an infectious virus at all. You can get same particles if you poison the cell, without having an "infectious" material present in the mixture, at all.
Dr Stefan Lanka did a control experiment, where he proved that to be the case.
So to me, it seems you are bashing them for no reason - for all intents and purposes, your position is the same as theirs!
Yes, to your first paragraph. You likely haven't truly familiarized yourself with their words and writings.
Those of us that have studied and dealt with these people for nearly three years know exactly what they are saying with regard to viruses. You can tell that many of the higher-level individuals are not intent on finding the truth, but only serving as online campaigners for their agenda. They have turned this into a lucrative business model for themselves. They are claiming complete non-existence of not just viruses, but many other parts of the body at this point. They claim there is no viral structure at all to be infectious or non-infectious.
Their stance is the complete opposite of mine. It may appear on the surface to be similar, but it is not. They claim the non-existence of viruses, including now exosomes and major cell parts, and potentially including RNA and DNA, etc.
I implore you to delve deeper into what they are really claiming so that you will see this for yourself. They claim, in denial of all visible evidence, that viruses do not exist and are mere cell debris. So, their stance is the polar opposite of what I adhere to.
So if viruses are just a product of a cell when it is trying to detox, then virology IS A FRAUD.
Because the whole field of virology is based off the premise that viruses are pathogenic in nature, and they transmit from person to person, they multiply and cause diseases in the infected person.
You know, like a little tiny flying bomb kind of thing.
If you are correct, then there's no use for classifying viruses, no need for isolating and purifying them.
Also, there's no need for vaccines either - actually, they are toxic in nature, and should be avoided.
If that is your position, I agree with everything above, actually.
And that's pretty much what the others is saying, which you vilify so much.
Except maybe some of them are trying to take financial advantages by selling some products and whatnot - I'm not interested in that piece, really.
I know that to be healthy I have to avoid toxins and eat fresh fruits and vegetables as much as possible.
Pathogeny is only one part of virology. What about the viruses they deem non-pathogenic? What about all the other non-viral bodily entities that need to be classified? Is that all a fraud too? What about bacteria? Some bacteria are claimed pathogenic. Should they not be classified either? Is all of bacteriology a fraud?
We shouldn't identify components in organisms to better understand how they function?
Classification and pathogeny are two separate branches.
If only one part of virology is fake, then virology IS fake.
Also, which non-pathogenic viruses are you referring to? Because only pathogenic viruses get the attention.
Like all the flu viruses, SARS, Marburg, HIV and many others, which are used to push fear to the general public.
I did not say anything about microbiology in general. I made a statement about virology. Where did I mention bacteria in my comments? That's strawman fallacy.
You have stated that ALL viruses are non-pathogenic in nature. Do you stand by that statement?
If yes, then YOU are invalidating virology right there, because virology claims there are viruses which make people sick, and we have to socially isolate, get vaccines etc
YOU are saying that virology is wrong by using a different definition of a virus.
Maybe I can learn something from you, but I have been firmly in the camp of the "no virus" people. As others are saying, you seem to be redefining the meaning of a virus. Zach Bush talks about the virome, and that seems to be his baby, but he says they are only helpers and not pathogenic. What is his proof of a virome? Just curious... The practice of allopathic medicine has been misleading in their diagnoses. From my research there is no proof that bacteria are the cause of disease, although they can be observed to be real. When someone gets a diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia the implication is that the bacteria is the cause, so just because bacteria is present does not mean it is the cause of the disease. If bacteriology claims that bacteria are the cause of disease, then I would say it is a fraud. What I find ludicrous is when a patient does not present bacteria indicating a vascular anomaly in an MRI (or whatever diagnostic mechanism that is used), then without any kind of test, the doctor will diagnose "viral pneumonia" instead of bacterial. It's really just a guess, and the patient believes the BS. How does the doctor know it is a viral pneumonia? They use the process of elimination. Does that sound scientific. Also, Listeria has been falsely linked as a pathogen in raw milk, and a lot of fear mongering perpetuated by the germ theory establishment has no scientific merit. Pasteurized milk is a useless dead product De-NATURED, but germophobia is epidemic. There are other ideas put forth by Dr Tom Cowan that I am not as familiar with such as: The Heart is not a pump...I think he would say the heart functions as more of a regulator. Another belief he has is that the organs of the body may not be composed of cells according to cell theory. I believe he puts forth a pretty mind boggling argument. Have you seen that video? Finally he says there is no proof that a heart attack is caused by blocked arteries, but the blocked arteries are an after effect of the heart itself dis-regulating, and as a consequence of the heart itself malfunctioning for other reasons, this causes an upstream blockage in many cases.
Virology is literally not a science. They don't have purified particles (potential "viruses") to use as the independent variable in any controlled experiment. Their methods are blatantly anti-scientific. Their genomes are blatantly made-up and meaningless. Virologists point at images of tiny particles in a monkey/cow/human mixture (a cell culture, where they ludicrously say they have "isolated the virus") and insist that's "the virus" with zero science to demonstrate their claims. They rely on wild irrational ASSUMPTIONS. Mike is doing incredible work helping to expose all of this with his viroLIEgy website.
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world (199 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever:
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any “virus” having been found in a host and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science:
How then do researchers go about mapping viral structures down to the atomic level through the use of X-ray crystallography where there is no cell culture step involved? And how then can I use that data to rebuild accurate viral structures in the 3D realm? Each protein and its structure are documented and cataloged. Those processes use a highly purified viral sample. CPE and isolation are not tied together as you have claimed.
Concerning Mike Stone: Mike Stone is misreading/mischaracterizing studies, as I stated. This is a fact and something I have already proven in my writings to which you are replying to.
What viral structures? You have to prove there's a virus before designating something as "viral". At least that's how honest people operate. Otherwise you're just bamboozling people with language. Reminder: virus = replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure. No one has ever demonstrated scientifically that such a thing exists.
Cytopathic effects in a cell line is absolutely what is called "virus isolation". I.e., from the CDC's bogus study:
“We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics… We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…
When CPEs [Cytopathic effects aka harm to the monkey cells] were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.“
Let's approach this from another angle. It appears there is confusion about isolation/purification, culture isolate, and CPE. When I state isolation, I am referring to purification. I am not referring to a cell culture isolate per se. Either way, you will not believe such a sample can be observed regardless of the method. You can infer the existence of viruses through nonculture lab PCR testing, which tests for nucleic acids, etc. Isolating and cell culturing are not needed in our modern day to prove viruses exist.
And why exactly are you so against a cell culture virus anyway? You are claiming that a cell culture sample cannot be isolated thereafter and observed? Cells produce viruses in a cell culture. If cells are able to produce viral structures in culture, they likewise can do so in the body.
When I refer to isolation, I am many times referring to in-vivo samples from a living organism that are centrifuged, filtered, and then analyzed (primary isolate). These same purification practices are used to determine the basic makeup and structure of most living cells and their byproducts, not merely viruses. Obviously, such samples do not undergo CPE to be considered isolated/purified.
Many cells can be observed, and their structures inferred under optical microscopy and proven to exist without ever being isolated/purified. As well, they can be seen in their live processes, moving around (see Rife microscopy footage or normal optical microscopy footage). This appears to be part of the confusion. But it should not be.
Confusion would naturally arise in the absence of proper differentiations between terms. Even more so with all of the wild claims of this and that not being considered isolated/purified, and therefore claimed not to exist. Many times, these terms are being used in improper ways.
When you all speak of isolation, you approach it as if isolation itself is impossible, no matter the circumstance. What I am claiming is that you are combining CPE and isolation/purification together when they are not necessarily joined. Now, that same confusion is being applied to the cell itself and to entities like exosomes. For example, Stone made a number of claims about exosomes not being isolated, tying them to CPE, and claiming they do not exist. He would likely claim he did not state that (parsing per usual), but that's exactly what he expressed in his words.
And yet, exosomes have no needed relation to CPE itself. They are vesicles. To claim vesicles do not exist is to claim cell walls and their cargo does not exist, and as such, the recycling system of cells does not exist either. Thus, such an argument is futile and goes against all logic and wisdom.
In this case, you are using the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus, along with the study you referenced (and its less than ideal explanation of isolation methods and samples used), and trying to claim all viruses are non-existent.
To expound upon my comments further: I am coming at this from an entirely different angle than you all. I am of the real world. I do not exist in studies per se. In the real world, it is impossible for viruses to show such cohesive structure under microscopy and logically be called mere cell debris. In reality, only something created by a living organism (the cell) could produce a structure as cohesive as that of an adenovirus, for example. A structure that contains 12 perfectly placed glycoprotein spikes on each vertex of its capsid, totaling 12 spikes. Including a perfectly formed icosahedral shape to the capsid.
No staining, potential electron destruction, etc., could ever account for such a cohesive structure that can be viewed repeatedly time and time again.
Therefore, the mere fact that such a structure is visible to begin with, shows that it matters very little how much electron microscopy alters samples or that any negative effects occur in cell cultures. The mere appearance of a skeletal structure of something cohesive is still readily apparent, and its existence can be inferred. Thus, a virus exists as an intelligent structure produced by a living cell. Since this is the case, it could never be caused merely by manmade causes. It may be sparked by them, but cannot be created by them. You must therefore account for this cohesive structure, which cannot be manmade.
Now, I have already proven I am willing to correct any mistakes and clarify any misunderstandings, no matter how small. Are you guys? That is also why I am attempting to clarify this reply to you. I see no use in the argumentative back and forth and the inability to see others' points of view as if we all have no common ground.
Also, understand that I wrote this article, in part, since I have been viciously attacked by those who align with your beliefs because I had the nerve to claim viruses are real and enzymatic solvents produced by the body during systemic toxicity.
Let's not approach this from another misleading angle. There is no "confusion". There is no scientific proof of "the virus". End of story. Prove me wrong if you can. Little bits of nucleic acid are not a virus. Cytopathic effects in a cell line do not prove existence of a virus. Prove a replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasite that transmits between hosts and causes disease via natural modes of exposure exists. Show us where particles were purified from clinical samples (verified to be pure via EM), sequenced and characterized and studies with controlled experiments (aka science). We've been searching literally for years and the hundreds of FOIs show this has never been done.
Virologists claim to know the 3D structure of viruses (transmissible and pathogenic entities):-
a) Electron microscopy of cell cultures shows virus like particles (they can't be seen in patient samples even after sucrose density gradient centrifugation). These particles have never been shown to be viruses and are seen in uninfected cultures. The crystalline 3D structure of these virus like particles are observed using X-ray crystallography.
b) Some proteins, that have never been shown to be part of the virus like particles and are seen in healthy people, are chosen from crude samples or cell culture and their structure noted.
a) the 3D structure of the virus like particles not shown to be viruses is added to b) the structure of chosen proteins not shown to be part of the virus like particles and they are fed into a computer. The computer makes the chosen proteins fold and fit into the X-ray crystalline shape so that they form a 3D computer image.
Hey presto!- a 3 D computer image of a thing with no basis in reality.
"As it turns out, Mike Stone had at one time in the recent past quoted articles from me in support and agreement with my work. He has since wiped all references to my work off his site."
You keep saying this yet never offer any evidence that this was ever the case. To my knowledge, I never quoted you and if I did, I never deleted it. I didn't even know who you were until you commented on my blog.
"Mike Stone has since been interviewed by those like Andrew Kaufman, and others"
Do you verify anything you write? Dr. Kaufman has never interviewed me.
The rest of your drivel is not worth responding to as it was repeatedly addressed on my blog. Anyone can easily read the conversation and make up their own minds.
In any case, I would recommend you actually fact-check before making false claims in the future.
I'll tell you what. I will omit that section of my article that says you have quoted me. Your site has been up for many months, and I seem to remember my material on your site early on. Perhaps my memory is mistaken. You do not seem sure yourself. However, you write this, and it's incorrect. "I didn't even know who you were until you commented on my blog."
Kaufman did not organize that. It was not his show. It was its own entity. I was a guest and I did not run a single thing past Andy. There was no central organizer. The Baileys did a lot of the work and provided a kind of magnet for us to collaborate. I was the token astrologer.
Great write up as always. I have one question, do you believe in Terrain Theory? How should one go about understanding how to perceive Terrain Theory properly. Not the bastardized version of it.
Thank you... Yes, I do believe in Terrain Theory insofar as the nature of bacteria, parasites, and their relationship with disease are concerned. But modern-day' Terrain Theory', as has been taken over by those like Kaufman, has become New Age in its approach, therefore losing any meaning it once had. His latest series is called 'The Alchemical Detox', replete with pagan symbology. The so-called 'detox' plan needs supplements that are sold by Kaufman himself.
True methods of detoxification, which can only be facilitated by the consumption of raw foods, is not emphasized. True detoxification takes many years utilizing the proper raw foods—raw animal foods and raw vegetable juices—to refortify and reconstitute cells and their tissues. This is a slow process that does not happen overnight. True health changes cannot be achieved through the taking of supplements, but only through the intense and deliberate changing of one's diet and awareness of environmental toxicity. Detoxification can sometimes be severe and long-lasting as cells are given nutrition to allow for their detoxification processes. People always seek a quick cure for their health, but true health is usually not quick or easy.
Those hiding behind Terrain Theory now do not teach about the importance of proper diet insofar as raw animal foods or the needs of the terrain. They do not teach of the importance of raw bacteria from raw animal foods like raw meat, etc. I try to extol the importance of such foods every chance I get. Instead, they have turned Terrain Theory into a business model that is netting large sums of money. Again, they certainly have a right to sell products, but exactly what products are being sold? A $1,065 shower head? - https://drtomcowan.com/products/lifepower-larimar-5-platinum
I find such practices incredibly deceptive.
The denial of viruses is in direct opposition to what Terrain Theory logically states, which is that disease is determined by the state of the internal environment. That internal environment is changed negatively through external toxin factors, mostly that which is manmade. Those toxins must be dissolved if cells cannot rationally handle them. Thus, a non-living solvent factor is needed by cells. Viruses exist by virtue of this alone, which is what accounts for such classic viral symptoms of expulsion.
If viruses did not exist, the human race would soon perish in the face of any new industrial toxins, like plastics, chemicals, and heavy metals, all of which are not easily turned into water-soluble substances. In such cases, cells would not be able to cleanse themselves or their tissues and would die from accumulated toxicity that destroys cellular life.
Jeff, I have to say that I currently am on a few fences, being fairly new to this whole germ/terrain debate, but reading you stuff for a few months has at least made.things a little clearer. TBH as far as I'm concerned, all I want to do is eat the best possible way and be left alone by TPTB. But this whole debate is fascinating.
Rob, I empathize with your feelings because I feel the same, and that is what we should all be striving for, is to be healthy. Although, there is a lot to learn by understanding what is taking place and what people are pushing behind the scenes.
Fantastic answer and the detail really clears up all of the questions I had about your views on Terrain Theory. This is one the main reasons I view you as the most knowledgeable man that is currently alive in regards to this stuff. You preach raw foods and nutrition just as much as anything else which is why you are #1. Thank you for your continued efforts.
I must say I’m quickly starting to agree with Airmat’s comment, Jeff. I have spent much of the last week consuming more of your work and it is truly in depth and thoughtful. Have you corresponded with Mike Donio? He seems very composed, respectful and open minded. Dawn Lester and David Parker too. Keep trying to build a bridge somewhere within the current group of popular terrain theorists. Don’t be an island is what I’m advising. You’ve got too much to offer and you could use a few more platforms to get your knowledge out there. That’s my advice for what it’s worth.
I'm not feigning outrage. I am calling out you inability to fact check thus leading to you making unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to say something, make sure it is true. This obviously reflects on your ability to speak truth as well as presenting nformation accurately. As you now conceded that I was never interviewed by Kaufman, are you also conceding that I did not delete any quotes from you in my blog posts? You are attempting to paint the picture that I agreed with you and then covered it up by erasing any quotes in my articles. That is patently false and was obviously the bigger issue yet you continue to ignore it.
I am not denying that I have been involved in discussions with Dr. Kaufman. That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that he interviewed me or that I appeared on his show. That is not factual. Nor is your statement that I quoted you in my articles and then deleted you from them. Again, you are making false claims.
You are parsing words, just as you do on your blog in your conversations. To be technical, I never wrote you were directly interviewed by Kaufman, but "by those like Kaufman, and others..." I will concede you did not appear on his personal show, yet (at least to my immediate knowledge). Your feigned outrage over something so minuscule is telling. Does this prove viruses are not real? I didn't think so.
So, it is not just some crackpot lunacy to suspect a virus might have been falsely asserted to exist based on isolation study where the control experiment was not performed.
I am not suggesting it is wrong to question the nature of some viruses that have evidence of unnatural origin. The writer of the response literally writes that viruses are real and have been identified, such as retroviruses.
Where virus deniers go wrong is when they resort to the farfetched claim that no viruses exist based on the fact that...
A. Some viruses like HIV & so-called AIDS virus have had a troubled past and were facilitated by vaccination campaigns.
B. Some viruses have seemingly been manmade through the splicing of viral tissues.
These are merely two examples. There is hardly any balance in their rationale, which is highly problematic when determining truth from paranoia. Instead of saying certain viruses do not exist, they claim all viruses do not exist.
Yes, but it isn't true that controls are not performed. The 'mock infection' procedure is the term for a control. Both 'control' and 'mock infection' is interchangeable.
You could never please a virus denier. No amount of evidence is sufficient enough.
I am aware of only a few, and the claim there is that mock infection cultures were prepared differently, like adding double dose of antibiotics.
If only they would purify viruses from a patient sample directly. The excuse there is not enough of them in any sample is nonsense, centrifuge would concentrate them in a tiny band. Or what about monkey pox blisters, they are supposed to be full of viruses.
Imagine we look at the tip of a needle searching for tiny fairies and when we fail to see any, instead of concluding they are not there we conclude they must be there but only a few of them so we can not see them. That is crazy talk. Besides, lesser number would only mean longer time to search. Have you thought about it?
I didn't know you when I read the comment nor did I search you out to find out who you were before or afterwards. I was strictly speaking upon the quote of yours that gillhicky shared. In fact, my comment shows that I did not agree with your views. However, if my commenting on a quote of yours that someone shared is "knowing" you, then I will let you have that one so that you can save a little face here.
This is just another example of you not verifying information before making claims. First of all, this was not an interview with Dr. Kaufman as you originally stated. Second, this was not Dr. Kaufman's show. It was a panel that was put together by Dr. Mark Bailey and Christine Massey. It was hosted by Sayer Ji's Brighteon channel and moderated by Alec Zeck. Both Dr. Kaufman and I were invited as panelists.
And for the record, I would have no problem being on Dr. Kaufman's channel or being interviewed by him. However, please verify your information before making false claims. Otherwise, your work will appear very sloppy and that you are bending the truth to support your argument.
You have been involved with Kaufman. You have been involved in discussions/whatever you want to call it. You have been involved, which is why your name is attached to this "no virus challenge".
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
That's what we are stuck with. Those things exist or they don't.
If you are staying that viruses are not contagious or they are not pathogenic in nature, then you must be referring to something else, not viruses as understood by virology. You must be referring to exosomes or some other intracellular particle, but NOT viruses.
Viruses, as described by mainstream virology, either exist, or they don't.
If you're using a different definition of a virus, the you are not arguing for a virus, but something entirely different.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, that's what I understand from your post:
Your stance is that viruses DO exist, but they are not infectious in nature, they are products of a cell which is trying to defend itself from toxicity.
Did I understand it correctly?
If yes, your definition of a 'virus' is quite different from the commonly accepted definition. Which is a microorganism which can travel from person to person, replicate and infect another person.
If it doesn't travel from person to person, and doesn't infect another person, then it's not a 'virus' by common definition. Am I missing something, or you are redefining what a 'virus' is??
Secondly, I believe your position is almost identical to the 'no virus' camp. You just misunderstood what they are saying.
I've watched some videos from Dr Sam Bailey and others, and it seems to me that they are claiming that what virologists call 'viruses' are nothing more than some cell debree, or exozomes, that get released from the cell, when the cell is under duress (being poisoned, under starvation, or dying).
They claim that virologists mislabel those particles (exozomes, whatever they are) as 'viruses', but they actually are not contagious, and they are not caused by an infectious virus at all. You can get same particles if you poison the cell, without having an "infectious" material present in the mixture, at all.
Dr Stefan Lanka did a control experiment, where he proved that to be the case.
So to me, it seems you are bashing them for no reason - for all intents and purposes, your position is the same as theirs!
I am still trying to wrap my head around all the various information about the alleged Sars-Co2. I always seem to be left with more questions. I am not buying the government's narrative but I do see an abundance of people getting sick with something. So, are Kaufman/Cowen correct in their belief that the introduction of EMF radiation such as 5G are causing world-wide health effects being labeled Covid19? Or are there multiple causes behind the sudden appearance of this respiratory illness? I see that hospitals and physicians took advantage of the governmental hand-outs to label everything as covid and collect significant payments, thereby increasing the alleged case count. I have also witnessed questionable testing being used as proof of illness even when a person demonstrates no negative health, aka the asymptomatic "carrier". You are saying that viruses are a cellular response to toxicity(the cleanup crew) but since this particular disease is primarily respiratory, what was the toxic trigger that caused so many to have that similar response? Was a bio-weapon released that we are calling the Sars-Co2 that people are having the response to? Is it EMFs? And what are virology labs really doing if viruses are a product of our own cells? We are told that the labs are developing new, dangerous viruses but how can this be if there are limited numbers of viruses made by our cells and their purpose is to clear toxicity, not to be dangerous to us?
If you can clear any of this up for me, I'd sure appreciate it. Trying to get through all the various opposing technical information is often beyond my ability as a lay person.
Thanks for the comment, Clem. 5G was implemented virtually nowhere except in a few major cities in 2020. It couldn't have had a role in viral outbreaks in 2020. In 2003, there was an outbreak of CoV-1 in China, and in that case, 4G nor 5G existed then.
The increase in viral detoxifications occur cyclically in accordance with the cycles of nature. Annual flu seasons occur each year, but in fluctuating levels. Every decade or so, the majority of a population will dump toxin accumulations. This is because a majority of the population store toxins at the same rate and level.
A large increase in coronaviruses can be sparked by the increase in pollution (smoke, industry, etc.), drug usage, and alcoholism, all of which affect the lungs—one of the body's main collectors and detoxifiers of toxins. It stands to reason that viral outbreaks can be predicted and therefore exploited by those wishing to leverage such an event for instituting world government measures.
> So, are Kaufman/Cowen correct in their belief that the introduction of EMF radiation such as 5G are causing world-wide health effects being labeled Covid19?
Where do you get this from? I've listened to dozens of hours of each of them, and can't say I've ever heard 5G come up.
The health impacts of EMF and RF Radiation should be studied, and are known to cause flu-like effects, as documented in Arthur Firstenberg's book "Invisible Rainbow". And I've read somewhere that Tom Cowan has perhaps mentioned 5G in passing.
But any discussion of 5G is very far afield from the bulk of Dr Cowan's and Dr Kaufman's work.
I suggest that you learn about their work first hand before you offer criticism based on false or misleading information.
I do not recall them ever talking about 5G or EMF radiation either Bill. But as a journalist originally trained in toxicology fraud, it's impressive what is being ignored in this discussion of "what is making people sick" — to wit, PCBs, dioxins, DDT, glyphsate, phthalates, prior injections, cyanide poisoning from the interior of their cars, other indoor air pollution, vitamin D deficiency, melatonin deficiency, smoking, vaping, and living on corn syrup and other GMO "foods." Do we really need a virus? And if viruses exist, why is SARS-CoV-2 the ONLY virus?
See my links posted above, Eric. I have no doubt that people are sick from all variety of toxins in the food, air and water but this particular "disease" seems to have a few shared symptoms. One being respiratory distress and low oxygen levels of the patients, aka hypoxia. For those, Dr. Cowan said millimeter waves may be a cause. There was also a theory that the 1918 Spanish flu was partly a product of the introduction of radio to a citizenry never exposed to radio waves EMF before.
I have listened to hours of Cowan and Kaufman. I didn't make it up. I know this isn't the ONLY cause but it is behind some of the shared symptoms, according to him. I understand he also speaks of resonance of cells so that we all get the message to protect ourselves (via detoxing with flu-like symptoms) and I certainly consider the energetic aspects of illness as a strong part of any disease, and he also speaks of the influence of other toxins just as Mr. Green does. I don't believe it's all a physical thing we are experiencing, myself. While there are physical aspects to this alleged virus, there appears to be a resonance of strong fear, anger, hatred also behind it that adds to people's stress, sickness that is fueled daily by mainstream media. Who can turn on a radio, TV or pick up a paper without seeing more fear stories about deaths, illness, need for more injections(boosters) and now, monkeypox in the batter's box.
Listen, the topic here is the "Settling the Virus Proposal", principly authored by Tom Cowan, Mark Bailey, and Kevin Corbett.
This 5G stuff is important, but it is off-topic.
People try to redirect the conversation quite often, and connect us to various apparently fringy theories (5G, Moon Landings, Flat Earth, etc) as a form of defamation.
Each of these topics are important to explore, but not here.
First, I'm told that Cowan never mentioned 5G. I point out that he did indeed do so so now you try to tell me pay no attention to that. It's not off topic as Cowan applies it directly to the reported symptoms of covid. To deny anyone has gotten ill is just as fool hardy. Calling it all a con, which some clearly is, is to bury ones head in the sand just to prove no one has experienced this disease, sickness, illness, whatever floats your boat of being right.
In that case, yes, I have. I have no real issues with their isolation methods. And somehow proving that SAR-CoV-2 is not a naturally occurring virus does not negate other real and naturally occurring viruses that occur in the disease state, as those of this challenge believe.
I think you are wrong about belief. I know most of these people pretty well and I will tell you that they have all struggled with their preexisting belief in viruses and germ theory. I do not know any who merely state a belief. They have come to their observations through long work, reading, investigation and discussion, as have I.
Like nearly everyone, I previously believed that viruses exist because I was told they exist and never questioned the evidence. There is stronger anecdotal evidence of poltergeists than there is scientific or anecdotal evidence for viruses, unless you have a very low standard for what can be said to "exist" in any meaningful usage of that word.
What you have with viruses is a theoretical explanation for phenomena that themselves may not exist and are also demonstrated to not to exist, i.e., asymptomatic community spread of this phantom virus — that's supposed to be the big tell.
Some historical context is needed (a bit long, but bear with me).
To clarify, it was Kaufman who in early 2020 wanted to interview me because of my work. His representative bought and read my book on June 02, 2020. When Kaufman and I later spoke, he told me he was reading my book. But because I did not agree with their stance on exosomes and 5G, I was not invited into their fold.
Even after I was sent multiple documents detailing the effects of EMF to sway me, I would not agree that 5G was the cause of widespread viral outbreaks.
They have inducted many people into their group who all adhere to the same belief(s). If you do not believe as they do, they will not include you. I refused to waiver in my stance because I knew they maintained what I felt were incorrect positions.
It was my Reddit articles dating back to 2018 on autism, vaccines, and viruses, that drew widespread attention to me—my article from early March 2020 was reposted all over the internet. As stated, I was contacted by Kaufman's media coordinator in early 2020 who arranged a conversation with Kaufman himself to plan a date to interview me. I later spoke with Kaufman. His promise to interview me never transpired. After that preliminary conversation, I never heard from him again.
I was the first one, still living, to claim viruses are not contagious in any meaningful way. One of my articles was reposted all over the internet from Reddit, one from March 02, 2020, later appearing on David Icke's site, Reuters, and many more. The articles I wrote were titled "Vaccine Science and the Intentional Myth of 'Contagious' - Coronavirus Explained" - Jan 26, 2020. "The Deception of Virology - Why Coronavirus is not Contagious" - March 02, 2020. Another article I wrote on Dec 26, 2018, was titled "The Science Behind Autism and its Correlation with Vaccinations", where I write extensively about viruses. (search these out online)
My presentation "Viral Misconceptions" was posted at midnight March 31-April 1, 2020, and eventually garnered tens of thousands of views and was reposted all over the internet. This is before YouTube began its censorship campaign.
Kaufman released his exosome theory in a presentation titled "Humanity is not a Virus" on April 1st, 2020, which garnered hundreds of thousands of views in comparison. Before this, no one knew who Kaufman was. I began from the very bottom and was suppressed at every step, until now, finding it difficult to find people to listen to me. On the other hand, Kaufman was elevated to an exalted position almost overnight.
They all coordinate and put out the same information, like this challenge, and I believe they have someone funding their operations. Their agenda is one that does not sit well with me. They have no established timeline for arriving at their beliefs. They appeared with all these answers, many of them taking verbatim what I had written in my work going back to 2018 (but more likely the 2020 article), then altering important tenants of it to suit them. Where were they before 2020?
They are pushing radical theories that exploit conspiracy groups' willingness to believe anything whatsoever, and I believe it has been done to counter powerful theories that may appeal to people in explaining disease. It is my contention that they took parts of what I was imparting and twisted it to suit themselves, gradually turning it into what it is now.
There seems to be a focus on this theory vs that theory, virus vs. no virus, crazy MD went nutritionist.
Perhaps that was the point of your blog and I missed it, but let us revert back the clock a bit.
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 curious why there is such gag-reflex resistance to the notion that a virus as we are told it exists might not. Everyone claiming there is a virus is avoiding, eschewing or refusing to address the issue of metagenomics, and the in idea of an silico sequence, created by AI.
What the "pro virus" camp is not saying is that everything claimed to be a virus, and tested for, is based entirely on metagenomics, which is construction of theoretical sequences using AI programs such as Kraken2, Blast, and others. They are **entirely hypothetical**. I konw that Mike Stone understands this.
We may all agree that hypothetical viruses exist as computer files; we may all agree that these in silico genomes are used to prime the PCR, which every paper about the test admits; they are therefore looking for made-up genetic code in real humans; and then falsely claiming that testing "positive" is proof of infection.
Yet the FDA's EUA for the test says it is not a diagnosis. It is not proof of infection. Finding one molecule inside of a person alleged to be a random strand of viral genetic code, multiplied by a trillion times at cycle 40, is not proof of anything except how gullible people are.
Tell me, which of these in silico sequences is "SARS-CoV-2"? Why does nobody point to the Fan Wu paper or the Li-Li Ren paper and say here's your proof of virus? When WHO claimed they had one, they relied on the as-yet-unpublished work of Fan Wu. As Rimbaud said, "Simple as a musical phrase."
Which is the real virus?
January 5, 2020 — GenBank receives a claimed viral sequence given the accession number MN908947. This is submitted for review by Wu, et al. (first claimed to exist in the published scientific literature in the Fan Wu paper, see entry of Feb. 3, 2020.) [bby] [iap]
January 10, 2020 — Claimed viral genome sequence was released by China and given GenBank MN908947 [c-d]. This is a claimed partial, in silico sequence of the N-gene [db]. WHO issued a comprehensive package of technical guidance online with advice to all countries on how to detect, test and manage potential cases, based on what was known about the virus at the time. This guidance was shared with WHO's regional emergency directors to share with WHO representatives in countries [who]. Also see this 2018 paper relating to 2003 SARS.
January 12, 2020 — MN908947.1 - made public on GenBank replaces MN908947. It is a revision of the in silico sequence. [bmin]
January 14, 2020 — MN908947.2 - replaces MN908947.1 on GenBank [bmin]
January 17, 2020 — The WHO publishes its PCR protocols, based on the Corman-Drosten test. Sequence updated: MN908947.3 - replaces MN908947.2 on GenBank [bmin]
Eric,
Because viruses are intra and extra-cellular solvents manufactured by intelligent living cells in the presence of industrial toxins. Such toxins accumulate in the cells, organs, and all tissues of organisms. If cells cannot break down toxins and turn them water-soluble, those toxins will eventually destroy all cellular life they contact, leading to severe mutations and death. Viral solvents are produced and excreted as survival mechanisms by cells to cleanse. I have established this in all of my work.
We find ourselves in the midst of an incredible increase in pollution from industry, including new toxins introduced to the body on a daily basis. Without viruses, there can be no chance of an organism's survival in the face of widespread environmental toxicity. There is nothing else in the body, other than a non-living solvent, that can widely dissolve toxins such as plastic or heavy metals. Only a viral structure, which contains enzymatic solvents in glycoproteins, can break the bonds of such structures over time and prepare them for cells to expel from the body.
Without viruses, all living cells, bacteria, and parasites would eventually all be poisoned to death by such toxins, and the body would die from the inability to regulate toxicity.
Viruses are a necessary byproduct of our modern age with increasing toxicity. We should all be thankful that the body is intelligent enough to be able to find ways to cleanse, even in the most toxic of events. Simply claiming viruses do not exist shows a great lack of awareness of the needs of the body and the intelligence therein.
That is why this is so vitally important to call out. The "no virus" crowd is doing a great disservice to those like me, who are proposing scientific theories to counter the so-called "infectiousness" of viruses. They will not succeed because they highly lack a logical or reasonable explanation for the symptoms associated with the breakdown of toxins through solvent means, wherein those toxins are then expelled out of the body in the various modes of excretion.
Jeff, you're description of a virus is very different from a replication-competent bomb that floats from person A to person B and then takes up lodging in a cell, turns it into a virus factory, gets a disease, and then spreads that disease via replication competent bomb to person C. That is what public THINKS IT KNOWS that a virus is.
You are describing biochemical process within the body, not between bodies. That has what has never been shown and what has fallen flat when someone tries to demonstrate it (Rosenau and many others). The symptoms are not relevant at this stage of the discussion, and add a new layer of complexity; however, for the "virus" to be real, that is, a replication-competent infectious bomb, persons A, B and C have to have the SAME symptoms where no other cause can be shown. It could be anything. But we are looking for a cause-effect match to determine the reality of these little bombs.
Eric, you are missing the fact that those in the virus denial crowd are claiming viruses, (which I claim are real and do what I described in my comment to you) are all fake and exist only as cellular debris and artifacts.
Your rationale here is not nearly what they are claiming.
This is not a case of "We think these structures exist, but they are not infectious."
This is a case of outright denial of all things science, which occurs in the fringe of conspiracy theorist groups—that none of it exists whatsoever. To back this up, many of them now claim exosomes, cell walls, cell parts, and much more simply do not exist.
Jeff, why the use of metagenomics and in silico primers, rather than sequencing actual virus and making real primers? This is in all of the claims of virus purification; and all PCR assays.
Could you please rephrase your question, so I may understand it better?
This is the central issue of the entire discussion, in my view. Do you understand what the primers are, as related to the PCR?
Second, there are at least two ways to come up with what people call the "sequence" of genetic material. One way is to have the thing and slice it up (such as a grapefruit). That is not being done. The other way is to take a sample of something else (dust from the produce department floor) and assemble a theoretical model of the genetic code, which is metagenomic transcription. That is what is being done with "SARS-CoV-2."
There is no grapefruit here. There are only theoretical models of them that can never be matched against the real thing because nobody has a sample. Borrowing from Buddhism, "It's in silico all the way down."
All of the known claimed sequences (1.7 million of them so far) are based on metagenomics, not actual sequencing the thing; and all PCR assays are designed with the resulting in silico primers.
The result is that the PCR as designed searches for snips of theoretical, computer-modeled code **in a person** and if they "match" that code (at cycle threshold 40 to 45, absurd) they are said to "have the virus" or "be infected" or be a "confirmed case."
But even the EUA documents admit that is not true — that the PCR "finding something" is not proof of infection, or even evidence of infection. We have been through this all before.
Oh, but there is more mud to be uncovered. Even before getting to a damn virus. All sorts of wild assumptions were made to reach that point (a virus). I think we should chat in private
Wait a second: are you arguing that the "technology industry" is acting in good faith and for the benefit of humanity?
I am unable to form an argument out of what you've written. How would you sum it up in a few words?
Actually, you usually win a hearts and minds with grease, salt and sugar. They are lined up at BK right now for a nutritious breakfast, entirely won over.
Thank you so much Jeff for writing this and letting us know the dangerous deceptions out there.
I have a request unrelated to this particular post: could you please write an article about why viruses seem to be contagious - I.e people always get sick together. We’ve had a flu virus twice this year - once with my mum and dad at their home - everyone got it together - at various degrees. My dad was the worst - I guess, the most toxic. Then we all just got another flu virus together the last couple of days.
Is there anything about viral activity that IS contagious?? Or is it simply bodies cycling together?
Is it a similar thing to when girls who hang out a lot always start their period on the same day?
You don’t have to answer this here and now - I’d love to see a post about this that I can also point others like my parents and my husband towards.
Thanks for the comment. I have answered this quite a number of times since it is a popular question. Here is an article on the matter: https://virusesarenotcontagious.com/why-viruses-happen-annually-how-they-dissolve-waste/
For menstrual cycle syncing it has been demonstrated that this is a myth that is based upon mere chance of having people together in the same place for a period of time wherein you will observe syncs, and at other times, no syncs. It was later found that such cycles, in large part, are due to this fact.
Hey Jeff,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, that's what I understand from your post:
Your stance is that viruses DO exist, but they are not infectious in nature, they are products of a cell which is trying to defend itself from toxicity.
Did I understand it correctly?
If yes, your definition of a 'virus' is quite different from the commonly accepted definition. Which is a microorganism which can travel from person to person, replicate and infect another person.
If it doesn't travel from person to person, and doesn't infect another person, then it's not a 'virus' by common definition. Am I missing something, or you are redefining what a 'virus' is??
Secondly, I believe your position is almost identical to the 'no virus' camp. You just misunderstood what they are saying.
I've watched some videos from Dr Sam Bailey and others, and it seems to me that they are claiming that what virologists call 'viruses' are nothing more than some cell debree, or exozomes, that get released from the cell, when the cell is under duress (being poisoned, under starvation, or dying).
They claim that virologists mislabel those particles (exozomes, whatever they are) as 'viruses', but they actually are not contagious, and they are not caused by an infectious virus at all. You can get same particles if you poison the cell, without having an "infectious" material present in the mixture, at all.
Dr Stefan Lanka did a control experiment, where he proved that to be the case.
So to me, it seems you are bashing them for no reason - for all intents and purposes, your position is the same as theirs!
Would you care to clarify your position?
Yes, to your first paragraph. You likely haven't truly familiarized yourself with their words and writings.
Those of us that have studied and dealt with these people for nearly three years know exactly what they are saying with regard to viruses. You can tell that many of the higher-level individuals are not intent on finding the truth, but only serving as online campaigners for their agenda. They have turned this into a lucrative business model for themselves. They are claiming complete non-existence of not just viruses, but many other parts of the body at this point. They claim there is no viral structure at all to be infectious or non-infectious.
Their stance is the complete opposite of mine. It may appear on the surface to be similar, but it is not. They claim the non-existence of viruses, including now exosomes and major cell parts, and potentially including RNA and DNA, etc.
I implore you to delve deeper into what they are really claiming so that you will see this for yourself. They claim, in denial of all visible evidence, that viruses do not exist and are mere cell debris. So, their stance is the polar opposite of what I adhere to.
So if viruses are just a product of a cell when it is trying to detox, then virology IS A FRAUD.
Because the whole field of virology is based off the premise that viruses are pathogenic in nature, and they transmit from person to person, they multiply and cause diseases in the infected person.
You know, like a little tiny flying bomb kind of thing.
If you are correct, then there's no use for classifying viruses, no need for isolating and purifying them.
Also, there's no need for vaccines either - actually, they are toxic in nature, and should be avoided.
If that is your position, I agree with everything above, actually.
And that's pretty much what the others is saying, which you vilify so much.
Except maybe some of them are trying to take financial advantages by selling some products and whatnot - I'm not interested in that piece, really.
I know that to be healthy I have to avoid toxins and eat fresh fruits and vegetables as much as possible.
Pathogeny is only one part of virology. What about the viruses they deem non-pathogenic? What about all the other non-viral bodily entities that need to be classified? Is that all a fraud too? What about bacteria? Some bacteria are claimed pathogenic. Should they not be classified either? Is all of bacteriology a fraud?
We shouldn't identify components in organisms to better understand how they function?
Classification and pathogeny are two separate branches.
If only one part of virology is fake, then virology IS fake.
Also, which non-pathogenic viruses are you referring to? Because only pathogenic viruses get the attention.
Like all the flu viruses, SARS, Marburg, HIV and many others, which are used to push fear to the general public.
I did not say anything about microbiology in general. I made a statement about virology. Where did I mention bacteria in my comments? That's strawman fallacy.
You have stated that ALL viruses are non-pathogenic in nature. Do you stand by that statement?
If yes, then YOU are invalidating virology right there, because virology claims there are viruses which make people sick, and we have to socially isolate, get vaccines etc
YOU are saying that virology is wrong by using a different definition of a virus.
Maybe I can learn something from you, but I have been firmly in the camp of the "no virus" people. As others are saying, you seem to be redefining the meaning of a virus. Zach Bush talks about the virome, and that seems to be his baby, but he says they are only helpers and not pathogenic. What is his proof of a virome? Just curious... The practice of allopathic medicine has been misleading in their diagnoses. From my research there is no proof that bacteria are the cause of disease, although they can be observed to be real. When someone gets a diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia the implication is that the bacteria is the cause, so just because bacteria is present does not mean it is the cause of the disease. If bacteriology claims that bacteria are the cause of disease, then I would say it is a fraud. What I find ludicrous is when a patient does not present bacteria indicating a vascular anomaly in an MRI (or whatever diagnostic mechanism that is used), then without any kind of test, the doctor will diagnose "viral pneumonia" instead of bacterial. It's really just a guess, and the patient believes the BS. How does the doctor know it is a viral pneumonia? They use the process of elimination. Does that sound scientific. Also, Listeria has been falsely linked as a pathogen in raw milk, and a lot of fear mongering perpetuated by the germ theory establishment has no scientific merit. Pasteurized milk is a useless dead product De-NATURED, but germophobia is epidemic. There are other ideas put forth by Dr Tom Cowan that I am not as familiar with such as: The Heart is not a pump...I think he would say the heart functions as more of a regulator. Another belief he has is that the organs of the body may not be composed of cells according to cell theory. I believe he puts forth a pretty mind boggling argument. Have you seen that video? Finally he says there is no proof that a heart attack is caused by blocked arteries, but the blocked arteries are an after effect of the heart itself dis-regulating, and as a consequence of the heart itself malfunctioning for other reasons, this causes an upstream blockage in many cases.
Virology is literally not a science. They don't have purified particles (potential "viruses") to use as the independent variable in any controlled experiment. Their methods are blatantly anti-scientific. Their genomes are blatantly made-up and meaningless. Virologists point at images of tiny particles in a monkey/cow/human mixture (a cell culture, where they ludicrously say they have "isolated the virus") and insist that's "the virus" with zero science to demonstrate their claims. They rely on wild irrational ASSUMPTIONS. Mike is doing incredible work helping to expose all of this with his viroLIEgy website.
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions around the world (199 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any “virus” having been found in a host and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-have-no-record-of-any-virus-having-been-isolated-purified-virology-isnt-a-science/
Hello Christine,
How then do researchers go about mapping viral structures down to the atomic level through the use of X-ray crystallography where there is no cell culture step involved? And how then can I use that data to rebuild accurate viral structures in the 3D realm? Each protein and its structure are documented and cataloged. Those processes use a highly purified viral sample. CPE and isolation are not tied together as you have claimed.
Concerning Mike Stone: Mike Stone is misreading/mischaracterizing studies, as I stated. This is a fact and something I have already proven in my writings to which you are replying to.
What viral structures? You have to prove there's a virus before designating something as "viral". At least that's how honest people operate. Otherwise you're just bamboozling people with language. Reminder: virus = replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasites that transmit between hosts and cause disease via natural modes of exposure. No one has ever demonstrated scientifically that such a thing exists.
Cytopathic effects in a cell line is absolutely what is called "virus isolation". I.e., from the CDC's bogus study:
“We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics… We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…
When CPEs [Cytopathic effects aka harm to the monkey cells] were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.“
Let's approach this from another angle. It appears there is confusion about isolation/purification, culture isolate, and CPE. When I state isolation, I am referring to purification. I am not referring to a cell culture isolate per se. Either way, you will not believe such a sample can be observed regardless of the method. You can infer the existence of viruses through nonculture lab PCR testing, which tests for nucleic acids, etc. Isolating and cell culturing are not needed in our modern day to prove viruses exist.
And why exactly are you so against a cell culture virus anyway? You are claiming that a cell culture sample cannot be isolated thereafter and observed? Cells produce viruses in a cell culture. If cells are able to produce viral structures in culture, they likewise can do so in the body.
When I refer to isolation, I am many times referring to in-vivo samples from a living organism that are centrifuged, filtered, and then analyzed (primary isolate). These same purification practices are used to determine the basic makeup and structure of most living cells and their byproducts, not merely viruses. Obviously, such samples do not undergo CPE to be considered isolated/purified.
Many cells can be observed, and their structures inferred under optical microscopy and proven to exist without ever being isolated/purified. As well, they can be seen in their live processes, moving around (see Rife microscopy footage or normal optical microscopy footage). This appears to be part of the confusion. But it should not be.
Confusion would naturally arise in the absence of proper differentiations between terms. Even more so with all of the wild claims of this and that not being considered isolated/purified, and therefore claimed not to exist. Many times, these terms are being used in improper ways.
When you all speak of isolation, you approach it as if isolation itself is impossible, no matter the circumstance. What I am claiming is that you are combining CPE and isolation/purification together when they are not necessarily joined. Now, that same confusion is being applied to the cell itself and to entities like exosomes. For example, Stone made a number of claims about exosomes not being isolated, tying them to CPE, and claiming they do not exist. He would likely claim he did not state that (parsing per usual), but that's exactly what he expressed in his words.
And yet, exosomes have no needed relation to CPE itself. They are vesicles. To claim vesicles do not exist is to claim cell walls and their cargo does not exist, and as such, the recycling system of cells does not exist either. Thus, such an argument is futile and goes against all logic and wisdom.
In this case, you are using the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus, along with the study you referenced (and its less than ideal explanation of isolation methods and samples used), and trying to claim all viruses are non-existent.
To expound upon my comments further: I am coming at this from an entirely different angle than you all. I am of the real world. I do not exist in studies per se. In the real world, it is impossible for viruses to show such cohesive structure under microscopy and logically be called mere cell debris. In reality, only something created by a living organism (the cell) could produce a structure as cohesive as that of an adenovirus, for example. A structure that contains 12 perfectly placed glycoprotein spikes on each vertex of its capsid, totaling 12 spikes. Including a perfectly formed icosahedral shape to the capsid.
No staining, potential electron destruction, etc., could ever account for such a cohesive structure that can be viewed repeatedly time and time again.
Therefore, the mere fact that such a structure is visible to begin with, shows that it matters very little how much electron microscopy alters samples or that any negative effects occur in cell cultures. The mere appearance of a skeletal structure of something cohesive is still readily apparent, and its existence can be inferred. Thus, a virus exists as an intelligent structure produced by a living cell. Since this is the case, it could never be caused merely by manmade causes. It may be sparked by them, but cannot be created by them. You must therefore account for this cohesive structure, which cannot be manmade.
Now, I have already proven I am willing to correct any mistakes and clarify any misunderstandings, no matter how small. Are you guys? That is also why I am attempting to clarify this reply to you. I see no use in the argumentative back and forth and the inability to see others' points of view as if we all have no common ground.
Also, understand that I wrote this article, in part, since I have been viciously attacked by those who align with your beliefs because I had the nerve to claim viruses are real and enzymatic solvents produced by the body during systemic toxicity.
Let's not approach this from another misleading angle. There is no "confusion". There is no scientific proof of "the virus". End of story. Prove me wrong if you can. Little bits of nucleic acid are not a virus. Cytopathic effects in a cell line do not prove existence of a virus. Prove a replication-competent obligate intra-cellular parasite that transmits between hosts and causes disease via natural modes of exposure exists. Show us where particles were purified from clinical samples (verified to be pure via EM), sequenced and characterized and studies with controlled experiments (aka science). We've been searching literally for years and the hundreds of FOIs show this has never been done.
My rebuttal to your challenge can be heard here: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/jeff-green-addressing-the-no-virus
Thanks but I don't have 40 minutes to spend on each opinion. Surely you can condense it down to a paragraph or 2?
https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/challenge-to-christine-massey
Hiya,
Virologists claim to know the 3D structure of viruses (transmissible and pathogenic entities):-
a) Electron microscopy of cell cultures shows virus like particles (they can't be seen in patient samples even after sucrose density gradient centrifugation). These particles have never been shown to be viruses and are seen in uninfected cultures. The crystalline 3D structure of these virus like particles are observed using X-ray crystallography.
b) Some proteins, that have never been shown to be part of the virus like particles and are seen in healthy people, are chosen from crude samples or cell culture and their structure noted.
a) the 3D structure of the virus like particles not shown to be viruses is added to b) the structure of chosen proteins not shown to be part of the virus like particles and they are fed into a computer. The computer makes the chosen proteins fold and fit into the X-ray crystalline shape so that they form a 3D computer image.
Hey presto!- a 3 D computer image of a thing with no basis in reality.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer
Jo
Thank you!!
You're very welcome 😺
"As it turns out, Mike Stone had at one time in the recent past quoted articles from me in support and agreement with my work. He has since wiped all references to my work off his site."
You keep saying this yet never offer any evidence that this was ever the case. To my knowledge, I never quoted you and if I did, I never deleted it. I didn't even know who you were until you commented on my blog.
"Mike Stone has since been interviewed by those like Andrew Kaufman, and others"
Do you verify anything you write? Dr. Kaufman has never interviewed me.
The rest of your drivel is not worth responding to as it was repeatedly addressed on my blog. Anyone can easily read the conversation and make up their own minds.
In any case, I would recommend you actually fact-check before making false claims in the future.
I'll tell you what. I will omit that section of my article that says you have quoted me. Your site has been up for many months, and I seem to remember my material on your site early on. Perhaps my memory is mistaken. You do not seem sure yourself. However, you write this, and it's incorrect. "I didn't even know who you were until you commented on my blog."
That is false, because you knew about me here: https://viroliegy.com/2022/05/21/the-clonal-selection-antibody-theory-1957/#comment-3028
This is before I ever commented on your blog. So, you were certainly aware.
You have been on Kaufman's show.
Here's one example: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4e84sLJncmih/
Kaufman did not organize that. It was not his show. It was its own entity. I was a guest and I did not run a single thing past Andy. There was no central organizer. The Baileys did a lot of the work and provided a kind of magnet for us to collaborate. I was the token astrologer.
Great write up as always. I have one question, do you believe in Terrain Theory? How should one go about understanding how to perceive Terrain Theory properly. Not the bastardized version of it.
Thank you... Yes, I do believe in Terrain Theory insofar as the nature of bacteria, parasites, and their relationship with disease are concerned. But modern-day' Terrain Theory', as has been taken over by those like Kaufman, has become New Age in its approach, therefore losing any meaning it once had. His latest series is called 'The Alchemical Detox', replete with pagan symbology. The so-called 'detox' plan needs supplements that are sold by Kaufman himself.
True methods of detoxification, which can only be facilitated by the consumption of raw foods, is not emphasized. True detoxification takes many years utilizing the proper raw foods—raw animal foods and raw vegetable juices—to refortify and reconstitute cells and their tissues. This is a slow process that does not happen overnight. True health changes cannot be achieved through the taking of supplements, but only through the intense and deliberate changing of one's diet and awareness of environmental toxicity. Detoxification can sometimes be severe and long-lasting as cells are given nutrition to allow for their detoxification processes. People always seek a quick cure for their health, but true health is usually not quick or easy.
Those hiding behind Terrain Theory now do not teach about the importance of proper diet insofar as raw animal foods or the needs of the terrain. They do not teach of the importance of raw bacteria from raw animal foods like raw meat, etc. I try to extol the importance of such foods every chance I get. Instead, they have turned Terrain Theory into a business model that is netting large sums of money. Again, they certainly have a right to sell products, but exactly what products are being sold? A $1,065 shower head? - https://drtomcowan.com/products/lifepower-larimar-5-platinum
I find such practices incredibly deceptive.
The denial of viruses is in direct opposition to what Terrain Theory logically states, which is that disease is determined by the state of the internal environment. That internal environment is changed negatively through external toxin factors, mostly that which is manmade. Those toxins must be dissolved if cells cannot rationally handle them. Thus, a non-living solvent factor is needed by cells. Viruses exist by virtue of this alone, which is what accounts for such classic viral symptoms of expulsion.
If viruses did not exist, the human race would soon perish in the face of any new industrial toxins, like plastics, chemicals, and heavy metals, all of which are not easily turned into water-soluble substances. In such cases, cells would not be able to cleanse themselves or their tissues and would die from accumulated toxicity that destroys cellular life.
Jeff, I have to say that I currently am on a few fences, being fairly new to this whole germ/terrain debate, but reading you stuff for a few months has at least made.things a little clearer. TBH as far as I'm concerned, all I want to do is eat the best possible way and be left alone by TPTB. But this whole debate is fascinating.
Rob, I empathize with your feelings because I feel the same, and that is what we should all be striving for, is to be healthy. Although, there is a lot to learn by understanding what is taking place and what people are pushing behind the scenes.
Fantastic answer and the detail really clears up all of the questions I had about your views on Terrain Theory. This is one the main reasons I view you as the most knowledgeable man that is currently alive in regards to this stuff. You preach raw foods and nutrition just as much as anything else which is why you are #1. Thank you for your continued efforts.
Thank you for such kind words of encouragement...
I must say I’m quickly starting to agree with Airmat’s comment, Jeff. I have spent much of the last week consuming more of your work and it is truly in depth and thoughtful. Have you corresponded with Mike Donio? He seems very composed, respectful and open minded. Dawn Lester and David Parker too. Keep trying to build a bridge somewhere within the current group of popular terrain theorists. Don’t be an island is what I’m advising. You’ve got too much to offer and you could use a few more platforms to get your knowledge out there. That’s my advice for what it’s worth.
I'm not feigning outrage. I am calling out you inability to fact check thus leading to you making unsubstantiated claims. If you are going to say something, make sure it is true. This obviously reflects on your ability to speak truth as well as presenting nformation accurately. As you now conceded that I was never interviewed by Kaufman, are you also conceding that I did not delete any quotes from you in my blog posts? You are attempting to paint the picture that I agreed with you and then covered it up by erasing any quotes in my articles. That is patently false and was obviously the bigger issue yet you continue to ignore it.
I am not denying that I have been involved in discussions with Dr. Kaufman. That has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that he interviewed me or that I appeared on his show. That is not factual. Nor is your statement that I quoted you in my articles and then deleted you from them. Again, you are making false claims.
You are parsing words, just as you do on your blog in your conversations. To be technical, I never wrote you were directly interviewed by Kaufman, but "by those like Kaufman, and others..." I will concede you did not appear on his personal show, yet (at least to my immediate knowledge). Your feigned outrage over something so minuscule is telling. Does this prove viruses are not real? I didn't think so.
BMJ 2004, virologists calling out for control experiment to be performed on HIV/AIDS.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/apparently-missing-control-experiment-hivaids
So, it is not just some crackpot lunacy to suspect a virus might have been falsely asserted to exist based on isolation study where the control experiment was not performed.
I am not suggesting it is wrong to question the nature of some viruses that have evidence of unnatural origin. The writer of the response literally writes that viruses are real and have been identified, such as retroviruses.
Where virus deniers go wrong is when they resort to the farfetched claim that no viruses exist based on the fact that...
A. Some viruses like HIV & so-called AIDS virus have had a troubled past and were facilitated by vaccination campaigns.
B. Some viruses have seemingly been manmade through the splicing of viral tissues.
These are merely two examples. There is hardly any balance in their rationale, which is highly problematic when determining truth from paranoia. Instead of saying certain viruses do not exist, they claim all viruses do not exist.
No virus people are saying control experiments were not performed for any virus. If that is true, then you would agree all of them are problematic.
Yes, but it isn't true that controls are not performed. The 'mock infection' procedure is the term for a control. Both 'control' and 'mock infection' is interchangeable.
You could never please a virus denier. No amount of evidence is sufficient enough.
I am aware of only a few, and the claim there is that mock infection cultures were prepared differently, like adding double dose of antibiotics.
If only they would purify viruses from a patient sample directly. The excuse there is not enough of them in any sample is nonsense, centrifuge would concentrate them in a tiny band. Or what about monkey pox blisters, they are supposed to be full of viruses.
Imagine we look at the tip of a needle searching for tiny fairies and when we fail to see any, instead of concluding they are not there we conclude they must be there but only a few of them so we can not see them. That is crazy talk. Besides, lesser number would only mean longer time to search. Have you thought about it?
I didn't know you when I read the comment nor did I search you out to find out who you were before or afterwards. I was strictly speaking upon the quote of yours that gillhicky shared. In fact, my comment shows that I did not agree with your views. However, if my commenting on a quote of yours that someone shared is "knowing" you, then I will let you have that one so that you can save a little face here.
"You have been on Kaufman's show."
This is just another example of you not verifying information before making claims. First of all, this was not an interview with Dr. Kaufman as you originally stated. Second, this was not Dr. Kaufman's show. It was a panel that was put together by Dr. Mark Bailey and Christine Massey. It was hosted by Sayer Ji's Brighteon channel and moderated by Alec Zeck. Both Dr. Kaufman and I were invited as panelists.
And for the record, I would have no problem being on Dr. Kaufman's channel or being interviewed by him. However, please verify your information before making false claims. Otherwise, your work will appear very sloppy and that you are bending the truth to support your argument.
You have been involved with Kaufman. You have been involved in discussions/whatever you want to call it. You have been involved, which is why your name is attached to this "no virus challenge".
We've been told for 100 years that viruses are:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
That's what we are stuck with. Those things exist or they don't.
If you are staying that viruses are not contagious or they are not pathogenic in nature, then you must be referring to something else, not viruses as understood by virology. You must be referring to exosomes or some other intracellular particle, but NOT viruses.
Viruses, as described by mainstream virology, either exist, or they don't.
If you're using a different definition of a virus, the you are not arguing for a virus, but something entirely different.
Hi Jeff,
I am curious what do you think of SARS-COV-2?
If viruses are not pathogenic and contagious in nature (like you propose), then what is COVID-19? What is causing it?
Are virologists wrong when they are saying that SARS-COV-2 is causing the disease called COVID-19?
Hey Jeff,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, that's what I understand from your post:
Your stance is that viruses DO exist, but they are not infectious in nature, they are products of a cell which is trying to defend itself from toxicity.
Did I understand it correctly?
If yes, your definition of a 'virus' is quite different from the commonly accepted definition. Which is a microorganism which can travel from person to person, replicate and infect another person.
If it doesn't travel from person to person, and doesn't infect another person, then it's not a 'virus' by common definition. Am I missing something, or you are redefining what a 'virus' is??
Secondly, I believe your position is almost identical to the 'no virus' camp. You just misunderstood what they are saying.
I've watched some videos from Dr Sam Bailey and others, and it seems to me that they are claiming that what virologists call 'viruses' are nothing more than some cell debree, or exozomes, that get released from the cell, when the cell is under duress (being poisoned, under starvation, or dying).
They claim that virologists mislabel those particles (exozomes, whatever they are) as 'viruses', but they actually are not contagious, and they are not caused by an infectious virus at all. You can get same particles if you poison the cell, without having an "infectious" material present in the mixture, at all.
Dr Stefan Lanka did a control experiment, where he proved that to be the case.
So to me, it seems you are bashing them for no reason - for all intents and purposes, your position is the same as theirs!
Would you care to clarify your position?
Mr Green,
I am still trying to wrap my head around all the various information about the alleged Sars-Co2. I always seem to be left with more questions. I am not buying the government's narrative but I do see an abundance of people getting sick with something. So, are Kaufman/Cowen correct in their belief that the introduction of EMF radiation such as 5G are causing world-wide health effects being labeled Covid19? Or are there multiple causes behind the sudden appearance of this respiratory illness? I see that hospitals and physicians took advantage of the governmental hand-outs to label everything as covid and collect significant payments, thereby increasing the alleged case count. I have also witnessed questionable testing being used as proof of illness even when a person demonstrates no negative health, aka the asymptomatic "carrier". You are saying that viruses are a cellular response to toxicity(the cleanup crew) but since this particular disease is primarily respiratory, what was the toxic trigger that caused so many to have that similar response? Was a bio-weapon released that we are calling the Sars-Co2 that people are having the response to? Is it EMFs? And what are virology labs really doing if viruses are a product of our own cells? We are told that the labs are developing new, dangerous viruses but how can this be if there are limited numbers of viruses made by our cells and their purpose is to clear toxicity, not to be dangerous to us?
If you can clear any of this up for me, I'd sure appreciate it. Trying to get through all the various opposing technical information is often beyond my ability as a lay person.
Thanks for the comment, Clem. 5G was implemented virtually nowhere except in a few major cities in 2020. It couldn't have had a role in viral outbreaks in 2020. In 2003, there was an outbreak of CoV-1 in China, and in that case, 4G nor 5G existed then.
The increase in viral detoxifications occur cyclically in accordance with the cycles of nature. Annual flu seasons occur each year, but in fluctuating levels. Every decade or so, the majority of a population will dump toxin accumulations. This is because a majority of the population store toxins at the same rate and level.
A large increase in coronaviruses can be sparked by the increase in pollution (smoke, industry, etc.), drug usage, and alcoholism, all of which affect the lungs—one of the body's main collectors and detoxifiers of toxins. It stands to reason that viral outbreaks can be predicted and therefore exploited by those wishing to leverage such an event for instituting world government measures.
Thank you, Jeff.
I believe you are mistaken about 5G.
There's a study which claims there is a connection between 5G and COVID-19 cases.
I don't have the competence to verify if this study is legit or not, so I will leave this exercise to those which are qualified:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34778597/
And there's another study which shows that 5G radiation is harmful
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/
Best regards,
> So, are Kaufman/Cowen correct in their belief that the introduction of EMF radiation such as 5G are causing world-wide health effects being labeled Covid19?
Where do you get this from? I've listened to dozens of hours of each of them, and can't say I've ever heard 5G come up.
The health impacts of EMF and RF Radiation should be studied, and are known to cause flu-like effects, as documented in Arthur Firstenberg's book "Invisible Rainbow". And I've read somewhere that Tom Cowan has perhaps mentioned 5G in passing.
But any discussion of 5G is very far afield from the bulk of Dr Cowan's and Dr Kaufman's work.
I suggest that you learn about their work first hand before you offer criticism based on false or misleading information.
I do not recall them ever talking about 5G or EMF radiation either Bill. But as a journalist originally trained in toxicology fraud, it's impressive what is being ignored in this discussion of "what is making people sick" — to wit, PCBs, dioxins, DDT, glyphsate, phthalates, prior injections, cyanide poisoning from the interior of their cars, other indoor air pollution, vitamin D deficiency, melatonin deficiency, smoking, vaping, and living on corn syrup and other GMO "foods." Do we really need a virus? And if viruses exist, why is SARS-CoV-2 the ONLY virus?
See my links posted above, Eric. I have no doubt that people are sick from all variety of toxins in the food, air and water but this particular "disease" seems to have a few shared symptoms. One being respiratory distress and low oxygen levels of the patients, aka hypoxia. For those, Dr. Cowan said millimeter waves may be a cause. There was also a theory that the 1918 Spanish flu was partly a product of the introduction of radio to a citizenry never exposed to radio waves EMF before.
>but this particular "disease" seems to have a few shared symptoms
Which "particular 'disease'" are you talking about?
Don't say "CO(N)VID", because it is not a real disease.
It fails a dozen different ways.
If someone in Wuhan has pneumonia, respiratory distress, or hypoxia, and someone in NYC has similar symptoms, why would you think these are connected?
We need to look at entirety of the circumstances of one's life, what chemicals exposures might they have? Etc. Eric talked about this recently.
But the point is, all of this is off-topic, to the "Settling the Virus Debate" statement.
It's the only one that's hip.
http://emfsafetynetwork.org/dr-thomas-cowan-on-coronavirus-and-5g/ or you can hear it right from the horse's mouth on this video: https://brandnewtube.com/watch/dr-tom-cowan-quot-talks-covid-5g-vaccines-amp-more-quot-great-interview_Dp7BYpks5tpWBQO.html Just go to the 7 min. point to about 10 mins.
I have listened to hours of Cowan and Kaufman. I didn't make it up. I know this isn't the ONLY cause but it is behind some of the shared symptoms, according to him. I understand he also speaks of resonance of cells so that we all get the message to protect ourselves (via detoxing with flu-like symptoms) and I certainly consider the energetic aspects of illness as a strong part of any disease, and he also speaks of the influence of other toxins just as Mr. Green does. I don't believe it's all a physical thing we are experiencing, myself. While there are physical aspects to this alleged virus, there appears to be a resonance of strong fear, anger, hatred also behind it that adds to people's stress, sickness that is fueled daily by mainstream media. Who can turn on a radio, TV or pick up a paper without seeing more fear stories about deaths, illness, need for more injections(boosters) and now, monkeypox in the batter's box.
Listen, the topic here is the "Settling the Virus Proposal", principly authored by Tom Cowan, Mark Bailey, and Kevin Corbett.
This 5G stuff is important, but it is off-topic.
People try to redirect the conversation quite often, and connect us to various apparently fringy theories (5G, Moon Landings, Flat Earth, etc) as a form of defamation.
Each of these topics are important to explore, but not here.
Let's focus on this:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
First, I'm told that Cowan never mentioned 5G. I point out that he did indeed do so so now you try to tell me pay no attention to that. It's not off topic as Cowan applies it directly to the reported symptoms of covid. To deny anyone has gotten ill is just as fool hardy. Calling it all a con, which some clearly is, is to bury ones head in the sand just to prove no one has experienced this disease, sickness, illness, whatever floats your boat of being right.
I never said that Tom Cowan "never mentioned 5G"! How could I say that unless I had a transcript of every one of his utterances?
What i said was WHILE IT IS an important topic, it is OFF TOPIC to this present discussion of the "Settling the Virus Debate" proposal.
Have you read the original coronavirus publications and do you have any problem with their scientific methodology?
Are you referring to SARS-CoV-2?
Yes
In that case, yes, I have. I have no real issues with their isolation methods. And somehow proving that SAR-CoV-2 is not a naturally occurring virus does not negate other real and naturally occurring viruses that occur in the disease state, as those of this challenge believe.
I think you are wrong about belief. I know most of these people pretty well and I will tell you that they have all struggled with their preexisting belief in viruses and germ theory. I do not know any who merely state a belief. They have come to their observations through long work, reading, investigation and discussion, as have I.
Like nearly everyone, I previously believed that viruses exist because I was told they exist and never questioned the evidence. There is stronger anecdotal evidence of poltergeists than there is scientific or anecdotal evidence for viruses, unless you have a very low standard for what can be said to "exist" in any meaningful usage of that word.
What you have with viruses is a theoretical explanation for phenomena that themselves may not exist and are also demonstrated to not to exist, i.e., asymptomatic community spread of this phantom virus — that's supposed to be the big tell.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
And this confirms what David Crowe observed seven months earlier
https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/200510-crowe-paper-may-10.pdf
Some historical context is needed (a bit long, but bear with me).
To clarify, it was Kaufman who in early 2020 wanted to interview me because of my work. His representative bought and read my book on June 02, 2020. When Kaufman and I later spoke, he told me he was reading my book. But because I did not agree with their stance on exosomes and 5G, I was not invited into their fold.
Even after I was sent multiple documents detailing the effects of EMF to sway me, I would not agree that 5G was the cause of widespread viral outbreaks.
They have inducted many people into their group who all adhere to the same belief(s). If you do not believe as they do, they will not include you. I refused to waiver in my stance because I knew they maintained what I felt were incorrect positions.
It was my Reddit articles dating back to 2018 on autism, vaccines, and viruses, that drew widespread attention to me—my article from early March 2020 was reposted all over the internet. As stated, I was contacted by Kaufman's media coordinator in early 2020 who arranged a conversation with Kaufman himself to plan a date to interview me. I later spoke with Kaufman. His promise to interview me never transpired. After that preliminary conversation, I never heard from him again.
I was the first one, still living, to claim viruses are not contagious in any meaningful way. One of my articles was reposted all over the internet from Reddit, one from March 02, 2020, later appearing on David Icke's site, Reuters, and many more. The articles I wrote were titled "Vaccine Science and the Intentional Myth of 'Contagious' - Coronavirus Explained" - Jan 26, 2020. "The Deception of Virology - Why Coronavirus is not Contagious" - March 02, 2020. Another article I wrote on Dec 26, 2018, was titled "The Science Behind Autism and its Correlation with Vaccinations", where I write extensively about viruses. (search these out online)
My presentation "Viral Misconceptions" was posted at midnight March 31-April 1, 2020, and eventually garnered tens of thousands of views and was reposted all over the internet. This is before YouTube began its censorship campaign.
Kaufman released his exosome theory in a presentation titled "Humanity is not a Virus" on April 1st, 2020, which garnered hundreds of thousands of views in comparison. Before this, no one knew who Kaufman was. I began from the very bottom and was suppressed at every step, until now, finding it difficult to find people to listen to me. On the other hand, Kaufman was elevated to an exalted position almost overnight.
They all coordinate and put out the same information, like this challenge, and I believe they have someone funding their operations. Their agenda is one that does not sit well with me. They have no established timeline for arriving at their beliefs. They appeared with all these answers, many of them taking verbatim what I had written in my work going back to 2018 (but more likely the 2020 article), then altering important tenants of it to suit them. Where were they before 2020?
They are pushing radical theories that exploit conspiracy groups' willingness to believe anything whatsoever, and I believe it has been done to counter powerful theories that may appeal to people in explaining disease. It is my contention that they took parts of what I was imparting and twisted it to suit themselves, gradually turning it into what it is now.
There seems to be a focus on this theory vs that theory, virus vs. no virus, crazy MD went nutritionist.
Perhaps that was the point of your blog and I missed it, but let us revert back the clock a bit.
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
What is the GenBank or GISAID accession number for the actual SARS-CoV-2?
That I do not know of but I can search for...