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 When WHO claimed they had one, they relied on the as-yet-unpublished work of Fan Wu.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]
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:
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
"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.
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]
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/
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Have you read the original coronavirus publications and do you have any problem with their scientific methodology?