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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
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.
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
You're very welcome 😺
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.
My rebuttal to your challenge can be heard here: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/jeff-green-addressing-the-no-virus
https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/challenge-to-christine-massey
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/
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.
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.