As a former researcher in Electron Microscopy with specializations in sample preparations such as Freeze Fracture, I can shed a little light on the virus subject. I came to know Dr. Russell Steere who invented the techique while working at the USDA in Beltville, Maryland in the late 1970's. My thesis advisor, Dr. John Rash, collaborated with Dr. Steere in a comprehensive analysis entitled "Freeze Fracture Artefacts & Interpretations" published ~ 1979. In the early days of the development of the Electron Microscope during the 1940's, commercial scopes became available. Dr. Steere adopted electron microscopy in the study of very thin metal films. He was by education a botanist. In the early 1950's, a malady affecting tobacco leaves was a significant concern. Efforts to identify the cause of the infection (destroyed the healthy leaves) was undertaken by many, and major tobacco companies invested millions to no avail. All efforts to image an agent in the leaves yielded no candidates, as most of these studies relied upon light microscopic methods whose limitations were in microns. Descriptions of cells in higher magnification was new, and promising. Dr. Steere hypothesized that the agent in tobacco might be imaged if he could devise a technique to capture it undistubed in sample preparation. Keep in mind, the electron microscope is a vaccum tube which abhors water vapor. The ability to image requires solid state samples, hence most early preps relied upon water extractions, infiltration with heavy metals and stains. This inherently came with many artefacts of preparation and muddied interpretations. Dr. Steere froze samples of tobacco leaf with and without the infection in a Liquid nitrogen slush. He Worked in a modified Denton Vacuum chamber equipped with a cold knife and stage and evaporators for carbon and Platinum. This allowed him to break the sample open under vacuum, etch the surface, coat it with high resolution Platinum and Carbon, remove it, digest away the material and float the Replica onto an EM grid and image this in his electron microscope. He was the first one to identify and publish pictures of the first virus ever described, the Tobacco Mosaic Virus. Compared with bacteria and other infection agents, it was orders of magnitude smaller, very compact in shape and appearance, and in the range of 50-60 nanometers; only visible at High magnification in the EM. The rest, as they say, is history. This first discovery opened up a new field in botany, biology, anatomy and Ultrastructure which grew exponentially for decades. Suffice to say, many other viruses have been identified and described in EM, and subsequent techniques. In the bigger picture, mankind's understanding of viruses is less than 80 years old. For centuries, humans suffered with the common cold, for which there was no cure, other than treating symptoms. It wasn't until several decades past that it was confirmed the common cold is, in fact, a virus. With the advent of modern genetics exploding in the 1990's and over the last 30 years, man has the arrogance and hubris to behave as if he knows much more than he does. To be brutally honest, we know very little about anything. Declaring Science as knowledge is a common mistake. Science is a way of asking questions, designing experiments to obtain answers to the questions. The scientific method proposes a Hypothesis, and designs experiments to disprove the Hypothesis. Sadly, the vast majority of 'science' follows none of this. Dr Steere was a Past President of the ASCB (American Society of Cell Biology) as was Dr. Robley Williams (his mentor). Their studies in high resolution thin films in electron microscopy opened up worlds of which we have only scratched the surface of.
Thanks for the enlightening post. I get so frustrated with viruses that don't exist, people; they are akin to flat earthers. I do somewhat understand how they think, though; this subject of disease and viruses is a controlled narrative by powerful money centers like pharma and cannot be trusted. The easy way to explain any intensely complicated subject is to doubt its existence.
someone told me long ago that when something is overly complex and complicated, it's very likely wrong and misleading. As a result, whenever I encountered unduly complicated narratives and explanations, I view them with skepticism and doubt. Sure, there may be long ways around the barn. But there is always a direct, simple and shortest path to be found if one seeks it out. Simple and direct is preferred.
That's true only maybe half the time. It took a long time to discover photosynthesis, for example, a complex system we still have more to learn about, it is absolutely not simple yet it's a real system. I could offer many more examples. Generalized statements are usually wrong. Humor.
It's common for people to generalize and summarize and I tend to agree with your point of view on that. Natural processes such as photosynthesis have been described and yield prevailing theories. Sadly, too many choose to consider that a done deal, when in reality, there may be much more to learn and understand. When someone can actually demonstrate a phenomenon, such as photosynthesis, putting together all the ingredient themselves, not relying on nature, I'd consider they understand it well. But such examples are few and far between.
Pretty much any other reference would use these (with confirmation bias) as reference to claim isolation of SARSCOV2.
The problem is that these seminal works, upon scrutiny, are low quality evidence.
The EM pictures in them can only be used to guess at what the round particles are. There is no way that those images can be construed to serve as conclusive evidence that the circular particles are SARSCOV2 or any other type of virus. One big reason is that, in these, and all such "isolation" studies, comparably "zoomed in" EM images from the control wells were purposefully NOT published for comparison. (We must presume "purposefully" because were it due to neglect then we would have to call into question the qualifications of such "scientists" that don't know to publish data from the control side of the experiment). Meaning that we don't know that the mock infected cell cultures didn't also produce these. And the absence of such images is suspicious, to put it mildly. It could not be by mistake.
And SARSCOV2 is NOT the only "virus" studied that suffers from this same type of ommision.
I'd have to look it up, it's been years. This work predates computers and digital imaging. Everything back then was manually published and one did their own developing of EM exposure films in the darkroom.
So this article is good and comes close…. But then veers off completely off track.
I too have done a deep dive on this topic for my paid subscribers, and we both start off with the etymology of viruses meaning poison, but differ.
In my article, I show how the virus myth was born from Dr. John Franklin Enders because they needed to push the “polio” pandemic — and ultimately the polio vaccine in 1955.
The same Covid madness we experienced in 2020, occurred 70 years ago.
I then show what WE are experiencing that we’ve mistakenly called “virus” aka “poison.” What we’re seeing is actually “messaging” from one human to another— which helps the species thrive:
Pointless to argue about this. If the disease is catching, and not linked to bacteria or fungi, you might as well call the other agent a foodledoo. Or a virus.
I understand about terrain. But it's not 100% terrain. There are other factors.
Edit: In the old days, they called viruses parasites. I saw it in an old Merck Manual. Maybe we should go back to that... I am tired of the virology wars.
The problem is that expirements have been done to test human-human transmission through exposure to mucus, droplets, blood, etc. And they effectively disproved this as the means of "catching."
Yet, all interventions promoted for preventing the disease are based on this disproven mode of transmission.
Sorry, I meant "host-host transmission through exposure to mucus, droplets, blood, etc" and have edited my reply to reflect that.
However, I am open to looking at possible injected routes of "infection" as well as the methodology that was used to conclude that yellow fever (jaundice, basically - aka liver damage) is caused solely by a virus transmitted from mosquito bites.
You sound like you are strongly convinced that yellow fever is spread in this way. What particular evidence do you find to be so compelling about a virus being the explanation for this particular type of liver damage?
No, not at all. I was just going off what "they" say, and see if you have an alternative explanation. I have not heard of an alternative explanation for measles parties, for example, that makes sense. And I never got such horrible colds as I did when I was teaching little kids in rainy Oregon...
I think some things are catching. If you swim in contaminated water, you might catch a water parasite. If you sleep with syphilitics, you might catch it too. If you drink dirty water, you might catch cholera... if your terrain is strong, it won't do much damage, but if not, it might.
I keep listening to those who say it's 100% terrain but so far their arguments fail to convince.
Viruses are everywhere and keep our ecosystem in homeostasis. Only a tiny percentage are pathogenic. Some people avoid symptoms because of the robustness of their immune response or their unique genetic makeup. Giant viruses can be viewed under a simple microscope.
I mostly agree with this, except the pathogenic part because it does not have good evidence for it - even beyond the common doubts raised about sketchy "isolation" practices.
For example:
Most of the "pathogenic" viruses are statistically more corellated with healthy "hosts" than unhealthy ones, though we have MADE UP different - and unsubstatiated - explanations for this like: asymptomatic, latent infection, dormancy, carriers, etc.
When testing is done on large samples of the population, more instances of "viral" genomes are detected among the non-sick.
Don't believe me? Look up: how many people carry TB? How many were asymptomatic with COVID during the height of the pandemic? How many have HSV?
Most of the hosts in which they are detected are non-sick.
By this, I am not admitting the existence of viruses becasue the problem is that in our modern lexicon, virus = "contagious ILLNESS" in people's minds. The data says otherwise.
They may even be helpful, for all we know. Only a danger to those that are not robust enough up for some adaptation they may bring.
But it's unlikely we will know for a long time until our observational abilities improve exponentially on the nano scale.
If we could even demonstrate their existence and alleged nature of the "submicroscopic viruses" I am confident we would find that they were only playing their part in the larger ecosystem, ultimately helpful, just as all other microbes, flora and fauna are.
I don't know what it means 'viruses are statistically more correlated with healthy hosts'? What is the info source? University College London Study "we identified a specific gene called HLA-DQA2, which was expressed (activated to produce a protein) at a much higher level in the volunteers who did not go on to develop a sustained infection and could hence be used as a marker of protection. " Also, people vary in immune response which determines symptom severity.
You’re absolutely correct, especially when you said this; “has been propagated to sell pandemic after pandemic 70 years ago.”
Isn’t it odd how many people haven’t been vaccinated nor have they been sick? I speak for myself simply because that has been the case my entire life.
The problem we have faced with the “covid-fraud” was manmade for: 1. Money, yes. But money was the main reason. There’s multiple reasons why people lined up and rolled up their sleeves for an unknown, untested and highly flawed, newly mentioned mRNA- Bioweapon. Which was fear of the unknown. The F.U.D principle. Yes fear-uncertainty-doubt worked phenomenally So well that nearly half the world population took at least one shot.
The biggest problem I have always contemplated was, man can create many toxic concoctions. Simply put “Bioweapons.” Which is exactly what was injected into billions worldwide.
Our God given immunity was so well designed, against all naturally occurring germs, our immune system’s remarkably resilient, remembers and protects against any further illness regarding the original germ / infection. Unfortunately our natural immune system’s cannot withstand something manmade and designed against our own God given immune system’s capabilities.
This is the problem we face today. What’s next? What evil-concoction will be deployed next? I’d like to learn about the actual cause of deaths during this “DoD-OWS” Weapons of Mass Destruction attack against humanity! The findings so far as I have learned is nearly 74% of those autopsied bodies were, in part due to the mRNA-Bioweapon, per Dr McCulloughs peer reviewed study.
I’m convinced nobody died of “covid” rather some other immune deficiency or compromising illnesses which were exacerbated by the mRNA, by design IMO.
Dr Francis Boyle (God Rest His Soul) was brilliant IMO! Dr Boyle, point blank called Covid and the mRNA, both Bioweapons. It was Dr Boyle who termed the phrase “Frankenshots.” Dr Boyle also said we were attacked with “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
What’s so disturbing is, these perpetrators got away with this “Mind-Virus” as I have called this. Additionally, the main method of attack was “psychological warfare” tactics. It worked perfectly, now didn’t it? I think so. After all nearly half the world was choose to trust the perpetrators and not their God Given Immunity.
Where do we go from here? IMO, phase two is coming! Something much worse than the “psychological warfare attack” with much higher death-rates, no mRNA NEEDED!
Lastly, the FDA was given the green light to fast track the newly mentioned saRNA! Why? This newly mentioned Bioweapon I believe and from what I have read, is self-replicating and sheds like a shaggy dog in the summer time! Meaning everyone will become infected with whatever concocted chemicals is designed into these bioweapons, whether someone wants it or not! Quite literally this saRNA self replicating bioweapon could, in essence, wipeout humanity as we know it today!
Without further investigation, I have come your a personal belief that John Leake is a brilliant writer, has a fantastic wry sense of humor and a captivating writing style!!
(This comment has not been approved by the FDA and needs to be ignored unless approved by an Allopathic primary care physician). Lol,
Early on in the pandemic I saw some discussion of "viruses don't exist" and started to look into it but that was a deep rabbit hole I chose not to dive into.
Later on, I came down with a case of CV that landed me in the hospital for 12 days, and by the grace of God I made it through. And no, I didn't take the jab. Haven't had any since smallpox as a child 60+ years ago, plus a couple of polio vaccines while in grade school.
So for those so certain that viruses don't exist, how many have actually had and survived the condition that is called Covid?
If so, what caused it? Was it something in Your system? Was it a bioweapon created by GOF researchers? Was it a 5G antenna nearby you? Was it close contact with someone shedding the spike protein? Was it all of the above? Or did it just "happen" without a cause?
Knowing what something isn't, doesn't require one to know what it is.
There are plenty of environmental, electromagnetic, cosmic, and even psychosomatic effects on biology that have barely even begun to be studied.
For instance, systemic and cascading disruption of microbial networks occur during droughts and other environmentally important events that effect an ecosystem could very well have effects on the biology of the flora and fauna that depend on microorganisms in so many ways. Yet we have no idea if any of it. But we have been able to ascertain, for example, at the presence or lack thereof of certain microbes in our own microbiome can have far reaching consequences.
I'm not saying that that's what caused covid. I'm saying that it is hard to overstate just how much we don't know. And with so much unknown, it's hard to understate how much we've *probably* gotten wrong.
I agree John. I find that after listening to quite a few of these virus nihilists that you can spend literal hours hearing them pontificate about the gaps in virology. There is some truth to the gaps, but thereby concluding viruses don't exist is a bridge way too far. And nobody in that camp has ever offered any believable alternative explanation for the obvious transmissibility of the little critters. And poisoning is surely one of those explanations that holds no water.
Do atoms exist? Do black holes exist? Does gravity exist? Does God exist? Does love exist? Do viruses exist? Does time exist? Does life after death exist? Does the soul exist? Did Jesus return to life? Does the Loch ness monster exist? Does big foot exist? Does injecting a baby on the first day of life give immunity from infectious disease, by something called a virus, and if it does how could you ever possibly prove it was the vaccine that prevented that infection? Everything about human life is belief and superstition there are very few facts. I too studied epistemology and concluded 99.99999% of what we think we know is fiction. We live in a world of competing fictions. You pay your money and take your choice. Regarding your example the fact that two people in close proximity get the same symptoms proves nothing about any cause and certainly not that that putative cause is an external thing (Virus) . You might just as well speculate that there is something unique to those two individuals. Or any number of other speculations. In time gone by they might have thought the sickness was the retribution of God for sin - were they wrong? Can you prove they were? Virus is just the modern day word for not knowing. It is safer to stick to time honored best practice and avoid the illusions of truth especially in the medical arena where there is so much fraud and potential for harm. Safer to assume that we have no idea what causes sickness and no idea what contagion is and certainly no idea what effect drugs have on the human body, than pretend that we do. Given all this, the safest thing to do is never inject anything. Better to avoid sex with strangers, stick to you wife, go to church and pray for long a long healthy life and above all protect your health through clean living take no drugs or submit to any dangerous medical procedures. If you do get sick stay with those you love, take rest, eat little and often, sleep as much as you can. avoid stress, pray that your natural good health will cure you.
Greetings David, this is John Leake replying to your comment. On the other hand, a lot of our models for explaining our experiences have significant practical value, even if they don't tell us the entire picture of reality. We don't fully understand gravity or electricity or all kinds of other things, but we operate with a certain mental picture of how these things operate on us and our world to guide our decision-making. Best regards, John Leake
Thanks for your comment John. I do not doubt the heuristic utility of a working model to help us navigate reality in a practical way. We agree. A good example is a map. Nobody thinks that a map is actual reality. It is an abstract representation, more or less accurate, but the utility of a model diminishes the further from mechanical physical reality we stray; when dealing with matters of life, beauty, spirituality, history or politics such mechanistic models are of little use. Nobody proposes and cause and effect theory of history and a jolly good thing too. History is not the object of scientific enquiry. I argue much of medicine is the same. Life and living human tissue is not proper object of science. It is an much more an art than a science. The current theory of disease causation, contagion, immunity and infection stem from the mechanistic models of the enlightenment, and post enlightenment, built upon the positivist ontology of mechanical cause and effect between existent things that can be observed and experimented upon. Biblical exegesis has given way to the scientific theory and the scientific experiment. Knowledge is what can be demonstrated and proven not what is believed on faith. This is what we are told and encouraged to believe. But I argue that such models are not appropriate when applied the essential mysteries of life and death or sickness and health. To assume the existence of a causative agent in infectious disease simply because we believe everything has to have a cause is to assuming what has to be proven. Nobody has ever seen a virus. Nobody has ever proven a virus causes sickness. Nobody has ever defined or described a virus. Are they organic or inorganic? Are they alive or dead? where did they come from? Are there fossils of viruses? Do fish get viral infections? On top of this very wobbly heuristic speculation we are encouraged by government officials, receiving back handers of various sorts, from drug makers, to promote the injection of untested concoctions, whose ingredients are commercial secrets, into babies and pregnant women ( and others) at the very time that we see a huge increase in chronic illnesses that are not found historical records. The recent avalanche of illness and death in close temporal proximity to one particular vaccination adds further weight to the suspicion that these vaccines are doing us harm. Perhaps the time has come to stop thinking we can use science to understand life, death, sickness and health and return to a more cautious approach - especially when we are considering injecting drugs into healthy people. Dr McCullough - one of very few doctors I trust - said that no vaccine should cost even one life and he was absolutely right.
We can't see radio waves, but we hear them. We can't see the herpes virus leave our partner's genitalia and penetrate our cells, but we live with the consequences. If those who think viruses are fiction, (they are not because we can see giant viruses easily, have recordings of viruses infecting bacteria, and lots of other imaging proofs) would they be willing to receive blood transfusions that harbour HIV virus. The proof is in the pudding. If they don't believe in the existence of viruses that blood should be safe in their minds, and they would never develop the symptomatology of AIDS. Or, if a date reveals they have herpes, that should not be a problem, because viral contagion is an illusion. That is not how it plays out in reality. You can argue with reality, but you would be wrong, reality will prove it to you.
Not bad, I do like your style in writing and breaking down a complex idea 👏
But you did not do your research , the Us army tried every conceivable way to infect healthy people with any possible liquid from sick people with flu.
From sneezing to breathing to injecting their blood
Nothing created the same disease..
Look it up
And besides, even in the beginning of this article you state “when did people start to believe in subatomic particles that can cause disease “
I feel that was incorrectly worded
Right there you talk as if inanimate subatomic particles could feasibly affect a relatively infinitely gigantic organism !! And what’s worse , assume it can affect it to such a degree as to cause disease 👀
The whole field of virology is an ideal logical scam, requires belief in the unseen and how how it operates.
With bacteria you can see and prove every single action .
With virii, it’s impossible to do so
It’s impossible to treat
All you can do is believe in it , pay your money for the diagnostics and medicines that don’t actually treat or cure it
Perpetually
And don’t get me started on the silly a$$ pcr test. 🤡
His article says "submicroscopic," not "subatomic," which would be a ridiculous claim. Either you misquoted him or he edited the article. I can't tell which. Either way, I'll cut you or him slack for a slip-up.
But where your logic fails is that you think a small particle can't affect a large organism. You are failing to account for replication. Before long, that small particle becomes many.
It was subatomic, but at least it’s fixed now 🤷♂️
And I didn’t miss replication , it was actually my whole point…
Something that is not even technically “alive” that needs an electron microscope to be “seen” can somehow magically invade enough cells and replicate in the 100’s of trillions so that it can affect an organism that weighs in the 10’s of kg
Is just silly
Bacterium is alive , usually replicates by fissure or budding - requires conditions and substrates
But this silly little dna fragment , can ride aerosols , remain active for ever and operate like magic
Even kill a person , after supposedly replicating so much it could affect the bigger organism - but even then no tissue will ever show a virus under a microscope
Oh no , that magic requires an electron microscope that can’t even catch frikking moving video lolz
Or an even sillier pcr test that it’s whole reason for being is amplifying fragments that otherwise would be considered almost none existent 🤡
AMEN 🙏 I'm sharing and resharing this with the Yeadonites... Yeadon had the nerve to come to my post and try to belittle me... This is wonderful... thank you thank you thank you
I am so disappointed in Michael Yeadon's position. He seems like a sincere person who truly wants to help. He is a retired scientist, I think for Pfizer actually, and I don't understand how he is unconvinced despite all the evidence of contagion, and recordings of viruses infecting bacteria.
He was VP in Pfizer and he's still alive with saying what he's saying... I've found that paid shills are trying their best to divide us all up over ridiculous notions.. I believe Yeadon may well be a paid shill ...
He was VP in Pfizer and he's still alive with saying what he's saying... I've found that paid shills are trying their best to divide us all up over ridiculous notions.. I believe Yeadon may well be a paid shill ...
Yeadon, no... he attacked me on multiple fronts all in jibberish from all angles.. up to that point I thought of him as an honorable person but slightly skeptical of his tenure and position at pfizer... but didn't give it a second thought.... posted alot of his stuff... now, I avoid him like remdesivir
Your piece began with such promise, but it soon became clear that you had opted for the easy way out by avoiding the real question: can it be proven that viruses exist? That is a very different question from can it be proven viruses do not exist. You chose to point out only the obvious: that the impossible is in fact impossible. No serious person believes it can be proven that there are no viruses because, of course, it is impossible to prove something does not exist. You cleverly chose a soft target; like walking directly up to the target of your choosing, firing point blank at the bullseye and claiming you are an expert marksman.
Absent clear and compelling evidence that viruses exist, who can blame someone for believing they do not exist? If something has not clearly and definitively been shown to exist, some skepticism can surely be excused. “We cannot show them to you. We do not know the exact mechanism by which we believe they cause or transmit disease from one entity to another. They do not always transmit disease from one diseased entity to another. But trust us, they exist and they are the cause of disease and transmission among organisms.”
Admittedly, some may mischaracterize skepticism of viral existence by stating definitively that they do not exist, but pointing out such a mistake, however cleverly, earns no prize.
The true test is to prove that viruses do exist. That is a very much different, and the more important and worthwhile challenge. Claiming that someone or something contracts a similar disease after having been in contact with another suffering the same condition may be a keen observation worthy of investigation, but it in no way proves the existence of a virus much less demonstrate that a virus was the source of transmission of the disease from one to another. They may be interesting even seemingly logical hypotheses, but it most certainly is not proof of either. Without compelling proof of the existence of viruses and definitive evidence that they are the mechanism of disease transmission, you might equally well hypothesize that it was magic which caused the husband to contract herpes. If a man disappears in the woods does it prove the existence of Sasquatch, or that Sasquatch was the cause of the man’s disappearance? There are occasional blurry photos and videos of some wild looking beast roaming the forest, sometimes even seeming unexplained footprints in the ground, but no one has ever captured a Sasquatch or shown definitive evidence of its existence. Does one exist? You would be justified being skeptical of its existence, but you could not prove definitively that it does not exist. Importantly, you also would not be justified arguing that because there exists some uncertain indication of the existence of Sasquatch, that it in fact exists and moreover that it was the cause of the man’s disappearance.
It is a simple matter to suggest that something might exist, which alone disproves any definitive claim that it can be proven not to exist. All that must be done to put the wife’s belief to the test is point out that viruses might exist and confront her with dire consequences if she is wrong. But showing that something might exist is far different from showing that it does exist or that it must exist. To do that requires proof, which is a much taller mountain to climb. You have not even reached the foothills. Sasquatch might exist. There are occasional fuzzy pictures and even personal testimonies. But as far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence that it does exist. Is there conclusive evidence that viruses exist? If they in fact do exist, is there conclusive evidence they are the cause of disease and are also the cause of disease transmission of disease? Fair warning: lining up a bunch of “experts” to opine that they exist does not constitute proof. As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Don't fool yourself by placing too much faith in the findings of experts.” Real proof is irrefutable and conclusive evidence; absent that, anything is just conjecture, or hypothesis, to be more genteel.
Your writing is typically excellent. This one, not so much.
John, thanks for your kind and patient introduction to viruses. I remember well when early in the Pandemic (which certainly deserved close inspection of its assumptions) a certain psychiatrist decided to question the existence of viruses. At the time I didn't think to question his lack of professional background in physical medical science. He might have made a valuable contribution to observations of Mass Psychosis, a non-physical example of a contagious mental-emotional condition, but I never saw him offer up anything in his own lane.
The actions of a certain eastern country sending sick and infected participants from world wide military games to all corners of the earth to spread a pathogen that they knew originated in their own virology lab due to sick and dead scientists surely showed their strong belief--but not only a belief pattern but borne of actual viruses they were studying and monkeying with. Viruses which have since been shown to have man made alterations such as a furin cleavage site and led to grave damage to many bodily systems from cellular invasion of modified spike protein.
I begin to wonder if someone is culturing this belief system to grab our attention when, again, there are other much more important things to concern ourselves with, such as Jab-ology.
Existence is intentionally the wrong question. Of course small particles exist. Call them a virus if you want. They've been imaged. Existence is not debatable any more than the desk in the room is debatable. The real question is whether they cause illness. When the proponents of viral contagion speak of "seasonal flu", it couldn't possibly be more crystal clear that this is nonsense. How do these tiny particles know when it's time to make us sick? Do they have a calendar? No. What you have is a business model that justifies selling us an endless river of seasonal injections. Oh, and just for the record, we've been doing this for 80 years and we still have the flu. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the theory either.
A study on guinea pigs at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine showed that the transmission of influenza is enhanced in cold, dry conditions and declines as temperature and humidity rise.
This is a long needed corrective but doesn’t go far enough. It only argues for a definition of a virus as a sub-bacterial pathogen. It doesn’t show the evidence of why it’s an obligate parasite. Let alone any direct observation of the virus or more detailed inference. More please!
A basic principal to apply is this. 'The one making a claim must provide the evidence to support that claim, OR the claim fails'.
In the mid 1980's the claim was made that a 'virus' termed as HIV was the causative agent that led to an illness condition called AIDS. I started looking for the evidence to be presented and am still looking for clear evidence that an all enveloping 'Virus' is as proven as it may ever be to either attack or seriously disrupt the whole Human Immune system. For one point, the so called Human Immune system is I believe a very complex integrated multi-facet collective system such that one single causative agent is unlikely to ever be able to disable it completely to the point of death. And the so called test which simply claimed to measure 'immune' function by T cell count or so called 'Antibody activity' which responds to many other influences ie, pregnancy, infections of many sort, medications etc., cannot be generalized to a specific agent without clear evidence of the agents existence AND effects.
When simply suggesting that entities referred to as a 'virus' may in reality not exist at all the immediate response I get is a demand for me to prove they do not exist. WRONG response, TOTALLY WRONG. It is not for me to provide evidence of n on-existence of any 'Virus', the equivalence of proving a zero which took thousands of years in mathematics.
Those who make the CLAIM that something they call a 'Virus' does exist, AND, is the actual 'Causative Agent' in a disease condition, MUST PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE to support their claim.
To be clear, the absence of evidence does not automatically invalid any claim in favor of viruses as agents of disease, it simply puts the debate where is should be and the obligation on those making such as claim of existence and causality to provide better evidence than hither to presented. Some 40 years I am still waiting for the evidence, convincing evidence.
Poor article. Yes bacteria exist. Still no proof on viruses. None. Your analogies and stories ain't proof. No isolated viruses. No proof of causation. Vapid "argument". Hot air.
I was exposed to Covid, allegedly, when my wife had some mild fluish nothing for three weeks, which the doctor said was Covid, based on their tests.
I was also in large hospitals and nursing homes that were allegedly hot with Covid. I never got it.
I was tested sometime later while I was having an annual physical to see if I had any ‘Covid antibodies.’ Perhaps I was one of those ‘asymptomatic’ Covid victims. Didn’t have any of those either. 😜
Yah, yah, yah. Put on your mask. Step back six feet. And do not go out to eat or see a movie. Forget religious services. The singing, the singing. (The horror.) And for heaven's sake do not go sit on the beach in Malibu. You asymptomatic characters are the real danger to us all. I have no idea how I even survived with folks like you running around loose in the world. There were little old ladies, screaming and carrying on in greenbelts in Thousand Oaks, who knew you were up to no good. (I should never have screamed back at them. Where were my manners? They were unappreciated prophets.)
As a former researcher in Electron Microscopy with specializations in sample preparations such as Freeze Fracture, I can shed a little light on the virus subject. I came to know Dr. Russell Steere who invented the techique while working at the USDA in Beltville, Maryland in the late 1970's. My thesis advisor, Dr. John Rash, collaborated with Dr. Steere in a comprehensive analysis entitled "Freeze Fracture Artefacts & Interpretations" published ~ 1979. In the early days of the development of the Electron Microscope during the 1940's, commercial scopes became available. Dr. Steere adopted electron microscopy in the study of very thin metal films. He was by education a botanist. In the early 1950's, a malady affecting tobacco leaves was a significant concern. Efforts to identify the cause of the infection (destroyed the healthy leaves) was undertaken by many, and major tobacco companies invested millions to no avail. All efforts to image an agent in the leaves yielded no candidates, as most of these studies relied upon light microscopic methods whose limitations were in microns. Descriptions of cells in higher magnification was new, and promising. Dr. Steere hypothesized that the agent in tobacco might be imaged if he could devise a technique to capture it undistubed in sample preparation. Keep in mind, the electron microscope is a vaccum tube which abhors water vapor. The ability to image requires solid state samples, hence most early preps relied upon water extractions, infiltration with heavy metals and stains. This inherently came with many artefacts of preparation and muddied interpretations. Dr. Steere froze samples of tobacco leaf with and without the infection in a Liquid nitrogen slush. He Worked in a modified Denton Vacuum chamber equipped with a cold knife and stage and evaporators for carbon and Platinum. This allowed him to break the sample open under vacuum, etch the surface, coat it with high resolution Platinum and Carbon, remove it, digest away the material and float the Replica onto an EM grid and image this in his electron microscope. He was the first one to identify and publish pictures of the first virus ever described, the Tobacco Mosaic Virus. Compared with bacteria and other infection agents, it was orders of magnitude smaller, very compact in shape and appearance, and in the range of 50-60 nanometers; only visible at High magnification in the EM. The rest, as they say, is history. This first discovery opened up a new field in botany, biology, anatomy and Ultrastructure which grew exponentially for decades. Suffice to say, many other viruses have been identified and described in EM, and subsequent techniques. In the bigger picture, mankind's understanding of viruses is less than 80 years old. For centuries, humans suffered with the common cold, for which there was no cure, other than treating symptoms. It wasn't until several decades past that it was confirmed the common cold is, in fact, a virus. With the advent of modern genetics exploding in the 1990's and over the last 30 years, man has the arrogance and hubris to behave as if he knows much more than he does. To be brutally honest, we know very little about anything. Declaring Science as knowledge is a common mistake. Science is a way of asking questions, designing experiments to obtain answers to the questions. The scientific method proposes a Hypothesis, and designs experiments to disprove the Hypothesis. Sadly, the vast majority of 'science' follows none of this. Dr Steere was a Past President of the ASCB (American Society of Cell Biology) as was Dr. Robley Williams (his mentor). Their studies in high resolution thin films in electron microscopy opened up worlds of which we have only scratched the surface of.
Thanks for the enlightening post. I get so frustrated with viruses that don't exist, people; they are akin to flat earthers. I do somewhat understand how they think, though; this subject of disease and viruses is a controlled narrative by powerful money centers like pharma and cannot be trusted. The easy way to explain any intensely complicated subject is to doubt its existence.
someone told me long ago that when something is overly complex and complicated, it's very likely wrong and misleading. As a result, whenever I encountered unduly complicated narratives and explanations, I view them with skepticism and doubt. Sure, there may be long ways around the barn. But there is always a direct, simple and shortest path to be found if one seeks it out. Simple and direct is preferred.
That's true only maybe half the time. It took a long time to discover photosynthesis, for example, a complex system we still have more to learn about, it is absolutely not simple yet it's a real system. I could offer many more examples. Generalized statements are usually wrong. Humor.
It's common for people to generalize and summarize and I tend to agree with your point of view on that. Natural processes such as photosynthesis have been described and yield prevailing theories. Sadly, too many choose to consider that a done deal, when in reality, there may be much more to learn and understand. When someone can actually demonstrate a phenomenon, such as photosynthesis, putting together all the ingredient themselves, not relying on nature, I'd consider they understand it well. But such examples are few and far between.
Thank you for your VERY informative post.
Thank you for bringing actual science to the table. The very beginnings of virology, no less!
What science he reference zero studies proving his point?
Has anyone seen the SARS-CoV viruses under EM? Have the pictures been published?
Yes. There are several. Here is a link to a Swiss/German research publication..
https://www.izi-bb.fraunhofer.de/de/mediathek/presse/2023/switchsense-technologie-quantifiziert-virus-affinitaet.html
Thanx for the link. I saved it for when the zombies come out.
Thank you Bill, much appreciated.
The original (alleged) documentation of SARSCOV2 via EM were these:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31978945/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32149036/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2002589117
Pretty much any other reference would use these (with confirmation bias) as reference to claim isolation of SARSCOV2.
The problem is that these seminal works, upon scrutiny, are low quality evidence.
The EM pictures in them can only be used to guess at what the round particles are. There is no way that those images can be construed to serve as conclusive evidence that the circular particles are SARSCOV2 or any other type of virus. One big reason is that, in these, and all such "isolation" studies, comparably "zoomed in" EM images from the control wells were purposefully NOT published for comparison. (We must presume "purposefully" because were it due to neglect then we would have to call into question the qualifications of such "scientists" that don't know to publish data from the control side of the experiment). Meaning that we don't know that the mock infected cell cultures didn't also produce these. And the absence of such images is suspicious, to put it mildly. It could not be by mistake.
And SARSCOV2 is NOT the only "virus" studied that suffers from this same type of ommision.
Thanks. Do you have a link to the picture?
It's there.
https://www.izi-bb.fraunhofer.de/de/mediathek/presse/2023/switchsense-technologie-quantifiziert-virus-affinitaet.html
Thanks for your comment. Do you have a link to the picture?
I'd have to look it up, it's been years. This work predates computers and digital imaging. Everything back then was manually published and one did their own developing of EM exposure films in the darkroom.
Love to see it.
Here's a link to the original paper. 1956
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/2224015/pdf/45.pdf
Thanks - reading now
So this article is good and comes close…. But then veers off completely off track.
I too have done a deep dive on this topic for my paid subscribers, and we both start off with the etymology of viruses meaning poison, but differ.
In my article, I show how the virus myth was born from Dr. John Franklin Enders because they needed to push the “polio” pandemic — and ultimately the polio vaccine in 1955.
The same Covid madness we experienced in 2020, occurred 70 years ago.
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-polio-cover-up-how-a-disease
I then show what WE are experiencing that we’ve mistakenly called “virus” aka “poison.” What we’re seeing is actually “messaging” from one human to another— which helps the species thrive:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience-93c
I still have part 3 to finish up and release, but the takeaway is that:
the idea of viruses as we know them mainstream is wrong and has been propagated to sell pandemic after pandemic 70 years ago.
Open to thoughts and feedback from anyone 😊
Pointless to argue about this. If the disease is catching, and not linked to bacteria or fungi, you might as well call the other agent a foodledoo. Or a virus.
I understand about terrain. But it's not 100% terrain. There are other factors.
Edit: In the old days, they called viruses parasites. I saw it in an old Merck Manual. Maybe we should go back to that... I am tired of the virology wars.
The problem is that expirements have been done to test human-human transmission through exposure to mucus, droplets, blood, etc. And they effectively disproved this as the means of "catching."
Yet, all interventions promoted for preventing the disease are based on this disproven mode of transmission.
Thus the "virology wars".
Hm. So when they say that you catch yellow fever from the fluids in the mosquito, that's bullshit?
Sorry, I meant "host-host transmission through exposure to mucus, droplets, blood, etc" and have edited my reply to reflect that.
However, I am open to looking at possible injected routes of "infection" as well as the methodology that was used to conclude that yellow fever (jaundice, basically - aka liver damage) is caused solely by a virus transmitted from mosquito bites.
You sound like you are strongly convinced that yellow fever is spread in this way. What particular evidence do you find to be so compelling about a virus being the explanation for this particular type of liver damage?
No, not at all. I was just going off what "they" say, and see if you have an alternative explanation. I have not heard of an alternative explanation for measles parties, for example, that makes sense. And I never got such horrible colds as I did when I was teaching little kids in rainy Oregon...
I think some things are catching. If you swim in contaminated water, you might catch a water parasite. If you sleep with syphilitics, you might catch it too. If you drink dirty water, you might catch cholera... if your terrain is strong, it won't do much damage, but if not, it might.
I keep listening to those who say it's 100% terrain but so far their arguments fail to convince.
Viruses are everywhere and keep our ecosystem in homeostasis. Only a tiny percentage are pathogenic. Some people avoid symptoms because of the robustness of their immune response or their unique genetic makeup. Giant viruses can be viewed under a simple microscope.
I mostly agree with this, except the pathogenic part because it does not have good evidence for it - even beyond the common doubts raised about sketchy "isolation" practices.
For example:
Most of the "pathogenic" viruses are statistically more corellated with healthy "hosts" than unhealthy ones, though we have MADE UP different - and unsubstatiated - explanations for this like: asymptomatic, latent infection, dormancy, carriers, etc.
When testing is done on large samples of the population, more instances of "viral" genomes are detected among the non-sick.
Don't believe me? Look up: how many people carry TB? How many were asymptomatic with COVID during the height of the pandemic? How many have HSV?
Most of the hosts in which they are detected are non-sick.
By this, I am not admitting the existence of viruses becasue the problem is that in our modern lexicon, virus = "contagious ILLNESS" in people's minds. The data says otherwise.
They may even be helpful, for all we know. Only a danger to those that are not robust enough up for some adaptation they may bring.
But it's unlikely we will know for a long time until our observational abilities improve exponentially on the nano scale.
If we could even demonstrate their existence and alleged nature of the "submicroscopic viruses" I am confident we would find that they were only playing their part in the larger ecosystem, ultimately helpful, just as all other microbes, flora and fauna are.
I don't know what it means 'viruses are statistically more correlated with healthy hosts'? What is the info source? University College London Study "we identified a specific gene called HLA-DQA2, which was expressed (activated to produce a protein) at a much higher level in the volunteers who did not go on to develop a sustained infection and could hence be used as a marker of protection. " Also, people vary in immune response which determines symptom severity.
You’re absolutely correct, especially when you said this; “has been propagated to sell pandemic after pandemic 70 years ago.”
Isn’t it odd how many people haven’t been vaccinated nor have they been sick? I speak for myself simply because that has been the case my entire life.
The problem we have faced with the “covid-fraud” was manmade for: 1. Money, yes. But money was the main reason. There’s multiple reasons why people lined up and rolled up their sleeves for an unknown, untested and highly flawed, newly mentioned mRNA- Bioweapon. Which was fear of the unknown. The F.U.D principle. Yes fear-uncertainty-doubt worked phenomenally So well that nearly half the world population took at least one shot.
The biggest problem I have always contemplated was, man can create many toxic concoctions. Simply put “Bioweapons.” Which is exactly what was injected into billions worldwide.
Our God given immunity was so well designed, against all naturally occurring germs, our immune system’s remarkably resilient, remembers and protects against any further illness regarding the original germ / infection. Unfortunately our natural immune system’s cannot withstand something manmade and designed against our own God given immune system’s capabilities.
This is the problem we face today. What’s next? What evil-concoction will be deployed next? I’d like to learn about the actual cause of deaths during this “DoD-OWS” Weapons of Mass Destruction attack against humanity! The findings so far as I have learned is nearly 74% of those autopsied bodies were, in part due to the mRNA-Bioweapon, per Dr McCulloughs peer reviewed study.
I’m convinced nobody died of “covid” rather some other immune deficiency or compromising illnesses which were exacerbated by the mRNA, by design IMO.
Dr Francis Boyle (God Rest His Soul) was brilliant IMO! Dr Boyle, point blank called Covid and the mRNA, both Bioweapons. It was Dr Boyle who termed the phrase “Frankenshots.” Dr Boyle also said we were attacked with “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
What’s so disturbing is, these perpetrators got away with this “Mind-Virus” as I have called this. Additionally, the main method of attack was “psychological warfare” tactics. It worked perfectly, now didn’t it? I think so. After all nearly half the world was choose to trust the perpetrators and not their God Given Immunity.
Where do we go from here? IMO, phase two is coming! Something much worse than the “psychological warfare attack” with much higher death-rates, no mRNA NEEDED!
Lastly, the FDA was given the green light to fast track the newly mentioned saRNA! Why? This newly mentioned Bioweapon I believe and from what I have read, is self-replicating and sheds like a shaggy dog in the summer time! Meaning everyone will become infected with whatever concocted chemicals is designed into these bioweapons, whether someone wants it or not! Quite literally this saRNA self replicating bioweapon could, in essence, wipeout humanity as we know it today!
May God Bless America and The Entire World!
AJR
Paywalled.
Without further investigation, I have come your a personal belief that John Leake is a brilliant writer, has a fantastic wry sense of humor and a captivating writing style!!
(This comment has not been approved by the FDA and needs to be ignored unless approved by an Allopathic primary care physician). Lol,
Loved this article😅🙏🏻🚘
Early on in the pandemic I saw some discussion of "viruses don't exist" and started to look into it but that was a deep rabbit hole I chose not to dive into.
Later on, I came down with a case of CV that landed me in the hospital for 12 days, and by the grace of God I made it through. And no, I didn't take the jab. Haven't had any since smallpox as a child 60+ years ago, plus a couple of polio vaccines while in grade school.
So for those so certain that viruses don't exist, how many have actually had and survived the condition that is called Covid?
If so, what caused it? Was it something in Your system? Was it a bioweapon created by GOF researchers? Was it a 5G antenna nearby you? Was it close contact with someone shedding the spike protein? Was it all of the above? Or did it just "happen" without a cause?
Knowing what something isn't, doesn't require one to know what it is.
There are plenty of environmental, electromagnetic, cosmic, and even psychosomatic effects on biology that have barely even begun to be studied.
For instance, systemic and cascading disruption of microbial networks occur during droughts and other environmentally important events that effect an ecosystem could very well have effects on the biology of the flora and fauna that depend on microorganisms in so many ways. Yet we have no idea if any of it. But we have been able to ascertain, for example, at the presence or lack thereof of certain microbes in our own microbiome can have far reaching consequences.
I'm not saying that that's what caused covid. I'm saying that it is hard to overstate just how much we don't know. And with so much unknown, it's hard to understate how much we've *probably* gotten wrong.
I agree John. I find that after listening to quite a few of these virus nihilists that you can spend literal hours hearing them pontificate about the gaps in virology. There is some truth to the gaps, but thereby concluding viruses don't exist is a bridge way too far. And nobody in that camp has ever offered any believable alternative explanation for the obvious transmissibility of the little critters. And poisoning is surely one of those explanations that holds no water.
Their routine reply is the onus is not on them to provide the reason for symptom cause, although often they put forth unlikely reasons.
Believable alternatives...
To the submicroscopic metabolism-less obligated parasites (that we can't actually observe from a direct host sample) theory???
Those do seem to be some pretty big gaps that hinder believability.
Just saying.
Just because one can identify what something ISN'T, doesn't require that one also know exactly what it is.
Also, have you ever read a contagion experiment study?
Do atoms exist? Do black holes exist? Does gravity exist? Does God exist? Does love exist? Do viruses exist? Does time exist? Does life after death exist? Does the soul exist? Did Jesus return to life? Does the Loch ness monster exist? Does big foot exist? Does injecting a baby on the first day of life give immunity from infectious disease, by something called a virus, and if it does how could you ever possibly prove it was the vaccine that prevented that infection? Everything about human life is belief and superstition there are very few facts. I too studied epistemology and concluded 99.99999% of what we think we know is fiction. We live in a world of competing fictions. You pay your money and take your choice. Regarding your example the fact that two people in close proximity get the same symptoms proves nothing about any cause and certainly not that that putative cause is an external thing (Virus) . You might just as well speculate that there is something unique to those two individuals. Or any number of other speculations. In time gone by they might have thought the sickness was the retribution of God for sin - were they wrong? Can you prove they were? Virus is just the modern day word for not knowing. It is safer to stick to time honored best practice and avoid the illusions of truth especially in the medical arena where there is so much fraud and potential for harm. Safer to assume that we have no idea what causes sickness and no idea what contagion is and certainly no idea what effect drugs have on the human body, than pretend that we do. Given all this, the safest thing to do is never inject anything. Better to avoid sex with strangers, stick to you wife, go to church and pray for long a long healthy life and above all protect your health through clean living take no drugs or submit to any dangerous medical procedures. If you do get sick stay with those you love, take rest, eat little and often, sleep as much as you can. avoid stress, pray that your natural good health will cure you.
Greetings David, this is John Leake replying to your comment. On the other hand, a lot of our models for explaining our experiences have significant practical value, even if they don't tell us the entire picture of reality. We don't fully understand gravity or electricity or all kinds of other things, but we operate with a certain mental picture of how these things operate on us and our world to guide our decision-making. Best regards, John Leake
Thanks for your comment John. I do not doubt the heuristic utility of a working model to help us navigate reality in a practical way. We agree. A good example is a map. Nobody thinks that a map is actual reality. It is an abstract representation, more or less accurate, but the utility of a model diminishes the further from mechanical physical reality we stray; when dealing with matters of life, beauty, spirituality, history or politics such mechanistic models are of little use. Nobody proposes and cause and effect theory of history and a jolly good thing too. History is not the object of scientific enquiry. I argue much of medicine is the same. Life and living human tissue is not proper object of science. It is an much more an art than a science. The current theory of disease causation, contagion, immunity and infection stem from the mechanistic models of the enlightenment, and post enlightenment, built upon the positivist ontology of mechanical cause and effect between existent things that can be observed and experimented upon. Biblical exegesis has given way to the scientific theory and the scientific experiment. Knowledge is what can be demonstrated and proven not what is believed on faith. This is what we are told and encouraged to believe. But I argue that such models are not appropriate when applied the essential mysteries of life and death or sickness and health. To assume the existence of a causative agent in infectious disease simply because we believe everything has to have a cause is to assuming what has to be proven. Nobody has ever seen a virus. Nobody has ever proven a virus causes sickness. Nobody has ever defined or described a virus. Are they organic or inorganic? Are they alive or dead? where did they come from? Are there fossils of viruses? Do fish get viral infections? On top of this very wobbly heuristic speculation we are encouraged by government officials, receiving back handers of various sorts, from drug makers, to promote the injection of untested concoctions, whose ingredients are commercial secrets, into babies and pregnant women ( and others) at the very time that we see a huge increase in chronic illnesses that are not found historical records. The recent avalanche of illness and death in close temporal proximity to one particular vaccination adds further weight to the suspicion that these vaccines are doing us harm. Perhaps the time has come to stop thinking we can use science to understand life, death, sickness and health and return to a more cautious approach - especially when we are considering injecting drugs into healthy people. Dr McCullough - one of very few doctors I trust - said that no vaccine should cost even one life and he was absolutely right.
We can't see radio waves, but we hear them. We can't see the herpes virus leave our partner's genitalia and penetrate our cells, but we live with the consequences. If those who think viruses are fiction, (they are not because we can see giant viruses easily, have recordings of viruses infecting bacteria, and lots of other imaging proofs) would they be willing to receive blood transfusions that harbour HIV virus. The proof is in the pudding. If they don't believe in the existence of viruses that blood should be safe in their minds, and they would never develop the symptomatology of AIDS. Or, if a date reveals they have herpes, that should not be a problem, because viral contagion is an illusion. That is not how it plays out in reality. You can argue with reality, but you would be wrong, reality will prove it to you.
Time and space is a very interesting state of mind and interesting is an interesting word for it.
Not bad, I do like your style in writing and breaking down a complex idea 👏
But you did not do your research , the Us army tried every conceivable way to infect healthy people with any possible liquid from sick people with flu.
From sneezing to breathing to injecting their blood
Nothing created the same disease..
Look it up
And besides, even in the beginning of this article you state “when did people start to believe in subatomic particles that can cause disease “
I feel that was incorrectly worded
Right there you talk as if inanimate subatomic particles could feasibly affect a relatively infinitely gigantic organism !! And what’s worse , assume it can affect it to such a degree as to cause disease 👀
The whole field of virology is an ideal logical scam, requires belief in the unseen and how how it operates.
With bacteria you can see and prove every single action .
With virii, it’s impossible to do so
It’s impossible to treat
All you can do is believe in it , pay your money for the diagnostics and medicines that don’t actually treat or cure it
Perpetually
And don’t get me started on the silly a$$ pcr test. 🤡
Read up on viral isolation procedure and compare to Koch postulates and bacterial isolations and have a big fat laugh 😭
Start your journey with Jamie Andrews on substack
Here’s a nibble : https://substack.com/@controlstudies/note/c-119184898?r=p43ib&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
His article says "submicroscopic," not "subatomic," which would be a ridiculous claim. Either you misquoted him or he edited the article. I can't tell which. Either way, I'll cut you or him slack for a slip-up.
But where your logic fails is that you think a small particle can't affect a large organism. You are failing to account for replication. Before long, that small particle becomes many.
It was subatomic, but at least it’s fixed now 🤷♂️
And I didn’t miss replication , it was actually my whole point…
Something that is not even technically “alive” that needs an electron microscope to be “seen” can somehow magically invade enough cells and replicate in the 100’s of trillions so that it can affect an organism that weighs in the 10’s of kg
Is just silly
Bacterium is alive , usually replicates by fissure or budding - requires conditions and substrates
But this silly little dna fragment , can ride aerosols , remain active for ever and operate like magic
Even kill a person , after supposedly replicating so much it could affect the bigger organism - but even then no tissue will ever show a virus under a microscope
Oh no , that magic requires an electron microscope that can’t even catch frikking moving video lolz
Or an even sillier pcr test that it’s whole reason for being is amplifying fragments that otherwise would be considered almost none existent 🤡
AMEN 🙏 I'm sharing and resharing this with the Yeadonites... Yeadon had the nerve to come to my post and try to belittle me... This is wonderful... thank you thank you thank you
I am so disappointed in Michael Yeadon's position. He seems like a sincere person who truly wants to help. He is a retired scientist, I think for Pfizer actually, and I don't understand how he is unconvinced despite all the evidence of contagion, and recordings of viruses infecting bacteria.
He was VP in Pfizer and he's still alive with saying what he's saying... I've found that paid shills are trying their best to divide us all up over ridiculous notions.. I believe Yeadon may well be a paid shill ...
He was VP in Pfizer and he's still alive with saying what he's saying... I've found that paid shills are trying their best to divide us all up over ridiculous notions.. I believe Yeadon may well be a paid shill ...
Don't know, or he has been brainwashed too.
Yeadon, no... he attacked me on multiple fronts all in jibberish from all angles.. up to that point I thought of him as an honorable person but slightly skeptical of his tenure and position at pfizer... but didn't give it a second thought.... posted alot of his stuff... now, I avoid him like remdesivir
Your piece began with such promise, but it soon became clear that you had opted for the easy way out by avoiding the real question: can it be proven that viruses exist? That is a very different question from can it be proven viruses do not exist. You chose to point out only the obvious: that the impossible is in fact impossible. No serious person believes it can be proven that there are no viruses because, of course, it is impossible to prove something does not exist. You cleverly chose a soft target; like walking directly up to the target of your choosing, firing point blank at the bullseye and claiming you are an expert marksman.
Absent clear and compelling evidence that viruses exist, who can blame someone for believing they do not exist? If something has not clearly and definitively been shown to exist, some skepticism can surely be excused. “We cannot show them to you. We do not know the exact mechanism by which we believe they cause or transmit disease from one entity to another. They do not always transmit disease from one diseased entity to another. But trust us, they exist and they are the cause of disease and transmission among organisms.”
Admittedly, some may mischaracterize skepticism of viral existence by stating definitively that they do not exist, but pointing out such a mistake, however cleverly, earns no prize.
The true test is to prove that viruses do exist. That is a very much different, and the more important and worthwhile challenge. Claiming that someone or something contracts a similar disease after having been in contact with another suffering the same condition may be a keen observation worthy of investigation, but it in no way proves the existence of a virus much less demonstrate that a virus was the source of transmission of the disease from one to another. They may be interesting even seemingly logical hypotheses, but it most certainly is not proof of either. Without compelling proof of the existence of viruses and definitive evidence that they are the mechanism of disease transmission, you might equally well hypothesize that it was magic which caused the husband to contract herpes. If a man disappears in the woods does it prove the existence of Sasquatch, or that Sasquatch was the cause of the man’s disappearance? There are occasional blurry photos and videos of some wild looking beast roaming the forest, sometimes even seeming unexplained footprints in the ground, but no one has ever captured a Sasquatch or shown definitive evidence of its existence. Does one exist? You would be justified being skeptical of its existence, but you could not prove definitively that it does not exist. Importantly, you also would not be justified arguing that because there exists some uncertain indication of the existence of Sasquatch, that it in fact exists and moreover that it was the cause of the man’s disappearance.
It is a simple matter to suggest that something might exist, which alone disproves any definitive claim that it can be proven not to exist. All that must be done to put the wife’s belief to the test is point out that viruses might exist and confront her with dire consequences if she is wrong. But showing that something might exist is far different from showing that it does exist or that it must exist. To do that requires proof, which is a much taller mountain to climb. You have not even reached the foothills. Sasquatch might exist. There are occasional fuzzy pictures and even personal testimonies. But as far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence that it does exist. Is there conclusive evidence that viruses exist? If they in fact do exist, is there conclusive evidence they are the cause of disease and are also the cause of disease transmission of disease? Fair warning: lining up a bunch of “experts” to opine that they exist does not constitute proof. As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Don't fool yourself by placing too much faith in the findings of experts.” Real proof is irrefutable and conclusive evidence; absent that, anything is just conjecture, or hypothesis, to be more genteel.
Your writing is typically excellent. This one, not so much.
John, thanks for your kind and patient introduction to viruses. I remember well when early in the Pandemic (which certainly deserved close inspection of its assumptions) a certain psychiatrist decided to question the existence of viruses. At the time I didn't think to question his lack of professional background in physical medical science. He might have made a valuable contribution to observations of Mass Psychosis, a non-physical example of a contagious mental-emotional condition, but I never saw him offer up anything in his own lane.
The actions of a certain eastern country sending sick and infected participants from world wide military games to all corners of the earth to spread a pathogen that they knew originated in their own virology lab due to sick and dead scientists surely showed their strong belief--but not only a belief pattern but borne of actual viruses they were studying and monkeying with. Viruses which have since been shown to have man made alterations such as a furin cleavage site and led to grave damage to many bodily systems from cellular invasion of modified spike protein.
I begin to wonder if someone is culturing this belief system to grab our attention when, again, there are other much more important things to concern ourselves with, such as Jab-ology.
Existence is intentionally the wrong question. Of course small particles exist. Call them a virus if you want. They've been imaged. Existence is not debatable any more than the desk in the room is debatable. The real question is whether they cause illness. When the proponents of viral contagion speak of "seasonal flu", it couldn't possibly be more crystal clear that this is nonsense. How do these tiny particles know when it's time to make us sick? Do they have a calendar? No. What you have is a business model that justifies selling us an endless river of seasonal injections. Oh, and just for the record, we've been doing this for 80 years and we still have the flu. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the theory either.
A study on guinea pigs at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine showed that the transmission of influenza is enhanced in cold, dry conditions and declines as temperature and humidity rise.
And it could also be due to low vitamin D levels in the winter when our sun exposure is low.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but many jabs do seem to be harmful.
And some (many?) so-called vaccines appear to have been introduced as the so-called virus was dying out.
Rather than watch, read, or listen to disparate arguments presented by different sides, I would enjoy a civil discussion & debate on the topic.
Try...ALL.
Fine by me, if that’s the case. I’ve never cared where the chips fall on any topic. I simply prefer honesty, decency, and the truth.
This is a long needed corrective but doesn’t go far enough. It only argues for a definition of a virus as a sub-bacterial pathogen. It doesn’t show the evidence of why it’s an obligate parasite. Let alone any direct observation of the virus or more detailed inference. More please!
RIGHT!!!! ANSWER TO MY PRAYERS!! NO LIE... MY PRAYERS!!
A basic principal to apply is this. 'The one making a claim must provide the evidence to support that claim, OR the claim fails'.
In the mid 1980's the claim was made that a 'virus' termed as HIV was the causative agent that led to an illness condition called AIDS. I started looking for the evidence to be presented and am still looking for clear evidence that an all enveloping 'Virus' is as proven as it may ever be to either attack or seriously disrupt the whole Human Immune system. For one point, the so called Human Immune system is I believe a very complex integrated multi-facet collective system such that one single causative agent is unlikely to ever be able to disable it completely to the point of death. And the so called test which simply claimed to measure 'immune' function by T cell count or so called 'Antibody activity' which responds to many other influences ie, pregnancy, infections of many sort, medications etc., cannot be generalized to a specific agent without clear evidence of the agents existence AND effects.
When simply suggesting that entities referred to as a 'virus' may in reality not exist at all the immediate response I get is a demand for me to prove they do not exist. WRONG response, TOTALLY WRONG. It is not for me to provide evidence of n on-existence of any 'Virus', the equivalence of proving a zero which took thousands of years in mathematics.
Those who make the CLAIM that something they call a 'Virus' does exist, AND, is the actual 'Causative Agent' in a disease condition, MUST PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE to support their claim.
To be clear, the absence of evidence does not automatically invalid any claim in favor of viruses as agents of disease, it simply puts the debate where is should be and the obligation on those making such as claim of existence and causality to provide better evidence than hither to presented. Some 40 years I am still waiting for the evidence, convincing evidence.
Poor article. Yes bacteria exist. Still no proof on viruses. None. Your analogies and stories ain't proof. No isolated viruses. No proof of causation. Vapid "argument". Hot air.
It appears Dr. Yeadon has many fake accounts... I wouldn't of believed there to be this many Yeadonites.
Tobacco mosaic disease & corresponding virus history of which is outlined in one of the comments to this article.
At the height of the Spanish flu comes this article to JAMA in 1919
Jour A.M.A Vol 73, Num 5, Aug 2, 1919
Give it a read - something fishy going on with our understanding of 'viruses'
Ethics of experimentation aside, I don't know what to make of it!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZhuEYT6tC3KgTbeLXdJB0ybD8gFSNEcC/view?usp=sharing
I was exposed to Covid, allegedly, when my wife had some mild fluish nothing for three weeks, which the doctor said was Covid, based on their tests.
I was also in large hospitals and nursing homes that were allegedly hot with Covid. I never got it.
I was tested sometime later while I was having an annual physical to see if I had any ‘Covid antibodies.’ Perhaps I was one of those ‘asymptomatic’ Covid victims. Didn’t have any of those either. 😜
Yah, yah, yah. Put on your mask. Step back six feet. And do not go out to eat or see a movie. Forget religious services. The singing, the singing. (The horror.) And for heaven's sake do not go sit on the beach in Malibu. You asymptomatic characters are the real danger to us all. I have no idea how I even survived with folks like you running around loose in the world. There were little old ladies, screaming and carrying on in greenbelts in Thousand Oaks, who knew you were up to no good. (I should never have screamed back at them. Where were my manners? They were unappreciated prophets.)