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.
I am here to add to the conversation by bringing down the fallacy of this invented false dilemma that the OP and many here support: “Either you support this hypothesis, or you must provide a better one."
I don't have a complete alternative explanation. My understanding as of the moment is this: the currently accepted theory features enormous gaps and there exists evidence that contradicts.
This means that the theory is incorrect or that our observational powers are too limited.
Rejecting one explanation does not require replacing it with another. Sometimes the correct answer is: “We don’t know yet.”
And this shifting of the burden of proof: “Unless you explain it better, I get to keep my hypothesis” is not how evidence-based reasoning works. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim (i.e. "viruses that are physically spread to virus-naive persons are the causes of certain diseases"). Not with the person who shows how data disprove it.
B.
As for alternatives that I am personally open to: Personally, I have seen amazing things happen in the realms of what some call energy medicine and homeopathy in terms of both pathology and healing --- but no one wants to accepts anecdotes even when they number into the thousands and are documented (many positive studies on homepathy even though we really have no clue how it could possible help) and its also hard for people to believe in something when they can't understand the mechanism and when it is beyond the reach of something akin to an randomized controlled trial because of the individualized nature of it.
Look up homeopathy and how its "medicines" are prepared. Because if homeopathy WORKS, why wouldn't the same forces apply in the negative aka producing pathology? For me, this alone turns everything on its head.
The thing is that a lot of things don't make sense all the way up until they do.
C.
I also use to work in a school district but in the desert, and I was always amazed at how many teachers seemed bulletproof in terms of colds and flus, hardly ever getting them. Sounds like some terrain - and coupled with your observations - it sounds like some environment.
D.
I also think the microbial world is a vast, complex mystery to us. We depend on it for life in many, many ways and yet have no idea how it works (or works together) for us or how harms to it may harm us. But all of them are playing some role in the betterment of the environment, yet some may not be beneficial for your intestinal tract or other inner parts of a human. For examples, some of them are only one part of the process in breaking down some type of matter and they make really toxic byproducts that could be picked up by other organisms before the recycling of molecules is complete. You don't want to be ingesting some media in which they operate while that happens, no matter your terrain.
E.
This are only a few observations and they may indeed be one day found to have several explanations, not just one.
But my point is: we don't know the cause. And we might not for hundreds of years.
Some observations are solid from the data we have: Don't drink dirty water. Don't sleep with sick people. Parasites are observable with a microscope and can be found in vivo. Wash yucky stuff of your hands before you eat.
But claiming the hypothesis of viral contagion is the only way to explain the data is false.
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!
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.
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.
COVID 19 is the 'flu rebranded which is why 'flu almost disappeared form the statistics to be replaced by COVID 19. Rebranding is standard business practice when sales are falling.
As to the 'flu, this is a toxic poisioning caused by many things, including those mentioned by Jeremy Michael to you.
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.
I have always maintained that the understanding of viruses is a case of mistaken identity, they are cellular waste, the result of metabolism, hence found in the healthy and diseased.
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
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.
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.
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 say viruses exist but they are misunderstood as they are if anything cellular debris, the breakdown of cells as part of ongoing metabolism in the healthy and diseased alike.
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!
Maybe it would be useful to think about 'viruses' in the context of Covid specifically. I think the conclusion reached by many experts that there was no pandemic of an alleged disease called 'Covid' is correct. This conclusion is based on known principles of infectious disease epidemiology, and statistical analysis. The appearance of a pandemic was created by the media, on the basis of public health phenomena caused partly by seasonal influenza and mostly by government measures including the so-called 'vaccine'. The concept of a 'virus' is irrelevant to understanding Covid.
It is relevant, they rebranded the 'flu and the 'flu is toxic poisoning.
Your name Rita Skeeter ought to be a dead give away to people.
"a British witch and journalist who specialised in writing poison-pen stories. These stories tended to be based on false information and misreported interviews."
I don't think what Baric made in a lab or what allegedly occurred at Wuhan could have caused a global pandemic. But further to the point, I think most if not all of the actual morbidity and mortality can be attributed to seasonal influenza (which supposedly 'disappeared' during Covid) and the adverse health effects of the lockdowns, the masking, and especially the highly toxic vaccines.
Compelling argument in favour of the existence of virus, John Leake. Without question, something causes disease, as in your example of Herpes passed from person to person...incontrovertible evidence of disease transmission...why not call it a virus? Makes perfect sense to me. It also makes perfect sense to NEVER cheat on one's spouse...and obey God's laws, judgements, commandments, precepts, ordinances, etc. An interesting side note...prion is a protein...not alive, not dead...causes disease...and is implicated in Covid "vaccine" health repercussions. Prion causes other human proteins to misfold, and a further chain reaction, causing further disease. I wonder what the difference is between prion and virus.
Prions are misfolded proteins and self-replicate, generally smaller than a virus. A virus is a protein envelope containing RNA or DNA and needs to penetrate a cell and hijack the machinery to replicate.
Thank you Rita Skeeter...I am going to chew on this for a while...and hope for an epiphany leading to a solution. Fascinating problem to solve...how to prevent disease by prion protein or virus. It is apparent that Pfizer has not got it right...possibly on purpose, on consideration of the evidence. Thanks again for helping out Rita. God bless you.
Most healthy people cruise through viral infections and then develop long lasting immunity. The problem with covid is that it has been manipulated making it a conveyor of toxic spike proteins that can wreak long term havoc in the body. Prion disease is deadly, can be genetic, or acquired from infected meat or at medical facilities.
2 people that together shared the same space for a period time, no matter the level of physical contact, and then are affected by the same symptoms...
Is absolutley not "incontrovertible evidence of disease transmission"...
This can and does happen due to many causes that are not "viruses."
Also, all of scientific papers published where viruses have been claimed to be isolated and identified LACK THE DATA ABOUT THE NEGATIVE CONTROLS, especially the EM imagery.
In plain terms, they don't show the electron microscopy images of the little dishes of the "mock-infected" cell cultures. None of them do this, although this is the primary data needed to establish that those particles don't appear in the absence of of the mixture that allegedly "contains the virus."
Either the scientists that perform these experiments are irredeemably incompetent or they are hiding something. It is unlikely they are incompetent.
Jeremy...I hope you are not saying that diseases are not transmissible...try telling that to some careless person who foolishly has shared intimate contact with diseased others using needles, sex, or confined space who was previously healthy...and then contracted some form of venereal disease like syphilis or herpes, or a respiratory illness that kills...I think they would like to tell you that disease does spread...the evidence IS INCONTROVERTIBLE. Whether it is called a "virus", a "bacteria", or whatever matters not so much as the FACT that disease can be spread from one person to another through intimate contact. I really do not understand your point Jeremy.
I am pointing out the FACT that NONE of diseases that we most commonly worry about have been demonstrated to be host-host contagious by physical media (mucus, saliva, intimate or light contact) in any published scientific experiment.
The experiments have been done. But they were not able to demonstrate the hypothesis. When this happens in science, we usually take it to mean the hypothesis is false. We don't continue to believe in it with blind faith.
The only conclusion that I can see as valid is that we don't yet have the observational powers to figure out how it appears that diseases spread. But it is highly unlikely that the particles that are widely accepted as the cuprits are actually so.
First because, especially for viruses, there is no way to make that determination with the papers that are published because the negative controls are (purposefully) excluded and second--which is even more damning-- that many, many of the so called infectious diseases are MORE OFTEN detected in people that are asymptomatic, aka NOT SICK, but healthy.
This second problem is also found for MANY bacteria. For example, here's your example, SYPHILIS. The first thing the World Health Organization claims about it is that "MOST "infections" are asymptomatic or unrecognized", meaning they AREN'T SICK.
This means that the "Syphilis bacteria", as the cause of the group of systems that we label Syphilis, fails Koch's Postulates or any other proposed and accepted criteria for establishing that a microbe is the cause of a disease. This is also even MORE true for Herpes which is detected in 13% of the world's population (and given that on average humans kiss or have intimacy with more than 4 partners per lifetime and have now for at least 2 generations (pretty much all generations born post-WW2), we should mostly all have it by it now) yet most people are NOT SICK with the symptoms.
HERPES
- An estimated 3.8 billion people under age 50 (64%) globally have herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) infection, the main cause of oral herpes.
- An estimated 520 million people aged 15–49 (13%) worldwide have herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection, the main cause of genital herpes. (FAILS KOCH'S Postulates)
Bottom line: It's an unscientific explanation. And we are being gaslit to believe the "experts" have the answers when THEY DO NOT.
Sorry to burst peoples' bubbles.
If you'd like to debate the merits of my statements, I'm all for it. Just please point out what evidence you are aware of that contradicts one. We can go from there.
But blanket statements that imply that all so-called infectious diseases are host-host transmissable is false. I am happy to consider a specific disease where that seems to be the case. But MOST of the "infectious diseases" lack evidence for host-host transmissability and in the case of viruses, even lack the evidence that can establish identification of the causitive agent since no negative controls are published.
To be clear, I am only pointing out that the data shows their hypothesis has failed. I do not claim, nor am I under any obligation to claim, to know the true explanation for these phenomena.
Thank you very much for clarifying your comments Jeremy. It appears that you and I are in substantial agreement. I have read a fair portion of the paper you offered...and found they were able, in their experiments, to innoculate humans with syphilis...as sick as that may be. I do agree that the "science " these days is as much a fraud as can be tolerated, and that wide-spread propaganda is indeed being utilized to scare people into accepting the poisons offered...many of which actually do cause the disease they purport to prevent...like "measles" for a current example. You and I agree obviously, that we are not being told the truth by these "experts"...and caution is advised every time they make a claim. Thanks for the extra reading material.
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.
It's there.
https://www.izi-bb.fraunhofer.de/de/mediathek/presse/2023/switchsense-technologie-quantifiziert-virus-affinitaet.html
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.
Here's a link to the original paper. 1956
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/2224015/pdf/45.pdf
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.
Several points.
A.
I am here to add to the conversation by bringing down the fallacy of this invented false dilemma that the OP and many here support: “Either you support this hypothesis, or you must provide a better one."
I don't have a complete alternative explanation. My understanding as of the moment is this: the currently accepted theory features enormous gaps and there exists evidence that contradicts.
This means that the theory is incorrect or that our observational powers are too limited.
Rejecting one explanation does not require replacing it with another. Sometimes the correct answer is: “We don’t know yet.”
And this shifting of the burden of proof: “Unless you explain it better, I get to keep my hypothesis” is not how evidence-based reasoning works. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim (i.e. "viruses that are physically spread to virus-naive persons are the causes of certain diseases"). Not with the person who shows how data disprove it.
B.
As for alternatives that I am personally open to: Personally, I have seen amazing things happen in the realms of what some call energy medicine and homeopathy in terms of both pathology and healing --- but no one wants to accepts anecdotes even when they number into the thousands and are documented (many positive studies on homepathy even though we really have no clue how it could possible help) and its also hard for people to believe in something when they can't understand the mechanism and when it is beyond the reach of something akin to an randomized controlled trial because of the individualized nature of it.
Look up homeopathy and how its "medicines" are prepared. Because if homeopathy WORKS, why wouldn't the same forces apply in the negative aka producing pathology? For me, this alone turns everything on its head.
The thing is that a lot of things don't make sense all the way up until they do.
C.
I also use to work in a school district but in the desert, and I was always amazed at how many teachers seemed bulletproof in terms of colds and flus, hardly ever getting them. Sounds like some terrain - and coupled with your observations - it sounds like some environment.
D.
I also think the microbial world is a vast, complex mystery to us. We depend on it for life in many, many ways and yet have no idea how it works (or works together) for us or how harms to it may harm us. But all of them are playing some role in the betterment of the environment, yet some may not be beneficial for your intestinal tract or other inner parts of a human. For examples, some of them are only one part of the process in breaking down some type of matter and they make really toxic byproducts that could be picked up by other organisms before the recycling of molecules is complete. You don't want to be ingesting some media in which they operate while that happens, no matter your terrain.
E.
This are only a few observations and they may indeed be one day found to have several explanations, not just one.
But my point is: we don't know the cause. And we might not for hundreds of years.
Some observations are solid from the data we have: Don't drink dirty water. Don't sleep with sick people. Parasites are observable with a microscope and can be found in vivo. Wash yucky stuff of your hands before you eat.
But claiming the hypothesis of viral contagion is the only way to explain the data is false.
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
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.
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.
COVID 19 is the 'flu rebranded which is why 'flu almost disappeared form the statistics to be replaced by COVID 19. Rebranding is standard business practice when sales are falling.
As to the 'flu, this is a toxic poisioning caused by many things, including those mentioned by Jeremy Michael to you.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/what-is-the-flu-aka-covid-19-and
As to viruses I say there is something, just not as the mainstream tells us.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/coronavirus-is-it-really-a-monster?utm_source=publication-search
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.
I have always maintained that the understanding of viruses is a case of mistaken identity, they are cellular waste, the result of metabolism, hence found in the healthy and diseased.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/coronavirus-is-it-really-a-monster?utm_source=publication-search
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I say viruses exist but they are misunderstood as they are if anything cellular debris, the breakdown of cells as part of ongoing metabolism in the healthy and diseased alike.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/coronavirus-is-it-really-a-monster?utm_source=publication-search
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!!
Maybe it would be useful to think about 'viruses' in the context of Covid specifically. I think the conclusion reached by many experts that there was no pandemic of an alleged disease called 'Covid' is correct. This conclusion is based on known principles of infectious disease epidemiology, and statistical analysis. The appearance of a pandemic was created by the media, on the basis of public health phenomena caused partly by seasonal influenza and mostly by government measures including the so-called 'vaccine'. The concept of a 'virus' is irrelevant to understanding Covid.
It is not irrelevant. The virus SarsCoV1 was manipulated by Ralph Baric to make SarsCoV2. Read Jim Haslam's very thorough investigation.
It is relevant, they rebranded the 'flu and the 'flu is toxic poisoning.
Your name Rita Skeeter ought to be a dead give away to people.
"a British witch and journalist who specialised in writing poison-pen stories. These stories tended to be based on false information and misreported interviews."
From
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Rita_Skeeter
I don't think what Baric made in a lab or what allegedly occurred at Wuhan could have caused a global pandemic. But further to the point, I think most if not all of the actual morbidity and mortality can be attributed to seasonal influenza (which supposedly 'disappeared' during Covid) and the adverse health effects of the lockdowns, the masking, and especially the highly toxic vaccines.
Spike protein is showing up in the infected and vaccinated though. Influenza doesn't have spike protein.
Spike protein is showing up in the infected and vaccinated though. Influenza doesn't have spike protein.
Spike protein is showing up in the infected and vaccinated though. Influenza doesn't have spike protein.
Spike protein is showing up in the infected and vaccinated though. Influenza doesn't have spike protein.
Spike protein is showing up in the infected and vaccinated though. Influenza doesn't have spike protein.
Compelling argument in favour of the existence of virus, John Leake. Without question, something causes disease, as in your example of Herpes passed from person to person...incontrovertible evidence of disease transmission...why not call it a virus? Makes perfect sense to me. It also makes perfect sense to NEVER cheat on one's spouse...and obey God's laws, judgements, commandments, precepts, ordinances, etc. An interesting side note...prion is a protein...not alive, not dead...causes disease...and is implicated in Covid "vaccine" health repercussions. Prion causes other human proteins to misfold, and a further chain reaction, causing further disease. I wonder what the difference is between prion and virus.
Prions are misfolded proteins and self-replicate, generally smaller than a virus. A virus is a protein envelope containing RNA or DNA and needs to penetrate a cell and hijack the machinery to replicate.
Thank you Rita Skeeter...I am going to chew on this for a while...and hope for an epiphany leading to a solution. Fascinating problem to solve...how to prevent disease by prion protein or virus. It is apparent that Pfizer has not got it right...possibly on purpose, on consideration of the evidence. Thanks again for helping out Rita. God bless you.
Most healthy people cruise through viral infections and then develop long lasting immunity. The problem with covid is that it has been manipulated making it a conveyor of toxic spike proteins that can wreak long term havoc in the body. Prion disease is deadly, can be genetic, or acquired from infected meat or at medical facilities.
2 people that together shared the same space for a period time, no matter the level of physical contact, and then are affected by the same symptoms...
Is absolutley not "incontrovertible evidence of disease transmission"...
This can and does happen due to many causes that are not "viruses."
Also, all of scientific papers published where viruses have been claimed to be isolated and identified LACK THE DATA ABOUT THE NEGATIVE CONTROLS, especially the EM imagery.
In plain terms, they don't show the electron microscopy images of the little dishes of the "mock-infected" cell cultures. None of them do this, although this is the primary data needed to establish that those particles don't appear in the absence of of the mixture that allegedly "contains the virus."
Either the scientists that perform these experiments are irredeemably incompetent or they are hiding something. It is unlikely they are incompetent.
Jeremy...I hope you are not saying that diseases are not transmissible...try telling that to some careless person who foolishly has shared intimate contact with diseased others using needles, sex, or confined space who was previously healthy...and then contracted some form of venereal disease like syphilis or herpes, or a respiratory illness that kills...I think they would like to tell you that disease does spread...the evidence IS INCONTROVERTIBLE. Whether it is called a "virus", a "bacteria", or whatever matters not so much as the FACT that disease can be spread from one person to another through intimate contact. I really do not understand your point Jeremy.
I don't rule out ANY disease being transmissable.
I am pointing out the FACT that NONE of diseases that we most commonly worry about have been demonstrated to be host-host contagious by physical media (mucus, saliva, intimate or light contact) in any published scientific experiment.
The experiments have been done. But they were not able to demonstrate the hypothesis. When this happens in science, we usually take it to mean the hypothesis is false. We don't continue to believe in it with blind faith.
The only conclusion that I can see as valid is that we don't yet have the observational powers to figure out how it appears that diseases spread. But it is highly unlikely that the particles that are widely accepted as the cuprits are actually so.
First because, especially for viruses, there is no way to make that determination with the papers that are published because the negative controls are (purposefully) excluded and second--which is even more damning-- that many, many of the so called infectious diseases are MORE OFTEN detected in people that are asymptomatic, aka NOT SICK, but healthy.
This second problem is also found for MANY bacteria. For example, here's your example, SYPHILIS. The first thing the World Health Organization claims about it is that "MOST "infections" are asymptomatic or unrecognized", meaning they AREN'T SICK.
This means that the "Syphilis bacteria", as the cause of the group of systems that we label Syphilis, fails Koch's Postulates or any other proposed and accepted criteria for establishing that a microbe is the cause of a disease. This is also even MORE true for Herpes which is detected in 13% of the world's population (and given that on average humans kiss or have intimacy with more than 4 partners per lifetime and have now for at least 2 generations (pretty much all generations born post-WW2), we should mostly all have it by it now) yet most people are NOT SICK with the symptoms.
HERPES
- An estimated 3.8 billion people under age 50 (64%) globally have herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) infection, the main cause of oral herpes.
- An estimated 520 million people aged 15–49 (13%) worldwide have herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection, the main cause of genital herpes. (FAILS KOCH'S Postulates)
Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/herpes-simplex-virus
SYPHILIS
- Most infections are asymptomatic or unrecognized. (FAILS KOCH'S POSTULATES)
- WHO estimates that 8 million adults between 15 and 49 years old acquired syphilis in 2022. (If 8 million adults sleep with on average 4 partners,
- Key populations such as gay men and other men who have sex with men are disproportionately affected. (VERY SUSPECT)
Source: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/syphilis
Bottom line: It's an unscientific explanation. And we are being gaslit to believe the "experts" have the answers when THEY DO NOT.
Sorry to burst peoples' bubbles.
If you'd like to debate the merits of my statements, I'm all for it. Just please point out what evidence you are aware of that contradicts one. We can go from there.
But blanket statements that imply that all so-called infectious diseases are host-host transmissable is false. I am happy to consider a specific disease where that seems to be the case. But MOST of the "infectious diseases" lack evidence for host-host transmissability and in the case of viruses, even lack the evidence that can establish identification of the causitive agent since no negative controls are published.
To be clear, I am only pointing out that the data shows their hypothesis has failed. I do not claim, nor am I under any obligation to claim, to know the true explanation for these phenomena.
Thank you very much for clarifying your comments Jeremy. It appears that you and I are in substantial agreement. I have read a fair portion of the paper you offered...and found they were able, in their experiments, to innoculate humans with syphilis...as sick as that may be. I do agree that the "science " these days is as much a fraud as can be tolerated, and that wide-spread propaganda is indeed being utilized to scare people into accepting the poisons offered...many of which actually do cause the disease they purport to prevent...like "measles" for a current example. You and I agree obviously, that we are not being told the truth by these "experts"...and caution is advised every time they make a claim. Thanks for the extra reading material.
I did a little digging for experiments that tried to prove the transmissability of syphilis and found this paper that explains their failures:
INOCULATION SYPHILIS IN HUMAN VOLUNTEERS
https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/citation/1956/02000/inoculation_syphilis_in_human_volunteers.2.aspx
Look for "download" as it is only available in PDF form.
From my research, there hasn't been any more "success" than what is published in that paper.
Great essay on the epistemological hurdles, John.