Read this in: Nederlands
Our book, The Contagion Myth, is now available (banned on Amazon but sold on other outlets) and has already generated dozens of comments, many of them challenging our contention that the corona “virus” does not exist and that the illness attributed to this virus is not contagious. One comment even referred to our book as a fairy tale!
Unlike most coronavirus skeptics, we are not arguing that the illness is just a bad case of the flu, with deaths due solely to pre-existing conditions or inappropriate hospital care. Rather, we postulate that the illness can be very serious and that the likely cause is radiation poisoning, probably from the worldwide deployment of 5G, starting in Wuhan, China, and followed by major cities throughout the world.
Comments we have received include the following:
- Okinawa does not have 5G but people are getting infected there. (Actually there is 5G in Okinawa.)
- Some friends went to a wedding in Kirkland, Washington, and got Covid, so it must be infectious.
- There’s 5G in New Zealand but very few cases of illness.
- A school in our neighborhood has opened for in-person classes and there has been an outbreak—two people have tested positive.
- A lot of people “got the virus” after a big no-mask motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota.
- What about rabbits getting myxomatosis, a known viral disease?
With the exception of the rabbit comment (see sidebar, page 20-21), these observations are just that—epidemiological observations. They are certainly interesting and deserve further exploration, but in no way do they disprove our main contentions that this virus does not exist and that the illness attributed to it is not contagious.
NO PURIFIED SAMPLES
Why take our word for the shocking claim that no scientist has found the so-called coronavirus? Of course, you shouldn’t take our word for it; you should listen to what the experts are saying. In July 2020, the FDA posted a CDC document entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. For Emergency Use Only. Instructions for Use.”1 Buried in the text, on page thirty-nine, is the following statement: “[N]o quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available.”
In other words, our government is telling us in July 2020—after plunging millions of people into poverty with a worldwide lockdown—that no purified isolated samples of this “novel coronavirus” exist, which means that the virus has never been isolated and purified. What they are finding in the RT-PCR swab tests are fragments of genetic material, one of which is found in human DNA.2 This means that the results of all RT-PCR tests are invalid—the only thing they can tell us is that we are human beings.
A January, 2020 paper on testing tells us the same thing: “The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable” [emphasis added].3 Nevertheless, even without knowing what this virus is like, the researchers’ aim was “to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” A challenge indeed!
Here is an analogy to describe what is going on. Let’s say you are a paid Lego specialist and someone offers a reward to construct an exact replica of King Beauregard’s medieval castle. The referees put all the known Lego pieces out on a table and promise to pay you well to do the reconstruction. Naturally, you ask to see a picture of what the castle looked like or at least some sort of architectural plan so that you will know what to build. But the referees say that you must reconstruct the castle without having access to any information about the original castle.
You think this is downright bizarre, but since a job is a job, you start looking. You find pieces for a moat; you know that castles have moats and think that this must be part of the castle. Then you find windows, turrets, soldiers, etc.—and with each new finding, you are given a castle-building Lego award and an increase in salary.
You write some software that fills in the rest of the castle from the fragments you have. Then you publish a peer-reviewed paper on the “completed” castle for all the world to see.
Unfortunately, a child appears who looks like he has time-traveled from the Middle Ages. You show him the castle. “Everybody knows that Beauregard didn’t have a castle,” he says. “Beauregard was an impoverished aristocrat who was afraid of moats; he lived in a garret in London.” But the show must go on, so the child’s remarks are never published, while the Lego expert (who knows the child is right) keeps quiet and enjoys his hefty salary.
PROOF OF PATHOGENIC VIRUSES?
A number of readers have sent us studies “proving” the existence of pathogenic viruses. In fact, one virologist claimed that “thousands of papers” show that isolated bacteria or viruses cause disease. (He also tried to convince us that one could sterilize one’s hands, cover them, and they would remain sterile “indefinitely.”)
One of these studies, published in 2003 in the prestigious journal Nature, had the promising title “Koch’s Postulates Fulfilled for SARS Virus.”4 We discuss this study in The Contagion Myth. The researchers claimed that severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a coronavirus. The title itself is misleading, not to say fraudulent, because the researchers did not in fact satisfy Koch’s postulates—which is the common-sense way of proving that a microbe causes disease. They did not satisfy Rivers’ postulates either—Rivers’ postulates are for proving that a virus causes a disease (see sidebar, page 18). These methods involve isolating and purifying a specific microbial organism from a number of individuals suffering from a specific disease and then injecting the isolated, purified bacteria or virus into healthy organisms (animal or human). If every sick person has the organism and every test subject becomes ill, then you know that the specific microbe causes the specific disease.
Let’s focus on the process of isolating and purifying a virus—it’s hard to do but not impossible. In 1973, the Pasteur Institute published guidelines for doing this.5
- First. the virologist takes mucus or secretions from a person with the disease.
- The secretions are diluted and then put into a kind of blender.
- The resultant liquid is then passed through a very fine filter—fine enough to keep out bacteria and fungi but let the viruses through; sometimes researchers do this separation with a centrifuge. The resulting liquid, called a supernatant, contains the virus but lots of other stuff as well.
- The supernatant must then be ultracentrifuged in such a way as to get bands of particles of the same size and weight. The scientist can determine which band is the virus using the known size and weight of viruses.
- This band is removed from the supernatant with a pipette. This is the properly isolated and purified virus.
- The virus is then transferred to some tissue to grow and multiply.
An important point is that when the virologist has finished the purification process of macerating, filtering and ultracentrifugation, he must then take an electron micrograph of the final, purified virus to show his colleagues that he has in fact successfully purified and isolated the virus. Virologists have done this many times and for many different viruses. Without an electron micrograph picture showing purification, no reputable journal should publish this work. The reason is simple: scientists are essentially told not to believe each other just because someone says so. If you say you isolated a virus, you must show the picture to prove it—period. Absent the picture, it could be a total fabrication. In addition, after you have isolated and photographed the virus, other scientists in other labs need to follow the exact steps that you outlined in your paper and show pictures of the same isolated virus. Once a number of labs have done this, you have real proof that the virus exists. That is the way science is supposed to work.
In the case of the novel coronavirus, every single published photograph we have seen showing the “isolated” virus shows no such thing. Instead, it shows tissue with a number of dots, usually with an arrow pointing to the so-called coronavirus. If you see tissue in the photograph, by definition it’s not isolated. An example of such a photograph comes from “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea,” published February 24, 2020 in the Journal of Korean Medical Science (Figure 1, previous page).6 Although the authors claimed to have isolated the virus, the photographs they published show “virus” structures inside and outside a cell (indicated by arrows); they do not show isolated virus. In comparison, you can see a properly isolated “virus” in the electron microscopy image of the chickenpox “virus” shown in Figure 2, below. (By the way, although health officials claim that chickenpox is “highly contagious,” no studies have shown that exposing people to isolated chickenpox virus makes them sick.)
MORE ON THE SUPERNATANT
Today’s virologists use the supernatant— the liquid obtained after filtration or sometimes centrifugation—processes that remove bacteria, fungi and other larger material. This is what they refer to as “purification.” However, this is like filtering the grounds out of coffee to get caffeine; your aim may be to study caffeine’s effects, but there are hundreds or thousands of other compounds in the coffee, so you will still need to isolate the caffeine.
What virus researchers ought to do after obtaining the supernatant is to put it in a “sucrose density centrifuge column,” which spins out the various compounds into bands. One of these bands will contain the pure virus, which can then be photographed and analyzed as discussed. This is the equivalent of isolating caffeine from coffee.
Instead of working with pure virus, however, researchers commonly continue to use the supernatant, which contains all kinds of molecules and particles. In other words, instead of doing a genetic analysis of the isolated virus, they do genetic analysis on the mess of compounds in the supernatant.
Now, to get enough “virus” to use experimentally, virologists must grow it in a biological medium such as an animal (or at least cells from an animal). Unlike bacteria, which can be grown in Petri dishes, viruses are not alive and can only “grow” in other living cells. However, virologists do not transfer the supernatant to healthy tissue, but to tissue that has been poisoned with strong antibiotics and starved of nutrients (using what’s called a “minimum-nutrient medium”). They do this to make sure that what is left is only viruses and not bacteria. Moreover, the main type of tissue used is kidney cells from various species (often monkey kidney cells called Vero cells) or lung cancer cells. When researchers do this, the “viruses” seem to multiply, allowing them to sell the resultant mess of “viruses,” particles, poisons, dead tissue and cellular debris—called “cultured” virus—to other researchers as samples of “purified” or “isolated” virus for use in studies.
By the way, the CDC has published guidelines on “transport medium” for viruses.7 Transport medium is what they use to inoculate the starved tissue, which then grows the “virus.” The three main ingredients (“reagents”) are fetal bovine serum (extracted from still-living fetal calves and preserved with antifungals, among other poisons) along with two highly toxic antibiotics, amphotericin (affectionately called “ampho-terrible”) and gentamicin. This ungodly mixture is then grown on monkey or fetal kidney cells.
Interestingly, all doctors know that the main organ affected by gentamicin and ampho-terrible is the kidneys. So, you poison the kidney and the kidney breaks down; then the virologist claims that the virus killed the kidney—without performing any controls. Don’t look behind the curtain, folks!
These practices are fraught with obvious problems if one wishes to prove that it is the virus—and not the cancer cells or poisoned kidney cells—that are causing disease when the “viruses” get injected into healthy test animals. Remember, to prove that a specific virus is making humans or animals sick, scientists need to find the identical virus in many subjects who are sick with the same symptoms—and then make healthy humans or animals sick by exposing them to this virus. However, when researchers try to grow purified virus on healthy cells, they don’t get a lot of viruses—and when they subject healthy tissue, healthy animals or healthy people to these “viruses,” illness does not result—yet this is the wily virus that is going to kill us all!
VIRUSES OR EXOSOMES?
Why do “viruses” multiply in the starved and poisoned kidney or cancer cells? The answer is that when cells are starved or poisoned, they produce exosomes. These tiny particles, which are identical in appearance and characteristics to what are called “viruses,” are helpful, not toxic. Exosomes do not attack the cells and then multiply; rather, they are produced inside the cell, often in large amounts, when the cells are stressed by poison and starvation.
A study titled “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS viruses,” published in May 2020 in the journal Viruses, explains that viruses and exosomes (which the authors call “extracellular vesicles” or EVs) are indistinguishable.8 To quote from the paper, “The remarkable resemblance between EVs and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs released during viral infection. Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist” [emphasis added]. In other words, researchers can’t distinguish viruses from exosomes. That’s because they are the same thing; in reality, all viruses are exosomes. Stated another way, scientists are discovering that all of these “viruses” originate in our own tissues—they don’t attack us from the outside.
With this background, let’s look in more detail at the methods described in a 2003 study titled, “Koch’s Postulates Fulfilled for SARS Virus.”4 First, the researchers took unpurified sediment from the snot of sick people and grew it in lung cancer cells until they got a sufficient quantity of cellular material to work with. Next, they centrifuged this mess—not even attempting to purify any virus from the mixture. Finally, they took this unholy mixture (of snot sediment, lung cancer cells and who-knows-what-else) and injected the cellular-debris-laden goop into two unfortunate monkeys. There was no control group (which could have been achieved by injecting saline or lung cancer cells or even the liquid from the centrifuged material into other monkeys for comparison). One of the injected monkeys got pneumonia, the other got a rash, and the researchers claimed this as the proof that a “coronavirus” can cause disease and that Koch’s postulates have been satisfied.
“The Coronavirus Unveiled,” an October 9 article appearing in the New York Times,9 continues to give the impression that researchers are working with a genuine isolated coronavirus, despite telling readers that “In February, as the new coronavirus swept across China and shut down entire cities. . . the best pictures anyone had managed to take were low-resolution images, in which the virus looked like a barely discernible smudge.” How did the researchers isolate the virus? In the New York Times reporter’s words, they “doused the viruses with chemicals to render them harmless. . . .” In other words, they poisoned them. After they somehow “concentrated the virus-laden fluid from a quart down to a single drop” and flash-froze the drop, they saw, under microscope, structures they called “viruses”—most likely helpful exosomes responding to the poisonous chemicals.
We reiterate that this is not the proper way to isolate and characterize a virus. Proper isolation involves ultrafiltration and centrifuging—not dousing with chemicals and flash freezing—and requires the performance of various physical, biochemical and immunological analyses. Nonetheless, researchers concluded that the coronavirus’s “intimately twisted genes commandeer our biochemistry” and “throw wrenches into our cellular factories, while [other viral proteins] build nurseries for making new viruses.” This is highly imaginative horror-movie speculation, not science.
Leaving aside the fact that virologists never actually isolate and purify viruses—which they openly admit and which we have now explained—let’s assume that the unpurified fluid they use does contain the relevant virus and, therefore, should be able to transmit infection. After “isolating” a virus, virologists have three “hosts” they can use in their attempts to prove that viruses cause illness: they can expose humans to the virus; they can expose animals to the virus; or they can use tissue cultures taken from various animal or human sources and expose the tissue cultures to the virus.
In the history of virology, most virologists have decided not to do their experiments on human subjects, as this is considered unethical. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we know of no published study that has used humans as the test subjects. Virologists also admit that in the case of most viral infections, there are no studies available proving infection in animals. How a virus can infect and kill humans—but not animals—is left unexplained. Researchers get around this obvious biological conundrum by saying, “There are no animal models on which to test such-and-such a virus.” In other words, “We know that the virus infects and kills humans even though we’ve never tested the virus on humans because that would be unethical. Therefore, we do our tests on animals, even though when we test animals, they don’t get sick, because they are not proper ‘hosts’ for the virus. So, you’ll just have to trust us.”
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know of two animal model studies that used unpurified “virus,” one in hamsters and one in mice. In the hamster study,10 researchers took the unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged animal secretions and squirted them down the throats and into the lungs of a group of unfortunate hamsters. Some—but not all—of the hamsters got pneumonia, and some even died. Perplexingly, however, some of the hamsters didn’t even get sick at all, which certainly doesn’t square with the deadly contagious virus theory. Because there was no comparison group, we also have no idea what would have happened if the researchers had squirted plain lung cancer cells into the lungs of the hamsters; probably not anything good.
In the mouse study,11 researchers infected both transgenic mice (that is, mice genetically programmed to get sick) and wild (normal) mice with unpurified virus. None of the wild mice exposed to the “virus” got sick. Of the transgenic mice, a statistically insignificant number either lost some fur luster or experienced weight loss. Thus, scientists have not been able to show that the Covid-19 “virus” causes harm to animals.
The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity—the method they usually rely on—is to infect human and animal tissue with a “culture” of the virus to see what happens. As we have already pointed out, this inoculation of solutions reportedly containing the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.
Nevertheless, researchers used this third approach in a study entitled, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States” published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal in June 2020.12 The purpose of the study was for a group of about thirty-five virologists to describe the state of the science dealing with the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.
First, in the Methods section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence.”12 What this means is that they actually looked at a mere thirty-seven primers out of the approximately thirty thousand base pairs claimed to be the genome of an intact virus.
Next, the virologists took these thirty-seven segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the genome. This computer-generation step—called “whole genome sequencing”—constitutes scientific fraud of the highest order.
Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claims to have found a unicorn because the group has a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail and a sliver of a horn. After putting that information into a computer and programming it to re-create the unicorn, they claim that this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they have never actually seen a unicorn, so they could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with an actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the authors of the June study report that they decided on the virus’s real genome by “consensus”—in other words, by vote.12 Because different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn” (virus), scientists have to come together as a group and decide which is the “real” imaginary unicorn. (By the way, this is also how scientists characterized the measles “virus”—by consensus!)
The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, however, a finding so shocking that it is hard to believe what we are reading. Summarizing their procedures in the paper’s Results section, the authors explain that they “examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells.” Their aim was to monitor “cytopathic effects” (CPEs)—meaning structural changes in host cells caused by “viral invasion”—where the infecting virus causes either lysis (breaking up) of the host cell or, if the cell dies without lysis, an inability to reproduce. Both of these effects are said to occur due to CPEs. Yet, as the authors plainly state, though each cell line “was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h post-infection,” the investigators observed no CPE “in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells.”12
So did this viral material with its “intimately twisted genes” commandeer the cellular biochemistry and throw wrenches into the cellular factories, while other viral proteins built nurseries for making new viruses? Nothing of the sort! In fact, the shocking thing about these findings is that, using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions claimed to contain SARS-CoV-2—as well as poisons, even in high amounts—were not infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is infective only to Vero monkey kidney cells, and only when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin)—drugs known to be toxic to the kidneys—to the mix.
Interestingly, the authors don’t mention this important fact in their conclusions. Only virologists who read the whole paper will find out that if they want to grow the virus, they needn’t bother to use human cell lines. As you can read yourself, in all three human cell lines, no CPE (meaning no cell death, no infection) was observed. Only Vero monkey kidney cells were adversely affected—and remember, the material injected into the Vero cells contained kidney toxins. Basically, the study proved that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not infect human tissue. Meanwhile, we have worldwide lockdowns predicated on the idea that something called “coronavirus” is highly infectious and causes disease.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS
Another study sent to us comes with the fancy title, “A Novel Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vector with Low Human Seroprevalence: Improved Systems for Vector Derivation and Comparative Immunogenicity.”13 In the “Viruses and Cells” portion of the methods section, the researchers explain that they used “wild type chimpanzee adenovirus isolate Y25. . . originally obtained from William Hillis, John Hopkins University of Medicine [sic].” This virus was then “passaged in HEK293A cells (Invitrogen, Cat. R705-07) and purified by CsCl gradient ultracentrifugation.” Finally, “Viral DNA was phenol extracted for genomic sequencing and cloning.”
In other words, the researchers purchased some material (not properly isolated even though it is called an “isolate”), which they then “passaged” through human embryonic kidney cells (called HEK293A) and “purified” by CsCl gradient. This “purification” method separates DNA molecules (not viruses) after mixing them with cesium chloride (a heavy metal salt) and ethidium bromide (a mutagen that can affect DNA biological processes like DNA replication and transcription).14 This is the same smoke and mirrors we have seen before—not true separation and isolation but “surrogate” techniques that use various poisons.
Another study sent to us, a preprint published on June 23, 2020, is entitled, “SARS-CoV-2 Structure and Replication Characterized by in situ Cryo-electron Tomography” (cryo-ET).15 The authors begin with the creed of the faithful: “β-coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus (MERS-CoV) are highly contagious pathogens that can cause severe lower respiratory infections. At the end of 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the city of Wuhan, China, likely through zoonotic transmission via a bat reservoir and a still unidentified intermediate host that subsequently led to a pandemic, accumulating to date to over 8 million cases and close to 500,000 deaths worldwide.”
The article provides no references for the statement that the SARS virus is “highly contagious” but does contain a lot of fuzzy electron-microscope photographs of tissues and cells whose genetic material the authors determined using PCR tests—the equivalent of finding moats and turrets in a bunch of Lego pieces. The researchers did not isolate and purify the virus but instead used “monkey kidney derived VeroE6 cells” and “human pulmonary cell lines.” In other words, they used cell lines grown in starved and poisoned cultures.
Later in the paper, the authors state that they got different “morphologies” of the virus depending on which cell line they used. In other words, the virus looks one way when grown on monkey kidney cells, but the same virus looks different when grown on lung cancer cells. That is like saying that if you plant some seeds in one garden, you will get tomatoes, but if you plant them in another garden, you will get turnips. What this observation tells us is that what the researchers found comes from the tissue, not the source “virus”; that is why the “viruses” are different.
In their concluding remarks, the authors state, “Our report provides the first in situ cryo-ET analysis of coronaviruses at high preservation levels.” Wait a minute—this study was published on June 23, 2020. You mean they had no analyses of this virus before health officials called for universal lockdowns?
By the way, Stefano Scoglio, PhD, from Italy, has come to the same conclusions that we have. In a talk posted on social media entitled “THE INVENTED PANDEMIC, the lack of VIRUS ISOLATION and the INVALID COVID-19 test,” Scoglio says, “At the center of the pandemic project stands the Covid swab test, which is based on the RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain Reaction): a sample of organic material is taken from the throat, or more rarely from the broncho-alveolar fluid, of the individual, and then the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the sample is tested. This is done by using the same RT-PCR methodology used to originally ‘isolate’ the virus from patient zero. Thus, the Covid test depends essentially on the original isolation, or lack thereof, of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, the original PCR isolation of the virus constituting the golden standard necessary to validate any subsequent Covid test. The problems with the original virus isolation, and thus with the ensuing swab test, are many, and they all point to the truth that the SARS-Cov-2 virus has never been isolated and never tested for its pathogenicity.”16
KOCH’S POSTULATES IRRELEVANT?
One argument we hear is that Koch’s postulates are irrelevant, out of date, useless or even “wrong.” If so, why do researchers claim to have satisfied Koch’s postulates, not only for Covid-19 but for other diseases like HIV/AIDS and Lyme disease?
In 1997, for example, scientists announced that human immuno- deficiency virus (HIV) fulfills Koch’s postulates and hence is the proven cause of AIDS.17 The study involved taking blood from an HIV-positive person and injecting it into one chimpanzee. The researchers did not purify or isolate anything but just injected the blood into one chimpanzee. They then kept the chimp for ten years (and who knows what they fed it or anything about its conditions of confinement?). After ten years, the chimp developed an “opportunistic infection” (which could even have been a yeast infection) and tested “HIV-positive” (a test result that can occur in at least thirty-three other medical conditions). As with so many of the studies we have looked at, this study had no controls—such as injecting a different chimp with blood from someone with cancer or from a healthy person. And this was the proof that HIV causes AIDS! This is not science (but it keeps the grant money flowing).
With Lyme disease, the “proof ” that Koch’s postulates were fulfilled comes from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1983 that reported detection of spirochetes (a family of common spiral-shaped bacteria) in the blood of two Lyme patients.18 The researchers then examined some ticks in the neighborhood and found the same spirochete. That’s it—that was the “proof” of Koch’s postulates.
As we have explained, finding bacteria at the site of an injury or in a person with a disease in no way constitutes proof of causation, any more than finding firemen at the site of a fire means they caused the fire. Among other roles, bacteria act as scavengers in nature; they “eat” dead or diseased tissue. Maggots play the same role. If you see a dead dog crawling with maggots, it would be crazy to conclude that the maggots killed the dog, so why do scientists assume that the presence of “viruses” in a cell means that the cell has been attacked from the outside and taken over by hostile compounds?
If anyone can show us a properly done study in which the “coronavirus” from many sick people was isolated, purified, photographed and characterized—according to the consensus agreement of the 1973 Pasteur Institute guidelines—and then was shown to cause disease in healthy organisms (animals or humans), we will gladly withdraw the book. Meanwhile, we contend that the idea of a contagious coronavirus is a fairy tale.
KOCH’S POSTULATES AND RIVERS’ POSTULATES
In 1890, the German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch set out criteria for determining whether a given bacterium is the cause of a given disease. Koch’s postulates are as follows:
1. The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
2. The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
3. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
4. The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.
In reality, scientists have failed to fulfill all of the postulates for any disease. In fact, Koch had to abandon the first postulate when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera and, later, of typhoid fever.
Koch’s postulates are for bacteria, not for viruses. In 1937, Thomas Rivers modified Koch’s postulates in order to determine the infectious nature of viruses. Rivers’ postulates are as follows:
1. The virus can be isolated from diseased hosts.
2. The virus can be cultivated in host cells.
3. Proof of filterability—the virus can be filtered from a medium that also contains bacteria.
4. The filtered virus can produce a comparable disease when the cultivated virus is used to infect experimental animals.
5. The virus can be re-isolated from the infected experimental animal.
6. A specific immune response to the virus can be detected.
As with bacteria, scientists have never proved Rivers’ postulates for any so-called viral disease.
In response to our claim that so-called “viruses” are actually helpful exosomes—which do not cause disease but which the body makes in response to toxins, starvation and injury—we received a chiding email.
“As a young girl, living in rural Manitoba, Canada, my brother would harvest wild rabbits for our winter protein. When my brother was skinning the rabbits, he was extremely careful to check for bubbles under the skin and in the meat. If he found bubbles, he knew that the rabbits had a virus, due to overpopulation. We were not able to eat those rabbits that year. . . and would have to wait until nature had taken its course. My point being, there is no 5G or anything that would support your theory.” The writer also describes tuberculosis (TB) among the northern Inuit, “which had taken hold, due to living in crowded conditions and of course eating the foods that the Europeans had introduced to them. Killing people off with fast foods and the like has brought us to where we are. This Covid virus is just the beginning of the major viruses that are just around the corner.” The email’s author also referred to very crowded and filthy living conditions in China, presumably in connection with diseases like cholera.
The rabbit disease to which she refers is called myxomatosis. The official view is that a virus carried in the saliva of fleas, mosquitoes and other insects causes the disease, with overcrowded rabbit populations being the most vulnerable to illness. Symptoms include swelling at the site of the “infection”—the insect bite—followed by fever, swelling in other areas (eyelids, face, base of ears, anogenital area), skin lesions, ocular and nasal discharge, respiratory distress, hypothermia, closure of the eyelids due to swelling, and death. These are some very miserable rabbits!
A typical study cited for a viral cause of myxomatosis is a paper published in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology in 1953, titled “The Pathogenesis of Infectious Myxomatosis; the Mechanism of Infection and the Immunological Response in the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).”19 The study reported that the researchers were able to make rabbits display the symptoms of myxomatosis (including death) by injecting them with “virulent myxomatosis.” The recipe for this witches’ brew included ground-up organs and heated blood of sick, flea-bitten rabbits, “passed through” other rabbits, which were then bled to death to obtain the serum and then grown on chicken embryos. Healthy rabbits injected—often several times—with this “virulent myxomatosis” usually do sicken and die.
The Wikipedia entry for “myxomatosis” includes a discussion of how to diagnose this so-called viral disease and hints at the problems involved.20 According to the entry, a myxomatosis diagnosis usually follows a description of the “characteristic clinical appearance”—in other words, you can tell whether a rabbit has it by the symptoms. For further confirmation, however, researchers have turned to three other techniques: histopathology, electron microscopy and “virus isolation.” As regards the first, Wikipedia states, “Histopathologic examination of affected skin typically shows undifferentiated mesenchymal cells within a matrix of mucin, inflammatory cells, and edema. Intracytoplasmic inclusions may be seen in the epidermis and in conjunctival epithelium.” In other words, researchers do not actually see isolated virus—just messed-up cells. As for the second approach, Wikipedia acknowledges that electron microscopy also has shortcomings. Negative-stain electron microscopic examination may allow for “rapid visualization of poxviruses,” but it “does not allow specific verification of virus species or variants.”
The entry describes “virus isolation”—the third technique—as “the ‘gold standard’ against which other methods of virus detection are compared.” This is true; virus isolation is the gold standard. Wikipedia continues, “Theoretically at least, a single viable virus present in a specimen can be grown in cultured cells, thus expanding it to produce enough material to permit further detailed characterization.” Theoretically, yes, but in practice, pure virus introduced into animals or animal cells has little effect. Only “virulent virus” will appear to multiply and cause disease.
These challenges explain why scientists readily use molecular methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time polymerase chain reaction assays, which Wikipedia credits with “faster and more accurate methods of myxoma virus identification.” The site explains that “Real time PCR simplifies the diagnosis of myxomatosis by allowing nasal, ocular, or genital swabs to be quickly tested.” Wikipedia does not mention the fact that PCR does not identify specific viruses, only snippets of genetic material. So, while this method may be “faster,” it is certainly not “more accurate.”
Even if scientists do isolate pure virus, they still need to show that this pure virus can make healthy rabbits sick. Yet we don’t need an “infectious virus” to explain myxomatosis. During the 1950s, myxomatosis was intentionally introduced in Australia, France and Chile to control wild European rabbit populations. Brought to these countries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to serve as a food source, and having few enemies, these rabbits bred like . . . like rabbits. . . and soon overwhelmed the countryside, eating every green thing in sight. Did scientists kill them off by introducing pure isolated virus or even “virulent” virus into the rabbits? No; they introduced fleas.21 The fleas dutifully bit the rabbits and myxomatosis followed, killing off huge numbers. Blood-sucking insects like fleas, mosquitoes and ticks contain an enzyme called apyrase in their saliva, which prevents platelet aggregation (clotting) at the site of the bite. Apyrase keeps the blood liquid until the insect has had its fill. In animals that are breathing bad air in overcrowded warrens, are undernourished due to scarce food (including clot-promoting vitamin K in green fodder) and then are bitten many times, the enzyme can overwhelm blood-clotting capabilities and act as a poison. In short, fleas and mosquitoes are one of nature’s ways to control overpopulation in various species of animals, and they do it by poisoning them.
Likewise, we don’t need to call on “infectious viruses” to explain human diseases like TB in the Inuit or cholera among the Chinese. Nutrient deficiencies, crowding and filth are perfectly capable of causing suffering and death without the help of “viruses.” Finally, are researchers seeing “viruses” in their swabs and isolates, or helpful exosomes which multiply in situations of stress and disease?
DID SEMMELWEIS PROVE THE GERM THEORY?
We’ve had numerous objections to The Contagion Myth that invoke the story of Ignaz Semmelweis. Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as “childbed fever”) could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital’s First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors’ wards had three times the mortality of midwives’ wards. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur proposed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.
But does the reduction of infections after hand-washing prove the germ theory? At the Vienna General Hospital, medical students began their day in the morgue performing autopsies on the formaldehyde-soaked bodies of women who had died in childbirth. Then, without washing their hands, they delivered babies in the obstetrical wards. Their hands were coated in poisons—not only formaldehyde but also toxins such as ptomane produced by bacteria during the breakdown of tissue—and this was introduced into the birth canal and broken skin. Why blame bacteria—always on hand when living tissue is poisoned or decayed—when poison is more than adequate to cause illness and death?
HAVE WE PROVED THAT 5G CAUSES COVID-19?
Many have asked us to show causation studies proving that 5G radiation causes Covid-19. Of course, there aren’t any. What we can say is the following:
1. There is no proof that Covid-19 is caused by a virus.
2. We therefore need to use epidemiological observation to generate other hypotheses to test.
3. We believe we have presented more than enough epidemiological evidence to test the theory that 5G and possibly other frequencies are causing Covid-19.
4. Tests dating back to the 1970s are consistent with our hypothesis; EMF millimeter waves create tissue damage, hypoxia, metabolic dysfunction and hyperinflammatory responses.
5. Therefore, our position is an urgent call for formal testing of the effects of 5G frequencies on human and animal health. The budget for the effort to study viral causation is in the many, many billions. We urge that at least one-tenth of this budget be shifted into testing EMF effects. These studies should and must be done by truly independent scientists with no connection to industry, government or international organizations. The design of these studies must be open to public comment and scrutiny. The results of these studies must be open to public inspection; the data and design must be matters of full public knowledge.
CORONAVIRUS COMES TO SMALL TOWNS AND RURAL AREAS
The spread of “coronavirus” cases in large cities has followed the rollout of 5G millimeter small-cell emitters in
major cities across the world, first in Wuhan, China, then in Europe, then in New York and other major U.S. cities. Now
the disease has spread to small towns and rural areas with outbreaks in the Southwest and Midwest. The small-cell
devices emit millimeter electromagnetic frequencies (microwaves), which go only a short distance and cannot penetrate
buildings, so they require close spacing and are installed only in areas of high population and dense buildout.
So how do we explain the increase in cases in more sparsely populated states like New Mexico, South Dakota
and North Dakota? One explanation is simply that more people in these areas are getting tested and more testing
translates into more “cases.” But if reports of full hospitals are true, the increase in cases requires further explanation.
During the last few months, T-Mobile has installed its version of 5G on cell towers throughout the country. Called
“5G Lite,” this technology involves base stations that emit the 600 MHz frequency—which is a lower frequency than
4G, and much lower than the millimeter-wave 5G installed in cities. Theoretically, the 5G Lite should be less toxic to
humans and animals than the regular millimeter-wave 5G. . . except for one inconvenient fact.
In 2011, researchers from Norway and Iran tested various electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) for their effects
on the brain, ostensibly to find ways of treating Alzheimer’s disease. Citing a study in which mice subjected to EMFs
exhibited “enhanced brain mitochondrial function caused by the induced electric field in the brain,” they tested
electromagnetic frequencies in the 100-1000 MHz range on a three-dimensional model (called a voxel model) of the
brain. While not living tissue, the model contains material of the same size, density and frequency dependence as
brain tissue. The researchers found that the average electric field intensity induced in the brain had two local maxima
(high points) at 300 and 600 MHz. The highest specific absorption rate (SAR) occurred at 600 MHz, with white matter
exhibiting a larger average SAR than grey matter. At 600 MHz, “The propagation of enhanced neuronal activities in a
population of tens of thousands of neurons can give rise to the appearance of interesting spiking patterns, correlation
and synchronization between clusters of neurons.” The authors speculated that “Such a scenario may be desirable for
an eventual treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. . . ” but the average person might hesitate before subjecting his brain
to the “interesting spiking patterns” induced by the 600 MHz electromagnetic frequency. And unlike the millimeter
waves used in cities, the 600 MHz frequency travels a longer distance—up to hundreds of miles—and can penetrate
These facts cry out for more research. Are those living near the 5G Lite cell towers more vulnerable than those
living far away? Do the symptoms of Covid-19 in small towns and rural areas differ from those in large cities? Do “interesting
spiking patterns” translate into seizures, convulsions and behavioral changes? Unfortunately, with the focus
on the wily Covid-19 virus, researchers will not be looking into these important questions.
SOURCE: A Khaleghi and others. Exposure of the human brain to an electromagnetic plane wave in the 100-1000 MHz frequency range for
potential treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. IET Microw Antennas Propag 2012, Vol 6, Iss 14, pp 1565-1572.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. For Emergency Use Only. Instructions for Use. Division of Viral Diseases. Effective: 07/13/2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download.
- Fauxlex. Bombshell: WHO coronavirus PCR test primer sequence is found in all human DNA. Piece of Mindful, April 6, 2020. https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/04/06/bombshell-who-coronavirus-pcr-test-primer-sequence-is-found-in-all-human-dna/.
- Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
- Fouchier RAM, Kuiken T, Schutten M et al. Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus. Nature. 2003;423(6937):240.
- Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. Isolated facts about HIV – a reply. n.d. http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/epreplyek.htm.
- Park WB, Kwon N-J, Choi S-J et al. Virus isolation from the first patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(7):e84.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preparation of viral transport medium. SOP#: DSR-052-05. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Viral-Transport-Medium.pdf.
- Giannessi F, Aiello A, Franchi F, Percario ZA, Affabris E. The role of extracellular vesicles as allies of HIV, HCV and SARS viruses. Viruses. 2020;12(5):571.
- Zimmer C. The coronavirus unveiled. The New York Times. October 9, 2020.
- Chan JFW, Zhang AJ, Yuan S et al. Simulation of the clinical and pathological manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in golden Syrian hamster model: implications for disease pathogenesis and transmissibility. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 26;ciaa325.
- Bao L, Deng W, Huang B et al. The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 transgenic mice. Nature. 2020;583(7818):830-833.
- Harcourt J, Tamin A, Lu X et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patient with coronavirus disease, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(6):1266-1273.
- Dicks MDJ, Spencer AJ, Edwards NJ et al. A novel chimpanzee adenovirus vector with low human seroprevalence: improved systems for vector derivation and comparative immunogenicity. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40385.
- Klein S, Cortese M, Winter SL et al. SARS-CoV-2 structure and replication characterized by in situ cryo-electron tomography. bioRxiv, June 23, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.23.167064.
- Novembre FJ, Saucier M, Anderson DC et al. Development of AIDS in a chimpanzee infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol. 1997;71(5):4086-4091.
- Benach JL, Bosler EM, Hanrahan JP et al. Spirochetes isolated from the blood of two patients with Lyme disease. N Engl J Med. 1983;308(13):740-742.
- Fenner F, Woodroofe GM. The pathogenesis of infectious myxomatosis: the mechanism of infection and the immunological response in the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Br J Exp Pathol. 1953;34(4):400-411.
- “Myxomatosis.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxomatosis.
- “Myxomatosis.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/myxomatosis.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2020🖨️ Print post
Read this in: Nederlands