Read this in: Nederlands🖨️ Print post
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
This is a prescient article, which will surely stimulate broad censorship and condemnation in the mainstream media and those who support it. Like Galileo’s message, it will be many years, perhaps centuries before the wisdom of these simple scientific truths can be absorbed by a society which is culturally deaf to them. Like the geocentrics of the sixteen the century, the virocentrics of the twentyfirst will continue to adhere to their anachronistic views until they become so ridiculous they are forced to abandon them. Sometimes attributed to Gandhi, it was U.S. labor leader Nicholas Klein who once said, “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”
You should watch The Principle. Just as in the case of covid there was no objective evidence which required a heliocentric view. The exact same observations could be supported with a geocentric view. The only real proof of heliocentricity would be with travel to the moon, but there are many who doubt the validity of that venture.
Andrew Maniotis, PhD. says
Dear Dr. Cowan & Ms. Sally Fallon Morell,
I very much enjoyed reading your introduction to The Contagion Fairy Tale, and want to go and buy the entire book. I’ve just finished a book on SARS, which I’ll send you in a day or two when I finish the Table of Contents…the book writing part is finished. It is the summation of a more than a decade long project wherein the work my lab and I did at the University of Illinois, Chicago, Departments of Pathology and Bioengineering discovered what is perhaps the mechanistic basis that explains how vaccines cause malignant cancers at or near injection sites. It also is a survey of the entire history of vaccination, but by your writing I’ve read so far, I was given several important new pieces of information (and inspiration), and look forward to speaking with you soon in some depth. There are some free books on my website I’ve written in the past before I retired, and now my full-time passion has been writing this book, entitled, ” VACCINATION OF INNOCENTS AND THE SARS SACRIFICE- HOW TO PREDICT, EPIDEMICS, VACCINE DAMAGE, AND ENDEMIC SYNDROMES.” On my website also, there is a book I would direct your attention to entitled, “Sacrifice of the Innocents-and Another First Anti-Cancer Vaccine, which oddly enough, I even enjoy reading.
My legacies to science and pathology and bioengineering include the discovery of vasculogenic mimicry, the establishment of cellular tensegrity, and a new field I named mechanogenomics.
Hope to speak with you soon and I will order a copy of your book online, unless it is already out in bookstores, which I’d rather enjoy more than on-line purchasing.
Please let me know the best way to obtain a copy.
This insanity has got to end!!!!
My phone if you’d care to call is 904-377-0935 (Saint Augustine, Florida).
Judith Day says
I bought ‘Nourishing Traditions’ some years ago and have found it very useful and interesting, especially the information given in the margins of all pages.
I bought and read ‘The Contagion Myth’ last month, and agree with your explanations of various epidemics/pandemics etc.
In my fairly remote Welsh village, only 4 have claimed to have suffered covid 19 and these have been people who work outside the village and whose employment involves extensive use of mobile ‘phones. There have been no deaths from C19. We do not yet have 5G here.
What we do have is a high death rate from various cancers, most notably brain cancers. We believe that this is due to the double set of high voltage electrical transmission lines that run through the village from Trawsfynydd and Dinorwig power stations onto the Midlands of the UK.
Well done you two! I am sending this piece to everyone I know. Not only does it lay out the entire argument in a succinct and logic-based, rational way, but it is a great rebuttal to the common questions and critiques you must be sick of hearing. Please know I am one person that you have completely turned. When I first heard Dr Cowan speak about this topic maybe a year ago, I though it was nuts. But I couldn’t reason away some of the points he made that shook my belief paradigm so I listened again. And then found more interviews. And then researched and verified his sources and examples given. Then I took a deep dive on HIV and it finally struck me. My god! What a feeling when you wake up to a new reality and realize what you’ve always believed is wrong. It’s actually immensely liberating. Now my frustration is knowing what I know and staying grounded and at peace with the lockdowns and masks and vaccines and profits and unemployment and bailouts and shaming.!! Oy!
Yes, it’s just too much!!! And to explain it to anyone is frustrating. If you are successful, please let me know how you did it. All the best.
Am wondering what is the explanation for malaria and especially dengue fever which appeared more recently.
Similar to MYXOMATOSIS explanation, and enzyme /toxin.
As Koch seems to get credit .
Professor Henle and his postulates I I never knew about untilI came across Dr Stefan Lanka.
Reminds me of Beauchamp and Pasteur.
‘ suddenly Robert Koch was celebrated as the discoverer of the transmissibility of diseases?’
This was well known, bacteria cannot be the cause of disease.
Professor Henle further solidified this knowledge, he phrased his postulates and said: If you claim that bacteria can be transmitted and then produce their poisons, then you need to identify that bacterium in every case of a disease, which you claim was caused by this bacterium. And that was not the case. Bacteria are only insufficiently identifiable in a test-tube, it can be done only with a few of them. Of all bacteria, which we know based on their performance, only about 2 % are cultivatable and multipliable. And what is defined as a bacterium in the laboratory is not the same as the original bacterium outside. Why?
14:11 Because the idea of bacteria in the lab representing one single type, is a laboratory artifact. For, bacteria exchange information among one another continuously and they change their form and function. This was recently confirmed in a large study: bacteria, as individual as they are in terms of their biochemistry, they are very similar in terms of their nucleic acid. They adapt. If we extract a bacterium and cultivate it in isolation, it looses its properties after some time and it can’t survive. Thus, I must produce a large quantity of them, freeze them and then I always work with those. But this already constitutes a massive intervention into nature, and doesn’t represent the reality of bacteria exchanging their information amongst one another, and thus the definition of types that was imposed on them, was not scientifically justifiable. That was the first problem. For instance, they didn’t manage to find the famous tuberculosis bacterium, the cultivation of which was successfully done by Robert Koch: It could only be found in about half the cases. That remains the same to the present day.
The second Henle Postulate states: this isolated pathogen must be observed, in case of a bacterium it must be multiplied, and it must be observed whether or not it can do what is assigned to it. In all these experiments they found, the bacteria couldn’t produce toxins in the living organism, only after a few days in the dead body, after an animal or human died. That was also determined, throughout the entire scientific community without exception.
Henle formulated the third Postulate, which states: Then, the pathogen that was isolated and multiplied, must be injected into an organism and the same disease must develop. And this has never happened, never ever.
17:00 But how did it happen, that suddenly Robert Koch was celebrated as the discoverer of the transmissibility of diseases? That is the question.
17:03 The question is easily answered. Robert Koch deserved reputation for having managed to make photography adaptable to visual microscopy and to make photographs of bacteria. Photography itself had been rediscovered in Europa in 1885. This brought him much reputation deservedly. Photography was considered to be sacred, no one could imagine that a negative could be retouched, that double exposures could be used, that it could be manipulated. It was deemed as inherently scientific and objective. They simply made claims along with photography, and this acted in a very hypnotic way, much like television today, so people just accepted these claims.
He simply photographed bacteria that can be found everywhere. From this, two different concepts derived.
Of course, these bacteria don’t cause disease, but the Third Postulate (which states bacteria much cause the same disease) was violated by Koch, he introduced the scientific fraud, that plays the central role until today, in cases like AIDS, vaccination, influenza pandemic, and so on including Tamiflu.
18:41 He said, the inoculation of the test animal with this bacteria culture leads to the development of a SIMILAR illness. Not the same, but a SIMILAR illness. And this is one of the general acts of fraud of the entire infection theory: development of a SIMILAR illness.
Read for yourself, that’s homework number one, don’t just believe me, go the library, read what Robert Koch did.
Anthrax, just one example: he kills mice with corps toxins. This corps poison you can make at home: leave a potato salad standing outside in the summer for a weak, spoiled egg meal, bacteria spores are floating in the air everywhere, they settle, grow, reproduce, they consume the oxygen. They transfer into the anaerobic state, mostly in the centre of the potato salad or the egg meal or in a dead body. And then, toxins are produced. The toxins themselves they can kill, if this is fed to a person little by little, and the foulness is covered up with strong spices or taste enhancers. In his way, a person can be chronically poisoned, or be caused to suffer severe diarrhea and cramps.
Koch produces these toxins in a meat broth, as you can replicate at home, he injects them into the vein of a mouse, the mouse dies, the milt is swollen, he extracts the milt of the mouse, and transplants it under the skin of a frog. The frog convulses and dies and this is called skin anthrax. Robert Koch, scientific fraud.
20:42 Now you can imagine which animal experiments were made to claim lung anthrax. The milt of the killed mouse was implanted into the lungs of the frog. That is what is done until the present day, that is what is done in the influenza pandemic: Animals are being killed with incisions of the trachea, liquids are inserted continuously, the animals die, and then it is claimed, it was the virus. You can study this on our influenza virus information flyer, which is attached to this file. On this you will find the literature on how they operate concerning influenza. No control group animals, if they were to inject ordinary liquids into the animals, the exact same were to happen.
21:32 The second thing that was derived from Germany and Robert Koch, was this: Robert Koch relied on new colorants to be ably to dye bacteria. And naturally, he received these dyes from the colorant industry. Then, all other medical researcher took the same colorants, took healthy tissue, they acidified the tissue and discovered they had the same coloring reaction and the exact same bacteria can be seen and photographed, just as Robert Koch did.
But then they also discovered, these dyes killed bacteria by making holes in them, they inhibit the DNA of the bacteria, these can no longer reproduce, the bacteria die. From this, antibiotics were derived, from colorants. BASF, BAYER, IG Farben, Hoechst, Merk and so on.
The pharma- industry was derived from colorant manufacturers based on the infection hypothesis. The American capital built up their parallel structures in Switzerland, in order to keep up with the revolutionary knowledge of the Germans, who were assumed to be capable of having something important just as the H. Bosch process, were nitrogen is extracted from air. By this, the Germans no longer relied on importing sodium nitrate from Chile for bombs and grenades, as the oceans were blocked. That’s the historic background.
23:24 But why did the German government employ Robert Koch? He already had to flee from Berlin before because he had killed thousand with his magic drug tuberculin against tuberculosis. This drug’s ingredients were kept secret against the law. He fled, Otto von Bismarck called him back, he desperately needed a pretext against the British who had seized the Suez canal illegally and thus had significant military and political advantages, for they didn’t have to sail around Africa, but they came through the Suez canal from India with their troops and goods, such as spices, serving as anti-oxidants, and the like and they sailed through the calm Mediterran sea. The German tried to deprive the English form this advantage with the allegation they were bringing home anthrax, smallpox, the black pledge from India. Thus, quarantine was demanded, they weren’t allowed to dock at any Mediterranean port and at Gibraltar they were shot at. Therefore, Robert Koch, who was on the run, was called back and was offered 100,000 Reichsmark in order to create the argument that the English would bring in black plague, small pox and anthrax, the latter we already discussed. We noted, that this colorant business lead to the emergence of antibiotics, later to the chemotherapy and the weaponized gasses, including the pharma- industry with its entire capital, with more revenue then all military budgets globally combined.
25:18 Robert Koch committed scientific fraud by not upholding the first postulate. He could cultivate some bacteria, which he didn’t find in every case of a disease. This is still done in the same way today. He could never reproduce the disease as in the third postulate, and neither could he again isolate the same pathogen from these organisms. That is the date when the brutal animal experiments were introduced.
26:02 How did the idea of a virus come to life? Koch’s French counterpart was Luis Pasteur, scientific fraudster employed by the French, as the French were at war with Germany in 1872.
Dr. Stefan Lanka: The history of the infection theory (English transcript)
Coronavirus & Flu: Does Dr. Buteyko’s Approach Protect Against it?
What can you do when a dangerous flu virus is suddenly active? When the number of flu deaths is rising; schools are closed for quarantine; a possibility of mandatory vaccination… Is there any way to protect yourself from the flu-like viruses? Did Dr. K.P. Buteyko leave any advice on the subject? I turned to Andrey Novozhilov, the Medical Director at Clinica Buteyko Moscow, for the answers.
In 1983, First Moscow Medical Institute conducted a clinical study, testing the effectiveness of the Buteyko’s approach in treating children with bronchial asthma. “The results were unexpected,” said Dr. Novozhilov, “the first thing the doctors noticed was that every child who practiced Buteyko Breathing stopped experiencing any cold-like illnesses, including influenza.” Another study, conducted in 1995, demonstrated that by the third day of practicing breathing exercises, the patient’s immunity strengthened.
What is influenza, or flu? Simply, it is a virus that attacks people with a weakened immune system. If the immune system is amply strong to fight back the virus, then the flu is nothing to fear.
1. BREATHE LESS
Although the virus doesn’t discriminate, it is with people who over-breathe that flu has the most success. Hyperventilation lowers immunity, and thus, weakens the body’s disease-fighting ability. This is why those who practice the Buteyko Breathing Method diligently are not affected by flu viruses. Once the morning Control Pause stabilizes at 40 seconds, viral infections cannot win battles against your body. Gaining control of your breath, more specifically – learning to breathe less, is the most powerful tool in eliminating the threat of flu.
If a person infected with flu begins to practice Buteyko breathing exercises, then the illness, in most cases, will be over in two to three days.
2. CLOSE YOUR MOUTH
Another important instrument in the Dr. Buteyko’s breathing normalization arsenal is nasal breathing. It is a simple solution, which you can start practicing right away, and one that “is quite effective in shielding the organism against viruses,” states Dr. Novozhilov. The flu virus is aerosolized. In other words, it is spread through infected droplets that fly off a sick person when he coughs, sneezes, or even speaks. The droplets can travel up to fifteen meters from their source and are so tiny that they can penetrate even the space between the fibers of a paper or cloth mask. Thus, during a flu pandemic, it is nearly impossible to avoid infected areas and to prevent the virus from finding its way into your body.
Fortunately, the way they enter your body can make all the difference. The majority of viruses cannot survive on the mucous membrane of the nose. The microbes in this membrane create a hostile environment for the virus. When breathing through your nose, you are in fact sterilizing the air that enters your body, and thus, creating a shield against disease. Nasal breathing also warms the air, moistens it, and generally conditions it for perfect consumption. Of course, it is important to breathe this way constantly, during the day, the night, and while speaking.
Mouth breathing, on the other hand, is often responsible for flu, as well as many other viral infections. When breathing through the mouth, you are basically creating a microbe highway from the outside environment directly into your air passages. Aside from that, the air itself is often over-cooled and unprepared for consumption. The healthy body temperature is 36.6 degrees Celsius. Any air cooler than that contributes to a gradual break down of the immune system and can lead to various respiratory problems. “Actually,” Dr. Novozhilov notes, “mouth breathing is often the sole reason for chronic tonsillitis in children, which causes frequent colds and bronchitis and eventually ends with surgical intervention. Of course, asking a child to breathe through his chronically stuffy nose is impossible, so it is important to contact a Buteyko Breathing Method specialist who will restore the child’s nasal breathing.”
3. THINK TWICE BEFORE TAKING A PILL
People often look for flu vaccines for protection. However, flu viruses often mutate, thus rendering the vaccine useless. For example, if you were vaccinated, and then, in one month, that flu virus transformed into a slightly different virus, the vaccine you received would not protect against the new strain.
“In some cases,” Dr. Novozhilov admits, “vaccinations can, of course, save lives. However, let’s not forget that the organism treats a vaccine as, most basically, an allergen.” Vaccinating people with a weak immune system, asthmatics included, is risky, sometimes resulting in more harm than good.
For particularly severe flu cases, Dr. Buteyko recommended steroids. “We have observed that such medicines lessen breathing and that is, evidently, why they quicken the healing process,” Dr. Novozhilov speculates. However, hormonal medicine should only be taken with permission, and under direct supervision, of your primary physician. They should only be considered when obvious flu symptoms, such as high temperature, a sudden feeling of weakness, fast progression of the illness, etc, are displayed. Flu is, without argument, a serious disease, particularly for people with weak lungs. This is why, for asthmatics, Buteyko recommends taking the hormonal medicine at the first signs of flu.
It is absolutely safe to continue taking symptom-relieving medication while practicing Buteyko. Drinking a lot of fluids, particularly hot and sour drinks, is also suggested. “Taking antibiotics,” however, “is not recommended at Clinica Buteyko,” says Dr. Novozhilov, “because they are powerless against a flu virus. On top of that, for a person with bronchial asthma, antibiotics often increase the allergic inflammation of the bronchus, thus also increasing the symptoms of asthma. Antibiotics should only be taken if the flu infection threatens to strike a second time, in which case the flu may result in serious consequences. This decision, however, should be made by a medical doctor only.
“Overall, the Buteyko Breathing Method is a highly effective way of battling the flu,” Dr. Novozhilov reiterated. “This method is completely safe, it increases the benefit of medications, and decreases the length of the illness.” If during flu season (and preferably year-round), adults and children practice Buteyko Breathing Method, their chances of contracting the virus will be very slim. If they do catch it, however, the method is a 100 percent guarantee of fast recovery, with no side effects.
Text written by Sasha Yakovleva
UKRAINIAN SSR MINSITRY OF HEALTH
Kiev Science and Research Institute of Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases named after L. V. Gromashevsky
4, Spusk Stepana Razina,
Kiev-038, 252038, Ukraine
To Deputy Minister of Health of the Ukrainian SSR
Mr. V. I. Shestakov
K. P. Buteyko-s VDBE (Voluntary Deep Breathing Elimination)
on Patients with AIDS
This is to confirm the following results of the VDBE therapy in KSRIEID from January 08, 1991 to March 31,1991:
1. The use of the VDBE method has resulted in positive symptom dynamics.
2. No side-effects or complications have been observed in patients with AIDS during the VDBE therapy.
3. It is sensible to continue careful observations and laboratory investigations of AIDS patients and recommend the VDBE method for further testing.
4. Regular psychotherapy that had been used earlier proved ineffective, and the condition of four patients even worsened.
Director of KSRIEID,
USSR AMS Correspondent Member,
Professor A. F. Frolov
ORDER OF LENIN USSR ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
NATIONAL RADIATION MEDICINE
on K.P. Buteyko-s VDBE Method approval (in 1990)
in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement of January 3, 1990
between the USSR AMS NRMRC
and the therapeutic center
headed by Candidate of Medicine K. P. Buteyko
The VDBE Method therapy was tested on 50 patients of the USSR AMSE NRMRC Institute of Clinical Radiology departments and departments of Kiev Shevchenko CRCB with the purpose of identifying the clinical and pathophysiological mechanisms of Buteyko Breathing in persons affected by ionizing radiology in Chernobyl disaster.
The following results were achieved: hemodynamic, blood test and intestinal system improvements were revealed in 82% of patients. Upon analysis of patients- records and diaries, the following conclusions can be made:
1. The VDBE method reduces the use of drugs, and in time totally discontinues medication therapy for some individuals.
2. In multiple therapy, the VDBE method provides improvement of blood and some hemodynamic (blood pressure, pulse) values.
3. The VDBE method as one of the bracing non-conventional methods does not result in complications or side-effects.
4. The VDBE Method is further recommendable for rehabilitation of the Chernobyl disaster victims as one of the drug-free therapy components.
Institute of Clinical Radiology
V. G. Bebeshko
Department of Neurology
Best Breast Cancer Trial Ever Known: 6 Times Less Mortality.
The clinical trial was conducted by Sergey Paschenko, MD, a pupil of Dr. Konstantin Buteyko (the author of the Buteyko breathing method). The study was published by the Ukrainian National Journal of Oncology (Kiev, 2001, v. 3, No.1, p. 77-78, “Study of application of the shallow breathing method in a combined treatment of breast cancer”).
One hundred twenty patients with breast cancer (T1-2N1M0) participated in this study. (These letters and numbers relate to cancer parameters. For T1-2: the tumors are less than 5 cm or 2 inches in size; N1: cancer has spread to 1 to 3 axillary (underarm) lymph nodes, and/or tiny amounts of cancer are found in internal mammary lymph nodes (those near the breastbone) on sentinel lymph node biopsy; M0: no distant metastasis). All patients had a standard anti-cancer therapy that included the surgical removal of tumors. However, in addition to this therapy, the breathing retraining group (67 patients) practiced shallow breathing exercises. Their parameters were compared with the control group (the remaining 53 patients). The three-year mortality rate for the breathing normalization group was 4.5% and for the control group 24.5%. Hence, breathing normalization decreased a 3-year mortality by more than 5 times. All patients who normalized their breathing survived.
USSR MINISTRY OF HEALTH
April 30, 1985
ABOUT THE ACTIONS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF THE METHOD OF CONSCIOUS REGULATION OF THE DEPTH OF BREATHING IN THE TREATMENT OF BRONCHIAL ASTHMA
In recent years, methods of drug-free therapy have vastly penetrated into bronchial asthma treatment. The efficiency of the modified voluntary breathing depth reduction method (the Certificate of Authorship for Innovation N 1067640 of September 15, 1983 “Haemohypocarbia Therapy Method” granted to K. P. Buteyko) for bronchial asthma therapy in children and adults, as combined with regular medication and physiotherapeutic techniques, has been experimentally confirmed in several science and research institutes.
Therefore, in order to induce the further development of drug-free bronchial asthma therapy methods and initiate use of the voluntary breathing depth adjustment method in medicine, I hereby command:
1. The USSR Ministry of Health 1st Moscow Medical Institute named after I. M. Sechenov (Mr. V. I. Petrov) shall continue research of the voluntary breathing depth reduction method for bronchial asthma therapy in children and adults, execute the Practices for doctors, and deliver the latter in good manner for the USSR Ministry of Health approval by December 1, 1985.
2. The USSR Ministry of Health CSRI of Tuberculosis (Mr. A. G. Khomenko), NSRI of Pulmonology (Mr. N. M. Putov), and the RSFSR MSRI of Tuberculosis (Mr. A. A. Priymak) shall organize research of the voluntary breathing depth reduction method for bronchial asthma therapy in children and adults in 1985, execute the Practices for doctors, and deliver the latter in good manner for the USSR Ministry of Health approval by December 1, 1986.
3. In 1985-1986, the Institute of Breathing Physiology and Pathology (Mr. M. T. Lutsenko), Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (Mr. V. P. Kaznacheyev), and the Institute of Therapy (Mr. Yu. P. Nikitin), all Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Medical Science, shall organize research of the voluntary breathing depth reduction method therapy of patients with various inner organ pathologies, execute the Method Implementation Practices, and deliver the latter in good manner for the USSR Ministry of Health approval by December 1, 1987.
4. In December 1986, the USSR Ministry of Health Academic Medical Council (Mr. O. K. Gavrilov), USSR Ministry of Health Agency for Maternal and Infant Prophylaxis (Ms. I. I. Grebesheva) and the USSR Ministry of Health Agency for Prophylaxis (Mr. A. M. Moskvichev) shall organize a conference on “Drug-free Methods of Bronchial Asthma Therapy”.
5. By June 15, 1986, the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Medical Science (Mr. Yu. I. Borodin) shall file an application to the RSFSR Ministry of Health for supplementary appropriations into a research group acting as a research and methodology center for further research of the voluntary breathing depth reduction method therapy for various pathologies.
6. By June 1985, the USSR Ministry of Health 1st Moscow Medical Institute named after I. M. Sechenov (Mr. V. I. Petrov) shall file an application to the USSR Ministry of Health for supplementary appropriations into the Department of Remedial Gymnastics (Prof. V. A. Siluyanova) in order to organize further research of the voluntary breathing depth reduction method.
7. By June 1, 1985, Chairman of the National Research and Technology Program Coordination Committee (Mr. A. G. Khomenko) shall include research of the drug-free bronchial asthma therapy with the help of voluntary breathing depth reduction method in the 12th five-year plan Program.
8. Implementation of this Order shall be controlled by the USSR Ministry of Health Academic Medical Council (Mr. O. K. Gavrilov), USSR Ministry of Health Agency for Maternal and Infant Prophylaxis (Ms. I. I. Grebesheva) and the USSR Ministry of Health Agency for Prophylaxis (Mr. A. M. Moskvichev).
The minister S. Burenkov
1991, Kiev Scient and Res Inst of Epidemiol and Infect Diseases, Ukraine (hepatitis B and liver cirrhosis)
30 patients, mostly 20-40 years old, diagnosed with acute (6 patients) and chronic (18 patients) hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver (6 patients) applied the Buteyko method, while continuing to use traditional medication (Frolov et al, 1991b). 28 patients had remissions of their symptoms while 25 showed improvements in their blood test results. The official documents report 93% success rate.
Frolov AF, Buteyko KP, Vovk AD, Novosel’tsev VA, Degtyareva RM, Report about approbation of the VEDB (voluntary elimination of deep breathing) method or the Buteyko method in the Clinic of the KSRIEID (Kiev Scientific and Research Institute of Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases) on patients with acute and chronic hepatitis, and liver cirrhosis during 10 January-30 April 1991, Kiev, 1991b.
Reports from two conferences in Moscow and Krasnojarsk in 1988 (large variety of health problems)
In addition to these trials, there were about 30 published reports (Buteyko method, 1992) of about 40 Russian medical doctors and health professionals, who met during two conferences in Moscow and Krasnojarsk in 1988 in order to share their practical experience of application of the Buteyko method in over 20 medical hospitals and clinics in Russia. The total reported number of treated people, according to the published conference proceedings (Buteyko, 1991), was over 3,000. Although most of them had respiratory (asthma, bronchitis, rhinitis, etc.) and cardiovascular (hypertension, angina pectoris, ischemia, etc.) problems, hundreds were treated or relieved from arthritis, osteoporosis, epilepsy, ulcers, gastritis, kidney stone problems, hepatitis, different infertility conditions, skin diseases (e.g., dermatitis, psoriasis, eczema), etc. Typical reported results were either some or essential improvement for over 90% patients, while remaining patients were not able to normalise their breathing parameters due to absence of desire or motivation and quitting the method during its initial stages. Thus, those patients who achieved large CPs significantly improved their health state. Normalization of breathing always leads to dissapperance of symptoms and no need for medication.
Buteyko method. Its application in medical practice, ed. by K.P. Buteyko, 1991, 2nd edition, Titul, Odessa.
How can we identify the extent of incorrect breathing?
By measuring “the control pause” and pulse. All known publications describe measuring of the control pause quite vaguely. Below is a clearer description:
The control pause should be preferably measured in standard conditions, after a 10 minute breath-equalizing rest.
Sit conveniently. Take a beautiful, correct posture, spread out your shoulders. The stomach will straighten up. Inhale normally, relax the stomach. Involuntary exhalation will come out by itself. As the exhalation is finished, note the position of the second hand visually and hold breath. During the time of measuring, do not follow the hand, just focus on a spot in front of you or shut your eyes. Do not breathe in until it gets difficult, i.e. until diaphragm’s “push” up. Simultaneously, stomach and neck muscles get push too: patients normally describe this condition as a “push in the throat”. Read of the second hand’s position at the “push” point, and continue breathing. Do not inhale deeper than prior to breath-holding.
Thus measured pairs of stable values “control pause – pulse” determine the stage of your disease by the following rule:
– 1-10 secs. CP (pulse 100): severely sick, critically and terminally ill patients, usually hospitalized;
– 10-20 secs. CP (pulse 90): sick patients with health complaints, often on daily medication;
– 20-30 secs. CP (pulse 80): people with average health, usually without serious chronic health problems;
– 40-60 secs. CP (pulse 70): very good health;
– 60 secs + CP with the pulse below 70: robust health, when many chronic diseases are virtually impossible.
If the control pause rises to 90, 120 or 180 seconds, humans acquire a special resistance to hunger, cold, heat, infection, poisons and increased nuclear radiation.
Stability of values is the “repeatability” of such values within the range corresponding to a specific stage of the disease during at least several days.
There are cases of people who have poor results (less than 20 secs.), but who do not suffer from chronic diseases. Such people typically do not have a genetic predisposition to chronic disease. That said, low body O2 always compromises health and fitness, energy levels, and overall quality of life to some degree.
Some people can have abnormally large CP numbers. This can happen in cases of carotid body resections, denervation of respiratory muscles, and near-death experiences. People with sleep apnea and lost or blunted CO2 sensitivity, can also have exaggerated test results.
At the same time, cases of people with normal breathing (and normal body O2 content) who have low results for the CP test are virtually unknown.
by Peter Kolb
While the Buteyko method introduced into the west has been getting excellent results, it does not entirely accord with Professor Buteyko’s recommended practice. During two weeks he spent in New Zealand in December 2000, he demonstrated the Buteyko technique as it should be practiced.
Firstly, it needs to be understood that breathing too much is a bad habit that leaves you with a debilitating shortage of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate. It usually results from long term, undischarged stress. Any stress makes you breathe more. If this is sustained over a long time period it becomes a habit. The physiology behind this habituation process is well understood. Buteyko therapy aims at reversing this, by habituating to less breathing. You do this by developing and sustaining a feeling of a slight shortage of air over a long time period. This gradually restores your carbon dioxide and bicarbonate levels back to normal.
While it is possible to stifle an asthma attack with a long and uncomfortable breath hold know as a maximum pause (MP), this procedure does not reverse your asthma and does not retrain the respiratory center to pace your breathing correctly. Professor Buteyko is emphatic that the maximum pause has no therapeutic value in restoring healthy breathing, which is the aim of his therapy. It is also dangerous for people with various disorders such as hypertension, heart disease, epilepsy, kidney disease and diabetes. It can also destabilize your breathing, making it worse. Unfortunately the maximum pause has been introduced into a westernized version of the Buteyko technique, much to the annoyance of the Professor.
An understanding of the physiology behind the Bueyko method leaves no doubt that the maximum pause cannot improve your breathing.
Professor Buteyko is firmly opposed to the DIY/self-help approach. The Buteyko technique relies 100% on patient compliance for effectiveness. Learning it from a script is like learning Yoga or martial arts from a book. Most people will experience changes in their bodies as their CO2 levels rise. These changes vary from one individual to another. Buteyko practitioners help you deal with these changes, keep you motivated and ensure that you do the breathing exercises correctly. Support for your Buteyko practitioner enables him to continue his work of bringing the technique to other sufferers.
Nevertheless, very few people around the world have access to a Buteyko practitioner. So here are some basics to help get you started.
Do not make any changes to medication. Steroids must be taken as prescribed. Because of carbon dioxide shortage asthmatics often don’t make enough Cortisol (natural steroid) and must have supplements. Steroids are not just anti-inflammatories but they are needed by the body and without the right amount it can be almost impossible to get breathing back to normal. Your doctor will be able to review your need for steroids when you stop having asthma symptoms.
Bronchodilators must be taken only when needed. As you progress, discuss with your doctor the possibility of weaning yourself off long acting bronchodilators and replacing them with short acting ones. That will give you more control over using them when needed. You should find that within days you will be able to overcome asthma attacks with reduced breathing and won’t need the bronchodilators. Nevertheless, you must always carry them with you for emergencies.
Always breathe through your nose. If your nose is blocked perform the following exercise: After breathing normally (do not make any exaggerated breathing manoeuvre), hold your breath for as long as is comfortable, and then gradually resume very gentle breathing. It may help to pinch your nose, nod your head a few times or do some other form of exercise. In stubborn cases or when the blockage is due to a cold, you may have to try a few more times.
To avoid breathing through your mouth in your sleep, you might like to experiment with a little light medical paper tape to keep your mouth closed. Mouth taping at night is not recommended by Professor Buteyko, but most people find it extremely valuable. If you do, protect your lips with suitable cream, use a low tack tape (some are quite aggressive), and make sure you fold a tab or handle at each end for rapid and easy removal. Do not go to sleep with tape on your mouth if this causes any form of anxiety.
Make sure you’re comfortable before starting the exercises. Remove unnecessary clothing since the improved blood carbon dioxide will dilate blood vessels in the skin, thereby warming you up.
To get your posture right stand with your back to a wall, heels, shoulders head and bottom touching the wall. Now drop your shoulders. Keep this upper body posture when sitting.
While maintaining your posture, relax all the muscles in your chest, neck, shoulders, arms, tummy and particularly the diaphragm. It’s a good idea to tense them up a bit first before relaxing them so that you can properly identify them and make sure they are all relaxed.
Take off your shirt and stand in front of a full length mirror. Watch your chest and tummy for breathing movement. Make sure that your chest does not move at all, and only the upper part of the tummy moves, between navel and breast bone. The second thing to check for is that the tummy moves out with each in breath and not the other way around. Many people get this wrong. Your out-breath must be free, relaxed and unforced.
Reduced breathing (RB)
Your aim is to develop a feeling of slight hunger for air, sustain this over a period and do this frequently. In fact, this should become a habit so that you do it all the time until you have achieved your health goal.
Try to feel your breathing and become aware of your breathing pattern. Now try to maintain this pattern while taking in just a little less air on each breath so that you develop a slight hunger for air. Initially try to sustain this for two minutes, then five and then ten.
If you follow all the steps correctly, then you should feel really calm, good and even a little sleepy. If you already practice relaxation techniques, yoga etc, you can combine them with reduced breathing.
Measuring your breathing
Hyperventilators breathe more than normal in order to achieve lower than normal blood carbon dioxide levels. It follows that if you have to breathe more than normal, then you will also not be able to hold your breath as long as you should. Professor Buteyko has cunningly used this principle to measure your blood carbon dioxide by testing how long you can hold your breath.
You start the pause somewhere in your normal breathing cycle. This is how you start the pause: Look up with your eyes and at the same time pinch your nose and start a stop watch. Just before it starts to get uncomfortable, stop the stop watch and resume normal breathing. You should be able to resume normal breathing without any effort and without taking deeper or more frequent breaths.
– Do not take a deeper breath before the pause.
– Do not make any attempt to empty the lungs before the pause.
– Do not worry about which phase of the respiratory cycle you happen to be in before starting the pause. A pause is just an interruption of normal breathing.
The time in seconds is called a Control Pause (CP). Asthmatics typically have a CP of 5 – 15 seconds. (But not everyone with such a low CP has asthma.) Your aim is to achieve a CP greater than 40 seconds, although for perfect health Professor Buteyko recommends a CP of at least 60 seconds.
Doing a Set
When at rest, correctly seated, comfortable and relaxed and after breathing normally for at least five minutes you are ready to do a set. A set consists of
Pulse – CP – Reduced breathing – 3min normal breathing – Pulse – CP
First measure your pulse and then do a CP. Record the results on a table. Then do reduced breathing for ten minutes. Breathe normally for three minutes, then take your pulse again and take another CP. If you’ve done your reduced breathing correctly your pulse should go down and your CP should go up. Sometimes the pulse remains the same. If it goes up you’re not doing it correctly.
After three days you should be able to do around 8 to 10 sets a day. You can then start integrating reduced breathing into your daily life. Ideally you should aim at doing reduced breathing all day.
That takes care of the exercises. Here are a few helpful hints to help your recovery.
– Don’t eat unless you are hungry. Only eat until you have had enough. Eating increases breathing; eating excessively increases breathing excessively.
– Don’t dress too warmly. Be careful not to overdress children. If you are worried about them being cold, check their ears, nose, hands and feet. If these are warm, they’re OK.
– Make sure you get plenty of vigorous exercise. But don’t exercise to the point where you have to open your mouth to breathe.
If any of these recommendations make you dizzy, sick, anxious or give you palpitations, stop immediately. If possible see a Buteyko practitioner.
About The Buteyko Method: A Summary of the Pathophysiology of Chronic Hyperventilation by Ira Packman, M.D.
The fact that chronic hyperventilation (CHV) has an effect on the lungs is easily understood and explained. The systemic (whole body) effects however, are physically and physiologically distant from the lungs and therefore are more difficult to understand. The multi-system, wide spread systemic ramifications of chronic hyperventilation are numerous.
These effects are all caused by the initial effect of pulmonary hypocapnia (low CO2) which causes spasm of the airways leading to asthma. The loss of CO2 from the lung on a long term basis causes a compensatory response throughout the body. This concept is called homeostasis which means that the body is always trying to stay in balance and return to its most comfortable state.
A partial list of homeostatic controls would include:
– Constant body temperature
– Constant whole body water volume
– Glucose levels
– Mineral balance including sodium, potassium, magnesium, zinc etc.
– Acid base balance (Ph control)
The acid base/Ph control mechanisms are very sensitive and closely controlled, because the Ph of the body affects the function of every body system. It is this system that is activated when patients chronically hyperventilate.
Understanding this concept, we can follow what happens with CHV.
– The lungs continuously blow off too much CO2 causing local pulmonary hypocapnia (low CO2) and arterial hypocapnia.
– The arterial hypocapnia immediately changes the Ph of the circulating blood causing an increase in the Ph (alkalosis).
– The increase in the Ph causes a decrease in the delivery of Oxygen to all the bodies tissues due to the Bohr Effect (In an alkalotic environment, the hemoglobin molecules in the red cells hold onto the oxygen molecules more tightly and will not release the O2 to the tissues).
– The kidneys see the alkalosis/Ph change and know that it must correct the bodies Ph back towards neutral (neutral Ph is a Ph of 7.40). Once CHV becomes long standing the kidneys response becomes an ongoing process in which the kidneys excrete bicarbonate in an attempt to correct the alkalosis which was created by the CHV.
– The net result is a depletion of the bicarbonate buffers due to continuous over excretion of bicarbonate which also causes the loss of electrolytes including magnesium and phosphorous which are lost with the bicarbonate.
– The loss of phosphorous also decreases the production of ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) and ADP which are the bodies’ main source of energy.
– This then causes a decrease in the functioning of many organs including the muscles, heart, lungs, bone marrow, immune system and liver.
– These functional changes, coupled with the arterial spasm that occurs directly due to the low CO2 levels in the blood, are expressed in the long term as muscle fatigue, hypertension due to arterial spasm, decrease in the oxygenation of the brain, migraine headaches due to arterial spasm, spasm of the arteries supplying the gut, decrease brain function with memory changes, alterations in the production of proteins and metabolism of lipids in the liver causing elevated cholesterol.
This is just a partial list of the systems, organs and bodily functions which are affected by CHV and the subsequent low CO2 levels in the lungs and blood.
This concept regarding the origins and causes of these diseases is very radically different from the way medical schools teach about these diseases. It is revolutionary and may be too simple for many academicians to accept or understand.
*Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics:* https://archive.org/details/virus-mania-how-the-medical-industry-continually-invents-epidemics/mode/2up
*BÉCHAMP or PASTEUR? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology by Ethel Douglas Hume:* https://digital.library.yorku.ca/yul-570312/bechamp-or-pasteur-lost-chapter-history-biology#page/44/mode/2up
Or here: https://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/Bechamp-or-Pasteur.pdf
Amazing that what passes for the scientific method is akin to a child playing with a chemistry set. I find the idea that viruses may already exist within the body very intriging. Seems to me all this “scientific” researh is purposely designed to fit the required results so that pharma can create another useless drug or vaccine. And here we have unsubstantiated gene altering therapies readily available to save us from a fake virus. The bottom line is that these fake vaccines have been introduced for the express purpose of adding 100’s of billions of dollars to pharma’s coffers no matter how many people are murdered. Pharma has absolutely no skin in the game and no responsibility for injuries and deaths.
Maria Owings says
I found the following description of viral isolation in Emerging Infection Disease Journal, Volume 26, No.6, June2020, article entitled “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States” :
“Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.comExternal Link). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
Please explain how this ensures that the Covid virus has actually been purified and isolated. Evidently this ‘isolate’ has been made available for other researchers, so I’m wondering if its valid.
See this : https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1/cpe-english:f
I notice there is not a single negative comment here. I imagine that is because the article is written by the VP of this organization and has densités comments. I found the Westin A. price book to be life changing, but this is appalling, and the scientific evidence seems WEAK. This has the danger of discrediting the entire Weston a. Price movement and teachings as you spout big words but the concepts are easily broken apart with even limited thinking. Like the objectionary comments you posted at the beginning but don’t address.
Well then, Please Holly in all your wisdom and knowledge, refute the information in this article. Why does the evidence seem WEAK???
Covid-19 is mainly a vitamin D deficiency, like the flu, EMF is another issue.
New EMF can give sickness but it’s not the cause of the flu.
It is ignorant to say that viruses do not exist. There is visual and experiential proof of this in your own lives. Your body uses viruses to clean waste out of the body. Its simple as that.
It is true that viruses are not contagious, each body creates a virus within itself based on the toxicity and nature of the organism. Viruses are not alive. It can exist on a surface, but it cannot breed life itself.
I appreciate your skepticism, but you are off on a tangent here, getting sidetracked and bogged down with irrelevant details and evidence. Exosomes, while a true element, are actually not what the virus is created for. The virus exists only to clean waste that the bacteria and other elements of the immune system cannot handle. Once a virus dissolves waste for excretion (bowels, urine, sweat, mucus, rashes, etc) , the virus itself is changing within the body for other functions and purposes. Viruses are present in the body nearly constantly– most of the time without great notice.
The immune system is very complex network, in fact it is the whole body. You can’t divide it out and theorize properly. Just know the simple fact that without viruses, there would not be life on Earth. All creatures need viruses to detoxify.
COVID 19 is propaganda. It is a cold virus– it is nothing new or novel. This was used as a tool to execute a plan over the masses. Maybe eugenics through vaccines? Maybe erosion of freedoms and rights? Maybe to exert control and dominate others? Maybe to bury the movement of resisting/ decoupling from “big government” bureaucracies and institutions?
Keep your head straight and clear, don’t get too crooked on your theories that you lose the essence of the energy within you.
Adam Pogioli says
Please write a rebuttal to this soon: https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/craig-holdrege-and-jon-mcalice/some-comments-on-the-contagion-myth?rq=contagion%20myth
Some of the comments above about ‘ viruses’ may want to actually look at the history and the unscientific evidence in how the idea of existence of viruses came about , from bad science and fraudulent science It has disproven twice but the belief system just does not go away.
“Up to the year 1949, the “virologists” cultivated their suspect- ed “viruses” (proteins) by placing a piece of putrescent ge- netic material, which had been taken from a tissue allegedly infected by a virus, on a slice of “healthy” tissue of the same type. The visible intensification of the putrefaction process, which was transmitted from the “sick” tissue to the “healthy” tissue, was misinterpreted as proliferation and spreading of the virus, of the pathogenic poison. Due to control experi- ments with healthy tissue carried out for the first time in 1951, the virologists discovered that what they saw were quite nor- mal processes of tissue decay and not a virus that would only be present in “sick” tissue”
“Until 1952, a “virus” was defined as a pathogenic poison in the form of a protein, which as an enzyme caused damage in an unknown manner, would cause disease and be transmissible. After 1953, the year in which the alleged DNA in the form an alleged alpha helix was publicly announced, the idea of a virus became a malignant genotype wrapped in proteins. Thus, a paradigm shift took place between 1952 to 1954 regarding the image of a virus.)
The virologists who claim that viruses cause illness refer centrally to a single publication with which they justify what they do and pass it off as scientific. This is easily recognized as insane and anti-scientific.
The authors, who published these considerations on June 1, 1954, have explicitly described their observations as speculations that have been refuted in themselves and that will only be verified in the future. To this day, this future verification has not taken place, because the first author of this study, Prof. John Franklin Enders, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine on December 10, 1954. He received the Nobel Prize for another speculation within the old, in 1951 disproved “Viruses are dangerous protein-toxins” theory.
The Nobel Prize had two effects: The old, disproved toxin- virus-theory got a pseudo-scientific nimbus and the new gene-virology the highest, apparently scientific honour.
Enders, his colleagues and all virologists overlooked – because of the Nobel Prize’s blindness – that the death of the cells in the laboratory is not caused by a virus, but because the cells are unintentionally and unnoticed but systematically killed in the laboratory.By poisoning with cell-toxic antibiotics, by extreme starvation by means of withdrawal of the nutrient solution and by the addition of decomposing proteins, which release toxic metabolic products.
Enders and the “virologists” have never, until today, carried out control experiments to “infect” the cells in the laboratory with sterile material. They die in the control experiment in exactly the same way as with supposedly “viral ‘material.
Error and self-deception are human, comprehensible and excusable. What is not excusable are the constant claims of virologists that their statements and their actions are scientific. That is clearly wrong, easily provable and comprehensible for everyone. Therefore the virologists who claim corona viruses or other pathogenic viruses are to be called employment fraudsters and prosecuted by legal means so that they retract their false, disproved and dangerous statements. Thus, the Corona crisis and other “viral” disasters with resulting deadly consequences such as “AIDS”, „Ebola” and other unfounded “viral” pandemics can and will not only be stopped, prevented in the future, but turned into an opportunity for all.
Now disproven again with the latest control study
Diana Jenul says
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for spreading the truth 🙂
Michael Swanson says
Pretty impressive research from where I sit, I tend to believe it though there are I think some good doctors who do not like Dr. Richard Fleming. You can look at his “master class” video he shows video of what looks like distinct sars cov 2 viruses at about 2:12:35
Though it doesn’t mean you are wrong but Dr. Fleming, McCullough and many other good docs have developed anti-viral based therapies that seem to be very effective for the disease and being suppressed in favor of vaccines. So virology has maybe done some good there?
Visible light is far more energetic and intense than 5G. Nobody is dropping dead from turning on a lightbulb
Tim Boyd says
You’ve missed the point. It is not about energy, it is about frequency.
Any update on why COVID numbers remain low in New Zealand, which has 5G, and high in India, which doesn’t? You’ve had nearly a year to address this.
Thanks to Dr Thomas Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell, the book “Contagion Myth” (renamed by Amazon) is enlightening and enjoyable. We have hugely benefited by looking for correct reasons as to what ails is and are successfully keeping good health by employing simple techniques like making corrections to food/food habits, walking/exercising in the Sun, drinking structured water, switching off the Wi-Fi modem and mobile data during night etc.
Intend to read other of Dr Tom Cowan’s books like Human Heart Cosmic Heart and Nourishing Traditions.
Would like to bring to your notice this article, “Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge”, link: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1121993/v1
As we would expect, the “deadly” SARS-CoV-2 virus (for those who believe in it) turned out to be harmless. Half of those inoculated reported symptoms but did NOT need any treatment, and the remaining half experienced no symptoms. The researchers also found no correlation between “viral load” and symptoms!! The experiment would have been better if they had controls like just saline water or snort from healthy person (s). This may be added as an addendum to this article, or be the subject of a different smaller article.
Many Thanks and Wishing Success with your efforts!!
A comment to a comment:
“Some friends went to a wedding in Kirkland, Washington, and got Covid, so it must be infectious.”… – According to Dr. Klinghard, who lives near Kirkland, Kirland was packed with 5G antennas (and there were maps to, where I checked his claims an it was true!) early on in 2020 and even the hospitals were equiped with 5G technologiy – just like some hospitals in Wuhan, where doctors did ‘remote diagnosis’…
So, if ppl are getting sick in Kirkland, this would confirm that 5G could have knocked them out.