He calls it "Perhaps The Most Important Work of Our Time." Hardly. It's all BAD science that proves (or disproves) absolutely nothing other than it is easy to fool people who are not scientists.
As a virologist, this 'no virus' argument is ridiculous. These virus deniers do not have a clear understanding of the processes and procedures that we use to study viruses. This whole debate is a waste of time. It's basically an existential debate on meaninglessness. This is such a distraction away from what is more important.
Virology is based on a yet unproven hypothesis. There are ongoing contentions because germ theory contains elements of truth within it. Ultimately, virology is a bending of truth mixed with falsehoods. While germs, virus-like particles and microbes do indeed exist, they are not yet proven to be the outside pathogenic invaders as envisioned by Louis Pasteur et al.
I understand this discussion (a debate requires a 'winner') may seem 'ridiculous' and/or a 'waste of time' to you, but I feel this is merely a categorising of the challengers to justify not engaging with them.
I have been working in a virology lab for more than 25 years now. We daily analyze them, extract their RNA/DNA, sequence and what not more. If virus didn´t exist I don´t know what I have been doing then for a quarter of a century.
This does not imply that I am C19 vaxxed! I am a contrarian and don´t follow narratives that easily and because of my background it took me less than a minute to decide not to be poisoned.
As already mentioned in this thread, a meaningless discussion!
I agree! As someone who spent over a decade in vaccine development and preclinical testing, I knew before the gene therapy injections were a thing that they would never prevent infection. Not to mention unnecessary for those who had been infected and recovered. Such a shame that so many bought into the noble lie.
My understanding....a 'noble lie' is a lie, deemed necessary to effect a greater good.
Say if elements of the medical / scientific community bought into the efficacy of these 'vaccines' from the start, which clearly loads did, they wouldn't need any lie, they figured they were doing the right thing anyway.
For [ others ] who knew that the shots were nonsense, what was the 'greater good' they were going for that required this falsehood.
I'm struggling to see why people refer to this 'noble lie'.
I saw your comment about standing up against the jabs and the flac you got, courageous, so few did so thanks for that 🙏
Ah, it's claiming the safety of the 'vaccines', but accepting the collateral damage, the greater good being more people would have died otherwise, forgot that one !
So it's different groupings, one that believed in covid being a deadly disease, believed in the efficacy of the jabs, but knew a certain amount of people would be harmed or offed by the novel soup.
Or didn't believe covid was a particularly deadly disease ( no vax needed ) but thought giving people a 'cure' would calm society down, maybe they did or didn't know about the possible safety concerns.
There is a whole body of literature out there all you have to do is look. That being said, I don't argue with donkeys. I am channeling my time and energy to more valuable endeavors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dQxwvyyxE
What is it with the donkeys comments lol, it's a bad look, and why won't Steve chastise you like he did others, I'm starting to look at virologists like psychiatrists, never addressing the actual criticisms.
Your lofty dismissal of even discussion on this says a lot.
What are you guys actually sequencing?
How can you know it's a virus?
This should be easy to defend no? Just tell us all why you know it's a particle known as a virus that is being sequenced.
watch the video and maybe you will understand the donkey comment. I'm not wasting time engaging in existential debates on meaninglessness. Have a good day!
OK Yoda. Just because you don't understand something does not take away from the facts. Have you ever worked in a lab? what is your background or area of expertise? Why not prove your statements instead? I have yet to see any real evidence for this claim of the virus deniers. Just denial and circular arguments without any basis of fact.
Hello Jennifer. Are you familiar with Dr. Delgado that heads up La Quinta Columna? I truly believe if we are ever to get to the bottom of what are the covid-19 vaccines, it is important to know the composition of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. What is in the vials. And Dr. Delgado, who has a prestigious resume of accomplishments, and degrees decided to find out back in 2022.
His most important discovery, based upon his research is that covid disease is acute radiation syndrome enhanced by a material that is graphene. He found graphene oxide in the injectables using micro reman technique.
Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, a Doctor of Chemical Sciences with a degree in biological sciences used Micro-Raman spectroscopy to identify objects, which are reman patterns, and agreed with Dr. Delgado that they were unmistakenly those of graphene oxide.
Graphene oxide is detected in the body by specialized cells of the immune system. And its behavior is like that of a pathogen. It generates an inflammatory response. There is mitochondrial damage, damage to the DNA, and a cytokine response. And from the point of view of intravenous administration, it is mainly eliminated by the lungs causing pulmonary inflammation. And this is the origin of pneumonia.
When graphene comes in touch with the blood it generates a bioelectrical corona. Graphene as a nanoscale is what they called Sars-Cov2 or corona virus.
Graphene is also a radio modular material. This means it becomes excited by electromagnetic fields. The toxicity that emanates from it depends upon the amount of radiation that it can absorb. Delgado showed on a slide graphene getting excited. One of its effects is that it coagulates the blood. This causes damage such as strokes, ischemia, and heart attacks. Things we are seeing these days.
Something important too he noted is that the covid vaccines do not contain messenger RNA or any biological material. He said this: “the governments themselves bought in the whole mRNA and spike protein information, a false dissonance to cover up the nanotechnology.”
Between the work of Dr. Delgado of LaQuinta Columna and Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, it is probably gratuitous to focus on terrain vs. viral theory because what is in these vaccines, and the adverse events reported are also the effects reported due to the presence of graphene oxide in the body.
Whether one is into viral theory or terrain, if there is graphene in the CV-19 vaxes, it has an impact on the terrain. Something on the outside, being injected into the body causing deleterious effects.
Yes, there is including literature that falsifies your hypothesis as demonstrated by Antoine Bechamp et al. Having studied this alternative literature, you'll realise virus-like entities are found within us at all times, and they can either be a reflection of health or disease depending upon the internal terrain of the individual. Remember, germ theory is just a theory, and like any other it's open to challenge.
Considering the father of germ theory himself massaged and/or manipulated raw data in order to fit his own preconceived ideas, it raises the legitimate question 'are modern day virologists any different?'
If germ theory was true beyond doubt, no one would survive to argue the point.
You just admitted vitus like entities are found within us at all times. According to science, a covid virus is around all the time and in our bone marrow. That doesn't mean viruses don't exist. It would be prudent to stop repeating that false hood and come together in the obvious summation that our health alone determines our susceptibility to the ever present ever existing viral biome of our body and the planets viral biome. Every living thing on the planet has a viral biome. Imo
This should not be a one or the other argument. BOTH can exist at the same time in the same space. BOTH terrain and germ theory can apply. One does not abrogate the other.
I totally agree with you. I wouldn't be giving this any exposure, but a significant number of people believe it and so it's important to show them evidence as to how ridiculous their position is. We can see images of cells in ALL phases of viral replication.
Their position is analogous to showing someone a video tape of a bank robbery happening and then they claim that if you can't arrest the suspects, the bank robbery didn't happen.
Thank you for writing this article, Steve, and for bringing more awareness to these topics that are so widely misrepresented by No-Virus members. It's unfortunate to see such a level of anti-science among these individuals and the thousands who follow them without knowing better.
As I mentioned to you, I watched your debate with Kaufman, which also reveals a significant lack of intellectual honesty. It's so revealing to see the level of hate you're facing simply for engaging in such debates.
Steve, you might find this interesting as it provides more insight into Jamie Andrews' representation of his controls. Take a look at his responses to my questions.
Indeed, note how many of the comments directed toward Steve and this debate completely invert the reality of what actually transpired. They're in damage control mode. Also, note the amount of troll accounts that have become active in this thread. These are all No-Virus troll accounts that post all over the internet repeating the same comments.
I've watched the debate several times, and near the end, Kaufman belittles Steve by asking, "So, bacteria are invisible? We can't see bacteria?" This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty and arguing in bad faith. I'm not sure Steve picked up on it at first because he was concentrated on trying to answer Kaufman's question, while Kaufman was actually just trying to make Steve spin his wheels.
Steve, you say no ad hominem attacks and yet refer to people who hold another position for a lot of solid reasons "ridiculous." Nice. How about you read my posts and explain it? Cells are just collateral damage to an attack on the electromagnetic field. The cell effect is last cause not first Steve. I highly suggest you do an interview with Dr. Tom Cowen. And virologist Dr. Stephan Lanka before closing the door here.
“Whenever the ‘classical’ system of the day is threatened by the results of new experiments which might be interpreted as falsifications[1] according to my point of view, the system will appear unshaken to the conventionalist.[2] He will explain away the inconsistencies which may have arisen; perhaps by blaming our inadequate mastery of the system.
Or he will eliminate them by suggesting ad hoc the adoption of certain auxiliary hypotheses, or perhaps of certain corrections to our measuring instruments.
In such times of crisis this conflict over the aims of science will become acute. We, and those who share our attitude, will hope to make new discoveries; and we shall hope to be helped in this by a newly erected scientific system. Thus we shall take the greatest interest in the falsifying experiment. We shall hail it as a success, for it has opened up new vistas into a world of new experiences. And we shall hail it even if these new experiences should furnish us with new arguments against our own most recent theories. But the newly rising structure, the boldness of which we admire, is seen by the conventionalist as a monument to the ‘total collapse of science’, as Dingler[3] puts it. In the eyes of the conventionalist one principle only can help us to select a system as the chosen one from among all other possible systems: it is the principle of selecting the simplest system—the simplest system of implicit definitions; which of course means in practice the ‘classical’ system of the day.”—Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 59-60
[1] Falsifiability, is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
[3] Hugo Dingler, studied mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Dingler's position is usually characterized as "conventionalist" by Karl Popper and others.
[2] Conventionalism is the philosophical attitude that fundamental principles of a certain kind are grounded on (explicit or implicit) agreements in society, rather than on external reality. Unspoken rules play a key role in the philosophy's structure.
****
In simple language the statements means: "When the established scientific system is challenged by new experiments that seem to disprove it, conventional thinkers will find ways to dismiss these challenges. They might say the problem lies in our lack of understanding or suggest adding new rules or fixing our tools to explain away the inconsistencies.
During such times of scientific crisis, the debate about the goals of science becomes intense. Those who embrace new ideas see these challenging experiments as opportunities for discovery. They welcome these challenges because they open up new possibilities, even if it means questioning their own recent theories.
On the other hand, conventional thinkers view these new ideas as a threat to the entire scientific system. They believe that science should stick to the simplest and most established system, which is usually the current one."
@Steve I have been maligned and vilified by both sides; the virus deniers and those who bought into the "plandemic" hook, line and sinker. I even blew the whistle on the lies and COVID corruption in Hawaii and was summarily discharged from my position as an epidemiologist at HDOH as whistleblower retaliation all documented in my book (https://ballastbooks.com/purchase/pandemic-in-paradise/). Would love to discuss with you sometime.
As a fellow virologist who was also attacked by the virus deniers eloquently said, "Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like they have won."
I was skeptical initially regarding the planned release of SARS, it was too far out there. Having listened to David Martin’s detailed history, I’ve leaned into that camp awaiting someone to objectively prove his work as having holes in it. There are so many detailed pieces on the timeline I believe it’s beyond plausible. Anyone care to drive a wedge into any of this?
That's a great analogy, but it's simply not true. We can see photos, but it's never clear what those photos are of and it's never been shown that they are of "viruses" and not of cellular debris and other matter. In fact, numerous mainstream orthodox publications have published on this, saying that one cannot distinguish cellular debris from viruses under the electron microscope.
So a better analogy would be "its like having video of a bank robbery, but we can't make out who the bank robber is, and saying we got the guy because we went out and just arrested the guy we think did it, even though we don't actually have proof he did.
At this point I believe it's a sophisticated propaganda campaign (whoever is doing it). I left a comment yesterday with only 2 likes, and, somehow out of almost 600 comments I keep getting 4th level responses from new nicknames. It's pretty improbable to find a third level comment in a big thread by accident. It's easy to skew your poll number if somebody keeps registered new accounts.
You are careful to try and avoid going over the insult line but continue to pile up complaints and numerous similar comments. You are clever enough to not copy/paste to avoid being banned but it becomes obvious over time. You are not here for serious discussion but to troll.
Banning will stop your troll operation which annoys people trying to have serious discussions.
If you want to attack my criticism of the scientific method that were deployed or not employed, you can point out the SCIENTIFIC errors in my remarks.
And PLEASE explain why they didn't do sequencing to verify they found SARS-CoV-2? And why their SARS-CoV-2 virion did NOT look like the CDC photo but they claimed it was identical.
Since according to them sequencing is flawed, they should be easily able to generate the right sequence.
sorry steve, once again always attacking the individual rather than showing conclusive proof of your claim, remember the onus is always on the claimant to prove their claim, we question it but you cannot provide conclusive proof, just circumstantial mumbo jumbo
“Whenever the ‘classical’ system of the day is threatened by the results of new experiments which might be interpreted as falsifications[1] according to my point of view, the system will appear unshaken to the conventionalist.[2] He will explain away the inconsistencies which may have arisen; perhaps by blaming our inadequate mastery of the system.
Or he will eliminate them by suggesting ad hoc the adoption of certain auxiliary hypotheses, or perhaps of certain corrections to our measuring instruments.
In such times of crisis this conflict over the aims of science will become acute. We, and those who share our attitude, will hope to make new discoveries; and we shall hope to be helped in this by a newly erected scientific system. Thus we shall take the greatest interest in the falsifying experiment. We shall hail it as a success, for it has opened up new vistas into a world of new experiences. And we shall hail it even if these new experiences should furnish us with new arguments against our own most recent theories. But the newly rising structure, the boldness of which we admire, is seen by the conventionalist as a monument to the ‘total collapse of science’, as Dingler[3] puts it. In the eyes of the conventionalist one principle only can help us to select a system as the chosen one from among all other possible systems: it is the principle of selecting the simplest system—the simplest system of implicit definitions; which of course means in practice the ‘classical’ system of the day.”—Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 59-60
[1] Falsifiability, is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
[3] Hugo Dingler, studied mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Dingler's position is usually characterized as "conventionalist" by Karl Popper and others.
[2] Conventionalism is the philosophical attitude that fundamental principles of a certain kind are grounded on (explicit or implicit) agreements in society, rather than on external reality. Unspoken rules play a key role in the philosophy's structure.
****
In simple language the statements means: "When the established scientific system is challenged by new experiments that seem to disprove it, conventional thinkers will find ways to dismiss these challenges. They might say the problem lies in our lack of understanding or suggest adding new rules or fixing our tools to explain away the inconsistencies.
During such times of scientific crisis, the debate about the goals of science becomes intense. Those who embrace new ideas see these challenging experiments as opportunities for discovery. They welcome these challenges because they open up new possibilities, even if it means questioning their own recent theories.
On the other hand, conventional thinkers view these new ideas as a threat to the entire scientific system. They believe that science should stick to the simplest and most established system, which is usually the current one."
That was what came across in the 'interview', Kaufman was starting at this scientific method logic point, Steve saw this as irrelevant and went straight to the technical science matters, someone else suggested it could be his technical background, and comfort with it, that steered the exchange
you know stabbing a cell with some needle and injecting shit until it explodes is like stabbing a human with an injectable crowbar with 750ml of some chemical cocktail. What do you think is going to happen?
Steve, I posted this below but I see you still have not fixed the many significant errors in your article.
This article seriously mischaracterizes the Lanka trail, and the higher court’s ruling.
First off, your quote is from the lower court, NOT the higher court. The higher court said no such thing at all about the basis of measles. Only the lower court, which took as the basis of its ruling a government scientist who was not allowed to be questioned by Lanka.
Second, your link is misleading. Your link is to the lower court ruling, and not to the higher court ruling which overruled them. The link to the higher court ruling is here:
As you will see in the higher court ruling, the judge did not summarily and simply say that Lanka won on appeal because he insisted that only one article be submitted. The court ruled that he won on appeal because it said that Lanka was right in saying “a published scientific paper” had to be submitted, and the judge wrote for nearly ten pages on what the meaning of “a published scientific paper” means.
In this writing, she points out that a scientific paper must be properly defined, and noted Lanka’s point that the papers submitted did not accord to the statute in Germany that Koch Institute papers must be scientific in that they must contain control experiments, and that even the plaintiff’s expert admitted that the papers did not have control experiments and that this was “a weakness” of the papers submitted.
In addition, the Judge spent substantial time noting Lanka’s point that in none of the papers was there conclusive evidence of a measles virus, and that one cannot simply willy-nilly say that the papers “work in combination” because that assertion is not backed by a methodology and thus not scientific. The court said that even the Plaintiff could have published a paper explaining HOW they work in combination, but that he did not do that, and no paper exists which did that. The Judge noted Lanka’s claim that one cannot just submit 50,000 papers and say “they work in combination” even though none of them work on their own. A single paper must explain the underlying logic of why they work in combination, otherwise the proof has not been published. This is a clear and reasonable basis upon which to award Lanka the victory in court.
I covered this court case in great detail in Episode Two of my docu-series The Viral Delusion, and you can hear from Lanka himself about it.
What I found particularly interesting is that a Professor of Philosopy in Switzerland, who had no dog in this fight, took an interest in the case, because his expertise was in the Philosophy of Science. He read the six papers submitted by the doctor and the critique of their methodological flaws by Lanka, and he was astounded to discover he agreed with Lanka’s critiques. He was so astounded he sent the papers and their critique to a friend of his who was a virologist. She told him that, yes, Lanka was probably right, that the papers were not conclusive, and that this was a problem in virology and that someone really should fix this someday! The Professor, Harold Walach (no relation), recounts the whole story in my docuseries theviraldelusion.com Episode Two.
Of course, we cover the actual papers and the foundational problems with their conclusions thoughout the docu-series, and I think most people would be astonished at the extroardinary haphazard nature of the papers, and the clear flaws in their logic. In fact, even the original and most significant measles paper by Enders admits at the end of it that one really cannot draw proper conclusions from the paper itself. Lanka as well has covered these papers and his full criticism in his magazine and has done numerous interviews explaining the foundational problems. This was also covered in the book “Virus Mania” by Torsten Engelbrecht.
In short, Enders took a boy who had measles symptoms and added his bodily fluids to a vial, to which he then added milk, salt water, baby cow’s blood, and antibiotics. He then took this mixture and put it on a monkey kidney cell. When he saw the monkey kidney cell begin to deteriorate, he claimed that this proves there was a virus in the original boy’s fluids. However, he did not perform a control experiment. As even he admits, it’s possible that the kidney cells deteriorated for other reasons. And in fact, it’s not just possible, its very very likely! What Enders did not say, or perhaps didn’t even know, is that the antibiotics he added were kidney-toxic! So it was not surprising to see that the cells deteriorated.
Shockingly, Enders experiment is not just an historical footnote. It is one of the central procedures virologists use to this day to declare they have found a virus. If you read the very first paper out of Wuham China about the so-called discovery of “Sars-cov-2”, you will see that it begins with this exact experiment, and it was upon this very same procedure (with updated, but still kidney toxic antiiobitics) that it was first declared a “sars-cov-2” virus had been found!
That is why the experiment done by Jamie Andrews and publicized by Alec Zeck is so interesting and noteworthy. They performed the control experiment that Enders never did. And what did they find? They found that cells detiorate in the experiment even without the addition of human fluid at all thus negating the scientific validty of the Enders protocol entirely.
From your comments, Steve Kirsch is part of the problem and is deliberately misleading his audience. If he is aware of the distortions he's perpetrating then he is committing a vile and terrible lie which is part of a greater lie causing death and destruction across the planet. God help him.
I certainly believe that God helped Steve Kirsch organize massive "Defeat The Mandate" rallies and organize a stellar team of scientists at Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) to fight the big pharma narrative.
It seems that he's on God's side when VSRF helps many thousands of vaccine injured people and helps doctors and nurse whistleblowers expose the injuries. God must be with Steve Kirsch when he testifies to numerous government agencies in the US and other countries about vaccine harms and does big audience interviews in major news media about the same thing.
Many of us pray to God that these government, pharma and medical tyrants will be held to account legally. Steve Kirsch and his team organized Covid Litigation Conference I and II to help lawyers band together and fight for medical freedom.
FYI, it was announced today that Kansas is suing Pfizer so his hard work is paying off.
I agree that he's done great work against the vaccine. It's an absolute shame that Steve has become this rabid establishment defender when it comes to virology. But it shouldn't be supported. And he has been downright nasty and highly highly misleading to people. Pardon the expression, but my dog is a great friend and a loyal protector, but when he sh*ts on the rug, someone has to clean it up. Steve should not be sh*tting on the people who are calling out the problems with the fake science all of this is based on. They are the most loyal to God and to the truth. We can never deviate from the actual truth. That must be out highest calling.
Doesn't virology underpin the entire vaccine programmes of the last 200 years, traditional and recent 'gene therapy', why would you not care.....is it that with freedom to decide on medical matters it doesn't matter?
I think the don't care side is terrific! At the end of the day, we all just need to stand up for our medical and political freedom, and it doesn't matter what we think!
I do think it's been incredibly helpful to both my political understanding and my understanding about health once I understood the no virus argument though, and just to my basic ability to see through the b*llshit. I also think the no-virus side has been really unbelievably maligned by the virus people. The no-virus people basically just repeat a simple (and true) refrain - "please stop talking about viruses. they are not real" and then the virus people come back at them with "you don't know what you are talking about. they are super real" and then keep talking about them, but what they never do is engage in an honest conversation about it. The article above is not honest. It is highly duplicitious, which sends people like me into fits of incredible frustration. Do see my points below about the duplicity as I dont want to repost the whole thing here...
Well written commentary. I certainly do not hate Steve but I’m so against this virus narrative that sometimes I use strong language. If he is doing all this fine work why not augment it with truth concerning virus theory? No point in opposing the enemy and then providing them with food and nourishment.
Denial and miss direction is to confuse the population. I guess the 6 Billion dollar NAIAD budget is a fraud. Dr. Redfield said he objected in 2012 GOF AVIAN BIRD FLU project. ! He was overruled! Fauci won? He didn't fire Fauci. Politically a NO NO? He now say the bird flu will be
MANY time more lethal than the Sars II C-19 ! read it here:
Well, it is all a fraud. And they'll do anything to prevent being found out. 100 years of over 90 experiments and no study had proven that a sick person is contagious to others who are well. In one study they became so desperate that they injected the brain of monkey with goo because nothing else they tried worked. . And he got sick! Success!
Sure, they can manipulate cells in a petri dish in a lab. But show the experiment where they injected a number of animals, made them sick, then exposed other well animals (control group) to them, and the well ones got sick too. Then put other well ones with those, and they too got sick too. Can't find it? Why not? Its such a simple experiment that high school student could manage it. They've had billions of dollars to play with, and as many rats, bunnies, monkeys, whatever that they can handle. Yet, nothing.
Mammals have evolved to protect themselves from such things. If humans had not, our species would have died out long ago. There has never been a deadly viral pandemic. Ever. What happened to Monkeypox? Ebola? The last several marine & bird flues had were supposed to kill 5w or more? Why don't female prostitutes get AIDS? Why had California decriminalized the fluids of those with AIDS? Because AIDS is not contagious. Modern sanitation ensures were don't get exposed to toxins in the fecal bacteria of others. But homosexual behavior negates all those sanitation measures.
And where is that HIV/AIDS vaccine? 40 years, tens of billions. And nada. Zilch. Nothing. Fauci's quest led to a waste of time, money and lives. That's his real legacy. And the legacy of the CDC, NIH, et al.
A 180⁰ change in lifestyle, good nutrition, concentrated supplements and rest cures AIDS, if it's done before the afflicted are too far gone.
"Why don't female prostitutes get AIDS? Why had California decriminalized the fluids of those with AIDS? Because AIDS is not contagious."
Can I invite you to our clinic? I can guarantee you we can infect you with HIV and resting will not cure you. This would not be ethical, but that´s a different discussion on it´s own.
Realizing that image A doesn't look like image B should've been enough for anyone with common sense. But we live in New Medieval times (with smartphones). Your questions and arguments won't penetrate the New Church of Scientism (whether it's Fauci or "viruses don't exist") where every argument about "science" is religious, not scientific.
Calling out the "DNA (as defined in the dictionary), "virus" and contagion" a religious belief is not ad hominem. A discussion of a religious belief is not at all about science.
The medical doctors do not have the right to blame a non existent entity for their diagnostic failure. The "viral/DNA" machine operators (i.e. all genetics PhDs) do not need to take the blame of being pseudoscientific, alone.
What's unscientific about the viral sorcery?
1) Has the scientific method been applied to determine which material from a human contains "viral pathogen"? No. Dumb doctors don't get to play God by merely saying certain bodily fluid is "infectious". Hence everything downstream is pseudoscience.
2) Was scientific method applied to determine vaccination is the best treatment for certain disease? Never. Hence the subcutaneous injection is a religion based practice.
Conclusion:
The "viral/DNA" machine operators don't know anything about anything.
"Whilst I applaud your efforts to present evidence of your claim, and encourage you with evidenced research, I notice some glaring flaws with the research methodology and detailing therein.
1) You claim the cell has not been inoculated with any virus or viral matter, but haven’t detailed what steps you’ve undertaken, if any, to prevent cross-contamination (E.G. airborne materials).
2) You stated you gave the weakest antibiotics, “Pen/Strep”. It is well known that penicillin is these days de facto useless given many types of bacteria now exhibit antibiotic resistance. If I was viewing this cynically, I would suggest this was an attempt to allow bacteria to proliferate in order to destroy the cells. You did not explain why you did not use so-called “harsher” antibiotics. Or why you didn’t have a comparison to harsher antibiotics.
3) You state that:
“independent accredited Contract Research Organization (CRO)” and “The CRO positively identified "Sars Cov2", "HIV" and "Measles"“, but fail to present evidence of any CRO (I.E. their accreditations), or any of their claims (I.E. their official response, research). In-fact, you later assert that “we positively identified "Measles" in our culture” - which implies the CRO is yourself, which means it isn’t independent!
4) “By cross referencing of size, shape and inclusions with the CDC version of Measles (refer to Figure 8) we positively identified "Measles" in our culture”
This isn’t how Measles identification is done. A lot of cellular materials will look similar. If one does visual examination, the lowest threshold is the use of staining.
Typically one does genetic sequencing of the materials in order to identify explicit species (E.G. Measles), and the lowest threshold for that would be a PCR, and the highest threshold would be something were you attempt to profile all genetic materials in your sample and retroactively match.
4) You did not state what peer review process, if any, you had undertaken. Peer review does not necessarily mean submission to a journal, but finding competent field experts who take differing views to yourself to offer criticisms of the methodology.
The lowest threshold would be to present it to a virologist to see what their views are, and see if you can address any of the criticisms. A better threshold would be a mixture of specialities.
5) If this is a genuine attempt to convince, you will need more than a handful of slides showing dead cells to overturn decades of research. For example, I would argue your detail regarding steps are severely lacking. For example:
6) You claim “We also used the most robust cell lines (HEK293T)” but did not specify why “HEK293T” specifically was robust. You also did not specify which other cell lines you looked at, and why you rejected them.
7) You don’t detail procedures involving the culturing of cells. How do you store the cells? How did you verify the cells were already free of viral contaminants? How do you introduce the antibiotics to the cells? Can the antibiotics potentially contain viral contaminants, how did you verify they were clear? How did you sterilise the operating environment (E.G. air, tools)? When examining the culture how did you ensure to prevent cross-contamination/exposure?
I would strongly suggest you detail your procedure step-by-step, and attempt to find as many flaws as possible in said procedure, and if necessary, bring someone from the “other side” onboard to air their own criticisms.
If you asked me to believe based on these experiments, in my professional opinion, I’d say all you have there is a bunch of dead cells and not much else. A lot of points are severely lacking."
"Mainstream" viral isolation papers don't detail these things either. I've read enough of them and debated them for hours on end with microbiologists to know. Why is anyone ok with such a double standard?
All that has to happen - or one would think should already have happened - is that virologists do the experiment in the way you outline should be done. Why haven't they? Why don't you hold up an experiment done as it should be done obviating the need for Jamie's experiment?
Luc Montagnier: I think’on lives in a very different environment from that of our ancestors and without realizing it. We love the waves, we communicate by the waves all the time, but there are increasingly important projects to make these waves even more around us. So, I repeat, and it’is a subject to study, the role of waves: it was said for example that the city of Wuhan was very early for the’installation of’antennes 5G, for example, 10,000 antennas in this region. And so they may have contributed to the pathogenicity of the virus.
Exactly, here is an out of place site/article/paper I came across that I cannot make heads or tails of. It begins with a lot of hyperbole and is anything but clinical in its presentation, but, oddly, it does reference Andrew Kauffman when talking about exosomes. https://archive.org/details/french-army-report-on-covid-19-and-5-g-translated-to-english/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater See the left bottom side of page vi for reference to Kauffman. This paper was weird and so out of place. Honestly, I never read the whole thing but it stuck out as anomalous and warranting a look through.
Coincidentally, or not, my first experience with covid like symptoms was just after going to Hilton Head, SC, and playing sports on the beach while sweating up a storm for like 5 hours.
Wasn't Cowan's point that EMF causes cellular stress and that the tiny particles that are created when the cells are under stress look identical to what we are told is sarsCov2 under the microscope. If you take a genomic sample of the stress reaction particles and say those are a virus, then it's easy to find samples of the virus everywhere.
Did you all notice how in the first stages of lockdown there was a massive rollout of 5G. It was an interesting use of resources - going around changing every lamp post. In my area it happened over about 2 weeks in the very first lockdown. How could that be the priority...? How could all that manpower and material be available at no notice...? Why was that job one of the only ones that could be allowed to continue..?
agree but genes are our bacteria and mitochondria and the building blocks of our body and RFR causes expression in the genes increasing GN bacteria mainly in speed replication antibiotic resistance over time imbalance which either causes the flu a heximier reaction to cell debris from dead bacteria you have bushed too long and explode. So these con men use monkey kidney cells to replicate the death of a cell and its debris via EMF in the body and the substance of cell debris in large quantities that cause the flu. If you do not take time and rest when your body tells you. bur you have to work like a slave so you have to take vit c max strength shit with toxic citric acid from Monsanto it pushes your body through more petrochemical shite and stops the bacteria from removing the toxins through this skin. the longer your body cant remediate the cell debris and imbalance the more syndromes you get or an infection
The RNA sequences of exosomes are coded by the human genome. Why did the bodies of people all over the world produce B.1 exosomes in spring 2020 but Omicron exosomes in 2022? Was there some kind of synchronous evolution all over the world where the genomes of humans changed while people were still alive?
Steve I don’t believe this is an accurate characterization of Tom’s statement.
Just because he spoke during a talk in 2020 suggesting that all historical pandemics were directly preceded by changes in the global electromagnetic field (radar, radio, 5g etc) which is 100% true and suggested that 5G likely played a large role in the pandemic doesn’t mean he believes today in 2024 that ‘’5g caused Covid’’ . And even if he does, if you read the Invisible Rainbow you will see that it’s a very plausible idea.
Secondly, And more importantly, if people are experiencing the same type of illness, they very well might express the same type of RNA signatures as their cells break down, i.e. viruses or exosomes. Just because people might show the same ‘’sequencing ‘’ present doesn’t mean that a virus caused the disease, assuming that the sequencing process is correct. To make that conclusion is not using proper logic and reasoning. It’s possible that people with the same illness will express the same genetic signature (exosomes) as their cells break down the same way. This is just one theory. I’m sure there are many others
What is a 'Covid symptom'? In Australia, Covid symptoms had previously been referred to as the 'Common flu' which has been around for centuries. Strangely, the Common flu completely disappeared during the period of 'Covid' and there were no reported cases. It's back now though. Now that 'Covid' is over.
You had 2.4 & 5GHz frequency WiFi in your house. 5G mobile is a completely different thing, where 5G stands for 5th Generation and covers many different frequency ranges incorporating ones from 2, 3, & 4G generations. Hard to believe that people still don't understand this basic stuff but I expect the industry intentionally tried to confuse by labeling 5GHz WiFi as just 5G on devices.
Just to clarify: 5G is not 5Ghz. It is 5th Generation cellular. 5Ghz WiFi has been around for a long time. 5G cellular uses frequencies up to 300ghz. That's 300 billion cycles per second. The higher the frequency, the less distance it will travel effectively, the less it will penetrate the body and objects, but it can carry more data. That is why 5G antennas are placed in close proximity in neighborhoods, shopping malls, stadiums, etc. instead of on the large towers we see for cellular (although I am not an expert and there may be 5G antennas in the lower 5G frequency range on them).
Thanks for the clarification. Protocols such as 5G include a range of frequencies which those pontificating about them rarely address. How can any protocol produce effects before it's implemented?
RFR is everywhere and it does not go away it just gets smaller or it gets absorbed by the earth it also desegregates the earth as AC does to crystals it looses weight DC increases weight
PERSPECTIVE
RFR has increased 1 quintillion times from 2000-2020. + new 5G phones >20 times more potential radiation.
One quintillion seconds is equal to approximately 31,688,738,506.8 years.
The truly massive scale of 1 quintillion seconds. To put it in perspective:
1 quintillion seconds is approximately 31.7 billion years.
The current estimated age of the observable universe is 13.8 billion years.
So 1 quintillion seconds is over 2 times longer than the entire age of our universe!
This really puts the astronomical magnitude of 1 quintillion x Hz of RF radiation generated in just 20 years into stark context. It's an almost unfathomably huge amount of electromagnetic energy introduced into our world in an extremely brief period on the cosmic timescale.
Multiply that up to 28 x with an updated 5G phone. 4G = 7 channels max per channel 2mw/m2 =14mw/m2 , 5G = 200 channels x 2mw/m2 - 400 mw/m2 potentially
That's appeal to ignorance, Steve. As well as begging the question. You're assuming that identical genomic sequences are a proof for a virus. Problem is, the particle virology refers to as virus has never been physically isolated and characterised. How then can anyone postulate that a specific genome sequence proves the existence of something that has never been isolated and sequenced in the first place. Virologists don't do sequencing shen they allegedly "isolate" viruses, they do metagenomics assembling. That's basically computer software trying to assemble a virus genome from the soup of various genetic materials. That's not sequencing at all. Thus, the sequence you're arguing for, is nothing but a computer construct which has no basis in reality.
Steve also asked if they had the spit samples gene sequenced before they placed them into their cell cultures to ensure there were no viruses in them. LOL. That's the whole point! They say they can't find the virus in a spit sample by using their isolation process without running it through a Rube Goldberg cell culturing process. How can we trust any computer identified gene sequence in spit if a "virus" has never been isolated from spit alone? Also, both cultures died at the same rate proving CPE occurs whether there is a virus present or not. I really think Steve is showing his ass on this one.
I see the same false claim that viruses never were isolated copy-pasted all over the place. That is simply not true. Here is some history.
Poliovirus was first isolated by Karl Landsteiner and Erwin Popper from the spinal cord of a child who had died of poliomyelitis.
The influenza virus was isolated by British scientists Wilson Smith, Christopher Andrewes, and Patrick Laidlaw.
HIV was isolated by Luc Montagnier and his team at the Pasteur Institute in France.
Ebola virus was first isolated during outbreaks in then Zaire and Sudan.
High-Throughput Sequencing: Modern sequencing technologies have greatly accelerated the process of virus discovery and isolation by enabling the rapid identification of viral genomes from clinical samples.
Metagenomics: This approach involves sequencing the genetic material from an entire sample (e.g., respiratory secretions, blood) to identify unknown viruses present in the sample.
It's like arguing with a flat-earther. You are telling him that the gravitational force is mg, and he's replying that's not the definition. You are telling him, look even Newton described his experiments. And they would reply, the experiments were wrong, and Newton didn't exist at all, it's all a conspiracy.
The problem with your argument is that each of these individuals used the same pseudo-science when making their claims. It was all smoke and mirrors from the get-go. If you are truly interested in knowing what they did and how get a copy of 'Virus Mania' and read it through. Otherwise, it's wrong of you to make claims of veracity without studying the basic science yourself because you're potentially adding to a deadly problem that is destroying lives all across the world.
There is also a time factor: it took Dr. Montagnier and his team a couple of decades to isolate HIV and finalize their findings, for instance. I'm no scientist but there is a fairly obvious difference between a claim, a theory and proving a theory.
Geoff the papers might claim that they were isolated but when you examine their techniques with a close eye you find that the studies were complete garbage. Just because a paper claims it to be true and many virologists blindly subscribe to it doesn’t make it true
Then go ahead and examine their techniques, prove their claims are invalid. Publish your works. But remember, those papers passed through editors and peer reviews and cited frequently. What are your credentials?
It's not just signals; it's the conductive man-made chemicals in the body that increase conductivity and impedance. Look at cancer: 80% of cancers contain Roundup and have higher impedance, which I think was 100 times more than brain tissue. https://normanjames.substack.com/p/conductive-dis-ease-cancer-parkinsonsms
Your bacteria, I believe, as Dr. Klinghardt believes with the mold, increases >600 fold, melting your bacteria and causing imbalance and syndromes. Bacteria get confused because the RFR (radio frequency radiation) is similar to or in multiples of quantum vibrations/smells used for balance and quorum sensing, so one doesn't overtake the other. Gram-negative (GN) bacteria replicate faster, just a little bit, and the Gram-positive (GP) bacteria can't keep up. Over time, this leads to too much bacteria, which may cause infections like tonsillitis (I haven't gotten it again in 5 years since following the military advice from Geovital). The waste cell debris and chemicals need to be removed, invoking a sweating sickness or an increase in GN pneumonia-causing bacteria, making it transmissible through coughing.
Also, there could be an outlier in familiar bacterial quorum sensing transmission in households, i.e., a Herxheimer reaction, because the bacteria are confused and may miscommunicate with the environment. If I recall correctly, laboratories can make other nano things or foreign objects in the body that shouldn't be there, which I classify under the original term "viruses" that may be difficult for our bacteria to process and remove, like graphene oxide (GO). If these tiny indigestible things also have a conductive element (GO is 5.8 times more conductive than copper by volume), it will affect the bacteria more, confusing it more, the more you use a phone. 4G phones have a maximum output of 14 mW/m², while 5G phones have a maximum output of 400 mW/m². However, they are now limited to 40 mW/m² when dropped up to 4x more, potentially becoming illegal to use. In conclusion, it could be a multitude of things, and this is why there is plausible deniability.
But adding a chemical cocktail to 1.2 gallons of blood will increase the electrical conductivity in the body. The bacteria in the conductive + electric field - antenna receiver physics affect and allow more imbalance and aggregation of blood, i.e., in athletes, leading to the deoxygenation of blood to their organs and muscles. Please take the time to read my spider's web of information that explains it all in the Cowan link I sent.
The core problems virology supports can’t avoid is the miraculous features they assign to unidentifiable viruses… I don’t mean to be rude to you Steve, because of the “smoothing work” you have done, and I respect Kevin Mc for his work so far, but the area of expertise you are venturing into seems neither Kevin’s nor yours wheelhouse… I hope I’m wrong…
How much would it take for you and Kevin to look at reality from another angle?
Yes we have. I personally have referenced a comprehensive discussion of the topic in the book 'Virus Mania'. This contains a solid body of science that refutes your arguments if you are open-minded enough to read it. There have been many other scientific papers and studies referenced in the comments, so your claim "Not a single person has done that" is completely wrong.
Filter it through porcelain Pasteur-Chamberland filters, check to make sure the filtratable agents really are identical viruses, and not just exosome junk, then sequence them.
A year or two ago on Instagram when Alec Zeck was promoting this virus denier attitude. I would respond in the comments and lament that he's hurting the entire health freedom community by associating us with such nonsense and provided the title and link to your articles Steve that you had at the time debunking this nonsense. Alec contacted me in private messages and told me he was going to block me for not having an open mind about the claim that viruses do not exist at all. I believe that a lot of people actually believe that. I don't believe Alec is one of those people because in the private messages he made reference to another Instagram account who had successfully debated a couple other virus deniers. Anyway I guess it's kind of hard to explain accurately but the simple part is that Alec claimed that because this other guy was in some group chat that it meant that he didn't believe viruses existed either which nobody could reasonably think was true. I 100% believe Alec is a shill based on this conversation.
Yeah it's a red flag when there's ex-military people like Alec Zeck in the alt media.
I believe the first two people in alt media who interviewed Andrew Kaufman were the flat earthers James True and Crrow777. But James True is ex-military and Crrow777 is a former marine (sars2.net/novirus.html). James True also called himself Kaufman's "lead writer", and he livestreamed Kaufman's first presentation that went viral. He tweeted "My Dr. Kaufman vid has been seen over 200k times in 5 days. I am employing myself, one editor, and one producer and we could use a video editor for maximum effect." And he also tweeted: "I have emptied my patreon account on editors, publishing, and pushing Dr Kaufman's video."
The poster of Alec Zeck's "End of COVID" event said that the event had five directors, but two of them were the flat earthers Amandha Vollmer and Kelly Brogan, and a third one was Dawn Lester, who I believe did her first two interviews in alt media with the flat earthers Greg Carlwood and Crrow777. Many of the earliest reviews of Lester's book at Amazon were written by listeners of Crrow777. In 2020 Amandha Vollmer was one of the speakers in an online conference about COVID called EVENT 202, which was originally also going to feature Kaufman as a speaker. EVENT 202 was organized by the flat earther Dave Murphy and its logo featured a flat earth. Another speaker at EVENT 202 was the ex-military flat earther Shelley Lewis, who made a film about flat earth together with the ex-military flat earther Joshua Michael Gennari.
Mike Yeadon has also said that he worked at Porton Down under a military clearance: "As an undergraduate, I worked under military clearance at Porton Down. That's the equivalent of Fort Detrick, it's where the UK military develops its so-called chemical defences. So I was under the Official Secrets Act. They must have thought I wasn't a crazy person at the time. I also worked for six months at the Police Forensic Service headquarters at Aldermaston, so I learned a lot of analytical techniques in that time." (https://odysee.com/%40Corona-Investigative-Committee/Mike-Session-86-en?t=135, https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/dr-mike-yeadons-key-testimony-part-i-the-eight-covid-lies)
Well, bow to ‘authorities’ and don’t LOOK AT the evidenceS for the opposite of unquestioned, unexamined “globe beliefs’ which just might be true based on rational comparisons of evidenceS like “ 200 PROOFS Earth is NOT a Spinning Ball “ on YTube.
It's also a red flag when someone is a wealthy corporate insider pretending to care about finding the truth that could devastate a huge chunk of pseudoscience in medicine. I don't like Zeck either, BTW
"I would respond in the comments and lament that he's hurting the entire health freedom community by associating us with such nonsense"
It is intentional. It's known as "discredit-by-association", a tactic used by governments when they're losing the information war. They basically try to roll out infiltrators who pose as 'friendly' elements, but then immediately start forcefully espousing nonsense, which both serves to discredit (via association) the wider movement, and attempt to sow artificial division within groups by exploiting more gullible members to take up arms against more cynical and knowledgeable ones.
This specific subset is known as "denialist propaganda" (to whit, their sole propaganda tactic is to deny everything the movement stands for, and propose batshit insane alternatives).
Even Mike Yeadon has gone down this path. I covered denialist propaganda here:
Because unlike Yeadon, who is a pharmacologist, I have sixteen years of clinical experience, and have seen way too much of virally transmitted disease to deny it.
With so much knowledge, you shouldn't have evidence of viruses and contagion anywhere, I can't find it in science. Just because something appears to be something does not mean that it is. Www.virustruth.net. See if you can read something about isolating what it means and show a study where one sick person made others sick. After 16 years, you should have learned that there is more to learn.
Like other clinicians who have spent enough time in primary care, I'm waiting for the virus deniers to explain herpes simplex outbreaks, for example. You can't, without saying, 'well, ya see, it's some toxicant, but I haven't bothered to figure out which one.'
If someone has successfully debated, with data, that contagion is indeed an established scientific phenomenon, I'd love to see that. Please share if you know where to look.
the only good thing to come out of kaufman/cowan/lanka's mostly false work is to correct the notion that people should be "afraid" of viruses. viruses are beneficial, have a role in natural creation.. "Because phages kill bacteria. They take over the bacteria’s machinery and force them to make more phages rather than make more bacteria. When they are done, they burst out of the bacterium " https://earthsky.org/human-world/trillions-of-viruses-human-virome/
no virus psyop relies on fallacies and false statements. demanding proof via impossible means and conditions, then ignoring mountains of proof derived in other ways.
"Lanka’s technique is impressive, but it is not the only one. If you look in the literature, you find that there is no one “gold standard” for viral isolation"
Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine have recognized viruses for millennia. viruses are beneficial, part of creation. they can cause disease, be modified, patented, propagated, isolated, sequenced, transmitted.
live virus vaccines are one of MANY proofs of existence of viruses. what is in zostavax that is causing shingles? not some "mystery toxin" "There is a risk that a live virus vaccine is that it is not weakened enough to prevent exposing the patient to the very disease they were seeking to avoid." https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/drugs/zostavax/
Personally, I think viruses do exist. Just a hunch. Is it plausible they exist? Seems plausible to me. We've got bacteria and protozoa and other pathogens. So sure why not a different variety of troublemaker. Is it possible they can be spread from person to person? Sure. Terrain theory is still true in that many people won't be hospitable hosts, but it certainly seems phenomenologically consistent that pathogens spread. Is it plausible they spread physically? As in not triggered internally via some sort of electromagnetic signaling? It certainly seems plausible and consistent with observed reality. Why not spread that way? I do however think EMF fields play a role in what people attract for good or ill. Are they consistent with descriptions of reality from people of higher consciousness, i.e. mystics, psychics, mediums, NDErs. Yes, they appear to take viruses at face value and don't correct that notion. Are the biggest critics of virology virologists? It doesn't seem that way. I'm a psychologist and still a big critic of psychology. I don't feel my education impeeds my ability to critique but informs it deeply.
The no virus argument is rather simple and does not in fact own the burden of proof. I think it's a gross misunderstanding and an inversion of the argument itself to say "the person doing the attack has the burden of proof". The burden befalls on whoever is making the claim, and in this debate, it is virologists that claim viruses exists. What the no virus crowd is saying is that, to this day, virology has failed to prove a virus' existence, let alone prove that it causes disease.
The no virus argument simply points out that no virus was ever isolated in the colloquial sense of the term. It highlights how the word isolation in the virology context has an entirely different meaning than what you'd expect it to be. The "isolation" process is and has been flawed since its inception by Enders in the 50s; it is quite literally circular reasoning on the part of virologists to keep going along with it.
The no virus proponents being accused of having no controls is farcical to say the least; showing that CPE occurs without adding any 'isolate' is THE CONTROL that virologists lack in all the papers claiming they've isolated a virus. Enders himself concedes that his isolation methodology doesn't prove the alleged virus is responsible for the CPEs considering there is a soup of foreign DNA, RNA, antibiotics, and more in the dish.
This article is a misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. Kirsch is hoping you'll be disuaded from investigating for yourself. Virology is a massive fraud - which is essential to population control - increase sickness and infertility, shorten life spans via toxic injections, among countless other modalities. Those of you who take the time to look into it won't be disappointed.
It was explained to me that Lanka lost in the lower court because the lower German courts can not judge the scientific validity. They could only judge if an authority could be cited that says the Measles virus exists. Thus, the lower court was a necessary stage to move through in order to get to the higher court which could actually judge the case on the scientific merit. I do not know if this is accurate as I have not personally gone to German court records. Lanka never claimed that an authority didn't say the measles virus didn't exist. He said that it hasn't been proven to scientifically exist.
However, the exact wording of the decision that Steve cites does not appear to me to match his explanation of requiring a single paper, instead of prove spread across multiple:
"As a result, the appeal was successful, insofar as it is admissible, because the claimant's criterion of providing evidence of the existence of the measles virus through "a scientific publication" was not met by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any pre-trial attorney's fees."
"A scientific publican" could mean what Steve is saying though. But, that is not how it was explained to me. Also, there may be good reason why it should be done in a single publication or experiment under one team.
I just realized why you are so wrong on this subject. You said they had to add a "Real Virus" to their experiments on the CPE work that they did to prove their case. Steve. The WHOLE POINT is that there IS NO REAL VIRUS!!!!! And they PROVED it with their Controlled experiments. Time to rethink your position.
It was no more right or wrong of Lanka to ask for the information in ONE scientific paper than it is for the medical profession to demand other healthcare professions submit ALL their studies via RCTs. It's all about who makes up the rules and whether something fits in a box - the same box being predetermined by the person making up the rules!
I don't think there's only one single way to do ANYTHING. There are always options IMO. Perhaps Lanka was out of line here, but in terms of the law, which is generally not about justice, but who can argue the case better (rightly or wrongly), if he stated he wanted ONE paper only, and Bardens gave him 6, then that's an automatic fail. Why Lanka didn't bring it up in the first court case is bizarre, but I do not now how his brain works!! :-D
If there's one thing I've noticed about the no-virus hypothesis, it's that it's gaining traction. Now is this a fad? I don't know. Or is this people sitting down and thinking "you know, I've been conned by Covid. What else might I have been conned by?' There's nothing wrong with asking questions, and 'virology' has a lot to explain. The sheer concoction that vaccines are scooped out of is mind-boggling. I'm honestly not sure how they can say what's in them - exactly - with what they've put in that 'soup'! Problem is, the average person out there has NO idea how to make a vaccine at all. They don't know the processes, the ingredients; nothing! They rely upon people 'in the know' telling them stuff, and with how much correct or reasonable information was deliberately withheld during covid, and how much unreasonable information was pushed onto centre stage, I think it is only fair that people should sit down and question things now.
If one truly understands their own views, they should be able to explain them quite easily to others (so long as the 'others' are reasonable, ha ha!). Some topics are more complex than others, and some topics DO require some background knowledge, but I do not see any problem with questioning if viruses actually exist - because if they don't, there's A LOT riding on it. And if they do exist, well then, what are the 'virologists' worried about?!
Problem is, in my life, when I go checking on little, non-political things (eg life-cycle of cicadas. how violins make sound, what causes that earthy smell after it begins to rain; that sort of stuff), often I find I didn't have the full story, and then when I get the full picture, it all makes sense, and I change my mind about how I was looking it. BUT the more political a topic is, the more the (hidden) agenda, and so often, you realise that people are deliberately being led down the wrong path, en masse, because that will allow other people to profit (financially and otherwise).
The same rules should be applied to, say, finding out about the life-cycle of a cicada, and how long some of them can hibernate for, as it should to finding out how vaccines are made, and what is a virus, anyway? The basic scientific method does not get followed very well, as far as I can see, in so many areas of life, and perhaps that's because humans tend to err (and because their egos get in the way!). And sometimes, we even need to ask, is the basic scientific method even correct?!
People aren't good with 'unknowns'. They like things being more concrete. So, tell them a story, and stick to it, no matter what! Ignorance is bliss - it really is! The people who don't want to be fed lies will figure things out, in some sort of way that works for them. But the vast majority will not even be interested in going down the rabbit hole, so I don't see why Virologists are even worried. I don't see the CDC, DOD, media outlets or anything like them allowing this no-virus issue to win the day - any time soon. The people who would truly question things are so few in number that they will not - and do not - tend to change the world. Not unless it's in the rich people's interests (ie can they make more money and gain more power by saying those views are right after all).
A flat earth theory was all the rage and a spherical-type earth was heresy. For absolute years! Almost everyone knows that one today.
Semmelweis figured out disinfection processes and saved many lives that way, especially new mothers, but the medical establishment kept killing people with uncleanliness for decades, even though Semmelweis had good results. They just wouldn't believe him. Ignaz Semmelweis was of course right, but ended up in a mental institution, laughed at by almost everyone. So maybe, JUST MAYBE, we're only at the "ridiculed" phase of virology. Soon, anyone with these 'no-virus?' lines of thought will be violently opposed. And eventually, whenever/if that may be, it could become self-evident that viruses never existed. Maybe someone just needs to invent something better than the electron microscope, and if that's done, then we can truly see what's happening on a micro-level and we'll know once and for all what happens - do viruses exist or is it just cellular breakdown?
Any which way, I don't see the point in getting stroppy about this. Some people just have questions. Let them find their truth. And if at any point in time anyone realises they've been going down the wrong path, they should change their ways.
Wouldn't it be nice if people acted like this in reality?!?! :-D :-D :-D
As a virologist, this 'no virus' argument is ridiculous. These virus deniers do not have a clear understanding of the processes and procedures that we use to study viruses. This whole debate is a waste of time. It's basically an existential debate on meaninglessness. This is such a distraction away from what is more important.
Virology is based on a yet unproven hypothesis. There are ongoing contentions because germ theory contains elements of truth within it. Ultimately, virology is a bending of truth mixed with falsehoods. While germs, virus-like particles and microbes do indeed exist, they are not yet proven to be the outside pathogenic invaders as envisioned by Louis Pasteur et al.
I understand this discussion (a debate requires a 'winner') may seem 'ridiculous' and/or a 'waste of time' to you, but I feel this is merely a categorising of the challengers to justify not engaging with them.
which unproven hypothesis are you referring to?
Appeal to expertise is a logical fallacy.
That a comment that hinges on such a fallacy is pinned is appropriate for the (low) level of intellectual rigor we are witnessing.
You are welcome to write an article responding to all the points.
I agree with you Jennifer!
I have been working in a virology lab for more than 25 years now. We daily analyze them, extract their RNA/DNA, sequence and what not more. If virus didn´t exist I don´t know what I have been doing then for a quarter of a century.
This does not imply that I am C19 vaxxed! I am a contrarian and don´t follow narratives that easily and because of my background it took me less than a minute to decide not to be poisoned.
As already mentioned in this thread, a meaningless discussion!
Describe the purification method used to obtain "them" BEFORE any claimed analysis.
So you're actually not sure what you've being doing for 1/40 of a millennium..
Or that was tongue in cheek..
Precision is key here, we are putting our faith in you guys to deliver a progressive future, don't let us down with loose language
That was a sarcastic remark. :-)
Don´t put your faith on me or where I work. We do mainly diagnostic work.
Also sarcastic 😂
a shame you have to hide your name, isn't it?
I agree! As someone who spent over a decade in vaccine development and preclinical testing, I knew before the gene therapy injections were a thing that they would never prevent infection. Not to mention unnecessary for those who had been infected and recovered. Such a shame that so many bought into the noble lie.
If I may, what was this 'noble lie' in your estimation, no donkey kong talk now :)
The noble lie was that everyone needed to be vaccinated and that the so called "vaccine" saved lives.
My understanding....a 'noble lie' is a lie, deemed necessary to effect a greater good.
Say if elements of the medical / scientific community bought into the efficacy of these 'vaccines' from the start, which clearly loads did, they wouldn't need any lie, they figured they were doing the right thing anyway.
For [ others ] who knew that the shots were nonsense, what was the 'greater good' they were going for that required this falsehood.
I'm struggling to see why people refer to this 'noble lie'.
I saw your comment about standing up against the jabs and the flac you got, courageous, so few did so thanks for that 🙏
Ah, it's claiming the safety of the 'vaccines', but accepting the collateral damage, the greater good being more people would have died otherwise, forgot that one !
So it's different groupings, one that believed in covid being a deadly disease, believed in the efficacy of the jabs, but knew a certain amount of people would be harmed or offed by the novel soup.
Or didn't believe covid was a particularly deadly disease ( no vax needed ) but thought giving people a 'cure' would calm society down, maybe they did or didn't know about the possible safety concerns.
Ok, think I'm talking to myself now 🤣
Don't they create antibodies, just in a different way?
"Noble lie?" Thanks for the belly laugh
Noble lies are hardly the realm of serial felons like Pfizer.
Anyone who spent a decade in vaccine development should know what a fraud and racketeering scheme that entire poisonous enterprise is right?
Maybe study the history of disease to know your entire career is built on a foundation of lies.
Allen, please show us the EVIDENCE and stop the personal attacks. We are all waiting. Is it Alec's experiment?
Can you prove existence of any alleged bio virus?
yes, it can be sequenced and studied. next question.
Then show us how it is done by adherence to scientific method or direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes.
If you can't, then your claim is denied.
There is a whole body of literature out there all you have to do is look. That being said, I don't argue with donkeys. I am channeling my time and energy to more valuable endeavors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dQxwvyyxE
What is it with the donkeys comments lol, it's a bad look, and why won't Steve chastise you like he did others, I'm starting to look at virologists like psychiatrists, never addressing the actual criticisms.
Your lofty dismissal of even discussion on this says a lot.
What are you guys actually sequencing?
How can you know it's a virus?
This should be easy to defend no? Just tell us all why you know it's a particle known as a virus that is being sequenced.
Explain it to the folks at home
watch the video and maybe you will understand the donkey comment. I'm not wasting time engaging in existential debates on meaninglessness. Have a good day!
No a cartoon fable about blue grass not existing...
https://welldales.co.uk/product/50-fescue-blue-grass-seeds/
Ok I'll have a look, I'm now expecting an image of a actual donkey, you too have a good one 🫡
And none of your body of literature adheres to the scientific method.
Thus it is pseudoscience, i.e., a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Projection and cognitive dissonance are strong with you.
OK Yoda. Just because you don't understand something does not take away from the facts. Have you ever worked in a lab? what is your background or area of expertise? Why not prove your statements instead? I have yet to see any real evidence for this claim of the virus deniers. Just denial and circular arguments without any basis of fact.
Hello Jennifer. Are you familiar with Dr. Delgado that heads up La Quinta Columna? I truly believe if we are ever to get to the bottom of what are the covid-19 vaccines, it is important to know the composition of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. What is in the vials. And Dr. Delgado, who has a prestigious resume of accomplishments, and degrees decided to find out back in 2022.
His most important discovery, based upon his research is that covid disease is acute radiation syndrome enhanced by a material that is graphene. He found graphene oxide in the injectables using micro reman technique.
Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, a Doctor of Chemical Sciences with a degree in biological sciences used Micro-Raman spectroscopy to identify objects, which are reman patterns, and agreed with Dr. Delgado that they were unmistakenly those of graphene oxide.
Graphene oxide is detected in the body by specialized cells of the immune system. And its behavior is like that of a pathogen. It generates an inflammatory response. There is mitochondrial damage, damage to the DNA, and a cytokine response. And from the point of view of intravenous administration, it is mainly eliminated by the lungs causing pulmonary inflammation. And this is the origin of pneumonia.
When graphene comes in touch with the blood it generates a bioelectrical corona. Graphene as a nanoscale is what they called Sars-Cov2 or corona virus.
Graphene is also a radio modular material. This means it becomes excited by electromagnetic fields. The toxicity that emanates from it depends upon the amount of radiation that it can absorb. Delgado showed on a slide graphene getting excited. One of its effects is that it coagulates the blood. This causes damage such as strokes, ischemia, and heart attacks. Things we are seeing these days.
Something important too he noted is that the covid vaccines do not contain messenger RNA or any biological material. He said this: “the governments themselves bought in the whole mRNA and spike protein information, a false dissonance to cover up the nanotechnology.”
Between the work of Dr. Delgado of LaQuinta Columna and Dr Astrid Stuckelberger, it is probably gratuitous to focus on terrain vs. viral theory because what is in these vaccines, and the adverse events reported are also the effects reported due to the presence of graphene oxide in the body.
Whether one is into viral theory or terrain, if there is graphene in the CV-19 vaxes, it has an impact on the terrain. Something on the outside, being injected into the body causing deleterious effects.
Yes, there is including literature that falsifies your hypothesis as demonstrated by Antoine Bechamp et al. Having studied this alternative literature, you'll realise virus-like entities are found within us at all times, and they can either be a reflection of health or disease depending upon the internal terrain of the individual. Remember, germ theory is just a theory, and like any other it's open to challenge.
Considering the father of germ theory himself massaged and/or manipulated raw data in order to fit his own preconceived ideas, it raises the legitimate question 'are modern day virologists any different?'
If germ theory was true beyond doubt, no one would survive to argue the point.
You just admitted vitus like entities are found within us at all times. According to science, a covid virus is around all the time and in our bone marrow. That doesn't mean viruses don't exist. It would be prudent to stop repeating that false hood and come together in the obvious summation that our health alone determines our susceptibility to the ever present ever existing viral biome of our body and the planets viral biome. Every living thing on the planet has a viral biome. Imo
This should not be a one or the other argument. BOTH can exist at the same time in the same space. BOTH terrain and germ theory can apply. One does not abrogate the other.
Speculations do not prove reality.
😂 as a desperate hanging onto junk ‘science’
I totally agree with you. I wouldn't be giving this any exposure, but a significant number of people believe it and so it's important to show them evidence as to how ridiculous their position is. We can see images of cells in ALL phases of viral replication.
Their position is analogous to showing someone a video tape of a bank robbery happening and then they claim that if you can't arrest the suspects, the bank robbery didn't happen.
Thank you for writing this article, Steve, and for bringing more awareness to these topics that are so widely misrepresented by No-Virus members. It's unfortunate to see such a level of anti-science among these individuals and the thousands who follow them without knowing better.
As I mentioned to you, I watched your debate with Kaufman, which also reveals a significant lack of intellectual honesty. It's so revealing to see the level of hate you're facing simply for engaging in such debates.
I am still waiting for irrefutable evidence of viruses, immune system, infectious diseases, pathogenic bacteria and nucleotides.
The last time I asked you about them you were not able to provide scientifically valid evidence of them.
You must have done really well in school. LOL
he wouldn't answer simple objective questions. That was stunning.
Steve, you might find this interesting as it provides more insight into Jamie Andrews' representation of his controls. Take a look at his responses to my questions.
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/virology-under-control/comment/59494565
He destroyed you with valid arguments.
I watched this exchange. And clearly you could not make even one valid arguments.
I was also surprised he didn't simply answer what his name was, such as his middle name. That set the stage for the rest of the conversation.
Given he is a psychiatrist I believe he is just mind f**king everyone. So interesting to see how everyone has fallen for it.
Indeed, note how many of the comments directed toward Steve and this debate completely invert the reality of what actually transpired. They're in damage control mode. Also, note the amount of troll accounts that have become active in this thread. These are all No-Virus troll accounts that post all over the internet repeating the same comments.
I've watched the debate several times, and near the end, Kaufman belittles Steve by asking, "So, bacteria are invisible? We can't see bacteria?" This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty and arguing in bad faith. I'm not sure Steve picked up on it at first because he was concentrated on trying to answer Kaufman's question, while Kaufman was actually just trying to make Steve spin his wheels.
Steve, you say no ad hominem attacks and yet refer to people who hold another position for a lot of solid reasons "ridiculous." Nice. How about you read my posts and explain it? Cells are just collateral damage to an attack on the electromagnetic field. The cell effect is last cause not first Steve. I highly suggest you do an interview with Dr. Tom Cowen. And virologist Dr. Stephan Lanka before closing the door here.
Does this statement sound familiar?
“Whenever the ‘classical’ system of the day is threatened by the results of new experiments which might be interpreted as falsifications[1] according to my point of view, the system will appear unshaken to the conventionalist.[2] He will explain away the inconsistencies which may have arisen; perhaps by blaming our inadequate mastery of the system.
Or he will eliminate them by suggesting ad hoc the adoption of certain auxiliary hypotheses, or perhaps of certain corrections to our measuring instruments.
In such times of crisis this conflict over the aims of science will become acute. We, and those who share our attitude, will hope to make new discoveries; and we shall hope to be helped in this by a newly erected scientific system. Thus we shall take the greatest interest in the falsifying experiment. We shall hail it as a success, for it has opened up new vistas into a world of new experiences. And we shall hail it even if these new experiences should furnish us with new arguments against our own most recent theories. But the newly rising structure, the boldness of which we admire, is seen by the conventionalist as a monument to the ‘total collapse of science’, as Dingler[3] puts it. In the eyes of the conventionalist one principle only can help us to select a system as the chosen one from among all other possible systems: it is the principle of selecting the simplest system—the simplest system of implicit definitions; which of course means in practice the ‘classical’ system of the day.”—Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 59-60
[1] Falsifiability, is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
[3] Hugo Dingler, studied mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Dingler's position is usually characterized as "conventionalist" by Karl Popper and others.
[2] Conventionalism is the philosophical attitude that fundamental principles of a certain kind are grounded on (explicit or implicit) agreements in society, rather than on external reality. Unspoken rules play a key role in the philosophy's structure.
****
In simple language the statements means: "When the established scientific system is challenged by new experiments that seem to disprove it, conventional thinkers will find ways to dismiss these challenges. They might say the problem lies in our lack of understanding or suggest adding new rules or fixing our tools to explain away the inconsistencies.
During such times of scientific crisis, the debate about the goals of science becomes intense. Those who embrace new ideas see these challenging experiments as opportunities for discovery. They welcome these challenges because they open up new possibilities, even if it means questioning their own recent theories.
On the other hand, conventional thinkers view these new ideas as a threat to the entire scientific system. They believe that science should stick to the simplest and most established system, which is usually the current one."
So it's basically people's egos that stand in their way of knowledge/understanding? That, and a distinct lack of flexibility?
@Steve I have been maligned and vilified by both sides; the virus deniers and those who bought into the "plandemic" hook, line and sinker. I even blew the whistle on the lies and COVID corruption in Hawaii and was summarily discharged from my position as an epidemiologist at HDOH as whistleblower retaliation all documented in my book (https://ballastbooks.com/purchase/pandemic-in-paradise/). Would love to discuss with you sometime.
As a fellow virologist who was also attacked by the virus deniers eloquently said, "Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like they have won."
Which piece represents the isolation of a virus, which one represents controlled experiments.
Is the queen an imposter for the scientific method.
Asking you for irrefutable evidence is not an attack.
If you can't provide it, then obviously they won.
oh that is a great description! I love that!
Gaz you spaz lol
spamming my substack with this has earned you a ban for 1 week.
I was skeptical initially regarding the planned release of SARS, it was too far out there. Having listened to David Martin’s detailed history, I’ve leaned into that camp awaiting someone to objectively prove his work as having holes in it. There are so many detailed pieces on the timeline I believe it’s beyond plausible. Anyone care to drive a wedge into any of this?
That's a great analogy, but it's simply not true. We can see photos, but it's never clear what those photos are of and it's never been shown that they are of "viruses" and not of cellular debris and other matter. In fact, numerous mainstream orthodox publications have published on this, saying that one cannot distinguish cellular debris from viruses under the electron microscope.
So a better analogy would be "its like having video of a bank robbery, but we can't make out who the bank robber is, and saying we got the guy because we went out and just arrested the guy we think did it, even though we don't actually have proof he did.
At this point I believe it's a sophisticated propaganda campaign (whoever is doing it). I left a comment yesterday with only 2 likes, and, somehow out of almost 600 comments I keep getting 4th level responses from new nicknames. It's pretty improbable to find a third level comment in a big thread by accident. It's easy to skew your poll number if somebody keeps registered new accounts.
Thank you, Dr. Smith and I see you have a great substack where I found:
"Do viruses exist?," by Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD
https://smithvirologist.substack.com/p/do-viruses-exist
Also, I see you wrote an interesting looking book!
Pandemic in Paradise, An Insider's View of COVID Corruption in Hawai'i, by Jennifer Smith, PhD.
https://ballastbooks.com/purchase/pandemic-in-paradise/
Viruses are still not proven.
You're approaching troll status; I assume you don't want to be banned?
Banning me will only only prove that you do not have valid evidence of viruses and nucleotides.
He's already been reported. Hopefully, Steve will soon become aware and take the necessary steps to remove this trash from his page.
Now he's trying to come back with fake accounts, another sign of professional trolling.
He repeats the same phrases on every forum that mentions viruses. He is a Mike Stone friend and troll account.
See here: https://i.imgur.com/1aeiAsL.jpeg
You are careful to try and avoid going over the insult line but continue to pile up complaints and numerous similar comments. You are clever enough to not copy/paste to avoid being banned but it becomes obvious over time. You are not here for serious discussion but to troll.
Banning will stop your troll operation which annoys people trying to have serious discussions.
Never seen him calling someone trash or similar, just states the claim.
ad hominem attacks will be met with comment bans.
THIS IS ABOUT SCIENCE.
If you want to attack my criticism of the scientific method that were deployed or not employed, you can point out the SCIENTIFIC errors in my remarks.
And PLEASE explain why they didn't do sequencing to verify they found SARS-CoV-2? And why their SARS-CoV-2 virion did NOT look like the CDC photo but they claimed it was identical.
Since according to them sequencing is flawed, they should be easily able to generate the right sequence.
Why didn't they?
Hey Steve how come this comment isn't banned?
"There is a whole body of literature out there all you have to do is look. That being said, I don't argue with donkeys"
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/alec-zecks-claims-of-the-end-of-virology/comment/59380334
Do you only ban those who you disagree with?
Are you a hypocrite?
It's a little edgy but well within the realm of no-virus side insults allowed. We can all read them here, you know.
I'm not worried about it- people playing hardball doesn't bother me in the least.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
And I'm pointing out there is none.
None that you can see.
You're the only one complaining.
sorry steve, once again always attacking the individual rather than showing conclusive proof of your claim, remember the onus is always on the claimant to prove their claim, we question it but you cannot provide conclusive proof, just circumstantial mumbo jumbo
Does this statement sound familiar?
“Whenever the ‘classical’ system of the day is threatened by the results of new experiments which might be interpreted as falsifications[1] according to my point of view, the system will appear unshaken to the conventionalist.[2] He will explain away the inconsistencies which may have arisen; perhaps by blaming our inadequate mastery of the system.
Or he will eliminate them by suggesting ad hoc the adoption of certain auxiliary hypotheses, or perhaps of certain corrections to our measuring instruments.
In such times of crisis this conflict over the aims of science will become acute. We, and those who share our attitude, will hope to make new discoveries; and we shall hope to be helped in this by a newly erected scientific system. Thus we shall take the greatest interest in the falsifying experiment. We shall hail it as a success, for it has opened up new vistas into a world of new experiences. And we shall hail it even if these new experiences should furnish us with new arguments against our own most recent theories. But the newly rising structure, the boldness of which we admire, is seen by the conventionalist as a monument to the ‘total collapse of science’, as Dingler[3] puts it. In the eyes of the conventionalist one principle only can help us to select a system as the chosen one from among all other possible systems: it is the principle of selecting the simplest system—the simplest system of implicit definitions; which of course means in practice the ‘classical’ system of the day.”—Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 59-60
[1] Falsifiability, is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934). A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
[3] Hugo Dingler, studied mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Dingler's position is usually characterized as "conventionalist" by Karl Popper and others.
[2] Conventionalism is the philosophical attitude that fundamental principles of a certain kind are grounded on (explicit or implicit) agreements in society, rather than on external reality. Unspoken rules play a key role in the philosophy's structure.
****
In simple language the statements means: "When the established scientific system is challenged by new experiments that seem to disprove it, conventional thinkers will find ways to dismiss these challenges. They might say the problem lies in our lack of understanding or suggest adding new rules or fixing our tools to explain away the inconsistencies.
During such times of scientific crisis, the debate about the goals of science becomes intense. Those who embrace new ideas see these challenging experiments as opportunities for discovery. They welcome these challenges because they open up new possibilities, even if it means questioning their own recent theories.
On the other hand, conventional thinkers view these new ideas as a threat to the entire scientific system. They believe that science should stick to the simplest and most established system, which is usually the current one."
Sequencing is flawed! Can’t sequence something you can’t find.
No this is about logic wisdom then science. Not science first. https://normanjames.substack.com/p/logic-wisdom-then-science-to-confirm
That was what came across in the 'interview', Kaufman was starting at this scientific method logic point, Steve saw this as irrelevant and went straight to the technical science matters, someone else suggested it could be his technical background, and comfort with it, that steered the exchange
you know stabbing a cell with some needle and injecting shit until it explodes is like stabbing a human with an injectable crowbar with 750ml of some chemical cocktail. What do you think is going to happen?
Steve, I posted this below but I see you still have not fixed the many significant errors in your article.
This article seriously mischaracterizes the Lanka trail, and the higher court’s ruling.
First off, your quote is from the lower court, NOT the higher court. The higher court said no such thing at all about the basis of measles. Only the lower court, which took as the basis of its ruling a government scientist who was not allowed to be questioned by Lanka.
Second, your link is misleading. Your link is to the lower court ruling, and not to the higher court ruling which overruled them. The link to the higher court ruling is here:
https://www.landesrecht-bw.de/jportal/recherche3doc/OLG_Stuttgart_12_U_63-15_NJRE001259063.pdf?json=%7B%22format%22%3A%22pdf%22%2C%22docId%22%3A%22NJRE001259063%22%2C%22portalId%22%3A%22bsbw%22%7D&_=%2FOLG_Stuttgart_12_U_63-15_NJRE001259063.pdf
As you will see in the higher court ruling, the judge did not summarily and simply say that Lanka won on appeal because he insisted that only one article be submitted. The court ruled that he won on appeal because it said that Lanka was right in saying “a published scientific paper” had to be submitted, and the judge wrote for nearly ten pages on what the meaning of “a published scientific paper” means.
In this writing, she points out that a scientific paper must be properly defined, and noted Lanka’s point that the papers submitted did not accord to the statute in Germany that Koch Institute papers must be scientific in that they must contain control experiments, and that even the plaintiff’s expert admitted that the papers did not have control experiments and that this was “a weakness” of the papers submitted.
In addition, the Judge spent substantial time noting Lanka’s point that in none of the papers was there conclusive evidence of a measles virus, and that one cannot simply willy-nilly say that the papers “work in combination” because that assertion is not backed by a methodology and thus not scientific. The court said that even the Plaintiff could have published a paper explaining HOW they work in combination, but that he did not do that, and no paper exists which did that. The Judge noted Lanka’s claim that one cannot just submit 50,000 papers and say “they work in combination” even though none of them work on their own. A single paper must explain the underlying logic of why they work in combination, otherwise the proof has not been published. This is a clear and reasonable basis upon which to award Lanka the victory in court.
I covered this court case in great detail in Episode Two of my docu-series The Viral Delusion, and you can hear from Lanka himself about it.
What I found particularly interesting is that a Professor of Philosopy in Switzerland, who had no dog in this fight, took an interest in the case, because his expertise was in the Philosophy of Science. He read the six papers submitted by the doctor and the critique of their methodological flaws by Lanka, and he was astounded to discover he agreed with Lanka’s critiques. He was so astounded he sent the papers and their critique to a friend of his who was a virologist. She told him that, yes, Lanka was probably right, that the papers were not conclusive, and that this was a problem in virology and that someone really should fix this someday! The Professor, Harold Walach (no relation), recounts the whole story in my docuseries theviraldelusion.com Episode Two.
Of course, we cover the actual papers and the foundational problems with their conclusions thoughout the docu-series, and I think most people would be astonished at the extroardinary haphazard nature of the papers, and the clear flaws in their logic. In fact, even the original and most significant measles paper by Enders admits at the end of it that one really cannot draw proper conclusions from the paper itself. Lanka as well has covered these papers and his full criticism in his magazine and has done numerous interviews explaining the foundational problems. This was also covered in the book “Virus Mania” by Torsten Engelbrecht.
In short, Enders took a boy who had measles symptoms and added his bodily fluids to a vial, to which he then added milk, salt water, baby cow’s blood, and antibiotics. He then took this mixture and put it on a monkey kidney cell. When he saw the monkey kidney cell begin to deteriorate, he claimed that this proves there was a virus in the original boy’s fluids. However, he did not perform a control experiment. As even he admits, it’s possible that the kidney cells deteriorated for other reasons. And in fact, it’s not just possible, its very very likely! What Enders did not say, or perhaps didn’t even know, is that the antibiotics he added were kidney-toxic! So it was not surprising to see that the cells deteriorated.
Shockingly, Enders experiment is not just an historical footnote. It is one of the central procedures virologists use to this day to declare they have found a virus. If you read the very first paper out of Wuham China about the so-called discovery of “Sars-cov-2”, you will see that it begins with this exact experiment, and it was upon this very same procedure (with updated, but still kidney toxic antiiobitics) that it was first declared a “sars-cov-2” virus had been found!
That is why the experiment done by Jamie Andrews and publicized by Alec Zeck is so interesting and noteworthy. They performed the control experiment that Enders never did. And what did they find? They found that cells detiorate in the experiment even without the addition of human fluid at all thus negating the scientific validty of the Enders protocol entirely.
From your comments, Steve Kirsch is part of the problem and is deliberately misleading his audience. If he is aware of the distortions he's perpetrating then he is committing a vile and terrible lie which is part of a greater lie causing death and destruction across the planet. God help him.
I certainly believe that God helped Steve Kirsch organize massive "Defeat The Mandate" rallies and organize a stellar team of scientists at Vaccine Safety Research Foundation (VSRF) to fight the big pharma narrative.
It seems that he's on God's side when VSRF helps many thousands of vaccine injured people and helps doctors and nurse whistleblowers expose the injuries. God must be with Steve Kirsch when he testifies to numerous government agencies in the US and other countries about vaccine harms and does big audience interviews in major news media about the same thing.
Many of us pray to God that these government, pharma and medical tyrants will be held to account legally. Steve Kirsch and his team organized Covid Litigation Conference I and II to help lawyers band together and fight for medical freedom.
FYI, it was announced today that Kansas is suing Pfizer so his hard work is paying off.
Anybody who can read and listen can see all this at https://kirschsubstack.com and https://rumble.com/c/VaccineSafetyResearchFoundation. It's not a secret. Big Pharma and government tyrants hate Steve Kirsch - just like you and some of the other commenters here. You are on Big Pharma's side in this matter.
I agree that he's done great work against the vaccine. It's an absolute shame that Steve has become this rabid establishment defender when it comes to virology. But it shouldn't be supported. And he has been downright nasty and highly highly misleading to people. Pardon the expression, but my dog is a great friend and a loyal protector, but when he sh*ts on the rug, someone has to clean it up. Steve should not be sh*tting on the people who are calling out the problems with the fake science all of this is based on. They are the most loyal to God and to the truth. We can never deviate from the actual truth. That must be out highest calling.
I see a lot more vitriol from the no-virus side, but I'm sure you're looking at it from a different perspective.
I'm on the don't care side which I believe is the largest group.
Doesn't virology underpin the entire vaccine programmes of the last 200 years, traditional and recent 'gene therapy', why would you not care.....is it that with freedom to decide on medical matters it doesn't matter?
I think the don't care side is terrific! At the end of the day, we all just need to stand up for our medical and political freedom, and it doesn't matter what we think!
I do think it's been incredibly helpful to both my political understanding and my understanding about health once I understood the no virus argument though, and just to my basic ability to see through the b*llshit. I also think the no-virus side has been really unbelievably maligned by the virus people. The no-virus people basically just repeat a simple (and true) refrain - "please stop talking about viruses. they are not real" and then the virus people come back at them with "you don't know what you are talking about. they are super real" and then keep talking about them, but what they never do is engage in an honest conversation about it. The article above is not honest. It is highly duplicitious, which sends people like me into fits of incredible frustration. Do see my points below about the duplicity as I dont want to repost the whole thing here...
Well written commentary. I certainly do not hate Steve but I’m so against this virus narrative that sometimes I use strong language. If he is doing all this fine work why not augment it with truth concerning virus theory? No point in opposing the enemy and then providing them with food and nourishment.
They're saying that the sequencing was done on a mix of material.
There was no true isolation. Ever wonder why we supposedly share so much DNA with viruses? Also ever wonder why so much of our genome is "junk DNA"?
What exactly is DNA and why are you so sure of it?
Some interesting history about the discovery of DNA.
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
And here's my issue with PCR at ANY cycles run.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/pcr-fails-logic-from-the-start-sorry
Denial and miss direction is to confuse the population. I guess the 6 Billion dollar NAIAD budget is a fraud. Dr. Redfield said he objected in 2012 GOF AVIAN BIRD FLU project. ! He was overruled! Fauci won? He didn't fire Fauci. Politically a NO NO? He now say the bird flu will be
MANY time more lethal than the Sars II C-19 ! read it here:
https://thomasabraunrph.substack.com/p/gearing-up
Well, it is all a fraud. And they'll do anything to prevent being found out. 100 years of over 90 experiments and no study had proven that a sick person is contagious to others who are well. In one study they became so desperate that they injected the brain of monkey with goo because nothing else they tried worked. . And he got sick! Success!
Sure, they can manipulate cells in a petri dish in a lab. But show the experiment where they injected a number of animals, made them sick, then exposed other well animals (control group) to them, and the well ones got sick too. Then put other well ones with those, and they too got sick too. Can't find it? Why not? Its such a simple experiment that high school student could manage it. They've had billions of dollars to play with, and as many rats, bunnies, monkeys, whatever that they can handle. Yet, nothing.
Mammals have evolved to protect themselves from such things. If humans had not, our species would have died out long ago. There has never been a deadly viral pandemic. Ever. What happened to Monkeypox? Ebola? The last several marine & bird flues had were supposed to kill 5w or more? Why don't female prostitutes get AIDS? Why had California decriminalized the fluids of those with AIDS? Because AIDS is not contagious. Modern sanitation ensures were don't get exposed to toxins in the fecal bacteria of others. But homosexual behavior negates all those sanitation measures.
And where is that HIV/AIDS vaccine? 40 years, tens of billions. And nada. Zilch. Nothing. Fauci's quest led to a waste of time, money and lives. That's his real legacy. And the legacy of the CDC, NIH, et al.
A 180⁰ change in lifestyle, good nutrition, concentrated supplements and rest cures AIDS, if it's done before the afflicted are too far gone.
"Why don't female prostitutes get AIDS? Why had California decriminalized the fluids of those with AIDS? Because AIDS is not contagious."
Can I invite you to our clinic? I can guarantee you we can infect you with HIV and resting will not cure you. This would not be ethical, but that´s a different discussion on it´s own.
Realizing that image A doesn't look like image B should've been enough for anyone with common sense. But we live in New Medieval times (with smartphones). Your questions and arguments won't penetrate the New Church of Scientism (whether it's Fauci or "viruses don't exist") where every argument about "science" is religious, not scientific.
The no virus arguments are clearly based on questioning the scientific methods used in virology.
Calling out the "DNA (as defined in the dictionary), "virus" and contagion" a religious belief is not ad hominem. A discussion of a religious belief is not at all about science.
The medical doctors do not have the right to blame a non existent entity for their diagnostic failure. The "viral/DNA" machine operators (i.e. all genetics PhDs) do not need to take the blame of being pseudoscientific, alone.
What's unscientific about the viral sorcery?
1) Has the scientific method been applied to determine which material from a human contains "viral pathogen"? No. Dumb doctors don't get to play God by merely saying certain bodily fluid is "infectious". Hence everything downstream is pseudoscience.
2) Was scientific method applied to determine vaccination is the best treatment for certain disease? Never. Hence the subcutaneous injection is a religion based practice.
Conclusion:
The "viral/DNA" machine operators don't know anything about anything.
Year five.
Exactly, Steve. Way to go.
Someone tagged me in regarding the 'no virus' denialist propaganda and I wrote a rebuttal (https://substack.com/profile/61684492-the-underdog/note/c-59211941) which arrived to similar points to yours. I'll copy the rebuttal I gave them to here for convenience:
"Whilst I applaud your efforts to present evidence of your claim, and encourage you with evidenced research, I notice some glaring flaws with the research methodology and detailing therein.
1) You claim the cell has not been inoculated with any virus or viral matter, but haven’t detailed what steps you’ve undertaken, if any, to prevent cross-contamination (E.G. airborne materials).
2) You stated you gave the weakest antibiotics, “Pen/Strep”. It is well known that penicillin is these days de facto useless given many types of bacteria now exhibit antibiotic resistance. If I was viewing this cynically, I would suggest this was an attempt to allow bacteria to proliferate in order to destroy the cells. You did not explain why you did not use so-called “harsher” antibiotics. Or why you didn’t have a comparison to harsher antibiotics.
3) You state that:
“independent accredited Contract Research Organization (CRO)” and “The CRO positively identified "Sars Cov2", "HIV" and "Measles"“, but fail to present evidence of any CRO (I.E. their accreditations), or any of their claims (I.E. their official response, research). In-fact, you later assert that “we positively identified "Measles" in our culture” - which implies the CRO is yourself, which means it isn’t independent!
4) “By cross referencing of size, shape and inclusions with the CDC version of Measles (refer to Figure 8) we positively identified "Measles" in our culture”
This isn’t how Measles identification is done. A lot of cellular materials will look similar. If one does visual examination, the lowest threshold is the use of staining.
Typically one does genetic sequencing of the materials in order to identify explicit species (E.G. Measles), and the lowest threshold for that would be a PCR, and the highest threshold would be something were you attempt to profile all genetic materials in your sample and retroactively match.
4) You did not state what peer review process, if any, you had undertaken. Peer review does not necessarily mean submission to a journal, but finding competent field experts who take differing views to yourself to offer criticisms of the methodology.
The lowest threshold would be to present it to a virologist to see what their views are, and see if you can address any of the criticisms. A better threshold would be a mixture of specialities.
5) If this is a genuine attempt to convince, you will need more than a handful of slides showing dead cells to overturn decades of research. For example, I would argue your detail regarding steps are severely lacking. For example:
6) You claim “We also used the most robust cell lines (HEK293T)” but did not specify why “HEK293T” specifically was robust. You also did not specify which other cell lines you looked at, and why you rejected them.
7) You don’t detail procedures involving the culturing of cells. How do you store the cells? How did you verify the cells were already free of viral contaminants? How do you introduce the antibiotics to the cells? Can the antibiotics potentially contain viral contaminants, how did you verify they were clear? How did you sterilise the operating environment (E.G. air, tools)? When examining the culture how did you ensure to prevent cross-contamination/exposure?
I would strongly suggest you detail your procedure step-by-step, and attempt to find as many flaws as possible in said procedure, and if necessary, bring someone from the “other side” onboard to air their own criticisms.
If you asked me to believe based on these experiments, in my professional opinion, I’d say all you have there is a bunch of dead cells and not much else. A lot of points are severely lacking."
"Mainstream" viral isolation papers don't detail these things either. I've read enough of them and debated them for hours on end with microbiologists to know. Why is anyone ok with such a double standard?
All that has to happen - or one would think should already have happened - is that virologists do the experiment in the way you outline should be done. Why haven't they? Why don't you hold up an experiment done as it should be done obviating the need for Jamie's experiment?
The elephant fossil being excavated in the post-covid room.
https://normanjames.substack.com/publish/post/145429348. Countering the Critics: A Defense of Dr. Thomas Cowan's Theories on EMF, Conductive Chemicals, and Human Health
https://signal.eu.org/blog/2020/04/19/luc-montagnier-la-telephonie-5g-et-le-covid19/
Luc Montagnier: I think’on lives in a very different environment from that of our ancestors and without realizing it. We love the waves, we communicate by the waves all the time, but there are increasingly important projects to make these waves even more around us. So, I repeat, and it’is a subject to study, the role of waves: it was said for example that the city of Wuhan was very early for the’installation of’antennes 5G, for example, 10,000 antennas in this region. And so they may have contributed to the pathogenicity of the virus.
mp virus is just cell debris from the EMF that causes a sweating sickness
Exactly, here is an out of place site/article/paper I came across that I cannot make heads or tails of. It begins with a lot of hyperbole and is anything but clinical in its presentation, but, oddly, it does reference Andrew Kauffman when talking about exosomes. https://archive.org/details/french-army-report-on-covid-19-and-5-g-translated-to-english/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater See the left bottom side of page vi for reference to Kauffman. This paper was weird and so out of place. Honestly, I never read the whole thing but it stuck out as anomalous and warranting a look through.
Coincidentally, or not, my first experience with covid like symptoms was just after going to Hilton Head, SC, and playing sports on the beach while sweating up a storm for like 5 hours.
Someone please find the video referenced in this article. I've looked everywhere.
Cowan has claimed 5G causes SARS-CoV-2. Explain the biological plausibility of creating millions of near identical genomes caused by 5G.
Explain where this was replicated in a lab by exposing cells to 5G.
There's plenty of research regarding EMF/RFR and cellular stress.
Wasn't Cowan's point that EMF causes cellular stress and that the tiny particles that are created when the cells are under stress look identical to what we are told is sarsCov2 under the microscope. If you take a genomic sample of the stress reaction particles and say those are a virus, then it's easy to find samples of the virus everywhere.
Did you all notice how in the first stages of lockdown there was a massive rollout of 5G. It was an interesting use of resources - going around changing every lamp post. In my area it happened over about 2 weeks in the very first lockdown. How could that be the priority...? How could all that manpower and material be available at no notice...? Why was that job one of the only ones that could be allowed to continue..?
agree but genes are our bacteria and mitochondria and the building blocks of our body and RFR causes expression in the genes increasing GN bacteria mainly in speed replication antibiotic resistance over time imbalance which either causes the flu a heximier reaction to cell debris from dead bacteria you have bushed too long and explode. So these con men use monkey kidney cells to replicate the death of a cell and its debris via EMF in the body and the substance of cell debris in large quantities that cause the flu. If you do not take time and rest when your body tells you. bur you have to work like a slave so you have to take vit c max strength shit with toxic citric acid from Monsanto it pushes your body through more petrochemical shite and stops the bacteria from removing the toxins through this skin. the longer your body cant remediate the cell debris and imbalance the more syndromes you get or an infection
Genes are not proven to exist. The same with nucleotides.
sometimes explanations work well like electric flows through wires this is not the case but it's easy to understand https://normanjames.substack.com/p/electricity-flows-around-the-wires?utm_source=publication-search
I suppose you are right but the point stands EMF makes bacteria do different shit and evolve
I remember this. They were busy installing 5g in my neighborhood as well.
the phones are worse that the towers https://normanjames.substack.com/p/cell-phones-vs-cell-towers?utm_source=publication-search
The RNA sequences of exosomes are coded by the human genome. Why did the bodies of people all over the world produce B.1 exosomes in spring 2020 but Omicron exosomes in 2022? Was there some kind of synchronous evolution all over the world where the genomes of humans changed while people were still alive?
genes are your bacteria and mitochondria the building blocks of your body
Genes and mitochondria are not proven to exist.
Steve I don’t believe this is an accurate characterization of Tom’s statement.
Just because he spoke during a talk in 2020 suggesting that all historical pandemics were directly preceded by changes in the global electromagnetic field (radar, radio, 5g etc) which is 100% true and suggested that 5G likely played a large role in the pandemic doesn’t mean he believes today in 2024 that ‘’5g caused Covid’’ . And even if he does, if you read the Invisible Rainbow you will see that it’s a very plausible idea.
Secondly, And more importantly, if people are experiencing the same type of illness, they very well might express the same type of RNA signatures as their cells break down, i.e. viruses or exosomes. Just because people might show the same ‘’sequencing ‘’ present doesn’t mean that a virus caused the disease, assuming that the sequencing process is correct. To make that conclusion is not using proper logic and reasoning. It’s possible that people with the same illness will express the same genetic signature (exosomes) as their cells break down the same way. This is just one theory. I’m sure there are many others
I think 5G likely causes health issues but I'm pretty sure people were coming down with Covid symptoms in places that don't have 5G.
yes, by the 100s of millions.. "no viruses" is a psyop targeting truthers, like qanon and many others..
It's not just 5g but all RFR/EMR exposures
Phones moreso that towers https://normanjames.substack.com/p/cell-phones-vs-cell-towers?utm_source=publication-search
What is a 'Covid symptom'? In Australia, Covid symptoms had previously been referred to as the 'Common flu' which has been around for centuries. Strangely, the Common flu completely disappeared during the period of 'Covid' and there were no reported cases. It's back now though. Now that 'Covid' is over.
Like me. I had 2.4G and 5G in my house several years prior to my getting original covid, but it wasn't outside for at least a year later.
You had 2.4 & 5GHz frequency WiFi in your house. 5G mobile is a completely different thing, where 5G stands for 5th Generation and covers many different frequency ranges incorporating ones from 2, 3, & 4G generations. Hard to believe that people still don't understand this basic stuff but I expect the industry intentionally tried to confuse by labeling 5GHz WiFi as just 5G on devices.
"Mid-band 5G uses microwaves of 1.7–4.7 GHz".
5G wifi is not 5G
probably some propaganda stunt to normalise it!
Just to clarify: 5G is not 5Ghz. It is 5th Generation cellular. 5Ghz WiFi has been around for a long time. 5G cellular uses frequencies up to 300ghz. That's 300 billion cycles per second. The higher the frequency, the less distance it will travel effectively, the less it will penetrate the body and objects, but it can carry more data. That is why 5G antennas are placed in close proximity in neighborhoods, shopping malls, stadiums, etc. instead of on the large towers we see for cellular (although I am not an expert and there may be 5G antennas in the lower 5G frequency range on them).
Thanks for the clarification. Protocols such as 5G include a range of frequencies which those pontificating about them rarely address. How can any protocol produce effects before it's implemented?
RFR is everywhere and it does not go away it just gets smaller or it gets absorbed by the earth it also desegregates the earth as AC does to crystals it looses weight DC increases weight
PERSPECTIVE
RFR has increased 1 quintillion times from 2000-2020. + new 5G phones >20 times more potential radiation.
One quintillion seconds is equal to approximately 31,688,738,506.8 years.
The truly massive scale of 1 quintillion seconds. To put it in perspective:
1 quintillion seconds is approximately 31.7 billion years.
The current estimated age of the observable universe is 13.8 billion years.
So 1 quintillion seconds is over 2 times longer than the entire age of our universe!
This really puts the astronomical magnitude of 1 quintillion x Hz of RF radiation generated in just 20 years into stark context. It's an almost unfathomably huge amount of electromagnetic energy introduced into our world in an extremely brief period on the cosmic timescale.
Multiply that up to 28 x with an updated 5G phone. 4G = 7 channels max per channel 2mw/m2 =14mw/m2 , 5G = 200 channels x 2mw/m2 - 400 mw/m2 potentially
That's appeal to ignorance, Steve. As well as begging the question. You're assuming that identical genomic sequences are a proof for a virus. Problem is, the particle virology refers to as virus has never been physically isolated and characterised. How then can anyone postulate that a specific genome sequence proves the existence of something that has never been isolated and sequenced in the first place. Virologists don't do sequencing shen they allegedly "isolate" viruses, they do metagenomics assembling. That's basically computer software trying to assemble a virus genome from the soup of various genetic materials. That's not sequencing at all. Thus, the sequence you're arguing for, is nothing but a computer construct which has no basis in reality.
dead right the virus is in the dead zone a place we cant photograph between the 2 electron microscope ranges so they make shit up. https://normanjames.substack.com/p/the-potential-link-between-the-rise?utm_source=publication-search
Steve also asked if they had the spit samples gene sequenced before they placed them into their cell cultures to ensure there were no viruses in them. LOL. That's the whole point! They say they can't find the virus in a spit sample by using their isolation process without running it through a Rube Goldberg cell culturing process. How can we trust any computer identified gene sequence in spit if a "virus" has never been isolated from spit alone? Also, both cultures died at the same rate proving CPE occurs whether there is a virus present or not. I really think Steve is showing his ass on this one.
i agree https://normanjames.substack.com/p/the-potential-link-between-the-rise?utm_source=publication-search
totally agree...it is plain simple common sense.
I see the same false claim that viruses never were isolated copy-pasted all over the place. That is simply not true. Here is some history.
Poliovirus was first isolated by Karl Landsteiner and Erwin Popper from the spinal cord of a child who had died of poliomyelitis.
The influenza virus was isolated by British scientists Wilson Smith, Christopher Andrewes, and Patrick Laidlaw.
HIV was isolated by Luc Montagnier and his team at the Pasteur Institute in France.
Ebola virus was first isolated during outbreaks in then Zaire and Sudan.
High-Throughput Sequencing: Modern sequencing technologies have greatly accelerated the process of virus discovery and isolation by enabling the rapid identification of viral genomes from clinical samples.
Metagenomics: This approach involves sequencing the genetic material from an entire sample (e.g., respiratory secretions, blood) to identify unknown viruses present in the sample.
The issue with your argument is the definition of isolation used by virologists isn't actually 'isolation' at all.
It's like arguing with a flat-earther. You are telling him that the gravitational force is mg, and he's replying that's not the definition. You are telling him, look even Newton described his experiments. And they would reply, the experiments were wrong, and Newton didn't exist at all, it's all a conspiracy.
No these so-called virus cannot be seen they are in between the microscope range so they use computers which can be faked read this https://normanjames.substack.com/p/the-potential-link-between-the-rise?utm_source=publication-search. and this https://normanjames.substack.com/p/can-wi-fi-exposure-increase-susceptibility?utm_source=publication-search
The problem with your argument is that each of these individuals used the same pseudo-science when making their claims. It was all smoke and mirrors from the get-go. If you are truly interested in knowing what they did and how get a copy of 'Virus Mania' and read it through. Otherwise, it's wrong of you to make claims of veracity without studying the basic science yourself because you're potentially adding to a deadly problem that is destroying lives all across the world.
Since he can't read a report, that book is like an audiobook. Www.virustruth.net
Here are more
There is also a time factor: it took Dr. Montagnier and his team a couple of decades to isolate HIV and finalize their findings, for instance. I'm no scientist but there is a fairly obvious difference between a claim, a theory and proving a theory.
look at this one https://normanjames.substack.com/p/the-potential-link-between-the-rise?utm_source=publication-search. and this
Landsteiner and Popper injected two monkeys. Such methodology does not reflect the description of words "isolation" and "virus."
Geoff the papers might claim that they were isolated but when you examine their techniques with a close eye you find that the studies were complete garbage. Just because a paper claims it to be true and many virologists blindly subscribe to it doesn’t make it true
Then go ahead and examine their techniques, prove their claims are invalid. Publish your works. But remember, those papers passed through editors and peer reviews and cited frequently. What are your credentials?
Yeah when your bacteria and mitochondria are opposites and the same are the genomes that are affected by EMF differently that causes gene expression
It's not just signals; it's the conductive man-made chemicals in the body that increase conductivity and impedance. Look at cancer: 80% of cancers contain Roundup and have higher impedance, which I think was 100 times more than brain tissue. https://normanjames.substack.com/p/conductive-dis-ease-cancer-parkinsonsms
Your bacteria, I believe, as Dr. Klinghardt believes with the mold, increases >600 fold, melting your bacteria and causing imbalance and syndromes. Bacteria get confused because the RFR (radio frequency radiation) is similar to or in multiples of quantum vibrations/smells used for balance and quorum sensing, so one doesn't overtake the other. Gram-negative (GN) bacteria replicate faster, just a little bit, and the Gram-positive (GP) bacteria can't keep up. Over time, this leads to too much bacteria, which may cause infections like tonsillitis (I haven't gotten it again in 5 years since following the military advice from Geovital). The waste cell debris and chemicals need to be removed, invoking a sweating sickness or an increase in GN pneumonia-causing bacteria, making it transmissible through coughing.
Also, there could be an outlier in familiar bacterial quorum sensing transmission in households, i.e., a Herxheimer reaction, because the bacteria are confused and may miscommunicate with the environment. If I recall correctly, laboratories can make other nano things or foreign objects in the body that shouldn't be there, which I classify under the original term "viruses" that may be difficult for our bacteria to process and remove, like graphene oxide (GO). If these tiny indigestible things also have a conductive element (GO is 5.8 times more conductive than copper by volume), it will affect the bacteria more, confusing it more, the more you use a phone. 4G phones have a maximum output of 14 mW/m², while 5G phones have a maximum output of 400 mW/m². However, they are now limited to 40 mW/m² when dropped up to 4x more, potentially becoming illegal to use. In conclusion, it could be a multitude of things, and this is why there is plausible deniability.
But adding a chemical cocktail to 1.2 gallons of blood will increase the electrical conductivity in the body. The bacteria in the conductive + electric field - antenna receiver physics affect and allow more imbalance and aggregation of blood, i.e., in athletes, leading to the deoxygenation of blood to their organs and muscles. Please take the time to read my spider's web of information that explains it all in the Cowan link I sent.
Excellent comment - we need to increase our study field.
The core problems virology supports can’t avoid is the miraculous features they assign to unidentifiable viruses… I don’t mean to be rude to you Steve, because of the “smoothing work” you have done, and I respect Kevin Mc for his work so far, but the area of expertise you are venturing into seems neither Kevin’s nor yours wheelhouse… I hope I’m wrong…
How much would it take for you and Kevin to look at reality from another angle?
Without your meaninglessness strings attached?
all you have to do is answer the questions I raised in my previous article on Andrew Kaufman.
Not a single person has done that.
Thanks!
All ?
Yes we have. I personally have referenced a comprehensive discussion of the topic in the book 'Virus Mania'. This contains a solid body of science that refutes your arguments if you are open-minded enough to read it. There have been many other scientific papers and studies referenced in the comments, so your claim "Not a single person has done that" is completely wrong.
Kaufman repeatedly asked you "how do you know the sequence came from a virus".
You couldn't answer him. The self deception is unbelievable.
Filter it through porcelain Pasteur-Chamberland filters, check to make sure the filtratable agents really are identical viruses, and not just exosome junk, then sequence them.
I tried to, but you just deleted my comment.
It absolutely is a global conspiracy. It’s too massive to wrap your head around so it must be a crazy nut job rabbit hole theory, right?!
How do you like your crow?
You should have saved my comment.
I don’t need an apology, just to know that you are alright, will be good enough for me.
Buckle up.
WW3 dead ahead!!!
Spoiler alert: It’s not real.
Deleting free speech Steve are you? You're stopping people from speaking that's the same as what they did with masks. Read this https://normanjames.substack.com/p/logic-wisdom-then-science-to-confirm
Link it please. I will try my best to answer your questions…
Who is going to be the judge?
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/how-can-millions-of-people-all-exhibiting
just the title makes no sense
A year or two ago on Instagram when Alec Zeck was promoting this virus denier attitude. I would respond in the comments and lament that he's hurting the entire health freedom community by associating us with such nonsense and provided the title and link to your articles Steve that you had at the time debunking this nonsense. Alec contacted me in private messages and told me he was going to block me for not having an open mind about the claim that viruses do not exist at all. I believe that a lot of people actually believe that. I don't believe Alec is one of those people because in the private messages he made reference to another Instagram account who had successfully debated a couple other virus deniers. Anyway I guess it's kind of hard to explain accurately but the simple part is that Alec claimed that because this other guy was in some group chat that it meant that he didn't believe viruses existed either which nobody could reasonably think was true. I 100% believe Alec is a shill based on this conversation.
Yeah it's a red flag when there's ex-military people like Alec Zeck in the alt media.
I believe the first two people in alt media who interviewed Andrew Kaufman were the flat earthers James True and Crrow777. But James True is ex-military and Crrow777 is a former marine (sars2.net/novirus.html). James True also called himself Kaufman's "lead writer", and he livestreamed Kaufman's first presentation that went viral. He tweeted "My Dr. Kaufman vid has been seen over 200k times in 5 days. I am employing myself, one editor, and one producer and we could use a video editor for maximum effect." And he also tweeted: "I have emptied my patreon account on editors, publishing, and pushing Dr Kaufman's video."
The poster of Alec Zeck's "End of COVID" event said that the event had five directors, but two of them were the flat earthers Amandha Vollmer and Kelly Brogan, and a third one was Dawn Lester, who I believe did her first two interviews in alt media with the flat earthers Greg Carlwood and Crrow777. Many of the earliest reviews of Lester's book at Amazon were written by listeners of Crrow777. In 2020 Amandha Vollmer was one of the speakers in an online conference about COVID called EVENT 202, which was originally also going to feature Kaufman as a speaker. EVENT 202 was organized by the flat earther Dave Murphy and its logo featured a flat earth. Another speaker at EVENT 202 was the ex-military flat earther Shelley Lewis, who made a film about flat earth together with the ex-military flat earther Joshua Michael Gennari.
Mike Yeadon has also said that he worked at Porton Down under a military clearance: "As an undergraduate, I worked under military clearance at Porton Down. That's the equivalent of Fort Detrick, it's where the UK military develops its so-called chemical defences. So I was under the Official Secrets Act. They must have thought I wasn't a crazy person at the time. I also worked for six months at the Police Forensic Service headquarters at Aldermaston, so I learned a lot of analytical techniques in that time." (https://odysee.com/%40Corona-Investigative-Committee/Mike-Session-86-en?t=135, https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/dr-mike-yeadons-key-testimony-part-i-the-eight-covid-lies)
Out of this, you proved there is virus and infection. Yes, you are good www.virustruth.net read a little and stick to the point
Well, bow to ‘authorities’ and don’t LOOK AT the evidenceS for the opposite of unquestioned, unexamined “globe beliefs’ which just might be true based on rational comparisons of evidenceS like “ 200 PROOFS Earth is NOT a Spinning Ball “ on YTube.
Cheers
It's also a red flag when someone is a wealthy corporate insider pretending to care about finding the truth that could devastate a huge chunk of pseudoscience in medicine. I don't like Zeck either, BTW
You don't have to like him, just look at the evidence that is presented. Www.virustruth.net
"I would respond in the comments and lament that he's hurting the entire health freedom community by associating us with such nonsense"
It is intentional. It's known as "discredit-by-association", a tactic used by governments when they're losing the information war. They basically try to roll out infiltrators who pose as 'friendly' elements, but then immediately start forcefully espousing nonsense, which both serves to discredit (via association) the wider movement, and attempt to sow artificial division within groups by exploiting more gullible members to take up arms against more cynical and knowledgeable ones.
This specific subset is known as "denialist propaganda" (to whit, their sole propaganda tactic is to deny everything the movement stands for, and propose batshit insane alternatives).
Even Mike Yeadon has gone down this path. I covered denialist propaganda here:
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/denialist-propaganda
Also called "Poisoning The Well". A well known CIA disinformation tactic.
I suspect Mike Yeadon and their couple other "experts" have been compromised, and somehow compelled to be patsies for the CIA.
Sorry, Mike, but you show signs. (MI6 seems more likely than CIA.)
It was especially disappointing to see Yeadon take this path; he should know better.
Why don't you do that too. Www.virustruth.net
Because unlike Yeadon, who is a pharmacologist, I have sixteen years of clinical experience, and have seen way too much of virally transmitted disease to deny it.
With so much knowledge, you shouldn't have evidence of viruses and contagion anywhere, I can't find it in science. Just because something appears to be something does not mean that it is. Www.virustruth.net. See if you can read something about isolating what it means and show a study where one sick person made others sick. After 16 years, you should have learned that there is more to learn.
Yes , he knows better that is why he uses logic to analyze evidence.
What about you?
Does your pay check depend on what side you are on?
No, it doesn't. I am self-employed.
Like other clinicians who have spent enough time in primary care, I'm waiting for the virus deniers to explain herpes simplex outbreaks, for example. You can't, without saying, 'well, ya see, it's some toxicant, but I haven't bothered to figure out which one.'
Which is not convincing.
The fact that he hasn’t backed away is telling.
Yeadon is a hero and I've never had more respect from him (or anyone) than when they are able to change their minds.
hard to say. I know people who i trust who have been led down the wrong rabbit hole.
That's an extremely subjective statement, isn't it? It's wise leaving room for doubt and introspection.
If someone has successfully debated, with data, that contagion is indeed an established scientific phenomenon, I'd love to see that. Please share if you know where to look.
Start here :
https://open.substack.com/pub/therebelpatient/p/video-farewell-to-virology-by-dr?r=1lx7va&utm_medium=ios
Hey Steve— here’s an article you may find more scientific on the topic. Breaks down the whole sequencing and all: https://conspiracysarah.substack.com/p/perhaps-the-most-important-work-of?publication_id=1042216&triedRedirect=true
great article...I came to that same realization after "looking" beginning in 2020.
Wendy, you may like my work on the topic as well! Here are some links:
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/lies-not-discussed-within-the-truth
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/exploring-complexity-and-spirituality
the only good thing to come out of kaufman/cowan/lanka's mostly false work is to correct the notion that people should be "afraid" of viruses. viruses are beneficial, have a role in natural creation.. "Because phages kill bacteria. They take over the bacteria’s machinery and force them to make more phages rather than make more bacteria. When they are done, they burst out of the bacterium " https://earthsky.org/human-world/trillions-of-viruses-human-virome/
no virus psyop relies on fallacies and false statements. demanding proof via impossible means and conditions, then ignoring mountains of proof derived in other ways.
"Lanka’s technique is impressive, but it is not the only one. If you look in the literature, you find that there is no one “gold standard” for viral isolation"
https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/craig-holdrege-and-jon-mcalice/some-comments-on-the-contagion-myth
Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine have recognized viruses for millennia. viruses are beneficial, part of creation. they can cause disease, be modified, patented, propagated, isolated, sequenced, transmitted.
https://www.asianagrihistory.org/pdf/articles/Viral-Diseases-in-the-Ancient-Period.pdf
more evidence shows the "no viruses exist" movement is a psyop- like Qanon, only black folks are human, all famous women are men, aliens, etc.. claims of no viruses not censored, cowan never lost FB, bot accounts that do nothing but attack anyone who counters "no virus" https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/01/20/social-media-censors-defend-no-virus-misinformation/
covid made in lab.. unique symptoms observable with covid infections, permanent loss of smell/taste in 100s of MILLIONS, like me. absurd to deny it. not just "flu" rebranded, not "seasonal detoxing" never have so many in short time span permanently loss taste EVER BEFORE. https://bmj.com/company/newsroom/millions-of-covid-patients-may-have-long-term-smell-and-taste-problems/
live virus vaccines are one of MANY proofs of existence of viruses. what is in zostavax that is causing shingles? not some "mystery toxin" "There is a risk that a live virus vaccine is that it is not weakened enough to prevent exposing the patient to the very disease they were seeking to avoid." https://www.millerandzois.com/products-liability/drugs/zostavax/
Personally, I think viruses do exist. Just a hunch. Is it plausible they exist? Seems plausible to me. We've got bacteria and protozoa and other pathogens. So sure why not a different variety of troublemaker. Is it possible they can be spread from person to person? Sure. Terrain theory is still true in that many people won't be hospitable hosts, but it certainly seems phenomenologically consistent that pathogens spread. Is it plausible they spread physically? As in not triggered internally via some sort of electromagnetic signaling? It certainly seems plausible and consistent with observed reality. Why not spread that way? I do however think EMF fields play a role in what people attract for good or ill. Are they consistent with descriptions of reality from people of higher consciousness, i.e. mystics, psychics, mediums, NDErs. Yes, they appear to take viruses at face value and don't correct that notion. Are the biggest critics of virology virologists? It doesn't seem that way. I'm a psychologist and still a big critic of psychology. I don't feel my education impeeds my ability to critique but informs it deeply.
The no virus argument is rather simple and does not in fact own the burden of proof. I think it's a gross misunderstanding and an inversion of the argument itself to say "the person doing the attack has the burden of proof". The burden befalls on whoever is making the claim, and in this debate, it is virologists that claim viruses exists. What the no virus crowd is saying is that, to this day, virology has failed to prove a virus' existence, let alone prove that it causes disease.
The no virus argument simply points out that no virus was ever isolated in the colloquial sense of the term. It highlights how the word isolation in the virology context has an entirely different meaning than what you'd expect it to be. The "isolation" process is and has been flawed since its inception by Enders in the 50s; it is quite literally circular reasoning on the part of virologists to keep going along with it.
The no virus proponents being accused of having no controls is farcical to say the least; showing that CPE occurs without adding any 'isolate' is THE CONTROL that virologists lack in all the papers claiming they've isolated a virus. Enders himself concedes that his isolation methodology doesn't prove the alleged virus is responsible for the CPEs considering there is a soup of foreign DNA, RNA, antibiotics, and more in the dish.
This article is a misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. Kirsch is hoping you'll be disuaded from investigating for yourself. Virology is a massive fraud - which is essential to population control - increase sickness and infertility, shorten life spans via toxic injections, among countless other modalities. Those of you who take the time to look into it won't be disappointed.
It was explained to me that Lanka lost in the lower court because the lower German courts can not judge the scientific validity. They could only judge if an authority could be cited that says the Measles virus exists. Thus, the lower court was a necessary stage to move through in order to get to the higher court which could actually judge the case on the scientific merit. I do not know if this is accurate as I have not personally gone to German court records. Lanka never claimed that an authority didn't say the measles virus didn't exist. He said that it hasn't been proven to scientifically exist.
However, the exact wording of the decision that Steve cites does not appear to me to match his explanation of requiring a single paper, instead of prove spread across multiple:
"As a result, the appeal was successful, insofar as it is admissible, because the claimant's criterion of providing evidence of the existence of the measles virus through "a scientific publication" was not met by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any pre-trial attorney's fees."
"A scientific publican" could mean what Steve is saying though. But, that is not how it was explained to me. Also, there may be good reason why it should be done in a single publication or experiment under one team.
The key to understanding "Jamie" is he went with insults "you seem terminally thick" instead of having an actual argument.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe0c51d72-0a18-4ffd-8e2a-9fae0f8e9d1c_598x585.png
Pole closed??? Why???
Too many penguins.
I just realized why you are so wrong on this subject. You said they had to add a "Real Virus" to their experiments on the CPE work that they did to prove their case. Steve. The WHOLE POINT is that there IS NO REAL VIRUS!!!!! And they PROVED it with their Controlled experiments. Time to rethink your position.
It was no more right or wrong of Lanka to ask for the information in ONE scientific paper than it is for the medical profession to demand other healthcare professions submit ALL their studies via RCTs. It's all about who makes up the rules and whether something fits in a box - the same box being predetermined by the person making up the rules!
I don't think there's only one single way to do ANYTHING. There are always options IMO. Perhaps Lanka was out of line here, but in terms of the law, which is generally not about justice, but who can argue the case better (rightly or wrongly), if he stated he wanted ONE paper only, and Bardens gave him 6, then that's an automatic fail. Why Lanka didn't bring it up in the first court case is bizarre, but I do not now how his brain works!! :-D
If there's one thing I've noticed about the no-virus hypothesis, it's that it's gaining traction. Now is this a fad? I don't know. Or is this people sitting down and thinking "you know, I've been conned by Covid. What else might I have been conned by?' There's nothing wrong with asking questions, and 'virology' has a lot to explain. The sheer concoction that vaccines are scooped out of is mind-boggling. I'm honestly not sure how they can say what's in them - exactly - with what they've put in that 'soup'! Problem is, the average person out there has NO idea how to make a vaccine at all. They don't know the processes, the ingredients; nothing! They rely upon people 'in the know' telling them stuff, and with how much correct or reasonable information was deliberately withheld during covid, and how much unreasonable information was pushed onto centre stage, I think it is only fair that people should sit down and question things now.
If one truly understands their own views, they should be able to explain them quite easily to others (so long as the 'others' are reasonable, ha ha!). Some topics are more complex than others, and some topics DO require some background knowledge, but I do not see any problem with questioning if viruses actually exist - because if they don't, there's A LOT riding on it. And if they do exist, well then, what are the 'virologists' worried about?!
Problem is, in my life, when I go checking on little, non-political things (eg life-cycle of cicadas. how violins make sound, what causes that earthy smell after it begins to rain; that sort of stuff), often I find I didn't have the full story, and then when I get the full picture, it all makes sense, and I change my mind about how I was looking it. BUT the more political a topic is, the more the (hidden) agenda, and so often, you realise that people are deliberately being led down the wrong path, en masse, because that will allow other people to profit (financially and otherwise).
The same rules should be applied to, say, finding out about the life-cycle of a cicada, and how long some of them can hibernate for, as it should to finding out how vaccines are made, and what is a virus, anyway? The basic scientific method does not get followed very well, as far as I can see, in so many areas of life, and perhaps that's because humans tend to err (and because their egos get in the way!). And sometimes, we even need to ask, is the basic scientific method even correct?!
People aren't good with 'unknowns'. They like things being more concrete. So, tell them a story, and stick to it, no matter what! Ignorance is bliss - it really is! The people who don't want to be fed lies will figure things out, in some sort of way that works for them. But the vast majority will not even be interested in going down the rabbit hole, so I don't see why Virologists are even worried. I don't see the CDC, DOD, media outlets or anything like them allowing this no-virus issue to win the day - any time soon. The people who would truly question things are so few in number that they will not - and do not - tend to change the world. Not unless it's in the rich people's interests (ie can they make more money and gain more power by saying those views are right after all).
A flat earth theory was all the rage and a spherical-type earth was heresy. For absolute years! Almost everyone knows that one today.
Semmelweis figured out disinfection processes and saved many lives that way, especially new mothers, but the medical establishment kept killing people with uncleanliness for decades, even though Semmelweis had good results. They just wouldn't believe him. Ignaz Semmelweis was of course right, but ended up in a mental institution, laughed at by almost everyone. So maybe, JUST MAYBE, we're only at the "ridiculed" phase of virology. Soon, anyone with these 'no-virus?' lines of thought will be violently opposed. And eventually, whenever/if that may be, it could become self-evident that viruses never existed. Maybe someone just needs to invent something better than the electron microscope, and if that's done, then we can truly see what's happening on a micro-level and we'll know once and for all what happens - do viruses exist or is it just cellular breakdown?
Any which way, I don't see the point in getting stroppy about this. Some people just have questions. Let them find their truth. And if at any point in time anyone realises they've been going down the wrong path, they should change their ways.
Wouldn't it be nice if people acted like this in reality?!?! :-D :-D :-D