Steve, I have EVERYONE AND THEIR DOG asking me for money already, but I'll definitely put your name on the list of people I need to send money to!

Expand full comment

When people understand that there never was a virus, then we can focus our attention on who is doing this to us, and why. And what we can do about it.


Before she died the queen of England LOST a court case in Canada because this young man was charged with attending a gathering of more than ten people during lockdown. He won his case because THE CROWN COULD NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THERE EVER WAS A SARS CoV2 VIRUS.


Expand full comment

On the subject of whether or not the 'virus' 'exists', I thought you might find this interesting: https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg

Expand full comment

I have a question about the "live virus". How exactly does this work, since the very definition of a virus states (Any of various submicroscopic agents that infect living organisms, often causing disease, and that consist of a single or double strand of RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms.) , that they are not alive?

Also, how can a non living thing adapt and know where to attach its self after it is excreted from the cell to transport its self to another host? That is a behaviour of a living organism, not some RNA or DNA with a protein coat.

Expand full comment

Whether isolated are not, all illness is being pushed to Covid, long covid. I place that with big pharma advertisements. Why take a pushed drug by pharma when over half the side effects cover everyday ailments/issues people already have. May cause the runs, upset stomach, headache, dizziness etc. Use to watch and laugh. Doctors can't even decide for the patients. Criminal.

Expand full comment

Still remaining is the question of the purpose of all those symptoms we call sickness, which all seem to help the body eliminate debris & crud it finds useless & dangerous to retain. Even if the virus is 'the cause' of those symptoms, do we want to interfere with the body's efforts to get rid of noxious stuff? Maybe helping to expedite the process (fasting, sauna, even enemas -- traditional practices in various cultures)-- rather than inhibiting, is appropriate. What attracts the (virus) to some bodies and not to others? This asks us to consider the terrain. Does the virus cause the problem or reflect the results of response to an imbalance or problem? The current (CDC et al) promoted narrative would have us believe there's one virus/germ per disease, leading to the promotion of yet another shot for every germ discovered (great business model!!). I say we need to look more at strengthening the body's efforts to rebalance itself, including thorough elimination of metabolic wastes, toxins (abundant in our civilized lifestyle) and other debris, = strengthen innate immunity, which is totally ignored by the conventional narrative. 'seems we need to clarify our assumptions about virus.

Expand full comment

Did you see the clip from the Milken Institute (Future of health summit) Fauci and other cohorts speaking? Ocotber 29th 2019. Always clues to their own illnesses. Video of Fauci, HHS in 2019 Plotting “Disruptive” New Outbreak in “China Somewhere” to “Blow the System Up” and Enforce Universal mRNA Vaccination. How much more info is needed for their nefarious deeds? Covid came out in order to push mass jabs of something that is not proving to be helpful to the people, only helpful to force people to take, even tho over 99% people will be fine if you get it. A few years back I had the flu which was horrible. Following the science and isolation makes no point to me at this time due to all their played out games with all people around the world and the amount of lost lives post jab. Insurance companies high rise in benefits between the ages of 18-64. Funeral homes in areas for alot was normal. No real rise until again post jab. People ask where are all the workers. UN a few years back had and should still be there? what they consider productive years. Well 18-64 are and for quite a few productive years unstill it was stolen in the name of Covid.

Expand full comment

Cell culture, limiting dilution, and isolation

Vero CCL-81 cells were used for isolation and initial passage. Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat inactivated fetal bovine serum(5 or 10%) and antibiotic/antimyotic (GIBCO).

How is a supplementation with “heat inactivated fetal bovine serum” considered an isolation? How does one know that the alleged isolation is not contaminated with the heat inactivated fetal bovine serum?

Additionally, the alleged sequencing was done using Sanger Sequencing Software. https://bit.ly/3PM6HU5

Is this not simply the “in silico” computer aided modeling process that Dr. Kaufman refers to in his criticism of how the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus was allegedly isolated?

This is not an in vivo to even an in vitro isolation which would at least be a material rather than software generated isolation of the genome.

How does the software distinguish the input as being a pure isolate of the alleged virus genome, if the sample was supplemented with fetal bovine serum?

Seems a bit disingenuous to claim isolation of a product supplemented with bovine serum and then analyzed via software that only responds to whatever is fed to it under the assumption that it is pure isolate.

Was the pure isolate then, according to Koch’s postulates, ever then injected into a healthy subject to see if this alleged isolate (really an “in silico” model, not a material isolate) would produce the claimed COVID disease symptoms (which changed frequently over time) in the healthy person?

Then, extracted and re-isolated to prove that the same alleged virus actually caused the disease symptoms?

Even if the virus were isolated as they claim, that is only one step in the process of proving that is capable of causing the alleged COVID disease.

That alone is not a sufficient proof of cause. More is needed as described above. Was it performed or simply assumed?

Additionally, pointing to a particle and claiming it is the virus says nothing about the quantity of that alleged entity in the photograph and neither does an RT-PCR test. The RT-PCR test is used to match a genomic sequence and tells nothing about the quantity of that alleged genomic sequence in the individual.

As Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winning inventor of the test stated: The test was meant to be used under the hood. That is, in the lab, not as a diagnostic test and then for no more than 30 cycles before the results began to become meaningless.

The RT-PCR tests conducted to match the “in silico” (computer generated) genome provided by China via electronic transmission of the sequences claimed to be SARS-CoV-2 were all instructed to be run at 40 cycles and above which is the reason so many false positives were produced by these genome matching tests.

Expand full comment

Even Faux-ci admitted that the cycles were being run too high!

Expand full comment

Exosomes have been said to be exactly the same thing as viruses , that is to say, exosomes have been proven to exist and they look exactly like viruses in pictures. But there is a big difference, virus hunting is where goes all the big research money, which comes from big pharma selling their poisons. And your scientist friends have no problem with what they are selling at 2 thousand bucks a pop, is that not similar to big pharma selling useless and dangerous snake oil for profit and power? What proof is there that so-called viruses are not actually exosomes, what proof is there of the differences between viruses and exosomes, and if they are, how would that affect germ theory and big pharma profits and power??

Expand full comment
Mar 11, 2022·edited Apr 17, 2022

I read it all. It is clearly pro-"virus" propaganda. Alleged and so-called "viruses" are the basis for BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in profits across the education, medical, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. The benefactors of the The Big Virus Hoax will go to great lengths to keep their money-making SCEME alive and profitable. But the sandy loose ground their HOAX is built upon is starting to slide out from under them. That's why they are now releasing numerous articles across the internet in an effort to promote the existence of "viruses" while simultaneously endeavoring to defame all who are coming out of the woodwork to expose their SCHEME. The fact that they are resorting to statements like "it is all semantics" or "it is a matter of interpretation" proves their state of panic and desperation. There are no such things as invasive, infectious, contagious, microbial creatures called "viruses." There are only toxic and poisonous chemical concoctions being created in laboratories. End of debate. End of controversy. TheBigVirusHoax.com

Expand full comment

Does the ends ever justify the means? A critical thinker would say no. Never ever. Animal (or human) testing is never justified.

Expand full comment

I have a few points. a) you can't find a virus unless you look for it. How was it known that the original 41 patients with symptoms indistinguishable from pneumonia had a new disease which must have a viral cause? b) Stefan Lanka's 'bet' was for one paper, so sticking to the original conditions is hardly a technicality. However none of the 6 papers together OR singly showed isolation according to the experts. Not a technicality. c) In the experiments showing animals get sick when 'exposed' to vials of 'virus' , none showed air borne transmission. Large amounts of fluid are injected directly into their tracheas, causing totally expected trauma. d) The PCR was primed with sequences from GenBank for expected SARS like viruses and from the crude sample from Wuhan. There where never any blinded experiments to show diagnostic specificity. It tells us nothing about anything. Thank you

Expand full comment

you raise excellent points. thank your for responding. The article was a bit careless.

Expand full comment

a bit???

Expand full comment

According to Dr. Sam Bailey, there is no virus. I'm included to accept her conclusions. Further, Christine Massey, as is commented below, after FOIs worldwide, with no results of isolation proof, has come to the same conclusion. Dr. Sam Bailey:https://drsambailey.com/articles/

Expand full comment

I love Dr Sam. This very blog linked https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/warning-signs-youve-been-tricked-by-virologists/ linked here in this blog! I believe there is no covid so no viral cause. Further proof is the startling lack of concern for the actual causes of illness eg the terrible pollution in China (the leading cause of childhood mortality) and in the UK 2/3rds of people being overweight or obese.

Expand full comment

I love Dr Sam also - yes she is beautiful - outside and in!

Expand full comment

Viruses exist because we believe they exist. After all, why do people get sick?

Expand full comment

God exists because we believe it exists.

After all, why would the universe exist?

See how that goes? It's a logical fallacy to assume something, just because you don't have a proper explanation.

I could also claim that tooth fairy is making people sick. If you don't provide proper evidence for the viruses, my explanation is as good as yours.

Expand full comment

Just because people get sick, it doesn't mean dead viruses make them sick...

Expand full comment
Jan 30, 2022·edited Jan 30, 2022

I am not convinced that any organization has isolated the virus based upon at least two references.

This first reference is Andrew Kaufman explaining the fraud that is "isolation" techniques.


This interview with Christine Massey describes how she made FOIA requests to nearly every governmental agency in the world regarding covid virus isolation. In all cases, the governmental entities state that it has not been isolated.


Both of these references support each other in terms of exposing the adulteration of the samples by other sources of genetic material as well as the manipulation with computer modeling.

Kaufman uses a great analogy where you take a cat and put a speaker around its neck that makes a barking sound and then calling it a dog. It's not a dog just because it makes a barking sound.

Expand full comment

Lanka's 3 phases of experiments are the nail in the coffin on this debate.

Expand full comment

This debate raises so many questions, all of which are important since time immemorial, but especially now. Germ vs. terrain theory. Biology is the most difficult and mysterious of sciences since it deals with living organisms with some form of consciousness and living essence of the Creator or Source, all of which cannot be separated out from the organism. Viruses might be real in some form but as a subset of terrain theory. My 5 year old son has sneezed smack dab in my face a hundred times and I've never gotten sick from him. I find that kind of strange. Maybe the mechanism of transmission is some sort of resonance phenomenon, as Rupert Sheldrake talks about. I think science needs a new paradigm shift - one that I guess can still include all we have now - towards an understanding of frequencies and vibrations.

Expand full comment

They did studies years ago where they had people purposely do what you son did and they've taken snot from people and put it in other people's nose and no one got sick. I agree we need a paradigm shift.

Expand full comment

here it is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862332/

"Perhaps the most interesting epidemiological studies conducted during the 1918–1919 pandemic were the human experiments conducted by the Public Health Service and the U.S. Navy under the supervision of Milton Rosenau on Gallops Island, the quarantine station in Boston Harbor, and on Angel Island, its counterpart in San Francisco. The experiment began with 100 volunteers from the Navy who had no history of influenza. (...) His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer's bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that PROCEDURE FAILED TO PRODUCE DISEASE, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients. Next, SOME VOLUNTEERS RECEIVED INJECTIONS OF BLOOD FROM INFLUENZA PATIENTS. Finally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face. NONE OF THE VOLUNTEERS IN THESE EXPERIMENTS DEVELOPED INFLUENZA"

Expand full comment

I've read a lot of your comments on this post. You're quite adamant viruses don't exist and germ theory is just a theory. I'm inclined to believe those things and I think the ideas of terrain theory and pleomorphism are true and far more important than germs. When it comes to health these things seem especially true. But it's hard to dismiss germ theory outright for many reasons. The burden of proof is much more on the virus-ers, but also the terrain-ers have to offer theories and evidence as well that explain why we think viruses exist. Or could there be a third option? Could a virus be un-isolatable? Something that can't be extricated from cells and the mediums it's supposed to be transmitted in? There are things we know, such as the composition of the planet Jupiter, which we've never directly observed. The history of viruses is very interesting and intriguing and bears a deep investigation. Maybe it's not so simple as to whether they exist or don't exist.

If you know of any books or articles that can help understand why viruses don't exist or how they can be explained, or about the falsity of germ theory, I'd love to read them. My introduction to these ideas was Robert Young's book - the pH Miracle - many years ago.

Expand full comment

Let me tell you an anecdotal story.

Once upon a time, there was a healthy guy.

He was perfectly healthy, until one day, his sports teacher decided it was a good idea that the pupils should run in the snow half naked, and after they get sweaty, they should use snow to cool down their bodies.

A day later the boy got a cold which evolved in pneumonia.

He had to stay 3 weeks in hospital and take antibiotics, and barely survived.

My question for you is: where was the bacteria before he bathed in snow? Why didn't the bacteria made him sick before that?

It doesn't seem like the bacteria is a pathogen spread by air that made the boy sick. It seems rather that the bacteria was always there and found a proper "terrain" to multiply.

So much for the contagion theory.. it is clearly a terrain issue.

Expand full comment

Yes I heard of those. Very interesting

Expand full comment

I think frequency and vibration is the right direction to go in, but does science have the tools and/or interest (funding) to go there? As it pushes into the realm of consciousness, it becomes more difficult for to study.

A simplistic example regarding your son is that if your terrain/immune system is tuned to a frequency of (for example) 700 and illness begins at 500 and lower, it doesn't matter how many exposures you have, you will not get ill.

Like a radio that is tuned to one station will not receive another no matter how many experiments one does. Radio waves are ever present, but we don't have to actively block the ones we don't want to hear, we just have to tune it to the one we do.

Expand full comment

That's a great analogy. I need to understand the whole concept of frequency and vibration more. You're right that the more we include consciousness, the harder it becomes to study empirically under a mechanistic model. Science may just recoil from that more. I think the most crucial thing to bring to light to our western mentality in a serious and rational way, is the concept of Qi, the basic elemental forms and Yin and Yang or elemental forces in ancient Chinese medicine and more or less in all Eastern philosophy. Without an understanding of the more subtle and deeper workings of the body, science will get nowhere.

Expand full comment

Here is an article on vibration in food that I found interesting.


"A person in good health should have a vibration of at least 6500 angstroms. Interestingly, when we measure cancer patients or those with serious degenerative diseases, the average is only about 4875 angstroms."

I agree, the concept of Qi (Ki or Chi) is a key factor in health and could explain why some people can adopt seemingly unhealthy habits and still live longer than others, they have strong Qi.

Levels of consciousness and where we habitually reside are a factor as well, as described by David Hawkins and his Scale of Consciousness


So if viruses exist, the question is will that genetic material enter my body? If it is not a match for my frequency, it will be like radio station I am not tuned to, and may just pass right through.

If viruses don't exist, then the issue is have I let my vibration/level of consciousness fall to a level that allows expression of chronic illness? The remedy is to rise on the scale, and increase the vibration/energy level of foods/thoughts/emotions.

Expand full comment


This is a great lecture relating to our little discussion, if you're interested.

Expand full comment

Mind you, when talking about drinks, I mean quality ones. Not Starbucks, Lipton, Budweiser, etc.

Expand full comment
Feb 3, 2022·edited Feb 3, 2022

Yes whether or not viruses exist, when we get sick from whatever it is, it very well could be because we are at a lower vibratory/frequency level. I find the idea of resonance interesting. If our energy state is low, it may simply be resonating with someone who is sick. But I don't know.

Thanks for the links. Very interesting. I enjoyed the one on foods. I would only add that it seems more complicated than that. Tea and, in moderation, coffee have excellent effects on the mind, energy and body. As, on moderation, does beer, wine and 20-30 year old spirits. Apart from their angstroms, I think it has to do with their structure. Also the fermentation process transforms the products and hence has some some sort of transformative effect on our energy. It's not called wine of the gods for nothing.

And the one on consciousness would be interesting to look into more. I would also add there that we cannot exclude our energy and body when talking about transcending levels of consciousness. That again, is where Ancient Chinese medicine/philosophy and, in particular, Taoist Alchemy (Tai Chi, Bagua, etc.) is invaluable.

Expand full comment