There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done. There is no paper proving HIV causes AIDS or that SARS-COV-2 causes Covid-19.
The best explanation for viruses is that they are produced by various forms of cell respiration as waste products, which is why they are organic but "neither dead nor alive". Like feces.
Flies are active on a dead body- did the fly kill the animal?
Firefighters are active around a burning building, did they start the fire?
"Viruses" are present and detectable, did they cause the illness?
The big eye opener is that when we look at how testing for diseases works, it is almost never a test for the presence of the "virus" or bacteria, it is a POPULATION COUNT. "With PCR if you do it well you can find almost ANYTHING in ANYBODY" - Kary Mullis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHmVj3LTqrU
You have HIV. You have influenza. "There's very few molecules that you don't have at least one single one of them in your body." - Kary Mullis
Because "viruses" are not external. They are generated by your body in a GOOD process of illness that is meant to detox and clean us up. It is by design that we get sick, and the process of getting healthy is just a series of detox mechanisms.
"The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths," says co-author NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch."https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic
Except there was no "viral damage", only detectable waste products from immune response to the toxic vaccines that led to extreme immune response of pneumonia because the vaccines were so toxic.
There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done.
This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.
The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.
No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.
The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort, created by "sick" bacteria, designed to transfer specific codes to other bacteria (which is really the definition of a virus). I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?
It could even be that we have done similar tests in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often" and the reason I couldn't find any is because the signal to noise ratio is just too high) is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).
As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick (or infectious, or even potentially sick or infectious).
With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.
The bigger tell is how lab animals are made to be ill. And humans in controlled studies.
Swapping spit doesn't work. Injecting blood from infected same species organisms (that doesn't trigger blood type rejection) doesn't work. I'll try to find it (it keeps moving and being deleted but it is available on pubmed), but there was an experiment with about 100 servicemen in 1918 where they volunteered to try and get sick with the Spanish Flu, and the researchers could not make them sick by any means, finally resorting to having them spit in each others' mouths with zero success.
Animals cannot be given a specific human illness solely by exposure to humans. It requires adjuvants like aluminum, petroleum products like polyethylene glycol, a "matrix" like FBS- which is Fetal Bovine Serum- calf's blood, Vero cells from green monkey kidneys, and antibiotics. This "base" is combined with cultured snot or the resultant product of the cell fractionation, injected into the test subject, and when the test subject becomes ill- the author points to the cultured snot/test cells as the cause, completely ignoring the effect of the mixture of incredibly toxic adjuvants, each of which could on its own result in an illness response.
Understanding the intricacies of cell fractionation is not the issue. The issue is that that the variables tested are not remotely independent variables and they never have been. I posit this is because they cannot work in the way they are described independently (and it is common knowledge that you need adjuvants in a vaccine or the immune response will not happen).
The reason these "waste products" have very specific genetic codes is because humans have very specific genetic codes that are incredibly dynamic and operate procedurally. When you cut your arm, you have a very specific response to the pain that triggers inflammation and the routing of resources like platelets to begin the healing process. When you are exposed to some extreme toxin like radiation, people have almost exactly the same physiological responses that produce identical cancers that can be identified with genetic testing. I am not saying I understand the purpose of the particles we call viruses or their functions, I am simply pointing out that the entirety of their existence in mainstream medicine and virology is based on flimsy lies.
If you cannot be made sick by exposure to the virus, or a "purified" version in saline, water, host blood, or host mucus, nothing in these substances is pathogenic. The only thing that causes illness is the adjuvants.
Now the adjuvants CAN kick off specific immune/detox reactions that can mirror the body's natural responses, and those may have the ability to create a small illness now that results in a small illness later. But that is at the cost of incredibly toxic adjuvants that accumulate and cause their own long-term chronic issues. If vaccines didn't leave a mark and result in increased overall health, explain the reality of things like this (it's also the food and soap and air and water obviously):
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/04/older-millennials-chronic-health-conditions.html
Don't get bogged down in the intricacies of experimental prose in the results, and instead evaluate the experimental design. If independent variables are not actually tested, the study is fraudulent and any forthcoming conclusion does not accurately explain reality. With enough money and the ability to exclude study members for any reason at all, you can prove almost anything in a peer-reviewed study. My father practiced medicine for 45 years and his assumption is that 95% of peer-reviewed studies are nonsense.
There still isn't evidence of viruses. We have tiny geometric particles that are associated with disease, but there is still no proof that viruses can be isolated and cause disease. It has never been done. There is no paper proving HIV causes AIDS or that SARS-COV-2 causes Covid-19.
The best explanation for viruses is that they are produced by various forms of cell respiration as waste products, which is why they are organic but "neither dead nor alive". Like feces.
Flies are active on a dead body- did the fly kill the animal? Firefighters are active around a burning building, did they start the fire? "Viruses" are present and detectable, did they cause the illness?
The big eye opener is that when we look at how testing for diseases works, it is almost never a test for the presence of the "virus" or bacteria, it is a POPULATION COUNT. "With PCR if you do it well you can find almost ANYTHING in ANYBODY" - Kary Mullis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHmVj3LTqrU
You have HIV. You have influenza. "There's very few molecules that you don't have at least one single one of them in your body." - Kary Mullis
Because "viruses" are not external. They are generated by your body in a GOOD process of illness that is meant to detox and clean us up. It is by design that we get sick, and the process of getting healthy is just a series of detox mechanisms.
Watch this interview with Kary Mullis: https://ugetube.com/watch/kary-mullis-pcr-inventor-the-full-interview-by-gary-null-hiv-aids-1996_zKng4sOqHPIAOBO.html
"The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths," says co-author NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch." https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic
Except there was no "viral damage", only detectable waste products from immune response to the toxic vaccines that led to extreme immune response of pneumonia because the vaccines were so toxic.
This is so commonly spouted by the "virus deniers" yet no one that I have talked to understands how cell fractionation is done, nor how WGS (whole genome sequencing) is done.
The "isolation" for viruses, and indeed, in testing for all biological material, where we want to get to certain parts of the cell (or extra cellular milieu as the case may be) is done by taking a sample, and fractionating it in a density gradient (through centrifugation), and then, by serial dilution, isolating out the fraction that is in some specific density. This allows us to select out that portion of a cellular sample and perform other tests, to see what's in there. In the case of a viral "identification," we take the section that contains the "waste products" as you call them, and we perform a test on the RNA contained within it.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2 (and numerous other viruses) this produces the same RNA values every time, strongly suggesting a very specific code contained within these "waste products." Why would there be a very specific code, with minimal (and expected) genetic drift if it were not being produced to have that code? Why would tests on the exterior of these viral products produce such high proclivity to binding to other cells? To suggest such tests haven't been done shows absolutely no investigation into the evidence, ignoring it in favor of some "there's no such thing as a virus" theory.
No one who puts forth this idea ever addresses these issues. Indeed, no one I've ever spoken with or heard speak even seems to understand how biological testing is done, citing one random person (I don't remember his name, not Kery Mulls) who has made this "no isolation" protest.
The protest itself is sound. We should be able to set up such an isolation -> infection experiment. And indeed we have, many times, in what are called bacteriophages, which are "viruses" that target bacteria specifically. Bacteriophages, rather than being spherical, like human viruses, are robust and have a shape and function that leaves no doubt that they are targeting "machines" of some sort, created by "sick" bacteria, designed to transfer specific codes to other bacteria (which is really the definition of a virus). I myself have done infection experiments with bacteriophages. No one seems to protest those, so why the protest on human viruses?
It could even be that we have done similar tests in human viruses as well, though when I looked, I could not find such experiments. Thus the protest is sound, in that it would be a very good experiment to do. But I think the reason it has not been done (if it indeed has not been done, instead of "not done very often" and the reason I couldn't find any is because the signal to noise ratio is just too high) is not due to a "grand conspiracy," but rather, because we do cell fractionation isolations all the time and no one protests it in any other context (because it is a sound methodology), so why would they do so in the case of virus experiments? Indeed, it would extremely weird to do it any other way in virus experiments because such isolations are difficult when compared with centrifugal serial isolations (cell fractionation).
As for Kary Mullis' protests, they too are sound, but that is a completely different issue, and has more to do with how PCR is done, what "finding something" really indicates with respect to disease, and the statistics involved in applying it to population wide "disease control" policies, than that it is an unsound technique for understanding what is in some sample. On the contrary, it is a very sound technique for understanding what is there. It's really a protest that says that finding a specific something there doesn't make you sick (or infectious, or even potentially sick or infectious).
With regards to the Spanish flu, there aren't any tests that I have ever seen that in any way indicate there was any virus involved at all. Not because no tests can be done (see above), but because no such tests were ever done, because they had no idea how to do such things until 40 years after the fact, by which time there would be no meaningful way to get samples to make any such determination.
The bigger tell is how lab animals are made to be ill. And humans in controlled studies.
Swapping spit doesn't work. Injecting blood from infected same species organisms (that doesn't trigger blood type rejection) doesn't work. I'll try to find it (it keeps moving and being deleted but it is available on pubmed), but there was an experiment with about 100 servicemen in 1918 where they volunteered to try and get sick with the Spanish Flu, and the researchers could not make them sick by any means, finally resorting to having them spit in each others' mouths with zero success.
Animals cannot be given a specific human illness solely by exposure to humans. It requires adjuvants like aluminum, petroleum products like polyethylene glycol, a "matrix" like FBS- which is Fetal Bovine Serum- calf's blood, Vero cells from green monkey kidneys, and antibiotics. This "base" is combined with cultured snot or the resultant product of the cell fractionation, injected into the test subject, and when the test subject becomes ill- the author points to the cultured snot/test cells as the cause, completely ignoring the effect of the mixture of incredibly toxic adjuvants, each of which could on its own result in an illness response.
Understanding the intricacies of cell fractionation is not the issue. The issue is that that the variables tested are not remotely independent variables and they never have been. I posit this is because they cannot work in the way they are described independently (and it is common knowledge that you need adjuvants in a vaccine or the immune response will not happen).
The reason these "waste products" have very specific genetic codes is because humans have very specific genetic codes that are incredibly dynamic and operate procedurally. When you cut your arm, you have a very specific response to the pain that triggers inflammation and the routing of resources like platelets to begin the healing process. When you are exposed to some extreme toxin like radiation, people have almost exactly the same physiological responses that produce identical cancers that can be identified with genetic testing. I am not saying I understand the purpose of the particles we call viruses or their functions, I am simply pointing out that the entirety of their existence in mainstream medicine and virology is based on flimsy lies.
If you cannot be made sick by exposure to the virus, or a "purified" version in saline, water, host blood, or host mucus, nothing in these substances is pathogenic. The only thing that causes illness is the adjuvants.
Now the adjuvants CAN kick off specific immune/detox reactions that can mirror the body's natural responses, and those may have the ability to create a small illness now that results in a small illness later. But that is at the cost of incredibly toxic adjuvants that accumulate and cause their own long-term chronic issues. If vaccines didn't leave a mark and result in increased overall health, explain the reality of things like this (it's also the food and soap and air and water obviously): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/04/older-millennials-chronic-health-conditions.html
Don't get bogged down in the intricacies of experimental prose in the results, and instead evaluate the experimental design. If independent variables are not actually tested, the study is fraudulent and any forthcoming conclusion does not accurately explain reality. With enough money and the ability to exclude study members for any reason at all, you can prove almost anything in a peer-reviewed study. My father practiced medicine for 45 years and his assumption is that 95% of peer-reviewed studies are nonsense.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124