Purification: the act or process of making something pure and free of any contaminating, debasing, or foreign elements
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/purification
I was not planning on doing any more articles nor devoting any more of my time to Steve Kirsch after my response to his claim that “SARS-COV-2” has been isolated. It was clear to me after reading his blog post that he did not understand what he was writing about. Even if it wasn’t clear to anyone reading, Steve took the liberty of outright admitting that he did not understand the topic as he relied on “experts” to tell him what to think and believe:
I rely on expert opinions of people who I trust for certain issues like whether or not the virus has been “isolated.” -Steve Kirsch
After the blog post came out, there were some exchanges between Steve and Christine Massey, who has done an amazing job of destroying the “virus” isolation lie with her Freedom of Information requests. She confronted Steve about his “isolation” claim and brilliantly pointed out why he was wrong. Instead of conceding that she was right and that he clearly did not understand the topic, Steve hunkered down on his ridiculous claim and pushed her for a 5 hour live debate with his “experts” in order to let the audience decide which side was right in the “SARS-COV-2” isolation argument. Disregarding the ridiculousness of the 5 hour time frame and the desire for the audience to decide a winner, Steve was attempting to sit on the sidelines and play matchmaker by pitting his “experts” against Christine. Once she enlisted the help of a team of her own experts, Steve seemingly panicked and decided to exit stage left.
This is just a brief summary of what transpired over the course of a few weeks in January 2022 and I may not have done the exchange justice. However, while the debate-that-never-was is an interesting story, it is not my main focus. In fact, I would have left this whole Steve Kirsch situation in the wastebasket where it belongs until I saw his parting shots at the “virus does not exist” community. In his attempt to save face by passing the responsibility of debating Christine and her experts off to his readers (which shouldn’t be shocking as he is seemingly skilled at passing responsibility off to “experts”), Steve shared some additional outlandish claims made by his “experts” regarding “virus” purification. Here are a few brief highlights from his post:
Does anyone want to debate “Does the virus exist?”
If course it does, but there are followers of Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey who claim it doesn’t.
“I’m not willing to invest my time in this debate, but if you want to challenge Sam Bailey, Stefan Lanka, Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Christine Massey, please let me know in the comments.”
“Basically, purifying a virus is difficult and there is no reason in today’s world to do it, so it isn’t done. The FOIA requests they issue are a publicity stunt that they know will fail. That’s very disingenuous of them not to reveal that.”
“Also, the people I talk to fully acknowledge there is no purified virus, but that it isn’t needed because they can do everything they need to do without it. Lanka et al. claim it is needed. So it’s now just a matter of opinion. Neither side is going to convince the other side. That’s what happened.”
“The reason nobody has purified the virus is there is no need to do so in today’s world where gene sequencing is readily available.”
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/does-anyone-want-to-debate-does-the
First, I would like to point out Steve’s apparent Freudian slip while attempting to declare the “virus” exists: “If course it does.” Not a typo on my part. I’m not here to play grammar police as I make plenty of spelling errors myself. I just thought it was an amusingly ironic way to start his post. Since Steve is unwilling to invest his time in a debate, maybe he could devote it to proofreading?
Now that the fun is out of the way, let’s get to the nitty-gritty on “virus” purification. According to Steve’s “experts,” the purification of a “virus” is too difficult and is no longer necessary. They believe that in today’s world of molecular virology, purifying “viruses” does not need to occur as a genome can be obtained from the genetic soup full of host and other unknown “non-viral” RNA/DNA. They believe that it is possible to obtain a genome for an unknown “virus” by piecing it together from the millions of reads of random RNA aquired from these unrelated sources within the sample. Thus, Steve and Co. want you to believe that purification, i.e. the very steps used to rid a sample of contaminants, pollutants, foreign material, etc. in order to isolate it, is not necessary any more as technology has advanced beyond these primitive methods. Putting aside the fact that the admittance by Steve and Co. that purified “SARS-COV-2” does not exist destroys their previous claims of “virus” isolation, does Steve’s “expert” advice on purification hold up?
No. Not at all. At least, not according to these experts:
“That such “purification” is an indispensable prerequisite for detecting viruses and creating valid antibody and PCR tests based on them is also stated by scientists who are the most renowned in the world, among them:
White and Fenner: “It’s an essential pre-requisite.”
Luc Montagnier: “It is necessary.”
Robert Gallo: “You have to purify.”
Marcel Tanner: “If a pure SARS-CoV-2 isolate cannot be documented by the IVI [=Institute of Virology and Immunology] in Bern, then we have a problem.” (siehe here).
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi: “… you have to purify the virus from all this mess.”
Jean-Claude Chermann: “Yes, of course… Absolutely.”
David Gordon: “It’s a natural step from obtaining the virus in cell culture to then obtain purified virus.”
Dominic Dwyer: “The purification, as far as one can go, is important in analysis of any virus or bacteria, for that matter well.”
Wan Beom Park: “In the outbreak situation, isolation of causative virus is indispensable for developing and evaluating diagnostic tools, therapeutics, and vaccine candidates.”
Home
I’m not positive who Steve’s “experts” are, but the people listed above are well-known and respected scientists and virologists. While they may disagree with the fact that “viruses” do not exist, they all accept that purification of a “virus” is an absolutely necessary and essential step. It is a prerequisite.
Those listed above are not the only experts claiming purification is necessary. An interview with Professor: Dr. Osamu Nakagomi from the Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Molecular Epidemiology, who is an expert on the subject matter, states as much as well:
Fundamentals of Ultracentrifugal Virus Purification
“In recent years, in virus research, it has become a standard practice to purify and analyze genomes and identify viruses from samples using commercial kits. Since for the established viruses their genomes have already been known, virus identification is possible even in a mixed state. However, to carry out detailed investigation on the nature of viruses, it is first necessary to refine the virus particles in order to yield a high level of purified materials.”
Please discuss the necessity of ultracentrifugation in virus research.
“When extracting virus genome using the classical method, the virus particles must first be purified. Then the virus genome extracted from the particles is examined. Ultracentrifugation plays an important role in the process. Purifying the virus particles makes it possible from the beginning to ensure that we are dealing with the rotavirus genomes in the virus particles. Currently such analysis is performed almost all the time after hastily extracting the genome without actually purifying the specimen. This practice is common since the genome of rotavirus is well established and it is a common knowledge that if the genome (Fig. 1 ) characteristic of rotavirus is present, there is no doubt that the genome is present in rotavirus particles as well. However, suppose, for example, that we are dealing with the problem of determining what kind of host cell organelles or virus proteins and genomes are aggregated in an infected cell, ultracentrifugation becomes indispensable. Moreover, while studying new viruses, it becomes increasingly necessary to investigate whether or not the genome is present in the particle. In such cases, purification with an ultracentrifuge becomes a necessity. Information on the buoyant density, size and sedimentation coefficient (Svedberg value, S value), all of which are taken into consideration in ultracentrifugation, is in fact the fundamental aspect of virology which taken together are called the physiochemical properties of viruses.”
As can be seen by Dr. Osamu Nakagomi as well as the experts listed above, purification is entirely necessary, especially in instances with “novel viruses” such as “SARS-COV-2,” which Steve and Co. admit has never been purified. Without purification, there are numerous host cell organelles and other proteins, microrganisms, bacteria, etc. within the sample and thus there can be no claims of isolation. There would be no way to be able to determine that the RNA used to create the “SARS-COV-2” genome came from one source. In fact, the only time Dr. Nakagomi states purification is not necessary is when the genome is already known and established, thus purification is a neccesary step to obtain the initial genome. Yet this creates a bit of a conundrum. Where has it ever been shown that the particles assumed to be “viruses” were ever purified and isolated directly from a sick human in order to obtain the original genome for any “virus?” At some point in the history of “viral” genomes, this purification and isolation process must have been carried out before any genome for any “virus” could have been obtained and considered accurate and reliable. However, it has never been done, especially for “coronaviruses” as I outlined here.
The “SARS-COV-2” genome was nonexistent and there was no prior knowledge of its sequence. The genome was created from unpurified broncoalveloar fluid (BALF) from one patient and cobbled together in a computer from other unpurified reference genomes made in a similar way. In a document by the WHO regarding sequencing genomes using metagenomics, such as was done for the original “SARS-COV-2” genome, it is admitted that high “non-viral” host material will also be sequenced. They claim that purification steps such as centrifugation and filtration are supposed to be done yet even purifying samples will still lead to a high number of “off-target, non-viral” reads:
Genomic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2
“Depletion of host or other non-SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in a sample leads to a higher proportion of SARS-CoV-2 reads in generated sequence data and therefore a higher chance of recovering a full genome. SARS-CoV-2 metagenomic approaches therefore typically include steps to remove host and bacterial cells, through either centrifugation or filtration prior to RNA extraction, or chemical or enzymatic removal of unwanted DNA/RNA. This is easier for liquid samples, from which cells can be more easily separated, such as bronchoalveolar lavage (Table 4). Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and DNA content are also commonly depleted during library preparation for virus RNA sequencing, and carrier RNA is often omitted from extractions or replaced with linear polyacrylamide. Despite such measures, samples may still contain high quantities of off-target host DNA/RNA that may also be sequenced. Metagenomic approaches therefore generally benefit from input of samples with high virus loads (such that a reasonable proportion of the genetic material in the sample is virus).”
“Metagenomic sequencing typically produces high numbers of off-target, non-virus reads. It is also often (though not always, depending on the sequencing platform and multiplexing) more costly than targeted capture-based or amplicon-based sequencing approaches, because more data have to be produced to generate one SARS-CoV-2 genome. Moreover, pretreatment steps that are particularly beneficial for metagenomics, such as centrifugation, are not typically performed for molecular diagnostic assays so new extractions that incorporate pretreatment steps may have to be performed for metagenomic sequencing.”
Another source on the advantages and disadvantages of genomic sequencing states that contamination, such as that by bacteria which is sure to be present without purification, will lead to inaccurate genomes:
Advantages and Limitations of Genome Sequencing
“Factors outside the control of the service provider tasked with isolation and sequencing of DNA can negatively influence the quality of the genome sequence and therefore its interpretation. This can include the quality of the DNA sample provided for analysis, such as low quantity, high bacterial contamination, or sample degradation. Such factors can even prevent the procedure from being undertaken. In such a circumstance, the client might be obliged to deliver a new sample.”
https://merogenomics.ca/en/advantages-and-limitations-of-genome-sequencing/
Since Steve and Co. admit that “SARS-COV-2” has never been purified, yet purification is a prerequisite for “novel viruses” in order to obtain an accurate genome, how can they claim that this step is unnecessary?
It’s probably due to the other fact which Steve admitted to: purification is difficult. However, I would go one step further and say that when dealing with nano-sized particles, purification is impossible. I will not go into too much detail in this post as I have outlined the purification problems here and here. However, it has been admitted numerous times that it is impossible to separate “viruses” from exosomes and other extracellular vesicles that co-sediment together. There is no one method, whether ultracentrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc., that can completely purify the “viruses.” Although you can find similar statements in some of the posts I linked, I will provide a recent article which focused on the need for purifying RNA for epigenetic studies. The authors supply various purification methods and then admit that none of them alone are sufficient to purify “viruses” from host-derived impurities. These impurities then impact the creation of the genome and any study relating to it. Even when combined, they can only claim that these methods will increase “virus” yield and quality, not completely purify the particles.
“The relatively low abundance of viral genomic material within the nucleic acid milieu of clinical samples places constraints on the utility of epigenetics-related applications, like m6A RNA methylation ELISAs, to specifically study the virus epigenome. Such assays require highly pure input material, free from host-derived impurities whose epigenetic modifications can also be detected and interfere with results.”
“The methods included above are generally not sufficient, when performed alone, for adequate purification of viruses. Studies focused on the virus epigenome require highly pure input material, without interference from the epigenetic modifications of host DNA, RNA, or protein. Combinations of the aforementioned methods can increase viral recovery, yield, and quality.”
https://www.epigentek.com/catalog/methods-of-virus-Purification-n-41.html
Even when the purification steps are performed on samples, there will always be many known and unknown identical particles with various sources of genetic material within the sample. Contamination is a widespread problem both in cell culturing and genomics. This makes electron microscopy imaging and the creation of a genome utterly meaningless and useless as proof of a “virus.” In order to hammer this point home, here are a few highlights from a 1996 Manuel on “virus” purification:
“Virus purification is the physical separation of virus in a concentrated form from the host cell milieu in which it has grown. Viruses need to be purified for many studies in which properties or structure of the virus must be distinguished from those of the host cells or culture medium, such as analyses of structure of viral polypeptides, function of membrane glycoproteins, etc.”
Criteria of purity
“The observation of particles in the electron microscope, whilst not a good criterion of purity, does allow the detection of ‘unwanted structures’.
It would be expected that constituents of the medium would form a major part of the contaminants of purified virus preparations. This can be monitored by gel diffusion tests, where antisera raised against e.g. calf serum, or uninfected cells can be reacted with virus preparation.”
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FB978-012465330-6%2F50005-1
As can be seen, “viruses” must be purified in order for the structure and physical properties of the “virus” to be distinguished from host cells and the culture medium. The constituents of the culture medium are said to be the bulk of the contaminants in purified “virus.” This would include the fetal bovine serum which is added to nearly every culture which is a completely separate source of RNA from the host source. They fail to mention the added animal RNA which would come from the Vero cells regularly used for culturing as in the case of “SARS-COV-2.” All of this “non-viral” material would need to be eliminated first along with the host material as well as possible contamination from bacteria, exosomes, MVB’s, other microrganisms, etc. before a genome could be considered valid. Otherwise, there is no realistic way of knowing which RNA belongs to which source within the mixture and whether or not the computer-generated genome is an amalgamation of the RNA stitched together from those numerous sources.
It is clear that purification is an absolutely necessary process, even though the methods themselves are flawed and unable to completely purify these preparations. This is why Steve and Co. claim it is “difficult” (i.e. impossible) to purify “viruses,” that it is no longer necessary, and why they want to skip over this step entirely. They know it is impossible. They know that they can not supply a single study where the particles claimed to be “viruses” were completely purified and isolated directly from a sick host. They can not even show this in papers where “viruses” are cultured. They want you to believe that technology has advanced to a point where it can pick through these unpurified mixtures of RNA in order to piece together a theoretical representation of an unseen “virus” in the form of a genome. Even if this was a logical argument (it’s not), a genome from unpurified samples would be at best INDIRECT evidence, not DIRECT evidence of a “virus.”
Fortunately, even disregarding the sources I’ve shared above which completely dispute Steve and Co., we can rely on logic and critical thinking to understand that their claims are ridiculous. In order for a genome to be considered valid evidence, the entity being sequenced must be shown to actually exist in reality first. One can not just assume an unseen “virus” is within the unpurified sample from the start without ever verifying that it actually exists to begin with. This requires that the particles claimed to be “viruses” be found in a state completely free of contaminants, pollutants, and foreign material as well as separated from everything else. In order for this to occur, the sample must be put through the steps of purification (centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc.) so that it can be shown to exist in an isolated state. Only then can proof of pathogeniticity be aquired using the purified particles as a valid independent variable in order to establish cause and effect. Only then can the particles identified in EM images be said to be the “virus.” Only then could a genome be aquired. Only then can the “virus” be fully characterized.
Without purification, Steve and Co. have no “virus.”
And so we get to the crux of the problem with relying on “experts” to do the thinking for you. Steve has relied on his “experts” to tell him that the purification process is unnecessary. He allowed the “experts” to tell him that the definition of isolation means to add many things together rather than what it actually means which is to exist in a state separated from everything else. He did not do a cursory bit of research to understand that his so-called “experts” are wrong. However, their inaccurate claims are now his to defend. Sadly, Steve is adamant that, while he was willing to invest the time to write a blog post about his unwillingness to do a debate, he is not willing to invest his time to actually defend his claims in a debate. So the way I see it, Steve has three options:
- Find the time to debate Christine and her experts to defend his ridiculous claims.
- Find new “experts” who understand the methods used for the purification and isolation of “viruses” and why they are necessary.
- Find the time to do his own research and utilize critical thinking and logic to discern truth for himself rather than relying on “experts” to do the thinking for him.
I’m hoping Steve chooses option # 3. However, I’m not holding my breath.
Greatly appreciate your thorough discussion! Virology is indeed one of the biggest frauds disguised as complicated science ever perpetrated on society.
Thanks, I appreciate it! I completely agree. Virology is a complrte fraud and a house of cards ready and waiting to tumble.
Steve Kirsch is a late one to the reality party is just like many others who have stolen the limelight from the original skeptics of these clot shots. Heck, most of them love to repeat that they got all the other shots (which also have issues and cause long term immune diseases, even if you don’t count the Mercury and aluminum poisoning).
Kirsch is a wealthy man who still buys into the system and it’s frauds and thinks that the covid vaccines are one of the few times that they were wrong. He doesn’t see that it’s the way these educated idiots created a stupid science called Virology.
By the way quantum theory in physics is another fraud like virus isolation:https://youtube.com/channel/UCcSIkt24P3WzN1n07l2C97Q
And Dr Malone is a snakehttps://www.unite4truth.com/post/what-is-relcovax-the-covid-19-vaccine-dr-robert-malone-pitched-at-summit-in-2021-nothing-good
Agreed with everything you stated. I have my suspicions Steve knows the truth about virology but will not say it. There are no safe vaccines nor safe pharmaceuticals. The fact that he pushes them speaks volumes to me.
As usual, a great job at highlighting fallacy and dismantling it. Thank you. It was a good read. Again, it becomes clearer to me that when those who claim to be scientists or know so-called scientists, yet neither one (the one claiming to be a scientist and the “scientists” he knows) don’t understand the vital importance of pinning down the independent variable, making sure it is real and is the cause of an effect, for me that fatally undermines the value of the title they which to attach to themselves. They devalue themselves.
Absolutely. They prove over and over again that they do not understand the scientific method. If you ask them about the independent variable, they act stumped and get angry. The title “Scientist” should be stripped away in all honesty.
Thanks Mike, another great post. I was infuriated the other day reading Steve’s comment that purification has “zero value.” I pushed back, rec’d quite a few likes. Amazing to me people just cannot spend any time to look just a wee bit into this myth. You don’t need a lot of smarts or common sense to see the lies. My thinking now after these past two years is that people mostly lack the fortitude to even consider germ theory is a lie, the courage to say, “Hey wait a minute!” lest they be deemed a nut case. Everyone knows we catch colds, right?
Thanks Lynn. Steve’s purification comments really stood out to me. So he and his experts friends admit “SARS-COV-2” has never been purified. GREAT! Now he can stop writing idiotic posts about an “isolated virus” as well as demanding ridiculous debate terms he is unwilling yo engage in himself. I have never read more inane posts than the two of his I responded to. Such stupidity. 🤦♂️
How can I subscribe to your blog? Good stuff, found you thru MCM.
Thanks for the compliment!There should be a “Follow” button near the bottom of each page. I only use my phone and it pops up at the bottom of the screen when scrolling. I believe that is the way to subscribe. It should then alert you by email when I post. Let me know if you have any problems and I will look into it more.
I just tried searching for the “Follow” button on my laptop. It is different than when on the phone. It pops up in the bottom right hand corner when you scroll up, not when scrolling down like on the phone. It’s WordPress so I’m not sure if I can change it but I will look into it.
I tried to point out in the comments on Steve’s Substack that the lies about germs and viruses go much deeper than the PCR test and the clot shots. But a bunch of his followers pounced on me to defend their “proven” virus. It seems that people must awaken in stages…. I guess the cognitive dissonance would be too bad if all the “science” they follow came tumbling down at once.
Thank you for this article.
You are very welcome! I agree that awakening comes in stages. They must be willing to challenge long-held beliefs and sometimes it takes time for the brain to process that. It can be overwhelming so I try to give them space. Hopefully they will find the path towards truth sooner rather than later.
thank you for doing this.
Apparently we need to post a comment to get notification of new posts?
You are very welcome! There should be a “Follow button that pops up at the bottom right corner. On my laptop, it seems to pop up when scrolling up through an article while on my phone it pops up when scrolling down. It’s confusing but I’m not sure how to change it.
no follow button came up any where on the page.
I’m using a laptop.
when I hit reply, it poses check boxes to “notify me of new comments via email” and “notify me of new posts via email”
I chose both.
Thanks for the feedback! I just added a new “Follow” button of the page at the bottom under the Search bar. Hopefully that will work. Please let me know.
Reblogged this on Alfredo Faubel.
Excellent summary of the virus fraud. The same basic scientific principles also destroy the germ theory fraud. Why don’t the use controls? And where is their null hypothesis?
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the kind words! I definitely intend to keep it up. More to come. 😉
Excellent summary of the virus fraud. The same basic scientific principles also destroy the germ theory fraud. Why don’t they use controls? And where is their null hypothesis?
Keep up the good work!
It’s earth shattering for us to accept that germ theory and virology are frauds. 150 years of intense indoctrination. Dr Cowan woke me up in 2020. But still I have moments of doubt. Then I read evidence-based common sense articles like this and I am again convinced germ theory is preposterous and un-scientific.
Much of modern life makes more sense when one realizes “germs” are not the cause of disease. Don’t forget Ocam’s razor and parsimony. We don’t need a contrived theory of malign micro-organisms to explain the diseases we suffer.
Absolutely. The simplest explanation is always better than creating an overly complicated fictional narrative (virology) which relies upon multiple other fictional concepts (antibodies/immunology, genomics) to back it up. People seem to forget the KISS principle. 😉
The time has come to get off the back foot and start fighting back with a positive agenda based on basic principles of science and liberty.
Please share this Declaration of Medical Freedom. Adoption of these measures will prevent future medical terror. We have to rebuilt the architecture of freedom in this country.
https://rumble.com/vorg95-declaration-of-medical-freedom.html
Hi Mike,
you are writing some excellent articles and many people are appreciating your contributions. Kirsch and co have not been interested in organising an open debate it seems even though “our side” was ready and willing. I wrote this article outlining how Kirsch’s reliance on Sabine Hazan and the ATCC leads to a publication trail that fails to demonstrate a virus: https://drsambailey.com/covid-19/warning-signs-youve-been-tricked-by-virologists/
Feel free to get in touch with me directly or through Sam’s website – would be good to catch up with you.
Best wishes,
Mark
Hi Dr. Bailey, thanks for the xery kind words and support! A friend of mine reached out to me a few weeks ago saying that you had found my site and had shared it with your wife. He said you both liked the name ViroLIEgy. That really made my day. 🙂
I am not surprised Steve Kirsch backed out of a debate. He was trying to intimidate Christine but that obviously backfired once she enlisted the aid of her own team of experts including you and your wife. I believe Steve and Co. realized they bit off more than they could chew. If they thought that they could convince people their side was right, they would agree to a debate. Instead, Steve apparently lost the time to invest in the debate he himself had proposed. It was pathetic and cowardly.
Thanks for sticking up for Christine and for the link to your article. I am excited to read it!
I wonder what the quoted virologists who harp on the necessity of purifying a new “virus” have to say about SARS-CoV-2. Do they…
1) just refer to SARS 1? (not realizing it’s turtles all the way down)
2) speak out and are just not heard, or silenced?
3) make some excuse?
I’m struck by all the ad hocism from scientists as soon as you take them anywhere that is off script, and the somebody-woulda-said-somethingism* from the general public.
*a folk theory of the sociology of academia
Yes, it is interesting how they are “unable” to see the lack of purification of “SARS-COV-2” (or any other “virus”) as a problem. At some point in the long history of “coronaviruses,” one of them must have been purified and isolated in order to be shown to exist. This never happened once.
I just discovered your excellent site. I’m looking forward to reading your previous posts.
I became a virus skeptic after watching several Kaufman, Cowan and Lanka videos and reading Cowan’s “Truth about Contagion” and “Fear of the Invisible” by Janine Roberts. I know that infectious viruses haven’t been truly proven to exist. However, I also understand why the majority think we’re a bunch of flat-earthers. It’s not enough to prove that infectious viruses haven’t been proven to exist- it’s also necessary to replace the virus paradigm with another paradigm that explains “infectious illnesses”. Here’s some theories I’ve heard about but perhaps we simply don’t know yet:
1) “Infectious” illnesses are really due to a common environment- e.g. common exposure to a toxin such as natural or manmade EMF. “Invisible Rainbow” by Arthur Firstenberg claims many pandemics and seasonal influenza are actually due to EMF, not viruses.
2) People who live together have synchronized periods of detoxification, which are often triggered by seasonal changes or by exosomes.
3) Cowan’s book suggest “DNA/water teleportation” could spread infectious disease without a “virus”.
4) Lanka is a big believer in German New Medicine, which says our mental state determines our health.
Also, I think some are being too hard on Kirsch. I’ve followed him since last June. His thinking has greatly evolved: he used to think all vaccines are safe and effective except for the rushed COVID ones and now he’s become an “anti-vaxxer”. Give him another 6 months- perhaps he’ll change his mind about viruses.
Thanks for the kind words and support! While I remain highly skeptical of Kirsch after his posts and his debate tactics, I will sit back and see what he does in the future. The (dis)information he is spreading is dangerous as it keeps people trapped into the Germ Theory lie and the belief in pharmaceuticals.
Dr.’s Kaufman, Cowan, and Lanka have all done an amazing job as the torchbearers for the movement. The truth is definitely in good hands and they are doing a masterful job spreading the word. Hopefully Kirsch will eventually talk to them and see the faults in his logic. I’m not so sure he will.
A million thanks for all you do! Dr. Suzanne Humphries did a deep dive and found that ALL “vaccines” are nothing more than toxic poison cash cows, historically from day one. Then I heard Dr. Tom Cowan speak about failure to isolate a virus. My world was blown wide open from that moment on. Geniuses like Dr. Zach Bush and Dr. Ed Group have literally transformed every thing I thought I knew. Please keep writing, Mike, for the sake of humanity!!!
Thank you for the very kind words and support! I really appreciate it! Don’t worry, I have plenty more to write about and I do not intend to stop anytime soon. 😉
Reblogged this on BertieS.
Thanks 🙂
Respectfully, I think you are using “purification” in a more stringent sense than the experts you quote above. For instance, ” However, to carry out detailed investigation on the nature of viruses, it is first necessary to refine the virus particles in order to yield a high level of purified materials.” is clearly a comment made by someone who believes that these detailed investigations have taken place.
The samples in question are somewhat purified (centrifuged). From the POV of the folks quoted above, sufficiently so, so as to allow effective scientific investigation.
Thanks for the comment. There is only the accepted definition of purification: free of any contaminants, pollutants, foreign material, or anything else that debates it. There is no somewhat or partial or almost purified. It either is or is not purified. Virologists love to play with definitions. What they say for isolation as well is the exact opposite of the accepted definition in that their isolates are a mixture of many things and the “virus” is not separated from everything else. We can not allow them to play word games. Either something is purified or it is not. Either the particles are isolated or they are not. There is no in-between.
Well, I would say there is also a level of purification that is sufficient to allow detailed investigations whether or not this meets the dictionary definition. By your standard, nothing is really pure not even Ivory Soap 🙂
In order to apply the scientific method, a valid independent variable must be obtained. That would be completely purified and isolated particles. You can’t determine cause and effect without this. If there are impurities and other particles within the sample, not only can it not be definitively stated that the assumed “virus” particles were the cause, they would not be able to know which particles are the “virus” they are searching for. Thus, complete purification/isolation of the particles in question is absolutely necessary and essential.
Do I think that this is possible? No, I do not. However, virology is based on the fiction that these invisible particles cause disease. The onus is on them to prove it scientifically which has never been done.
The problem remains that “somewhat purified” is not good enough to draw confident conclusions about the biochemical composition and role of the particles. The 1973 “Rules of Isolation” for “retroviruses” for example stated that “Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morphological characteristics and dimensions (100-120 nm) of retroviral particles at the sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.” – It calls for complete purification (at the EM level) and is an acknowledge that any other material present will contribute other genetic sequences and proteins. It is possible to purify smaller biological entities than “viruses”, e.g. proteins, and larger ones, e.g. bacterial cells. As Mike explains in his blog, we cannot let virologists away with loose definitions and unscientific methodologies. I’m not aware of any clinical studies that show that the particles claimed to be viruses are able to infect a host – they all rely on indirect evidence with highly contaminated samples.
Respectfully, I don’t think there is anything that requires complete purity. The question is, does the experimental setup verify the hypothesis (in this case) that there is a virus in the sample.
I agree with the issue of whether the virus can be said to cause a disease, that is entirely a separate issue.
How would one identify the particles assumed to be “virus” without complete purification and isolation?
There are a variety of ways – you could take a partially purified sample and take a set of “pictures” using an electron microscope to see if you can see anything there.
That would only prove particles exist, not that they are “viruses.” You can’t just pick out random particles in EM from an impure sample and claim those are the culprit. In order to know which particles are potentially causing disease, they would have to first be separated from all other particles that could also be the cause. They would then need to be shown to be pathogenic. That is the only way.
The problem of causation would exist whether or not you can perfectly purify the virus. IMO, you don’t need a perfectly pure sample to investigate it scientifically.
Causation could be done by taking a partially purified sample containing the virus and a control sample with the same other elements and giving it to test animals. If the control doesn’t get sick and the virus exposed one does, that would be good evidence of a causal link IMO.
In that case, you can’t claim a “virus,” only that the impure sample given to animals made them sick as there could be numerous substances found within potentially causing disease. If a particular particle is going to be blamed as a “virus,” it would require complete purification and isolation first. Only then could the particles be proven pathogenic and found in EM images, characterized, sequenced, etc.
In your previous example of using EM, how would you know which particles in an unpurified sample is the “virus” when there are potentially millions of similar and/or identical ones within the sample?
I don’t believe that you need to rule out everything physically, much of the stuff can be ruled out using logical tests. For instance, if we know that a disease is contagious, then we know that the thing that could is causing the disease has to be able to make copies of itself somehow ie it couldn’t be just a protein or whatever. This would rule out most of the stuff remaining in the sample. I agree that you cannot rule every possible thing out. You can just propose a hypothesis that virus x causes the disease that hasn’t been falsified so far.
I don’t think it is particularly controversial to say that you can find viruses using EM. Even Kaufman accepts in his SOVI paper that I found here (thanks) that this can be done (eg bacteriophages).
They can not use EM to find “viruses.” They can only find particles. They then call them “viruses.” These particles are nothing but a representation of a fictional thing.
“The observation of particles in the electron microscope, whilst not a good criterion of purity, does allow the detection of ‘unwanted structures’.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2FB978-012465330-6%2F50005-1
Also, you are making assumptions that a thing like a “virus” exists and makes copies of itself to create disease. This process has never been observed. It is entirely theoretical. It is fiction.
The issue here is that introducing biological material such as cells and proteins into another organism can make it very sick or even kill it, e.g. an unmatched blood transfusion. The virologists do such experiments on animals (or cell cultures in vitro) and then claim that the “viruses” are causing an “infection”. EM is useful for confirming purification of your particles (and then proceeding to valid scientific experiments) but as Mike point outs, simply visualising the particle doesn’t inform you whether it is a virus – by definition that is an obligate intracellular parasite causing a disease.
According to Kaufman, (SOVI) “This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages1 and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles.”
And, yes, I agree that I am making assumptions, that’s what a hypothesis is IMO, You assume something to be true and then see if you can falsify predictions that follow from it.
I haven’t read that in a while but the procedure explained by Dr. Kaufman is not performed on “viruses,” which is the problem. They do not show thousands of identically sized and shaped particles in an EM image. They find a few particles in an unpurified mixture and zoom in on them and claim them as the culprit. Even if they did show thousands of identically shaped and sized particles, if they come from a source with millions of other particles, it can not be claimed to be the “virus.”
The only way is to have a pure sample of isolated particles all of the same size and shape which can then be used as an independent variable to determine cause and effect.
Well, I think you can demonstrate a virus causes an illness in the same way that you can show that smoking causes cancer. You don’t need to rule out every other possible cause of cancer to scientifically claim that smoking causes cancer. I take a diverse package of molecules into my body including cigarette smoke and you take another diverse package of molecules that does not include cigarette smoke. We can scientifically conclude that I will be more likely to get cancer than you.
Cigarettes physically exist. Tobacco can be studied. The chemicals inside are known and can be broken down and studied. “Viruses” are non-existent. They have never scientifically been proven to exist. No particles have ever been purified/isolated directly from a sick human. They are imaginary creations. The particles claimed to be “viruses” are created from processes that the cells are subjected to that they would never encounter within a living organism. They have never been found in that state within a living organism. It is not enough to assume “viruses” exist. This must be proven first.
Well, I don’t think we’re going to agree on this – I would say that the particles can also be shown to exist – the question is does the particle cause a disease.
Let me explore another issue instead, IMO we can take a sample from someone with an illness and filter it significantly so that something only very small entities remain, at which point, some structures can be seen (with some difficulty). We further know by the nature of the illness that it is contagious, so whatever the cause is, it must be able to make copies of itself. Of those structures we can see, only some of them, could even potentially make copies of themselves (those with DNA or RNA) and most cannot make copies of themselves, like proteins or carbohydrates cannot.
I don’t think there is anything wrong at this point with *hypothesizing* that the structure/virus is the cause of the illness. This is still falsifiable and testable predictions follow from it. You could heat the sample to see at which point the infectiousness breaks down or treat it with a variety of chemicals to see whether the illness becomes virulent under some conditions.
You are again assuming such a thing as a “virus” exists and that contagion/infectiousness occurs. Neither of these have ever been scientifically proven. In fact, infectiousness was completely disproven by Milton Rosenau during the 1918 Spanish flu experiments.
I understand you are OK with hypotheticals and assumptions. I don’t deal with either, especially when those in power are using “viruses” to force medical interventions and take control. Show me where a “virus” was scientifically proven first by purifying/isolating particles directly from a sick human and then proven pathogenic in a natural way. If you don’t have that, we might as well claim tiny trolls are rampaging our bodies and spreading disease. It’s pure fiction without direct proof of existence first.
Ok, I believe I understand where you’re coming from here. Thanks.
I will just say that the difference between a virus and trolls or whatever is that you can falsify the virus mechanism by heating/treating with a variety of chemicals or a viariety of other mechanisms, That makes up all the elements of a scientific theory IMO.
You can not adhere to the scientific method without an independent variable in order to prove cause and effect. The only valid independent variable would be purified/isolated particles raken directly from sick humans and then have those proven pathogenic in a natural way. Until this happens, a “virus” is a fictional entity. Everything you think you know about them is hypothetical/theoretical. We might as well just debate how Santa Claus fits his big rear end down tiny chimneys and how he manages to fly on a sleigh of reindeer throughout the world delivering presents in one night.
You could easily construct an experiment where you varied the concentration of filtered substance from a sick person and compare it to a control from a healthy person (independent variable) and see how ill different lab animals got.(dependent variable).
There is nothing in the scientific method that gives someone the ability to just decide what makes a “real” independent variable IMO.
Let’s examine this another way. Has any “virus” ever been scientifically proven to exist by purifying and isolating the particles directly from a sick human and then proven pathogenic in a natural way?
In the terms the way you use them, I would probably agree with you but I view these concepts differently from you. For instance, I believe that you can “scientifically demonstrate” something exists if you can make predictions based on assuming it to be true and verify that those predictions actually take place.
Let me ask you a question though – given today’s technology would you agree that it is impossible to isolate a virus the way you propose? If not, how would you go about actually isolating it? Thanks.
I do believe it is impossible. They admit that they can not do this. However, this is the corner virology backed itself into when claiming invisible particles cause disease. They need to follow the scientific method which requires a valid independent variable that they can manipulate and control in order to determine cause and effect. They need to have direct proof that these particles exist, that they are found inside humans, and that they are pathogenic. This requires purified and isolated particles taken directly from humans.
We can not just assume or infer indirectly that fictional entities exist and cause disease. We can not just make up stories explaining how these fictional entities work. Everything relating to “viruses” is nothing but a fictional narrative people have been sold. You might as well believe in Santa Claus and Unicorns as well.
The problem with saying that the only valid test is impossible to actually perform means that you have moved the whole issue outside the realm of science. You can neither prove nor disprove it. OTOH, I believe you can actually falsify some propositions (ie HIV causes AIDs etc…)
I have done nothing. It is my belief, based on the evidence they have presented, that complete purification and isolation is impossible. However, the scientific method demands a valid independent variable in order to prove cause and effect. That requires purified/isolated particles directly from human samples. Virologists have methods of purification that they use in centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc. The onus is on them to use these methods directly on human samples, show the particles they believe to be “viruses” exist in a purified state directly from the sample, and then prove that these particles are pathogenic in a natural way. They have never done this and repeatedly claim it is impossible. Thus, they can not scientifically prove “viruses” exist.
Science HAS been able to use this method of “isolation” before. Therefore, it is NOT impossible. As Dr Mark Bailey stated further above, and Kaufman, Cowan, Lanka etc have explained many times before, this method of isolation & purification HAS been done on other particles of the same size and smaller than viruses, and with particleslarger than viruses.
I have not seen the methods of isolation successfully supplied to anything the size of “viruses.” I have seen many sources state it is impossible to separate “viruses” from exosomes and other MVB’s. I would be happy yo look at any study successfully showing this but so far I have not come across any. So while they do have methods of purification available, they have yet to ever successfully apply them to particles the size of “viruses.”
Yes, I believe I understand your position in this regard. My point would be would be that this is just your opinion/philosophy which is fine but it can’t say anything about whether a would actually be valid.
No test you can even potentially perform will add any knowledge about the illnesses in question.
It is not my opinion or philosophy. It is the scientific method. It requires a valid independent variable. One that actually exists and can be manipulated in order to prove cause and effect. This is not my method. It Is THE scientific method. It is not applied to “viruses.”
Respectfully, there’s nothing in any statement of the scientific method that I’ve ever seen that let’s people just decide a priori what evidence is needed or what consitutes an independent variable.
As I’ve said before, I believe that a valid independent variable is one that allows predictions about the dependent variable to be verified with respect to it.
Do you have any other examples, besides viruses, where they use a similar approach to what you suggest?
How can you determine cause and effect without having the purified/isolated particles assumed to be “viruses?” How would you be able to claim any particles are a “virus” if they are mixed with numerous other particles and microrganisms?
You could vary the concentration of the filtered mixture and compare with a control from someone who was not sick to see what symptoms if any develop.
If a sickness developed in the filtered substance that’s consistent with the hypothesis being true.
Thanks,
No, you can not assume a “virus” is in the mixture, even if it makes someone sick. In any case, this was tried with the Rosenau 1918 Spanish flu experiments where they could not infect anyone with fluids from sick patients. Virologists do not take samples directly from sick humans and compare them with healthy humans.
You are also essentially making my point. Filtration is a form of purification. In order to prove a “virus,” it must be separated either by filtration, centrifugation, precipitation, or a combo of methods to get to the specific particles believed to be the “virus.” If those particles make a healthy person sick, then you may have a “virus.” Only then could you characterize, photograph, sequence, etc. the purified/isolated particles. Virologists do not do this.
Well, we’d already discussed how the sample would have to be confirmed separately from being able to test whether it contained a virus.
I’m not familiar with the Rosenau experiment you mention but there’s nothing in what I have said that suggests that we can’t falsify the idea that a given disease is caused by a virus. I think this is likely the case for many/most of the viruses we are aware of. My point is that Rosenau seems like he was able to tell stuff without requiring a totally pure sample.
Rosenau attempted to pass the Spanish flu to others using fluids from sick people and having the unhealthy subjects cough on and interact with the healthy subjects. The healthy people never became sick:
https://viroliegy.com/2021/10/03/the-infectious-myth-busted-part-1-the-rosenau-spanish-flu-experiments-1918/
You continue to think that they can just assume a “virus” is in a sample. Where is the direct proof of any “virus?” It is not enough to just assume something exists. It must be proven to exist. By your reasoning, Big Foot exists as we can find giant footprints in the mud and there are photographs of tall hairy ape-men. Who cares if Big Foot has never been found to physically exist. We have plenty of indirect evidence he does.
So basically, Rosenau used impure mixtures of stuff and tested it to see if it caused an illness. That’s exactly what I have been arguing for.
In terms of testing to see whether a virus is present, i already agreed that you need to do this as well. I said that I believe that you can detect the presence of a virus/particle using EM.
Rosenau’s experiments debunked infectiousness and contagion. As for EM, the images are useless unless the particles are purified/isolated first. Virologists pick random representative particles from among millions and claim they are the culprit. This almost always comes from cell cultures (sometimes tissue cultures). They do not do EM directly from samples that have been purified from sick patients.
The point I am making about Rosenau is that he did precisely what you said you couldn’t do ie use an impure sample to do science. What’s his valid independent variable? I don’t dispute that this could falsify some causes of infections.
I don’t see how exposing some people to some samples can disprove all possible infections.
If the viruses were just assigned randomly, it would be easy to prove that they didn’t cause infections, there would be no difference with the control.
I should mention that per the SOVI sample a good test would need many identical looking copies.
Virologists are claiming specific particles given names as specific “viruses” are to blame for specific diseases. In order for this to be true, those particles (such as “coronaviruses”), and only those alone, need to be purified/isolated so that they can be used as the IV. Virologisfs need to prove it is only those particles causing disease and not something else. They never do this.
It’s not a hard concept to understand. You need to start with the purified particles (i.e. the independent variable) so that you can determine if those particles alone cause disease. Even if Rosenau did manage to make people sick, it would not have proven a “virus” as nothing was purified/isolated from the samples. There would have been numerous substances contained within the samples that could potentially cause disease (even though nothing ultimately did).
Well, I don’t think that the level of proof needs to be that stringent, of course. If you can find a sample with large number of the same size and shape, that’s good evidence that it can make copies of itself IMO. This will let you distinguish it from virtually all the other sorts of molecules in the isolate, which cannot make copies of themselves.
We can then construct an experiment where the concentration of particles given to a test animal (indep variable) is varied to see what effect it has on the symptoms experienced by the test animal (dependent variable). Depending on the illness, this may be falsified or verified, but either way the conclusion is *scientific*.
I think our basic difference is that you expect any evidence to be 100% bulletproof and I don’t need that.
But what you are doing us assuming if you find enough particles that this means they are replicating. Where are you finding these particles? Directly from human samples? Virologists do not find them there. It is all done in cell cultures. Nothing is replicating in cell cultures. The particles assumed to be “viruses” are cell debris from dying cells that have been poisoned. The particles as seen in cell culture and EM are not found in humans. If this is what satisfies your criteria, it is heavily flawed. Seeing pictures of random particles is not proof of “virus.”
I haven’t quite wrapped my head around the issues with cell cultures but I don’t believe that they are the only way of culturing viruses. I am pretty skeptical of anything that requires extreme measures to be cultured as it seems unlikely that the particles could be numerous enough to do anything significant in a real organism.
However, it appears hen’s eggs have been used for culturing, for instance, see here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4401370/
The cell culture process is a mixture of many different things, including the unpurified sample combined with antibiotics/antifungals, fetal cow blood, “nutrients,” and other chemical additives. I outlined the problems here:
https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/05/the-case-against-cell-cultures/
The use of hen eggs required that the “virus” was developed in tissues first and/or having unpurified samples passaged from animal to animal. In the study you linked, they used this:
“mouse-adapted H1N1 influenza strain (A/PR/8/34).”
To find out how this strain was created, I searched for that strain which took me here:
“The human isolate H1N1 A/California-like/2009 was isolated in Montreal, Canada, during the 2009 pandemic and obtained from Dr. Hugues Charest of the Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec. The virus was ADAPTED TO MOUSE BY 8 CONSECUTIVE PASSAGES as previously described [42], generating MAp2009, and was further amplified in MDCK cells.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4575127/#!po=10.0877
They took a sample from a human and passaged it to mice 8 times. Sadly, this study did not provide the full details, but if you understand what they mean by passaging, it normally involves taking tissues from diseased mice, grinding them up, emulsifying it, and then injecting this concoction into another mouse. There is no “virus” passed in this way, only diseased tissues. While I did do a post about chicken embryos with Influenza C, I have yet to upload it to my blog. You can see how this passaging between animals is done with Influenza B here:
https://viroliegy.com/2021/11/24/did-thomas-francis-jr-isolate-influenza-b-in-1940/
Using chicken embryos is just another added source of impurity. You have human, mouse, and chicken genetic material cultured in an egg with other additives. Still no purified/isolated “virus.” They have also moved away from culturing “viruses” in eggs due to supposed mutations, which is nothing more than admitting it is a hodgepodge of genetic material.
“If you were to start now with a new vaccine for flu, would it be grown in eggs? NO,” Jernigan said.
The U.S. government office charged with preparing the country to deal with public health emergencies like flu pandemics has recognized the limitations of egg-based flu vaccine production for a while. For more than a decade BARDA — the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority — has been working with manufacturers to encourage them TO MOVE SOME PORTION OF PRODUCTION OUT OF EGGS.”
“(Any time flu viruses have to adapt to grow in the cells of a new host — as in the case of the dog kidney cells — THERE CAN BE MUTATIONS. BUT THE EGG-INDUCED MUTATIONS SEEM MORE PROBLEMATIC. “I think historically just what we know about putting flu viruses in cells versus putting them in eggs is that generally the stability of the sequence is greater in mammalian cells,” said Jacqueline Katz, deputy director of CDC’s influenza division.)”
https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/07/flu-vaccine-egg-production/
You seem to be stuck on the false theory that so-called “viruses” make copies of itself, and that replication = contagion. This has also never been proven. What we assume as “replication” is also known as cytopathic effect. This has ONLY ever been demonstrated by their flawed method of starving & poisoning the cells. It results in cell breakdown, where 1 large particle breaks off into many smaller particles. Its not “making copies”, it is breaking down.
Thanks for all the links, I took a quick look at them and will try and read them more completely later.
To restate my original point, though, if you take a bunch of stuff that can’t make copies of itself and emulsify and inject into another organism, that stuff still won’t be able to make copies of itself. Only the stuff in that emulsification that can make copies of itself could possibly be infectious.
OTOH, I don’t think it means very much if you need a highly artificial situation to make copies of a particle either as this would not show that it would be infectious in a real world organism.
However, I do think that a fertilized hen’s egg is a natural-system so I would consider that the ability for a particle to duplicate itself in that medium to be good evidence that it could be infectious in the real world.
I think that a mice adapted strain was probably chosen because it is easier to perform experiments so they are probably more commonly needed in microbiology labs. I don’t think there is anything that would prevent hen’s egg cultures from being done directly from human or other animal samples.
The fact that hen’s egg cultures are more likely to cause mutations can make them problematic in some applications, but is only a slight issue wrt to its ability to duplicate itself. If you are concerned with whether X particle can duplicate itself and you can only end up showing that a particle that is quite similar to X can duplicate itself, that’s still decent evidence.
The problem is you are assuming replication when there is no evidence of replication. There is cell death. Nothing replicates. That is never observed. The only thing observed is cell death and the so-called cytopathogenic effect (CPE) which they wrongly conclude was caused by an invisible “virus.” There are numerous factors which can cause the same CPE which do not include the assumption of a “virus.”
Bacteriophages and giant viruses exist and have been isolated/purified, I think.
When we say “virus” maybe we must always be careful to say “pathogenic ‘virus'”? Kinda cumbersome but I think that’s what’s implied here on the blog in general.
Agree, the definition of a virus must include “obligate intracellular parasite” – it must be infectious, replication competent and transmissible. The parasitic/infectious nature implies that it is pathogenic, i.e. disease-causing. Bacteriophages and giant “viruses” can be properly isolated but don’t seem to be parasitic as was originally thought – as per Dr Stefan Lanka’s work. The word ‘virus’ derives from poison so to use the term for other purposes (e.g. a “messenger” particle) would seem incorrect to me – virus should be reserved for the strict definition. I’m yet to see evidence of any virus in this sense.
Absolutely. Definitions matter 100%. 🙂
Well, I don’t think this is particularly controversial even Kaufman accepts that it happens in bacteriophages (SOVI).
In any case, good evidence of replication would be to take a culture of e. Coli and add a bacteriophage sample, let it kill off the e.Coli, then take a small amount of substance and add that to a new e. Coli culture, if you do that repeatedly and the culture kept dying that would be evidence of replication. Any other form of toxin would have been diluted so much at some point that it would cease being dangerous.
Try to focus on human “viruses.”
Not sure why but, anyways, the Figure 1 from the link on the hens eggs cultures is consistent with replication.
Because we have been discussing “viruses” in humans, not bacteriophages. Plaque assays are yet another indirect method to claim “viruses” exist. These are not purified/isolated particles they are working with. Once again, a “virus” must be proven to exist first before one can claim that the indirect methods are evidence.
Well, it seems odd to accept impure samples for bacteriophages but not for human viruses so I don’t really get your point.
In any case, my point about the figure 1 was that it was consistent with something that replicated not that it had to be a virus.
I don’t think that this sort of evidence can be explained without refering to something that replicates. They use it for instance to calculate the original concentration of the replicator. They do the same thing for bacteriophages, I’m sure.
You can’t claim plaque assays are counting replicating “viruses” when the “virus” has never been proven to exist first. You are jumping ahead. The particles assumed to be a “virus” must be purified and isolated directly from a sick human first. They must be shown to exist. Plaque assays do not prove “viruses” exist.
It is the same as claiming CPE in cell culture is proof of “virus.” It isn’t. These are INDIRECT evidence, not DIRECT proof:
“During a plaque assay, a confluent monolayer of host cells is infected with a lytic virus of an unknown concentration that has been serially diluted to a countable range, typically between 5-100 virions.”
“After the initial infection and application of the immobilizing overlay, individual plaques, or zones of cell death, will begin to develop as viral infection and replication are constrained to the surrounding monolayer. Infected cells will continue the replication-lysis-infection cycle, further propagating the infection, resulting in increasingly distinct and discrete plaques.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4255882/
Plaques forming during cell death does not equal “virus.” Where did they get the “virus” first? If they never purified/isolated the sample, how do they know the “virus” is even in the sample to begin with?
You have to start with the proven “virus” particles. You can’t create particles through culture and claim “virus” afterwards.
My point about replication was in response to your post from 6:49PM where you said that nothing replicates. Whatever is causing the plaques must be replicating.
Proving that something is replicating is part of demonstrating that a virus is the cause. The next steps would be identifying a large number of identical particles and then testing those filtered particles to see whether they cause illness in the real world.
Why would plaque formation equal something replicating?
Reblogged this on Snooze 2 Awaken and commented:
This is a fantastic article for those interested in the truth about germ theory and “viruses.” Quoting: “Fortunately, even disregarding the sources I’ve shared above which completely dispute Steve and Co., we can rely on logic and critical thinking to understand that their claims are ridiculous. In order for a genome to be considered valid evidence, the entity being sequenced must be shown to actually exist in reality first. One can not just assume an unseen “virus” is within the unpurified sample from the start without ever verifying that it actually exists to begin with. This requires that the particles claimed to be “viruses” be found in a state completely free of contaminants, pollutants, and foreign material as well as separated from everything else. In order for this to occur, the sample must be put through the steps of purification (centrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc.) so that it can be shown to exist in an isolated state. Only then can proof of pathogeniticity be aquired using the purified particles as a valid independent variable in order to establish cause and effect. Only then can the particles identified in EM images be said to be the “virus.” Only then could a genome be acquired. Only then can the “virus” be fully characterized.
Thanks! I’m glad you found the article beneficial! 🙂
I’m a huge fan. You might be interested in some of my work on this subject, such as … https://snooze2awaken.com/2022/01/26/debunking-virology-the-entire-stinking-virus-narrative-w-dr-tom-cowan … Maybe I could interview you one of these fine days?
I appreciate it! I will give your link a look and I may be interested in an interview in the near future. Things are a tad crazy for the next few weeks but maybe sometime in March may work. Thanks for the interest! 🙂
Mike Stone
February 7, 2022 at 4:10 am
Why would plaque formation equal something replicating?
Because the plaques for by starting at a central point and radiate outward over time. This explains why they’re broadly circular and,, in any case, you can observe the infection proceeding.
You are assuming it is an infection. The plaques are forming due to cell death which is caused by the culture conditions, not any “virus.” Just as CPE can not be stated to be evidence of “viruses” due to other factors causing it, the same goes for plaques. Only “viruses” which “cause” cell death form plaques. As I mentioned before, the cell death is not specific to “viruses.” Thus, it can not be used as an indirect measurement to claim the existence of a “virus.” A “virus” must be shown to exist first. Why is this hard to understand?
Why does the cell death accelerate over time? Can only be explained by replication.
No, it can be explained by the numerous chemicals, contaminants, and foreign elements added to the culture. You are assuming a cause based on an effect. This is backwards. To borrow an analogy from a friend, it’s like you are claiming Unicorns exists because your lawn was trampled. Trampled grass does not equal unicorn any more than CPE and plaque equal “virus.” You must first prove a “virus” actually exists just as you would need to prove a unicorn exists before you can claim they trampled your lawn in the above scenario.
Again, it is the pattern of effects that is relevant to the conclusion. None of the items on your list have the same pattern of effects as plaque formation (see the questions I asked recently).
Have you studied each of these alone and examined the patterns they make on cells? Have you studied them in different combinations together and the effects they have? Have you studied the effects of these combined together without supposed “virus” material? These are called controls. Absolutely necessary. As is a valid IV in purified/isolated particles assumed to be “viruses.”
No it can’t be explained by other chemicals. If you put a bunch of random chemicals on your lawn it would die at different rates and the effect wouldn’t accelerate over time it would slow down as the poison became diluted.
And again demonstrating replication is part of demonstrating that a virus is doing it. It’s part one of the proof.
No, you are assuming replication rather than what is actually occurring which is cellular breakdown. They assume a “virus” is present and estimate an amount based on how many plaques form.
Research plaque assays and the various chemicals used. It is the same as those found in cell cultures. Many of these are toxic to the cells and cause cell death.
“Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium supplemented with 10% Fetal Bovine Serum, 1% L-Glutamine, 1% Penicllin/Streptomycin. 2. Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium supplemented with 1% L-Glutamine, 1% Penicllin/Streptomycin, 0.2% Bovine Serum Albumin, 0.025% HEPES, DEAE-Dextran 50ug/ml. A. 2x Minimal Essential Media (500 ml) supplemented with 5% FBS (25 ml), 1% Minimum Essential Amino Acids (5 ml), 1% Sodium Pyruvate (5 ml), 1% L-Glutamine (5 ml), 2% Pen/Strep (10 ml). B. 2x Minimal Essential Media (500 ml) supplemented with 0.2% Bovine Serum Albumin, 1% Minimum Essential Amino Acids (5 ml), 50ug/ml, 0.025% HEPES, DEAE-Dextran, Trypsin-TPCK* *Just prior to preparation, add 1 µl per 25 ml of 2 µg/ml stock of TPCK-Trypsin to the aliquot you will be using to mix with agarose for plaques.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4255882/#!po=64.1667
You need to stop assuming an effect equals a cause. That is not how the scientific method works.
Respectfully, you are ignoring what the effect actually is in order to claim your cause. The stuff you are proposing as cause cannot account for the patter of effects. All the stuff you propose is in solution so it is more or less uniformly distributed.
OTOH, the pattern of death in plaques is that it starts from a single point and accelarates outward. There are time lapse videos of this happening – it looks like a bomb going off in the middle of the cells.
You can’t just lump all sorts of cell breakdown together. You have to account for the specific way they form, which you can’t do without replication. Cells could break down in any number of patterns that would not form they way plaques do.
Do you understand that you must start with the cause in order to determine effect? This requires that valid independent variable (i.e purified/isolated particles assumed yo be the cause) we talked about before. Taking an impure sample containing numerous toxic chemicals and incubating it until it forms plaques does not show proof of a “virus.” There is no independent variable to manipulate. You have a collection of host material, bacteria, microrganisms, mvb’s, animal genetic material, and chemical additives. Any one of these or a combination of them can cause cell death.
The effect is cellular death, not “viral” replication. Replication is assumed:
“After the initial infection and application of the immobilizing overlay, individual plaques, OR ZONES OF CELL DEATH, will begin to develop as viral infection and replication are constrained to the surrounding monolayer.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4255882/
The plaques are zones of cell death. The particles released are debris caused by the cell death. This is assumed to be replicating “virus” but it is a well-known process of cellular breakdown and decay.
Now please, stop pointing at INDIRECT evidence you believe proves a “virus” and show DIRECT evidence, i.e. purified/isolated particles taken directly from a sick host proven pathogenic.
As we’ve already established, I am OK with indirect evidence so I don’t think we need to keep revisiting that.
Rather, I will ask more specific questions to see if we can focus the discussion.
Do you agree that plaque formation starts from a single point and propagates outwards in all directions?
Do you agree that the origin points form more or less randomly at varying times?
Can you name a *single* unambiguous poison( hydrogen cyanide…) that obeys this pattern?
I understand you are OK with indirect evidence. I am not. If you are going to claim that the cell death observed during plaque assays are “viruses,” you must prove a “virus” exists first. The effect is not proof. Where is the “virus?”
No, you’re mistaken. Establishing that replication is taking place is part of the proof that viruses cause disease. You are requiring that I prove viruses exist before I can demonstrate replication is taking place. This is backwards.
Yes, exactly! You must show a “virus” exists before you can determine it replicates. Where is the original “virus” in the sample before the plaque assay? You can not point to an effect and claim the “virus” never seen caused it.
You don’t have to show a virus exists to show that *something* replicates. Of the things that could replicate, some of them *could* be viruses.
They could also be particles created from the breakdown due to the death of the cell. There is no evidence anything replicates. There is evidence of cell death. All of these are known to factor in and/or cause cell death:
1. Bacteria
2. Parasites
3. Amoebas
4. Antibiotics
5. Antifungals
6. Chemicals (DMEM, FBS)
7. Age and Deterioration of cells
8. Environmental Stress
A “virus” is not required to explain the effects seen.
“Of the things that could replicate, some of them *could* be viruses.”
They could also be tiny pixies wielding axes. Both are fictional. Why play hypotheticals?
Again, it is the pattern of effects that is relevant to the conclusion. None of the items on your list have the same pattern of effects as plaque formation (see the questions I asked recently).
Also, sorry for the duplicate post – feel free to delete the one I accidentally posted under my full name.
I am dealing with hypotheses, these tend to be pretty hypothetical 🙂
It isn’t good enough to deal in hypotheticals, especially with the consequences at stake. We need direct proof.
You can’t say that if you are talking about science – science revolves around hypotheticals.
True, it is a part of the scientific method in order to determine cause and effect. Hypothesis comes before experimentation. But experimentation requires a valid independent variable (i.e. purified/isolated particles) in order to determine cause and effect. You must have this in order to determine if your hypothesis is correct.
You’re mistaken. The hypothesis we are discussing the moment is that plaque formation occurs due to replication. The independent variable is amount of concentration of solution and the dependent variables are the amount, timing and physical location of the plaques.
You don’t even have to mention viruses to look at whether plaques are formed by replication.
We are talking about whether “viruses” exist. You claim plaque assays are proof “viruses” replicate. If you are going to claim replication, you must know what is replicating. You must have a “virus” to begin with. You can not just assume a “virus” is present in the sample. You can not create an effect and then claim the cause. You have this backwards.
You can’t avoid hypotheticals when your doing science. For instance, your hypothesis would be that something on your list caused the plaque formation.
To bring it back to the issue here: The plaque assays are simply a modified version of the static CPEs that are observed in test tubes. They have the same problem of using abnormal and highly reactive kidney cells such as Vero and MDCK lines. The “viral” culture is added to the middle, but it is not purified suspected viral particles that are added, it is a tissue culture mixture. We would expect the area of the plate where this is first introduced to cause cell death. It is immersed in a semi-solid agar mix which limits the way what has been added can spread. Then the cell death progresses outwards. They will claim the agar is to “prevent the virus infection from spreading indiscriminately” – in effect it is another example of the virologists fooling themselves by using a methodology that itself produces the results. If they are not going to do it with purified particles they claim to be viruses then a properly controlled experiment would be to add their tissue culture mix, with IDENTICAL constituents minus the alleged viral particles. As Mike has tried to point out – the plaque assays do not demonstrate the existence of a replication competent particle that is causing an “infection” – the highly reactive cell lines break down when they are stressed by the conditions of the experiment itself until proven otherwise.
Thank you Dr. Bailey for bringing the focus back. I tend to get lost in the weeds in these conversations sometimes. 😉
Mike Stone
February 7, 2022 at 8:55 pm
“If you are going to claim replication, you must know what is replicating”.
No you can see that the effects are replicating – ie. death of X after time 1, death of 4 X after time 2, death of 16 X after time 3 etc…
You are pointing to an effect, claiming replication, and assuming “virus.” Just like it was admitted in this video explaining plaque assays:
At about 6:30, the narrator states this:
“And that is where we will ASSUME we have one virus infect the cells in that area, lysing them, and then move out a little bit and continue to lyse as they diffuse out and get this clearing. And so we can count the amount of plaques, and then we can therefore work out how many viruses are in that sample, ASSUMING, of course, that one plaque is equal to one virus.”
https://youtu.be/WnWr12lxRO4
You can not assume the existence of a “virus” based on the effect created in a lab. A “virus” must be proven to exist first.
Yes, when you propose a hypothesis, you are assuming that the hypothesis is true. For instance, you assume that other elements in the solutions can duplicate the effects that we see. The point about science is that you need to test those assumptions.
Also, I believe that you have missed the point of the video, he is assuming that plaques are formed by one virus when there could be multiple infections in any given plaque.
You are missing the point that “viruses” are assumed to be in there from the start.
Are you claiming that “viruses” exist or that they are hypothetical?
Dr. Bailey,
I thought I would try and ask the questions of you to see whether you can shed any light on this?
Do you agree that plaque formation starts from a single point and propagates outwards in all directions?
Do you agree that the origin points form more or less randomly at varying times?
Can you name another toxin that obeys this pattern?
Thanks in advance.
The “toxin” that behaves in this way is the cell culture mixture they are adding to the plate – there are plenty of things in the mix that are going to cause abnormal cells lines to react and die in vitro. The behaviour of the “spread” is related to the semi-solid media the experiment is carried out in. They are claiming it is due to “viruses” in the mixture but they do not demonstrate the existence of any virus at the start of the process, or at the finish. You could ask them to carry out experiments by adding cyanide, anthrax spores, or snake venom to the centre of the plate – could be quite interesting. Or as per my last post: “If they are not going to do it with purified particles they claim to be viruses then a properly controlled experiment would be to add their tissue culture mix, with IDENTICAL constituents minus the alleged viral particles.”
The major hurdle seems to be that people develop tunnel-vision with the virus theory and then try to make all observations fit the theory. They seem to forget what the definition of a virus is. The plaque assays show cell breakdown in a lab experiment. They fail to demonstrate an infectious, replication competent, obligate intracellular parasite consisting of a genome surrounded by a protective, virus-coded protein coat.
Ok, I agree that the test you propose should be performed of course, if it has not already. I would be surprised if it has not been done by accident. Personally, I cannot see if
Do you have thoughts on the questions, I asked previously?
No as I find the questions irrelevant as to whether “viruses” have been purified/isolated directly from humans and proven to exist. Everything relating to cell cultures, plaque assays, electron microscopy images, genomes, etc. are irrelevant until the thing they are supposedly used on is shown to exist in nature. This has never happened.
Just wanted to let you know in case you were not aware, a controlled experiment has been done here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4401370/
See Figure 1, they have a control where the only difference is that the non-controls have allantoic fluid from the hen’s eggs.
Two problems.
1. They do not say how the influenza “virus” was obtained nor what was added to it (VTM?).
2. They do not state what was done to the control cultures.
Mike Stone
February 7, 2022 at 10:35 pm
“You are missing the point that “viruses” are assumed to be in there from the start.
Are you claiming that “viruses” exist or that they are hypothetical?”
To hypothesize something is to assume they exist. We need to hypothetical entities to do science. Viruses are hypothetical IMO.
You are actually supposed to observe a natural phenomenon. “Viruses” can not be seen and the functions are entirely hypothetical. One does not create a phenomenon in a lab and claim their hypothetical entity, which has never been proven to exist, caused it.
Virology is not dealing with “viruses” as if they are hypothetical. They act as if “viruses” are a proven fact. This is not science.
Yes, I know. The natural phenomenon in question is the formation of the plaques. I am not a virologist – I am just trying to explain what I can see. I am not prejudging what you need to know ahead of time or claiming the ability to decide what real variables or observations are ahead of time.
You would need to observe a “virus” first in a purified/isolated state taken directly from the fluids from a sick human (and prove it pathogenic) before a plaque assay would be valid or have any value whatsoever.
Mike Stone
February 7, 2022 at 10:44 pm
No as I find the questions irrelevant as to whether “viruses” have been purified/isolated directly from humans and proven to exist.
Ok, but every time you leave a question unanswered you are leaving the possibility that you are completely wrong. I believe that if you tried to answer those questions some of the opinions you currently hold would have to change.
No it would not, or at least not until there is actual direct proof of a “virus” first. You are jumping too far ahead. Plaque assays have no meaning until a “virus” is actually proven to exist. Otherwise, all you are doing is looking at cell death and making up a story for why it occurred.
Bottom line, there has to be a way for your opinions to be shown to be wrong using facts from the natural world. You keep pointing me back to the only valid test being something that we have already agreed is impossible to perform. This is not doing science.
I have proposed to investigate whether something can replicate which is not a property exclusive to viruses (we can do it, plants can do it, bacteria etc…) but you still won’t talk about it. If I said I was investigating whether a *bacteria* replicating caused plaque formation, you’d still have to insist on me providing evidence of a *virus*.
Yes, I expect proof of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from a sample from sick humans that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Do you agree that this proof does not exist?
Mike Stone
February 8, 2022 at 1:25 am
Two problems.
1. They do not say how the influenza “virus” was obtained nor what was added to it (VTM?).
2. They do not state what was done to the control cultures.
1. Not sure what you mean here, but it came from the allantoic fluid from the hen’s egg.
2. Usually, in a control they wouldn’t add anything to it
1. They do not state “virus” was taken directly from a sick person. Where did it come from? Was it cell cultured first? What kind of “viral” transport media was used?
2. They do not say what was done. A control which is never done but needs to be is to take a sample from a healthy human and do the exact same steps to it.
1. Well, it could’ve been taken from a sick person but likely it was taken from a previous version of this experiment.
2. Well, if your experiment tests various concentrations of a substance a control would be something that didn’t include that substance by the definition of a controlled variable.
You are assuming once again. In order for the experiments to be repeated, every method must be detailed including how the “virus” sample was obtained. They did not explain how the sample was obtained.
If you are trying to claim a “virus” is the cause (especially without purified/isolated particles), you would need a sample from both sick and healthy subjects.
Mike Stone
February 8, 2022 at 1:54 am
Yes, I expect proof of purified and isolated particles assumed to be “viruses” taken directly from a sample from sick humans that are then proven pathogenic in a natural way. Do you agree that this proof does not exist?
Yes, it does not exist because the test is impossible to perform because of the way you set your criteria. It doesn’t matter if viruses replicate or if they make people sick because every test/observation/variable will be unable to meet your standards. That’s great but it doesn’t tell you anything about the real world.
If you agree that “viruses” have not been scientifically proven to exist, why are we debating the merits of indirect methods used as evidence for fictional entities? Those results are meaningless.
And for the record, purified/isolated particles shown to come directly from humans and proven pathogenic in a natural way is not my criteria. It is basic logic. The problem of whether a fictional entity exists is not for me to prove. It is for those who created it. Virologists picked invisible particles to blame for disease. They are the ones claiming that they can not purify and isolate these particles assumed to be “viruses” directly from humans. The onus is on them to adhere to the scientific method using a valid independent variable of purified/isolated particles to prove cause and effect. If they can not do so, their hypothesis is null.
Mike Stone
February 8, 2022 at 2:23 am
If you agree that “viruses” have not been scientifically proven to exist, why are we debating the merits of indirect methods used as evidence for fictional entities? Those results are meaningless.
Because evidence is how we evaluate whether or not hypothetical entities can be said to be scientifically valid. Fictional and hypothetical are not synonyms.
The fact remains that for your ideas to be scientifically useful there has to be a test that could be performed that might show that you ere wrong. I don’t think there is such a test.
You are admitting there is no test to prove “viruses” exist. Thank you. We can agree on that. They have tried for over 100 years to prove “viruses” exist and cause disease and have been unable to do so. We do not need to validate an invalid hypothesis based on unobserved fictional entities. There are better explanations for illness and disease.