*The first scientific evidence in 2021 that viruses do not exist*

Great article from Mike Stone about Dr. Stefan Lanka...the Ex-virologist!

https://viroliegy.com/2022/08/16/the-path-paved-by-dr-lanka

What about natural things that are considered anti-microbial, anti-viral, anti-fungal, etc.

Example: Coconut oil, Oregano oil, etc

If viruses dont exists then they definitely arent anti-viral.

So what are they?

Do they play a role in the body's detoxification process?

That is a good question. Coconut oil has fatty acids and oregano oil has phenols. Both  can affect bacteria and fungi and seem to clear up infections making us feel better. No different than antimicrobial drugs.

But some say microbes are just part of the overall picture and that toxins play a major role. Yet once the microbes are eradicated shouldn't we be going back to feeling lousy from the toxins that are not being digested by the microbes anymore?

Instead we feel better once the microbes are gone

Various botanicals we use for hair growth have all of these properties mentioned.

All of these processes in the non-drug world are just part of natures clean-up process. Think of mushrooms, are a critical part of the soil ecosystem. When we hear of toxic mold....it is defense from the off-gassing of chemicals in building materials that has been contaminated by water.

Many plants naturally contain UV-defense and anti-microbial activity.

Let's start with "anti-viral" which usually is related to either antioxidant properties of pro-oxidative properties (redox balance). A surrogate marker can be various ROS (reactive oxygen species) or inflammatory markers....as no evidence of any kind of actual viruses have been ever found in any tissue.

Also "anti-viral" can also simply be anti-inflammatory, such as inhibiting pathways like NLRP3/NF-κB, which are pivotal regulators in the inflammatory signaling cascade.

Anti-microbial activity can use efflux pumps to expel toxic substances. Some botanicals can inhibit these pumps, increasing the intracellular concentration of antimicrobials and enhancing their effectiveness.

Anti-fungals, one mechanism would be iodine as it exerts anti-fungal effects primarily through the disruption of protein and nucleic acid structure and synthesis within fungal cells. When iodine is applied, it penetrates the cell wall of the fungi quickly. The free iodine (I2) then interacts with key cellular components, leading to programmed cell death (cytotoxic to those cells).

The Final Pandemic: An Antidote To Medical Tyranny

https://amzn.to/3TWHYj2

Since the beginning of the fake p@ndemic, many had thoughtfully attempted to correct my assertions that SARS-C0N-Job-2 was 'really' isolated. False! Real science doesn't support papers claimed to "isolate" only $cience does.

Don't look now but our next pandemic might be homegrown. Avian flu virus is showing up a lot in raw cow's milk these days. One person in Texas working with affected cows developed mild eye infections. And a prison inmate killing birds at a Colorado poultry farm got sick too.

I'm not sure if you can blame toxins at the scene of the crime since there was no mention of anything unusual that would cause this. And if it was just workplace toxins then this kind of reporting of sickness would be a daily occurrence, you'd think.

shaftless wrote:Don't look now but our next pandemic might be homegrown. Avian flu virus is showing up a lot in raw cow's milk these days. One person in Texas working with affected cows developed mild eye infections. And a prison inmate killing birds at a Colorado poultry farm got sick too.

I'm not sure if you can blame toxins at the scene of the crime since there was no mention of anything unusual that would cause this. And if it was just workplace toxins then this kind of reporting of sickness would be a daily occurrence, you'd think.

This is very simple to explain. Everything you read on mainstream media -- especially on health issues, should be expected that one or all of the following things will be true: Fear porn, sensationalism, unqualified people extolling $cience (bought and paid for) interpretations of data that real scientists would dismiss as pseudo science, the real reason that pasteurization caught on, has more to do with preservation of shelf-life than it has to do with health.

The tech used to promote such propaganda is not based on any rigorous scientific principles, instead computer programs, whereby no viruses have ever been found in any tissue in the real word, not even in test-tubes.

Food that spoils quickly is the most vital food. Not convenient for bulk suppliers of dairy products. Laws based on flawed germ theory $cience and for mostly political purposes allow diary industries to get away with improper sanitation conditions and using pasteurization to hide these conditions.

The following book will explain the real story of milk. Free to download.

https://kalcusson.firebaseapp.com/aa878/the-milk-book-the-milk-of-human-kindness-is-not-pasteurized-by-william-campbell-douglass-ii-md-996263654x.pdf

It's too bad that none of the virus deniers like tom, the baileys etc couldn't arrange a sit-down debate with top notable virologists in their field. But why can't they go to a university for example? A place open to the public that would likely accommodate them, and arrange a sit-down discussion with one or two of the science professors there...and ask them these all-important questions. I'm sure these lesser-known science specialists like university professors - who's job is to educate people who want to know - would be happy to answer their questions on faulty lab techniques and unscientific "rule of law".

Wouldn't that suffice?

shaftless wrote:It's too bad that none of the virus deniers like tom, the baileys etc couldn't arrange a sit-down debate with top notable virologists in their field. But why can't they go to a university for example? A place open to the public that would likely accommodate them, and arrange a sit-down discussion with one or two of the science professors there...and ask them these all-important questions. I'm sure these lesser-known science specialists like university professors - who's job is to educate people who want to know - would be happy to answer their questions on faulty lab techniques and unscientific "rule of law".

Wouldn't that suffice?

Some debates did occur in private one-on-one and others that were prepared for a public setting were cancelled and in each case, it was because the pro-virus people probably felt it was either not an argument they could win or they were told not to do it because of collateral damage.

One pro-virus guy who belongs to the RFK children health defense (a 501c3 corporation), attempted to explain away that viruses exist, so Tom Cowan, and some of the others got together and destroyed each of his arguments.

I've been on social media making a bit of a racket about this stuff for a while, so yes I've heard every virology excuse in the book and then some.

Also, all of these 501c3 corps. (non-profit, tax free that rely on donations), well their fundraising comes to an abrupt end when they acknowledge there is no real virus. There is evidence that they truly know there is no virus, however, it's not possible for them to receive funding if this is admitted, and the very same problem occurs in academia, so all of their funding will evaporate or jobs will be lost.

Yes, science has been corrupted long ago.

Another debate I'd like to see is flat earth vs round earth. You see a lot of flat earth people on facebook constantly putting down round earth theory. Not sure how many of them there are worldwide tho.

shaftless wrote:Another debate I'd like to see is flat earth vs round earth. You see a lot of flat earth people on facebook constantly putting down round earth theory. Not sure how many of them there are worldwide tho.

Probably the best of the flat earth debunkers is Dave McKeegan. He's very respectful and does an excellent job using visual references to illustrate each point to support a globe.

https://www.youtube.com/@DaveMcKeegan

The following document shows various ways to demonstrate the shape of the earth.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vcn6NOkodhpKqn4c-XPx7wQcot1h2YbsMQXEXb0jT8I/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.iic67s1v18zf

Finally, the following youtuber FTFE (Fight the Flat Earth) earns a living (I believe exclusively debating flat earthers).
And these debates go on for a while: https://www.youtube.com/@FTFEOfficial

DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS EXPLAIN SETTLING THE VIRUS DEBATE

“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1 It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA,
exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host - the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.

After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent,
exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely
derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.

Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific  paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has
never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes" and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.

The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:

1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.

However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus.  

They also claim that, using electron definition of ‘virus’ from Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed, Freeman & Co., New York, NY, 2000:1         https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-8175(01)00023-6

Source document: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that   each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal
sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.

We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…

STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive.       Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE
(cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be
blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.

STEP TWO

ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples.

(Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments - a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)

If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.

It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.

We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative.

Signatories,

Thomas Cowan, MD Mark Bailey, MD Samantha Bailey, MD
Jitendra Banjara, MSc Kelly Brogan, MD Kevin Corbett, PhD
Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS Michael Donio, MS Jordan Grant, MD
Andrew Kaufman, MD Valentina Kiseleva, MD Christine Massey, MSc
Paul McSheehy, PhD Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD Sachin Pethkar, BAMS
Saeed Qureshi, PhD Stefano Scoglio, PhD Mike Stone, BEXSc
Amandha Vollmer, NDoc Michael Yeadon, PhD

https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement

https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/

https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/virus-debate/

https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/covid-19/rfk-jr-enters-the-viral-existence-debate/