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

Virology is a pseudoscience

..........From "The Way Forward by Alec Zeck"

I hope people understand the implications of what we've done.

With multiple independent labs, we've conducted the exact same experiments as are conducted by virologists — wherein they claim the results of the experiment demonstrate both the presence and pathogenicity of a virus, except we DID NOT have any human sample (meaning no possible source of a virus) and we achieved the same results, repeatedly.

Think about what that means for virology's foundational "evidence."

We conducted the exact same cell-culture isolation technique 90 times, EXCEPT we DID NOT include a human sample (which they say contains viruses).

We used one of the most robust cell lines — Human Embryonic Kidney Cells, with the exact same antibiotic and serum concentration.

Each time, we achieved the exact same cytopathic effect (CPE, or cellular breakdown). This CPE is what virologists point to as proof of viruses. And we did it multiple times, without any human sample — meaning no possible source of a "virus" — and got the exact same results.

A separate independent lab then conducted Transmission Electron Microscopy on the samples atter CPE.
In the TEM images, we found:

HIV (same size, shape)
SARS-CoV-2 (same size, shape)
Measles (same size, shape)

Again, this is without ANY human sample at all, which means no possible source of any "virus."

So, in layman's terms, what does all of this mean?

This means that the foundational evidence wherein virologists claim that a virus exists and causes illness can be achieved, repeatedly, without any human sample (meaning no possible source of a virus) present.

So what does that mean about the foundational claims of virology, of which all of the medical tyranny, much of allopathy, and the entire shot schedule was built upon?

I’ll let you think about the implications.

Interesting. So cellular debris can resemble said viruses. To take this even farther they should have a comparison challenge. Take samples from these guys and from other virologists who think they have actual viruses and try to grow more in a petri dish. I wonder if they would still get the same results or not.

shaftless wrote:Interesting. So cellular debris can resemble said viruses. To take this even farther they should have a comparison challenge. Take samples from these guys and from other virologists who think they have actual viruses and try to grow more in a petri dish. I wonder if they would still get the same results or not.

In 1954, Enders did this experiment as a control, and in the notes, it said the experiment could not rule out these results being from the experiment itself....However, the push (financially) and the Nobel Prize and Ender's being on the cover of TIME Magazine just 'blew' away all reasons to look at this paper under the microscope, because that same paper provided a gateway toward vaccine manufacturer and finally 'proved' all those particles they could never find before, could now be "found. using this flawed procedure.

What was thought to be the 'proof' was based on a chain of misinterpretations.

The first paper was published in 1954 by Enders et al.: “Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic
agents from patients with measles” (Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun; 86 (2): 277–286).

In that experiment, Enders et al. Dramatically reduced the nutrient solution and added cell-destroying
antibiotics to the cell culture before introducing the allegedly infected fluid. The subsequent dying of the
cells was then misinterpreted as presence and also isolation of the measles virus. No control
experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as
the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects (death of cells).

Enders and his colleagues ignored their own reservations and cautions expressed in 1954, when they had
observed and noted that many cells also died after being treated normally (i.e. without being
“infected”), which they thought to have been caused by unknown viruses and other factors. All these
facts and cautions were subsequently disregarded.




Also, Stefan Lanka did this experiment, and he subsequently performed control experiments on Bioinformatics as well.

All that said, an important distinction should be made.

Three techniques that can readily be used to properly isolate (purify) a virus if they really existed.

A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of Exsomes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420988/
Purification of Bacteriophages Using Anion- Exchange Chromatography
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29134587/
Standardized Bacteriophage purification for personalized phage therapy
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32709990/
So-called "Giant Viruses" are Bacteriophages and can be purified and isolated.
Stock image of Bacteriophages. This is the typical image often portrayed as "viruses" but they are not.

The above material is from my own "book" called "Virus Myth."

Anyway, there are thousands, (probably tens of thousands) by now of intended way to disprove viruses.

For example. thousands of natural botanical substances are tested for "anti-viral" activity.

Most people who have no understanding of the methods, procedures, and tech will just assume anti-viral means it destroys viruses.  In reality, it simply demonstrates the natural substance or whatever is being tested on a cell culture which utilizes the standard procedure for 'growing viruses' diminishes or has an effect of some kind on the dying of cells (cytopathic effect).

So in my book, I provided an example of a common nutriceutical called Naringenin, which is derived from citrus rind fruits. A 'viral isolation' procedure on corona virus was used to demonstrate the effect of Naringenin on its anti-viral activity against the alleged virus.

Since no viruses exist and by the way, the procedure said to be used in virology textbooks is never used...Naringenins 'anti-viral' activity was in reality the anti-toxin effect against the poisons added to the cell culture, which were added to the monkey kidney cells, Amphotericin, cells were cultured in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with non-essential amino acids (NEAA), penicillin/streptomycin.

Remember, such toxins, listed in bold are extremely toxic to monkey kidney cells, which cause the cytopathic effect, however in the presence of Naringenin, the effect was muted.

Kaufman - Kirsch interview Virus Debate!

link to view-starts at the 5 min mark.

https://rumble.com/v516uno-vsrf-live-131-the-great-virus-debate-an-interview-with-dr.-andrew-kaufman-m.html

I watched it....wasn't blown away by the Kirsch's anti-scientific discourse.

The End of Virology with Jamie Andrews + Jacob Diaz

https://rumble.com/v512nrn-the-most-important-project-of-the-century-the-end-of-virology-with-jamie-an.html

For Steve Kirsch & anyone else claiming "SARS-COV-2" exists, quit relying on fraudulent genomic data to try & prove this.

Look at the foundational evidence presented. You will realize that not only is it pseudoscientific, but the authors admitted that they did not isolate a "virus."

For more on the "coronavirus" fraud, please see this article.

https://viroliegy.com/2021/12/24/creating-the-coronavirus/

For explanations and evidence against Steve's arguments against purification/isolation, please see these articles:

1. https://viroliegy.com/2022/01/11/has-the-virus-been-isolated-no/
2. https://viroliegy.com/2022/01/30/is-purification-of-a-virus-necessary-yes/
3. https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/26/the-virus-of-sin/

RECAPPING THE VIRUS/ NO VIRUS DEBATE- JUNE 19TH, 2024

https://www.bitchute.com/video/aEZaGZEOctnj/

For the "meat" of this, start at the 37 minute mark.....What causes the cytopathic effect (CPE) or dying of cells 'proving viruses' has nothing to do with viruses....instead it is the additives in the experiment that cause this effect.

There is no isolated virus; without an isolated and purified virus, the test, be it PCR, antigen, or antibody, is impossible to develop and validate. Therefore, any claim that the test is linked to the virus is simply a false claim, and this is a fact from science/chemistry.

Test development and validation are part of science/chemistry, not the subject of medicine or biology. Hence, they (medical/biological area experts) made the colossal mistake of claiming and promoting a test for the virus and exposed themselves as nonscience experts (aka fake scientists).

Moreover, Dr. Cowan is correct in saying that no culturing can show the existence of the virus based on CPE or so-called sequencing (technically not sequencing but joining of arbitrary and imaginary (chemical) pieces) because such studies or claims would require isolated and purified virus samples. This is a scientifically valid statement.

Was reading about a 25% surge in hospitalizations happening now in the uk and america with respiratory symptoms. They are blaming a new covid variant. Haven't heard of anything here in canuckland. If this is true wondering what causes these "unseasonal" symptoms to appear out of nowhere. Maybe its weather related with the summer heat waves and humidity trapping air pollution closer to us.

What we see are exosomes which are released by our cells and are beneficial to protecting our body.
There’s no such thing as “C0NV!D.”


[/url]

Mystery solved

What appears to baffle most people on the issue of viruses existing or not existing distills down to the worldwide consensus of belief using analytic tools to quantify viruses......how could so many people be fooled?

The short answer:

They do not understand analytical chemistry. Which means, physicians who speak about testing, isolation, RNA, proteins, pharmaceutical and vaccine development are not qualified from an analytical chemistry standpoint.

If anyone wants to dive into this topic to understand more, I would suggest reading these notes:

https://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/blog/files/helpfulnotesintro.pdf

Making a short story longer here, not being an analytical chemist, I had my own way of realizing along the way 16 years ago that viruses either did not exist or the narrative or explanation about them was not matching any verifiable reality and just couldn't be supported by real-world health measures.

I will mention here that my own reasons for looking into this issue long ago, had a hair loss related reason. Someone had asked the question, "could viruses cause hair loss."

It was that question that prompted me to look into origin research...and the more I dug, the more skeptical I became of zero supported evidence of their existence.

I will attempt to distill the medical world a little further. In medical indoctrination camp, no one has the capacity to understand or question the pile of rubbish forced down with limited rest and high stress.

Perception is everything and by the time any who questions the reality of the situation later learns the whole system is built on a house of cards, a system of belief supports it, not rigorous science. The medical system. It's driven by politics, not health.

It is a disease promoting system. Decades ago, it was not obvious to anyone that common diseases we see today ever existed except in very rare cases.

So "they" the medical cartel and institutions have normalized disease.

The system never looks for causes, only profitable ways to treat.

What are antibodies?

Dr. Stefan Lanka explains.

Titers which measure antibodies are a complete scam - Here's why:

"Medicine, immersed as it is in the idea of poison and anti-poison, believes it has found the anti-poison par excellence in small proteins defined as globulins.

It postulates that if someone is ill and then heals, it is thanks to his defenses, his antibodies. In fact when we are injured, the body produces globulins and sends them to the affected area - which has lost energy and is becoming acidified - small globules that "flatten" and intertwine to create new tissue and repair the damage. These globulins are defined as "antibodies" and are assumed to perform a function that they do not actually have. The idea that there are specific antibodies that bind only to specific proteins, as if each antibody were a key designed to bind to a specific lock - to the protein of the pathogen - is a flawed assumption and any biochemist specializing in proteins knows this.

In a fresh blood sample, no specific binding can be demonstrated. This only works in test tubes and under very specific conditions. There you can get a reaction with a few proteins and a binding globulin, a staining reaction. This is how ELISA and Western blot tests work. And it was because of these tests that millions of people contemplated suicide when they tested positive for HIV or suffered a chemical holocaust when they took AIDS drugs. In short, medicine claims that there are specific antibodies that fight supposed viruses and this is not what happens in the body. It is one more self-deception to add to the list that researchers have provoked with their laboratory work and sustain the erroneous theories that we have been assuming for 2,500 years. Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy already wrote in 1956 - in the first volume of his book Sociology - that cancer was being researched in the light of the erroneous theories of Louis Pasteur, as if it were rabies.

An important part of the current prevailing understanding of cancer is that the immune system is too weak to cope with it, hence billions of euros have been spent on research into RNA vaccines for cancer which have achieved precisely nothing - because the concept of genetics has now been totally disproved - but was the starting point for the SARS-CoV-2 genetic vaccines. However, neither in the case of cancer nor in the case of non-existent viruses are vaccines going to do any good, because the theoretical foundation of modern medicine is wrong at all levels, especially as far as the immune system is concerned."

from: https://ia804509.us.archive.org/31/items/stefan-lanka-viruses-are-not-microbes-and-have-no-infectious-capacity-iii-of-iii-dsalud/Stefan%20Lanka%20%22Viruses%20are%20not%20microbes%20and%20have%20no%20infectious%20capacity%22%20%28III%20of%20III%29%20DSalud.pdf

Thanks to Deborah Rubenfeld

This is a bit perplexing. If we were bitten by a snake and its venom is damaging the tissues inside our body how does the globulins that our bodies make know where the damage is? Can it tell the difference between healthy tissue and acidified tissue being that they are only protein molecules?

If we are given antivenom, why does a certain antivenom only work for a bite from a particular snake and not other antivenoms made from different snakes? Does the damaged and weakened tissue differ from the effects of different venoms and only certain globulins from certain antivenoms can do the repair job? Sounds like very specific globulins are needed depending on the biological make-up of the venom molecules.

shaftless wrote:This is a bit perplexing. If we were bitten by a snake and its venom is damaging the tissues inside our body how does the globulins that our bodies make know where the damage is? Can it tell the difference between healthy tissue and acidified tissue being that they are only protein molecules?

If we are given antivenom, why does a certain antivenom only work for a bite from a particular snake and not other antivenoms made from different snakes? Does the damaged and weakened tissue differ from the effects of different venoms and only certain globulins from certain antivenoms can do the repair job? Sounds like very specific globulins are needed depending on the biological make-up of the venom molecules.

So this is a good question. Will use some animal examples to address the first part of the question.

Physiological Adaptations

Some animals have physiological traits that help them resist venom. For example, certain species of ground squirrels have evolved blood clotting factors that counteract the effects of snake venom, preventing excessive bleeding.

Venom-Resistant Animals

•  Honey Badgers: Known for their fearless nature, honey badgers have a high resistance to snake venom, allowing them to prey on venomous snakes.

•  Hedgehogs: These small mammals have proteins in their blood that neutralize venom, giving them a degree of protection against snake bites.

•  Woodrats: These rodents have shown remarkable resistance to rattlesnake venom.

So there are vast limitations of the world that we have taught through the 'scientific lens' or rather....one that supports the false, disproved, germ theory hypothesis.

The first point is what really are so-called antibodies?

Specificity of the hypothetical “antibodies” to react and bind only to their intended target.

Researchers have been unable to reproduce and replicate their own findings as well as those of their peers due to the inconsistent reactions observed within the lab.

For a close look into this, there is this article:

Merrill Chase Inadvertently Disproved Antibodies in 1942
Inadvertently: without knowledge or intent

https://mikestone.substack.com/p/merrill-chase-inadvertently-disproved

So let's return to the snake venom idea

It is known that enzymes found in snake venom called PDE's or Phosphodiesterases play a crucial role in cellular signaling by breaking down cyclic nucleotides like cAMP and cGMP. They are involved in various physiological processes, including cardiac function, smooth muscle contraction, and neural activity.

Monoclonal antibodies are derived from a single clone of immune cells, ensuring they are identical and target a single epitope on the antigen.

Antivenoms, on the other hand, are typically polyclonal, meaning they contain a mixture of antibodies that can target multiple components of the venom. The key word here is multiple.

Nicotine can neutralize this effect of venom by binding to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Some snake venoms contain neurotoxins that target these same receptors, leading to paralysis by blocking nerve signal transmission.

(think nicotine patches).

Because snake venoms contain phosphodiesterases (svPDEs), which contribute to the venom's overall toxicity. An anti-venom may serve to neutralize the level of toxicity.

Scientists challenge fundamental precepts of virology. Do viruses even exist?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/analysis/scientists-challenge-fundamental-precepts-of-virology-do-viruses-even-exist/

"This is the video version of Dr Mark Bailey’s essay Virus, Bacteriophage & Single “Virus” Genomics. It was written to address the fallacy that technological advances in the 21st century have provided evidence for the virus model. In essence, the technology-driven approach cannot change the fact that the concept of ‘virus’ remains as it was in the 1800s: a mental construct that attempts to explain why organisms become diseased.

The paper also examines the misinterpretations concerning bacteriophages and giant “viruses” and how these entities have been inappropriately placed in the virological realm. As former virologist Dr Stefan Lanka has explained, these entities can be found in nature, isolated and characterised, but they are not pathogenic. The linguistic legerdemain employed by the virologists cannot change biological reality...."

https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/virus-bacteriophage-single-virus-genomics

Scientism killed science

https://www.facebook.com/reel/834941841934599

Thats the thing between science and physics. Physics applied to structures like bridges or buildings is observed by all. A rocket either succeeds or it doesnt like Elon's rocket last year....didn't go according to plan and they had to blow it up. But medical science is more complicated and variable. Some things are easily verifiable like how aspirin or tylenol reduces pain for most people. But "down the road" effects on the chemistry of the body is a coin flip. They try to come up with all the knowledge that they can get when testing a new drug but they will never get the full story. Certain side effects depend a lot on the uniqueness of the person...which is impossible to test for in a lab with just a certain amount of test subjects. Science in the medical field is just a "rough estimate" based on limited info.

shaftless wrote:Thats the thing between science and physics. Physics applied to structures like bridges or buildings is observed by all. A rocket either succeeds or it doesnt like Elon's rocket last year....didn't go according to plan and they had to blow it up. But medical science is more complicated and variable. Some things are easily verifiable like how aspirin or tylenol reduces pain for most people. But "down the road" effects on the chemistry of the body is a coin flip. They try to come up with all the knowledge that they can get when testing a new drug but they will never get the full story. Certain side effects depend a lot on the uniqueness of the person...which is impossible to test for in a lab with just a certain amount of test subjects. Science in the medical field is just a "rough estimate" based on limited info.

The foundation of the worldwide corrupt medical system was born from The Flexner Report.

This article will explain it.

https://truthinplainsight.com/the-rockefellers-the-flexner-report-the-ama-and-their-effect-on-alternative-nutritional-botanical-medicine/

The Rabies trump card - What does the science "say" not the $cience.

https://www.facebook.com/lumd3/videos/783860020333452

Can you imagine if a sasquatch got bit by a rabid racoon and went crazy terrorizing hunters? A woodland Cujo

shaftless wrote:Can you imagine if a Sasquatch got bit by a rabid raccoon and went crazy terrorizing hunters? A woodland Cujo

Probably need a laughing emoji. Tell-Lie-Vision and media, movies in general have always promoted these "wive's tales" as truth, yet only when we see there is no scientific evidence for it--however most people really have a hard time reconciling them as falsehoods.

During the fake pandemic, usually the reflex question was...what about STD's.....Just more lies.

The news is making a big deal about monkeypox these days. It does look a little weird with all those beige skin lesions. Is this another ploy to come out with more vaccines since everyone has forgotten about covid? They just changed countries of origin and now its "Out Of Africa" instead of "The Shanghai Express".

shaftless wrote:The news is making a big deal about monkeypox these days. It does look a little weird with all those beige skin lesions. Is this another ploy to come out with more vaccines since everyone has forgotten about covid? They just changed countries of origin and now its "Out Of Africa" instead of "The Shanghai Express".

Well before the C0NV!D scam, so-called Money_pox is nothing more than a \/accine injury.

In this case, Monkey_pox is a toxic reaction from the C0NV!D Quackcine.

Money or Monkey.....One cannot create or modify a virus, whether in a lab, government institution, or doctor's office. The reason is simple. An isolated and fully characterized virus sample must first be available for such, which is not. So, such cannot be done. It is not an opinion but a scientific fact.

https://bioanalyticx.com/gain-of-function-research-as-fake-as-the-virus

Is Eastern Equine Encephalitis Caused By A Virus?

https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/blog/is-eastern-equine-encephalitis-caused-by-a-virus

You'd think that there would be something consistent that tells these scientists that a virus is the cause. Something that stands out from the random menagerie of other possible elements like pesticides, waste products etc. In North America, where there is so much of everything in the soil, water and air, it may be hard to hone in on a lone suspect.

But in the enormous deserts of Saudi Arabia....far from the maddening (and polluted) crowds....something is making camels sick. They suspect it to be a virus too. Wouldn't that be easier to find since all there is there, is pristine sand baking under the hot sun?