Virology is at the root of much unsupported Medical propaganda with regard to disease causation and vaccination.
Due to Medicine’s acknowledged bad reputation, it is unwise to accept medical announcements (press releases) without first running them through a critical gauntlet.
Therefore, proof of virus existence and character should always be required from the claimers of viruses — before going into the related topics, i.e., before going out on the thin limbs, leaves and flowers of a tenuous rootless tree.
This will get you nowhere with a doctor or judge, as they represent authority over science, even if irrational.
Nevertheless, virus criticism is essential for an honest conversation, to keep the mind sharp.
Virology: Two Achilles Heels
1) Isolation of viruses is not actually achieved, as it is claimed. Critical examples are poliovirus and HIV.
2) Toxicology is missing. That is, the toxic effects of antibiotics used in virological studies are not discounted. The clinical diagnoses and the epidemiology avoid environmental toxicology.
Going into detail
1) Virus Isolation
“Isolation” of viruses has always been broadcasted as a great achievement, because it intuitively conveys a sense of total dominance and understanding of the so-called virus.
That famous “isolation of poliovirus” in 1909, by Landsteiner and Popper, consisted of the injection of emulsified extract of spinal cord taken from one paralyzed human child into two monkeys. The monkeys became ill, and one died. This illness was interpreted as “polio”, “infection” and by subsequent journalists and scientists, “virus isolation”.
No control group existed (no comparison with injections from healthy human spinal cord). No toxicology was discounted for the ill child during his diagnosis. Toxic factors are not discounted in polio epidemiology generally — despite toxic factors being extremely obvious.
An second attempt was made, to infect other healthy monkeys from the ill monkeys, and the result was failure.
From the spinal cord of this monkey inoculations were made into two other monkeys with negative results.
This attempt was within the same animal specie (monkey to monkey, not human to monkey) and it still failed.
Thus, though the study actually proves that “polio” is not contagious, it goes down in history as a great achievement of “virus isolation”, proving discovery of poliovirus as cause.
Derived from inorganic chemistry
The term “isolation” is derived from the true success of inorganic chemistry (non-biological chemistry).
Example: H2O can be split into two isolates, i.e., two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, through electrolysis. Endless types of experiments can then be run on each of these isolates to determine their properties, density, weight, etc. Examples: A) Fill a balloon with hydrogen and watch it rise into the sky. It must a low density element. B) These isolates can be reacted with each other again to produce H2O again. D) The proportions of H2O can be ascertained. E) They can be reacted individually with metals to form metal oxides and hydrides, e.g., rust was determined to be iron oxide.
Clever virologists faked this method and its terminology. They did this by (in practice) redefining the word “isolate” to mean “mixture”, the opposite of its actual meaning.
In practice, “virus isolates” are complex mixtures of biological matter, impossible to understand, except as a confused mess.
The Perth Group, essentially, is saying this, and so are biochemists Howard Urnovitz PhD, and Stefan Lanka PhD. The virus paradigm promoter, PhD, Judy Mikovitz admitted this in her interview with David Crowe, the medical dissident.
Virus “isolates” are more “mixed” than anything on the planet, the result of high-speed blending of diseased tissue, to break down its components into a blended mess. What freaky hormones are generated by cells in the process of disintegrating them in the blender? And putting that mess into a centrifuge at 150,000G for 45 minutes?
A clear liquid is extracted off the top of the mess, by use of the centrifuge. This “supernatant” is sometimes filtered to provide what is assumed to be the “isolate”, i.e., a “virus strain”. But if 150,000G was required to “isolate” the “virus”, then maybe it wasn’t really isolated. It was much more likely split off of some essential interlinked component.
Electron microscopy confirms a mixture, not an isolate of anything.
The electron microscope photos are minute cherry-picked areas of the “isolate”, found through a meticulous process, then used to promote the idea of an imagined “virus isolate”. Many images are modified or computer generated images. Photos are shown without a referenced study. The data doesn’t support the virus model, so the data is interpreted to fit the model.
Another problem is that to see anything under an electron microscope, the stuff must be prepared, which means kill it, dehydrate it, slice it, destroy it with splattered molten gold and toxic chemicals. Thus electron microscopy is not seeing the real thing.
The highly awarded Harold Hillman (PhD Biochemistry) clearly demonstrated this, and thereby lost his tenured professorship. Among other positions, he was the director of the neurobiology laboratory at London University. His films are on YouTube. His summary paper is here.
In 2005, officials announced that the words “isolation” and “isolate”, “have no specific definition”. Apparently this was because The Perth Group and others were so successful in unveiling the false claims of virus isolation. Virus believers continue to madly attack Perth ad hominem, while denying Perth rebuttal. An example is Wikipedia.
The victory call, “Isolation achieved!”, has now been replaced with a new routine of propaganda, whereby it is claimed that isolation is not necessary. However, when I asked how this could be, the claimer ran away.
It’s logical to expect that things must be viewed as separate entities in order to understand their functions. If you are always experimenting with a soup of A+B+C+D, then you would never know which of those things in the soup was the real culprit. And that is virology.
Even in the unlikely event that viruses were proven to exist and found to be predatory sub-microbes, that would only be a laboratory artifact, because the laboratory scenario is highly artificial, and the “diseases” produced, in lab mice and cell lines, generally do not resemble the disease being studied.
…the highly specialized, neurotropically fixed virus, which has been maintained in the past by intracerebral passage in rhesus monkeys, is more likely a laboratory artifact… Claus W. Jungeblut, PhD
Missing is a simple commonsense study — Take 10,000 healthy mice and drop a few “infected” mice in their midst and watch the epidemic spread without a vaccine, without limits.
That study is not done because it would disprove germ theory.
Yet there are a few exceptions. A study was conducted for influenza, an extensive study using human subjects. Result: “Virus” influenza is not an infectious disease.
2) Toxicology Avoided
Missing is toxicology in virology, in epidemiology, and in clinical diagnostics.
The following is extracted from my measles research.
The first paper was published in 1954 by Enders et al… Enders… cut down dramatically on 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.
And a few notes from me on the fakery of virus isolation by Enders…
John Enders is also falsely credited for isolating the poliovirus, according to a critical review by journalist Neenyah Ostrom, on the authority of biochemist Howard Urnovitz, PhD. [Ref]
[P]oliovirus was not actually isolated by these investigators, either. They successfully grew “filterable agents,” which they assumed to be poliovirus, in human embryonic tissues.
Enders’ fame as “The Father of Modern Vaccines” is perhaps due to his tremendous inheritance and elite membership in Yale’s wealthiest secret society. No joke. [Ref]
How to argue “no virus”
Keep the burden of proof on the claimers (of virus existence).
They claim to know, and perhaps (unlikely) they do. So we want to learn.
Therefore, respect their wisdom, then ask one question and two followups.
1) What seminal study describes the discovery of said virus? The first, original study which describes discovery. (The earlier the study, the less complicated the BS. Later studies are often based on the original study, so nip it all at the root, the original study.)
a) What text in this study describes the isolation of the virus? (This is to ensure that they have actually read more than the title, and to save yourself time reading BS.)
b) What text in this study describes the process of discounting toxicological factors? (See Lanka above on this.)
The claimers should balk. End of confrontation.
Likely they have not read the content of their prized study, and they are assuming you will be bluffed and in awe, like them.
It may be inconceivable to them that such sophisticated tech and writing could be misleading. Often they are in love with the semantic and tech sophistication for which money has paid, and they might not realize this.
In a sense, logic is the ultimate power, but no matter how eloquent, it requires valid data. It is not without political hazards. Logic can only be presented at diplomatically safe times and places. Diplomacy is superior, and another area of logic, which can trump technical flash.
It is possible that a study will outright lie and invent data, but usually, in order to gain the support of a team of science techies, the study contains white lies. Techies will work under the banner of white lies, secure that they will not appear fraudulent.
The study will be peer-reviewed and published, and thereby gaining the prestige of honesty. However, even the senior editors of prominent Medical science publications have decried medical science in general as entering the dark age of fraud (as if it were not always the case). Jon Rappaport documents this.
If for some reason you must read the study, yet you lack medical tech language, you can parse out the language and learn, or read and note the lack of actual isolation.
Or you can merely search for the word “toxicology” or similar words. This essential topic is very unlikely to be found in the study.
Usually virus fanatics present an article or review of studies, in which case you would reply, “A scientific study is required, not journalism.”
Summary (in other words)
To critique a “virus”, do not be awed by the technology and language.
Do not argue. Just require proper documentation from the virus fan.
That is —
Always remember that the burden of proof is on them, those who make the claims. If you argue, then you will be required to “prove” your assertion, and from a philosophical view, proof is nearly impossible for anything, and your virus fan will pedantically jump on you.
Merely ask one question, and add two followups.
1) What is the study that first claimed discovery of said virus?
a) What text in the study describes isolation of the virus?
They can’t rebut because isolation doesn’t actually occur. The word “isolate” is (in virology practice) redefined as “mixture”. What is called a “virus strain” is the result of blending diseased tissue at high speed for 45 minutes. Obviously that is not an “isolate”.
b) What text in the study describes the process of discounting toxicological factors?
This is necessary, because in our industrial world, poisons are an obvious potential threat. The Medicos cannot answer, because their entire purpose is to distract you away from any toxicological perception.