The existence of viruses is a psyop

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
madvin
captain of 100
Posts: 546
Location: Stillwater OK

The existence of viruses is a psyop

Post by madvin »

The conversation around whether or not viruses exist, appears to conjure up all kinds of emotions, and is met with resistance. My guess is because virology is a deeply entrenched paradigm, and it is what we were taught as kids. A cult-like approach would be to dismiss dissenting views and, instead, to perpetuate a previously held belief. David Rasnick refers to this as the Tyranny Of Dogma.

The science is never settled.

"Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmitting between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status. A viral particle must fulfil defined physical and biological properties including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human. However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases such as COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” The existence of a
virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions."
- Dr Mark Bailey MB ChB, PGDipMSM, MHealSc

The following is taken from the paper "A Farewell to Virology (expert edition)" - Dr. Mark Bailey

As of 11 September 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The density gradient centrifugation is the scientifically required standard technique for the demonstration of the existence of a virus. Despite the fact that this method is described in all microbiology manuals as the “virus isolation technique”, it is never applied in experiments meant to demonstrate the existence of pathogenic viruses.
— Dr Stefan Lanka, 2015

Alleged viral particles that have been successfully purified have not been shown to be replication- competent or disease-causing by themselves. In other words, all that have been physically isolated can only be said to be extracellular vesicles (EVs).

Definitions of "isolation" varies and does not mean what you think it should mean:

"HIV expert Jay Levy defines virus isolation as a "sample of a virus from a defined source", White and Fenner as the ability to "identify a totally unforeseen virus, or even discover an entirely new agent". Montagnier and Weiss as "propagating them [viruses] in cells in culture". The 2013 sixth edition of Fields Virology defines isolation as "Viruses can be isolated from an infected host by harvesting excreted or secreted material, blood, or tissue and testing for induction of the original symptoms in the identical host, or induction of some abnormal pathology in a substitute host, or in a cell culture...Once the presence of a virus has been established, it is often desirable to prepare a genetically pure clone". It goes without saying that if virus isolation is to "take a sample of a virus from a defined source", or "propagating them in cells in culture", one first must have proof the virus exists in "a defined source" or "in cells in culture". Neither is
virus isolation "induction of some abnormal pathology" or "once the presence of a virus has been established".

Virology invented the hypothesis of viruses so whatever method it employs in an attempt to prove their existence, it must satisfy that definition. At the heart of the matter is a simple concept and we need to see evidence that alleged disease-causing particles cause new particles that are clones of the former. Claiming that detected proteins and nucleic acids are of a specific viral origin is not possible unless the alleged viral particles have been truly isolated by purification and shown to have these key biological characteristics, which they do not do.

It is hard to know exactly what to call virology, but it is not science. The current practitioners are engaging in some form of algorithmic or statistical speculation added to circular reasoning and confirmation bias, with a complete absence of what should be the corresponding process of refutation that lies at the heart of the scientific method. While the abandonment of the scientific method may be unnoticed or accidental by lower level participants, there are almost certainly conspiratorial motivations at higher levels of the global hierarchy. For example, the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency are all parties to virology’s deceptive practices. However, the anti-scientific practices are replicated in most other countries, whether this relates to claims of virus isolation and the wholesale misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for clinical diagnostics, or a failure to disclose the crucial control details involved in virus culture and genome creation.

Historically, virology has been characterised by a lack of valid control experiments and none of its foundational claims have been established through proper exercise of the scientific method. The first alleged virus to be discovered was the Tobacco Mosaic Virus and one of the proofs for this is said to be contained in Dmitri Ivanovsky’s 1903 treatise Über die Mosaikkrankheit der Tabakspflanze (About the Mosaic Disease of the Tobacco Plant).

However, it is patently clear that Ivanovsky’s described experiments lacked any valid control comparisons and were thus unscientific and inconclusive. He even commented that, “this disease finds favourable conditions of existence only in coastal regions. Such a conclusion fully agrees with the above observations concerning the influence of moisture on the development of the disease. Mosaic disease appears to be unique to humid and warm climates.”

As germ theory was developing into the predominant disease-causation ideology at that time, rather than concluding that the Mosaic Disease was caused by environmental conditions, Ivanovsky concluded he had discovered an invisible virus. It is perhaps tempting to forgive the early pioneers that their uncontrolled and unscientific methodologies were simply typical practices for that era. However, germ theory critic Claude Bernard offered the following insight into the importance of controls when adhering to the scientific method decades earlier in 1865:

“If indeed we characterise experiment by a variation or disturbance brought into a phenomenon, it is only in so far as we imply that the disturbance must be compared with the normal state. As experiments indeed are only judgments, they necessarily require comparison between two things; and the intentional or active element in an experiment is really the comparison which the mind intends to make.” Bernard was advising the need to have a valid control, or some suitable comparison to ensure it was only the new experimental element that was causing an outcome. Thus, the most charitable we could be is to suggest that perhaps some of the early virus hunters were unaware of the importance of the scientific method in their enthusiastic and unbridled pursuit of invisible enemies.

Moving forward to another early claimed virus discovery, the textbook Retroviruses informs us that, “in 1911, Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Institute in New York reported the cell-free transmission of a sarcoma in chickens…The virus isolated by Rous bears the name of its discoverer: Rous sarcoma virus.” However a review of Rous’ paper, “A Sarcoma of the Fowl,” reveals that he did not claim to isolate anything, let alone anything that met the definition of a virus. His methodology involved grinding up chicken tumour material, filtering it, and injecting it directly into other chickens with the observation that some of them would also develop tumours. He reported that the “control” experiments consisted of injecting unfiltered tumour material into chickens which tended to result in much larger tumours. Rous postulated the presence of a causative ultramicroscopic organism but conceded that, “an agency of another sort is not out of the question.” Indeed, the experiment failed to provide any evidence of an infectious and replicating particle. It simply showed that diseased tissue introduced by an unnatural and invasive route into another animal could cause it to exhibit a similar disease process.

The claim that in 1925 pathologist William Gye demonstrated Rous had found a virus is also false. He merely asserted that a virus was at work in these experiments and conspicuously stated, “I wish particularly to stress one aspect of the search for the invisible viruses, and that is that the animal test is the final proof of the presence of the organism in an inoculum.” Again, the “final proof” did not involve the actual identification of an infectious organism in the inoculum — it simply demonstrated tumour formation following injection of diseased tissue. Further, it was determined in 1927 that sarcoma of the fowl could be induced by the injection of dilute arsenious acid and foreign embryonic pulp. The carcinogenic effects were also replicated following the equivalent bacteriological filtration that Rous performed and the disease was shown to arise from the foreign tissue, not from the host tissues. The viral hypothesis should have been thrown out but half a century later the establishment kept it alive and rewarded Rous with a Nobel prize in 1966 for, “his discovery of tumour-inducing viruses.”

In 1954, when John Enders and Thomas Peebles claimed they had propagated the measles virus in human and monkey kidneys cells, no further tolerance should have been extended to virology’s unscientific experiments. Enders and Peebles added throat washings and blood to their cell cultures and on observing CPEs, or dying and breaking down cells in their test tubes, concluded that the in vitro appearances, “might be associated with the virus of measles.” They did warn that, “cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in the monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors,” but went on to inappropriately conclude that, “this group of agents is composed of representatives of the viral species responsible for measles.” Enders and Peebles performed no control experiments to check whether the culture procedure itself, that is the stressing of the cells in a test tube, would produce the same CPEs, thereby invalidating the evidence for their conclusion. Ideally, several control experiments should have been done: some with no human-derived samples added, some with human-derived samples from well subjects, and some with human-derived samples from unwell subjects, but said not to have measles clinically or some other alleged “viral” condition.

The virologists however, have continued to repeat the uncontrolled methodology of Enders and to this day claim that such CPEs are incontestable evidence of viruses. Dr Stefan Lanka has documented the history of these unscientific practices (https://coldwelliantimes.com/eilmeldung ... experiment), and in 2021 demonstrated that CPEs could be induced in cell cultures by the laboratory process itself. In many virology publications a control or ‘mock-infected' experiment is mentioned but the details of such experiments are conspicuous by their absence. A Northwestern University, Illinois webpage states that mock-infected means, “a control used in infection experiments. Two specimens are used, one that is infected with the virus/vector of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.” The definition is already problematic as terms such as ‘virus’ and ‘infected’ have been introduced and thus presumed to exist before being established. In any case, as will become clear, those involved in alleged virus isolation and genome creation are certainly not treating the mock-infected specimen in the same way minus the ‘virus’, and can be disingenuous or blatantly obstructive when pressed to admit this fact.

In June 2022, in response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request concerning the paper, “Characterization of the First SARS-CoV-2 Isolates from Aotearoa New Zealand as Part of a Rapid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic,” the University of Otago stated, “the paper published by Professor Quiñones-Mateu and colleagues was a descriptive paper…This means there was no hypothesis to prove or disprove.” In a nutshell, the response perhaps unwittingly summarised the wider state of affairs in virology. In 2008, the journal Infection and Immunity featured a guest commentary titled, “Descriptive Science” that explained why, “descriptive research by itself is seldom conclusive,” and may simply serve as a starting point to orientate further investigations. The authors pointed out that, “microbiology and immunology are now experimental sciences and consequently investigators can go beyond simply describing observations to formulate hypotheses and then perform experiments to validate or refute them.” As this essay outlines, the virology establishment will not divulge or carry out these required experiments, seemingly in order not to refute itself. It intentionally limits itself to ongoing opportunistic fishing-expeditions backed by confirmation bias, thus disqualifying itself from the scientific method due to its inconsistency with the hypothesis-driven and falsifiable approach described by Popper.

VIROLOGY’S LACK OF CONTROLS MEANS IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC PURSUIT

The defense of virology’s methodologies is obviously attempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favored microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles. Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,” and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2.
- Lanka, Stefan. (2015). Virology: State of the Art.

Post Reply