For some reason, whenever I read, study, or discuss viruses, my brain doesn’t seem to process any of it. It feels like a mental struggle to grasp the established concepts of viruses and the theories behind them. However, whenever I read about, study, or think about or discuss bacteria, fungi, or even the human organism, it all “sits” right with me, as if much of it makes sense to my mind, a sort of “familiarity” if you will, while viruses simply feel alien, or, the conceptualization in the scientific community of viruses feels alien to me.
Perhaps the reason for this “feeling” is that I intuitively know that what Established Science states about viruses is mostly wrong. It simply doesn’t make sense. They are constantly contradicting themselves: Viruses cause infections but are not alive, viruses are “germs” but don’t have any of the characteristics of germs; Viruses cause disease and are highly contagious but can’t survive outside of a cell; viruses are inert, non-living things but we need to vaccinate against them to create “immunity” to something that isn’t alive in the first place; viruses are inert, non-living things but can change, evolve, and adapt to their environment; viruses replicate in living cells of host organisms but can’t reproduce on its own; the human organism has an estimated 1.7 quadrillion viruses in it but the presence of one new one is supposed to cause a disease; If viruses are not alive, then how can one say they cause “biofilm” production? If viruses are not living things, not a “lifeform”, then why are treatments designed to “kill the virus”, or “stop it from growing”? If viruses cannot be “grown” in a lab without being grown in a cell culture, then how can anyone be sure what they are growing is just the virus? If certain viruses are horribly disease causing and pathogenic, then why are there “asymptomatic carriers”, who show no signs of any disease, and likely never will? Why do viruses exist in every form of life, from mycoplasmas to bacteria to fungi to plant life to humans? First, they said viruses cause cancer, then they said they don’t, then they said they did and we need antiviral vaccines like Gardisil to stop cervical cancer; First they said AIDS is going to be the greatest killer of mankind if we don’t create an HIV vaccine, then no vaccine was ever made, and then they forget about HIV when they can’t make a vaccine for it. Then SARS, MERS, and SARS2, and now humans are being threatened by viruses that pop up out of nowhere, or in bat soup, and now the entire planet needs to either wear masks, never leave their houses, or get multiple shots from a vaccine that doesn’t even contain the virus they are claiming to offer immunity against…and so on.
NONE of what I just wrote makes a lick of sense to me. Anyone who looks into the “viruses” phenomenon even just on the surface would see an abundance of contradictory ideas, conflicting hypotheses, and confounding theories that seemingly cancel each other out or cause unyielding confusion. One may look at this phenomenon and think “Goodness, what one Earth are they talking about?”. It all seems to be rooted in blind acceptance of “established” ideas that are or were presented by extremely powerful and influential parties, and then promulgated to the masses who “believe” in the “settled science” as if it were medieval superstition. And no one questions it, because the penalties for doing so are great; because to question viruses is to question vaccines, and questioning vaccines means that you love plagues, disease, sickness, and hate children and minorities. (Just ask Andy Wakefiled what happens when one poses a question about a multi-billion-dollar vaccine). Yet, every time we turn around, there is yet another buried story in the news about this vaccine or that vaccine causing this harmful effect or that harmful effect, or, worse, killing people. And we are then told that “the virus is so bad, that if it means some people have to die in order to benefit the greater good of mankind, then it is a worthwhile sacrifice” (and who gets to choose who is sacrificed and who isn’t?). And those who do not worship at the altar of vaccines or “believe” in the next-new-virus that is claimed to exist and cause incredible, incurable diseases are deemed societal pariahs who are banned from normal interactions within the Mainstream Culture. One becomes an outcast, for either questioning or refusing a vaccine, or for being too healthy to even think about getting it, or, worse, not buying into the inherent contradictory nature of viral theory.
The concept of virus-as-disease-and-the-only-solution-is-vaccines seems more political to me than scientific, more about ego and collusion than about medicine or healing. To be frank, why are we even discussing viruses in the 21st century as this major cause of disease? With the advancements in scientific and biological research and discovery over the past 100 years, why are we as a scientific and medical community still using ideas and methods from the late 18th Century (yes, I said 18th Century) medical and scientific concepts as the foundation for all therapy and treatment of disease? The philosophical foundation of medicine and modern science is incongruent with the methodology in which they operate. It would seem that the discovery of DNA and the invention of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction test) are merely used vehicles for the promotion and promulgation of viral theory and the advancement of vaccines, completely independent from the discovery of biomolecules like vitamins and other biochemical concepts such as the role organic acids play in overall functionality of the human organism. For example, PCR is used to “discover” new viral DNA in “new disease cases”, then the genome is “created” out of thin air, and then PCR is used to test people who have any symptoms at all for the presence of this “new virus”, then treatment is administered to “kill” the virus, then people who are not showing any signs of disease are tested, then if they are “positive” they are said to be infected, require treatment, quarantine, and vaccines to prevent the “spread” of the disease, which is never really clearly defined and always has multiple causes not related to viral “infection”. Then the same process is repeated with each and every discovery of a new “disease causing virus”, or else we as a civilization will become just like 1918 Spanish Flu or the Polio Epidemic from the early 1950s, and we need heroes like Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin and Robert Gallo and Anthony Fauci to save us all from these horrible, horrific, horrid viruses that just want to kill children and the elderly.
Nonsense. It all sounds like nonsense to me, and dare I say, pseudo-science.
And I don’t buy any of it. Not one part.
A Brief History of Modern Virology: Did they ever actually isolate anything?
Virology is one of the most confusing, and appalling, of all the sciences in Western Society. It is writhe with contradictions and political posturing. For instance, Albert Sabin vehemently attacked Jonas Salk’s attenuated polio vaccine claiming it was contaminated with simian viruses while admitting that his live oral vaccine that was given to 80 million Soviets was also contaminated, but since it was an oral vaccine, it “was harmless”, which he knew was false. But he lied, just as Salk lied in the 1950s to Edward R Murrow that his vaccine was “free from viral contaminants”. The whole country saw that interview and Salk lied and he knew it. So, the two purveyors of the so-called “most successful vaccine initiative in history” were both inveterate liars. Then there was the Cutter incident, and a whole host of other travesties covered up to protect both the scientific community of “Virology” that Basil O’Connor created and his push for a champion Polio vaccine to “end the epidemic”. And the discovery of this simian virus, known as SV40, was covered up and the person who discovered its cancer-causing properties, Bernice Eddy, had her funding and lab stripped from her and was literally banished to a converted janitor closet while her work was covered up to protect the vaccine initiative of the 1960s.
The lies about SV40 and the Polio Vaccine, and even the existence of the polio virus were rampant and formed the basis of what modern virology would come to accept: we don’t have to actually identify the presence of the virus in order to state that it is causing a disease; we simply have to show cells that are damaged by something and presume that it is caused by a virus. This is why Rivers’ postulates in the late 1930s included that the pathogen in question need NOT be detected in order for it to cause the disease it is said to cause. This is absolutely ludicrous to think that they don’t even need to prove it is present in order for it to cause a disease! Yet, SV40 could be present in huge amounts and not a single vaccine maker will ever say that it causes any harm. Contradictory, backwards, and self-defeating science that borders on superstition and decree than it does actionable science.
But that wasn’t even the worst of it. In the 1980s, this new disease called “AIDS” popped up, and there was this mad rush to find the “cause”. To make a long story short, Robert Gallo supposedly found the “viral cause” of AIDS in a virus called HTLV, which was later coined “Human Immunodeficiency Virus”, or HIV. He came out with all this bluster and pomp and circumstance when he made the surprise announcement. However, he had two problems: First, he had no actual evidence that HIV caused AIDS. None. There simply was no proof that his new virus caused AIDS, yet he assumed it did. He assumed even though he was not able to extract the virus from diagnosed AIDS patients and prove that it caused any disease. The second problem he had was…he didn’t actually discover the virus! He “stole” it from French Scientist Luc Montagnier. Gallo won the Nobel Prize for his discovery and in reality he committed fraud in two ways: he defrauded his research and skewed it to make it look like he “discovered” the cause of AIDS, and also that he stole the discovery from Montagnier. It didn’t end there, because when Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) testing, asked “where is the citation for the study that HIV has been proven to cause AIDS?” he couldn’t find an answer. The reason is, there isn’t one. There is no evidence that conclusively proves that HIV causes AIDS. Even when he approached Luc Montagnier with this question, Montagnier essentially blew him off by saying “Look at such-n-such paper” and then walked away, never to discuss the topic with Mullis again. Mullis stated that the papers Montagnier referred to had zero actual evidence that AIDS was caused by HIV. There have been countless journalists and scientists who questioned the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis, including Janine Roberts, John Rappoport, and one of the great scientists of the 20th century, whose work in retroviruses was legendary, Peter Duesberg. There has even been talk that HIV wasn’t even discovered because it was NEVER properly isolated or purified. The HIV and AIDS fraud has been a debacle. AIDS has been one of the biggest frauds in the history of medicine, and fraudulent relationship between HIV and AIDS has lead to the modern age of virus-hunting and “new disease causing pathogens”.
Since Robert Gallo’s iconic and history altering “discovery” of HIV as the cause of AIDS, the scientific community is now discovering new viruses that “cause disease” every week ,it seems. SARS was really the first one, and upon Dr Kaufman’s analysis of the research done to “discover and isolate” SARS1, the actual procedures were flawed and sloppy, and never should have been taken seriously. Everything was done improperly and according to Dr Kaufman, and many other scientists, SARS was never actually purified or isolated, and never proven to cause any disease. The same can be said about Zika, West Nile, MERS, and now SARS-Cov-2 (the alleged COVID19 virus). None of these viruses were properly isolated in a purified solution nor proven to cause ANY disease. For that matter, neither was influenza, Measles, or any other alleged disease-causing virus. The earlier corruption in the beginnings of modern virology have totally skewed the evidence about what viruses are, how they work, and why they are made by cells. Deeming them infectious pathogens is highly likely to be completely wrong in all respects. These are non-living things that have no ability to cause pathogenesis of any kind, yet they are blamed for things they likely have nothing to do with.
To make matters even more complicated and confusing, the “reactions” to viruses that people may experience are not, by definition, “disease”; they are more like allergic reactions or a form of detoxification from something that has nothing to do with the presence of the virus in question. There is even considerable evidence that vitamin and certain mineral deficiencies like Vitamin C, Vitamin A, and Selenium play the decisive role in the manifestation of “viral diseases”. Viruses, such as HIV as Dr Duesberg put it, are likely just “passenger microbes” that have nothing to do with infection. To complicate things even further, viruses are 1 billion times smaller than cells, and are almost impossible to isolate. The human host has 1.7 quadrillion total viruses in the body at any given time; so the idea of isolating even one of them is beyond the scope of practicality. In truth, even with regards to SV40, I have yet to find any conclusive evidence that infectious viruses have either been proven to exist or if they have been, proven to cause any real disease. Dr David Gordon stated in 2007 “viruses don’t have to be purified to cause disease” and that “has any virus ever been purified?”. He doubted that any virus was ever isolated from sick cells. Based on this, it is hard to conclude that any virus was truly isolated. Yet his other statement regarding viruses not needing to be purified to cause disease would never stand up in court as evidence. If a virus causes a disease, any disease, then shouldn’t its existence be proven as an isolated entity and then its presence proven to cause the disease it is blamed for? If it doesn’t need to be “picked out of a line-up” to be accused of being the perpetrator of a disease, then how can any self-respecting scientist conclude that such a virus is the ,i>sole cause of the disease in question?
Isolation matters. If a microbe is stated to be the sole cause of a disease, then it should be isolated from the sick patient and the isolated product must be administered to another subject and then observed to cause said disease. If it is not isolated or it is in fact isolated but does not show evidence of causation, then logic tells us to conclude the disease in question is not caused by the virus in question,. It should be an open-and-shut concept, cause-and-effect, however, in the realm of virology and modern microbial science, it is anything but.