A word on purification of viruses

I’ve stumbled over the words “isolation,” “purification,” and “filtration” regarding viruses, and even as I have come to believe that the medical profession has committed the correlation=causation fallacy writ large regarding viruses, wanted to share David Crowe’s work on this subject, from his chapter called Isolation Versus Purification. The work is copyrighted, so I am not going to reproduce it here, and instead ask that you follow the link to a one-page dissertation. I am also taking down yesterday’s post that quoted Crowe at length for the same reason. His work can be found at The Infectious Myth.

I will paraphrase: Once a culture is obtained, all non-viral particles are removed. “Filtration” merely means removal of particles larger than a virus. It is only when, under the electron microscope, all particles seen are of the same size and shape, can we obtain a true sample and analyze and sequence them. This is called a “gold standard.”

The word “isolate” is used in public information regarding the SARS-Cov-2 virus in order to mislead the public. It has never been filtered and purified. They don’t know any more of what they have under the electron microscope than we do. It could be RNA sequences from other viruses, free-floating RNA, bacteria, or Chinese bats. This is science corrupted by political agendas.

Time scaleWhere have we seen this before? AIDS/HIV, where even in 2020 the HIV virus has never been shown to cause the disease; climate science, where all current evidence indicates that all future predictions are haywire; Darwinian evolution, where scientists believe without evidence that species morph into other species, and geology, where the time scale is as much a guess as what is on a woman’s mind. And on and on.

We are still in the Dark Ages. We never left. Sometimes I sense that in the 19th century, real science was being done and human progress was underway. But then I remember that it was corruption that gave us Louis Pasteur and the germ theory, the reason for the current fascist assault on every human being and every existing inalienable human right on the planet.

Germ theory does indeed cause disease.

22 thoughts on “A word on purification of viruses

  1. What I never understood about the filtration of viruses is how they can be certain they have filtered down to any one, specific virus. If there are billions and trillions of different types of viruses, then even if you filtered down to the size of a virus, wouldn’t you still be looking at an unbelievable variety of different viruses that same size? How on Earth can you know that you have filtered specifically on SARS-CoV-2 (or any specific virus)? Never understood that one.

    Also, as much as we have been critical of scientists and the modern medical profession, I want to say that we should not mix all of it together. You mentioned Darwinian evolution (which I myself have critiqued), but also mentioned the geologic time scale. To me, the geologic timeline is on fairly firm ground. It is not in the same ballpark as Darwin and virology. The concept behind the geological timeline is basically just the idea that old stuff is beneath new stuff. And similar fossils found in similar rock strata allow us to connect the two. This basically confirmed plate tectonics. Not all science is garbage, even if virology definitely is mostly garbage. We need to remember to judge each concept on its merits rather than generalize.

    Like

    1. I do know that viruses come in different sizes, regardless of whether they originate inside our outside of us. A coronavirus is about 120 manometers, where a rhinovirus is 80. They slice them before putting them under the EM, or maybe I just imagine that, but I think I heard it somewhere. One of the problems in virology is that they must change the environment of the virus to observe it.

      The problem that I have with geology is not the systematic organization of strata, but rather the dating systems. The formation of carbon-14 is behind those timelines, and they treat its half-life with religious certainty. What if they are off, what if they make a bad guess as to the start of the presence of C-14 in a fossil? What about fossils that have no C-14? Maybe they have it down, but I would not be surprised if reality were a whole lot different than their gospel.

      Like

      1. Yeah, I have heard much criticism about dating techniques. However, considering the age of the solar system being in the billions of years, I don’t have too much problem thinking that the Cambrian Explosion was about 500 million years ago, for example. We can think about how much pressure and time must pass to press sand into sandstone, or other materials into granite…and again, I don’t have much issue believing in the approximate dating given us for the geological eras or the age of the earth.

        That is not to say that I believe all dating methods are perfectly accurate. Carbon 14 dating is only for recent things (wouldn’t date back to the Paleozoic) and is very easily thrown off. I agree, it’s imprecise and easy to rig. I would never bet my life on a single C14 test on a single sample. But I really don’t have a problem with the aging of the earth and its geological eras.

        And the virus filtering, I definitely understand that viruses are different sizes, but if there are trillions of them then there would still be thousands at any one given size. Even if we somehow knew SARS-CoV-2 was 120nm (and how do we know that?), then there would still be maybe a million other viruses within that size range. It’s like saying that you are trying to find one specific human being who you know is 5’7″ so you filter down to all humans who are 5’7″. That doesn’t help you find one specific person!!! Filtering down to 120nm viruses would be similar. There would still be millions of viruses that size. How would you know which one is SARS-CoV-2? So I really don’t understand how they can claim to be filtering down to one specific virus through filtering.

        Like

    2. The entire filterable agent narrative is semantics…

      “The Pasteur-Chamberland filter is as useful as other ceramic and porcelain filters. It is a good bacterial water filter used mainly as a high volume water filter.[2][3] The filter works more quickly when the water supplied is under pressure. As with other filters of its kind, it cannot filter very small particles like viruses or mycoplasma. It is used in removal of organisms from a fluid culture in order to obtain the bacterial toxins.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_toxin

      “Mycoplasma (plural mycoplasmas or mycoplasmata) is a genus of bacteria that lack a cell wall around their cell membranes.[1] This characteristic makes them naturally resistant to antibiotics that target cell wall synthesis (like the beta-lactam antibiotics). They can be parasitic or saprotrophic. Several species are pathogenic in humans, including M. pneumoniae, which is an important cause of “walking” pneumonia and other respiratory disorders, and M. genitalium, which is believed to be involved in pelvic inflammatory diseases. Mycoplasma species are the smallest bacterial cells yet discovered,[2] can survive without oxygen, and come in various shapes. For example, M. genitalium is flask-shaped (about 300 x 600 nm), while M. pneumoniae is more elongated (about 100 x 1000 nm). Hundreds of mycoplasma species infect animals.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma

      “Soon after Pasteur made his bacterial work public, many Americans and Europeans turned to Pasteur-Chamberland jugs for protection. What made these filters special? While glazed porcelain is virtually impermeable, unglazed, or bisque, porcelain allows water and other small molecules to pass through. One of Louis Pasteur’s top assistants in Paris, Charles Edouard Chamberland, had invented these filters to produce water that was free of bacteria. But the water being filtered was not originally meant for public consumption; rather, it was made for use in Pasteur’s experiments. Soon, however, news reports of the bacterial causes of tuberculosis, anthrax, cholera, and other diseases drove wider interest in the lab’s filters.”

      https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/the-filter-of-life

      Like

  2. I’m looking forward to reading these recent posts when I get a chance. Meanwhile if you’ll excuse going off topic, just heard old Rushbo giving some interesting stats. He said that nursing home residents are about 1.5% of the population, and 40-something-% of the deaths. Also, that most residents (or most deaths?) are in the hard hit northeast region.

    Now naturally nursing home residents would typically be a large percent of mortality from all causes. But I wonder if covid “treatment” in those facilities is practically euthanasia, and that could explain the spike in all cause mortality CDC was showing in NYC? And New Jersey and New York state? (If I recall that chart correctly.)

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have no idea why this went to moderation. Was just listening to something yesterday about intubation, which they are doing in droves, that they have to put people under after – they could indeed be killing old people.

      Like

    2. There was a video of a nurse in NYC who claimed that they were quite literally murdering people. If this really is a global scam, I could see it being that certain doctors are “in the know” to some degree. They would then provide the absolute minimum level of care that they could get away with. Make as many mistakes as possible as long as they can feasibly be categorized as a natural death.

      There have been “angels of death” who killed relatively healthy people in hospitals just for the rush of it. Can you imagine how little oversight is happening right now at nursing homes? No family around to protect anyone, and a boogeyman diagnosis of COVID-19 to explain any unexpected death. It really seems like free rein for anyone with ill intent in a hospital environment, especially a nursing home environment. Scary thought.

      Like

      1. Faux, we talked about that video. Without re-litigating that one, I still think it’s more likely to be like what it was with AIDS… The AZT meds were initially killing patients, with docs just following the “standard of care”, until higher-ups adjusted the AZT or changed the dose or something.

        I would be more open to speculation that those who design the standard of care, know what’s up. And perhaps some “Intel”/ military docs. But who knows.

        Like

        1. Sorry, I forgot that we had previously discussed that nurse video. Even setting that video aside, I’m still kind of horrified at the lack of oversight happening right now at a place like a nursing home. There could be some really sick stuff happening at those, and there is no familial oversight whatsoever with the incredibly easy excuse of “coronavirus” to explain it all away. It’s a recipe for bad, bad things.

          There is no similar killer drug to AZT in this situation. No argument that AZT was responsible for the death rate there. I’m just worried that if certain doctors are aware of the corona scam, and they lean towards psychopathic tendencies, then we may have some really evil stuff happening right now.

          Like

    3. Good point. TIMR. I’d be looking at what’s in their annual flu shot, especially the 2019-2020 concoction. Maybe it’s practice for “Dark Winter.”

      Like

      1. IF there is something bad in those annual flu shots, how long would it take to show up. Some have said they get mild symptoms a week after a flu shot. I had flu shots in the past with no symptoms other than a runny nose. Seems like they inject the fluid into the shoulder part of arm where the muscle is and not into a vein. I guess the fluid stays there in the shoulder for awhile?

        Like

  3. @mark – i thought last nights posting re antibody testing was very good, and made an important point. would you consider posting it again? i just got an email from david, and i quote “I always say if credit is given, copying the text to another website is fine”.

    Like

  4. Mark, is there a way to email you about a different topic? I don’t want to hijack a comment section by changing the subject.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s