I draw your attention to a comment by XS that elaborates on an inadequate presentation on virus “isolation” as presented in my previous post. I’ve always been challenged to get my arms around the subject.
This happened to coincide with the reason I sat down here. Some time ago I was listening to an hilarious podcast wherein Conan O’Brien hosted Kevin Nealon. The two were on top of their games and the back and forth was priceless. I am not gonna link to it as it would take too much effort to find it again but if you are inclined to go to a podcast called “Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend.” There are more than 100 podcasts there. At a certain point O’Brien mentions to Nealon that he was given credit for being a comedian at some source, I’ve forgotten where. Nealon responds “at least they say I’m a comedian.” O’Brien responds “Oh, the word was in quotation marks.”
XS put the word “scientists” in his comment, the message clear. I am seeing some power in that. We live in an era when government funding has taken control of most science, so political agendas have come to the fore. Junk science abounds, crooked and dishonest and carrying out agendas that are unspoken and unspeakable. Things like Climate Change and Covid seem onerous and threatening.
So even before I read the comment by XS, I was thinking that we need to use quotation marks whenever we describe a climate “scientist”, a “virologist”, and especially that word that so drives me nuts, any kind of “expert.” None of that “science” is honest or forthright. We live in an era of deep corruption. All suggestions on broadening the use of quotation marks are welcome.
Piece of Mindful 
I’ve just been labeling them psientists for years.
LikeLike
“Freedom of speech”
“Eat me”
“I am so over this”
LikeLiked by 1 person
What science? https://www.globalresearch.ca/foi-reveal-health-science-institutions-around-world-have-no-record-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-anywhere-ever/5751969
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is why I, and others, such as smj, whose word psientism can be found in the Glossary page on Fakeopedia, linked at this page at the bottom, come with our own Newspeak.
https://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php?title=Newspeak
Someone who studies the climate in my books has been a climatologist. Which I am not, but in my geologic models climate was a huge factor (driving erosion and the hydrology of an area), so I was a “climate scientist”, looking at past climates as a scientist.
I now use Climate Alchemist, like it better than using quotation marks that I use a lot already.
LikeLike
“The term “climate scientists” is a bit of a trick. The study of climate involves a large number of disciplines, including atmospheric physics, oceanography, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, astrophysics, meteorology, and all aspects of biology (life science). The alarmist camp ascribes the term “climate scientist” to itself and those who agree with them, almost regardless of their core education. So it turns out the opposite of a climate scientist is a “climate denier” and not worthy of interest. This is part of why they say 97% of “climate scientists” agree with them. It’s because they think they can decide who is a climate scientist and who is not. This is not how science is supposed to work.”
(Patrick Moore, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom, Footnote 33, page 48)
LikeLike
Well we have “fact checkers”
Well, what they label as fiction must then necessarily be quoted as “fiction”.
[Viruses not existing] being the straw man for terrain theory is actually a clever “fiction”. In reality, there are a few possibilities explored by the brave and honest pioneers through the centuries.
Pleomorphism and Exosomes are just two, but fairly broad in scope. Both suggest that there likely may be something measurable in the body during most (or all) disease but it may not be the cause of the disease.
I frequently run into people not understanding terrain theory and that it’s actually an umbrella over the field of virology – with particular yet substantial reinterpretations of the known and observable / measurable data and signals – including “genomic” and “antibody”
There are two more quoted words for you, Mark.
LikeLike
There are several thesis around non-pathogenic viruses, for lack of a better word, from terrain theorists. Can you give some overview and concise explanation of that?
I found what appears to be a fairly unbiased commentary on The Contagion Myth by Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell. I have to take the arguments of the writers of this article at face value because I don’t know much about the subject:
https://www.natureinstitute.org/article/craig-holdrege-and-jon-mcalice/some-comments-on-the-contagion-myth
I would greatly appreciate a comment on this article from someone with more insight into this topic.
LikeLike
It’s discouraging to read something like that, but it makes me glad that I stopped following Cowan months ago, not a matter of trust or anything like that, I just found him a bit tedious and repetitive. The article you reference is pretty supportive of Robert Koch, but also could’ve noted fraud on the part of Louis Pasteur and did not. The authors did note about viruses that virologists do pretty complicated stuff, and that the postulates have been redone several times, and that seems like an appeal to authority, that is, if their work is very complicated and so they must be doing good work. Still, I found it discouraging.
As long as the authors were in fact doing research, they could have looked into the work of Stefan Lanka, and did not. That gives skeptics about viruses the short shrift.
LikeLike
The article is right that Koch did not use dyes in the inoculation, however Koch did not use controls thus it could well be come other substance (bacteria or toxin) that caused the symptoms,
What caught my eye though, is the Chan et Al 2019 paper on inoculating “SARS- COV-2” in Syrian hamsters, which if we were to believe the authors, the study has a control group that did not exhibit symptoms when injected with saline; and hamsters that exhibit symptoms merely after staying in the same cage with inoculated hamsters. (Note: this is the only study I found regarding SARS-COV-2 that had a control group)
And other studies claimed recovered animal subjects exhibit a lower “viral load” on subsequent inoculation. These studies, in my view, proves that there is something transmittable and can be immunized against; if they are to be believed.
LikeLike
After reanalyzing the studies, I am now of the view that,
viruses, or organisms that produce viral particles, likely do exist, are transmittable, and can be immunized against from previous contact;
However, that they are the cause of diseases – and in particular, “sars-cov-2” – has not been proven without reasonable doubt
LikeLike
“That they can be immunized” runs aground with the “variants”, that are merely computer affectations of something not real, the original virus. Please, if you are going to make profound assertions, give us the beef. Where is the virus? I want the isolated purified genome. Enough of the charade.
LikeLike
“Immunized” is probably not the best word for it, I am merely describing the phenomenon that previous exposure to the “virus”(this could mean: an actual virus, an organism that can produce or induce the specific viral particles, a toxin or environmental cue that can induce the viral particles, or other possible reasons introduced by the inoculation procedure) seemingly reduces the rate of increase of the “viral load” as defined by the “testing” procedure.
As demonstrated in McMahan et al 2021
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7906955/
The relevant passage:
“To assess the protective efficacy of the adoptively transferred IgG, we assessed viral loads in BAL and NS by RT-PCR for subgenomic RNA (sgRNA), which is believed to measure replicating virus1,11. All sham controls in Group IV were infected and had a median peak of 5.18 (range 3.82–5.45) log10 sgRNA copies/ml in BAL (Fig. 1a) and a median peak of 5.72 (range 5.12–6.62) log10 sgRNA copies/ml in NS (Fig. 1b), consistent with our previous experience with this challenge stock1,4,5. As expected, viral replication was observed for 7–10 days in BAL and for 10–14 days in NS. All animals that received 2.5 mg/kg IgG in Group III were also infected but generally showed shorter duration of viral replication of 3–10 days in BAL and 7–10 days in NS. In contrast, 1 of 3 animals that received 25 mg/kg IgG in Group II and all animals that received 250 mg/kg IgG in Group I were protected with no detectable virus in BAL or NS at any timepoint following challenge (limit of quantitation 1.69 log10 sgRNA copies/ml or copies/swab). These data demonstrate that purified IgG from convalescent macaques, in the absence of cellular and innate immunity, can effectively protect naïve recipient macaques against SARS-CoV-2 challenge in both the upper and lower respiratory tracts in a dose-dependent fashion.”
By no way do I mean to suggest that it has any bearing on the actual symptoms that are said to be associated with the diseases; and indeed I do not believe it has an effect.
Perhaps instead of “immunized”, a better word to use is “desensitized”? Or someone can suggest a better word. The lexicon has very much been corrupted by the medical industry, and it is difficult to describe the observed phenomenon without using their language.
Or course, as AK noted, a few sample cannot be conclusive, but it seems to me that the probability of such a phenomenon to happen due to random chance would be low – if we are to assume the researchers are acting in good faith; this could indeed not be the case. But I don’t see the point arguing about what-ifs, so I will assume that the results are not biased.
I have also noted some issues I find with a “landmark” study below – Chan et al 2019 – which unfortunately I have posted in a separate thread by accident
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32215622/
As for the genome, my belief is that SARS-COV-2 in its complete genome as described by the publications do not exist, and is a computer simulation that the CCP scientists have concocted by combining known genomes of the so called HIV, MERS and SARS virus, as well as bat dna and certain influenza variants. By in any case, I have no proof for this
LikeLike
I suggest you to always take a look to what JLB calls primary sources.
That’s especially valid for the field of “virology” (notice from now on the starting of a quotation marks galore), because today they have an easy going fudging data and impressing the audience with “genetic sequencing”, “in silico models” and other smoke and mirrors fancy stuff, but if you delve into the early works, it’s much easier to see through the smokescreen and embellishments.
For example, Jenner is widely acknowledged as the first scientist that “discovered” the effectiveness of “vaccination”, or at least to have proved it scientifically.
Read the original Jenner’s “study” and if you buy it as science I have Fontana di Trevi to sell you at a bargain price.
If you search for “flu virus isolation” you find that what is still deemed today to be the first “isolation” was performed by Wilson Smith, M.D. Manch., C. H. Andrewes, M.D. Lond, 1933. (A virus obtained from influenza patients. Lancet: 8, 1933). Read the original paper to find that the “study” was based on TWO ferrets, I kid you not. No person in his right mind, let alone a real scientist, would ever think to prove anything with an “experiment” based on whatever happened to a sample size of just two.
The same goes if you search for “polio isolation” Landsteiner e Popper 1909. Uebertragung der Poliomyelitis acutaauf Affen. (Z. Immunita¨tsforsch. 1909 2:377–390), where they monkeyed around (pun intended) with ONE baboon + ONE rhesus = TWO.
Any scientific Journal and peer reviewer with a modicum of professional integrity would have rejected those rubbish with a scornful tone and the authors should have been laughed out of the scientific community. None of that happened and those “experiments” are still touted today by the medical establishment as scientific “milestones”.
“Virology”, just like “rocket science”, is monkey business all the way down.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Also note, the Rosenau experiments concerning Spanish flu, they tried their hardest but could not prove contagion. What to do? they dropped the matter, never looked at it again.
LikeLike
Ayokera-
““Virology”….is monkey business all the way down.”
I’ll back you up on that, and add a little weight to it (and include a bit of sarcasm along the way). Two apes were used by Landsteiner and Popper in their polio monkey business, as you said. The monkeys were said to be in good condition, and had already been used in Syphilis experiments….pause….what does that mean? It means that the monks had probably already been poisoned at least twice, once to administer the Syphilis containing agent, and once to “cure” it, which at that time (1909) probably involved mercury or arsenic or both….one clue to this is found in an historical syphilis write-up which said “Ehrlich then began experimenting with arsenic compounds in treating syphilis in rabbits. His experiments were not very successful as most of the earlier arsenicals he experimented with were too toxic, but in 1909 he and his assistant Sahachiro Hata, a Japanese bacteriologist, finally found success…This led in 1910 to the manufacture of arsphenamine, which subsequently became known as Salvarsan, or the “magic bullet”…In 1908 Ehrlich was awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery.
So these poisoned, damaged, but “in good condition” monks were then poisoned again by these two wannabe “virologists”, by being injected with a concoction that included ground-up spinal cord matter from a boy that had died with polio symptoms. The monks got sick, and one died, and L&P declared the discovery of the pathogenic agent that caused the polio. However, the ground-up spinal cords of these monks did not cause polio symptoms when injected into the next set of monks, so there went that cherished wish for proof of contagion. But, our two wannabes were not dissuaded. They discussed whether or not the failure to “infect” the second set of monks was due to the supposed virus being in fact just a toxic something, but saved the day for themselves by deciding that the virus had simply lost its virulence in transmission between the monks!
Soon Simon Flexner (head of Rockefeller Institute) added insult to this injury by developing the correct procedure for passing the toxic effect from monk to monk, and that was to inject the concoction directly into the monks brain. It worked, and contagion was properly restored to the narrative.
So now, 111 years later, its monkey kidney cells that are poisoned as virological “monkey business” continues unabated.
LikeLike
@AK: I am convinced that pathogenic viruses do not exist and the “research” done on them borders on laughable.
My question concerned the terraintheory and its sometimes contradictory variations. When I look into it I don’t seem to get any further than wandering around on the same level stumbling over cognitive dissonance triggers.
I get the feeling that the information that is being offered to us about it comes from the same misleading quarter as the mainstream virustheory and that the now known propagators of the terraintheory are directed by the same powers behind the scenes that have been creating a false reality for generations.
It seems to me that there are a few more veils of deception to be pulled away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But if you are asked by people what “viruses” are, then, what do you say?
I got a visit from “Social Sanity” or so, a representative of the “Colombian CDC” came to see me at the reception downstairs and needed to verify if Molly had rabies. One of her first questions was “are Molly’s vaccines up to date?” and I very concisely and quickly (the strength of the elevator pitch) I explained I would never inject her with poisons because I do not subscribe to the germ theory, and told her she should look into the Pasteur vs Béchamp debate, saying “you, as an expert in this matter should look into terrain theory”.
Then she asked me to ge Molly, because she needed to film her to see and record if she had “symptoms of rabies”. So I got Molly and her first reaction was “ahhhh que hermosa es!”, and Molly promptly greeted the guards, as she always does. So all the boxes were checked; no, she doesn’t have rabies, and the lady and us parted all happily.
If you don’t have answers ready, at least a bit coherent and structured, what do you say in such occasions?
I tell everyone about my views, including the police here on the street who I talk to unmasked and who also love Molly and even wanted a photo with her here downstairs:
LikeLike
“But if you are asked by people what “viruses” are, then, what do you say?”
Good question. For now, I can’t get past these two answers and I’m not sure if the second answer is true:
In mainstream virology, the particles designated as virus particles and puzzled together by a computer are really debris from dying cells.
2.Viruses are produced by cells to aid in the clearance of toxic tissue.
Beautiful dog BTW. Friese stabij? (Frisian staby according to google translate)
LikeLike
Ha yes, those answers work well I think. Our palacemate since a month is also opposed to vaccines and does not believe in Corona, one of the reasons she lives here. She is a 7th day adventist, and I understood in that religion many more are like us.
It cost me 1.5 years to figure out, but I am quite sure Molly is pretty pureblooded mudi, a rare Hungarian breed, fitting with her size, posture and location where I found her on the streets (Hungarian immigration there). When I made this image, I still thought she was a mix with border collie, but I no longer think that’s the case:
LikeLike
Gaia-
My wife was also a rare, pureblooded Hungarian breed, coming to the USofA at age twenty, knowing no English. She died unexpectedly on August 7, age 49.
I will offer my answers to your question. Partially in agreement with XS, certainly cellular debris is one thing that is deceitfully called “virus” by the virology folks. Keep in mind, though, that cells in a culture, that are mistreated and poisoned, are being stimulated to send out a multitude of genetic signals for the preservation of the “body” they are not part of. Intrabody communication, in other words. This signaling could be in the form of exosomes, or many other configurations of nucleic acids that virologists call virus whenever it suits their narrative.
So my answer to “what viruses are” is that they simply are not. Virology has created the concept of virus, based on its basic meaning of “poison”, and informed us for more than a century that it is an exogenous, predatory, contagious pathogen, and they have done so for reasons that are now painfully obvious to some of us. I think that trying to redefine virus is counterproductive, and plays into their narrative. Virus is poison (according to their well established stories), so let them keep it. If our cells in their innate wisdom have the ability to use a variety of chemical and genetic signaling for our health and preservation, then let’s acknowledge that without calling it virus. We can call them exosomes, or extracellular vesicles, or whatever is appropriate, in view of their actions on our behalf.
As it is, the virology gang is trying to make their stories more inscrutable. One current approach to that end is the promotion of the idea that “viruses” are everywhere. We’re full of them, the ocean is full of them, they’re raining down on us from above, we have evolved in a viral soup…and some of them are beneficial, while some of them are not, and guess who only knows the difference. At the moment, even while they promote this “new-agey” (one to contemplate while you meditate) viral story, the long-running narrative is still in full force, and their planning is for it to continue. See, for example, papers such as “Emerging Pandemic Diseases” (Doc Fauci), which had its name changed from “Emerging Infectious Diseases”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@OREGONMATT
“I think that trying to redefine virus is counterproductive, and plays into their narrative.”
I believe you hit the nail on the head. There is a lot of gate keeping going on .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re viruses, “what do you say?”
I avoid the complications which are a trap.
I say, no virus paradigm discounts pollution, no matter how obvious the pollution. Thus nothing can be said about a virus, except — that it seems to be an industrial distraction from pollution.
In other words,
Virus studies do not control for obvious environmental cofactors. Thus they are patently faulty.
LikeLike
It is striking how many people are hitching a ride on the terrain theory, which now has more exposure than ever, to market their products or themselves.
These individuals seem particularly intent on being able to make statements on this subject that support them in doing so. All claims by terrain theorists, or at least people who profess to be such, are welcome.
Their opinion does not seem to me to be a product of serious study of this subject as evidenced, for example, by the work of Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell.
There is no doubt that the virus theory does not make sense in any way, but why this is refuted with a sloppy rebuttal is beyond me.
Lately, it is always the same ones who engage in online conversation every so often about issues on which they are in absolute agreement.
Tom Cowan’s complacency makes him unreliable in my eyes.
Andrew Kaufman creeps me out. His claim to understand everything written about viruses and the like better than us, the common people, by virtue of his education sounds like, “just trust me, I’m a professional”.
Tom B bragging about his brain only recapitulates everything that is been said before, that’ s clearly not a product of his own mentation. The semi funny editing of his videos is more infantile than thoughtful.
Amandha Vollmer looks like a potion brewing witch to me.
Dr Sam Bailey charmed me into trusting her but she is hangin with the wrong crowd.
LikeLike
Thanks XS for sharing your views. I read the article you linked too, with the critique of “The Contagion Myth” book. No surprise I guess that (as usual) there are no easy answers.
I’ve been open to terrain theory, mainly as something to throw out because any critique of virology is met with “okay, so what do you think makes people sick?” I.e., most people would prefer to have a “false certainty” to “the unknown.” But I haven’t looked into terrain theory beyond a glance, so it’s just a placeholder of sorts. And a curiosity, as part of the history of science and medicine.
LikeLike
TIMR,
Yes, what is making people sick? A 30-something, apparently very healthy, male who works at my favorite ski shop just died “of Covid” last week. No inquiry beyond that, so, of course, no answers to my many questions. One of my questions is about the intense focus on proving it isn’t a virus or there are no viruses, and so little interest and research into what might be causing all this illness in apparently healthy people.
Known carcinogens is one area of concern. The list is long and seldom mentioned. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html
LikeLike
In the cases I have heard here when people “die of Covid”, I(‘d) say they are murdered.
Murdered by tubes or gas. Or by their own ignorance.
Because since when is it a medical practice to attack the most vulnerable part of the body by inserting tubes into it or injecting them with gas in their lungs?
Ah yes, “cancer treatment”, doing the same, akin to having an open wound and prodding in it with a knife, the real sickos are the ones wearing the white robes.
LikeLike
XS, TimR, and Steve,
Are you open to revisiting my premise concerning cause (which I believe helps to fill in the missing gaps exhibited by both germ theory and terrain theory)? Since I share this premise with my friend, Alison McDowell, I suggest this comprehensive slide deck she developed (and in which I poured a good deal of my own sweat prior to its completion and presentation by Alison in July 2021) may be most helpful.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZDinpMvQ_iEKYwX9XRLGSqYQ5SgWUKAS55wt5CRfMh4/edit#slide=id.ge38f5e4f7c_0_339
Thus far, my “theory” (which was primarily laid out in April 2021 in my “Confessions” piece, and expanded upon in my 10-part series) has not been “debunked.” It still holds water; and if anything, it grows increasingly more pat and sound by the day.
LikeLike
Awesome, Stephers. First, I owe you an apology for being unable to absorb and comprehend all of what you and Alison and others are presenting. My attention span is seriously compromised — a lifelong challenge. I have learned to read books as an adult to gain added comprehension of complex material. I cannot read and comprehend the printed word on a computer screen, and never even try on any screen smaller than a desktop monitor. That said, I would not focus on the aged anyway because the digital world and cypber-talk is beyond, mine anyway, comprehension. With limited understanding it’s hard to grasp all the complexities and interconnections. I was never much of a sci-fi guy, I’ve never played a computer game, never put money in a gambling machine, never used 90% of the functions on my cell phone and/or computer. Essentially, a lost cause in this techno-bio-intel world.
That said, your “theory” and presentation is crazy excellent. I would buy it in book form in a heartbeat, and reread it, chapter by chapter, at least two or three times in order to “get it” in a way I feel familiar enough to re-speak its contents to others. Wanna’ write/publish what you and Alison and others have already organized and presented?
From this point forward, I’m all in with the hazards and pure evil of graphene and graphene oxide use and its links to a future which I want no part of. Thank you for your patience, Stephers. We seniors sometimes need extra time to get from one place to another. You rock!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A placeholder sounds about right TIMR. It seems that science, mainsteam and alternative often just try to fill in the gaps of what we don’t know as if we do.
LikeLike
Mark said, “The article you reference is pretty supportive of Robert Koch”. Yes it is, since they state agreement with Koch’s concluding assertion that the so-called TB bacterium is infectious. Apparently the authors (Holdrege, McAlice) don’t wish to analyze his experiments critically, or don’t know how….But thanks to them, this is the first time I’ve actually read a Robert Koch paper.
If Cowan hadn’t tripped up on the methylene blue issue, he might have finished reading the paper and presented something similar to what I show below.
The paper starts this way…
….“THE DISCOVERY OF VILLEMIN THAT tuberculosis can be transmitted to animals has been confirmed a number of times, but has also been opposed on seemingly good grounds, so that up until recently it has not been possible to state for certain whether tuberculosis is an infectious disease or not.”
-Ok, so we know that Koch’s intent is to “prove” that TB is an “infectious” disease. In the earlier parts of the paper, we read about the dyeing (methylene blue) for identification, then the preparation of the bacterial cultures themselves. Then we come to the meat of the matter, and Koch’s own description reveals that this supposed demonstration of transmission of an infectious pathogen (TB bacterium), is nothing more than a crude act of poisoning, just like most of the virus “proofs” offered over the last twelve decades, including polio and all the way up to sars-cov2.
-Koch explains the difference between “natural” infection, which he calls spontaneous TB, then gives the low-down on the results of his lab induced “infection”….Take note that, as the first sentence in 1 points out, his so-called “spontaneous TB” almost always affects the bronchials or lungs, whether in lab rats or humans. Why? Because of toxins (more or less) that we breath in. Inhaled (especially concentrated) toxins may cause physical damage, and a body in a state of unhealth might not repair the damage quickly, and bacteria cleaning up the mess may be stimulated to overgrow, and one might be diagnosed with pneumonia, and/or if things get worse, dare I say Tuberculosis? For “inadvertent”confirmation of that idea, see this paper: “https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7297158/”
(1)“In animals which have become sick from spontaneous tuberculosis, the bronchial glands become quite swollen and full of pus, and in most cases the lungs show a large, cheesy mass with extensive decomposition in the center, so that it occasionally resembles the similar processes in the human lung. . . . Animals that have been inoculated with tuberculosis show a completely different picture. The place of inoculation of the animals is in the abdomen, close to the inguinal gland. This first becomes swollen and gives an early and unmistakable indication that the inoculation has been a success. Since a larger amount of infectious material is present at the beginning, the infection progresses much faster than the spontaneous infection, and in tissue sections of these animals, the spleen and liver show more extensive changes from the tuberculosis than the lungs. Therefore it is not at all difficult to differentiate the artificially induced tuberculosis from the spontaneous tuberculosis in experimental animals….
-Paragraphs 1 and 2 emphasize the quantity of the poison introduced into the guinea pig’s body, with the phrases “larger amount of…material”, and “inoculated with fresh masses”. How much of this treatment can a small rodent withstand? A “mass” of bacteria, containing all of their toxic effluence (waste) is shoved (or injected) into a small body. The toxicity contained in this “mass” causes damage (cell death, etc.), giving the bacteria more food and reason to continue to reproduce. (To this damage add the bodily injury of a deep incision made to facilitate inoculation). The guinea pig is unable to counter this assault, and the gradual expansion of the damage and overgrowth of bacteria continues (as paragraph 2 shows) up to its death or extermination….….The size of the “dose” is emphasized again at the end of 3, “depending upon the size of the inoculum, large numbers of tubercles were produced.”
….(2)“The results are uniformly the same. In all animals which are inoculated with fresh masses containing tubercle bacilli, the small inoculation site has almost always coalesced on the next day, then remains unaltered for about eight days, then forms a little nodule which may enlarge without breaking open, although it most often changes into a flat, dry abscess. After about two weeks, the inguinal glands and axillary glands on the side where the inoculation has occurred enlarge until they are the size of peas. From then on the animals become progressively weaker and die after four to six weeks, or are killed in order to exclude the later development of spontaneous tuberculosis. In the organs of all of these animals, and most especially in the spleen and liver, the recognizable changes due to tuberculosis occur….
….(3) “The results of a number of inoculation experiments with bacillus cultures inoculated into a large number of animals, and inoculated in different ways, all have led to the same results. Simple injections subcutaneously, or into the peritoneal cavity, or into the anterior chamber of the eye, or directly into the blood stream, have all produced tuberculosis with only one exception. Further, the infection was not limited to only isolated nodules, but depending upon the size of the inoculum, large numbers of tubercles were produced.
-What other toxic inoculums could Koch have come up with that would have produced similar results?
-What if Koch figured out how to inject or inoculate only 2, or 10, or 200 bacteria into a lab pig or even a human? Would TB be the result? Not according to the link posted above, since WHO says that 25 percent of the world’s population is already infected…further confirmation that what Koch really did was conduct an experiment in toxicity. Dose response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This comment was misplaced, and OM asked me to move it here.
oregonmatt commented on The power of quotation marks
I draw your attention to a comment by XS that elaborates on an inadequate presentation on virus “isolation” as presented in my …
Mark said, “The article you reference is pretty supportive of Robert Koch”. Yes it is, since they state agreement with Koch’s concluding assertion that the so-called TB bacterium is infectious. Apparently the authors (Holdrege, McAlice) don’t wish to analyze his experiments critically, or don’t know how….But thanks to them, this is the first time I’ve actually read a Robert Koch paper.
If Cowan hadn’t tripped up on the methylene blue issue, he might have finished reading the paper and presented something similar to what I show below.
The paper starts this way…
….“THE DISCOVERY OF VILLEMIN THAT tuberculosis can be transmitted to animals has been confirmed a number of times, but has also been opposed on seemingly good grounds, so that up until recently it has not been possible to state for certain whether tuberculosis is an infectious disease or not.”
-Ok, so we know that Koch’s intent is to “prove” that TB is an “infectious” disease. In the earlier parts of the paper, we read about the dyeing (methylene blue) for identification, then the preparation of the bacterial cultures themselves. Then we come to the meat of the matter, and Koch’s own description reveals that this supposed demonstration of transmission of an infectious pathogen (TB bacterium), is nothing more than a crude act of poisoning, just like most of the virus “proofs” offered over the last twelve decades, including polio and all the way up to sars-cov2.
-Koch explains the difference between “natural” infection, which he calls spontaneous TB, then gives the low-down on the results of his lab induced “infection”….Take note that, as the first sentence in 1 points out, his so-called “spontaneous TB” almost always affects the bronchials or lungs, whether in lab rats or humans. Why? Because of toxins (more or less) that we breath in. Inhaled (especially concentrated) toxins may cause physical damage, and a body in a state of unhealth might not repair the damage quickly, and bacteria cleaning up the mess may be stimulated to overgrow, and one might be diagnosed with pneumonia, and/or if things get worse, dare I say Tuberculosis? For “inadvertent”confirmation of that idea, see this paper: “https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7297158/”
(1)“In animals which have become sick from spontaneous tuberculosis, the bronchial glands become quite swollen and full of pus, and in most cases the lungs show a large, cheesy mass with extensive decomposition in the center, so that it occasionally resembles the similar processes in the human lung. . . . Animals that have been inoculated with tuberculosis show a completely different picture. The place of inoculation of the animals is in the abdomen, close to the inguinal gland. This first becomes swollen and gives an early and unmistakable indication that the inoculation has been a success. Since a larger amount of infectious material is present at the beginning, the infection progresses much faster than the spontaneous infection, and in tissue sections of these animals, the spleen and liver show more extensive changes from the tuberculosis than the lungs. Therefore it is not at all difficult to differentiate the artificially induced tuberculosis from the spontaneous tuberculosis in experimental animals….
-Paragraphs 1 and 2 emphasize the quantity of the poison introduced into the guinea pig’s body, with the phrases “larger amount of…material”, and “inoculated with fresh masses”. How much of this treatment can a small rodent withstand? A “mass” of bacteria, containing all of their toxic effluence (waste) is shoved (or injected) into a small body. The toxicity contained in this “mass” causes damage (cell death, etc.), giving the bacteria more food and reason to continue to reproduce. (To this damage add the bodily injury of a deep incision made to facilitate inoculation). The guinea pig is unable to counter this assault, and the gradual expansion of the damage and overgrowth of bacteria continues (as paragraph 2 shows) up to its death or extermination….….The size of the “dose” is emphasized again at the end of 3, “depending upon the size of the inoculum, large numbers of tubercles were produced.”
….(2)“The results are uniformly the same. In all animals which are inoculated with fresh masses containing tubercle bacilli, the small inoculation site has almost always coalesced on the next day, then remains unaltered for about eight days, then forms a little nodule which may enlarge without breaking open, although it most often changes into a flat, dry abscess. After about two weeks, the inguinal glands and axillary glands on the side where the inoculation has occurred enlarge until they are the size of peas. From then on the animals become progressively weaker and die after four to six weeks, or are killed in order to exclude the later development of spontaneous tuberculosis. In the organs of all of these animals, and most especially in the spleen and liver, the recognizable changes due to tuberculosis occur….
….(3) “The results of a number of inoculation experiments with bacillus cultures inoculated into a large number of animals, and inoculated in different ways, all have led to the same results. Simple injections subcutaneously, or into the peritoneal cavity, or into the anterior chamber of the eye, or directly into the blood stream, have all produced tuberculosis with only one exception. Further, the infection was not limited to only isolated nodules, but depending upon the size of the inoculum, large numbers of tubercles were produced.
-What other toxic inoculums could Koch have come up with that would have produced similar results?
-What if Koch figured out how to inject or inoculate only 2, or 10, or 200 bacteria into a lab pig or even a human? Would TB be the result? Not according to the link posted above, since WHO says that 25 percent of the world’s population is already infected…further confirmation that what Koch really did was conduct an experiment in toxicity. Dose response.
LikeLike
One should always consider the possible unintended consequences when acting under the authority of a fictional title, especially when such titles only exist under the authority of a fictional government with fictional laws. All fictional persons/citizens are alien — “foreign; not belonging to the same country, land or government” — i.e. slaves on the occupied patch of dirt we call the state, or am I missing something very important?
LikeLike
https://www.brighteon.com/cdf766f0-15a2-4502-911c-946e6ef8c6dd
The seemingly endless quackery…..
LikeLike
A commenter on NakedCapitalism linked to this “preprint” study. I haven’t fully parsed it, but at a glance it seems to be unpacking how there’s “fun with statistics” to misrepresent the vaccines as beneficial. They use the UK data and claim there’s “systematic miscategorization” of vaxxed and unvaxxed, among other flaws. (Guessing that part of it is “vaxxed” being marked “unvaxxed” for 14 days after the “jab”.)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination
The commenter at NC had a good summary, with discussion from others:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/12/oslo-omicron-outbreak-a-textbook-aerosol-driven-superspreader-event-vax-only-totters.html
(somewhere midway down the comments, sorry I don’t recall the name)
LikeLike
LikeLike
Don’t forget he also did this lunay tune –
LikeLike
I re-read the Chan paper, as well as the Roberts 2005 paper (on the infection of SARS) that Chan was based on a few more times, a few things stand out to me:
In Roberts, the hamsters did not exhibit symptoms despite having a high viral load after inoculation; of course, this can be explained away by the difference of hamsters and humans; curiously the hamsters in Chan exhibited significant weight loss when inoculated with the “SARS-COV-2 sample”
Roberts injected Leibovitz 15 for the mock infection, Chan however used saline when he could have used Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium(BMEM) for an exact comparison
In Chan’s direct inoculation study, the viral load of the control group was not published, thus no comparison could be made between that of the infected and control group
In Chan’s transmission study, the contact samples did not exhibit symptoms(ie. weight loss) despite an increased viral load
Questions I have:
– Could the weight loss symptom in Chan been caused by the BMEM?
– Could the increased “viral load” of the contact sample been caused by, for example, an introduction to a new environment? Indeed, without exhibiting symptoms, could it be said that the increase in “viral load” shows “infection”?
LikeLike
Could the problems with the hamsters be caused by injecting toxins into them. When you inject toxins into animals it causes problems. I could inject them with a cyanide solution containing a ‘sars virus’ and have a control injected with saline what do you think will happen. The hamsters were not injected with a ‘virus’ but with other toxic substances the control needs to be all of the same toxic substances as the ‘virus’ solution minus the ‘virus’. You can not use saline as a control.
I should not have bothered to write this as you are either trolling of very stupid (I actually suspect the latter after dealing with the general population for the last 2 years) but I’ve written it now.
LikeLike
Have I not printed out the same problem you did? – that they should not have used saline as to make a comparison, and the weight loss could have been caused by BMEM?
I think we are in agreement here, I don’t see how my comment warrants the insult.
LikeLike
I do ask, Alexrimmer, that you refrain from personal insult. We all have our own outlook, many of us (like me) with miles to go before we sleep.
LikeLike
STEVE KELLY –
Re “What is making people sick?”, I’ll second what Gaia wrote above, the “treatment protocol” of Remdesivir and vents – everything I’ve seen suggests these are dangerous procedures. A replay of the use of deadly AZT during the AIDS scare.
And the vax – as that UK preprint study I linked above shows, mortality spikes after each vaccine roll-out or push. With the vaxxed miscategorized as unvaxxed (or single vaxxed) in the 14-day window after injection. This seems like an incredibly brazen and open gambit, and indeed we see these mainstream researchers spotting it and calling it out. But so far to little effect.
XS –
“I am convinced that pathogenic viruses do not exist and the “research” done on them borders on laughable.”
Can you elaborate on your views? Do you think the broad mass of virologists are indoctrinated, “true believers”? Or are they knowingly fraudulent? Or a mix of both?
Do you base your views on these early questionable studies many cite? What about the (I assume) thousands of modern virology studies that no doubt present an opaque web of jargon and endless mountains of “data”?
LikeLike
Most humans in the “industrial West” have already been subjected to many vaccines, which have used aluminum-based adjuvents. Here’s a list of (2019 — pre-Covid) FDA approved adjuvents. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/common-ingredients-us-licensed-vaccines
I theorize that our vaccine use and history of injecting toxins has weakened human immunity generally. Add to that all those internal and external toxins we battle from the food we eat. Food related health issues shows up in the rapid rise in diabetes, for example. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf
Baby-boomers are aging and dying in a pattern that mimics the birth rate in the 50s and 60s. Add all the other chemical, biological, psychological, etc. health risk factors and you can see it wouldn’t take much to tip over the apple cart for a significant number of souls living with one foot already on a banana peel.
In typical fashion, racketeers in the various medical industries cashing in on “the pandemic” have a track record of causing similar “problems” with the reaction and solution in hand poised to make a killing — literally in this case. Slow death yields higher profits. No wonder nothing ever works to cure the problem, but makes it worse, or maintains the status (non-life-threatening illness) quo of repeat visits to medical authorities, and an endless recommendation to take expensive drugs. It’s a racket that works.
LikeLike
In my mind, you theorise correctly Steve, vaccines and pollution are a blight on mankind. When I was a teenager, children with cancer was unheard of, but in my day we didn’t get over 82 jabs.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children-most-censored-topic-in-the-u-s/
LikeLike
Thanks, Jackie. Yes, vaccines and pollution are a blight on mankind. https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-dr-mike-yeadon-talks-about-covid-lies-dr-reiner-fuellmich/5753931?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
However, it’s just part of a much larger plan, as Stephers has been saying, and documenting meticulously for some time now. Graphine oxide is the key ingredient missing from most conversations about “The Plan.” I did not think my eyes would open wide enough, but finally have. I am most grateful.
From her m0st recent comment: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ZDinpMvQ_iEKYwX9XRLGSqYQ5SgWUKAS55wt5CRfMh4/edit#slide=id.ge38f5e4f7c_0_339
“Thus far, my “theory” (which was primarily laid out in April 2021 in my “Confessions” piece, and expanded upon in my 10-part series) has not been “debunked.” It still holds water; and if anything, it grows increasingly more pat and sound by the day. ”
If you go through the slide show, one, or more than one, image will act as a “trigger” which can, and will, IMO transport your mind into a higher level of understanding of the true nature of what’s going on. For me, it was the slide/diagram of the human gut and vagus nerve. For some reason that launched me beyond my own denial of certain obvious factors I had previously glossed over unconsciously. Because what is happening is unthinkable, inhumane in every sense, debilitating and/or deadly, it will take repetition and some time and effort to maintain our humanity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Do you base your views on these early questionable studies many cite?”
Yes, I do.
“What about the (I assume) thousands of modern virology studies that no doubt present an opaque web of jargon and endless mountains of “data”?”
To clarify, I don’t believe in pathogenic viruses, but that doesn’t rule out the existence of viruses.
If by “thousands of modern virology studies” you meant studies of pathogenic viruses, I get the impression that these are all based on misconceptions.
It is not uncommon in “science” to base entire studies and theses on a questionable premise.
The PTB have been creating an all-encompassing false reality for hundreds if not thousands of years because that is the most effective way to control the world’s population. Their main tool for this creation used to be religion and today is what is presented to us as science.
Science is the new world religion and therefore based primarily on faith, not demonstrable facts.
LikeLike
Thanks… I’d be curious where you stand in relation to Thomas Kuhn and his critique of science – he seemed to consider any “paradigm” necessarily limited, but took a more charitable view of the matter, in the sense that a “winning” paradigm could be “productive”, expanding knowledge and suggesting new ideas as long as it lasts – and its eventual breakdown, when/ if it comes, would yield the “advance” of a new paradigm (though he maybe doesn’t consider paradigms progressive, only more or less “productive” for research…)
Maybe he was disclosing some partial truths about the limits of science, while misdirecting from a greater fraud? He of course never alleges that any elite insiders intentionally set the parameters as a matter of theological or ideological control – in his view, IIRC, though personal politics and matters of power may enter into the battle over paradigms, the overall community of scientists is genuinely looking for a “productive paradigm” – and having found one, earnestly work in its light, until (if) the contradictions build up to a point they can’t be ignored.
(I’m not arguing for his view or any other, just wondering how you view his ideas and how he fits in.)
LikeLike
That was slide (See above) #169 that popped my cork. Here’s the study: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10114169
“An army marches on its stomach (gut).” – either Napoleon and Frederick the Great, or both, take your pick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha, thank you, this to me seems a perfect concise explanation for the “more informed” (evading the system- word of “educated”; as we know the (fish) school sytem is all but educational, hence my Newspeak aiducation; aid + education) audiences.
In short terms I described it with your valid correction (conrection? ; rectifying the con… just came now with my first cheese in a month), in mind.
What I literally said (memorywise I am an elephant in a sea of goldfish) is
* = my deepest sympathies for the unimaginable loss you must bear, I have lost 2 truthful inspirating friends 10 days aPART. in April 2020, both vehemently anti-false authority, as I am, not restricted or incoherent ; both men, proudly standing UP for it, and not like the too many weasels, weak unhinged, scared, submitting and / or playing along with the Animal Farmgenda. One of them you may know : the great grand Chris Kendall of Hoaxbuster fame, but your wife only passes on within Gaia’s mystical maze, spreading on in a next life her shamanic wisdoms
take comfort in the fact that at least she didn’t have to suffer the challenge of living in an at warpspeed deteriorating demonic world ; exactly that, which needs to be NPC ; a set of non-playable characters. Masked wombies, mutants, idiocratic crazies.
**2my own family history DEMANDS my and our resistance , being the result of a very thin thread in the last so-called World War… just like Molly and her breed and your wife.
You SEE we need to connect (talk ! join the mentalversity) and not wipe unknown terrains off as aCULT. ….!?
I responded to such bizarrely misguided missiles already, I think 10 steps aHEAD. that is my strength, power, aid and education.
and Molly fits in that perfectly, she was the missing guidance in my life
the Gaia Guidestones :
they are the sheep [self-chosen goyim]
we are shepherds [who need to lead those blind sheep, blind in the Pieceofmindful sense that we shepherds have as Gaia’s Gift]
but we need a shepherd dog
$$$ if we can arrange it, my part of this life mission is to get an UNraped baby of my Molly to you in Oregon.
it couldn’t be too hard; one ocean between us
join Eye am Eye Radio and talk with me and aSHIFT. cocreator Ophallus, Oregonian como usted….
do me a favor and listen to a-fucking-WAKE brother K-Rino with me:
LikeLike
https://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php?title=ASHIFT#what_is_aSHIFT_not
no wiki access from this damn tablet….
I have done all this almost pro bono, thanks for the Matronage Ophallus, Traxo, Winnie the Flu, yFake.
support Molly and MY TECH BACK please
https://www.patreon.com/iamiradio
LikeLike