The “ask” of the No Virus camp seems pretty simple: they want scientists to follow the scientific method so that it can be determined whether viruses, as currently defined, exist and cause disease. They want an isolated virus—that is, an independent variable—and they want proper controls. However, the status quo defends its current methods. Dr. Thomas Cowan describes a common experience among No Virus proponents:
When I ask doctors or virologists why they don’t carry out [a] simple, clear, logical, rational proof to demonstrate the existence of a new virus and show it causes disease, I hear one of two answers. The first is that not enough of the virus is present in any bodily fluid of any sick person to find it in this way. [For instance, Dr. Kaufman] even asked scientists whether they would see the virus if the bronchial fluid from 10,000 people with “COVID” were pooled, but the response is the same: “There is not enough virus to find.” This, of course, begs the question: On what theory are we then claiming the virus is making people sick? To this, there is no answer.103Put another way, if there isn’t “enough virus” for it to be studied, then what is the mechanism by which it is so contagious, and in some cases, deadly? And furthermore, how do they know that there isn’t enough of the virus…if they’re admitting that they haven’t isolated it in the first place?
In fact, the argument that Dr. Cowan references is the same one that Dr. Luc Montagnier made when he acknowledged “we did not purify” (in his 1983 HIV work). Dr. Montagnier elaborated in an interview in 1997: “There was so little production of the virus [that] it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of the virus from the gradient [‘pure virus’]. There was not enough virus to do that.”104Dr. Cowan continues: “The second answer I have heard [in defense of virology’s typical methods] is that viruses are intracellular ‘parasites’—so, of course, we can’t find them outside the cells. When asked how the virus passes from one person to another, as we are told it does, virologists reply, ‘It buds out of the cell, goes into a droplet and travels to the next person.’ In other words, the virus is transmitted when it is outside of the cell. I can only wonder why virologists can’t find it during this transmission step since they clearly think it is outside the cell.”105
Another defense of virology’s methods is that the technology doesn’t exist to isolate particles as small as viruses. However, Dr. Kaufman argues that exosomes and bacteriophages, which are similarly sized, have been isolated. He points to representative studies to back up his claim.106 Dr. Stefan Lanka adds, “These [bacteriophages] could be photographed, isolated as whole particles, and all their components could be biochemically determined and characterized. This is real, and cannot be contested….This, however, has never happened with alleged viruses of humans, animals, and plants because these do not exist.”107Finally, the HART organization—a group of distinguished doctors, scientists, and other academics in the United Kingdom—published a critique of the No Virus position in an October 2023 article. They explicitly acknowledge that “there has never been a pure isolate of SARS-CoV-2 virus.” Incredibly, they then remark: “This could be because no-one [sic] has tried hard enough to carry out this work.” Their article also refers to “the virus model.” This is an admission that, even from a mainstream perspective, the notion of a contagious, disease-causing virus has not been firmly established. (Note: For a point-by-point rebuttal of the article’s contentions, see Dr. Cowan’s October 11, 2023, webinar alongside Dr. Mark Bailey.108) [emphasis added]
Dr. Stefan Lanka’s Control Study
One might rightly ask: If the No Virus perspective is correct about something so fundamental, why don’t its advocates simply conduct their own laboratory experiments to demonstrate the flaws in modern virology? Why don’t they run proper controls on their own? Going forward, this would be an important strategy for the No Virus camp, if they can obtain the funding to do so. Scientific journals would likely be reluctant to publish such research, but the studies could still be done. It also takes brave scientists to engage in such a matter. They could be risking their careers.
There is one noteworthy instance, however. The study was conducted by Dr. Stefan Lanka in 2021 and, not surprisingly, it wasn’t published in a mainstream journal. He sought to study whether cell breakdown occurs in cell-culture soups…without adding fluids from a sick person believed to be sick from a virus. In other words, he wanted to see if the various substances in cell-culture soups cause cells to break down on their own. This is the sort of control study that the No Virus camp had been asking for.
Dr. Cowan summarizes the results:
[One of Dr. Lanka’s trials] shows what happened when [he] used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. This included changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration….On day five of the experiment, the characteristic [cell breakdown] occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the [cell breakdown] was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.109 [emphasis added]
Dr. Lanka ran another trial just like this one, except that he added yeast RNA—rather than fluids from a person sick from an alleged virus—to the cell-culture soup. Again, the cells in the soup broke down.110Thus, these trials demonstrate that cellular breakdown in classic virology experiments can occur without a virus. The implication—if extended beyond this experiment—is that the gold-standard virology experiments aren’t proving the existence of a disease-causing virus. In other words, the effect that scientists typically see could be an artifact of the way the experiment is set up.
Many more similar experiments and independent replications are needed, but Dr. Lanka’s results lend initial support to the No Virus camp’s position. Also, No Virus proponents have found some examples in virology papers suggesting that the procedure itself can cause cells to break down—which supports Dr. Lanka’s findings.111
Challenges to Virology Prevail in German Courts
For those who accept Dr. Lanka’s results, they are powerful and certainly challenge the core of virology. But No Virus advocates also find hope in court victories in Germany—two instances in particular. The first relates to a 2011 challenge issued by Dr. Lanka: he offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could show scientific evidence that the measles virus exists. He did this because he was concerned about a growing momentum to mandate the measles vaccine for children in Germany. In 2015, physician David Bardens sued Dr. Lanka for 100,000 euros because he submitted six papers which, in his mind, proved the existence of the measles virus. Dr. Samantha Bailey analyzed the six papers and gave a summary as to why they don’t show virus isolation:1121. The 1954 Enders and Peebles study (the problems with its cell-culture-soup design have already been discussed).113
2. A 1958 cell-culture experiment similar to the Enders and Peebles study, which suffered from the same problems.114
3. A 1969 paper showing many pictures of alleged viruses but lacked evidence that the photographs were of viruses. The particles also weren’t established to be infectious or disease-causing.115
4. A 1984 paper in which the authors showed purified particles that they claimed to be measles viruses, but lacked evidence that they were in fact measles viruses that cause disease.1165. A 1995 consensus review paper in which the authors claimed to describe the measles virus genome.117 As Dr. Bailey puts it: “This [genome] was based on detecting genetic fragments in test tubes and assembling them into a hypothetical model. It was not established that the computer-generated sequence exists in nature.”
6. A 2007 paper describing a classic cell-culture experiment with monkey kidney cells, which ran no controls and had the same methodological problems that all virology studies do.118A lower court in Germany—which did not rely on expert-witness testimony—ordered Dr. Lanka to pay Dr. Bardens, and the media jumped on the story. What the media talks about much less is the fact that Dr. Lanka appealed the case and won in 2016. Dr. Bardens then appealed to the highest court in Germany, and his appeal was dismissed.119 So Dr. Lanka ultimately won.
Skeptics claim that Dr. Lanka only won because of a technicality or a semantic formulation. However, during the proceedings, Andreas Podbielski—a professor in the department of medical microbiology and virology in Rostock—admitted that none of the six papers that Dr. Bardens submitted had been done with proper controls.120 As Dr. Samantha Bailey summarizes the situation: “The best six papers in the entire measles ‘virus’ literature didn’t follow the scientific method.”121 [emphasis added]
The second victory in the German court system came in April 2023 at the hands of engineer Marvin Haberland. He wanted to challenge COVID-19 lockdown measures, so he intentionally violated a local mask mandate and was fined, which enabled him to present a case in court.
Germany’s COVID-19 policies were dependent on the Law for the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Humans. The first paragraph of the law suggested that institutions needed to abide by science—meaning they needed to follow the scientific method. Haberland comments that he heard Dr. Lanka—who is one of his “heroes”—once suggest that if a person receives a fine, the strategy should be to point to the first paragraph of the law and argue that it’s not fulfilled because virology does not follow the scientific method. And if paragraph one is not fulfilled, then the rest of the law should become irrelevant.
Haberland decided to use this exact argument in his case. He even asked virologists around the world about their “control” studies. He reports: “None of them carried out the controls, and they even admit that….They really admit that they do not do any scientific controls….For the first step [of virus isolation experiments], which is the [cell breakdown step] they will sometimes say they do [controls], but when they are asked to provide documentation or evidence on how they did it, they also cannot do it.”122 He adds, “We have hundreds of letters from virologists all over the world confirming they have not done the control experiments—specifically in the genome sequencing—nobody has done them.” [emphasis added]
In 2023, the judge assigned to Haberland’s case decided to close the case—which was an effective concession and a victory for Haberland. Four others replicated Haberland’s template, and the same thing happened: the court closed the cases. As Haberland puts it: “If the court had any possible chance to win, they would use the [opportunity] to try to somehow make a precedent and show everyone, ‘Look, these [No Virus] people are stupid. They have no chance, and virology is actually a [legitimate] thing.’ But they didn’t make this case.” In other words, Haberland feels that the judge closed his case “to avoid any further damage to virology.” He also speculates that the judge could have put himself in danger if he had allowed virology’s problems to be exposed so publicly.123Freedom of Information Challenges
Governments around the world have also admitted to virology’s failure to physically isolate viruses. The admissions have come through “freedom of information” (FOI) submissions led by biostatistician Christine Massey of Canada. FOI requests allow everyday citizens in many countries to obtain access to records that aren’t already in the public domain. In June 2023, Massey summarized the state of the FOI process:
Myself and people around the world have taken advantage of this process to seek records that would be necessary in order for anyone to show the existence of the alleged COVID-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2). And if somebody actually wanted to conduct science and show that there is a virus that is infecting people, they would need to actually find it in order to [genetically] sequence and characterize a particle and study it. With controlled experiments…you would actually have to have a sample of this alleged virus to work with. And if nobody has a sample of the alleged virus, then nobody can have conducted any science. And so this is what the majority of these FOI requests were focused on. We were asking for any records of anyone in the world ever finding this alleged virus in the bodily fluid or tissue or excrement of any people anywhere on Earth by anyone, ever.
And to date, we have responses from 216 different institutions in forty different countries, and so far no one has been able to provide us with even one record. They can’t provide us with even one record, and they can’t cite any record. So they’ve all admitted that they don’t have a sample of the alleged virus, and they don’t even know of anyone else who did obtain a sample of this alleged virus.124 [emphasis added]
For example, the first record obtained was from the CDC (with letterhead from the US Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]) on November 2, 2020, in response to a FOI request. The request asked for:
All records in the possession, custody, or control of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) describing the isolation of the SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample from a diseased patient, where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e., monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; lung cells from a lung cancer patient).
Please note that I am using “isolation” in the everyday sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where “isolation of SARS-COV-2” refers instead to: the culturing of something; or the performance of an amplification test (i.e., a PCR test); or the sequencing of something.
Please note that my request is not limited to records that were authored by the CDC or that pertain to work done by the CDC. My request includes any sort of record, for example (but not limited to) any published peer-reviewed study that the CDC has downloaded or printed.
If any such records match the above description of requested records and are currently available to the public elsewhere, please provide enough information about each record so that I may identify and access each record with certainty (i.e., title, author[s], date, journal, where the public may access it).125
The response from the CDC, via the HHS, was: “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.”126 [emphasis added]
Massey notes that in all of the responses starting from March 1, 2021, the CDC “stopped admitting flat out that they didn’t have any records. They started giving more convoluted responses to make it sound like they do have science when they actually don’t. And [they direct] us to irrelevant studies.”
A March 1, 2021, response from the CDC stated: “The definition of ‘isolation’ provided in the request is outside of what is possible in virology.”127 So the CDC is saying that isolating an independent variable in a scientific experiment, which is necessary in order to do science, is not possible. It’s an explicit admission, as the No Virus group sees it, that virology is not practicing science. [emphasis added]
In another request, Massey’s team asked for details about control methods used in virus isolation studies and the whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2. The UK Health Agency responded on March 25, 2022, by citing a “national security” exemption, arguing that releasing details would “directly contravene an explicit request from the World Health Organization.”128
Massey decided to expand the search beyond SARS-CoV-2, asking government agencies to point her to evidence for the isolation of any alleged virus from any diseased person. In a December 20, 2021, response from the Public Health Agency of Canada, the answer was: “Your request resulted in a ‘No Records Exist,’ because of the way that you have formulated your request. The isolation of a virus cannot be completed without the use of another medium….The gold standard assay used to determine the presence of intact virus in patient samples is virus isolation in cell culture.”129 However, as discussed earlier, the No Virus argument contends that the so-called gold-standard, cell-culture-soup method is highly problematic. And this is the point that the No Virus camp makes: the field of virology is presupposing that the gold-standard method dating back to 1954 is valid, when apparently few scientists have gone back to question the foundation on which the entire field is based.
Massey has also started to request evidence for the isolation of other viruses specifically. She’s received responses from various agencies around the world, and so far they have been unable to provide records for the following “viruses”: adenovirus, Ebola-virus, Epstein-Barr, hepatitis B and C, herpes, HIV, HPV, H1N1 (swine flu), H5N1 (avian flu), lentivirus, Marburg virus, measles, MERS, monkeypox, rabies, RSV, SARS (or any other common-cold-associated coronaviruses), smallpox, West Nile, XMRV, and Zika.130These are startling results.
Settling the Virus Debate
Dr. Mark Bailey sums up the No Virus position well: “One of the pivotal issues with virology was that it invented itself as a field before establishing if viruses actually existed. It has been trying to justify itself since its inception.”131The fundamental problems discussed in this chapter thus give reason to doubt a key element of germ-focused allopathic medicine. There isn’t much of a middle ground here: either you believe there are deadly viruses that can be transmitted from person to person—and live with the appropriate precautions—or you don’t. From a public-health-policy perspective, the differences are massive. Lock-downs, mask regulations, vaccine mandates, business shutdowns, surveillance, and all of the measures we’ve experienced during the COVID-19 era would make no sense if the deadly virus justifying the measures didn’t exist in the way that we’ve been told. Furthermore, without an “invisible enemy,” any future pandemics—and associated tyrannical measures—wouldn’t be possible. So this is far more than an intellectual exercise.
A proposed method to resolve the matter was outlined by twenty doctors, scientists, and researchers in July of 2022—all of whom signed a document titled “Settling the Virus Debate.”132 It lays out the precise scientific protocols that multiple virology labs around the world could conduct. As of the time of this writing, more than a year after the document’s publication, there haven’t been any takers. (Note: Dr. Stefan Lanka did not include his name as a signatory because he feels that virology has already been refuted and there isn’t a need to offer virology any more challenges.133)
An overarching hurdle for the No Virus position is that a negative can’t be proven. It’s not possible to prove that something doesn’t exist. But, at the same time, it also can’t be proven that a “flying spaghetti monster” doesn’t exist.134 There’s always the possibility: “Maybe we just haven’t found it yet.”.
103 Cowan, Breaking the Spell, 4. In personal correspondence with Dr. Kaufman on October 2, 2023, he clarified an error in Dr. Cowan’s quotation: it was Dr. Kaufman, rather than Dr. Cowan, who asked the scientists. This clarification is reflected in brackets within the quotation.
104 Banks, AIDS, Opium, Diamonds, and Empire, 298.
105 Cowan, Breaking the Spell, 5.
106 DrAndrewKaufman, “VIRUS-ISOLATION IS IT REAL? ANDREW KAUFMAN MD RESPONDS TO JEREMY HAMMOND,” https://www.bitchute.com/video/UnpfmjmXNH0O/. He cites “Purification of Bacteriophages Using Anion-Exchange Chromatography,” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29134587/. “Standardized bacteriophage purification for personalized phage therapy,” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41596-020-0346-0. In personal correspondence with the author on October 2, 2023, Dr. Kaufman also referenced papers showing methods of isolating exosomes: Patel et al., “Comparative analysis of exosome isolation methods using culture supernatant for optimum yield, purity and downstream applications,” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41800-2; Chen et al., “Review on Strategies and Technologies for Exosome Isolation and Purification,” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2021.811971; and Rai et al., “A Protocol for Isolation, Purification, Characterization, and Functional Dissection of Exosomes,” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420988/.
107 Dr. Sam Bailey, “Stefan Lanka: ‘Virus, It’s Time To Go,’ ” https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Stefan-Lanka-Virus-Its-Time-To-Go:1?src=embed. Dr. Lanka also writes: “The (bacterio)phages have indeed been isolated in the meaning of the word ‘isolation’ with standard methods (density gradient centrifugation). Immediately after the isolation they have been photographed in an electron microscope, their purity is determined and then their components, their proteins and their DNA have been biochemically described all at once, in one single paper….With respect to all ‘viruses’ of humans, animals or plants, however, no virus was ever isolated, photographed in an isolated form and its components were never biochemically characterised all at once, from the ‘isolate.’ In reality, there was a consensus process, taking place over quite a number of years, in which single particles of dead cells were theoretically ascribed to a totally virtual virus model. The phages served as a model for this entire interpretation process, as we can see clearly from the first drawings of a ‘virus.’ ” See Lanka, “The Misconception called ‘Virus,’ ” https://archive.org/details/paper-virus-lanka-002/mode/2up.
108 The HART Group’s October 4, 2023, article, “Why HART uses the virus model” can be accessed at: https://www.hartgroup.org/virus-model/. For a point-by-point rebuttal of the HART Group’s contentions, see Dr.TomCowan, “WEBINAR WITH DR. MARK BAILEY ON THE HART GROUP: OCTOBER 11, 2023, https://www.bitchute.com/video/lAJp8FwPrMSi/.
109 Cowan, Breaking the Spell, 13.
110 Ibid., 14.
111 For example, as mentioned in a previous endnote, Drs. Cowan and Kaufman (among others) have pointed to a line in the 1954 Enders and Peebles paper that they feel is suggestive that they performed an additional, telling experiment, but they didn’t describe it in detail. The researchers found cellular breakdown in an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells that “could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses obtained from measles.” In other words, when the human fluids were not added to the culture, the same cellular breakdown occurred. This has been interpreted to mean that something in the “soup” itself causes cells to break down, not an alleged virus. As is the case with many technical papers, there are varying interpretations, and one allegation against the No Virus position here is that it takes the line out of context. However, Dr. Cowan points to an additional line from a 1957 follow-up paper by Dr. Enders, in which Dr. Enders cites another virologist who said that a particle was found that was “indistinguishable” from the virus. For more on these studies, see Cowan, Breaking the Spell, 7; Enders and Peebles, “Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles,” 15. DrAndrewKaufman, “Virus-Isolation Is It Real? Andrew_Kaufman Responds To Jeremy Hammond,” https://odysee.com/@DrAndrewKaufman:f/Virus_Isolation_Is_It_Real_Andrew_Kaufman_Responds_To_Jeremy-Hammond:9. Additionally, in personal correspondence with Dr. Kaufman on October 2, 2023, he referenced an early paper on monkeypox suggesting that the cell-culture methodology itself can cause cells to break down. See von Magnus et al, “A Pox-like Disease in Cynomolgus Monkeys,” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1699-0463.1959.tb00328.x.
112 Dr. Sam Bailey, “The Measles Myth,” https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/themeaslesmyth:0.
113 Enders and Peebles, “Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles.”
114 Bech, “Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures,” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13508251/. Some websites state that this paper was published in 1959; however, PubMed shows that it was published in 1958.
115 Nakai and Imagawa, “Electron Microscopy of Measles Virus Replication,” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC375751/.
116 Lund et al., “The Molecular Length of Measles Virus RNA and the Structural Organization of Measles Nucleocapsids,” https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-65-9-1535.
117 Horikami and Moyer, “Structure, transcription, and replication of measles virus,” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7789161/.
118 Daikoku et al., “Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles,” Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles,” https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Analysis-of-Morphology-and-Infectivity-of-Measles-Eriko-Daikoku/0b85babe55d54b0f58bca35f586852786f25b088.
119 Dr. Sam Bailey, “Stefan Lanka: ‘Virus, It’s Time To Go,’ ” https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Stefan-Lanka-Virus-Its-Time-To-Go:1?src=embed.
120 Ibid. Also discussed in Markolin, Measles Virus Put to the Test, https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/Lanka_Bardens_Trial_E.pdf. Dr. Markolin writes: “According to the minutes of the court proceedings (p. 7/first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of ‘indirect evidence’). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a ‘methodological weakness’ of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the measles virus). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.”
121 Dr. Sam Bailey, “Stefan Lanka: ‘Virus, It’s Time To Go,’ ” https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Stefan-Lanka-Virus-Its-Time-To-Go:1?src=embed.
122 Dr. Sam Bailey, “Marvin vs. Virology: COVID Taken to Court,” https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Marvin-vs-Virology-COVID-Taken-To-Court:3.
123 Dr. Sam Bailey, “Runaway Virology—Marvin Win in Court,” https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Runaway-Virology-Marvin-Wins-In-Court:b?src=embed.
124 ChrisMasseyFOIs, “OFFICIAL EVIDENCE THAT VIROLOGY IS PSEUDOSCIENCE – CHRISTINE MASSEY JUNE 10 2023,” https://www.bitchute.com/video/gvu4NbieSuVb/.
125 Department of Health and Human Services, “FOI response: November 2, 2020,” https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/USA-CDC-Virus-Isolation-Response-Scrubbed.pdf.
126 Ibid.
127 Department of Health and Human Services, “FOI response: March 1, 2021,” https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CDC-March-1-2021-SARS-COV-2-Isolation-Response-Redacted.pdf.
128 UK Health Security Agency, “FOI Response 25 March 2022,” https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/UK-HSA-isolation-sequencing-methods-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf.
129 Public Health Agency of Canada, “Response to Christine Massey 20 December, 2021,” https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/PHAC-ANY-virus-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf.
130 See details of each response at Fluoride Free Peel, “FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any ‘virus’ having been found in a host and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science,” https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-have-no-record-of-any-virus-having-been-isolated-purified-virology-isnt-a-science/. Massey walks through her website in this video: ChrisMasseyFOIs, “OFFICIAL EVIDENCE THAT VIROLOGY IS PSEUDOSCIENCE – CHRISTINE MASSEY JUNE 10, 2023,” https://www.bitchute.com/video/gvu4NbieSuVb/.
131 Bailey, “A Farewell to Virology,” 19.
132 Cowan et al., “Settling the Virus Debate,” https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SETTLING-THE-VIRUS-DEBATE-Source.pdf.
133 Dr. Sam Bailey, “Stefan Lanka: ‘Virus, It’s Time To Go,’ ” https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Stefan-Lanka-Virus-Its-Time-To-Go:1?src=embed.
134 Official Church of the FSM, https://www.spaghettimonster.org/.
From: An End to UpsideDown Medicine
Contagion, Viruses, and Vaccines—and Why Consciousness Is Needed for a New Paradigm of Health
Mark Gober
No comments:
Post a Comment