“Treatments” that Cause the Disease?

 

Rabies is a rare disease, so rare that the vast majority of doctors will never see a single case of the condition in their lifetimes. From 2000 through to 2020, there were only 52 human cases in the United States, making it one of the rarest diseases known to mankind.199 Despite this fact, the specter of rabies haunts the human imagination and a large proportion of the population believes that a single bite from an animal comes with a high risk of “catching” the disease. Probably as a result of this fear, rabies is frequently cited as both evidence for infectious disease (caused by a “virus”) and the need for vaccines.

Louis Pasteur is credited with the development of the rabies vaccine in the late 19th century after his public declaration that it had been successfully trialled in dogs preceding the then, first human trial. Wikipedia states that Pasteur, along with compatriot, Émile Roux,

developed the first rabies vaccination in 1885. Nine-year-old Joseph Meister (1876–1940), who had been mauled by a rabid dog, was the first human to receive this vaccine. The treatment started with a subcutaneous injection on 6 July 1885, at 8:00pm, which was followed with 12 additional doses administered over the following 10 days.200

The subsequent recovery of the young peasant Joseph was put down to Pasteur's alleged “treatment” which was a convenient explanation for what actually took place. The first issue is that rabies is a condition and whoever makes the diagnosis makes their decision based on a subjective selection from a collection of symptoms and signs. There is no objective test that can be performed and independently verified. Joseph had received at least a dozen bites from the dog but there was no way to know that he had or was going to develop rabies. Instead, as was reported, “upon examining the boy's wounds, Drs Vulpian and Grancher concluded that he almost surely faced death from rabies.”201 Therefore, despite Joseph being without symptoms, it had already been decided that any intervention that was administered at this point could be declared as life-saving.

The second issue is the nature of what was injected into the boy. Pasteur’s “transmission” experiments in animals were typically carried out by injecting tissue from a diseased animal into another animal with the claim that the diseased tissue contained an “infectious” agent. His experiments were not scientifically controlled and this type of exposure route does not require the existence of a germ to damage or kill the recipient animal. Pasteur’s vaccine was simply a variation of these experiments: he took spinal cord material from a dead rabbit, then “attenuated” the imagined germ by drying the tissue for around a week, and injected this into Joseph. The theory was that the claimed germ was weakened by this process which would allow the boy to become “immune” to the disease.

This dubious practice of inoculation with disease products to supposedly prevent disease in others persists until this day. Whether people believe it to be a valid health measure or not, it can be shown that the widely claimed success stories for Pasteur’s rabies vaccine were fallacious. After his long-hidden journals were finally disclosed in the mid-1970s, it was apparent that his public announcements about the successful treatment of rabies in dogs were fraudulent. In the 1995 book, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, author Gerald Geison revealed that, “the survival rates for the two sets of dogs fall into the following ranges for the dogs treated by Pasteur, 50 to 78 percent, for the untreated control dogs, 57 to 71 percent.”202 In other words, there was no evidence that his rabies shot was of any use at all.

In fact, it was probably even worse. As Dr Montague Leverson reported in 1909, the widespread use of Pasteur’s rabies vaccines in France corresponded with a dramatic increase in the number of cases of the condition that it was supposedly preventing:

During twenty-three years preceding the use of the anti-rabic serum there were 685 deaths from rabies in all France, or an average of 30 per annum. But since the use of the anti-rabic inoculations the average has risen to 100 per annum, in place of 30, with a continually increasing number each year, so that according to the official returns the number of deaths from rabies in France for the year ending in June, 1907, was just about 300. In truth, as Professor Peter said, in his address to the Academy of Medicine, Paris, on the 11th of January, 1887, “M. Pasteur does not cure rabies he imparts it!”203

Geison had already written an article in 1978 outlining the overblown claims about the risk of humans developing rabies and the role of the rabies vaccine in treating victims of animal bites:

In any case, most victims of rabid animal bites could forego treatment without experiencing any untoward consequences in the future…In vaccinating the victim of an animal bite against rabies…one can never be sure that the subject of treatment has in fact contracted the disease. And one can therefore never be sure whether the treatment is even potentially beneficial to him or to anyone else.204

However, the enduring rabies mythology means that many people are convinced of the need for a vaccine if they have been bitten by an animal. As a consequence, if they do develop symptoms of rabies following such an injection, it can of course be blamed on the rabies “virus” rather than the purported treatment. Once again, it cannot be emphasized enough that there are much better actions to take to improve health instead of worrying about things that will almost certainly never affect us The illogical beliefs about rabies and the oft-repeated claim that the condition must be caused by a “virus” prompted us to publish the video, What About Rabies? in 2022.205

199 Ma, X., et al., Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2019,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 1 Jun 2021: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.258.11.1205

200 “Rabies vaccine,” Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies_vaccine (accessed 25 Sep 2022)

201 Geison, G., The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, Princeton University Press, 1995

202 Ibid.

203 Leverson, M., “English city of Leicester as example of benefits of abolition of vaccination,” Bridgeport Evening Farmer, 21 Aug 1909.

204 Geison, G., “Pasteur’s Work on Rabies: Reexamining the Ethical Issues,” The Hastings Center Report, Apr 1978: https://doi.org/10.2307/3560403

205 Bailey, S., “What About Rabies?,” drsambailey.com, 5 Aug 2022: https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/what-about-rabies/

by Mark Bailey & Samantha Bailey

www.drsambailey.com

The Final Pandemic: An Antidote To Medical Tyranny

Factors Allegedly Preventing Virus Isolation

 

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

Béchamp’s Microzymas or ‘little bodies’

AS SHOWN IN THE SECOND CHAPTER, Béchamp was the first to prove that the moulds accompanying fermentation were, or contained, living organisms, and could not be spontaneously generated, but must be an outgrowth of some living organism carried in the air.

This much was in his 1858 memoir, six years before Pasteur came to the same conclusions.

Being the first to realize that these moulds or ferments were living organisms, he naturally was also the first to attempt to determine their true nature and functions, and their origins.

On putting some under the microscope, he noted a diversity in appearance of the moulds and was soon involved in a study of cell life.

In his earlier experiments, Béchamp had used several salts, including potassium carbonate, in the presence of which the inversion of cane sugar did not take place. But when he repeated this experiment using calcium carbonate (common chalk) instead of the potassium carbonate, he found that inversion of the cane sugardidtake place, even when creosote was added. This observation was so unexpected that he omitted it from his earlier memoir in order to verify it before publication of the fact.In carefully controlled experiments he found that when chemically pure calcium carbonate, CaCO3, was added to his sugar solutions, no inversion took place, but when ordinary chalk, even that chipped from the native rock without access of air, was used, inversion always occurred.

On heating the common chalk to 300 degrees, he found that it lost its powers of fermentation, and on examining more of the unheated common chalk under the microscope, he found it contained some ‘little bodies’ similar to those found in prior observations, and which he found did not exist in the chemically pure CaCO3, nor in the chalk that had been heated.These ‘little bodies’ had the power of movement and were smaller than any of the microphytes seen in fermentation or moulds, but were more powerful ferments than any he had encountered previously.

Their power of movement and production of fermentation caused him to regard them as living organisms.

He advised Dumas of his discovery of living organisms in chalk in December 1864, and later, on September 26, 1865, he wrote a letter which Dumas published. He stated:

“Chalk and milk contain already developed living beings,  which is proved by the fact that creosote, employed in a non-coagulating dose, does not prevent milk from finally turning, nor chalk, without extraneous help, from converting both sugar and starch into alcohol and then into acetic acid, tartaric acid, and butyric acid...” Which was ample proof that there was a ferment, a living organism, present in both milk and chalk. He said of these:

“The naturalist will not be able to distinguish them by a description; but the chemist and also the physiologist will characterize them by their function. 

Professor Béchamp found that the chalk seemed to be formed mostly of the mineral or fossil remains of a ‘microscopic world’ and contained organisms of infinitesimal size, which he believed to be alive.

He also believed they might be of immense antiquity, as he had traced the block of limestone he had used to the Tertiary Period in geology; yet he found that stone cut from the solid ledge, with all air excluded, had ‘wonderful’ fermentative powers, which he traced to the same ‘little bodies’ that he had found to cause fermentation in his earlier experiments. He concluded that they must have lived embedded in the stone of the ledge for many thousands of years.

In 1866, he sent to the Academy of Science a memoir called On the Role of Chalk in Butyric and Lactic Fermentations, and the Living Organism Contained in it. 

In this paper, he named his ‘little bodies’microzymas,from the Greek words forsmall ferment.

He also studied the relations of his microzymas of chalk to the molecular granulations of animal and vegetable cells, with many more geological examinations, and wrote a paper entitledOn Geological Microzymas of Various Origins, which was abstracted inComptes Rendus of the session of April 25, 1870. 

He proved that the molecular granulation found in yeast and other animal and vegetable cells had individuality and life, and also had the power to cause fermentation, and so he called themmicrozymas also.He called his geological microzymas ‘morphologically identical’ with the microzymas of living beings.

In innumerable laboratory experiments, assisted now by Professor Estor – another very able scientist – he found microzymas everywhere, in all organic matter, in both healthy tissues and in diseased, where he also found them associated with various kinds of bacteria.

After painstaking study they decided that the microzymas rather than the cell were the elementary units of life, and were in fact the builders of cell tissues. They also concluded that bacteria are an outgrowth, or an evolutionary form, of microzymas that occur when a quantity of diseased tissues is broken up into its constituent elements.

In other words, all living organisms, he believed, from the one-celled amoeba to mankind, are associations of these minute living entities, and their presence is necessary for cell life to grow and for cells to be repaired.

Bacteria, they proved, can develop from microzyma by passing through certain intermediate stages, which they described, and which have been regarded by other researchers as different species!

The germs of the air, they decided, were merely microzymas, or bacteria set free when their former habitat was broken up, and they concluded that the ‘little bodies’ in the limestone and chalk were the survivors of living beings of long past ages.

This brought them to the beginning of 1868, and to test these ideas they buried the body of a kitten  in pure carbonate of lime, specially prepared and creosoted to exclude any airborne or outside germs.

They placed it in a glass jar and covered the open top with several sheets of paper, placed so as to allow renewal of the air without allowing dust or organisms to enter. This was left on a shelf in Béchamp’s laboratory until the end of 1874.

When opened, it was found that the kitten’s body had been entirely consumed except for some small fragments of bone and dry matter. There was no smell, and the carbonate of lime was not discoloured.

Under the microscope, microzymas were not seen in the upper part of the carbonate of lime, but ‘swarmed by thousands’ in the part that had been below the kitten’s body.

As Béchamp thought that there might have been airborne germs in the kitten’s fur, lungs or intestines, he repeated this experiment, using the whole carcass of a kitten in one case, the liver only in another, and the heart, lungs and kidneys in a third test. These viscera were plunged into carbolic acid the moment they had been detached from the slaughtered animal. This experiment began in June 1875 and continued to August 1882 – over seven years.

It completely satisfied him that his idea – that microzymas were the living remains of plant and animal life of which, in either a recent or distant past, they had been the constituent cellular elements, and that they were in fact the primary anatomical elements of all living beings – was correct.

He proved that on the death of an organ its cells disappear, but the microzymas remain, imperishable.

As the geologists estimated that the chalk rocks or ledges from which he took his ‘geological microzymas’ were 11 million years old, it was proof positive that these microzymas could live in a dormant state for practically unlimited lengths of time.

When he again found bacteria in the remains of the second experiment, as he had in the first, he concluded that he had proved, because of the care taken to exclude airborne organisms, that bacteria can and do develop from microzymas, and are in fact a scavenging form of the microzymas, developed when death, decay, or disease cause an extraordinary amount of cell life either to need repair or be broken up.

He wrote in 1869:

“In typhoid fever, gangrene and anthrax, the existence has been found of bacteria in the tissues and blood, and one was very much disposed to take them for granted as cases of ordinary parasitism. It is evident, after what we have said, that instead of maintaining that the affection has had as its origin and cause the introduction into the organism of foreign germs with their consequent action, one should affirm that one only has to deal with an alteration of the function of microzymas, an alteration indicated by the change that has taken place in their form.” This view coincides well with the modern view of all germs found in nature, except those in the body, which are still looked on as causing the conditions they are found with, rather than being the result of these conditions, which is their true relation to them.

TheEncyclopaediaBritannica says in the entry on bacteriology:

“The common idea of bacteria in the minds of most people is that of a hidden and sinister scourge lying in wait for mankind. This popular conception is born of the fact that attention was first focused upon bacteria through the discovery, some 70 years ago, of the relationship of bacteria to disease in man, and that in its infancy the study of bacteriology was a branch of medical science. 

Relatively few people assign to bacteria the important position in the world of living things that they rightly occupy, for it is only a few of the bacteria known today that have developed in such a way that they can live in the human body, and for every one of this kind, there are scores of others which are perfectly harmless, and, far from being regarded as the enemies of mankind, must be numbered among his best friends. 

It is in fact no exaggeration to say that upon the activities of bacteria the very existence of man depends; indeed, without bacteria there could be no other living thing in the world; for every animal and plant owes its existence to the fertility of the soil and this in turn depends upon the activity of the micro-organisms which inhabit the soil in almost inconceivable numbers. It is one of the main objects of this article to show how true is this statement; there will be found in it only passing reference to the organisms which produce disease in man and animals; for information on these see Pathology and Immunity.”  

The writer of the above thoroughly understands germs or bacteria with only one exception;the bacteria found in man and animals do not cause disease. They have the same function as those found in the soil, or in sewage, or elsewhere in nature; they are there to rebuild dead or diseased tissues, or rework body wastes, and it is well known that theywill not or cannotattack healthy tissues. They are as important and necessary to human life as those found elsewhere in nature, and are in reality just as harmless if we live correctly, as Béchamp clearly showed.

Ethel Douglas Hume

BÉCHAMP OR PASTEUR?

A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology

‘Disease’ in the context of vaccines and immunity

 1. Definition of Disease

 Before I illustrate how vaccines cause, and not prevent disease, let us first define ‘disease’ in the context of vaccines and immunity.

It has long been known that in some illnesses such as measles, chickenpox and scarlet fever, one bout of the illness usually provides lifelong immunity. A second experience with measles or scarlet fever is extremely rare.

Why is that so? That is because nature has gifted the human body with wonderful natural armor – an in-built immunity – that protects the body by kicking in after a bout of a particular disease.

Till modern science unraveled the secrets of the immune system, the concepts of medicine formulated in the 19th century were in part based on the understanding of medicine by the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates.

According to Hippocrates, an illness manifests itself as signs and symptoms that travel from the inner vital organs and blood circulation to the outer surface of the body. These outer symptoms manifest themselves as visible symptoms such as a rash or discharge of blood, mucus or pus.

This ‘throwing off’ of an illness was considered a natural healing response which returned the body to a state of balance or equilibrium. And it took place only after the inner poisons produced by the disease were cooked and digested (pepsis) during the inflammatory process.

Hippocrates’s astute observations were further developed by modern science, which later uncovered the actual mechanisms of infection, inflammation and healing on these very same lines.

Disease symptoms can indeed be caused by pathogens such as bacteria and viruses. But we have also been led to think of them as enemies that we need to battle. The fact is that disease does not begin when we are exposed to or are infected with a bacterium or virus. It begins when the body begins to respond to a pathogen or the inflammatory-infectious process that it sets in motion. This means that disease equals healing, which is the body’s way of returning to a balanced condition (homeostasis). Disease is a sure sign that the body is engaged in correcting an underlying condition that is otherwise unfavorable to its efficiency and survival.

It is critical to understand this because it turns on its head the very foundation on which vaccination theory rests. The human body’s inflammatory response to disease is, in fact, a healing process. Symptoms of disease are the body’s attempt to deal with accumulated toxins, waste matter, and weakened or damaged cells. The so-called pathogens appropriately assist the body in destroying and eliminating such potentially harmful materials from the system, and return the body to a healthy state of equilibrium.

Also, the magnitude of the body’s response, or the severity of illness, is not only influenced by the magnitude of the resulting infection but also by the stamina of its immune system.

The healing force employed by the body is, in turn, influenced by a variety of factors such as the individual’s emotional state, spiritual foundation, diet, lifestyle, environment, etc. It definitely does not depend on whether we have been vaccinated against infectious agents.

If the immune system is weak, the body becomes congested and toxic, or vice versa. As a result, pathogens are likely to invade the body and start the detoxification process (disease), although the majority of germ ‘invasions’ occur silently, without ever disturbing us. Think about it. The human body is exposed to a multitude of pathogens every day, some of them agents of (presumed) deadly diseases. If germ invasion were synonymous with disease and death, most human beings would not survive very long.

Germ Theory: Yet it is precisely this assumption on which the 19th century French scientist, Louis Pasteur, postulated this famous Germ Theory, which has since become the cornerstone of modern medicine and vaccination.

Pasteur was the first researcher to suggest that diseases are caused by germs. According to him, germs or pathogens are ‘after us’ because they need to prey on us for their own survival. He initially believed that infectious/inflammatory diseases are a direct result of germs feasting on us but then retracted that theory at the time of his death.

In microscopic studies of host tissues in such diseases, Pasteur, Robert Koch and their colleagues repeatedly observed that germs proliferated while many host cells were dying. These researchers concluded that germs attack and destroy healthy cells and thereby start a disease process in the body.

Although Pasteur’s assumption turned out to be wrong, it had already worked its way into the world of science and got under the skin of researchers and doctors, and thus the myth that ‘germs cause infection and disease’ became an undisputed reality. Today, this idea continues to prevail as a fundamental ‘scientific truth’ in the modern medical system.

Pasteur could have just as easily concluded that bacteria are naturally attracted to sites of increased cell death, just like they are attracted to decaying organic matter elsewhere in nature.

Flies, ants, crows, vultures and, of course, bacteria are drawn towards death. This is an undisputed law of nature. Why would this be different in the body? Weak, damaged or dead cells in the human body are just as prone to germ infection as an overripe or bruised fruit.

Pasteur and all the researchers that followed in his footsteps chose to think of germs either as predators or scavengers. Had they assumed that cells die for non-apparent biochemical reasons (such as toxicity buildup), our current thinking about illness and health would be quite different.

Pasteur’s ‘germs-are-equal-to-disease’ theory basically ignored, or at least bypassed, the immune system and its awesome, if not sometimes mysterious, powers of healing.

Why it is flawed: The fact is that inflammatory/infectious illnesses cannot be attributed to germs but are located in the various human frailties that necessitate the forces of decay and death.

It is a question of subtle emphasis. While germs are indeed involved in the disease process, they are definitely not, as Pasteur assumed, intent on harming us; nor are they the actual causal agents of infectious diseases.

Germs only become aggressive to us when confronted with the poisons we create. Our body does not battle germs because they are the enemy. Likewise, germs don’t wage battles against our body. In fact, there are at least 10 times as many bacteria as human cells in the body, and none of them are causing us any harm. An estimated 500 to 1000 species of bacteria live in the human gut and a roughly similar number on the skin.

As reported in the Annual Review of Microbiology, the human flora is the assemblage of microorganisms, benign and otherwise, that reside on the surface and in deep layers of skin, in the saliva and oral mucosa, in the conjunctiva, and in the gastrointestinal tracts. They include bacteria, fungi, and archaea (single-cell). The relationship between germs and humans is not merely commensal (a non-harmful coexistence), but rather is a mutualistic relationship. The microorganisms perform a host of useful functions such as fermenting unused energy substrates, training the immune system, preventing growth of parasitic species, regulating the development of the gut, producing vitamins for the host (such as biotin and vitamin K), and producing hormones to direct the host to store fats. We need them and they need us.

If the body becomes overtaxed with toxins and trapped metabolic waste products, cells may suffer severe oxygen and nutrient deprivation and subsequently become damaged or die. An immune reaction such as high fever or depletion of energy is meant to cleanse the body of these harmful substances that otherwise could lead to the eventual demise of the entire body. The presence and activity of destructive microorganisms (infection) in this situation, encouraging the inflammatory response of the body, is not only natural but desirable.

Microorganisms become only ‘pathogenic’ as the health of the body’s organism deteriorates. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions such as buildup of toxins and waste matter, and in most cases, the disease itself becomes the medicine to cleanse the affected organs and systems of the body and return it to health.

In situations of extreme toxicity, severe physical congestion, or overuse of medical drugs and vaccines, the immune system may be so overwhelmed by the toxins it tries to eliminate that it may not be able to save the individual. In the worst-case scenario, the immune system doesn’t respond to the poisons and germs at all, and no acute disease symptoms appear (fever, inflammations, pain, or other signs of infection). These individuals cannot even develop a cold or get the flu, which otherwise could serve as a relief outlet for these toxins. The result then is a chronic, debilitating illness such as congestive heart failure, lupus, arthritis or other so-called autoimmune disorders, or death.

2. The Truth About Viruses

 Contrary to what conventional medicine would have you believe, viruses don’t kill people. If someone is sick and also has a virus in their system, he or she is not sick because of the virus. Sickness must exist before a virus can show up.

Viruses are designed to induce healing, not illness. Symptoms such those produced by the body’s effort to heal (fever, headache, dizziness, fatigue, etc), do not constitute the disease. Increasing body temperature (fever), for example, is one of the body's best methods to increase the production of immune cells to deal with toxins and then dispose of bacteria, viruses and fungi when they are no longer needed.

Influenza, for example, is the final stage of healing an underlying disease; the disease consists of a buildup of toxins, medical drugs, heavy metals, acidic waste products, dead cell material and other noxious substances that could otherwise lead to a life-threatening condition.

An infection is merely used to break down harmful substances, like metals, drugs, chemicals, pesticides, food additives and trans fatty acids from restaurant foods or readymade foods, artificial sweeteners, etc.

Usually, some of these toxic substances are broken down by the body but most of them require bacteria to dispose of them. Some other chemical compounds, however, require solvents to dissolve and remove them.

That is when the body makes viruses or allows them to be made and spread through the body via the blood and lymph. Hence, we don't need to destroy viruses; they are on our side.

Viruses are inert proteins that the body produces in order to attack and dissolve such noxious substances. Unlike bacteria, viruses are not living organisms. They are actually microscopic strips of genetic material – DNA and RNA – housed inside a capsule. Unlike bacteria, they cannot reproduce because they have no digestive system or reproductive system.

The human body makes more of these solvents when it needs to dissolve harmful substances, and it stops making them when the danger of cellular suffocation has subsided. Viruses act effectively, just like solvents in paint cleaners, and play an important role in the detoxification process. Viruses don’t stop being reproduced because the body attacks them; they diminish when the body no longer needs them.

The bottom line is that viruses can only become active and increase in number in a toxic body that cannot be cleaned up by bacteria or the body itself. Allow me to reiterate something at this crucial point: The human body only creates more viruses when there is a need to mop up drug chemicals, food preservatives, air pollutants, as well as toxic metals such as mercury and aluminum, pesticides, antibiotics and animal parts that are present in every vaccine.

To protect itself, the body may store an enormous number of different viruses but they remain inactive till a need arises for them to become active and spread to do their important work. The body removes and disposes of most of them once the detoxification process is complete. It is commonly believed that the immune system produces antibodies to combat and destroy viruses, but this may not be true. More on the true role of antibodies later.

Vaccinating an individual to invoke antibody production interferes with the body’s most basic healing mechanisms, and I consider it to be one of modern medicine’s most dangerous weapons – truly a weapon of mass destruction.

from: Vaccine-nation

Poisoning the Population, One Shot at a Time

Andreas Moritz

AIDS: From Spare Tire to Multibillion-Dollar Business

 “If there is proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.”459

KARY MULLIS NOBEL PRIZE FOR CHEMISTRY, 1993

“Even with the greats of the AIDS establishment, Gallo does not hold back on psychiatric diagnoses. [According to Gallo,] one is a ‘control freak’, the next is ‘uncreative’ and has a ‘complex’ because of it, a third is—‘can I be honest?’—just plain ‘crazy.’ [Gallo’s] impetuous anger is real when he speaks of the fight for power in the AIDS business, the fight for the money pot, the spiteful jealousy of prestige. With AIDS a lot of money is at stake—and above all fame.”460

DER SPIEGEL, 29/1995

“[Freedom fighter John] Milton and Galileo would back the British Medical Journal on free speech [on HIV/AIDS]. We should never forget Galileo being put before the inquisition. It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the inquisition.”461

RICHARD SMITH, EDITOR IN CHIEF OF THEBRITISH MEDICAL JOURNALFROM 1991-2004, IN A PUBLISHED LETTER TONATURE

Whoever experienced the 1980’s will still clearly remember: The AIDS panic picked up so quickly that there was no time for a survey of the facts. The media-stimulated fear of viruses had left behind such “traces in society,“ as the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit wrote in 1990, that “social psychologists even trace the imminent comeback of men’s white underwear [as a symbol of HIV—and with that sterility right into the most intimate zones] back to the AIDS effect.”462In 1984, Der Spiegel463 announced that, by the middle of the 1990s, the last German would become ill from AIDS, dying from it two years later (in other words: by the mid-1990s, AIDS would wipe out the entire German population). The magazine Bild der Wissenschaft464 made the same deadly predictions the following year (1985). In comparison, a 1986 forecast in US magazine Newsweek sounded moderate: by 1991, five to 10 million Americans would be infected by HIV.465

In reality, yearly, no more than a few hundred Germans die from AIDS.466 Moreover, these people actually die from traditional diseases (like lymphatic cancer or tuberculosis), which are then redefined as AIDS (see below: “What is AIDS?”). And as for Newsweek’s visions of horror: its prognosis was around ten times the 750,000 HIV cases identified by US authorities.467750,000 is actually a cumulative number, since AIDS cases aren’t tracked yearly, meaning that number represents the total numbers since official AIDS records were started in the early 1980s. Obviously, with such a method of measurement, the figures appear many times scarier than they actually are. Additionally, logic dictates that such numbers can only increase, even if the number of new cases had gone down in a given year. Incidentally, only AIDS cases are counted cumulatively. Have you ever heard the evening news give the number of traffic accident deaths since the beginning of statistical records (and not ‘just’ the deaths for a given year)? Certainly not.

Strangely, the Robert Koch Institute even admits that they proceeded this way: “To catch the public’s attention and encourage a political readiness to act, large numbers were naturally more suitable. A trick in the presentation of AIDS cases, applied internationally at the time, served to do this: in the first years, in contrast to other diseases where the number of new cases each year is given (incidence), AIDS cases were accumulated from year to year (cumulative incidence).”468

Anyone who impartially dives into the topic of HIV/AIDS, perpetually trips over such oddities, inconsistencies and contradictions—and searches in vain for scientific proof of the theory’s basic hypotheses: that a virus called HIV, causes AIDS. At the same time, we are dealing with a very complex topic, so to make the controversies around the study of the cause of AIDS understandable, we will begin with a section which compactly explains why doubts that HIV exists and causes AIDS are justified—and why it makes sense to name factors like drug consumption or malnutrition as causes of AIDS, or better: of the many diseases grouped together under the term AIDS.

459 Mullis, Kary, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, Vintage Books, 1998, pp. 171-174

460 Grolle, Johann, Siege, aber kein Sieg, Der Spiegel, 29/1995

461 Smith, Richard, Milton and Galileo would back the BMJ on free speech, Nature, 22 January 2004; p. 287

462 Kruse, Kuno; Schwarz, Birgit, Die Apokalypse wird abgesagt, Die Zeit, 15 June 1990

463 AIDS: Die Bombe ist gelegt, Der Spiegel, 45/1984

464 AIDS: eine neue Krankheit erschüttert Deutschland, Bild der Wissenschaft, 12/1985

465 Morganthau, Tom, AIDS: Grim Prospects, Newsweek, 10 November, 1986, pp. 20-21

466 HIV/AIDS in Deutschland: Eckdaten (at the end of 2005), Website of the Robert Koch Institute

467 Suspension of Disbelief??, Health Education AIDS Liaison (HEAL), Toronto, see http://healtoronto.com/aidsdrop.html

468 Marcus, Ulrich, Glück gehabt? Zwei Jahrzehnte AIDS in Deutschland, Blackwell, 2000, S. 10

from Virus Mania

Torsten Engelbrecht & Claus Köhnlein

The Blood Poisoners

 

In his book entitled The Blood Poisoners, Lionel Dole describes the nature of Louis Pasteur’s experiments,

“The manner in which Pasteur made rabbits "rabid" by boring holes in their skulls and inserting filth into their brains was not science but simply brutal quackery.”

Nevertheless, it was on the basis of this brutal quackery that Louis Pasteur developed his rabies vaccine. The medical establishment references to this vaccine indicate that it was a resounding success; contemporary reports however, tell a very different story and one that again speaks of Louis Pasteur’s fundamental errors and even of fraud.

In her essay, Dr Morden refers to two medical practitioners who were contemporaries of Louis Pasteur but outspoken in their criticism of his work; as the following extracts demonstrate. The first extract refers to Dr Bruette’s exposure of the fraud of the rabies vaccine,

“Dr William A. Bruette, former assistant chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry in Washington, was also a contemporary of Pasteur and gave many proofs of Pasteur’s incorrect findings. Dr Bruette has proved, as a matter of fact, that rabies vaccine is not only a fraud, but harmful. He scorns the use of rabies vaccine and states that ‘inoculation spreads disease.’ He goes as far as to call the sale of rabies vaccine an out and out racket.”

Although 21st century vaccines are different from those used in the 19th century, they are all based on the same flawed theory. The second extract refers to Dr Woods’ exposure of a major flaw in the theory about the alleged cause of rabies,

“Dr Matthew Woods, another contemporary of Pasteur, then a leading member of the Philadelphia Medical Society, wrote much on the subject of rabies. He stated, ‘...at the Philadelphia dog pound, where on an average more than 6,000 vagrant dogs are taken annually, and where the catchers and keepers are frequently bitten while handling them, not one case of hydrophobia has occurred during its entire history of twenty-five years, in which time 150,000 dogs have been handled’.”

Dr Morden cites a further quote from Dr Woods, in which he suggests alternative causes for the symptoms that are often labelled as ‘rabies’,

“In animals, so-called rabies is fundamentally due to maltreatment or malnutrition or both.”
Dr Bruette and Dr Woods were by no means the only medical practitioners to disparage Louis Pasteur’s rabies vaccine; a critical view was also held by Dr George Wilson MD, President of the British Medical Society, who, at the Society’s AGM in 1899, made the following statement that was published in the British Medical Journal,“I accuse my profession of misleading the public. Pasteur's anti-rabies vaccination is - I believe, and others with me - a piece of deception.”

Unfortunately, the rabies vaccine is far more than a piece of deception; it was, and still is a serious public health problem that poses severe health hazards for both humans and animals. It should be clear that maltreatment and malnutrition, the alternative causes suggested by Dr Woods, can be neither prevented nor treated by vaccination. The health of a person or an animal can certainly be adversely affected by vaccines. In his book, Lionel Dole expands on the many problems associated with the use of the rabies vaccine,

“Pasteur cannot be proved to have saved a single life with his vaccines, but it is quite certain that many people died from his treatment of them, even when the dogs that had bitten them remained perfectly well....”

Any dogs that remained ‘perfectly well’ could not have been ‘rabid’; nevertheless, many dogs were destroyed on the basis that they had a disease that they could transmit to people, if bitten.

Although it is claimed that rabies is caused by a virus, the refutation of the ‘germ theory’ in chapter three demonstrates this to be an unfounded claim. There is, however, other evidence that also denies the viral cause of rabies, as explained by Hans Ruesch, a Swiss medical historian, who states, in his book entitled 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection, that,

“Medical students are taught that Pasteur solved the ‘problem’ of rabies in the last century – thanks to experiments on dogs. They – and the public – are not told that neither he nor his successors have ever been able to identify the virus which is supposed to cause rabies....”

Hans Ruesch’s book was first published in 1978; in other words, more than four decades after the invention of the electron microscope; this, in turn, means that there had been more than ample time for scientists to have identified the virus alleged to cause rabies. The fact that it had remained unidentified in the late 1970s demonstrates that there can be no original ‘proof’ that rabies is caused by a ‘virus’; the idea that it can be transmitted to humans through the bite of an allegedly ‘infected’ dog is similarly unproven.

In the conclusion to her essay, Dr Morden provides a summary of the mistaken ideas about the existence of an ‘infectious disease’ called rabies,

“Is rabies then a disease? Have we isolated a virus or germ? Is the Pasteur-treatment specific? Is rabies, in short, fact or fancy? I believe it is fancy, for I have handled so-called rabid animals and humans without benefit of Pasteur treatment and in no case has there been a death or any other symptoms of rabies. I submit that rabies is non-existent and that the Pasteur treatment for rabies is worse than the disease, if it were a disease, which it is not.”

from the book What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong Dawn Lester & David Parker

Mike Baillie - New Light on the Black Death

 

There is an inherent tendency to view historical events in the light of prevailing theories. It is therefore unsurprising that, with the ‘germ theory’ firmly entrenched in medical establishment thinking, the ‘Black Death’ continues to be reported as an ‘infectious disease’ caused by bacteria, which, according to the WHO fact sheet, are,

“…usually found in small mammals and their fleas.”

The archaeological evidence has not yet persuaded the medical establishment to alter their obviously incorrect theory. [ →British archaeologist, Barney Sloane, who has claimed that the ‘Black Death’ could not have been transmitted by rats; as reported in an August 2011 article entitled Can We Stop Blaming Rats for the Black Death. The article refers to archaeological work that has been conducted in London and states that,

“…excavations in the city have turned up little evidence of a massive rat die-off coinciding with the plague.”]

It sometimes requires a scientist from an entirely different scientific discipline to view evidence from a new perspective, and thereby produce a more compelling explanation for that evidence. In this instance, a new hypothesis about the likely causes of the Black Death has been developed by a dendrochronologist, a scientist who studies tree-rings to identify different growth patterns.

The dendrochronologist in this instance is Professor Mike Baillie, whose study of tree-ring data of the 14th century led him to discover some interesting tree growth patterns, and to undertake further investigations that included the study of ice-core data, as well as contemporary 14th century accounts of the event. Professor Baillie has recorded the results of his research and the basis for his hypothesis in his book entitled New Light on the Black Death, in which he includes extracts from some contemporary documents. One of the extracts he quotes includes the statement that,

“There have been masses of dead fish, animals and other things along the sea shore and in many places trees covered in dust .... and all these things seem to have come from the great corruption of the air and earth.”

Contemporary writers were sufficiently observant to be aware of, and write about, ‘masses of dead fish, animals and other things along the sea shore’, as well as ‘trees covered in dust’. They would, therefore, also have been sufficiently observant to have noticed, and specifically written about, masses of dead rats or even gerbils, had there been any to observe. Such reports are conspicuous by their absence; a situation that supports the archaeological findings.

An even more significant aspect of the quoted extract is the reference to ‘the great corruption of the air and earth’. In addition to these documents, Professor Baillie obtained evidence from his examination of tree rings that led to his statement that,

“The Black Death sits in a clear environmental trough visible in smoothed tree ring chronologies from around the world.”

The corruption of the atmosphere certainly must have been extremely severe to have been able to generate a ‘clear environmental trough’; it was sufficiently severe to have been able to cause death from respiratory problems; as Professor Baillie states,

“The most likely mechanism would be through affecting their respiration system in some catastrophic way. After all, writer after writer on the Black Death makes the point that it is the ‘pulmonary’ form of the disease that was the dominant killer.”

It is clear therefore that ‘something’ must have occurred to have caused such a severe corruption of the atmosphere over a large portion of the world. One interesting and undisputed fact is that a major earthquake erupted in Europe on 25th January 1348. Professor Baillie reveals however, that this was not a singular event, but part of a series of earthquakes that occurred during the mid-14th century, both before and after the January earthquake.

Another interesting piece of the puzzle is that an unusually high level of ammonium has been discovered from the examination of ice core data. A higher than normal level of ammonium has also been discovered in ice cores that have been dated to periods in which other epidemics of ‘plague’ occurred. The result of his investigation of the evidence led Professor Baillie to conclude that,

“There really is enough information about comets, earthquakes and ammonium to permit the quite serious suggestion that the Black Death was due to an impact by comet debris on 25th January 1348 as witnessed by the major earthquake on that day.”Investigations and analysis of the toxic chemicals found within comets and comet debris have produced further supportive evidence for this conclusion; Professor Baillie explains,

“Apart from ammonium, it is now known that a range of unpleasant, toxic and evil-smelling chemicals, including hydrogen sulphide and carbon disulphide, have been detected in recent comets.”

The presence of ‘evil-smelling chemicals’ would certainly explain the documented reports about the ‘corruption of the atmosphere’; their toxicity also explains how these chemicals would have caused severe respiration problems and rapid death from asphyxiation for those people in close proximity to the dense atmospheric poisoning.

Herbert Shelton provides further documentary evidence of 14th century earthquakes and the subsequent pollution of the atmosphere, in his 1967 article entitled Pestilence and Plagues that states,

“Hecker’s Epidemics of the Middle Ages says of the Plague that ‘mighty revolutions in the organism of the earth, of which we have credible information, had preceded it. From China to the Atlantic the foundations of the earth were shaken, throughout Asia and Europe the atmosphere was in commotion, and endangered by its baneful influence, both vegetable and animal life’.”
In the same article, Herbert Shelton also quotes from Berdoe’s Origins and Growth of the Healing Art that provides further information about the prevailing conditions,

“In 1337, four millions of people perished by famine in China in the neighbourhood of Kiang alone. Floods, famine and earthquakes were frequent, both in Asia and Europe. In Cyprus a pestiferous wind spread a poisonous odor before an earthquake shook the island to its foundations, and many of the inhabitants fell down suddenly and expired in dreadful agonies after inhaling the noxious gases. German chemists state that a thick stinking mist advanced from the East and spread over Italy in thousands of places, and vast chasms opened in the earth which exhaled the most noxious vapors.”

These conditions can be explained by comets, comet debris and earthquakes; they cannot be explained by rat fleas ‘infected’ with disease-causing bacteria.

Another outbreak of ‘plague’ occurred in England during the 17th century. Although it is reported to have been minor by comparison to the Black Death, some fascinating details have been found from contemporary writings, including those of notable authors Daniel Defoe and Samuel Pepys, both of whom lived during the period in which it occurred.

The following extract from The Diary of Samuel Pepys, dated 24th December 1664, states that he,
“…saw the Comet, which is now, whether worn away or no I know not, but appears not with a tail, but only is larger and duller than any other star…”

The episode of ‘plague’ that affected England, and especially London, occurred in June 1665, and therefore only a few months after the sighting of the comet.

This is also described by Daniel Defoe, who, in his novel entitled A Journal of the Plague Year, wrote that,“In the first place, a blazing Star, or Comet, appeared for several months before the Plague…”

The evidence from contemporary records as well as tree-ring and ice core data demonstrates the existence of a ‘corrupted atmosphere’ during the 14th century. The earthquakes and impact of comet debris provide credible explanations for that corrupted atmosphere and for its ability to have permeated a significant portion of the planet. The toxic substances known to be associated with comets and comet debris provide an extremely compelling explanation for the rapid onset of severe respiratory problems, asphyxiation and death.

The medical establishment theory about fleas infected with bacteria that were spread by small animals to humans is entirely unsupported by the evidence; the theory that the Black Death, or any other epidemic of ‘plague’ can be caused by a bacterium is shown to be fatally flawed.

 from the book What Really Makes You Ill?: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong
***

(...)According to Baillie, illness and death resulted from poisoned water and air as the comet flew overhead.

But the symptoms—especially bruise-like blotches on the skin and high fatality rate—indicate radiation poisoning★, probably rendered even more deadly by dust and ammonia-like compounds in the atmosphere. Imagine a large comet passing near the earth, crackling with intense electrical arcing, pelting the earth with X-rays and casting off fragments that fall to the earth and spew up toxic clouds of dust, followed immediately by horrible death, sometimes wiping out whole towns. This is not the kind of catastrophe that we can blame on microbes.

Perhaps our solar system is calming down—mankind has not seen such violent phenomena for centuries. But smaller electrical disturbances, ones that can’t be seen, are still likely to promote outbreaks, albeit less disastrous. And if radiation poisoning—whether ionizing or nonionizing—provokes disease, there are obvious cofactors. Poisons in air, water, and food; toxins from insect bites; deadly fungi on grains; exposure to filth; malnutrition; and starvation; as well as fear and despair—we don’t need to resort to the notion of contagion to explain outbreaks of disease.

★The current explanation for the correlation of comets and disease is that of “panspermia.” We now know that outer space is populated by clouds of microorganisms, and the theory holds that comets are watery bodies—dirty snowballs—that rain new microscopic forms on the earth, to which humans and animals have no immunity.¹

However, recent evidence indicates little if any water on comets. Rather, they are asteroids that have an elliptical orbit and become charged electrically as they approach the sun, an exchange that creates the comet’s bright coma and tail. Their surfaces exhibit the kind of features that happen with intense electrical arcing, like craters and cliffs; bright or shiny spots on otherwise barren rocky surfaces indicate areas that are electrically charged. Comets contain mineral alloys requiring temperatures in the thousands of degrees, and they have sufficient energy to emit extreme UV light and even powerful X-rays. Moreover, as comets approach the sun, they can provoke high-energy discharges and flare-ups of solar plasma, which reach out to the comet.²

Thus, comets can create electrical disturbances in the atmosphere even more powerful than those created by man-made electrification*— and this radiation includes demonstrably dangerous ionizing radiation. No wonder the ancients were afraid of comets!

*See The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg. Firstenberg chronicles the history of electricity in the United States and throughout the world, and the outbreaks of illness that accompanied each step toward greater electrification.

¹“Panspermia and the Origin of Life on Earth,” https://www.panspermia-theory.com/.
² Wal Thornhill, “Comets Impact Cosmology,” July 20, 2004, https://www.holoscience.com/wp/comets-impact-cosmology/; 
Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott, “The Electric Comet,” 2006, https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm.

From The Contagion Myth by Thomas S. Cowan, MD, and Sally Fallon Morello