Vaccine Science Series
Measles on Trial
By Pathways Team
Read the full debate online at: https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-no-proof-for-measles-virus.html?m=
In 2011, German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka announced a challenge: He would award €100,000 to anyone who could present a scientific publication proving the existence of the measles virus, including its isolation and precise diameter.
A few years later, medical student Dr. David Bardens submitted six papers that he claimed satisfied the requirement. When Lanka rejected them, insisting they did not demonstrate isolation or measurement of the virus, Bardens brought the case to court.
In the first ruling (March 2015), a lower court sided with Bardens. But on appeal in February 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart reversed that decision. The court explained that not only had none of the six papers proven the existence of the measles virus, but even when considered collectively—as one of Barden’s expert witnesses attempted to do—they still failed to demonstrate its existence or diameter.
Here is the Judges’ account of the bacteriologist, Prof. Podbielski’s, expert court testimony:
“In this paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper neither, etc., but in the sum and the totality of all the papers (including those which were not presented by the claimant), there is the proof.”
From this, the judges noted that a proper scientific review or article, had it offered a clear conclusion based on these six or more studies, could have sufficed. But such evidence did not exist:
“We, the court, would accept reviews, or rather one review, if—based on X previous papers that did not reach that conclusion—the review in question reached the compelling conclusion: here we have a measles virus and this is its size, based on X and Y. But we do not have any of this here.” – Transcript of the Judges Ruling in Stuttgart.
The judges’ verdict was unanimous: No paper, whether alone or in combination, had shown the existence of the measles virus or established its diameter.
Feli Popescu, a prolific independent researcher on this topic who was also present at the trial in Stuttgart, concluded that if decades of research cannot provide clear, scientific evidence, then the measles “virus” must be considered unproven.
A few years after the measles court case, Feli later engaged in an online public forum “debate” with a student of Biomedical Sciences. This biomedical student (referred to as “Student A” in this article) decided to defend the validity of the six submitted papers. Their conversation unfolded around the question of whether the court verdict accurately demonstrates that the six papers presented at the trial (as well as others) fail to show the existence of the measles virus.
Feli argues that without clear isolation—according to the standard definition of the word—and without sound scientific methodology, the claims in these virological papers rest on shaky ground. Overall, Feli highlighted the absence of methodological rigor in the studies, exposing how even within academic debate the supposed foundation of virology appears to lack substantial evidence, which Bardens and the court-appointed experts in his defense also could not provide to the satisfaction of the court.
The conversation in question starts when the student of biomedical science weighed in at length on a public forum, reminding readers of the six papers submitted by Bardens in the court case:
“If you would have followed the Bardens versus Lanka case in depth, you would have read that there were six seminal papers that Dr. David Bardens listed as hard concrete evidence that measles virus is causal. They are:
1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85.
3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measels virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.
5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–42.
6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.”
Here, Student A continues with his perspective on the court case:
“These [studies] were judged by the court-appended independent scientist, prof. Andreas Podbielski, to be sufficient material by themselves as evidence for the existence of the virus that Lanka didn’t believe in. However, the justice court decided that ‘Lanka was free to judge whether any evidence […], was good enough in *his* opinion.’ Which in my opinion leads to nothing good.”
Finally, he dismissed the debate altogether as unworthy of serious academic attention:
“I have discussed these ‘measles virus doesn’t exist’/ ‘vaccines cause autism’/ pseudoscientific claims so many times that I believe it is the biggest waste of my time in any typical day. It is a waste of time, because I could spend this time better on running experiments and actually helping with the development of biomedical knowledge.”
This is where Feli Popescu entered into the discussion, offering her account of the court case, and the lack of evidence in the presented papers…
“May I join the conversation, since I know all the papers presented by Bardens and I was present at the trial in Stuttgart? The bacteriologist, Podbielski, explained in his expertise (which I have read) that none of those papers prove the existence of the virus “by itself,” but (verbal acrobatics) that ‘in their togetherness and together with other papers that were not presented as proof at the trial, they prove the existence of the virus.’
Really now?
Well, I wouldn’t call this science, since even the judges in Stuttgart said when they gave the verdict in Lanka’s favour:
‘Dr Lanka explained from the start that none of the six papers proves the existence of the measles virus. The idea of a ‘combination’ of those papers appeared for the first time when the court-appointed expert claimed it. The expert claimed ‘In this paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper the virus is not demonstrated, in that paper neither, etc., but in the sum and the totality of all the papers (including those which were not presented by the claimant) there is the proof.’ Here we, the judges, have another problem. Even if we were to consider prof Podbielski’s expertise, we do not know which aspects of which paper(s) he meant as a ‘combination,’ to consider that the virus has been proven to exist. The expert’s wording is vague, unclear, which is exactly what can be avoided when it is asked for one single paper.’”
Feli continues:
“I have written about this extensively on my blog. I also have the original audio recording of the verdict at the trial, which I transcribed on my blog. We can go on analysing the six papers one by one. I am in possession of an expertise from a reputed German microbiologist and virologist who debunked each and every one of the 6 papers. This expertise was used at the trial in Stuttgart and I’m guessing it was one of the reasons why the judges gave the final verdict in Lanka’s favour.
So you see, the real ‘woo’ comes from those who are trying to inject children with cell particles of uncertain origin, claiming that it is a measles “virus,” while never having been able to prove the existence of such a virus. And by proving the existence of the virus I mean the classic scientific method, so easy to use: purification by sucrose density gradient centrifugation. This should include the detailed description of the following steps: isolation, purification, photos before and after isolation and biochemistry of all the molecular components.
And please do not forget the obligatory negative control experiments, which are a must for every honest scientific endeavour.
If you have just one paper on the measles virus that meets these scientific criteria, bring it on. Thanks.”
Measles Vaccine Production
By Feli Popescu
Excerpt from “Cum se produce vaccinul antirujeolic?” https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com
Haven’t you asked yourself this question countless times? How is a vaccine produced? How is the MMR vaccine produced, for example?
Well, we asked ourselves this question too, and recently we found an official source, directly from the CDC, about “Isolation and identification of the measles virus in cell cultures.”
We discovered this source through the publications of an exceptional journalist, Janine Roberts. We bought her book, Fear of the Invisible, which we warmly recommend to all those who think and want to get information from independent and honest sources.
In this official publication, the CDC describes in detail the process of “isolating” the “virus” so that it can be used in the production of a vaccine.
Quote: “Isolation of the virus is preferred because it is the most reliable direct evidence of infection with the measles virus.”
Let’s see what this “evidence” consists of and how reliable it is.
First, a sample of urine or fluid from the mouth or nose is obtained from a patient diagnosed with measles.
The next step: a marmoset monkey is sacrificed, some cells are extracted, denatured, and made sick (perhaps through irradiation), and then genetic material associated with Epstein-Barr disease is added! Such an extremely diseased cell line is called a “permissive substrate.”
Please note: “B95-8 cells are purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (# CRL 1612).” That was in 2002. In the meantime, some laboratories (but not all!) have switched from the B95a cell line to another cell line called Vero/hSLAM (a cell line from the kidneys of African green monkeys), after announcing that the B95a line was infected with the “EpsteinBarr virus” and (attention!) their main warning was that “laboratory workers were in danger.” Of course, for babies subsequently injected with contaminated genetic material, there was no longer considered to be any danger!
On top of this already diseased cell line (kept alive only with fetal bovine serum, extracted live from the hearts of unborn calves), the lab technician wearing gloves and protective goggles adds a toxic enzyme called trypsin (denaturation by trypsinization, trypsin acting to degrade proteins). The CDC informs us that we should expect some cells to “dissociate” and fall off the surface of the container within 30 to 60 seconds, as if they had been poisoned. Obviously, since they have indeed been poisoned. Now some nutrients (glucose, etc.) are added and left for two to three days for the remaining cells to recover somewhat.
Now, genetic material from the sick patient (remember: urine or fluid from the mouth or nose) is added to this cell line treated in this way. After about an hour, the cells in the culture are inspected under a microscope to see if they are deformed or still floating freely as they did before intoxication…pardon, trypsinization. If the cells are deformed, the CDC claims that this is proof that the measles “virus” is present and infects the cells (!?), despite the fact that a toxic substance had just been added and the cells were already sick beforehand…
Why would this disease be caused by a virus? I mean, the cells are poisoned in the test tube, massively contaminated…and then they claim that those cells must be sick with measles caused by a virus? Where is the logic? The CDC, however, has no doubt. The instructions are: If 50% of the cells are now damaged, “scrape the cells in the culture” and then “store them at -70°C as an isolated measles virus stock” (!?). It is already clear that this whole mixture contains many particles and toxins from the diseased cells that were used for the cell line—but officially it is claimed that we are dealing with a “measles virus isolate” that can be used for vaccine production! In fact, no one examines those cell cultures for measles symptoms, no one looks to see if there is any virus there, because that virus has never been isolated anyway! And finally, the liquid filtered from a culture of this so-called “isolate” is used for vaccine production!
Next step: Two types of antibiotics, penicillin and streptomycin, are added to that culture, and it is left for another day. After that, the cells are inspected again—and if small holes now appear in the cells, it is again assumed that the “virus” was the culprit! In passing, it is mentioned, however, that “some holes may appear without being caused by measles.”
If no such damage is observed, the process is repeated. If the cells are still not significantly damaged, the culture is discarded. But if 50% or more of the cells are now diseased, distorted, and severely deformed, the culture is quickly placed in the freezer as an “isolated measles virus stock for vaccines!” All this is done without detecting any “virus!”
This is the process recommended by the CDC for the production of measles vaccines. No control cell line is mentioned, the supposed “virus” is not isolated according to scientific criteria, and there is no microphotograph of this “virus!” The cells are simply poisoned, contaminated, and then blamed on an invisible measles virus, even though the symptoms those cells suffer from are completely different from measles.
Finally, it is precisely the suspension from these poisoned cell lines (along with the necessary adjuvants, i.e., even more neurotoxins) that is injected into babies through the MMR vaccine!
The Origin of Modern Virology
By Dr. Stefan Lanka
See: “Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathic Agents from Patients with Measles” by Enders et al. https://archive. org/details/EndersPeebles1954
John Franklin Enders, born in 1897 in the family of a rich financier, was active in various fraternities after having finished his studies, then he worked as a real estate agent and studied foreign languages for four years before turning to bacterial virology, which fascinated him…
In 1949, Enders announced that he had managed to cultivate and grow the alleged polio virus in vitro on various tissues. The American expert opinion believed everything immediately. What Enders did was to add fluids from patients with poliomyelitis to tissue cultures that he claimed to have had sterilized, then he alleged that the cells were dying because of the virus, that the virus was replicating in this way, and that a vaccine could be harvested from the respective culture. At that time, summer polio epidemics (polio = flaccid paralysis) were very frequent during summer and they were believed to be caused by polio viruses. A vaccine was to help eradicate the alleged virus. After the polio vaccine was introduced, the symptoms were then re-diagnosed among other things as multiple sclerosis, flaccid acute paralysis, aseptic meningitis, etc. and later polio was claimed to have been eradicated.
During his experiments, Enders et al. sterilised the tissue cultures in order to exclude the possibility of bacteria killing the cells. What he didn’t take into consideration was that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cell culture when preparing it for the alleged infection was exactly what was killing the cells. Instead, he interpreted the cytopathic effects as the existence and the action of polio viruses, without ever having isolated a single virus and describing its biochemistry. The necessary negative control experiments, which would have shown that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cells prior to the “infection” in the test tube was killing the cells, have never been performed. However, for this “performance,” Enders received the Nobel prize in 1954.
1954 is also the year in which Enders applied and introduced the same technique in order to allegedly replicate the measles virus. As he had been awarded the Nobel prize for the alleged polio virus the same year, researchers believed his technique to be scientifically valid.
The Missing Foundations of Vaccine Science
By Alec Zeck
Excerpt from “The Root Unproven Assumption Upholding Vaccinology”: aleczeck.substack.com
While we’re in the age of questioning all paradigms, I think it’s critical we question the root of vaccines.
Don’t outsource to me. Don’t outsource to “experts.” You are totally capable of discerning what is true, what has been demonstrated empirically, and what’s simply a house of cards built on a stack of unproven assumptions. All it takes is cultivating your ability to question foundational claims, to follow the thread of logic without prematurely jumping to conclusions, and to resist the reflexive need to defer to consensus.
The cells are simply poisoned, contaminated, and then blamed on an invisible measles virus, even though the symptoms those cells suffer from are completely different from measles.
This next section may come as a surprise to you—or even sound absolutely insane—but I invite you to read it with an open mind, and of course, look into it further for yourself. Most vaccine skeptics are arguing about the amount of aluminum in vaccines, dissecting whether vaccines are the best way to prevent disease, and, in some cases, fighting for “safer vaccines.” But that’s all happening way, way downstream from the root, foundational claim that gives rise to vaccines in the first place.
And just to be clear—we’re not talking about a concept, an idea, or a thought. We’re talking about an alleged physical thing. A virus is said to be an obligate intracellular parasite consisting of a proteinaceous coat surrounding a core of genetic material. And yet, that thing they are referring to has never been empirically demonstrated to exist or to cause illness. Not once.
I do not say this lightly: The foundations for virology—and thus the entire field of virology—are based on a variety of unproven assumptions and are, by definition, pseudoscientific. Pseudoscience is anything claiming to be scientific that doesn’t follow the scientific method.
This brings us to the scientific method. Let’s walk it through:
Step 1: You observe a natural phenomenon. In this case, maybe you see a few people get sick in the same place with similar symptoms. Fair enough.
Step 2: You form a hypothesis. Maybe you think “X particle causes Y disease.”
But to test that hypothesis, you need to isolate and verify the existence of X. That’s your independent variable. It’s the most critical step. It is the thing you think is the cause of the observed natural phenomenon in question. If you don’t have it, you’re not doing science. And virology has never shown that “X” exists.
Their version of “X” is this unscientific, assumption riddled, Frankenstein-like soup (described below). They assume the particles are in the samples. They never verify it. They admit they can’t find the particles directly in bodily fluids. So they mix in antibiotics, antifungals, and starved monkey kidney cells, and point to the cellular breakdown as proof of viral infection.
Then, after the cells break down from poisoning and starvation, they image the debris (those little black and white images shared by the medical establishment and mainstream channels) and claim that whatever they see is a virus.
Virology has no independent variable—meaning it’s not following the scientific method— and therefore, by definition, it’s pseudoscientific.
They also don’t run proper negative controls. And because they don’t even have an actual independent variable to test, we can’t even call it an experiment to begin with.
But just to be thorough, several groups have replicated virology’s exact procedure—same steps, cell lines, same antibiotics, same nutrient reductions, at the same concentrations—except didn’t include any sample from a sick person, therefore no possible sample of a virus (see pg. 47). In every single cell culture, they saw the exact same CPE—meaning the exact same foundational “evidence” virologists point to as evidence for viruses. And in some cases, when those samples were sent for transmission electron microscopy, the same particles virologists call “viruses” were shown—same size, same shape, same morphological appearance. Meaning the two main claims of virology were totally falsified:
1. that CPE is caused by “virus,” and
2. that the particles are uniquely viral.
Additionally, there are also a variety of peer reviewed papers in which particles that are morphologically indistinguishable from what virologists refer to as viruses are also found on electron micrograph slides (Mike Stone has compiled a variety of those on his website, viroLIEgy.com).
This level of falsification isn’t even necessary, though— because the burden of proof lies on the person or institution making the positive claim. That’s quite literally a maxim of law. If you’re claiming “X is real and causes Y,” you’re the one who has to prove it.
Not only have virologists failed to prove it—they’ve failed at the first step: showing that “X” even exists.
So, any talk about what viruses “do” or “don’t do” is a reification fallacy and circular reasoning. Citing experts as proof is an appeal to authority. Pointing to symptom patterns and assuming “virus” is begging the question. It’s the same as saying “My pet unicorn with laser eyes burned my rug.” First, show me the unicorn.
And here’s where I want to pause and say—if this is your first time hearing this, it may sound absolutely nuts. I get it. I’ve been there. But I encourage you to look into it for yourself.
Cytopathic Effects (CPE)
In every single “viral isolation” paper—which is the foundational evidence for the field of virology (on which both all other pieces of virology and the field of vaccinology are built)—a variation of this procedure is followed:
Snot/blood/other fluids from a sick person assumed to contain virus particles (but never verified to contain virus particles) are added to viral transport medium (VTM). At a minimum, VTM contains fetal bovine serum (FBS), amphotericin B (a nephrotoxic antifungal), and gentamicin (a nephrotoxic antibiotic). Nephrotoxic means “toxic to kidneys,” by the way. That’ll come in next.
After this, they take that mixture (a sample of snot/blood/other fluids and VTM) and add it to a foreign cell line that has been kept alive via unnatural means in a lab—typically VERO E6, VERO CCL81 (kidney cells from an adult green monkey), or human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells.
Then, after that mixture is added to the cells (or sometimes alongside adding the mixture or just before adding the mixture), the nutrient serum for the cells—FBS— is reduced from 10% to 2% (and sometimes to 1% or 0%), effectively starving the cells of their food. They also add gentamicin (sometimes geneticin) and amphotericin B to the culture. Again, these substances are known to be nephrotoxic, and they’re being added to kidney cells, where it’s assumed they have no negative effects on the cells and are simply there to keep the environment “sterile.”
The cells then break down, experiencing what’s called the cytopathic effect (CPE), which is cell injury or death. The sample is then prepared for electron microscopy, where many of the resultant particles are then claimed to be viruses.
Isolation and Purification of Viruses
By Mike Stone
Excerpt from: An Open Challenge to Virologists (mikestone.substack.com) See also – https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/ fois-reveal-that-health-scienceinstitutions-around-the-world-haveno-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolationpurification/
Virologists openly admit they cannot obtain purified and isolated samples of the presumed “viral” particles directly from host material. As Siouxsie Wiles, an associate professor at the University of Auckland and microbiologist, stated in an AAP “Fact” check:
“Viruses are basically inanimate objects that need a culture to activate in. But the way they [people asking for proof of viruses] are phrasing the requests is that the sample must be completely unadulterated and not be grown in any culture—and you can’t do that. You can’t isolate a virus without using a cell culture, so by using their definition, it hasn’t been isolated. But it has been isolated and cultivated using a cell culture multiple times all around the world.”
This statement reflects the core issue: While virologists may claim to “isolate viruses,” what they are actually doing is (assumingly) “culturing them” in a way that requires introducing foreign cellular material, which violates the standard of isolation required for scientific proof.
Additionally, as noted by the CDC in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request obtained by Christine Massey:
“Viruses need cells to replicate, and cells require liquid food, so this specific component of the request is outside of what is possible in virology.”
This confirms that the purification and isolation of “viral” particles directly from host fluids is outside the current capabilities of virology, further undermining claims of genuine isolation. To conceal this failure, virologists have quietly redefined the word isolation.
In microbiology, isolation means separating a microbe from all other material so that it exists in pure form and can be directly characterized. In virology, however, “isolation” often means little more than exposing patient material to cell cultures and later applying indirect genetic or imaging techniques. No particle has ever been shown to exist in pure form independently of this artificial process. This semantic sleight of hand allows virologists to claim they have “isolated a virus” when in fact they have only produced a soup of cellular debris and assumed “viral” genetic fragments. Such redefinitions bypass the foundational requirement of proving the independent existence of the causative agent.
This leads to circular reasoning: virologists presuppose a “virus” exists and then interpret cell culture effects—such as cytopathic effects (CPE)—as proof of that assumption. This reasoning is logically unsound. It begs the question (assuming from the start that a “virus” exists and must replicate in culture), affirms the consequent (if CPE, then “virus”), and commits a false cause fallacy (ignoring that CPE can arise from many “non-viral” factors). Without direct isolation and identification before experimentation, there is no evidence that a “virus” exists in the host, and thus no valid independent variable to establish causation. What remains is assumption stacked upon assumption.
Thus, virologists begin with the assumption that a “virus” exists in the unpurified sample and then attempt to reveal it through indirect evidence: cell culture experiments, genomic sequences, and epidemiological correlations. But cytopathic effects in a culture can arise from the toxic conditions of the experiment itself. Genome assemblies rely on computational stitching of fragments without ever demonstrating that the sequences come from a single, independent entity (see pg. 48). And epidemiological data, at best, shows patterns of illness, not a direct cause. Each of these methods assumes the very thing it is meant to prove—that a “virus” exists—without ever providing independent confirmation.
In other words, virology does not test an independent variable; it presupposes one. When cytopathic effects (CPE), genetic fragments, or epidemiological patterns are observed, they are automatically attributed to the assumed “virus,” even though that “virus” has never been directly shown to exist. By abandoning the independent variable, virology abandons the very logic that makes experimentation scientific.
Editor’s Note: Cell Culture
Regarding the obligatory need for a “cell culture” to isolate viruses, many have wondered why the human body, composed of trillions of living cells, doesn’t suffice. Since a virus is said to be growing and propagating amid the cells of the body causing disease, why is it scientifically impossible to purify and characterize a whole virus directly from a human sample? Virologists will claim “too few viruses” exist in the human sample. Yet, amazingly, no scientist has ever been able to succeed in isolating one.
Isolation of SARS-CoV-2
By Christine Massey
Excerpt from “Response… re: ‘virus’ isolation” (fluoridefreepeel.ca)
The “SARS-CoV-2 Viral Culturing at CDC” website claims that:
“SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.”
“SARS-CoV-2 strains supplied by CDC and other researchers can be requested, free, from the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research (BEI) Resources Repository.”
CDC explains that “the virus” was “grown” by CDC researchers and lists all the fabulous ways that the “strains” are being used to further the good of humanity.
Wow, so impressive. This is all the evidence we really need, right? It’s been isolated, end of story! Only a kook would suggest otherwise. And hey, the CDC even provided a time line of their epic accomplishment and a link for more details.
“On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture…”
Wait a minute. What was that again? They immediately placed the clinical specimen into cell culture. Huh?
Does this mean that the patient sample was immediately placed into a cell culture—a source of genetic contamination? Surely they mean that the virus was placed into a cell culture after it was isolated from the patient. Because if the patient sample was immediately contaminated with a cell culture, how could it then be established scientifically that the patient was infected with a new virus? I’m confused. Let’s keep reading.
“On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.”
Fabulous, but how did they determine that a virus, and specifically SARS-CoV-2, was even present? I’m still confused. Let’s keep reading.
“On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.”
Woah, talk about putting the cart before the horse. Let’s keep reading and figure this out.
“An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.” https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
Ok, well we will definitely have to check out that article and get these details sorted out. So the link for the article takes us to:
“Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States” by Jennifer Harcourt (affiliation: CDC) et al….
In the Specimen Collection section of this CDC paper, we find that:
“clinical specimens from a case-patient…were collected on day 3 postsymptom onset, placed in 2–3 mL of viral transport medium, used for molecular diagnosis, and frozen. Confirmed PCR-positive specimens were aliquoted and refrozen until virus isolation was initiated…”
That’s interesting, because a colleague of mine noticed that the CDC’s standard operating procedure for viral transport medium includes fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs. So…this means that the clinical specimens were contaminated with cow material before the molecular diagnosis (via PCR) and “isolation” procedure even began.
That seems strange. And troubling. And unscientific. But let’s keep reading and see how they isolated the virus from these contaminated patient/cow specimens.
The Methods contain a section on Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation. In that order? Hmm. More confusion.
“We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage.”
So, in the CDC’s mind, culturing a patient sample in a cell line and “virus isolation” are the same step. Interesting.
And what are Vero CCL-81 cells? Google search. First link: A company called ATCC lists Vero CCL-81 as animal cells:
“Organism: Cercopithecus aethiops.
Morphology: epithelial.
Tissue: kidney.
Derivation: The Vero cell line was initiated from the kidney of a normal adult African green monkey on March 27, 1962…
Passage history: The cell line was brought to the Laboratory of Tropical Virology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health in the 93rd passage from Chiba University by B. Simizu on June 15, 1964.”
And, under Required Products:
“These products are vital for the proper use of this item and have been confirmed as effective in supporting functionality. If you use alternative products, the quality and effectiveness of the item may be affected. Eagle’s Minimum Essential Medium…; Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS)…”
More fetal bovine serum. Seriously? Fetal bovine serum and kidney epithelial cells from an African green monkey are necessary to “isolate a virus.” You can’t make this stuff up…
Back to the CDC study:
“We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics… We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/ antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…
When CPEs [Cytopathic effects aka harm to the monkey cells] were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
Did you see anything in that blurb about isolating a virus? Me neither. Monkey cells, fetal bovine serum, swab specimens, and drugs mixed together. Harmful effects to poisoned monkey cells irrationally, unscientifically attributed to “the virus.” Nothing isolated/purified, not even from the monkey cell mixture.
No virus purified, characterized, sequenced, or studied with controlled experiments. No virus was even looked for in the patient samples.
Lack of Control Experiments in Virology
By Christine Massey
Excerpt from “Do virologists perform valid control experiments? Is virology a science?” (fluoridefreepeel.ca)
“Control groups are an important part of any scientific experiment. A control group provides a reference for the experimental group to be compared against. Control groups must contain the exact components as the experimental group sans the component being tested known as the independent variable. If for instance an experimental group contains Antibiotics, Antifungals, Minimal Nutrient solution, and FBS (fetal bovine serum), then the experimental groups should contain all of those components at the same volume. For this group to receive a check mark, the control must contain the same composition sans the viral sample. Since the experimental groups use an unpurified sample from a sick person, the control must use an unpurified sample from a healthy person to be considered valid.” — Michael Speth
Most “virus isolation and sequencing” papers make no mention of having used any controls whatsoever when “culturing” or “sequencing.” Some make vague, sketchy references to “mock infected cells” without providing details of exactly how they treated those cells (and rarely, if ever, are detailed results published).
Is virology a science? Do virologists perform valid control experiments? The quick and easy answer is “no”, and we know this based on the fact that virologists do not have pure samples of their alleged “viruses” taken from their alleged locations (so-called “hosts”) to use as the independent variable in any fully controlled experiment whatsoever. See the proof of this in any “virus isolation” study, and in hundreds of FOI responses. That alone is enough to make clear that virology is not a science…
We can also come at this issue from a slightly different angle, by looking at the attempts made by virologists, if any, to control for any potentially confounding factors when claiming to have “isolated” and/or “sequenced” a “virus.”
Most “virus isolation and sequencing” papers make no mention of having used any controls whatsoever when “culturing” or “sequencing.” Some make vague, sketchy references to “mock infected cells” without providing details of exactly how they treated those cells (and rarely, if ever, are detailed results published). Thus, attempts have been made via Freedom of Information filings to obtain further details.
No institution thus far has been willing/able to provide the requested information. Also, colleagues have queried study authors and obtained numerous confessions that they did not implement even half-hearted controls. (See fluoridefreepeel.ca)
Note: Dr. Stefan Lanka commissioned control experiments on cell cultures to which nothing from a patient was added. His negative control results showed that the monkey-cell death (cytopathic effect, CPE) that is interpreted as “virus isolation” by virologists is in fact also brought on without the addition of any allegedly “infectious” material. See: (odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1/ cpe-english:f)
Mock-Infected Cells
“The definition of mock-infected is: ‘…a control group in scientific experiments designed to evaluate the effects of viral infection on cells or organisms. In a mock-infected control group, the cells or organisms are treated with the same conditions and reagents as the infected group, except they are not exposed to the virus.’ —www.genscript.com
In other words, the only difference for the control group is one variable—the alleged virus. This can be done in the case of bacterial or fungal cells because it is possible to separate out such cells and leave the other biological material in the sample.
It is therefore contested that the virologists themselves have conceded that a true mock-infected experiment is an impossibility as apparently they cannot physically isolate (and thus remove) virus particles from specimens derived from an organism said to be afflicted by a ‘viral’ illness.” —Dr. M. J. Bailey
Alignment: The Easily Recognizable and Essential Refutation of Viral Assumptions
By Stefan Lanka
Excerpt from “The Virus Misconception” https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/ wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-3.pdf
Any interested person will find in any claim of existence or isolation of disease-causing viruses that a long nucleic acid is theoretically constructed from very short pieces of nucleic acid released when tissues die, which is then passed off as viral nucleic acid in complete deception of both the scientist and everyone else. This laborious composition of the assumed viral nucleic acid, which can only be accomplished with fast computers and was much more cumbersome and done by hand at the beginning of gene virology, is called alignment. Every person recognises from the word alignment that a long, supposedly viral nucleic acid was only ever constructed theoretically. Never does the claim appear that from a (viral) structure or even from an “infected” liquid, an even remotely complete nucleic acid has been found, the determination of whose molecular sequence would correspond to the theoretically constructed nucleic acid.
Viruses are only constructed mentally by putting together very short pieces of nucleic acids, purely theoretically, into long pieces. These long mental constructs, which do not exist in reality and have never been discovered, are passed off as viruses. The process of mentally stringing together very short pieces of nucleic acid into a theoretical and long nucleic acid is called alignment…
Here the effective coercive logic to which virologists have been subject since 1954 becomes clear…Since short pieces of nucleic acids—from which the postulated disease-causing viruses, the viral hereditary strands, are only mentally constructed—are found in every living being, all humans and animals can test “positive,” depending on the quantity and collection location of the sample to be tested. The more that is tested, the more positive results are produced…
In the case of Corona, it is particularly easy to see how virologists deceived themselves and others, which in this case escalated into worldwide hysteria and the Corona crisis through the actions of the German virologist Prof. Christian Drosten.
In an attempt to get a grip on the panic of a new “outbreak” of SARS triggered by a hysterical ophthalmologist, the virologists of the Chinese government theoretically constructed a nucleic acid strand in the record time of one week by means of computer programmes, which they said was almost identical to harmless and difficult-to-transmit “bat viruses.”
They used only nucleic acids contained in the fluid of a bronchial wash obtained from a person who died with pneumonia…They did not claim to have obtained this nucleic acid from an isolated structure.
It is likely that the Chinese virologists theoretically constructed the nucleic acid of a “harmless” virus in order to get a grip on the wave of fear triggered by the ophthalmologist of a believed new outbreak of a dangerous corona virus SARS epidemic, which might have resulted in the immediate overload of hospitals. Prof. Drosten, on the other hand, did not wait until the Chinese scientists published the final theoretical composition of their nucleic acid on January 24, 2020, to develop a test procedure to detect this allegedly new viral nucleic acid using the PCR method. In order to develop his test procedure, he selected completely different nucleic acids, which he knew to be present in every human being, even before the preliminary data on the alleged new viral gene sequence from China was published on January 10, 2020. The pieces of nucleic acids he selected, which do not come from the (constructed) genome strand of the Chinese virus, are the basis of his test procedure.
The biochemicals to detect the pieces of nucleic acids selected by Prof. Drosten by means of PCR—which do not originate from the Chinese virus model—were sent free of charge on January 11, 2020, “for humanitarian reasons,” to precisely the places where it was known that returnees from Wuhan were being tested. Positive test results were thus obtained from travellers from Wuhan, which were presented to the public from January 20, 2020, as proof of human-to-human transmission of the alleged new virus. The Chinese government had to bow to public pressure to accept a new epidemic because of this apparent evidence…
Summarizing The Essentials
Viruses are only constructed mentally by putting together very short pieces of nucleic acids, purely theoretically, into long pieces. These long mental constructs, which do not exist in reality and have never been discovered, are passed off as viruses. The process of mentally stringing together very short pieces of nucleic acid into a theoretical and long nucleic acid is called alignment…
Since short pieces of nucleic acids, of which viruses are thought to be composed, are released during all inflammatory processes, tissue formation, degradation, and death, it is clear that all people who experience inflammatory processes, tissue formation, degradation or death, and from whom tissues and fluids are collected for testing, can test “positive” with the nucleic acid detection technique PCR.
Similarly, people automatically test positive if, when tested by swabbing,
a) too many mucous membranes are damaged,
b) there is hemorrhaging as a result,
c) the very sensitive olfactory bulb, a part of the brain, is mechanically injured in the nasal cavity, or
d) simply a very large sample volume is taken,
because in the body, as well as in every natural body of water and in all seas, an astonishingly intensive build-up and degradation of nucleic acids of all kinds is constantly taking place…
The PCR virus test only detects very short nucleic acids that are claimed to be part of a virus… The “positive” results of Prof. Drosten’s PCR tests were used to justify the claim that a new virus was “definitely” detected and that there was easy human-to-human transmission. These rash actions of Prof. Drosten had the effect of escalating a local SARS hysteria in Wuhan (triggered by an ophthalmologist) to a worldwide corona crisis.
Settling the Virus Debate
(Originally published 14 July 2022)
Excerpt from: Settling the Virus Debate drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
Virus: “A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.” –Harvey Lodish, et al., Molecular Cell Biology, 4th ed.
It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus,” SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host—the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.
After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses,” we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues…
The misconceptions about “viruses” appear to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation,” which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology…
Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…
Editor’s Note: Testing the Methodology
One of the main points of this test is to demonstrate whether a virological lab can differentiate between a control sample and an “infected” sample using their own standard methods, including cell-culture isolation, imaging, and sequencing techniques. If these methods are valid, then with a collection of blind samples, virologists should only be able to “isolate,” image, and sequence a Corona or Influenza virus from the “infected” samples. The non-infected control samples should NOT demonstrate CPE or positive electron microscope images, nor should it be possible to construct or assemble a virus’s genetic sequence from the control sample’s nucleic acids.
Step One
Five virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the five labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e., 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay).
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive. Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present…
Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer).
Step Two
All of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if five labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples…
If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt…
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2… We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative.
Signatories, Thomas Cowan, MD – Mark Bailey, MD – Samantha Bailey, MD – Jitendra Banjara, MSc – Kelly Brogan, MD – Kevin Corbett, PhD – Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS – Michael Donio, MS – Jordan Grant, MD – And others.
