- Joined
- Apr 2, 2023
I kinda let you off easy...You had one chance to be regarded as anything other than "bad faith person with human skull pfp" and you fucked it up.
So, good luck trying to get me to take you seriously now.
Full Document Here
I've no idea how to archive PDFs/upload them to the site so if anybody knows, feel free to share.
Virology invented the virus model but has consistently failed to fulfil its own requirements. It is claimed that viruses cause disease after transmittng between hosts such as humans and yet the scientific evidence for these claims is missing. One of virology’s greatest failures has been the inability to obtain any viral particles directly from the tissues of organisms said to have “viral” diseases. In order to obfuscate this state of affairs, virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the longstanding scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices. For instance, an “isolated” isolate does not require the physical existence of the particles in order to be afforded “isolation” status.
A viral particle must fulfil defined physical and biological properties including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human. However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions.
This essay contains three parts. Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.
Part Two examines the fraud used to propagate the COVID-19 “pandemic.” A breakdown of the methodology relied upon by the original inventors Fan Wu et al., shows how the fictional SARS-CoV-2 was “created” through anti-scientific methods and linguistic sleights of hands. It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates. Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle — the phylogenetic trees are fantasies. The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic.
Part Three provides an analysis of how some key participants, “health” institutions, and the mainstream media maintain the virus illusion through information control and narratives that parrot virology’s claims. By way of happenstance, the virological fraud now finds itself front and centre of the COVID-19 fraud. From here, however, it can be critically appraised by those outside virology and the pseudo-scientific paradigm virology has built around itself can finally be dismantled and laid to rest.
The aim of this essay is to provide refutations to various claims that pathogenic viruses exist and cause disease. SARS-CoV-2 has been used as the main example but the principles apply to all alleged viruses. What follows addresses virology’s often arcane literature on its own terms, which, it should be said, may make parts of this essay somewhat heavy reading. However, it is hoped that this contribution will fill a niche for the reader seeking a more technical understanding of the virus hypothesis as it seeks to expose the very foundation of purported pandemics and fraudulent medical practices. The threat of virology to humanity is increasing so it is time we bid farewell to these destructive pseudoscientific practices and free ourselves from unnecessary fears.
A viral particle must fulfil defined physical and biological properties including being a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in a host such as a human. However, “viruses” such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs, existing only in imaginations and computer simulations. In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be “viral.” The existence of a virus is not required in this loop of circular reasoning and thus entire “pandemics” can be built upon digital creations and falsely sustained through in vitro (“test tube”) molecular reactions.
This essay contains three parts. Part One outlines some of the history of virology and the failures of the virologists to follow the scientific method. The many and far-reaching claims of the virologists can all be shown to be flawed due to: (a) the lack of direct evidence, and (b) the invalidation of indirect “evidence” due to the uncontrolled nature of the experiments. The examples provided cover all major aspects of the virological fraud including alleged isolation, cytopathic effects, genomics, antibodies, and animal pathogenicity studies.
Part Two examines the fraud used to propagate the COVID-19 “pandemic.” A breakdown of the methodology relied upon by the original inventors Fan Wu et al., shows how the fictional SARS-CoV-2 was “created” through anti-scientific methods and linguistic sleights of hands. It is part of an ongoing deception where viruses are claimed to exist by templating them against previous “virus” templates. Using SARS-CoV-2 as an example, the trail of “coronavirus” genomic templates going back to the 1980s reveals that none of these genetic sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any viral particle — the phylogenetic trees are fantasies. The misapplication of the polymerase chain reaction has propagated this aspect of virology’s fraud and created the ‘cases’ to maintain the illusion of a pandemic.
Part Three provides an analysis of how some key participants, “health” institutions, and the mainstream media maintain the virus illusion through information control and narratives that parrot virology’s claims. By way of happenstance, the virological fraud now finds itself front and centre of the COVID-19 fraud. From here, however, it can be critically appraised by those outside virology and the pseudo-scientific paradigm virology has built around itself can finally be dismantled and laid to rest.
The aim of this essay is to provide refutations to various claims that pathogenic viruses exist and cause disease. SARS-CoV-2 has been used as the main example but the principles apply to all alleged viruses. What follows addresses virology’s often arcane literature on its own terms, which, it should be said, may make parts of this essay somewhat heavy reading. However, it is hoped that this contribution will fill a niche for the reader seeking a more technical understanding of the virus hypothesis as it seeks to expose the very foundation of purported pandemics and fraudulent medical practices. The threat of virology to humanity is increasing so it is time we bid farewell to these destructive pseudoscientific practices and free ourselves from unnecessary fears.
As of 11 September 2022 and following extensive enquiries through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests coordinated by Christine Massey, not one of 209 mainly health or science institutions in over 35 countries have been able to provide direct evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus. The institutions were asked to produce any documents demonstrating, “the purification of ‘SARS-CoV-2’ said to have caused disease in humans (via maceration, filtration, and use of an ultracentrifuge; also referred to at times by some people as ‘isolation’), directly from a diseased human…” On many occasions, following an admission that no such evidence is held, institutions such as the New Zealand Ministry of Health then suggest that, “there are several examples of the virus being isolated and cultured in a laboratory setting.” However, the examples referred to are universally Essue culture proxy experiments, in which the word ‘isolation’ has become detached from its understood meaning and it has not been demonstrated that any particle, imaged or imagined, has the properties of a disease-causing virus. In any case, it is a distraction from the wider issue exposed by the FOI requests, which is that particles claimed to be viruses can never be found in human subjects. Virology has made excuses for this missing evidence but even allowing for this embarrassing deficiency, it is running out of places to hide as its various methodologies are increasingly scrutinised by those outside the field. This essay outlines the many aspects of virology’s anti-science that have been employed to maintain the illusion that pathogenic viruses exist. The situation has become increasingly dangerous and since early 2020, the COVID-19 “pandemic" has been used as a Trojan horse to bring humanity to its knees.
Again this is all baseless accusations thus far, but it isn't a part of the paper proper so who cares? It looks nice at the top of the page and that's likely its sole purpose. Following this the paper begins:
As I said a paper is nothing without its citations. And there are two citations linked in the above snippet, the first of which is a link to an article on a website called fluoridefreepeel.ca, wherein the previously mentioned Christine Massey claims that:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if Christine asked for proof, was given proof, and decided that the proof she was given wasn't good enough. I suppose the issue is that it was isolated in culture and not a human being.
Bold claim, and the article itself carries on in a similar vein, the only relevant bits being a link to an excel file listing the 220 institutions Massey interrogated and another link to another article. So I click the second link which leads me to
Still a bold claim. This article opens with a bitchute video which I'll link here because my dumb ass doesn't know how to archive as of yet. After that we finally get to a point.
As it happens I can't spot the oxymoron. This isn't my field so maybe that quote is baffling to anybody who knows anything about virology, same as this example Christine mentions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if Christine asked for proof, was given proof, and decided that the proof she was given wasn't good enough. I suppose the issue is that it was isolated in culture and not a human being.
But I digress, if you want to read that article for yourself it's here.
Again more loaded language, scare quotes and, as far as I can tell, no definitive proof. I feel like a scientific paper shouldn't feel like a persuasive essay, but from their perspective this is a matter of life and death, so maybe it's prudent that they mix science with rhetoric. Maybe the proof lies in those citations or in a later section. I'll have to wait to find out because holy shit is the next section long and looking at walls of text for this long is making my eyes dance. Anybody with the requisite autism, however, can have a free preview of the next section right here:
The defence of virology’s methodologies is obviously agempted by its promoters, including New Zealand government and state-funded media’s favoured microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles. Her employer, the University of Auckland, is among those institutions who have now confirmed that, “[it] has not done any work relating to the purification of any Covid-19 virus,” and therefore has neither found in, nor isolated from, any human subject the so-called virus named SARS-CoV-2. This associate professor, who advised the country that, “the world is on fire,” in March 2020, was ordained New Zealander of the Year in 2021 for, “helping millions globally see past the fear and complexities of the pandemic…and helping to keep us safe.” In her November 2020 article, “Koch’s postulates, COVID, and misinformation rabbit holes,” Wiles alleged that, “the people asking for evidence of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 are specifically wording their request to rule out obtaining any evidence that the virus exists.” Her article quickly went off on a tangent about Koch’s Postulates being unsuitable for viruses and she thus declared them as invalid in that context. It is unclear why she did not mention Rivers Postulates, which were designed specifically to include viruses, although perhaps because she would have to admit that these postulates have never been fulfilled either. And while Koch’s Postulates relate to the establishment of disease-causation and contagion, rather than the specific issue of whether viral particles can be found in or from human subjects, she could have simply explained that the virologists have spent much of the 20th century trying to identify viruses directly from sick humans without any success. Wiles then fallaciously introduced Falkow’s Molecular Postulates into her argument, providing no explanation as to how they could be employed to demonstrate the physical existence of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 in a human or anywhere else. Awkwardly for Wiles, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2003 that with regard to SARS-CoV-1, “conclusive identification of a causative [agent] must meet all criteria in the so-called ‘Koch’s Postulate [sic].’ The additional experiments needed to fulfil these criteria are currently under way at a laboratory in the Netherlands.” The WHO’s article was removed from its website without explanation in 2021 but is still able to be accessed through the Internet Archive. The fanciful claim that Koch’s Postulates were met in 2003 by Fouchier et al. with SARS-CoV-1 has been refuted elsewhere. Their monkey experiment was not only invalidated by its lack of controls and unnatural exposure route but like all virology publications, they failed to demonstrate a particle that met the definition of a virus. Wiles also appeared to be at odds with Na Zhu et al., one of the first teams that claimed to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, because they conceded that, “although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV [later ‘SARS-CoV-2’] in the Wuhan outbreak. Additional evidence to confirm the etiologic significance of 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak include... animal (monkey) experiments to provide evidence of pathogenicity.”
— However, whether different virologists want to entertain the validity of Koch’s Postulates or not, it is simply another distraction as the postulates require the physical isolation of a microbe rather than assertions that one exists through means such as computer simulations, imaging vesicles of unknown biological function, or claiming that unpurified biological soups given to animals contain “viruses”.
Wiles also decided to champion virology’s blatant misuse of the word ‘isolation’ when she stated, “as for using isolation in the every-day sense of the word, rather than the definition that is relevant to the question being asked? Well, that’s just bloody ridiculous and a clear sign these requests for
evidence are not being made in good faith.” She appeared to be incredulous that others had pointed out that the definition of a word being used scientifically was unilaterally changed by the virologists to imply a certain proof was obtained. However, if their use of isolation does not mean
what most people think it means, then it is likely that most of the public are being misinformed. On this account, Wiles is an active participant in promulgating disinformation, whether it is an act of wilful blindness or otherwise. Wiles needs to show her hand as an expert and explain to the
public what the definition of isolation in virology means, in particular with regard to demonstrating the putative existence of viruses. Perhaps she thinks she did explain when she wrote, “when virologists want to isolate a virus from a sample they’ll take the sample or some part of it and add
it to some cells – usually ones that are relatively easy to grow in the lab – and then look to see if the cells die and/or if there are any virus particles released into the liquid nutrient bath the cells are growing in.” It is unclear if Wiles is implying that the “virus isolate” is established by: (a) the
taking of the sample, (b) seeing some cells die in vitro, (c) the release of claimed “virus particles” in the tissue culture, or (d) all or some combination of these elements. However, nothing she described requires the existence of viruses — it is a game of deception, whether realised or not. It
simply involves the assertion that a virus was in the sample, blaming the breakdown of experimentally stressed cells in the test tube on the imagined virus, and then declaring that some of the vesicles (whose biological composition and function were not established) were the viruses.
There is a further fatal flaw in this exercise. As this essay will detail, the claims that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to exist through this methodology are all scientifically invalid as none of the experiments were performed with valid controls.
This is exemplary of how Wiles has acted in her role as one of the key influencers for the New Zealand government’s disinformation campaign and its murderous rollout programme of an injectable product called ComirnatyTM – claiming that non-specific tissue culture experiments
verify the existence of the virus when nothing of the kind has been demonstrated. The issue extends beyond just SARS-CoV-2 — every virus asserted to exist relies on similar pseudoscience. The history of virology reveals that the types of cells eventually selected for these experiments
have been those that have a propensity to breakdown with the claim of virus-induced ‘cytopathic effects’ (CPEs), rather than those that are, “relatively easy to grow in the lab,” as Wiles claimed in her article. For example, Vero E6 monkey cells have long been favoured by virologists, supposedly due to their “suitability” to host many viruses, but suspiciously also, because the aneuploid19 kidney line is more susceptible to toxic insults from additional ingredients such as the ubiquitous nephrotoxic antibiotics and antifungals added to the culture mix. When one group agempted to culture SARS-CoV-2, they had no desired result with human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), and a big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B), but then declared they had a “viral isolate” following the observation of CPEs in Vero E6 cells. As is typical, there seemed to be no sense of irony for them that the purported human respiratory virus cannot be shown to “infect” the relevant cell type, let alone the relevant species.
And their experiments were once again invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures.
— However, whether different virologists want to entertain the validity of Koch’s Postulates or not, it is simply another distraction as the postulates require the physical isolation of a microbe rather than assertions that one exists through means such as computer simulations, imaging vesicles of unknown biological function, or claiming that unpurified biological soups given to animals contain “viruses”.
Wiles also decided to champion virology’s blatant misuse of the word ‘isolation’ when she stated, “as for using isolation in the every-day sense of the word, rather than the definition that is relevant to the question being asked? Well, that’s just bloody ridiculous and a clear sign these requests for
evidence are not being made in good faith.” She appeared to be incredulous that others had pointed out that the definition of a word being used scientifically was unilaterally changed by the virologists to imply a certain proof was obtained. However, if their use of isolation does not mean
what most people think it means, then it is likely that most of the public are being misinformed. On this account, Wiles is an active participant in promulgating disinformation, whether it is an act of wilful blindness or otherwise. Wiles needs to show her hand as an expert and explain to the
public what the definition of isolation in virology means, in particular with regard to demonstrating the putative existence of viruses. Perhaps she thinks she did explain when she wrote, “when virologists want to isolate a virus from a sample they’ll take the sample or some part of it and add
it to some cells – usually ones that are relatively easy to grow in the lab – and then look to see if the cells die and/or if there are any virus particles released into the liquid nutrient bath the cells are growing in.” It is unclear if Wiles is implying that the “virus isolate” is established by: (a) the
taking of the sample, (b) seeing some cells die in vitro, (c) the release of claimed “virus particles” in the tissue culture, or (d) all or some combination of these elements. However, nothing she described requires the existence of viruses — it is a game of deception, whether realised or not. It
simply involves the assertion that a virus was in the sample, blaming the breakdown of experimentally stressed cells in the test tube on the imagined virus, and then declaring that some of the vesicles (whose biological composition and function were not established) were the viruses.
There is a further fatal flaw in this exercise. As this essay will detail, the claims that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to exist through this methodology are all scientifically invalid as none of the experiments were performed with valid controls.
This is exemplary of how Wiles has acted in her role as one of the key influencers for the New Zealand government’s disinformation campaign and its murderous rollout programme of an injectable product called ComirnatyTM – claiming that non-specific tissue culture experiments
verify the existence of the virus when nothing of the kind has been demonstrated. The issue extends beyond just SARS-CoV-2 — every virus asserted to exist relies on similar pseudoscience. The history of virology reveals that the types of cells eventually selected for these experiments
have been those that have a propensity to breakdown with the claim of virus-induced ‘cytopathic effects’ (CPEs), rather than those that are, “relatively easy to grow in the lab,” as Wiles claimed in her article. For example, Vero E6 monkey cells have long been favoured by virologists, supposedly due to their “suitability” to host many viruses, but suspiciously also, because the aneuploid19 kidney line is more susceptible to toxic insults from additional ingredients such as the ubiquitous nephrotoxic antibiotics and antifungals added to the culture mix. When one group agempted to culture SARS-CoV-2, they had no desired result with human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), and a big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B), but then declared they had a “viral isolate” following the observation of CPEs in Vero E6 cells. As is typical, there seemed to be no sense of irony for them that the purported human respiratory virus cannot be shown to “infect” the relevant cell type, let alone the relevant species.
And their experiments were once again invalidated by the absence of appropriate control cultures.
