ViroLIEgy

What is “Covid-19?”

Disease: Illness or sickness characterized by specific signs and symptoms.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220901051835/https://www.medicinenet.com/disease/definition.htm

Stop me if you've heard this one before. You are in a conversation with someone, and the topic of "Covid-19" comes up. You explain that "Covid-19" is nothing more than a new label for the same symptoms of disease that is seen every single year. The idea that there is a new disease was bolstered by a powerful pharmaceutical fear campaign, media hype, and fraudulent PCR testing. There is nothing new under the sun. The other person responds back, saying that they know that "Covid-19" is real. They either state that they had "Covid" themselves or that they know someone else who had "it." They claim that the symptoms were intense and unlike anything that anyone has ever experienced before. Thus, "Covid-19" is a new disease.

These types of responses are all too common as there is this prevailing belief amongst the population that, in spite of the lack of evidence to support this contention, there are new and specific symptoms that define "Covid-19" as a new disease. For instance, many believe that an acute loss of smell and taste is a new feature that is specific to "Covid." A media frenzy promoting this as a new sign of the disease became ingrained in the collective consciousness when reports of positive patients experiencing these symptoms began circulating in March 2020. Originally, common indicators such as a fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the main warning signs that we were supposed to look out for if anyone feared that they had "Covid." However, in late April 2020, the CDC added six more symptoms under the "Covid" umbrella as mass testing began to roll out. These included chills, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat and new loss of taste or smell. In a clever case of subliminal messaging, the word new was often put in front of "loss of taste and smell" as a way to implant the idea that this occurence was previously unheard of.

If symptoms were compared between "Covid" and other respiratory diseases, such as the flu, the loss of smell and taste was listed as common to "Covid" with a bright green checkmark, while it was the only symptom listed as uncommon to the flu with a big red X.

In some very clever subliminal messaging, loss of smell and taste was singled out and highlighted from amongst the other listed symptoms as seen in this propaganda poster from Nigeria.

We were warned that, in many cases, loss of smell and taste were the only symptoms ever experienced by those "infected" who were testing positive for "Covid."

Stories circulated across the mainstream media, stating that the loss of smell and taste were significant and were an early warning sign of "Covid." Once the CDC listed them amongst the known symptoms, this "confirmed" anecdontal reports from March 2020 that the loss of smell and taste meant that people were otherwise asymptomatic "virus-producing" machines walking around and "infecting" others. In fact, one could be presumed positive for "Covid" based solely upon this phenomenon:

CDC confirms six coronavirus symptoms showing up in patients over and over

"The additions confirm what patients and doctors have been reporting anecdotally for weeks. In particular, the loss of taste or smell has been known to appear in patients since at least mid-March when a British group of ear, nose and throat doctors published a statement amid growing concern that it could be an early sign someone is infected but otherwise asymptomatic.

A study of European covid-19 patients found that between 85.6 percent and 88 percent of patients "reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions, respectively." In an Iranian study, 76 percent of covid-19 patients who reported a loss of smell said it had a sudden onset. In many of the cases, anosmia, as it's called, appeared before other symptoms.

"It scared the hell out of me," said Vallery Lomas, a 34-year-old champion baker, who feared she would never get her senses of smell and taste back. "I could smell nothing for probably five days."

Lomas was presumed positive for covid-19 in the midst of writing a cookbook. Smell and taste are intertwined, so some people who think they have lost both senses may have lost only their sense of smell."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/27/six-new-coronavirus-symptoms/

These early reports highlighting lesser known symptoms led people to the belief that there are specific telltale features of a new disease called "Covid-19." However, is this true, or is it merely media hype? Is the loss of smell and taste really a new and/or specific feature that can identify "Covid" from other respiratory diseases? Are there any other defining signs or symptoms that sets "Covid" apart from the rest of the crowd? Is it even possible for "Covid" to be diagnosed clinically based upon symptoms alone? Are there any laboratory or histopathological findings that distinguishes "Covid" as a new disease? Is "Covid" technically even a "new" disease, or is it simply a rebranding of the same symptoms under a new umbrella term?

What, exactly, is "Covid-19?"

Let's find out.

Defining the Disease

As stated in the introductory quote, a disease is said to be defined by specific signs and symptoms. This definition is backed up by various sources, as seen here, here, and here. In order to answer the question as to whether there are any new and/or specific signs or symptoms related to "Covid" that allow the disease to be easily defined as something new, we must start at the beginning. The world was first alerted to the presence of a pneumonia of unknown cause coming from China by the WHO on January 5th, 2020. In the statement, the WHO admitted that no causative agent had been identified and that the symptoms experienced in these cases were common, especially during the winter months. In other words, the only reason for the alert was that no cause through testing could be associated with these cases of typical pneumonia:

Pneumonia of unknown cause – China

"On 31 December 2019, the WHO China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology (unknown cause) detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. As of 3 January 2020, a total of 44 patients with pneumonia of unknown etiology have been reported to WHO by the national authorities in China. Of the 44 cases reported, 11 are severely ill, while the remaining 33 patients are in stable condition. According to media reports, the concerned market in Wuhan was closed on 1 January 2020 for environmental sanitation and disinfection.

The causal agent has not yet been identified or confirmed. On 1 January 2020, WHO requested further information from national authorities to assess the risk."

"There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported cluster of pneumonia of unknown etiology. The reported link to a wholesale fish and live animal market could indicate an exposure link to animals. The symptoms reported among the patients are common to several respiratory diseases, and pneumonia is common in the winter season; however, the occurrence of 44 cases of pneumonia requiring hospitalization clustered in space and time should be handled prudently."

https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2020-DON229

Turning to the initial studies from China, we can glean some more information as to what these common symptoms were that necessitated an alert by the WHO. According to the Fan Wu et al. paper that provided the genome of the compuer-generated "virus" that was eventually blamed as the cause, the 41-year-old patient the genome was obtained from suffered the non-specific symptoms of fever, dizziness, and a cough:

A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

"Here we study a single patient who was a worker at the market and who was admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan on 26 December 2019 while experiencing a severe respiratory syndrome that included fever, dizziness and a cough."

"The patient studied was a 41-year-old man with no history of hepatitis, tuberculosis or diabetes. He was admitted to and hospitalized in the Central Hospital of Wuhan on 26 December 2019, 6 days after the onset of disease. The patient reported fever, chest tightness, unproductive cough, pain and weakness for 1 week on presentation (Table 1)."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2008-3

A companion study by Zhou et al. stated that the main symptoms experienced by the initial patients were fever, headache, dry cough, difficulty breathing, and pneumonia:

A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin

"Here we report on a series of cases caused by an unidentified pneumonia disease outbreak in Wuhan, Hubei province, central China. This disease outbreak—which started from a local seafood market—has grown substantially to infect 2,761 people in China, is associated with 80 deaths and has led to the infection of 33 people in 10 additional countries as of 26 January 202012. Typical clinical symptoms of these patients are fever, dry cough, breathing difficulties (dyspnoea), headache and pneumonia."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7

A related study by Zhu et al. examined three early patients presenting with pneumonia of an unknown cause. Symptoms were only available for two of the patients, and these included fever, cough, and chest discomfort:

A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019

"Three adult patients presented with severe pneumonia and were admitted to a hospital in Wuhan on December 27, 2019. Patient 1 was a 49-year-old woman, Patient 2 was a 61-year-old man, and Patient 3 was a 32-year-old man. Clinical profiles were available for Patients 1 and 2. Patient 1 reported having no underlying chronic medical conditions but reported fever (temperature, 37°C to 38°C) and cough with chest discomfort on December 23, 2019. Four days after the onset of illness, her cough and chest discomfort worsened, but the fever was reduced; a diagnosis of pneumonia was based on computed tomographic (CT) scan. Her occupation was retailer in the seafood wholesale market. Patient 2 initially reported fever and cough on December 20, 2019; respiratory distress developed 7 days after the onset of illness and worsened over the next 2 days (see chest radiographs, Figure 1), at which time mechanical ventilation was started. He had been a frequent visitor to the seafood wholesale market."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7092803/

Thus, we can clearly see that there was nothing unusual about the symptoms experienced at the time "Covid" began to make the headlines. The disease that all of the patients were said to be suffering from was a pneumonia of an "unknown cause" presenting with common symptoms such as fever, cough, headache, dizziness, and difficulty breathing. There were absolutely no distinguishing signs or symptoms differentiating a "Covid" case from anyone suffering these same symptoms of disease other than the presumed "novel" cause.

Perhaps understanding that there was a need for a defining symptom, the often-ignored loss of smell and taste emerged early on as a leading sign that one was suffering from "Covid." A March 2020 article by the New York Times presented anosmia (loss of smell) and ageusia (loss of taste), two symptoms that typically go hand-in-hand together, to the world as peculiar signs of the disease. Doctors were calling on anyone who experienced these symptoms to isolate in order to stop the "spread" of the "virus," even if they had no other accompanying symptoms. The doctors wanted to raise awareness that losing one's sense of smell and taste was a sign of "infection." They urged all healthcare workers who examined patients experiencing these symptoms to wear protective gear, and recommended against doing any sinus endoscopy procedures over fear that this may release "virus" and expose workers. Evidence was cited that 30 percent of the patients testing positive were suffering from anosmia as their major presenting symptom. The American Academy of Otolaryngology stated that losing taste and smell were significant symptoms of "Covid-19." Doctors in Italy concluded that, even if a person appeared healthy, anyone experiencing these symptoms were carrying the "virus" and "infecting" others:

Lost Sense of Smell May Be Peculiar Clue to Coronavirus Infection Doctor groups are recommending testing and isolation for people who lose their ability to smell and taste, even if they have no other symptoms.

"A mother who was infected with the coronavirus couldn't smell her baby's full diaper. Cooks who can usually name every spice in a restaurant dish can't smell curry or garlic, and food tastes bland. Others say they can't pick up the sweet scent of shampoo or the foul odor of kitty litter.

Anosmia, the loss of sense of smell, and ageusia, an accompanying diminished sense of taste, have emerged as peculiar telltale signs of Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, and possible markers of infection.

On Friday, British ear, nose and throat doctors, citing reports from colleagues around the world, called on adults who lose their senses of smell to isolate themselves for seven days, even if they have no other symptoms, to slow the disease's spread. The published data is limited, but doctors are concerned enough to raise warnings.

"We really want to raise awareness that this is a sign of infection and that anyone who develops loss of sense of smell should self-isolate," Prof. Claire Hopkins, president of the British Rhinological Society, wrote in an email. "It could contribute to slowing transmission and save lives.

She and Nirmal Kumar, president of ENT UK, a group representing ear, nose and throat doctors in Britain, issued a joint statement urging health care workers to use personal protective equipment when treating any patients who have lost their senses of smell, and advised against performing nonessential sinus endoscopy procedures on anyone, because the virus replicates in the nose and the throat and an exam can prompt coughs or sneezes that expose the doctor to a high level of virus."

"The British physicians cited reports from other countries indicating that significant numbers of coronavirus patients experienced anosmia, saying that in South Korea, where testing has been widespread, 30 percent of 2,000 patients who tested positive experienced anosmia as their major presenting symptom (these were mild cases).

The American Academy of Otolaryngology on Sunday posted information on its website saying that mounting anecdotal evidence indicates that lost or reduced sense of smell and loss of taste are significant symptoms associated with Covid-19, and that they have been seen in patients who ultimately tested positive with no other symptoms."

"In the areas of Italy most heavily affected by the virus, doctors say they have concluded that loss of taste and smell is an indication that a person who otherwise seems healthy is in fact carrying the virus and may be spreading it to others.

"Almost everybody who is hospitalized has this same story," said Dr. Marco Metra, chief of the cardiology department at the main hospital in Brescia, where 700 of 1,200 inpatients have the coronavirus. "You ask about the patient's wife or husband. And the patient says, 'My wife has just lost her smell and taste but otherwise she is well.' So she is likely infected, and she is spreading it with a very mild form."

https://web.archive.org/web/20200322231522/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/coronavirus-symptoms-smell-taste.html

However, for anyone doing a cursory bit of research outside of the mainstream propaganda, it was abundantly clear that the loss of smell and taste were not new symptoms of disease nor were they specific to "Covid-19." These symptoms are often associated with allergies, the common cold, influenza, drug reactions, head injuries, old age, etc. In an April 2020 interview with experts in anosmia, VCU School of Medicine faculty Richard Costanzo, Ph.D. and Evan Reiter, M.D., it is said that many people experience these symptoms without ever noticing that they are present until someone alerts them to it. Both men stated that it is a common occurrence and that there are many potential causes:

Are there other potential causes of loss of smell?

Costanzo: If people think that, "Oh, if you lose your sense of smell, it means you have COVID-19," there are a lot of people that will notice, if you bring to their attention, that their sense of smell is not that good. Especially in the elderly, it's a common occurrence as people get older and there are other conditions that can cause a loss of smell. So to call it a predictor of COVID-19 is premature.

Reiter: Yes. Given that there are a lot of people who are presumed positive but are not being tested, there are other respiratory viruses still around, including flu itself. And some of these other viruses, including rhinoviruses — which are commonly implicated in the common cold — other coronaviruses and influenza, also have been implicated in causing a loss of sense of smell.

https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/covid-19/what-does-loss-of-smell-mean-during-covid-19

While still highlighting loss of smell and taste as a potential sign of a "Covid infection," an article from PositiveMed.com also pointed out that this is not a specific, nor a uniquely distinctive feature of "Covid," and that it is actually quite common in respiratory disease:

Lost Sense Of Smell May Be Peculiar Clue To Coronavirus Infection

"The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery believe that detecting anosmia and dysgeusia can indicate the COVID-19 infection. Anosmia is the total or partial loss of the sense of smell, while ageusia is the loss of taste functions of the tongue. These symptoms are now officially added to the list of screening tools for the illness. However, a diminished sense of taste and smell can be symptomatic of a wide variety of illnesses, respiratory or otherwise. It's not a specific, nor a uniquely distinctive feature of COVID-19. A temporary loss or reduction in your smell or taste during every respiratory infection is quite common."

Lost Sense of Smell May Be Peculiar Clue to Coronavirus Infection

Thus, it is clear that, contrary to popular belief, losing one's sense of smell and taste is not unique to "Covid," even though the media highlighted this as a defining characteristic of "Covid." They began a campaign to alert the public to be on the lookout for such a problem in order to be tested in the instance it occurs. Because of this increased awareness, rather than ignoring any smell and taste abnormalities as was the case prior to "Covid," this common occurrence became the rallying cry for the emergence of a new disease. However, the loss of smell and taste is clearly not specific to "Covid," and one cannot use it in order to claim that "Covid" is a new disease.

As the main symptoms associated with "Covid" are common amongst many different diseases that are attributed to many different causes, there is no realistic way to clinically diagnose someone with "Covid" based upon symptoms alone. This inability to distinguish a "Covid" patient from someone with respiratory disease attributed to another cause based upon clinical symptoms is a well-known fact:

The newly emerged COVID-19 disease: a systemic review

"Even though COVID-19 manifest with different symptoms, none of these symptoms are present in every patient and there are no specific signs or symptoms that could suggest COVID-19 compared to symptoms and signs of respiratory illnesses caused by other viruses,such as influenza and common cold [21, 23]."

https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-020-01363-5

Diagnosing COVID-19: The Disease and Tools for Detection

"The symptoms expressed by COVID-19 patients are nonspecific and cannot be used for an accurate diagnosis. Guan et al. reported that 44% of 1099 COVID-19 patients from China had a fever when they entered the hospital and that 89% developed a fever while in hospital.²⁵ They further found that patients had a cough (68%), fatigue (38%), sputum production (34%), and shortness of breath (19%). Many of these symptoms could be associated with other respiratory infections."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144809/

The lack of specificity and an inability to diagnose a "Covid" case clinically is supported by a September 2021 study that attempted to create a differential diagnosis between "Covid" and other diseases. The authors concluded that "Covid" can not be differentiated from other respiratory infections via clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results. The symptoms defining "Covid" are non-specific and overlapped with many other conditions. The researchers admitted that establishing differential diagnosis criteria remained very challenging and that clinical discrimination was unreliable as there were no clinical or laboratory parameters that could be relied upon:

What about the others: differential diagnosis of COVID-19 in a German emergency department

"For many common ED diagnoses, COVID-19 should be considered a differential diagnosis. COVID-19 cannot be distinguished from COVID-19 negative respiratory infections by clinical signs, symptoms, or laboratory results. When hospitalization is necessary, the clinical course of COVID-19 airway infections seems to be more severe compared to other respiratory infections."

Discussion

"Early triage and differential diagnosis of patients presenting with typical clinical symptoms of COVID-19 remain very challenging but relevant. Our study had the following main findings:

1. Differential diagnosis of typical COVID-19 symptoms is very broad and comprises many common respiratory, infectious, and cardiovascular diseases, whereas respiratory diseases are the most frequent. Diseases from nearly every field of clinical medicine can mimic a clinical picture like that of COVID-19, with respiratory diseases being the most prevalent. Older patients may be even more challenging since the clinical picture may be atypical with syncope and malaise [12].
2. Patients with COVID-19 present with similar symptoms as COVID-19 negative respiratory infections, so clinical discrimination is not reliable."

Conclusions

"Differential diagnoses of COVID-19 are plentiful and comprise many common diseases, most notably ailments associated with respiratory impairment. Triage remains challenging in the emergency department since there are no reliable clinical or laboratory parameters to distinguish safely between COVID-19 and airway infections of other origins. When inpatient, COVID-19 takes a more severe clinical course than comparable COVID-19 negative airway infections. Therefore, a strict isolation policy together with broad and rapid testing will remain the most important measures for the months to come."

https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06663-x

As there was a failure to present any unique and defining symptoms for "Covid," and there was an inability to distinguish the "new" disease from others based upon symptoms alone, there needed to be some other sign that helped "Covid" to stand out from amongst the crowd. There were early attempts to make the case that certain histopathological findings, such as chest x-rays revealing ground-glass opacities, were a way to distinguish "Covid" patients from any others presenting with the same symptoms. This finding became one of the early defining characteristics that was used to diagnose a "Covid" case. An April 2020 article by the New York Times helped to drum up fear over this particular phenomenon by stating that "Covid" patients with an "insidious pneumonia" have this hazy appearance in the lower regions of the lungs on CT scans:

Why Days 5 to 10 Are So Important When You Have Coronavirus

"But tracking symptoms and paying special attention as the illness nears its second week has taken on new urgency as more doctors are seeing patients arriving at the hospital with an insidious form of pneumonia. On scans, patients with Covid pneumonia have a finding called "ground-glass opacities," a hazy appearance in the lower part of both lungs. Oxygen levels may drop so slowly that the patient doesn't even notice, a condition called silent hypoxia. Often it is not until oxygen saturation reaches dangerously low levels, causing severe shortness of breath, that they finally seek care."

https://web.archive.org/web/20200430141608/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/well/live/coronavirus-days-5-through-10.html

A June 2020 article in Vox stated that the lungs of "Covid" patients are affected by lighter gray patches when compared to healthy lungs. The article shared evidence from China stating that 77% of the "Covid" patients had this feature. In another Chinese study, 66 of 70 patients presented with this type of lung damage. However, these same images were seen in 95% of the asymptomatic, i.e. healthy cases, as well:

The emerging long-term complications of Covid-19, explained "It is a true roller coaster of symptoms and severities, with each new day offering many unknowns."

"On CT scans, while normal lungs appear black, Covid-19 patients' lungs frequently have lighter gray patches, called "ground-glass opacities" — which may not heal.

One study from China found that this ground-glass appearance showed up in scans of 77 percent of Covid-19 patients. In another study out of China, published in Radiology, 66 of 70 hospitalized patients had some amount of lung damage in CT scans, and more than half had the kind of lesions that are likely to develop into scars. (A third study from China suggests this is not just for critically ill patients; its authors found that of 58 asymptomatic patients, 95 percent also had evidence of these ground-glass opacities in their lungs. More than a quarter of these individuals went on to develop symptoms within a few days.)"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-effects-symptoms

The CDC also pointed out that multiple studies have suggested that these abnormalities on CT or chest radiograph "may be present in people who are asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or before RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples.^" In other words, the ground-glass opacities are found in people free of disease and without a positive "Covid" PCR test. However, that didn't stop the media from attempting to highlight this ground-glass opacity phenomenon as a key feature of "Covid," even though it is actually found in many conditions, including in those who vape:

Many coronavirus patients have 'ground glass' in their lung scans. Here's what that looks like.

"Patients with severe cases typically develop fluid in their lungs, similar to those seen in standard pneumonia cases. That fluid can be detected on a CT scan, where it shows up in the form of white patches that doctors call "ground glass."

CT scans are considered less thorough than lab tests, but here's what physicians look for to detect the coronavirus in a scan."

"On its own, Lakhani said, ground glass isn't particularly helpful for identifying a coronavirus.

"You can see it with all types of infections — bacterial, viral, or sometimes even non-infectious causes," Lakhani said. "Even vaping could sometimes appear this way."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/china-coronavirus-diagnosis-ct-scans-lungs-2020-2%3famp

Despite the media highlighting this ground-glass opacity phenomenon, it was known that using CT scans as a method of detection was non-specific and that it did not even match up with PCR results. In other words, there were cases of those who had the ground glass opacities while testing negative via PCR and those who did not have the finding and still tested positive for "Covid" via PCR. In some cases where there was no suspicion of "Covid," people were imaged for other health problems and ended up being diagnosed as a "Covid" patient due solely to the unrelated finding of non-specific ground-glass opacities:

Hazy on Ground-Glass Opacities? Here's What They Are — Frequent finding in COVID-19, but how disease-specific is it?

"Essentially, a ground-glass opacity describes the "shades of greyopens in a new tab or window" in between a normal lung scan and one from an extremely diseased lung that shows up nearly all white because it's full of puss or fluid, said Henry Guo, MD, PhD, of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California."

"We see [ground-glass opacities] so often in chest imaging," Guo told MedPage Today. They come in different shapes, sizes, quantities, and locations, and they can indicate many different underlying pathologies — including other viral infections, chronic lung disease, fibrosis, other inflammatory conditions, and cancers.".

"They also had many cases where COVID-19 wasn't initially suspected but was detected incidentally. For instance, patients who had gastrointestinal issues but no respiratory symptoms were sent for abdominal CT, which catches the bottom of the lungs. "In many cases we saw ground-glass opacities" and those patients were subsequently diagnosed with COVID-19, he said.

Matthew Cham, MD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, said there was initial hope as one study determined that CT can show ground-glass opacities during the first few days of COVID infection, when PCR testing may be especially susceptible to false negatives.

"This initial observation led to substantial excitement around the potential usefulness of chest CTs for the early detection of COVID-19," Cham told MedPage Today.

Subsequent studies, however, showed some COVID patients have normal chest CTs with no ground-glass opacities during the first few days of the infection, Cham said."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/pulmonology/generalpulmonary/86751

It is known that the accuracy of a CT scan finding depends upon the community prevalence of a disease, which is a factor that also affects the claimed accuracy of PCR results. When disease prevalence is low, false positives are high. However, in order to determine disease prevalence, the disease must be able to be diagnosed clinically so that cases can be calculated. As we've already seen, due to a lack of specific signs and symptoms of disease, "Covid" can not be diagnosed clinically. Thus, just as in the case with PCR, there is no way to determine an accurate disease prevalence rate in order to establish the accuracy of the CT scans:

Review of the Chest CT Differential Diagnosis of Ground-Glass Opacities in the COVID Era

"The purpose of this review is to discuss and differentiate typical imaging findings of COVID-19 from those of other diseases, which can appear similar in the first instance. The typical CT findings of COVID-19 are bilateral and peripheral predominant ground-glass opacities. As per the Fleischner Society consensus statement, CT is appropriate in certain scenarios, including for patients who are at risk for and/or develop clinical worsening. The probability that CT findings represent COVID-19, however, depends largely on the pretest probability of infection, which is in turn defined by community prevalence of infection. When the community prevalence of COVID-19 is low, a large gap exists between positive predictive values of chest CT versus those of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. This implies that with use of chest CT there are a large number of false-positive results. Imaging differentiation is important for management and isolation purposes and for appropriate disposition of patients with false-positive CT findings."

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiol.2020202504

Beyond the inability to diagnose "Covid" based upon CT scans and the non-specific ground-glass opacity phenomenon, it is said that other histopathologic findings are non-specific as well. In an August 2020 review on the pathological picture of "Covid," the researchers stated that the overall pathologic findings are similar to those reported in "H1N1" (swine flu) and "SARS1." The gross macroscopic findings in "Covid" patients are non-specific. Autopsies showed non-specific histopathologic findings, none of which are pathognomonic of "Covid." Diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) in "Covid" patients could not be differentiated from the other etiologies of DAD by morphologic evaluation. It was noted that there is no consistent or pathognomonic "viral" cytopathic effects. The authors stated that the pathology described in organs is far from specific, and it is unclear whether the changes described reflected "viral" infection or underlying/pre-existing conditions. Even cardiac findings were non-specific, and there was no evidence that myocarditis was a common occurrence in "Covid" patients:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) – anatomic pathology perspective on current knowledge Pathologic features of COVID-19

"There is currently a paucity of pathologic data on COVID-19, most of it being derived from observations reported in a few post-mortem biopsies, two lung cancer lobectomies, a handful of limited autopsies and only a few complete autopsies, including 2 recent series [27, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. Published reports are summarized in Table 2. Although autopsy data are limited, overall the pathologic findings reported thus far are similar to those reported in H1N1 (swine flu) [60] and SARS [61].

Macroscopic features

Gross findings in COVID-19 are non-specific. The lungs are heavy, with bilateral interstitial edema and congestion [39, 41, 44]. The cut surfaces show tan-grey consolidation and/or patchy hemorrhagic areas [27]."

Microscopic features

"Autopsy data have thus far revealed non-specific histopathologic findings, none of which are pathognomonic of COVID-19; pulmonary changes have been the most noteworthy."

"These changes are frequently encountered in other infectious and non-infectious causes of DAD [60,61,62]. No consistent or pathognomonic viral cytopathic effects have yet been established [38, 41]. One study reported remarkable capillary congestion observable in all 21 specimens, irrespective of DAD, accompanying suppurative pneumonia etc. [27]."

"The pathology described in other organs is far from specific, and it is unclear whether the changes described reflect viral infection or underlying/pre-existing conditions."

"Cardiac findings reported thus far have been non-specific and focal [27, 47]. They include "scattered individual myocyte necrosis and scattered lymphocytic infiltrate" in one case [69] and "lympho

cytic myocarditis" in the right ventricle in another [47]. There is no pathologic evidence thus far that myocarditis is a common occurrence in COVID-19."

https://diagnosticpathology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13000-020-01017-8

This fact that the pathological picture of "Covid" is non-specific was backed up by an August 2022 review which stated that "the respiratory distress and the gross pathological changes observed in COVID-19 are not specific." Thus, there is no way to determine a "Covid" patient from a non-"Covid" patient by examining the tissues, organs, and cells of those claimed to be suffering from a new disease. Unsurprisingly, this inability to define "Covid" based upon clinical, laboratory, and histopathological methods did not stop the WHO from naming the exact same symptoms of disease with a new label.

According to Science, "Covid-19" became the name for the new disease "paralyzing China and threatening the rest of the world" on February 11th, 2020. Coincidentally, or not, at the exact moment WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus named the "new disease," the Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses decided that the "virus" should be called "SARS-COV-2" based upon its not-so-significant genomic relationship to "SARS-COV-1." Thus, the stage was set for a "new disease" with a "new cause," even though neither actually existed. Ironically, Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, stated that he would not use the name "SARS-COV-2" as "SARS" was a "different disease" from "Covid:"

Update: 'A bit chaotic.' Christening of new coronavirus and its disease name create confusion

"COVID-19. I'll spell it: C-O-V-I-D hyphen one nine. COVID-19."

That's how Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the World Health Organization (WHO), introduced the agency's official name for the new disease that's paralyzing China and threatening the rest of the world. The christening yesterday, at one of WHO's now daily outbreak press conferences in Geneva, ended 6 weeks of uncertainty about what the disease would be called—but it also created some new confusion.

COVID-19 is a name for the disease, not for the virus that causes it, which until now had a temporary moniker, 2019-nCoV, signifying it was a novel coronavirus that emerged last year. But the pathogen also got a new designation, which arrived before Tedros had even finished his press conference, by way of a preprint posted on bioRxiv by the body charged with classifying and naming viruses. The Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, the paper noted, had decided that the virus is a variant of the coronavirus that caused an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002–03. So, it named the new pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2, or SARS-CoV-2."

"Mike Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, says he won't use the name SARS-CoV-2 either. "We don't believe it is an accurate name, actually confusing a quite different disease (SARS) with this one (COVID-19)," Osterholm says."

https://www.science.org/content/article/bit-chaotic-christening-new-coronavirus-and-its-disease-name-create-confusion

What is "Covid-19?"

We know that there are no characteristic signs and symptoms that define "Covid" as a new disease. We know that there are no clinical, laboratory, and histopathological parameters that can be used to identify "Covid" as a new disease. So what exactly is "Covid-19?" Let's see what the "experts" say.

According to the CDC, "Covid" is simply a disease caused by "SARS-COV-2" that can feel like the common cold, flu, or pneumonia:

"COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is a disease caused by a virus named SARS-CoV-2."

"COVID-19 most often causes respiratory symptoms that can feel much like a cold, the flu, or pneumonia."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/about-covid-19.html

According to the WHO, "Covid" is an "infectious" disease that is caused by "SARS-COV-2" which results in mild to moderate respiratory illness:

"Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment."

https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1

According to the European CDC, "Covid" is a respiratory disease sharing symptoms with the flu, with the only difference separating the two illnesses being the scientifically unproven "viral" cause:

"Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is the respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2."

"Influenza, also known as the flu, is a respiratory illness that has similar symptoms but is caused by influenza viruses, not coronaviruses."

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/questions-answers-basic-facts

Thus, we can see that the common denominator in all definitions is that "Covid-19" is simply the same symptoms of respiratory disease regularly experienced as the common cold, influenza, and pneumonia with the only defining difference between them being the scientifically unproven causative agent. There is no new disease. There is only a new "cause." Knowing this, I've asked many people who defend germ theory and virology, and even those who are within the "health freedom movement" who promote the same lies, to please define "Covid-19" for me. I want them to explain how "Covid-19" is any different from diseases past, beyond the scientifically unproven "viral" cause. I have found that, more often than not, I get nothing but crickets, as seen when I asked this question of Peter Hotez, Steve Kirsh, and Robin Monotti.

Other times, not only do I get crickets, but the tweets that I had responded to challenging an individual to define "Covid" are either deleted or unavailable for some strange reason.

However, every so often, someone will try to dance around providing a direct answer as to what "Covid-19" is, as was seen with Jeremy Hammond recently. Rather than answer me directly, Jeremy attempted to logically fallaciously shift away from his burden of defining "Covid" by telling me to provide an alternative explanation for the cause of the disease.

In response to another user @CarlosPonceDrn, Jeremy stated that the symptoms of "Covid" overlapped with other respiratory diseases, thus admitting that there were no new and/or specific symptoms defining it. He admitted to me in my follow-up that clinical diagnosis based solely upon symptoms is erroneous.

In an exchange a few days later, Jeremy stated that he never said "Covid" was a new disease. Thus, his only argument was that there was a new cause of the same symptoms of disease. While it was clear that Jeremy knows full well that "Covid" is not a new disease, I wanted him to provide a direct answer to my question. When I tried to get Jeremy to provide a direct YES or NO as to whether or not "Covid" was a new disease, he went silent.

When we break down what "Covid-19" truly is, it is no wonder why so many people have trouble defining and explaining how "Covid" is a new disease. There is absolutely no evidence that a new disease exists. What we have is a new label for the same symptoms seen every single year that are regularly presented under various other labels. "Covid-19" is simply the latest name to enter the ring. As there are no defining signs and symptoms and there is no way to identify "Covid" based upon clinical, laboratory, or histopathological methods, it falls upon the fraudulent PCR tests to diagnose a "Covid" case. This was admitted by the CDC when they stated that illnesses such as the flu and "Covid" can not be differentiated via symptoms alone, thus requiring PCR tests for diagnosis:

"You cannot tell the difference between flu and COVID-19 by symptoms alone because some of the symptoms are the same. Some PCR tests can differentiate between flu and COVID-19 at the same time. If one of these tests is not available, many testing locations provide flu and COVID-19 tests separately."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html

However, PCR was never meant to diagnose disease as anyone can test positive for practically anything using this method, and it is unable tell you that you're sick as described by PCR inventor Kary Mullis:

These "tests" were never calibrated and validated to purified and isolated "virus" in order to accurately detect what they are claimed to be detecting. Despite this fact, PCR tests are now commonly used to identify tiny fragments of a theoretical genome that was assembled from RNA of unknown provenance claimed to belong to a "virus" that has never been scientifically proven to cause any disease. This is how a "Covid" case is determined. That is why the below response that I received that the definition of "Covid-19" is a positive PCR result, coming from a person who identifies as an HCPC registered Biomedical Scientist working in the hospital lab, is not as absurd as it first may sound.

"Covid-19" truly is nothing but a positive PCR result. That's it. This is why a "new disease" called "Covid-19" can be found mostly in the asymptomatic, i.e. healthy people who are not suffering from any disease whatsoever. This is why the symptoms belonging to "Covid" can range from none to the common cold, to Kawasaki disease, to frost bite, and all the way to death. This is why the CDC was able to add six "new" symptoms to "Covid" in April 2020, over four months after the common symptoms of pneumonia were first identified in patients in China, upon the introduction of mass testing. When one is labelled as a "Covid" case based upon a fraudulent test, any symptoms that they may or may not experience as well as any underlying health conditions that they may have had, become absorbed into the "Covid" umbrella. However, this amalgamation of unrelated symptoms joined together by way of PCR does not make "Covid" a new disease. It never was. It is simply the brand name for the positive PCR result, a result that is admittedly inaccurate when disease prevalence, which requires cases to be diagnosed clinically, is low. As "Covid" cannot be diagnosed clinically based upon specific signs and symptoms, there is no way to get an accurate disease prevalence rate in order to determine the accuracy of the PCR result. Thus, PCR is used to generate cases in order to calculate disease prevalence so that its results can be claimed as accurate. However, PCR cannot be used to create cases in order to determine its own accuracy. This is outright fraud, and it is the very reason why there was never any "viral pandemic." It has always been, and will continue to be, a testing pandemic until enough people become aware of the truth and stop testing for a "new disease" that never existed in the first place.

This article originally appeared on ViroLIEgy's Antiviral Substack.

The Indirect Approach

This article originally appeared on ViroLIEgy's Antiviral Substack.

Imagine for a moment that you had no concept of Santa Claus. You have never heard of the jolly fat man in the red jumpsuit who delivers presents to all of the good boys and girls around the world. You wake up one morning, walk downstairs, and you discover presents under a beautifully decorated tree in the living room along with stockings hung on the fireplace mantel filled with wonderful goodies. There are traces of soot and some faint footprints on the carpet leading from the fireplace to the tree. Sitting on the stand next to the rocking chair is a plate with leftover cookie crumbs and a half drank cup of milk. There is a hand-written note thanking your family for the delicious snack signed by someone named Santa. While cautiously excited at first, you begin to panic, fearing that a stranger has broken into your home while you slept. However, instead of taking anything of value, this stranger left you with more than you had before. Rather than cover up the crime, this Santa character left plenty of evidence implicating himself in this holiday breaking-and-entering caper.

You run to your parents, feeling somewhat bewildered and stunned as there is no sign of any forced entry into the house. Filled with a sense of concern for the safety of your family, you explain to them every last detail of the perplexing scene that you stumbled upon. Your mother lets out a little laugh, gives you a gentle hug and a kiss on the forehead in order to calm you down, and tells you to relax.

"Everything is OK. It was just Santa Claus."

Santa Claus?!? Confused by your parents seeming disregard over the fact that there was an intruder in the house, you ask them how they can remain so calm knowing that this Santa Claus broke in while everyone slept. You press them for more details.

Over the course of the next few minutes, you are told a fantastical tale about a hefty old, bearded man who possesses superhuman abilities. This senior citizen, with no concern over developing diabetes from his cookie binging ways, is somehow able to fly around the entire world.in a single night on a sleigh of eight magical reindeer. He is able to transport himself up and down through the tightest of chimneys with ease. Within a giant burlap sack that he lugs around with him everywhere is an endless supply of just the right gift-wrapped toys made by a village of elves that he lives with in the North Pole. Amazingly, this elderly man knows exactly who to give the gifts to without question as he watches the children of the world all year round in order to make sure whether they have been naughty or nice.

After this wild explanation by your parents attempting to unravel the mysteries of the marvelous scene that you witnessed downstairs, you are left in a state of utter shock. There are numerous questions running through your head. You take a moment, collect yourself, and then ask the most logical one that comes to mind:

"How do you know that this Santa Claus actually exists and travels across the world on a sleigh of eight flying reindeer delivering presents to all of the good boys and girls?"

Taken aback by your simple question, your parents look at each other for a moment, and with a slight smirk, your father responds.

"Didn't you see the presents left under the tree?"

You explain that, of course you saw the presents downstairs, but how are you supposed to know that the presents were placed there by this Santa Claus person? Couldn't the presents have been left by someone else, perhaps even by your parents themselves? Your mother starts to look a bit nervous.

"You saw the cookie crumbs and the half-drank cup of milk, right?"

Again, you explain that this could easily have been the act of either of your parents. How do cookie crumbs and a glass of milk equal a magical fat man? Your father, getting a bit upset, responds back.

"What about the hand-written note thanking us for the delicious snack?"

To this, you reply that the handwriting looked suspiciously like your mother's, which elicits a faint gasp from her. Your mother shoots back.

"But what about the footprints and the soot left by the fireplace?"

Your parents seem fairly content that this is solid evidence of a fat man who can magically transport himself down and back up the chimney with a giant bag of toys. But alas, you explain that they could have easily made the footprints themselves with a pair of boots and some fireplace ash. Your parents are now sweating a bit. Their explanations are not logical, and they realize that they are failing to convince you. However, in a last desperate attempt to convince you that jolly ol' Saint Nick is a real person, your father pulls out his smart phone with an image of Santa Claus caught sneaking around inside your house.

"Look! Here is an image of Santa delivering the presents to us! We caught him right in the act with our security camera last night."

You sit down for a moment, and your parents start to feel a sense of relief. That is, until you ask them to show you when, where, and how the image was obtained from the security camera. Your father, clearly flustered now, simply refuses to respond anymore about the photo or any other questions that you have that further poke holes into their story. Your mother throws up her hands in frustration and says something about not raising a child who disbelieves in Santa. She lashes out:

"All of the children believe that Santa Claus exists, and all of the evidence points to him existing! Are you denying that Santa is real?"

You counter that all of the evidence that your parents presented can be explained away. The simplest explanation is that they were the ones who set up the scene, and they were the ones who created the evidence implicating a supernatural being. All of the evidence that they offered did not present a clear case that Santa existed, nor that this man was capable of the amazing qualities that they had attributed to him. All your parents had was evidence that, if believed, could lead one to possibly buy into the story that such a person existed. This is why there are so many children who are willing to believe in this fantastical being without question as they do not look at this evidence critically and logically. However, what your parents failed to present when making their case was any evidence that proved Santa Claus existed that did not rely of the necessity of inference in order to come to such a conclusion.

This little exercise in creative writing is meant as a metaphor for the interactions many of us face regularly when we discuss the lack of scientific evidence supporting the existence of pathogenic "viruses" with those who believe in the germ theory story. Sadly, these conversations are rarely as nice as the one I presented in the above Santa Claus scenario. However, they always follow the same pattern where those who defend the story supply plenty of circumstantial evidence to us that is supposed to stand in as proof for the existence of the fictional entities. They give us presents under the tree, cookie crumbs and glasses of half drank milk, dirty footprints, images of someone dressed as Santa, etc. However, what they can never do is show that Santa is a real individual rather than someone dressed up and made to look like the real deal. They can never demonstrate that the person playing the part of Santa possesses all of the magical qualities attributed to him. They can never establish that Santa actually lives in a village at the North Pole. All they present is evidence that, when examined critically and logically, can be explained away as being created by the very people who are attempting to sell us on the idea that such a person as Santa Claus actually exists in the first place.

What this ultimately boils down to is virologists attempting to make the case that a "viral" culprit committed a crime using only circumstantial, or indirect, evidence. However, they are attempting to do so while offering no direct evidence that the culprit even exists at all. They are blaming a defendant who isn't even in the court room. There is big difference between providing indirect evidence over direct evidence, and it is a major sticking point that keeps many smart people mistakenly believing in fairy tales. Thus, I want to examine the difference between both types of evidence and show why the six most common forms of indirect evidence that virology supplies, beyond being unscientific, is not adequate proof for the existence of the invisible pathogenic entities.

"This type of functional correlation is the only way in which the behavior of viruses may be studied. Since viruses cannot be seen directly, some indirect evidence of their presence must be forthcoming. This indirect evidence is the effect the viruses produce in animals. If no experimental animal is susceptible, then there is no way of observing the presence or absence of the virus, let alone its functional correlates with other states or conditions. Advance in the study of a virus disease is usually dependent on the discovery of a susceptible host. If that host happens approximately to reproduce the original disease, well and good. But such reproduction is not essential."

-Lester S. King

https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/VII.4.350

According to Lester S. King's 1952 paper Dr. Koch's Postulates, virology has a bit of a direct evidence problem as "viruses" cannot be seen, and thus, there is no direct evidence confirming the existence of these invisible entities. This sentiment was reinforced in 2006 with the 6th edition of Introduction to Modern Virology where it is stated that "Viruses occur universally, but they can only be detected indirectly." Thus, it is not a stretch to say that in order to convince themselves that these entities exist, virologists only offer up indirect evidence that is used to convey the presence of these entities.

For clarification, the law defines indirect evidence as a combination of facts that, if true, permits a reasonable person to infer the fact. This type of evidence does not directly prove the matter at issue. On the other hand, direct evidence directly demonstrates a fundamental fact, and it is evidence that directly proves the matter. While both types of evidence are permittable and the law makes no distinction as to putting more weight on one versus the other, the indirect evidence must be strong enough and convincing enough to make the case. However, no matter how much indirect evidence is amassed in order to claim a defendant is guilty of a crime, no prosecutor can try a defendant who does not actually exist. A prosecutor cannot lay out indirect evidence before a jury for them to infer the defendant into existence. The defendant must actually be present and accounted for in order for the evidence to matter. This is the biggest problem for virology as it does not have any defendant. All that is presented is the equivalent of a bad police sketch.

The idea of a "virus" existed long before any submicroscopic particles were ever claimed to be one. King pointed out that, as "viruses" could not be directly observed, the only way for a virologist to study a "virus" was to find a host animal that they could sicken experimentally. Without one, they had no ability to study a "virus" or to determine whether a "virus" was actually present. According to Field's Virology textbook, as early virologists were unable to see their agents in a light microscope and were often confused by the great diversity of the effects seen, they had to rely on faith that they were actually working with the assumed "viruses" in their studies. Without the ability to see these entities, virologists relied upon the size of the pores of a filter that were too small for known bacteria to pass through in order to claim that a "virus" was able to do so. They used physical and chemical reactions to alcohol and ether to claim that their entity was present. Virologists relied on the emerging field of the equally invisible antibodies to claim that non-specific results from combining blood samples were indicative that a specific antibody was reacting to a specific "virus." They would perform grotesque animal experiments in order to try and recreate disease, such as grinding up the brain and spinal cord of a deceased 9-year-old with other substances in order to inject this soup into the brains of monkeys to create paralysis, as seen with polio. These are all forms of creating effects experimentally without an identified cause in order to assume the presence of the unidentified cause indirectly.

Until John Franklin Enders established the fraudulent cell culture technique in 1954, virology was running on fumes. They could not purify (free the sample of host materials, contaminants, impurities, etc.) and isolate (separate from everything else) the particles claimed to be "viruses" directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal. They could not obtain any images of just the purified and isolated "viral" particles. They could not prove that they could recreate the exact disease via natural routes of exposure with the fluids of a sick human or animal. In fact, researchers failed repeatedly to do so. They could not provide any evidence supporting virology that was derived from the scientific method as they had never actually directly established that their invisible entity existed anywhere in nature or within the fluids of a host. Thus, all that the virologists could do was rely of the creation of indirect evidence and pretend that, cumulatively, this was irrefutable proof supporting the idea of pathogenic "viruses." As time passed, researchers in various fields continued to establish even more indirect detection methods in order to pile on top of the stack of pseudoscientific evidence already collected. Let's explore the six most common forms of indirect evidence that virologists have utilized so that we can gain an understanding as to how they tricked themselves and the rest of the world that their fictional concept actually exists.

Indirect Evidence #1: Filterability

In a recent article, I detailed how the idea of the "virus" was dreamt up when bacteriologists could not identify a bacterial cause in many cases of disease. These researchers were unable to fulfill Koch's Postulates, the logical criteria established by German bacteriologist Robert Koch in 1890 that were deemed necessary to fulfill in order to claim any microbe as a causative agent of disease. They therefore needed an explanation for any experimental diseases that they were inflicting on animals and plants. As the fluids used in these experiments were claimed to still be able to cause disease when filtered through Chamberland filters said to keep out all known bacteria, it was assumed that something smaller than a bacteria must have passed through in order to cause the symptoms of disease. Granted, the original concept was either that of a poison or an even smaller bacterium. The "virus" as we know it today, i.e. an obligate replication-competent intracellular parasite surrounded by a protein coat, did not present itself until the 1950s.

Going back to Field's Virology, it is stated that these "filterable viruses" were classified as distinct based solely upon the pore size of the filter. The only way that one "virus" could be distinguished from another was by the symptoms of disease inflicted, which as I pointed out in my article linked above, were most likely the result of the experimental methods and unnatural means of inoculation utilized, such as wounding the hosts in various ways, rather than the presence of any "virus:"

"In the early 1900s, viruses were initially classified as distinct from other organisms simply by virtue of their ability to pass through unglazed porcelain filters known to retain the smallest of bacteria. As increasing numbers of filterable agents became recognized, they were distinguished from each other by the only measurable properties available, namely the disease or symptoms caused in an infected organism. Thus animal viruses that caused liver pathology were grouped together as hepatitis viruses, and viruses that caused mottling in plants were grouped together as mosaic viruses."

According to Alfred Grafe's A History of Experimental Virology, the small size meant that "viruses" remained macro- and microscopically undetected. Depending on the pore size and quality of the filter used, "viruses" were either filterable or they were not. There were issues with the adsorption properties of the filters utilized, leading to a solid film sticking to the surface. Colloids, which include gels, sols, and emulsions that can not be separated out by ordinary filtering or centrifuging, appeared as proteins in the solutions that were to be filtered. In other words, these were not purified solutions of nothing but "viral" particles. In order for a "successful" filtration, the pore size had to be calculable, adsorption had to be excluded, and the organisms had to be round. However, as researchers were using filters meant for dialysis, these requirements were not met, meaning that to ensure accurate results, improvements were necessary. This should lead anyone to wonder how accurate the early research was with the invisible "filterable viruses." However, these issues did not stop virologists from claiming the discovery of numerous such invisible entities, and by 1937, they had firm estimates of the particle size for 23 "filterable" human and animal pathogens, 13 types of bacteriophage, and TMV with sizes ranging from 8 to 230 nm. In other words, the researchers had decided on sizes for the "viruses" that they could not see based upon the pore size of the filters used:

"Filterable viruses were distinguished by negative biological and physical features: It was not possible to culture them, and because of their small size they remained macro- and microscopically undetected. They were or were not filterable, depending on the pore size and quality of the filter used. The range of physical methods employed during the first three decades of the 20th century to characterize viruses included filtration, centrifugation, adsorption, electrophoresis, and optical methods.

In the early stages, the same filter candles or filter layers used in experiments with bacteria were applied to filterable viruses. Whilst bacteria, as a result of their size, did not pass through intact filters, whose greatest drawbacks were clogged pores and germ-infected cracks, for the smaller, filterable viruses, new problems arose. Here, filtration results depended both upon the average and maximum pore size of the filter. In addition, there were annoying adsorption properties of the filters, and colloids which appeared, for example, as proteins in the solutions to be filtered.

The aims of filtering were twofold: to isolate the pathogen and to obtain the most accurate information possible about the organism. Both aims were achievable providing three prerequisites were fulfilled: the range of pore size about the mean had to be calculable; adsorption by the filter had to be excluded or measurable; and the organisms had to be as round as possible to enhance permeability. Since the filters in use at the time in bacteriology and in colloid chemistry had been developed in part for the purpose of dialysis, they did not necessarily fulfil these basic requirements. Their improvement or further development was, therefore, essential."

"The list of filterable viruses in 1915 – the year the bacteriophage was discovered – totalled 34, related to human, animal and plant diseases. By 1937 scientists had firm estimates of particle size for 23 "filterable" human and animal pathogens, 13 types of bacteriophage, and TMV. The particle sizes ranged from 8 to 230 nm. The smallest known germs, besides the bacteriophages, were the pathogens for poliomyelitis, yellow fever, encephalitis, FMD and TMV, ranging in size from 8-30 nm. Despite significant improvements in filtration techniques, the process continued to be problematic. The wide variation in pore diameter persisted, producing unreliable estimates of particle size. Isolating pathogens was connected with a high rate of germ loss because of adsorption by the filters, the adsorbing properties of filterable viruses known as biocolloids, and extraneous deposits on the filters themselves."

The "virus" was nothing but a guesstimate. As noted by the authors of Introduction to Modern Virology, the first definition for "viruses" was presented entirely in negative terms as these entities could not be seen and could not be cultivated. In other words, the "viruses" were nowhere to be found. Thus, the most important evidence used for the creation of the "virus" concept which was used to justify their existence was the indirect evidence of nothing being retained by bacteria-proof filters.

Indirect Evidence #2: Plant & Animal Experiments

"The only possibility of providing a direct proof that comma bacilli cause cholera is by animal experiments. One should show that cholera can be generated experimentally by comma bacilli."

-Robert Koch

Koch, R. (1987f). Lecture cholera question [1884]. In Essays of Robert Koch. Praeger.

Robert Koch considered the only direct proof that a microorganism could cause a disease was by experimenting with a pure culture of the microorganism, exposing a susceptible host to it, and recreating the exact same disease. However, it was a very difficult task trying to recreate the exact same symptoms in animals as that seen in humans. In fact, in many instances, it was considered impossible. This was admitted in Alfred Grafe's "A History of Experimental Virology:"

"Since Koch knew, after his 1884 experience with cholera, that it was often impossible to induce a disease experimentally in animals and yet not harbour the slightest doubt about the germ theory, he augmented these guidelines."

Thus, Koch essentially abandoned the only direct proof that he stated investigators could offer. Researchers have been attempting to excuse this difficulty of recreating the same disease ever since. Lester King was very critical of the requirement to recreate the disease as seen in humans exactly in animals. He stated that the attempts to do so, such as in the case with yellow fever, were examples of "the logical fallacy of begging the question on a truly colossal scale." This fallacy involves an argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. In this instance, King pointed out that investigators took a patient claimed to have yellow fever, recovered an agent that they assumed was the cause, injected this agent into guinea pigs which expressed similar but not identical symptoms to the patient, and in a case of circular reasoning, the agent was assumed to be the cause of the human condition based upon the symptoms seen in guinea pigs.

"Yellow fever, perhaps, is a good example of the logical fallacy of begging the question on a truly colossal scale. Investigators have started with a patient whom they call an example of the disease under study. From this patient they recover some microbiological agent whose etiological connection is assumed. When injected into animals, the agent produces disease symptoms suggestive of the original condition. But obviously, a disease in guinea pigs is not identical with a disease in humans in spite of any similarities. Now comes the circular reasoning. The recovered organism is assumed to be the cause of the human condition. In proof, the investigator points to the disease produced in guinea pigs. But how do you know that the disease in guinea pigs is fundamentally or essentially similar to the disease in humans? Because it is produced by the same agent which "causes" the disease in humans. This reasoning which blandly assumes what requires to be proven is the type of reasoning indulged in, for example, by Sanarelli. It is clearly invalid. For cogency in demonstration further extensive evidence must be forthcoming."

Being able to experimentally produce symptoms of disease in animals that were similar but not identical to the human disease was not considered ultimate proof by King that the agent used was, in fact, the causative agent of the human disease. He argued that further proof was required in that the fluids from the diseased patient must be shown to be clearly "infectious" first before searching for possible etiological agents within the fluids. All potential organisms must be identified from the fluids and then discarded by a process of elimination:

"Examination of Koch's original paper shows that he did not in any way demand the duplication of the original disease. To interpret Koch's postulates we must start, first of all, with a disease which is proven to be infectious. We must also be aware that some crude infectious material (i.e., blood, sputum, feces, necrotic tissue) is capable of transmitting the infection. Koch's postulates come into play in determining exactly what precise agent is the responsible factor within the crude infectious material. If, for example, we show that pneumonia is infectious and that the sputum carries the infection, then we can apply Koch's postulates to the sputum to find out which organisms are contaminants and which, if any, is the "etiologic agent."

Let us say that we determine the infectiousness of the sputum by injecting it into mice. Then we could culture the sputum and recover, say, five different organisms, each of which is propagated in pure culture. By injecting each of these into mice we might find that four are harmless, but that the fifth always kills the mouse. By Koch's postulates, according to Koch's own words, the fifth culture could be considered the etiology. Koch specifically states, as quoted above in reference to tuberculosis, that the isolated bacteria must produce "the same clinical picture .. . as is obtained empirically by the injection of naturally developed" material."

Obviously, as "viruses" are said to be invisible and unculturable, this process of elimination does not work beyond claiming that no bacteria are left after filtration, and that there must be some other entity remaining that can produce disease hiding within the filtrate. However, without being able to see what is in the filtrate, there could be multiple potential causative agents residing amongst each other. These filtrates were then used to experimentally create disease in plants and animals in the late 1800s and beyond in order to indirectly claim a "viral" cause that could not be identified. However, the methods used to "infect" healthy hosts were anything but natural, and the filtrates used were anything but pure.

Here are a few examples of how researchers created disease experimentally:

1. For Tobacco Mosaic "Virus" (TMV), Martinus Beijerinck crushed up diseased plant tissues with other chemicals, including highly toxic formalin, and injected the plant with a syringe. In order to speed up disease, a deeper wound was created with a knife and more material was used. The disease was not identical to that seen in nature.
2. For Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD), Friedrich Loffler scarified the lips, mouths, and mucous membranes of animals and rubbed diseased materials into the wounds, claiming any resulting blisters were a successful transfer of disease.
3. For Rabies, Louis Pasteur emulsified diseased dog brains with other ingredients and injected this into the brain of other dogs in order to create neurological disease and death.
4. For Polio, Karl Landsteiner and Erwin Popper took a diseased piece of spinal marrow from a nine-year-old boy, chopped it up, dissolved it in water and injected one or two whole cups intraperitoneally (into the abdominal cavities) of two test monkeys. Simon Flexner and Paul Lewis experimented with a similar mixture and injected this into monkeys' brains. When paralysis and death occurred, these researchers claimed success.
5. For herpes simplex, investigators in all parts of the world used fluids inoculated into the scarified cornea of rabbits to produce a vesicular eruption followed by an intense keratoconjunctivitis which was considered a successful recreation of the disease. In other words, damaging the eye and inoculating fluids into it caused swelling and redness.
6. For influenza A, Thomas Francis Jr.took specimens of sputum in 50 percent glycerine, which were separated from the glycerine, washed and emulsified in Locke's solution. The material was inoculated intranasally into ferrets under ether anesthesia. One animal with a high temperature was sacrificed on the third day after inoculation; the lungs and turbinates were removed and ground with sand and meat infusion broth. Two animals were then inoculated intranasally with unfiltered suspensions and one with a Berkefeld V filtrate of the material.

There are many more grotesque examples of how researchers attempted to recreate diseases experimentally. There is absolutely nothing natural about this process. All that virologists are doing is torturing plants and animals, wounding and injecting them in unusual ways with unpurified solutions and claiming that the resulting symptoms are proof that they were working with the invisible causative agent. More often than not, proper controls were not carried out that would have shown that the cruel experimental methods, and not the filtrates, were the cause of the symptoms of disease. No wonder King was adamant that this was not direct proof of cause.

Indirect Evidence #3: Antibodies

"An indirect way of visualising viruses is to use antibodies (much like the ones your body makes in response to infection) to tag viruses with fluorescent molecules that give off light when they absorb certain types of radiation."

https://theconversation.com/five-techniques-were-using-to-uncover-the-secrets-of-viruses-144363

In Chapter 1 of Grafe's A History of Experimental Virology discussing the emergence of experimental virology, it states that early researchers assumed, i.e. suppose to be the case without proof, that there were substances within the blood and the body fluids that targeted invasive pathogens.

"As for humoral immunity, it was assumed that there were substances in the blood and in the body fluids which could attack and destroy invasive microorganisms."

What these substances were was unknown as, just like "viruses," they were too small to be seen by light microscopy and could not be properly purified and isolated directly from the fluids in order to be studied. The idea that these substances, which ultimately became known as antibodies, were in the blood was brought about by the work of Emil Von Behring and Shibasaburo Kitasato in 1890. In order to come to this conclusion, the researchers pretreated animals with iodine trichloride and then injected unknown culture and/or sera into the stomach of these animals. They then took the blood from the pretreated animals and injected that into the stomach of another pretreated animal. When the second animal did not become sick, it was assumed that the first animal had developed antibodies which were conferred to the second animal. Or at least that was what Von Behring claimed. His partner, Kitasato, published his own articles stating that he believed that what they had observed was a standard reaction known as habituation to poison. In other words, the body gradually became more efficient at removing the toxins and built up a tolerance, as seen with alcoholics and drug addicts after repeated exposures.

As the antibodies are invisible, they are nothing but an imaginary concept based upon indirect experimental effects just as their "virus" counterparts are. Despite this fact, the researchers decided that these entities existed based upon the reactions observed in animal experiments and the mixing of samples of blood. It was then decided to conceptualize how these substances look, form, and function, which fell to German physician Paul Ehrlich in the late 1800s. Ehrlich is credited with coming up with the name antibodies in 1891, as well as establishing the antigen-antibody relationship and the lock-and-key mechanism in his Side-Chain theory of antibody production that was developed in 1897 and presented in 1900.

However, there were many who disagreed with Ehrlich's work and there was much doubt about the make-up and even the existence of these entities. Felix Le Dantec, who denied the physical existence, stated that Ehrlich "added nothing to the explanation of the imaginary invalid." Henry Dean, professor of Pathology at the University of Cambridge and Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, noted that "agglutinins, precipitins, amboceptors are mere words, and a passive belief in the existence of such bodies tends to impede rather than advance our understanding of what is actually taking place;" while adding that "ignorance, however aptly veiled in an attractive terminology, remains ignorance." In a 1902 letter nominating Ehrlich for the Nobel Prize, Bernhard Naunyn stated that "Ehrlich's contribution should still be regarded as tentative or premature, since the isolation and purification of the relevant substances (namely, "antibodies") would long remain a chimera." Julius Citron's 1910 statement in a German textbook admitted that antibodies had never been isolated and that their status as a chemical entity remained uncertain:

"In order to learn the nature of these antibodies attempts have been made to isolate them chemically. Thus far all such trials have been unsuccessful. It is even uncertain whether these so-called antibodies are definite chemical entities. Only the effects of the serum as a whole are known, and the ingredients in it to which these activities are attributed are thought of as antibodies."

-Julius Citron

This statement was backed up in 1929 by H.G. Wells in his book The Chemical Aspects of Immunology:

"We attribute this altered reactivity [of sera] to the presence of "antibodies," despite the fact that we have absolutely no knowledge of what these antibodies may be, or even that they exist as material objects. Like the enzymes, we recognize them by what they do without discovering just what they are."

https://archive.org/details/chemicalaspectso0000hgid/page/4/mode/1up?q=Attribute

Thus, we have a similar situation with antibodies that we see with "viruses" where unproven invisible entities are claimed to exist based upon indirect evidence of effects observed in a lab. The researchers claim that if they mix together blood samples and get a reaction, this is evidence that not only that the antibody exists, but so, too, does the "virus." An example of this is the complement fixation test, which is where a mixture of sheep blood cells, guinea pig serum, and a patient sample are combined together in order to observe a reaction:

"The complement fixation test consists of two components. The first component is an indicator system that uses combination of sheep red blood cells, complement-fixing antibody such as immunoglobulin G produced against the sheep red blood cells and an exogenous source of complement usually guinea pig serum. When these elements are mixed in optimum conditions, the anti-sheep antibody binds on the surface of red blood cells. Complement subsequently binds to this antigen -antibody complex formed and will cause the red blood cells to lyse.

The second component is a known antigen and patient serum added to a suspension of sheep red blood cells in addition to complement. These two components of the complement fixation method are tested in sequence. Patient serum is first added to the known antigen, and complement is added to the solution. If the serum contains antibody to the antigen, the resulting antigen-antibody complexes will bind all of the complement. Sheep red blood cells and the anti-sheep antibody are then added. If complement has not been bound by an antigen-antibody complex formed from the patient serum and known antigens, it is available to bind to the indicator system of sheep cells and anti-sheep antibody. Lysis of the indicator sheep red blood cells signifies both a lack of antibody in patient serum and a negative complement fixation test. If the patient's serum does contain a complement-fixing antibody, a positive result will be indicated by the lack of red blood cell lysis."

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Book%3A_Microbiology_(Boundless)/12%3A_Immunology_Applications/12.2%3A_Immunoassays_for_Disease/12.2G%3A_Complement_Fixation

The results from this test are known not to be sensitive, meaning it cannot be used for immunity screening, as well as not specific, meaning it will cross-react and produce positive results for unintended targets. However, this has not stopped virologists and immunologists from relying on this and similar antibody test results in order to claim existence and immunity from "viruses." Unfortunately for these researchers, it is well-known that antibody results are non-specific even though the researchers love to claim the contrary. Instead of binding to the desired target, antibodies are said to regularly attach to similar or even completely unrelated targets. It is also said that antibodies often cross-react to other "viruses" or fail to show up in appreciable amounts at all in individuals apparently exposed. The tests and measurements are not accurate and the research is not reproducible, which has led to a massive reproducibility crisis. As antibodies remain unreliable and unproven fictional entities with no less than 6 theories attempting to describe their form and function, it should go without saying that one cannot use one imaginary entity (antibodies) in order to claim that another imaginary entity (viruses) exists.

Indirect Evidence #4: Cell Culture

"Viruses are usually detected indirectly – by the pathological effects which result from their multiplication, by interaction with antibody, or by identification of their nucleic acid genomes."

Introduction to Modern Virology Chapter 2

The above statement is the opening sentence for Chapter 2 of Introduction to Modern Virology which, interestingly enough, just so happens to begin the first two chapters in the textbook by discussing how "viruses" can only be detected indirectly. The book goes on to say that, as "viruses" are too small, there needs to be concentrations in excess of one hundred billion "viral" particles, or even higher without a distinct morphology, in order to visualize the "virus" via electron microscopy. It is stated that there are three main indirect detection methods. We've already covered one which is the use of the equally invisible and unproven antibodies. The use of genomes and "viral" nucleic acids will be covered later. The last of the three, which has been considered the "gold standard" for discovering "viruses," is known as the cell culture:

"Viruses are too small to be seen except by electron microscopy (EM) and this requires concentrations in excess of 10^11 particles per ml, or even higher if a virus has no distinctive morphology, some fancy equipment, and a highly skilled operator. Thus viruses are usually detected by indirect methods. These fall into three categories: (i) multiplication in a suitable culture system and detection of the virus by the effects it causes; (ii) serology, which makes use of the interaction between a virus and antibody directed specifically against it; and (iii) detection of viral nucleic acid. However these days the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is more likely to be employed as it is much quicker provided that the appropriate oligonucleotide primers are available (Section 2.3). Many viruses are uncultivatable, particularly those occurring in the gut, but some of these occur in such high concentration that they were actually discovered by EM."

As noted by former virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, no virologist had ever seen any assumed "viruses" via the electron microscope up to the early 1950s. Virology was on its deathbed as the lack of direct evidence and controls was causing virology to refute itself. Images of particles that were conceived of as "viruses" from tissue cultures were nothing more than byproducts from the decomposition process that were observed even in healthy animals upon death. These particles were misinterpreted as "viruses:"

"Up to 1952, the virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme directly poisoning the body, and that it was somehow multiplied by the body itself and would spread 
in the body as well as between people and between animals. Medicine and science gave up on this idea in 1951, because the suspected virus had never been seen in an electron microscope and, above all, no control experiments had ever been carried out. It was acknowledged that even healthy animals, organs and tissue would release the same decay products during the decomposing process that had been previously misinterpreted as "viruses". Virology had refuted itself."

Click to access wissenschafftplus-the-virus-misconception-part-1.pdf

As virologists were unable to actually purify and isolate the assumed "viral" particles directly from the fluids of sick humans and animals, it was decided that there just wasn't enough "virus" within the fluids in order to obtain images of the "virus" directly from them. It was also decided that, in order to "survive," the non-living entity needed a host cell to hijack so that it could replicate and make copies of itself. Once enough copies were made, virologists would then be able to actually visualize their invisible boogeymen.

This line of thinking led to virologist John Franklin Enders creation of the cell culture technique as he attempted to identify the measles "virus" in 1954. In his seminal measles paper, Enders took throat washings from suspected measles patients (which were obtained in gargled fat-free milk) and added the samples to human and monkey kidney cells. He mixed into the culture bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, antibiotics, soybean trypsin inhibitor, and phenol red as an indicator of cell metabolism. This mixture was then incubated for days, and the fluids were passaged on the 4th and 16th days. Enders eventually observed what is called the cytopathogenic effect (CPE), which is a pattern of damage appearing in the culture as the cell breaks apart and dies. This effect was assumed by Enders to be the direct result of the invisible "virus" within the fat-free milk throat washings as it breaks into the cell through lysis of the cell wall membrane, resulting in the death of the cell and the replication of the "virus." In other words, he assumed that the cellular debris from a poisoned cell was not the broken pieces of a once intact cell but were instead the newly created "viral" copies.

With the particles created by the breakdown of the cell through starvation and poisoning from the addition of many foreign elements and chemicals, Enders had given virology the shot in the arm that it desperately needed. Virologists could now take the unpurified cell culture supernatant (the top layer) and put this under an electron microscope in order to pick out, from amongst many different particles, the ones that they thought best represented their "virus." This gave them the evidence that they then interpreted as the "virus" replicating, even though the assumed "viral" particles had never been identified originally in any quantity directly within the fluids. There was no logical way that it could be established that a "virus" had replicated at all or that it even existed prior to the cell culture taking place.

Beyond this glaring issue, Enders 1954 paper actually refuted itself. Enders stated that his indirect evidence that he had obtained, which he used to associate with an invisible measles "virus," was incomplete:

"Although we have thus already obtained considerable indirect evidence supporting the etiologic role of this group of agents in measles, 2 experiments essential in the establishment of this relationship remain to be carried out."

During his experiments with assumed measles "virus," Enders observed the exact same cytopathogenic effects that he had associated with the measles "virus" in normal control cultures without any "virus" present whatsoever:

"Monkey kidney cultures may, therefore, be applied to the study of these agents in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In so doing, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in the monkey kidney tissue (cf. last paragraph under G) or by unknown factors."

"A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles. But, when the cells from infected cultures were fixed and stained, their effect could be easily distinguished since the internuclear changes typical of the measles agents were not observed. Moreover, as we have already indicated, fluids from cultures infected with the agent failed to fix complement in the presence of convalescent measles serum. Obviously the possibility of encountering such agents in studies with measles should be constantly kept in mind."

Thus, this cytopathogenic effect that was supposed to be specific to "viruses" and was the sign that a "virus" was present within the culture, could be observed without any "virus" being added to the culture whatsoever. In other words, it was the methods of the experiment itself that created this effect, not the presence of any invisible entity. This finding, which was essentially ignored by Enders, was seen in later experiments by various other researchers (Rustigan, Cohen, Von Magnus, Hull). Even Dr. Lanka himself was able to demonstrate that he could create CPE in a lab using no "viral" materials whatsoever. This finding that the cytopathogenic effect is not specific to "viruses" and can be observed without "viral" materials shouldn't be surprising as it is well known that CPE can be caused by factors other than "viruses," such as:

1. Bacteria
2. Amoeba
3. Parasites
4. Antibiotics
5. Antifungals
6. Chemical contaminants
7. Age and cell deterioration
8. Environmental stress

It shouldn't be too hard to understand why the results from cell culture experiments are scientifically invalid indirect evidence. First, the assumed "viral" particles are never identified and observed prior to the cell culture experiment taking place. This invalidates the cell culture as a scientific experiment because the independent variable (i.e. the cause – assumed "viral" particles) must be identified before experimentation in order to be varied and manipulated during the experiment. The IV can not be a creation of the experiment. The dependent variable (i.e. the effect – CPE) must be a naturally observed phenomenon. There is absolutely nothing natural about starving and poisoning cells in a Petri dish.

The second problem, as noted in the highlighted section from Chapter 2 of Introduction to Modern Virology, is that there are "viruses" that are claimed to be uncultivatable, meaning that they do not produce the desired CPE that is meant to indicate the presence of the "virus." These are known as non-cytopathogenic "viruses," and this concept makes the cell culture hypothesis that CPE is an indicator of "virus" unfalsifiable as a "virus" can be claimed to be within a culture regardless of the presence of CPE. Interestingly, in a 2021 review of cell culturing in Frontiers, it is stated that cell culturing is "only applicable to CPE-inducing viruses, and therefore it cannot be considered a universal method for virus detection."

A third unscientific aspect is the lack of proper controls, where samples from healthy hosts are treated exactly as those from the experimental group. These types of controls, which would establish whether or not the methods are causing the CPE rather than the assumed "virus," are never performed, thus further nullifying the indirect results used to claim the presence of a "virus."

On top of all of this, the cultures themselves are a mixture of numerous foreign elements and chemicals together, such as the unpurified sample from a human, the kidney cells from an African green monkey, the blood from a baby cow, the addition of antibiotics and antifungals, as well as various other nutrients and chemicals. This process is the exact opposite of purifying and isolating a "virus," something that HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier stated was necessary in order to prove one has a "real virus." Thus, the cell culture is a scientifically invalid experimental process that in no way, directly or indirectly, proves the existence of any "virus."

Indirect Evidence #5: Electron Microscope Images

Particles the size of the assumed filterable "viruses" were not able to be visualized until the advent of the electron microscope (EM) by Ernst Ruska, with his mentor Max Knoll, in 1931. Even then, it wasn't until after Enders established the cell culture technique in 1954 that EM began to be widely used to identify the particles claimed to be "viruses" in the cell culture supernatant. Electron microscopy imaging is the only direct method that virologists use in an attempt to identify their invisible pathogens:

"None of the techniques mentioned so far are able to directly visualise virus particles. That's where electron microscopy comes in, as it can produce images at the nanometre scale. It does this by firing electrons at a sample and seeing how they interact with it. A computer then interprets this information to produce an image."

https://theconversation.com/five-techniques-were-using-to-uncover-the-secrets-of-viruses-144363

However, the EM process has a while host of issues, and the way it is utilized by virologists ensures that it is an indirect method at best. To begin with, to even obtain images in order to search for the assumed "viral" particles within a sample, the unpurified cell culture supernatant must be put through a series of preparation steps. These steps include dehydration, embedding, fixing, and staining processes that the samples go through before being imaged. According to Dr. Harold Hillman, MB, BSc, MRCS, PhD, these steps significantly alter the sample before it can be viewed. In fact, Dr. Hillman believed that many of the structures seen in EM imagery were, in fact, artifacts created by the various preparation processes. He detailed how far the sample goes from being inside a living organism to the point where it becomes an illustration in a book:

'What Price Intellectual Honesty?' asks a neurobiologist

"I was so disturbed by the thought that subcellular fractionation might be an unsatisfactory technique that I decided to take a completely different technique and subject it to a smaller analysis. I took electron microscopy, asking the question, 'How much does a picture taken with this instrument tell one about the structure of the living cell?' Since the early 1950s, there has been a passion for relating 'structure' to 'function', that is, the appearance by electron microscopy of a particular identifiable part of a cell with the biochemistry it exhibits.

The light microscope had been used to examine living cells, unfixed tissue and stained sections, for 100 years until the 1940's. At that time, the electron microscope was introduced. It permits much higher resolution and magnification than the light microscope, but the tissue can not survive the low pressure, the bombardment of electrons and x-radiation in the electron microscope, so it has to be coated with a deposit of salts of osmium lead or tungsten, which is not destroyed by these agents, and can therefore be examined. Cytologists were very anxious to use this more powerful instrument to look at the fine structure of cells."

"For example, most cytologists know, but readers of elementary textbooks do not, that when one looks at an illustration of an electron micrograph: an animal has been killed; it cools down; its tissue is excised; the tissue is fixed (killed); it is stained with a heavy metal salt; it is dehydrated with increasing concentrations of alcohol; it shrinks; the alcohol is extracted with a fat solvent, propylene oxide; the latter is replaced by an epoxy resin; it hardens in a few days; sections one tenth of a millimetre thick, or less, are cut; they are placed in the electron microscope, nearly all the air of which is pumped out; a beam of electrons at 10,000 volts to 3,000,000 volts is directed at it; some electrons strike a phosphorescent screen; the electron microscopists select the field and the magnification which show the features they wish to demonstrate; the image may be enhanced; photographs are taken; some are selected as evidence. One can immediately see how far the tissue has travelled from life to an illustration in a book."

"I have shown, to my own satisfaction that (i) at least some popular important biochemical research techniques have never been controlled, (ii) most of the new structures in cells apparent by electron microscopy are artifacts, (iii) there are only nerve cells and naked nuclei in a ground substance in the brain and spinal cord, (iv) there are no synapses, (v) the transmitter hypothesis is doubtful. I have published all the evidence for these statements, although this has not always been easy."

https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/what-price-intellectual-honesty.htm

It is easy to understand how the sample is heavily altered before the EM beam even hits it in order to produce the image for the electron microscopist to interpret. These alterations are in addition to the numerous foreign additives and chemicals that were mixed together with the sample during the cell culture process. The images that are assumed to be of "viruses" are not of purified and isolated particles taken directly from the fluids. Instead, they are of unpurifed cell culture soup containing many elements, including cellular debris from the breakdown of dying cells. When the microscopists examine the images, they are searching through a sea of similar and identical particles, trying to find the one particle that represents their preconceived idea of what the "virus" may look like. This can take hours, days, weeks, or longer in order to pick out the representative particle from the mess. According to Luc Montagnier, it "was a Roman effort" that took many hours of searching in order to find the particles, which were not even typical of a normal "retrovirus," that eventually became known as HIV. When searching for the Marburg "virus," Werner Slenczka stated that searching for an unknown pathogenic agent in EM can be fatiguing and frustrating as many contaminants can be found within the sample. His team spent more than a day looking for the filamentous particle claimed to be the "virus." On the second day, the lead technician stepped out for lunch, and when he came back, he was informed that they had found a particle that did not look like any others observed before, and this became their "virus." When June Almeida found the original "coronavirus" particle in 1967, she searched through unpurified cultures and identified particles that she had seen in murine and chicken samples previously. Her paper was initially rejected by peer reviewers who claimed that the images she produced were just "bad pictures of influenza virus particles." Thus, it is clear that the particles decided as the "virus" in EM images are nothing but selections based upon the interpretation of the person viewing the images. There is no proof that the chosen particles from the unpurified mess are, in fact, the assumed "virus."

More damning for EM, the particles claimed to be "viruses" are said to "mimic" normal cellular constituents. Subcellular structures such as multivesicular bodies, clathrin-coated vesicles, secretory vesicles, golgi apparatus, etc. have all been identified as "viruses" by investigators. In fact, many of these normal cellular constituents were recently claimed to be "SARS-COV-2" in various papers. Even worse, the particles claimed to be "SARS-COV-2" were found in EM images of samples that were positive and negative for "SARS-COV-2," as well as in numerous "SARS-COV-2" negative samples taken from before the "Covid" era. Putting aside the various preparation issues, unless the images of the "virus" come from samples that contain nothing but purified and isolated particles, there is no logical way to conclude that the particles, picked out via what can only be described as the point-and-declare method, are the assumed "virus" over normal cellular components or cellular debris. It is all up to the eye of the beholder. Thus, EM remains, at best, an indirect method of identification of random unpurified particles interpreted as a "virus" by the electron microscopists.

Indirect Evidence #6: "Viral" Genomes & Nucleic Acids

"Detection of viral nucleic acid is not equivalent to isolating a virus."

-Virologist Charles Calisher

Imagine that someone came up to you with a printout of a genome and told you that it was the embodiment of Bigfoot and that this computer readout was proof that the mythological creature existed. You ask them how they obtained the genome, and they tell you that it was assembled from a mixture of hair, blood, saliva, and feces that were found within the wilderness. You ask them how they know for sure that this collection of unrelated samples came from Bigfoot rather than from an assortment of species, to which they reply that the genome assembled from this mixture has never been seen before. You point out that this would be indirect evidence at best, and that in order to truly know for sure that the genome belonged to Bigfoot, the creature would need to be present in order to obtain the samples from. However, they insist that the long list of A,C,T,G's that you were presented with is evidence enough. This is Bigfoot.

Sadly, this is the circular reasoning employed by many who assert that genomes are evidence of a "virus." They argue that it does not matter that the actual "virus" has never been purified and isolated directly from the fluids. They claim that a "virus" can be assembled from unpurified fluids, such as bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) as was done with "SARS-COV-2," containing many sources of genetic material including host, bacteria, fungus, and other known or unknown elements. They believe that the "virus" can be determined by a process of elimination by comparison to known sequences in a genomic database. They state that any matches to known "viral" sequences demonstrate that they have the genome of a "virus."

However, this is where the first of many problems arise. No "viral" genome has ever come from purified and isolated particles assumed to be "viruses." These genomes are always the result of either sequencing from unpurified cell culture creations from a lab or the unpurified samples from a host or the environmen. Thus, the entire database made up of known "viral" sequences have never come directly from just the "viral" particles themselves. They are an amalgamation of RNA from many potential sources assembled into a theoretical genome claimed to belong to a fictional "virus." Just as no one should take the genome of Bigfoot seriously until it is demonstrated that such a creature exists, no one should accept a "viral" genome until the existence of the "virus" has been established and validated scientifically first.

Unfortunately, we currently find ourselves in the age of molecular virology, where the old pseudoscientific indirect methods used to discover "viruses" are being pushed aside for newer pseudoscientific indirect methods claimed to discover "viruses." We were warned about this looming threat of molecular virology back in a 2001 Science interview with virologist Charles Calisher:

"Calisher has been worrying for years about the wholesale takeover by modern lab toys, fearing that the genetic code they spit out sheds much less light on a class's workings than "classic" methods. Many senior scientists (some quite a bit younger) share his views: The 14 signatories include some of the most illustrious names in U.S. virology. Together, they have many decades of experience chasing exotic classes across the globe."

"Nowadays, scientists can detect a virus simply by searching for and amplifjhg snippels of its DNA in human or animal samples. Indeed, they have identified and described quite a few new viruses without ever isolating them."

Although all that is terrific, says Calisher, a string of DNA letters in a data bank tells little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, how it makes people sick, or whether antibodies to other viruses might protect against it. Just studying sequences, Calisher says, is "like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprints."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fdocuments.in/amp/document/virology-old-guard-urges-virologists-to-go-back-to-basics.html

According to Calisher, studying the A,C,T,G's in a database do nothing to determine if one has a "virus." These sequences do not show the morphological characteristics of a "virus" nor can they demonstrate that a "virus" is pathogenic. Calisher, along with 13 other virologists of the "old guard," went even further in their paper that the Science interview was based upon, stating that the "detection of viral nucleic acid is not equivalent to isolating a virus" and that "without an isolate, the pathogenic potential, association with human infections and illnesses, and cross-protectivity are difficult to assess." This concern on relying on genomic data to tell us anything scientifically was expressed as well by Edward R. Dougherty, the Scientific Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Genomic Systems Engineering. In a 2008 paper, Dougherty warned that there is an epistemological crisis in genomics, and the major issue is what constitutes scientific knowledge in genomics. He argued that "the rules of the scientific game are not being followed," and that genomics was amassing a wide collection of data, "but the accumulation of data does not constitute science, nor does the a postiori rational analysis of data." Dougherty stated that "contemporary genomic research often fails to satisfy the basic requirements" of experimental methods and the scientific epistemology, "thereby failing to produce valid scientific knowledge." Thus, it is clear that genomic data alone tells us little to nothing about a "virus" nor does the analysis of this data constitute science.

Another issue for "viral" genomes is that, similar to the preparation process utilized by electron microscopy which most assuredly alters the sample in many ways, the various steps utilized to create a "viral" genome does the same. While it is too much to detail here, the processes includes extracting the RNA from the unpurified source through physical and chemical means, shearing and fragmenting the RNA through metal ions or RNAse III, and then converting the RNA into cDNA using the contamination-prone PCR. After this, a library is constructed and analyzed via computer algorithms in order to create the theoretical genome. I detailed this long process here.

This reliance on computer-generated genomes that are indirectly standing in for an entity never shown to exist in a purified and isolated state in order to be sequenced from, has led to the use of fragments of this fraudulent assembly of RNA of unknown provenance to be used as a means of detection via PCR. This has led to disastrous outcomes, and the vast majority of the people being tested for and diagnosed with the computer "virus" are entirely free of disease. People have been needlessly locked down, quarantined, and treated for a "virus" that only existed in silico, i.e. in the computer. There is no scientific evidence that links the A,C,T,G's in the computer database to the unpurifued particles chosen in the EM images.

This is just a tip of the iceberg in regard to the many problems with relying on genomics. For a very thorough and in-depth look into these issues, I highly recommend the article DNA Discovery, Extraction and Structure. A Critical Review by Tam. She provides an excellent analysis on why the very foundations of DNA are worthy of being questioned. Whether one believes genomes to be accurate or not, one thing is for certain. Just as in the case of Bigfoot, you can't sequence something that doesn't exist.

The Direct Approach

Hopefully, it is clear now that all virology has to offer in order to claim "viruses" exist are presents under the tree, cookie crumbs with half-drank milk, faint footprints, and questionable security camera footage. What they do not have is Santa Claus, i.e. the "virus" itself. Thus, virologists have established numerous ways to create evidence that implies the presence of an invisible entity so that those who do not question the evidence critically and logically will easily accept that what they are being sold as the truth. It has worked for virology so far, so there is no need for virologists to try and provide direct scientific evidence supporting their claims when the indirect tricks will do.

However, if virologists were honestly interested in proving that their fictional pathogens existed, they would try and establish direct proof of the existence of this entity first and foremost. While they will claim that this is impossible, it should be fairly simple to do so. The first, and most important step, is showing that the particles believed to be "viruses" actually reside within the fluids of a sick human and/or animal where they are supposed to be found in abundance without the use of cell culturing. Virologists have many purification procedures that can be utilized, including ultracentrifugatiion, filtration, precipitation, etc. that can be combined together in order to obtain the assumed "viral" particles away from everything else within the sample. This separation can be confirmed by utilizing EM to show that only isolated particles of the same size and morphology remain after the purification procedures are performed.

Once the virologists know that their sample contains only the particles that they believe to be their "virus," they can follow the steps of the scientific method and subject a healthy host to these particles via a natural route of exposure. This does not mean injecting the sample into the brains, stomach, veins, testicles, etc. This does not involve scarifying the skin, eyes, mucous membranes, etc. in some way and rubbing the sample into the wound. This means aerosolizing the sample into a mist to be breathed in by the healthy host. Then, the researchers must observe whether or not the same symptoms of disease that they expect to see develop. Obviously, proper controls must be performed throughout the experimentation in order to demonstrate that it truly is these specific particles that are pathogenic. If symptoms of disease do develop, the same purification steps must be performed in order to see if the exact same particles are obtained from the newly sickened host. These particles must then be used in an attempt to sicken another host. This process must be repeated with a large enough sample size in order to ensure accuracy. Once it has been confirmed that the assumed "viral" particles are indeed pathogenic, they can be biochemically characterized and studied further.

If virologists can not purify and isolate the particles directly from the fluids of a sick human or animal, then it's gane over. If they do manage success with the first step, but they can not show that these particles are pathogenic naturally via the scientific method, it is also gone over. It truly is that simple, and yet, in over 100 years of virology, this process has never once been performed. What we have been given is indirect evidence derived from pseudoscientific methods that, if true, may be used to infer the truth of the matter at hand. What we do not have is direct proof derived from the scientific method that settles the matter that such a thing as a pathogenic "virus" exists. Thus, we must ask ourselves if we are willing to convict the non-existent defendant based off of the indirect pseudoscientific evidence that we have been given, or should we demand that virologists provide the direct scientific evidence that is required in order to prove that the defendant actually exists in order to have committed the crime.

Exploring the Origin of the “Virus” Concept With Jesse Zurawell

I was delighted to be back on Jesse Zurawell's excellent TNT Radio show Perspective to discuss the origin of the "virus" concept. Jesse had seen my latest Substack article The "Virus" Concept, and wanted to dive in a bit deeper into the birth of this fraudulent idea that has ruined the lives of so many. In our conversation, we discussed:

• The origin of the "filterable virus" concept
• The role that Koch's Postulates played in the creation of the "virus" idea
• The early Tobacco Mosaic "virus" (TMV) studies conducted by Dimitri Ivanovski and Martinus Beijerinck
• The work of Friedrich Loeffler on Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)
• The reification of the "virus" story
• And much more!

I hope that you enjoy this latest discussion delving into the early history of the pseudoscience known as virology.

GUEST OVERVIEW: Mike runs viroliegy.com which, using actual science, dissects the field of virology and exposes myths about viruses and germs in general. We will be discussing about why viruses do not exist, and what, therefore, causes illness.

https://tntradiolive.podbean.com/e/mike-stone-on-perspective-with-jesse-zurawell-23-august-2023/

Recharging the Battery with Patrick Timpone

After coming back from a vacation, I came down with cold symptoms, as many often do after traveling and having a bit too much fun. I could have easily concluded that I had caught a "virus," but as usual, there is a far more simple and logical explanation that does not require the fictional concepts of an "immune system" or a "virus." I wrote an article summarizing this on my Substack, and Patrick Timpone thought that it was an intriguing area for a discussion. I was delighted to be asked back onto his show in order to discuss this article as well as many other topics, including:

• The lack of an "immune system"
• The creation of the "virus" concept
• The inability to satisfy Koch's Postulates
• The blood pressure hoax
• The growing "no virus" community
• And much more!

Please check out and support Patrick's excellent Bitchute channel! He recently had the amazing Steve Falconer on:

Patrick's radio show is always chock-full of great guests and content! Find out more here:

Show Host

Exposing Lies and Misconceptions Behind Illness with Demi Pietchell and Kristen Welch

Last month, I was honored to be asked to be a part of the first season of the new The Starfire Codes podcast with Demi Pietchell and Kristen Welch. We had a very interesting conversation on topics such as the similarities in the symptoms amongst diseases, the responsibilities of those who are leading the health freedom movement, and the many lies that we are regularly exposed to regarding our health and wellness. I very much enjoyed this conversation, and I hope that you will too.

Ready for some myth-busting? Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy joins Demi Pietchell and Kristen Welch on The Starfire Codes to unveil the truth behind common illnesses, electromagnetic influence on human health, and the deceptive world of the science and healthcare industries.

Buckle up and get ready to unravel those persistent misconceptions!

Video, Part One: https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/video-s11701-exposing-lies-viroliegy-podcast

Video, Part Two: https://www.starfirecodes.com/p/video-s11702-exposing-lies-viroliegy-podcast

Starfire Codes

For more by Demi Pietchell, please visit her excellent Substack here:

https://www.starfirecodes.com/

For more by Kristen Welch, you can find her amazing Substack here:

https://moonmaiden.substack.com/

The Infectious Myth Busted Part 4: Is Measles Contagious?

"A careful search of the literature does not reveal a case in which the blood from a patient having measles was injected into the blood
stream of another person and produced measles."

-Harry Bauguess

doi:10.1001/archpedi.1924.01920090061007

I want to begin by thanking Daniel Roytas of Humanley.com for his amazing research skills. I worked from his outline of the measles transmission experiments in order to present the information for this article. He has a gift for finding the studies and reviews that the pharmaceutical cartel does not want people to know about. Please visit his site for excellent podcasts and information.

Measles is always a hot topic of discussion that continues to divide people. The disease gained notoriety as a killer of children, and anytime children are involved, tempers flare. The pharmaceutical industry has done a remarkable job of convincing the majority that the symptoms known as measles are a deadly disease requiring vaccination in order to protect the children and all those around them, especially the "immunocompromised." A massive vaccination campaign that began in 1963 created the perception that the vaccine was responsible for a drop in childhood deaths from the disease, even though the statistics show that it had no such effect as the death rate had plummeted long before vaccines were introduced.

In fact, in the past, doctors would regularly speak of measles as a mild childhood disease that did not lead to death or even require medication for recovery. In an 1860 address to the Smithsonian Institute, Dr. R.T. Trail made amazing claims about the benign nature of measles and several other diseases:

"I have myself, through Natural Hygiene, over 16 years, treated all forms and hundreds of cases of typhus and typhoid fevers, pneumonia's, measles and dysentery's, and have not lost a single patient. The same is true of scarlet and other fevers. No medicine whatever was given."

-R.T. Trall M.D. https://www.whale.to/v/trall.htm

In the 1959 Vital Statistics published in the British Medical Journal, measles was considered a very mild disease that had few serious complications:

'In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week . . . In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious." — Vital Statistics, British Medical Journal, February 7 1959, p. 381

https://whale.to/m/measles1.html

In 1962, a year before the measles vaccine was introduced, Dr. Alexander Langmuir, the CDC's chief disease detective who created and led the epidemiology surveillance unit from 1949 to 1970, granting him the title of the "father of infectious disease epidemiology," wrote that measles was an "infection" of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality:

The Importance of Measles as a Health Problem

"This self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality has maintained a remarkably stable biological balance over the centuries."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/41218/cdc_41218_DS1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_v6i2-vr_AhV0pokEHd5eCSgQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1MKlac2aH9MD-Soo4J1oZr

In 1998, Pamela Dyne, Associate Residency Director, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, stated in an emedicine.com article that measles was usually benign and uncomplicated:

Pediatrics, Measles

"Although a clinically significant viral illness, measles is usually benign and uncomplicated. Complications occur more commonly in adults and in children who are undernourished or immunocompromised."

https://web.archive.org/web/19980702034411/https://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic389.htm

As is usually the case, the people and sources stating that measles is not a deadly disease were either ignored and/or forgotten. Studies and whistleblowers that alerted the public to the dangerous and deadly consequences of the vaccines were conveniently swept under the rug. A successful pharmaceutical propaganda campaign has convinced the public that the vaccines save lives and that this highly contagious disease has been largely controlled. Any sudden outbreaks are considered a disease of the unvaccinated and a direct result of their "anti-scientific" ways. The unvaccinated are seen as a walking threat, as "deadly and contagious" as the disease itself.

According to the New England Medical Journal, measles is one of the most highly contagious pathogens known to man. It states that, in a 100% susceptible population, a single case of measles results in 12 to 18 secondary cases on average. The WHO concurs with the NEJM in that the measles is one of the worlds most highly contagious "viral" diseases and that it can lead to severe complications and death in the unvaccinated. According to the CDC, if one person has the measles, 90% of the people next to that person who are not "immune" will become "infected."

These are some rather scary sounding claims for a "viral" disease that was once considered an inevitable, mild, benign, and uncomplicated disease of moderate severity and low fatality. This raises some very interesting questions. Do the claims of the measles "virus" being a highly contagious disease actually hold up when reviewing the literature? Was this super "infectious" disease able to be successfully transmitted from the fluids of a sick host into either a healthy human or animal subject? Were researchers actually able to recreate the exact same disease experimentally? If we are to judge the "highly contagious" nature of this "virus" based upon the attempted transmission experiments throughout the 19th and 20th centuries involving the use of the blood, tears, nasal mucous, lung fluid, and the discharge from measles scabs, the evidence shows the exact opposite of a "highly contagious" disease. In fact, it shows that measles is not contagious at all.

Human Experiments

In 1905, American pathologist Ludvig Hektoen reviewed the evidence for the experimental transmission of measles throughout the available literature up to that time. What he found during his review is numerous instances of the failure to transmit the disease through the use of the blood, tears, nasal mucous, lung fluid, and the discharge from measles scabs. To start his review, Hektoen cast doubt on the results of the first attempts to transmit measles via inoculation by Francis Hume in 1758. He quoted Erasmus Darwin, a respected physician of the time, who stated that attempts had been made to transmit the disease, yet there was much difficulty in doing so. Hektoen reported that, in 1816, Thomassen A. Thuessin and his pupil C.J. Themmen tried to recreate Hume's experiments and ended up producing entirely negative results in their attempts to transmit the disease to five children using the blood of measles patients. Hektoen then proceeded to look at the experimental results of various other researchers over the 19th century.

• In 1801, Chapman tried to transmit measles using the blood, tears, the mucus of the nostrils and bronchia, and the eruptive matter in the cuticle without any success.
• In 1809, Willan fared the same result when he tried unsuccessfully to inoculate three children with vesicle fluids.
• In 1810, Wachsel attempted to inoculate an 18-year-old with measles, but this was said to be doubtful and was considered a "natural" infection rather than an experimental one based upon the length of time it took for the symptoms to develop.
• In 1822, Dr. Frigori tried to infect six children without success as the symptoms were considered non-specific. Not content with his results, Dr. Frigori attempted to infect himself, also without success.
• That same year, Dr. Negri tried to infect two boys and suffered the same negative results as Dr. Frigori.
• Also, in 1822, Speranza failed in his attempts to infect four boys with measles using similar methods.
• In 1834, Albers attempted to infect four children without success. He quoted Alexander Monro, Bourgois, and Spray (Spry?) as also having made unsuccessful inoculations with saliva, tears, and cutaneous scales.
• Finally, in 1890, Hugh Thompson tried to infect two sets of children on separate occasions, both without success.

Experimental Measles

"The first attempt at inoculation of measles of which we have
any record was made by Francis Home, in 1758."

"According to his own records Home attempted to inoculate measles in 15 different persons, and he concludes that in most instances he succeeded in producing the disease in a mild and modified form."

"Judging from the following quotation Erasmus Darwin was either not familiar or not favorably impressed with Home's work:

. . . . it is probable that inoculation might disarm the measles as much
as the small pox, by preventing the catarrh, and frequent pulmonary inflammation, which attends this disease; both of which are probably the consequence of the immediate application of the contagious miasmata to these membranes. Some attempts have been made, but a difficulty seems to arise in giving the disease; the blood, I conjecture, would not infect, nor the tears; perhaps the mucous discharge from the nostrils might succeed; or a drop of warm water put on the eruptions, and scraped off again with the edge of a lancet; or if moistened with a little warm water? Further experiments of this kind would be worthy the public attention."

"This opinion was greatly strengthened by the wholly negative results of Themmen's own experiments. He placed blood of measles patients, taken at the height of the exanthem upon small wounds on the arms of two children; cotton saturated with the tears of a measles patient upon a ruptured vesicle on the arm of an infant; in another case a similar experiment was made with cotton soaked in the perspiration of a patient thickly covered with the eruption of measles; and in the fifth experiment he placed cotton soaked in the tears of a patient with measles upon the intact skin of each arm of a girl. "Though all these things were performed cautiously and in accordance with the precepts of the authorities, yet we saw no effects therefrom, and these five children, although they had not previously been attacked with measles, remained entirely free from this disease," says Themmen, who acknowledges, however, that the children were apparently not very susceptible to measles because they all lived in houses in which measles was prevalent and yet remained free from the disease."

"Willan inoculated three children with the fluid of miliary vesicles in measles but without success. And Chapman in Philadelphia in 1801 tried in vain to inoculate measles by means of blood, tears, the mucus of the nostrils and bronchia, the eruptive matter in the cuticle, properly moistened." On this account Dewes thought that the contagious nature of measles could be fairly disputed."

"Mr. Wachsel's experiment on Richard Brookes, a lad of 18, reported by Willan (loc. cit.) is stated by Hugh Thompson and others to have been successful, but this is, to say the very least, exceedingly doubtful. The boy was inoculated January 6, 1810, with cowpox and with fluid taken from measly vesicles. The cowpock was fully developed on the 15th. On the 22d, coughing, sneezing, and running at the eyes set in with chills followed by measly eruption on the 28th–22 days after inoculation. In the light of our present knowledge the measles in this case must be ascribed to a natural infection received about eight days after the inoculation."

"In 1822 Speranza of Mantua caused inoculation of measles to be made with results regarded by him as eminently successful and so accepted without reserve by several subsequent writers. Speranza describes these inoculations as follows:

". . . . we invited to perform the operation Dr. Frigori, staff physician of the Workhouse and Convalescent Hospital, where measles was always prevalent among the children. A slight incision was made with the lancet upon a group of the more inflamed disease-spots, and with the point of the instrument charged with the bloody matter several incisions were made on the arm of a healthy person, the wounds being covered at once with a bandage. This operation was performed, with the greatest care and under our observation, upon six boys of different ages. The boys complained, a few days afterwards, of not feeling well; about the fifth or sixth days there appeared very slight traces of cold in the head, with cough and watery eyes, which remained after the appearance of a few exanthematic spots; there was very slight febrile irritation, in some cases a mild diarrhea, and by the ninth or the tenth day after the inoculation the measles had run its course without leaving any trace of secondary malady. Dr. Frigori, not content with this result, to which he had given close and daily observation, tried the experiment upon himself; the outcome was the same, but still milder, the morbid phenomena being merely a passing catarrhal affection, involving the frontal sinuses, and the pituitary membrane rather than the trachea and bronchi. A similar inoculation performed by Dr. Negri upon two boys had the result, as did our own experiments upon four other individuals, carried out in the same way. We were not equally fortunate when following the practice of Home, of Horst, and of Ronalds; that is in saturating a little cotton with the blood from an incision upon a group of exanthematic spots, and applying it to the arm before any puncture had been made. This was attempted in two cases, but the experiment did not fulfil our wishes; no catarrhal phenomena and no exanthematic spots appeared.

Speranza also states that-

In the year 1806, during the prevalence of an epidemic of measles in Parma, Dr. Rasori, staff physician of the Hospital, inoculated one of his nephews with the disease by introducing with a needle, bloody matter taken from the exanthematic sores of an infected person. The formation of papillae at the point of inoculation, with slight traces of catarrhal irritation, and immunity from the epidemic then general, were the result of this salutary operation.

From the description given by Speranza of the symptoms in
the inoculated persons it would seem very doubtful, indeed, if any of them really had measles. And if the symptoms described be accepted as those of "a mild and morbillious affection," how may natural infection be excluded when we are told that measles was always prevalent among the children in the hospital and when the incubation period is given as five to six days? Under these circumstances I cannot see how it is possible to read any value into Speranza's experiments."

"In 1834, Albers without success inoculated four persons using Home's method in two, and the method of vaccination in two, the blood being taken on the second day of the eruption. Prom this he concludes that the blood does not contain the contagion of measles. He quotes Alexander Monro, Bourgois and Spray (Spry?) as having made unsuccessful inoculations with saliva, tears, and cutaneous scales, but no references are given."

"Hugh Thompson in Glasgow accepts the inoculations of Home Wachsel, Speranza, and Katona as successful. He regards the practicability and the safety of inoculation in measles, as well as its production of a much milder attack than the spontaneous, as definitely established, and recommends that the method employed be superficial scarification followed by the application of the fluid from blisters on the skin of measles patients. In two instances
however, in which Thompson practiced this method his inoculations failed."

The rest of Ludvig Hektoen's paper details his own experiments performed in 1905 attempting to infect healthy people with measles. These experiments are considered the definitive proof that measles can be transmitted via the fluids of an "infected" patient. While Hektoen claimed to infect these people with the blood of measles patients, what he used was far more than just the blood. Briefly, two flasks with ascites broth 50 c.c. (peptone broth two parts, ascitic fluid heated to 55° C. for 54 minutes one part) were inoculated with one and three c.c. of blood and incubated at 37° C. for 24 hours. He then made subcultures upon ascites agar, glycerin agar, and Loeffler's serum. These broths were injected into two patients who were recovering from scarlett fever (a disease said to be mistaken with measles) who experienced some non-specific symptoms that were then claimed to be measles. While this experiment is said to be the definitive proof that a measles "virus" was transmitted from the blood of sick patients to those who are healthy, the fact that the "healthy" subjects were patients that had recently suffered similar symptoms of disease, the blood samples were mixed with other substances such as ascites broth, and the subjects only suffered from mild non-specific symptoms of disease, challenges the validity of Hektoen's own findings:

PERSONAL EXPERIMENTS.

"In these experiments special care has been taken to exclude
natural infection.
1. The blood injected was taken from a boy of nine who in the later stages of desquamation after an uncomplicated attack of scarlet fever developed a rather mild but typical attack of measles. The first symptoms of measles appeared after he had been free from fever for about two weeks. There was headache, coryza, cough, running of the eyes, and mild febrile symptoms. Three days later a papular eruption was noted and on the fourth day a typical rubeolous rash was present, that soon began to fade and was followed by typical branny desquamation.

On the fourth day (see Chart I) four c.c. of blood were withdrawn from the vein at the right elbow after carefully scrubbing the skin with soap and water followed with alcohol. Two flasks with ascites broth 50 c.c. (peptone broth two parts, ascitic fluid heated to 55° O. for 54 minutes one part) were inoculated 1 at once with one and three c.c. of blood respectively and placed in the incubator at 37° O. for 24 hours. At the end of this time both flasks appeared sterile, the corpuscles having settled, the supernatant fluid being clear. Subcultures made at this time upon ascites agar, glycerin agar, and Loeffler's serum and kept under aerobic and anaerobic conditions remained sterile; and the contents of the flask of ascites-broth containing one c.c. of blood remained permanently sterile. Four c.c. of the flask of 50 c.c. of ascites-broth mixed with three c.c, of blood and kept in the incubator at 37° 0 for 24 hours were injected under the skin of the chest of a healthy medical student 24 years old, just finishing desquamation after an uncomplicated attack of scarlet fever, and who readily gave his consent to the experiment. This man was not in the same hospital as the boy furnishing the blood for injection, but had been for 26 days in a different institution, at that time as well as before and afterwards entirely free from measles. So far as could be learned, and careful inquiry was made, the man injected had not had any disease at all resembling measles except scarlet fever.

At no time did any local symptoms appear at the site of the injection. On the 13th day after injection the temperature was 101° F; the next morning it rose to 103 (see Chart II). At nine the following morning he was given a warm bath and immediately afterwards a red, papular, blotchy eruption broke out on the forehead and spread quite rapidly to the face, neck and chest. Dr. James B. Herrick who saw him at this time felt no hesitancy in making the diagnosis of measles. By two o'clock an unmistakably typical full-blown, rubeolous rash was present over the greater part of the body. The temperature remained above normal for two days, when it fell to normal about the same time that the eruption began to fade. An uneventful recovery promptly followed without any
complications whatsoever, the desquamation being branny. There was during the entire illness freedom from respiratory symptoms of all kinds. Even during the pre-eruptive period there were no special local symptoms (morbilli sine catarrho). The patient's subjective condition was not much changed if at all at any time during his illness. The appetite continued unimpaired.

2. In this case the blood was furnished by a well-developed Irish servant girl, 21 years old, who passed through an uncomplicated attack of typical measles (Ohart III). About 30 hours after the earliest appearance of the rash, which still was coming out upon the extremities, 10 c.c, of blood were withdrawn from a vein at the elbow and distributed equally among four flasks each containing 50 c.c, of broth and 25 c.c, of ascites fluid. These flasks all remained perfectly sterile so far as bacteria demonstrable by the usual methods are concerned.

After 24 hours at 37° C. five c.c. of the mixture of blood in ascites-broth were injected subcutaneously in the back of
M, aged 28, who had not had measles so far as he knew and consented to the experiment.

This patient was also recovering from a mild attack of scarlet fever and had been at the time of inoculation for 24 days the sole occupant of the isolation room of a general hospital in which at that time there were no other cases of measles. There were no local changes at the site of the injection. The temperature and general condition remained normal until the evening of the 11th day when the temperature rose to 99.8° F. and the next day a mild conjunctivitis already suspected a day or so previously became definitely apparent. On the 13th day there was some cough, the tonsils were bright and red, and there was an increased amount of mucus in the throat. In the afternoon the temperature which was rising, reached 103° F. (Chart IV). During the next night a typical rubeolous eruption came out, the first spots being noticed on the nose and then on the forehead, face, scalp, chest, back and abdomen. The rash
consisted of pink macules and papules which disappeared readily on pressure, being largest and brightest red over the face. The forehead was quite uniformly red. The patient was not seriously ill; there was some loss of appetite, but he slept well during the night, having been somewhat restless the preceding night. Recovery was prompt.

Cultures of the blood on the 13th day (one c.c. of blood in each of three flasks each containing 50 c.c, of broth and 25 c.c, of ascites fluid) remained permanently sterile.

CONCLUSIONS.

The results of these two experiments permit the conclusion that the virus of measles is present in the blood of patients with typical'measles sometime at least during the first 30 hours of the eruption; furthermore that the virus retains its virulence for at least 24 hours when such blood is inoculated into ascites broth and kept at 37° C. This demonstration shows that it is not difficult to obtain the virus of measles unmixed with other microbes and in such form that it may be studied by various methods.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30071821?seq=5

30071821Download

While Hektoen's findings are questionable on their own, the work of Andrew Sellards a little over a decade later further destroyed the credibility of Hektoen's claims. During the winter months of 1918 to 1919, Andrew Sellards attempted to recreate the results obtained by Hektoen. To do so, he inoculated the blood of measles patients in 8 healthy volunteers without a prior history of measles exposure. Sellards utilized the same methods as Hektoen and carried out a series of progressively more intense injections of blood. He started with just the blood of a patient obtained 12 hours after eruption that was mixed with 9 parts of isotonic salt solution and then inoculated subcutaneously into a volunteer. No symptoms followed.

In the next series, the blood of a measles patient obtained 12 hours after a rash was either incubated in ascitic broth or defibrinated. Both preparations were injected into 2 volunteers subcutaneously. However, no symptoms occurred in these series of experiments. Thus, more intensive injections took place. Blood was taken in citrate from 2 pre-eruptive measles cases, mixed together, and then injected both subcutaneously and intramuscularly into 2 more volunteers. Twenty-four hours later, the same process was repeated with the same volunteers. However, no symptoms occurred. After 3 weeks, these same volunteers were exposed to an early measles case and had secretions inoculated into their mucus membranes. The volunteers continued to remain symptom free.

After these failures, a final intense injection was attempted using the whole blood of a measles patient that was inoculated subcutaneously and intravenously into another volunteer. This volunteer also remained symptom free. Sellards concluded that his 8 successive failures to transmit measles through successive injections of blood cast doubt on Hektoen's results, which supposedly showed the transmission of measles via injections of blood. Sadly, I could not copy and paste the highlights from this study for some reason, thus we have to rely on my excellent cropping and underlining skills:

A Review of the Investigations Concerning the Etiology of Measles

doi:10.1097/00005792-192403020-00001

sellards1924Download

In 1919, Alfred F Hess M.D. sent a letter to the editor Journal of the American Medical Association in response to Sellards experimental results. In it, he compared both Sellard's failure to transmit measles to humans with the blood and mucus secretions with his own failure to do so with chickenpox. Hess admitted that the artificial transmission of man was not as nature intended. Sadly, instead of admitting that the "viral" hypothesis is wrong, Hess felt that they were either failing to carry over the "virus" or that there was a different route of infection that was unknown to researchers:

Need of Further Reaserach on the Transmissibility of Measles and Varicella

"It is remarkable that Sellards was unable to produce this highly infectious disease by means of the blood or the nasal secretion of infected individuals. Not long ago, however, I had a similar experience with varicella (Am. J. Dis. Child. 16:34 [July] 1918). Thus we are confronted with two diseases—the two most infectious of the endemic diseases in this part of the world—which we are unable to transmit artificially from man to man. The result was most surprising in regard to chickenpox, and if the same rule holds good for measles it would seem as if a basic principle must be involved. Evidently in our experiments we do not, as we believe, pursue nature's mode of transmission; either we fail to carry over the virus, or the path of infection is quite different from what it is commonly thought to be."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/222413

hess1919Download Animal Experiments

After decades of unsuccessfully trying to prove the infectivity of measles in humans with many different experiments, scientists moved on to trying to infect monkeys. We can find out quite a bit about these experiments by returning to Andrew Sellards 1919 paper. Starting off, Sellards admitted that the results of these animal experiments varied rather remarkably. In the first experiments discussed, Sellards began by looking to the work of Anderson and Goldberger in 1911. Unfortunately, much of the vital information from these experiments was missing and/or not available. The researchers used 3 different species of monkeys in their experiments that experienced only very mild symptoms, with many experiencing no symptoms at all. Two monkeys were inoculated on the mucous membrane with material taken from measles patients 24 hours after symptoms developed, and neither monkey suffered any symptoms. In experiments with subcutaneous injections of patient materials into the monkeys, 4 of 6 attempts were considered unsuccessful.

Hektoen and Eggers inoculated two monkeys with the blood taken 24 hours after the rash appeared. No rash or respiratory complications were observed in either monkey. The researchers claimed that their results, when combined with those obtained from Anderson and Goldberger, indicated that monkey's were susceptible to a "mild kind of measles."

Lucas and Pfizer had two monkeys injected with the blood of a measles patient. No rash nor any febrile reactions occurred in either monkey. Sellards stated that any interpretation from their experimental results was difficult as several control monkeys died after inoculation as well as some of those inoculated with the "virus" two weeks after the injection of measles blood.

In 1911, Nicolle and Conseil claimed that they had confirmed the work of Anderson and Golderg. However, when one monkey was injected with the blood taken from a measles patient, no symptoms developed beyond a rise in temperature. Blood from this monkey was injected into another monkey that remained entirely normal.

In 1920, the same researchers reported on results from experiments conducted in 1913 where the transfer of measles was attempted from a child to monkeys, re-inoculated into a child, and again into the monkeys. This resulted in the monkeys experiencing no symptoms other than a febrile reaction. No normal baseline temperature ranges for the monkeys were reported, nor were any of the symptoms experienced by the child described. Sellards felt that it was inadvisable to draw any conclusions from these results as such important information was missing.

Tunnicliff inoculated the blood of a measles patient into a monkey that resulted in no definite febrile reactions, no rash, no Koplik spots, nor any other indication of measles in the "infected" monkey.

In 1914, Jurgelunas tried to produce measles in monkeys using inoculations of the blood and mucus secretions from measles patients as well as by exposing the animals to patients in measles wards. He concluded that all of his results were negative.

One monkey injected with defibrinated blood ultimately formed a rash and died 11 days after injection. However, Jurgelunas considered that the rash did not conform to that seen in measles, and therefore, measles was not the cause of death. Another monkey was injected with blood aquired 24 hours after the rash appeared in the measles patient, and no symptoms developed. A third monkey, injected with blood taken from the second day after the rash appeared, also developed no symptoms.

Two monkeys were exposed to patients in the measles wards, spending five days with acute patients and two days with covalescent patients. Neither developed any symptoms. Several other experiments were carried out in other monkeys with mucous secretions from measles patients, which all yielded negative results.

In 1921, Blake and Trask claimed that they had successfully infected 8 out of 10 monkeys with measles, thus "confirming" the work of Anderson and Goldberger, Hektoen and Eggers, and Lucas and Pfizer. However, the rash that appeared did not differ from rashes that occur in monkeys without measles, and febrile reactions only occurred in those animals that were inoculated with contaminated materials.

In 1918 and 1919, Sellards and Wenworth inoculated 3 monkeys in various ways, including intensive injections of blood from measles patients. The animals remained well without any evidence of measles, even under favorable conditions meant to bring about the disease.

In a separate experiment, blood from measles patients was injected simultaneously into 2 men and 2 monkeys. Both men remained symptom-free. One of the two monkeys developed symptoms that were not suggestive of measles, and as the two men remained healthy, Sellards concluded that the monkey was not suffering from a measles "virus." Sellards also mentioned that his own experiments using mucous secretions only resulted in negative findings and that the injection of the blood from measles patients has not conclusively demonstrated measles infection.

Regarding his own experimental results, as well as taking into account those from researchers before him, Sellards concluded that there was no exact proof of the susceptibility of monkeys to measles. He considered that using the reactions in monkeys as a way of studying measles was unsatisfactory. He also considered the filterability of the "virus" an entirely open question.

Grund injected rabbits intratrachaelly with mucous secretions from measles patients. Of the 23 animals experimented on, a large number remained without illness. No febrile reaction or leucopenia emerged, and immunity tests were contradictory. Grund concluded that no one individual animal gave a typical picture of measles.

While Duval and D'Aunoy believed that they had reproduced measles by injecting the blood of measles patients into rabbits, Sellards concluded that their findings would require extensive confirmation and elaborate controls in order to confirm. The researchers also studied guinea pigs and believed them susceptible to measles. However, some of the essential data was not present in their report, with incomplete information on temperature and leucocyte counts that would not lead one to logically come to the same conclusion.

Tunnicliff and Moody injected 9 rabbits intratrachaelly with mucous secretions, and while rashes were observed in 8 of them, no other definite symptoms developed.

Kawamura used blood from monkeys that were inoculated with the blood from measles patients and then attempted to transmit disease from the monkey to both guinea pigs and rabbits without success.

Nicolle and Consil concluded that rabbits and guinea pigs were not susceptible to measles after attempting to inoculate these animals unsuccessfully.

Based upon the experimental results of others, Sellards concluded that symptoms in rabbits were even less definite than those seen in monkeys. Thus, he believed that accepting rabbits and guinea pigs as susceptible to measles, or even that the "virus" could survive within these animals, was not warranted based upon the evidence submitted.

When discussing the transmission of measles to man, Sellards stated that injecting the blood of a measles patient, where the "virus" was assumed to reside, into a healthy subject, does not mean that one will acquire measles. He reiterated that his own work involving the injection of the blood of measles patients into healthy subjects only produced negative results.

On the transmission of measles into animals, Sellards stated that there was no convincing proof of the susceptibility of monkeys to a measles "virus." He felt that all observers agreed that the symptoms produced in monkey experiments were rather vague and that experienced investigators reported conflicting results and marked variations. No matter what the mode of inoculation, the interpretation of the results remained the chief difficulty. The experimental reactions were too mild to determine that they were the result of a measles "virus" from the human patient. Sellards believed that it was important to come to an exact method of study for all future research rather than pile up a massive amount of data that was reliant upon one or two doubtful methods. He concluded by stating that the cardinal problems remaining to be solved for measles were:

• The demonstration of the causative microorganism
• The cultivation of the microorganism
• The experimental recreation of the disease in animals

In Summary:

• In 1758, Francis Home attempted the first inoculations of measles fluids into patients and concluded that in most instances, he succeeded in producing the disease in a mild and modified form
• However, Erasmus Darwin was not impressed with the results and stated that some attempts had been made, but a difficulty seemed to arise in giving the disease
• C. J. Themmen's own experiments using the tears, sweat, and other fluids from measles patients on 5 children were all negative
• Chapman in Philadelphia in 1801 tried in vain to inoculate measles by means of blood, tears, the mucus of the nostrils and bronchia, the eruptive matter in the cuticle without success
• In 1809, Willan inoculated three children with the fluid of miliary vesicles in measles but without success
• In 1810, Wachsel attempted to inoculate an 18-year-old with measles, but this was said to be doubtful and was considered a "natural" infection rather than an experimental one based upon the length of time it took for the symptoms to develop
• In 1822, Dr. Frigori tried to infect 6 children with measles which produced mild non-specific symptoms, but they did not develop measles
• Frigori was not satisfied with the results and attempted to infect himself without success
• In 1822, Dr. Negri tried to infect two children with measles and came up with the same negative results as Dr. Frigori
• In 1822, Speranza attempted to infect 4 children using similar methods, but without success
• In 1834, Albers tried to infect four children with measles, 2 in the way of Home, and 2 by way of vaccination, and none of the 4 fell ill
• Albers quoted Alexander Monro, Bourgois and Spray as having made unsuccessful inoculations with saliva, tears, and cutaneous scales
• In 1890, Hugh Thompson attempted to inoculate 2 children with measles and failed in both instances
• In 1905, Ludvig Hektoen attempted to infect 2 healthy people with measles using the blood of sick patients
• To do so, he used two flasks with ascites broth 50 c.c. (peptone broth two parts, ascitic fluid heated to 55° C. for 54 minutes one part) that were inoculated with one and three c.c. of blood and incubated at 37° C. for 24 hours
• He then made subcultures upon ascites agar, glycerin agar, and Loeffler's serum
• This was injected into the two volunteers, who were both recently recovering from similar symptoms with scarlett fever, who experienced non-specific symptoms that were questionable as to whether they experienced measles
• During the winter months of 1918 to 1919, Andrew Sellards attempted to recreate the results obtained by Hektoen
• To do so, he inoculated the blood of measles patients in 8 healthy volunteers without prior history of measles exposure, starting with just the blood of a patient obtained 12 hours after eruption that was mixed with 9 parts of isotonic salt solution and then inoculated subcutaneously into a volunteer, and yet no symptoms followed
• In the next series by Sellards, the blood of a measles patient obtained 12 hours after a rash was either incubated in ascitic broth or defibrinated
• Both preparations were injected into 2 volunteers subcutaneously, and, once again, no symptoms occurred in these series of experiments
• More intensive injections took place as blood was taken in citrate from 2 pre-eruptive measles cases, mixed together, and then injected both subcutaneously and intramuscularly into 2 more volunteers and repeated twenty-four hours later
• However, no symptoms occurred, and after 3 weeks, these same volunteers were exposed to an early measles case and had secretions inoculated into their mucus membranes and continued to remain symptom free
• In 1919, Alfred F Hess M.D. sent a letter to the editor Journal of the American Medical Association in response to Sellards experimental results, stating that "it is remarkable that Sellards was unable to produce this highly infectious disease by means of the blood or the nasal secretion of infected individuals."
• Hess was unable to do the same with chickenpox and declared that "we are confronted with two diseases—the two most infectious of the endemic diseases in this part of the world—which we are unable to transmit artificially from man to man."
• Turning to animal experiments, Sellards admitted that the results of experimental infection of measles with monkeys varied rather remarkably
• Sellards bgan by looking at the work of Anderson and Goldberger in 1911, where much of the vital information from these experiments was missing or not available
• The researchers used 3 different species of monkeys that experienced only very mild symptoms, with many experiencing no symptoms at all
• Hektoen and Eggers inoculated two monkeys with the blood taken 24 hours after the rash appeared, and no rash or respiratory complications were observed in either monkey
• The researchers claimed that their results, when combined with those obtained from Anderson and Goldberg, indicated that monkey's were susceptible to a "mild kind of measles"
• Lucas and Pfizer had two monkeys injected with the blood of a measles patient, and no rash nor any febrile reactions occurred in either monkey
• Sellards stated that any interpretation from their experimental results was difficult as several control monkeys died after inoculation as well as some of those inoculated with the "virus" two weeks after the injection of measles blood
• In 1911, Nicolle and Conseil claimed that they had confirmed the work of Anderson and Golderger
• However, when one monkey was injected with the blood taken from a measles patient, no symptoms developed beyond a rise in temperature
• Blood from this monkey was injected into another monkey that remained entirely normal
• In 1920, the same researchers reported on results from experiments conducted in 1913 where the transfer of measles was attempted from a child to monkeys, re-inoculated into a child, and again into the monkeys
• This resulted in the monkeys experiencing no symptoms other than a febrile reaction
• No normal baseline temperature ranges for the monkeys were reported, nor were any of the symptoms experienced by the child described, and thus, Sellard felt that it was inadvisable to draw any conclusions from these results as such important information was missing
• Tunnicliff inoculated the blood of a measles patient into a monkey that resulted in no definite febrile reactions, no rash, no Koplik spots, nor any other indication of measles in the "infected" monkey
• Jurgelunas tried to produce measles in monkeys using inoculations of the blood and mucus secretions from measles patients as well as by exposing the animals in to patients measles wards, and had to conclude that all of his results were negative
• One monkey injected with defibrinated blood ultimately formed a rash and died 11 days after injection, yet Jurgelunas considered that the rash did not conform to that seen in measles, and therefore, measles was not the cause of death
• Another monkey was injected with blood aquired 24 hours after the rash appeared in the measles patient, and no symptoms developed
• A third monkey injected with blood taken from the second day after the rash appeared also developed no symptoms
• Two monkeys were exposed to patients in the measles wards, spending five days with acute patients and two days with covalescent patients, and neither developed any symptoms
• Several other experiments were carried out in other monkeys with mucous secretions from measles patients, which all yielded negative results
• In 1921, Blake and Trask claimed that they had successfully infected 8 out of 10 monkeys with measles, thus "confirming" the work of Anderson and Goldberger, Hektoen and Eggers, and Lucas and Pfizer, yet the rash that appeared did not differ from rashes that occur in monkeys without measles and febrile reactions only occurred in those animals that were inoculated with contaminated materials
• In 1918 and 1919, Sellards and Wenworth inoculated 3 monkeys in various ways, including intensive injections of blood from measles patients, and the animals remained well without any evidence of measles, even under favorable conditions meant to bring about the disease
• In a separate experiment, blood from measles patients was injected simultaneously into 2 men and two monkeys, with both men remaining symptom-free, and only one of the two monkeys developing symptoms that were not suggestive of measles
• As the two men remained healthy, Sellards concluded that the monkey was not suffering from a measles "virus"
• Sellards also mentioned that his own experiments using mucous secretions only resulted in negative findings that the injection of the blood from measles patients has not conclusively demonstrated measles infection
• Regarding his own experimental results, as well as taking into account those from researchers before him, Sellards concluded that there was no exact proof of the susceptibility of monkeys to measles
• He considered that using the reactions in monkeys as a way of studying measles was unsatisfactory
• He also considered the filterability of the "virus" an entirely open question
• Grund injected rabbits intratrachaelly with mucous secretions from measles patients, and of the 23 animals experimented on, a large number remained without illness
• No febrile reaction or leucopenia emerged, and immunity tests were contradictory
• Grund concluded that no one individual animal gave a typical picture of measles
• While Duval and D'Aunoy believed that they had reproduced measles by injecting the blood of measles patients into rabbits, Sellards concluded that their findings would require extensive confirmation and elaborate controls in order to confirm
• The researchers also studied guinea pigs and believed them susceptible to measles, but some of the essential data was not present in their report, with incomplete information on temperature and leucocyte counts that would not lead one to logically come to  the same conclusion
• Tunnicliff and Moody injected 9 rabbits intratrachaelly with mucous secretions, and while rashes were observed in 8 of them, no other definite symptoms developed
• Kawamura used blood from monkeys that were inoculated with the blood from measles patients and then attempted to transmit disease from the monkey to both guinea pigs and rabbits without success
• Nicolle and Consil concluded that rabbits and guinea pigs were not susceptible to measles after attempting to inoculate these animals unsuccessfully
• Based upon the experimental results of others, Sellards concluded that symptoms in rabbits were even less definite than those seen in monkeys
• Thus, he believed that accepting rabbits and guinea pigs as susceptible to measles, or even that the "virus" could survive within these animals, was not warranted based upon the evidence submitted
• When discussing the transmission of measles to man, Sellards stated that injecting the blood of a measles patient, where the "virus" was assumed to reside, into a healthy subject, does not mean that one will acquire measles
• He reiterated that his own work involving the injection of the blood of measles into healthy subjects only produced negative results
• On the transmission of measles into animals, Sellards stated that there was no convincing proof of the susceptibility of monkeys to a measles "virus"
• He felt that all observers agreed that the symptoms produced in monkey experiments were rather vague and that experienced investigators reported conflicting results and marked variations
• No matter what the mode of inoculation, the interpretation of the results remained the chief difficulty
• The experimental reactions were too mild to determine that they were the result of a measles "virus" from the human patient
• Sellards believed that it was important to come to an exact method of study for all future research rather than pile up a massive amount of data that was reliant upon one or two doubtful methods
• He concluded by stating that the cardinal problems remaining to be solved for measles were:
  • The demonstration of the causative microorganism
  • The cultivation of the microorganism
  • The experimental recreation of the disease in animals

Somewhere along the line, the non-specific symptoms referred to as measles went from being known as a benign childhood disease to a highly contagious killer of children. However, the foundational experimental evidence does not show this to be the case. Not only were the deaths associated with measles falling throughout the 20th century prior to the introduction of any vaccine, the human and animal experiments used to show that there was a "highly contagious viral" cause demonstrated the exact opposite. Researchers repeatedly failed to recreate the same symptoms of disease using every possible source of fluids from a measles patient. In many instances, no symptoms ever occurred, and in the few instances where symptoms did occur, they were not the same as those seen naturally. Thus, these experiments failed to show any sort of "highly contagious and infectious virus." In fact, they showed that a disease such as measles can not be transmitted from one person to another via the fluids. They showed, once again, that the infectious myth had been busted.

Gaining Perspective with Jesse Zurawell

Yesterday, I had the great privilege of speaking with Jesse Zurawell on his TNT radio show Perspective. It was a very fun conversation as we focused on a topic that I don't get to discuss very often, which is the contribution of air pollution to the increase in respiratory symptoms that have been affecting people over the last few years. Jesse had seen my latest Substack article Look, Up in the Sky! and wanted to discuss some of the information presented there. We spoke on the current unprecedented Canadian wildfires polluting our skies and touched upon topics such as climate change, weather modification, and chemtrails. We looked at the impact that air pollution is said to have on a person's health. Spoiler alert! Every symptom associated with "Covid" is also associated with air pollution. There is no need to introduce a "viral" cause as an explanation for respiratory disease. I hope you enjoy our conversation!

Jesse Zurawell is an independent writer and researcher whose work examines the globalist predator class and how its agendas are aided and abetted by governments and corporate media alike.

GUEST OVERVIEW: Mike runs viroliegy.com which, using actual science, dissects the field of virology and exposes myths about viruses and germs in general. We will be discussing about why viruses do not exist, and what, therefore, causes illness.

https://www.podbean.com/ep/pb-cg96z-144753b

Please see these related articles for more information on the air pollution, "Covid," and respiratory disease connections:

The "Covid-19" and Air Pollution Connection

"Covid" and Chemtrails

Vibing Along With “The End of Covid” on the InnerVerse Podcast

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of joining Mike Winner, Dr. Amandha Vollmer and Jacob Diaz to discuss The End of Covid on the InnerVerse Podcast's Vibe Rant show with hosts Chance Garton and the Slick Dissident. This was a last-minute gathering that was brought together when Alec Zeck was unable to attend, but I think it turned out to be a very interesting and entertaining conversation. We discussed many aspects of what people can expect to see with The End of Covid and covered various topics related to health, wellness, and the germ theory fraud. I hope you enjoy this discussion!

For more exciting podcasts from the InnerVerse gang, please check out their work here:

InnerVerse with host Chance Garton is a podcast for all the creatives, syncromystics, holistic healers, and occult researchers who are ready to take personal responsibility under natural law to manifest a more magical life. Pry open your Third Eye portal to the infinite and flow in perpetual synchronicity. Join Chance Garton for inspired interviews with conscious creators from all paths. INjoy conversations that recognize your limitless potential, and pierce beyond the veils of illusion to bring you into sovereignty and creative freedom. Tune in to respect and celebrate life's core Truth: that we are all One Consciousness, expressing itself through our individual uniqueness.

https://www.innerversepodcast.com/

Please be sure to check out The End of Covid, which is now opening on July 11th, 2023. You can find out more about this exciting event here:

https://theendofcovid.com/ref/491/

Living Outside of the Matrix With Nigel Howitt and James McCumiskey

I am excited to share this latest interview that I participated in with the Lawful Rebel himself, Nigel Howitt, and author of The Ultimate Conspiracy – The Biomedical Paradigm James McCumiskey. This interview was meant to happen back in December 2022, but we all had various scheduling conflicts that got in the way. Dr. Kevin Corbett was also slated to join, but unfortunately, he was unable to attend when this was recorded in early May 2023.

We covered various aspects of the fraud of germ theory and virology during this interview, from the lack of purification and isolation of the "viral" particles, the misuse of PCR, the problems with cell cultures, the lack of evidence proving contagion, the origins of germ theory, the takeover of our medical system by special interests, the use of germ theory as a weapon against us, the effective use of propaganda throughout history, and much more! It really was a joy speaking with both men, and I hope that we will be able to get together again along with Dr. Corbett in the future.

Citizen scientist Mike Stone and author James McCumiskey join Nigel Howitt to discuss the most important political issue of our time. Pandemics will be used to effect social control unless more of us grasp that contagion is false. Ill health and disease are not 'caught' from other people. This is the BIG ISSUE of the today.

For more with Nigel Howitt, please visit his site for some excellent podcasts:

Lawful Rebel, Home

For more with James McCumiskey, please check out his selection of books:

https://www.amazon.com/Books-James-McCumiskey/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJames+McCumiskey

The End is Coming

Update! The release date has been pushed back three weeks to July 11th, 2023 to ensure that everything runs smoothly.

In a little over two weeks, the end of germ theory and virology is upon us with the launch of The End of Covid, a 90-part virtual educational summit beginning on June 20th, 2023. I am honored to have been a part of this massive undertaking that was masterfully spearheaded by the brilliant Alec Zeck. Filled to the brim with exciting presenters that will be both familiar and new to many of you, this event covers a variety of fascinating topics with the common goal of exposing the fraud our society has been living through for the better part of the last few centuries. Here is the breakdown of what you can expect from this exciting and important event:

The End of COVID is a collaborative effort – a collection of perspectives and expertise from a wide variety of sources. This includes doctors who have a long list of credentials, and holistic health practitioners with no abbreviations next to their names. It includes self-published authors, and New York Times best-sellers – prominent media personalities, and relatively unknown independent journalists.

The common thread is that this project was put together by men and women seeking the truth.

It wasn't funded by pharmaceutical interests, informed by scientific dogma, or backed by the corporate press.

It was made with intention – by mankind, for mankind.

So that we never have to see this show again.

I am personally involved in 10 of these presentations, and I am very proud of each of them.

As a speaker:

1. What's under the microscope?
2. The science and logic of virology
3. The proof of contagion
4. Symptoms of Covid
5. What about antibodies?

As a host:

1. The control experiments
2. Fear of the germ in pop culture
3. The fallacy of peer review
4. The history of virology
5. The role of bacteria

I hope that you will join us for this monumental occasion where we bid germ theory and virology adeu as the Nielson ratings have plummeted. It's time to cancel this sick show once and for all in order to ensure that there are no future reunions, revivals and/or spin-offs.

For more information, please check out the site here:

https://theendofcovid.com/ref/491/