➡ DrTomCowan discussed the creation of a PowerPoint presentation that compiles studies and information to challenge the field of virology. The presentation, which can be shared with others, uses peer-reviewed scientific journals to argue that virology is pseudoscience. The webinar also clarified that it’s not claiming viruses don’t exist, but rather questioning the evidence supporting their existence and their role in causing diseases. The presenter also discussed various studies that failed to prove the transmission of diseases from sick to healthy individuals or through exposure to bacteria.

➡ The text discusses various experiments conducted to prove the transmission of diseases like polio, chickenpox, scarlet fever, measles, and others through viruses or bacteria. However, these experiments, which involved injecting animals or humans with fluids from infected individuals, failed to produce the expected illnesses. The author suggests that these results challenge the widely accepted germ theory of disease, as the experiments could not demonstrate that these diseases could be artificially transmitted from one individual to another. The author concludes by questioning the methods used to identify and isolate viruses.

➡ The text discusses the lack of evidence for the existence of various viruses, including avian influenza, Ebola, herpes, HIV, HPV, monkeypox, polio, rabies, SARS CoV2, and Zika. The author argues that the methods used to identify these viruses, such as cell culture techniques, are flawed and unscientific. They suggest that the breakdown of cells in these cultures could be due to the conditions of the culture itself, not the presence of a virus. The author calls for more rigorous and scientifically valid methods to prove the existence of these viruses.

➡ Researchers have found that the same effects can be seen in both inoculated and uninoculated cultures, suggesting that the presence of a virus may not be the cause. This is supported by multiple studies over the years, including one where cells showed changes similar to those caused by viruses, even though no viruses were introduced. Additionally, the presence of reverse transcriptase, previously thought to be a marker of retroviruses, was found in normal human blood cells, indicating it’s not specific to retroviruses. This raises questions about the methods used to identify and isolate viruses, as well as the validity of certain tests used to detect them.

➡ The article discusses how certain particles, often mistaken for viruses, are actually normal cellular debris. It highlights that these particles, found in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals, are indistinguishable from each other, challenging the belief that they are related to specific viruses. The article also points out that many studies have failed to differentiate between normal cell breakdown components and viruses. It concludes by emphasizing the need for proper isolation and identification to confirm the existence of a virus.

Okay, welcome everybody. Today is another Wednesday webinar. Today is Wednesday, November 20, 2024. And thanks for joining me. And today will be. Well, let me explain what we’re doing today. So today’s webinar came out of the request, which seemed to be a pretty reasonable request that we get a fair amount, which is, is there a single PowerPoint which essentially has compiled the studies and the information needed to debunk the field of virology? There are of course, a lot of other very good and well written information. You know, Farewell to Virology by Mark Bailey and many other pieces that do a really good job of helping people to understand the pseudoscience of virology.

But still the question was, is there a single PowerPoint that could put this all in one place so that you could use this to send to people? You could either send them the PowerPoint or you could send them this video that we’re about, that I’m about to make, which has some explanation of the slides, because many of the slides may not be self explanatory. So that was the purpose, again to make a PowerPoint that explains the fundamentals using their own science, their own peer reviewed scientific journals. Everything is referenced to demonstrate that virology is basically a pseudoscience.

So we will make this PowerPoint available to anyone who would like it. You can just contact our customer service and I think Tricia can send it to you, or you could give whoever you’re interested in helping understand this subject this video which will hopefully explain some of the slides to make them a little bit easier to understand. I also want to just be clear that I did not compile these studies. The person who compiled them, I believe his name is Archit. I think that’s how to say it. And you will see the link so how you can get more information and follow him and find out more about what he’s doing.

The link will be in the PowerPoint. And he also got help and got many of these studies from many of the other people who are working on this question of the pseudoscience of virology. And I don’t know all their names and I don’t know all the details, but this was definitely a collaborative effort and really my part in it was only to give a framework for how to logically order the slides so it makes the most sense and is the easiest to follow. So again, this is meant to be information that you can use, not so much new information.

Most of the people listening probably have heard most of this or even all of it and seen most of these slides. But again, it can be something you can send to your friends or family members or even government officials, if you’re so inclined or anybody you think would be. Would benefit from getting a better understanding of just how pseudoscientific the field of virology actually is. Okay with that introduction, let’s go right to the PowerPoint. Sorry, I got to start at the beginning. So that’s the website at the bottom to follow arched towards individualism. And you can also get a lot of really good information there.

So this is a pseudoscientific virology, a brief summary. And that’s my website, of course. Okay, so the way we’re doing it here is. And I thought this was the most logical order. So first we’re going to look at the studies of essentially the question of do sick people make, well, people sick? But I thought rather than just sticking to that, we would expand the studies that we looked at to not only studies of exposing well, people to sick people, there’s some of those, but also fluids or tissue from people who are alleged to have different viral infections and exposing different animals and people to those tissues or fluids and see if that makes them sick.

That they claim that as one of the ways they prove virology and other studies looking at have we been able to isolate bacteria and show that those cause sickness. And so that’s what we’ll be looking at here then once. And this is foundational because if sick people don’t make, well, people sick, and the tissues and fluids from sick people, when exposing those to well people don’t make, well, people sick. And isolated purified bacteria, you can’t do isolated purified viruses because they haven’t been properly found, as you’ll see. But you can do that with bacteria and we’ll look at whether that makes people sick.

I also want to say, just as a note of, of clarification here, what we’re not saying is that there’s viruses don’t exist because you can never say that in a proper scientific sense. You can’t say unicorns don’t exist. You can’t say leprechauns don’t exist. You cannot say viruses don’t exist. If you do, you run into that the fact that you are now making a positive claim, which you will have to prove. So that’s not what this is about. This is about looking at the evidence to support or refute the positive claim that there is such a thing as a virus and it is a pathogen and it’s described in the way that we describe what viruses are.

And they make people sick in the way that we’ve been told. So we’re examining that claim because obviously you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. So that’s just a kind of a semantic but important note. Okay, Once we look at just whether diseases seem to be transmissible either from person to person, or from fluids or tissue to persons or animals, or from bacteria to persons or animals, and we’ll see what that shows. And then we look at the evidence that whether anything that could be properly called a virus has been ever actually found, that is to say, isolated and purified directly from any biological sample of any sick person.

So that’s the next thing. That would be the next logical step. You take people or animals who you allege to have a certain illness, you look at their tissues or fluids, you find the virus. We do that with frogs, we do it with tadpoles, we do it with bacteria, we can do it with just about anything. So we should be able to do that with viruses. And we’ll find out what we actually find there and then we’ll look at. Since spoiler alert, they have never found any of these pathogenic viruses in any fluid of any sick people.

So then the question becomes, how do they claim that these viruses exist? And that’s of course the cytopathic effect. And so we’re going to look at studies like that and then we’re going to look at the claim that we can see these viruses using a technique called electron microscopy and see what that actually shows us. And then, as I said, there will be a few references into general studies like the Farewell to Virology and a few others. And then every slide will have its own reference. And the references are in the back. Okay, so that’s what we’re doing today.

That’s the outline. So here we talk now, failed transmission studies for a few so called diseases. And of course, we start with the famous Rassenau study. This was done around 1918 and it was done under the auspices of the US Public Health Department. And they took the allegedly most, one of the most virulent and one of the most contagious viruses ever, that is the Spanish flu virus. And as we all know, they used over 100 volunteers who were in various stages of being sick with the Spanish flu. And they exposed them to, well, people through coughing in their face and sneezing and transferring mucus, et cetera.

And so you can see in only one case was there anything like influenza. But here it was Just a mildly inflamed throat. And it seemed to be actually not having anything to do with Spanish flu. And so the conclusion, as you can see, in no instance was a clinical case of influenza produced. They also, by the way, did it with cultures of different bacteria, and these were also unsuccessful at transmitting the flu. So sometimes people will say, but it wasn’t a virus, it was a bacteria. Well, there’s the two viruses, and they didn’t transmit the flu either.

So this is a very important historical case where they really did a very well designed study to look at whether sick people with the most contagious virulent virus probably ever known, or at least known at that time, to see whether it caused the same illness in, well, people. And the answer is in not one case. Here’s a study with polio. And so here we’re looking at whether they took material from people who were supposedly having polio and they used the material to inoculate into various animals. So here, besides guinea pigs and rabbits, horse, two calves, three goats, three pigs, three sheep, six rats, six mice, six dogs, four cats have had active virus, meaning material ground up from people who allegedly had polio.

They never saw the virus. You have to understand that when they refer to virus here, this does not mean they found a virus. This means they’re introducing material that they allege to have a virus directly into the brain. And as they say, there was no appreciable effects whatever. Now, of course, virologists have an excuse for this. They say just that, that’s because none of these animals are susceptible to the polio virus. That, of course is nonsense. And it makes this claim that there is a virus that can transmit illness unfalsifiable. In other words, if the virus causes illness or if the material causes illness, that’s because of a virus.

And if the material doesn’t cause illness, there’s still a virus, but the animal wasn’t susceptible. So that means this can never be an experiment to actually demonstrate the existence of the virus, because the hypothesis is not falsifiable, which means it’s a belief system, not science. So here’s another one that I didn’t know, that rasenaud actually injected 18 monkeys with the nasal and buccal secretions. That’s the snot and the stuff from their mouth and throat obtained from 18 persons who were suffering with the disease. And the results were negative. They were not able to transmit any illness to these monkeys.

Again, they used the excuse that, well, there was a virus in there, but these monkeys were not susceptible, they’re somehow immune. Again, that makes it a unfalsifiable hypothesis or not an appropriate technique to find a virus. Here’s another one on polio where they fluids from 40 patients with polio, they centrifuged them. Then these fluids were derived from early cases, most of them in the pre paralytic stage. The Sediment amounts to 1 cc of very turbid fluid, were injected intracerebrally, that means into the brain, into rhesus monkeys and no effects were noted. So even injecting centrifuged fluid directly obtained from polio, people with alleged polio had no effect even injected into the brain of rhesus monkeys.

This of course is a actually a ridiculous and cruel experiment. As, as I said over and over again, nobody ever came into my office in 40 years saying, you know Tom, I was just fine and then somebody got me with a white coat and injected a bunch of ground up spinal cord directly into my brain. And I’ve never felt right since. This is not how natural polio is meant to transmit anyways. So it’s actually kind of a ridiculous experiment. But this is the kind of things that were done. And even though it’s a ridiculous experiment, it actually disproves that there was a transmissible agent.

So this is a similar thing with again with polio that they injected some sedimented portion into the brain of a monkey and no effects were noted. This is now in chicken pox. So this is something that people bring up a lot as there was no cases after the inoculation in any group. And this was from 1937. Again all the references are at the end. It is evident that neither the vesicular fluid nor the serum of the patients collected on the fourth day, diluted and filtered as above, was capable of producing the disease after intradermal inoculation. In other words, they took the blister fluid and the serum of patients who they claimed had a illness called chickenpox, they injected that under the skin, into the skin, intradermally into the skin of well, people and it was not capable of producing the disease.

So that so much for chickenpox vesicles being able to transmit the illness. Here’s a case, a study from 1913 with one of the considered most contagious infectious diseases of all time and that is scarlet fever. The materials employed were derived from patients in the early stage when it’s allegedly most contagious. And they took some blood and they injected the routes of introduction through the mucous membrane, skin, stomach, joint, cavities bloodstream, peritoneum and brain and into various animals. And the animals showed no reaction of any kind. So taking blood from people with scarlet fever was not able to transmit the agent to animals.

In this case they took same with scarlet fever. In 1914, they were unable to produce scarlet fever in monkeys and baboons with unfiltered exudates. In other words, this time not from the blood, but they used snot essentially and fluid from the peritoneum. They exposed that to different monkeys and baboons without being able to transmit scarlet fever. The conclusion is the brief review of the recorded attempts to produce scarlet fever experimentally in man reveals that it is exceedingly doubtful whether a single positive result has been obtained. And they were perplexed at this. But that was the result in 1923.

From their experiments and from reviewing the scientific literature, they were not able to find a single transmissible scarlet fever case. And here is another scarlet fever. This was a huge issue in the 20s and teens and they did try to produce experimental scarlet fever in a whole variety of dogs, guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, dogs, pigeons and small white pigs. And they ground up organs and with mucus freshly obtained from the throat. But no one organism produced these symptoms. So essentially was the evidence for the determination of the etiology of scarlet fever was still lacking. In other words, they were not able to even demonstrate disease causation in these animals or the etiological agent.

Here’s two studies from 1919 and by the way, so the question may be why are we using the old studies? Because they stopped doing these somewhere around the 1920s and 30s and 40s. I forgot to mention, if you’re interested particularly in later studies and do well people sick, people make well people sick. The place to look for that is Daniel Reuters book can you catch a cold? There are hundreds or more studies showing that that has been falsified. So we’re just looking at the papers that actually tried to demonstrate that. So it’s remarkable that seller was unable to produce the highly infectious disease.

Talking about chicken pox and measles with the blood or the nasal secretion of infected individuals. Thus we are confronted with two diseases, two most infectious of the endemic diseases in this part of the world, which we are unable to transmit artificially from man to man. 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 is commonly thought to be. You would think that this would be the end of the contagion germ viral theory. But unfortunately it wasn’t.

Even though two of the most prominent so called viral diseases at the time, measles and varicel, were unable to be transmitted. Here’s another one about measles. 1919, they inoculated people’s with blood and they were unable to transmit measles. And then they were talking now diphtheria, smallpox, scarlet fever and consumption, which is tb. They sprayed the poisons, meaning the bacteria of diphtheria, smallpox, scarlet fever or TB into the throat, nose, or had them breathe them into the lungs, Repeating the experiment in most cases every one to two weeks. The result, no disease could be developed. So the direct attempt to transmit diphtheria, smallpox, scarlet fever and TB were all negative.

Here’s a case where people actually exposed themselves to the typhoid bacteria with no typhoid fever making its appearance. And he did this with the bacteria of diphtheria in front of 25 physicians. And no effect greater than drinking a quantity of water happened. So they were unable to transmit either typhus or diphtheria by using now only the bacteria of allegedly causing those. And here’s another one, the bacteria of diphtheria, the bacteria mycoplasm of tuberculosis. And there was experiments of this kind were made on six different occasions in front of 25 physicians. And no effect, no change in the glands, no inflammation happened in any of these cases.

So, and I like to finish each section with so how would you prove this wrong? So we have the direct studies of sick people attempting to make, well, people sick in Daniel’s book. And then we have all these scientific studies from the medical literature. So rather than saying but you saw your child get sick with chicken pox, or aunt Hilda got sick, or something like that, what we’re looking for is a published scientific paper using all the appropriate controls showing that the isolated bacteria or people who are sick with an alleged virus, their fluids are able to make, well, people sick.

Because in all the people looking into this, we can’t find it. Okay, so then we move on. So, okay, we can’t find these. We can’t make people sick by exposing them to people who are sick or the tissues or fluids of the sick people. This is either in animals who are supposedly resistant in some mysterious way, making it unfalsifiable, or people who are supposedly not resistant. We can’t make them sick. So pray tell, how do we find these viruses? Now obviously the answer should be we take the tissues or fluids like chickenpox lesions or blood or mucus or cerebrospinal fluid or diseased spine tissue.

We somehow prepare them and then we examine them under some type of instrument like an electron microscope. And we’re able to find, you know, thousands, millions of these virus, were able to then isolate them, purify them directly from the sample, show what they’re made of, show their alleged DNA or rna, and then show that they themselves are pathogenic. Now, the first step in that, obviously, is to take disease tissue and fluids and show that you can find the virus. And that’s why these Freedom of Information requests were worded in this way. So just to say I do not require and do not want studies where the researchers failed to purify an alleged virus and instead cultured something or did PCR or fabricated a genome or produced electron microscopy images of unpurified things.

We don’t want any of that. We want take fluid or tissue from a sick person you claim has a virus and show us the virus and purify it in that person. So we have now requests. Everyone is the same. The avian influenza virus, no documents. Ebola virus, no documents. Never been done. Herpes virus, never been done. HIV virus, never been done. HPV virus, never been done. Same request. Monkeypox virus, never been done. No evidence of any monkeypox virus from any fluid, tissue lesion of anybody with alleged monkeypox polio virus, never been done. They make some statement about cause.

They say it’s been caused since 1908 when they injected unpurified material into the brain of two monkeys. One got sick and died, the other got paralyzed. They claimed that showed the virus was there, which is about as unscientific, uncontrolled bit of nonsense as you can get. And there’s the reference if you want to look into that. Rabies virus, no records. SARS CoV2, no records. Zika virus, no records. Now, they will say, as we’ve heard over and over again, yeah, but Tom, that’s not how virologists do it, right? They don’t take material and look at it directly and see if they can find the virus, which should make everybody really suspicious right off the get go, because if you tell me there’s millions of millions of these viruses, identical in each sneeze or in each breath, or every time you cough, you spew out hundreds of millions of viruses, it seems like you should be able to take some sputum and find them and purify that virus directly.

So then they say, well, but there’s not Enough virus to see, you have to concentrate it. We’ve heard that over and over again. So the question would be, so 100 million per sneeze is not enough to see any viruses under the electron microscope, how many would you have to have in order to see them in this way? And of course, there’s no answer. The other problem with that response is they say that these viruses that are not enough to see, yes, but there’s enough to physically, mechanically cause death or destruction of your lung tissue because there’s so many viruses.

They say you’re teeming with viruses in your lungs and your bronchial tubes. Yet this teeming with virus, which is enough to cause disability and disease and sometimes death, but they’re not enough to see that, my friends, is pure nonsense. So that should make everybody suspicious, because if you couldn’t find a frog in any pond, or a unicorn in any pasture, or a leprechaun in any field, you might start wondering whether these unicorns and leprechauns are actually real. Because in the question, the response that there’s not enough to see and they’re invisible, or we don’t have the techniques to do it.

If you don’t have the techniques to find it, then how, pray tell, do you know it’s there? So this, of course, is the answer. They take material unpurified from people who are sick, allegedly with viruses, and they put that on cell cultures and then they add things like antibiotics and fetal bovine serum and chemicals like trypsin and see if the growing cells break down the so called cytopathic effect. Now, what this section looks at is has there ever been a study where they did all of that, except didn’t start with any tissue or fluid that could possibly contain the virus and added everything else to the growing cells and still got the cytopathic effect? If that’s true, then we would have disproven this as a method of saying that the virus exists.

Let me say that again, if the claim is we can demonstrate the virus exists because the cells break down when we inoculate the growing cells with a tissue or fluids from material that contains a virus. And by the way, we add some other things. So first of all, you’re not testing whether a virus causes the cytopathic effect, you’re testing whether biological fluids from a sick person causes cytopathic effect. So this is actually not a test that could even possibly prove the existence of a virus or support it, because no virus is ever the independent variable in the experiment.

But even still, if you ask the question, is it true that the fluids from a sick person cause the cytopathic effect, so the fluids from the sick person become the independent variable? Then you have to ask the question, what about if you do everything besides that, but don’t add, don’t inoculate the culture with any fluid, what do you get then? Now, surprisingly, this has been studied over and over again, and here are some of the results. So this, of course, is from the Ender study, who was the person who’s credited with developing this cell culture as a way of, quote, isolating, which is a ridiculous term for this, because they’re not separating anything.

They’re adding fluid from a person with measles to monkey kidney cells with other things. And he did a uninoculated culture, and he said the cytopathic changes it induced could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles. In other words, the very paper that started this cell culture as a method for proving the existence of viruses, isolating the virus actually proved that it was the conditions of the culture, not the inoculated fluid from the sick person, that caused the breakdown of the cells. That should have been game over, but it wasn’t. So here we have another study of a tissue culture, 1956, when they were still wondering whether this was a valid scientific process.

And it’s a cytopathic agent recovered from normal kidney tissue. So a cytopathic agent was originally encountered in a normal, uninoculated culture tube of rhesus kidney tissue seven days after the beginning of incubation. Just to flesh this out, this paper and their response to it, because you often have to distinguish what the authors say about the experiment from what the experiment actually shows. They showed that you get virus material even in uninoculated cultures, and you get virus material in inoculated cultures. In other words, to say this more simply, if you inoculate the cultures with fluid from a sick person, you get.

You get breakdown. CPE that says there is a virus. If you do it without adding anything from a sick person and you still get breakdown, that proves it’s a virus as well. Because then the viruses were lurking in the kidney tissue of the monkey. That, of course, is pure nonsense, and it makes it a unfalsifiable, therefore, not scientific experiment. Because the reality is, whether you inoculate it with tissue or not, you say that each either case, it proves the existence of a virus. And that’s simply not possible. In fact, has nothing to do with proving a virus exists or not.

Because whether you put a material that could contain a virus or not, it still breaks down. And then they only use the excuse of, well, the kidney tissue must have been harboring viruses that we couldn’t see, which means the whole experiment is nonsense. And by the way, this is very relevant because this is the origin and of the SV40 myth, which many in the Freedom community are still propagating, that this SV40 is contaminated, contaminating vaccines and causing cancer. All they’re really finding is that uninoculated kidney tissue has the exact same breakdown in the exact same particles as inoculated, proving that there’s no such agent as a virus, anything to do with any of this experiment.

And here’s another tissue culture. In general, this has not been a problem since many of the agents have been recovered from normal or uninoculated control. In other words, you get the particles that look like a virus. If you add something that may have a virus, or if you add something that couldn’t possibly have a virus, the excuse is that’s because the viruses were lurking in the tissue all along. So it makes it an unfalsifiable hypothesis, therefore a belief, and has nothing to do with demonstrating the existence of a virus. And this is the same sort of thing.

A new group of viruses has come into recognition. These agents is made known by the cytopathic effect which they produce in uninoculated or controlled cultures. Several laboratories indicate that these agents, as yet unclassified, are present in the kidney of apparently normal, healthy monkeys from which the culture is derived. In other words, you add something from somebody with a virus or illness that you say is from a virus, and you get these particles. And if you get the same particles from the tissue that couldn’t possibly have a virus added, so you claim that’s because the viruses were there all along.

And that means the whole thing has nothing to do with finding viruses, which is exactly what they’re used for. And there’s another one with Tissue Culture, 1958. And in the study of measles virus, they find that there stuff in the uninoculated monkey kidney culture, which was, in its cytopathic capacity, indistinguishable from the measles virus. So you get the same thing whether it’s from measles or not. Therefore, it has nothing to do with proving whether a measles virus was there or not. Obviously. Here’s another paper, 1959. So this was done over and over and over again, all finding the same things.

You get the same thing in inoculated or uninoculated. And there’s some more references there proving that it has nothing to the cytopathic effect. And the particles that you see have nothing to do with the inoculated cultures. Then you see another one from 1961, and now they have a fancy name for it called simian foamy viruses. They find these foamy viruses in uninoculated cultures. So therefore viruses are there whether they’re added or not, which means it can’t be a evidence for a exogenous virus. Same thing, 1963, incubation. The cells frequently exhibited changes similar to the changes caused by the growth of viruses, but no viruses were introduced.

This was uninoculated kidney cultures. This one has to do with the famous Robert Gallo paper, where they used the finding that reverse transcriptase was found in the density band at 1.16, which they said was evidence that there was a retrovirus in that band, because they said that reverse transcriptase was a specific biochemical marker proving the existence of a retrovirus. Except it turns out that Gallo himself did a paper showing that all PHA stimulated normal human blood lymphocytes show reverse transcriptase, meaning that it’s not specific to retroviruses. It’s a property of the stimulation with this chemical called pha, of human blood lymphocytes, which is exactly what they used.

Here. You can see they stimulated blood lymphocytes normal or with people who they claimed had aids. In both cases, they found reverse transcriptase, which should have falsified the claim that reverse transcriptase can tell you whether a retrovirus was there. In fact, that’s no such thing, because they already knew 10 years before that every lymphocyte stimulated with PHA will show the reverse transcriptase activity. So it cannot be used to tell you that there is a retrovirus. So here they’re finding them. Studies confirm previous reports that you get cytopathic effect in inoculated cell cultures from people with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, non inflammatory bowel disease.

And even though they don’t seem to find any viruses. So in other words, you just take diseased tissue, put that in a cell culture, you’ll get a cytopathic effect proving there were viruses. That’s called the isolation of the virus. And yet there’s no virus to be found. Here’s an experiment, a study with rabies where they used fetal bat cell. The cytopathic effects were detected in the virus inoculated as well as the uninoculated fetal bat cell line, proving that this cannot be a test to find out whether there’s a virus. And the importance is that’s exactly how virologists use this test.

They claim that if there’s cytopathic effect, that is called the isolation, the proof of the virus, paper after paper shows that that has been falsified with many different types of alleged viruses. They even see this is a paper with HIV showing that even the structures which you say are knobs, because when you find this protein which allegedly proves that there was an hiv, it turns out that these knobs are false positives. And the spikes observed by negative electron staining are artifacts of the penetration of heavy metal stain between proteins. And we should use caution. This is with HIV 2003.

You see, they say you find these spikes and they’re stained on the electron microscopy, but it turns out that’s just because they took cellular debris and all cellular debris, if you stain it with heavy metal, looks like it has spikes. So it doesn’t prove the existence of HIV at all. And finally, the Stefan Lanka experiment where he used a control group with a small amount of antibiotics and no inoculation and normal amount of fetal bovine serum and a small amount of antibiotics, normal growth, increased the number of antibiotics, no inoculation with any virus containing substance, and you got a cytopathic effect proving there was a virus, when in fact there was no virus anywhere near this experiment.

The breakdown of the cells was simply because of the reduction of the nutrient medium for the cells and the addition of more poisons called antibiotics. And here you see that if you do the same thing and add RNA from yeast, you get even more breakdown of the cells because the cells apparently don’t like growing in yeast rna. And so if you reduce the nutrients, increase the antibiotics and add yeast rna, you prove there’s a virus that’s breaking down the tissue, the cell culture, even though there is no virus anywhere to be seen. And here’s just a summary of this.

Finally, there was the paper. This is the paper proving the SARS CoV2 and this was the first isolation. And they did 24 cultures with this cell line and 24 with the Vero cell line. And only two exhibited cytopathic effect, one from each of those, the so called controls, which are of course not controls. You can see that here because they added more antibiotics to the experimental group, 2% as compared to 1%. And yet even with that change, only 1 out of 24 in each of these actually exhibit the effect that they were looking for, proving they isolated the virus so that’s one out of 24.

And in spite of that, they still claimed that. Yep, they got a cytopathic effect, but only from the experimental group. Yeah, but one out of 24, which is an insignificant finding, means that even in this experiment none of them showed a cytopathic effect, which means according to their own logic, no virus was found. Okay, and here we get to the final section, which is. Yes, but Tom, I’ve seen pictures of viruses on electron microscopy. How can you possibly deny their existence? So what we’re looking at here is papers that looked at whether it’s true that these particles that they see on electron microscopy have been proven to be viruses.

They say viruses have been especially easy to recognize through the diseases. But we are now learning that other substances of similar particle size exist. These substances frequently complicate and even render impossible the purification of viruses. No kidding. In other words, we say that they’re viruses because we see the disease. But when we go and look for the virus with now our tool of electron microscopy, whoops. We find similar particles which are not viruses, and we don’t know how to distinguish the stuff coming from the culture or the tissues versus these so called viruses. So here’s another with poliovirus.

Electron microscopy of purified preparations from the central nervous tissue of mice and cotton rats has shown that particles alike as to size and shape are obtained from both normal and paralytic tissue, from both normal and infected tissue. And here’s the size. We conclude there is no evidence that a virus of the poliomyelitis group has ever been unequivocally identified on electron microscopy micrographs thus far published. In other words, all these pictures that are claiming to be pictures of the polio virus, we found them in normal tissue as well. Same size, same shape, everything. So we conclude that nobody has ever proven that there has ever been a picture of an olio virus.

So here we have pictures. Resembarticles resembling those of influenza polio myelitis, pox virus group are seen in several fields. Many of these appearances are artifacts originally from erythrocyte stromatolysis. That’s the breakdown of the red blood cells. Whereas others are either crystals with rounded corners or what may be protein particles. In other words, people are saying that there’s these influenza virus and polio virus and pox viruses on electron microscopy. But we see these same things on the breakdown of red blood cells. And with just crystals and cellular debris and what may be proteins, here’s a virus. Like investigators in Paris show there’s virus like particles morphologically indistinguishable from the known chickenpox virus and can be found in sections from normal chickens, chicks or chick embryos.

So in other words, these chick embryos which are used to grow viruses and they see particles, you find the same thing in completely uninfected, uninoculated chicks or chick embryos. No way to actually prove that these are actually viruses. So here’s another one, same thing. You see small virus like particles obtained by thin section electron microscopy in human breast cancer in Densian gradient purified milk specimens. Breast cancer patients and normal women all have what you would call viruses in their samples on electron microscopy. And so if you get the same thing with normal, I. E. Uninfected tissue as so called infected tissue, that means they’re not there, period.

Then we find out that fetal bovine syrup used in every modern tissue culture is contaminated with virus like particles of unknown biological property. And this adds an uncontrolled variable. In other words, if you just looked at fetal bovine serum, you would find particles that look like viruses. So how are you going to find out whether the so called viruses that you’re alleging are there from exogenous sources didn’t come from the fetal bovine syrup? The answer is you can’t. And then we find out that there’s vesicles of multivesicular bodies, they’ve been confused with viruses because they look exactly the same and they were described all the way back in 1955.

And here’s another one with fetal bovine syrup and adds an uncontrolled variable attempting to detect these viruses. And here’s hiv. We found viral particles morphologically indistinguishable from those observed in PGL lymph nodes in 13 of the 50 non HIV related reactive lymph nodes. In other words, they take HIV, allegedly HIV lymph nodes from lymph nodes, from people with AIDS, they find particles and then they take lymph nodes from people who don’t have aids, who are HIV negative, so don’t have hiv and they get exactly the same thing, proving that these particles have nothing to do with any virus.

We conclude that the viral particles in PGL lymph nodes they say are most likely hiv. But similar particles can be seen in reactive lymph nodes not associated with hiv. That’s what I mean by they don’t actually believe their own work, which shows there’s no difference in the particles. And so they believe that those are HIV anyways, even though their evidence shows them the Opposite. And here you can see what they call purified particles, which are anything but purified. This is from hiv. You see the same thing. These are Pinocchio cytotic vesicles are notorious for masquerading as budding virions.

So whenever they show you, oh, look at the viruses budding from the cell, it turns out, whoops. That other things bud from the cell or they’re not actually budding from the cell, it’s just the tissue is breaking down and some of them are sticking and some of them have spikes, which is just a protein. And some of them may be even the imaginary Golgi vesicles, which Golgi apparatus doesn’t exist, but they’re cellular debris which resemble free viral particles. Here’s another one. These are mistaken for herpes virus. Here’s other ones that things that are mistaken for various kinds of virus.

So there’s lots of different kinds of virus which have been shown to not be virus because they’re unable to be distinguished from normal cellular debris. And here’s a whole bunch of studies that show that cell contents are indistinguishable from what we’re calling virus and that nobody has been able to distinguish the normal breakdown components of the cells and tissues compared to viruses. And here you see that even in 2014, care must be taken since the interpretation of samples that contain cellular debris, which is all of them contain particles the same size range as a virus and look exactly the same.

Here’s more. That’s with SARS CoV2 that electron microscopy images do not show coronaviruses, but show cross sections of endoplasmic reticulum. They are misinterpreted as spikes. And you have to be careful. They’re basically again just cellular debris. And this has been recognized since the 70s. And the published papers on SARS COV2 are in fact multivesicular bodies, meaning cellular debris. And here’s some examples of that which you can see similar morphology of two structures. One from supposedly somebody infected with SARS CoV2 and the other was somebody from a negative lung specimen, so it couldn’t. Or negative kidney specimen even from the days before COVID so it couldn’t possibly be SARS COV2.

Identical appearance, same thing. Vesicles, not SARS COV2. Same thing. Again, more and more papers, they don’t demonstrate coronaviruses. These are just protein coated vesicles, normal subcellular debris. More of these and goes viral. And transmission electron microscopy is no different. And they show you this corona which is just Stained with uranyl acetate and lead acetate coated vesicles, creating an electron dense studded surface that mimics what we’re calling the corona. So even that is not evidence of a coronavirus. Same thing here. Even with transmission electron microscopy, due to the misinterpretation, the basic ultrastructural cell biology that has been confused with coronaviruses and more and more papers that show the same thing.

I don’t think I need to go through all these. But again, more and more papers, there’s increasing evidence that identification of SARS CoV2 by Transmission Electron microscopy is misleading due to the similar morphology of ubiquitous cell structures. Who would have thought? And here’s a note saying that in order to prove something is a virus, you have to show the unique morphology and the unique traits you need to isolate it, purify it, show what it’s made of and show that it alone can cause disease. And that has never happened before. I say that finish. I just want to say that the criticism of the electron microscopy studies and people who say, well, you don’t need to isolate something and have something purified, in other words, in order to show that something exists.

This was the line that our good friend Jeremy Hammond took. I sort of missed Jeremy. I don’t know what happened to him. He seemed to have fallen off the virus trail. But he used to say over and over again, yeah, but you can have a pack of elk and there’s a giraffe in there and you don’t need to isolate the giraffe. You can see that there’s a giraffe and you don’t need to isolate, separate the giraffe from the pack of elk to know that there in fact is a giraffe in there. So that’s the argument that they use.

The problem with that argument is, is if it turned out that a giraffe looked exactly like an elk, which in fact is the case that what you’re calling a virus looks exactly like the normal components of broken down cells, then you would never be able to say that’s a giraffe, because there would be no way by visual evidence to distinguish it from an elk. Therefore, in fact you would not be able to confirm the presence of a giraffe in a pack of elk if the giraffe and the elk look identical. If you don’t get that, then it’s time to go back and study logic and critical thinking.

Okay, I think that should cover it. Here’s the references. Each one has a reference that you can look at so there will be no complaining that we don’t have the resources. Here’s some other papers that go into this so that you can look into more thoroughly. And here’s some more and articles refuting the germ theory skeptics of hiv. Here’s some things from Mike Stone and Sam Bailey. And thank you very much and thank you to Archit and all the people who contributed to this. And I hope this is widely spread and shared with anybody who you think is interested as we keep pushing this game forward.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.