Paradigm...
Do viruses exist? Do invisible microbes cause and transmit disease? A guest post from my good friend Shawn Siegel
Note from Marcella: The existence of invisible microbes that cause and transmit disease is a belief that has been deeply ingrained in me since childhood. The belief was strengthened (I would say cemented) during my graduate studies, when I was fully entrenched in studying the impact of the HIV epidemic during the 1980s and 1990s. Everything I read and everything I believed without question pointed to a virus that was responsible for infecting, sickening, and killing millions of people. In hindsight, there was much I did not know about the role of iatrogenic illness, vaccination, and Anthony Fauci’s role in those deaths. Over the years, I heard the rumblings… “The HIV virus has never been isolated.” My immediate response was, “Bullshit. That’s just not possible. There is so much research to the contrary.” And that was the end of that. I never actually looked at that research. I just believed. Without question.
Recently, over the last four years, I have seen increasing claims that “The virus has not been isolated” and “NO virus has ever been isolated.” And while I have learned a whole lot since the 1990s about the lies we’ve all been told when it comes to “public health,” my kneejerk response was still, “Bullshit.”
Enter Shawn Siegel. My good friend since 2008. One of the absolute best researchers I know. Shawn was the first person I asked to be a board member for VaxTruth. He is brilliant, fearless, and committed to the truth. When Shawn recently told me, “I no longer believe in the existence of viruses,” I had two choices: (1) Write off my long-term friend as a wacko; (2) Invite him to convince me. Given that Shawn is still brilliant, and still fully capable of researching and writing a compelling argument, I asked him to do just that. And I am very grateful that he has accepted the challenge.
I invite you to dive into the rabbit hole:
_________________________________________
Paradigm…
By Shawn Siegel
...”A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.”
For most of our lives we’ve accepted as gospel the notion that microscopic biological organisms we call pathogens cause disease, which can then be spread, can be transmitted, to others. But that paradigm stands on illusory ground.
Since the turn of the 20th century, when the virus theory was first conceived, researchers have been performing lab experiments purporting to prove that viruses cause disease, that they’re pathogens. In those procedures virologists have taken a sample of bodily fluid from someone diagnosed with a viral disease and added it to a cellular substrate, along with a variety of other additives (e.g., antibiotics, anti-fungals, vero (monkey kidney) cells and more). After a period of time damage to the cells (cytopathic effect) was observed and offered as proof of the harmful effect, the pathogenicity, of the virus.1,2
But going squarely against sound scientific principles, none of those experiments included controls. Virtually universally*, the researchers seemingly, simply, illogically ignored the possibility that the resultant damage could have been caused not by the virus, but by one or more of the additives, or perhaps other cells or subcellular bodies found in the samples taken from patients. Virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, skeptical of the science, performed a control of his own. He repeated one of the experiments exactly, except he omitted the viral sample. Yet after the allotted period of time he found the same cellular damage that in the original experiment was offered as proof that the virus caused disease.3
In other words, lacking controls, none of the many similar lab experiments claiming to show proof that viruses cause disease do anything of the kind. Does that prove that viruses don't exist? No, but it’s a sober reality, reflecting on the integrity of the science and raising the question.
*In the published paper attendant the 1954 measles experiment performed by Enders and Peebles the researchers stated, “...it must be borne in mind that [the] cytopathic effects...may possibly be induced...by unknown factors.” That was a due admission, considering that, like Lanka, they’d found the same cellular damage in their experiment whether it was performed with or without a virus. But you’ll never find that bit of information in related mainstream articles – nor, I’d venture, in a virologist’s education. Instead, and despite the researchers’ own doubts, the Enders/Peebles experiment’s considered groundbreaking – a benchmark, hailed as the first isolation of a virus.4,5
Animal experiments have also been used through the years to demonstrate the pathogenicity of viruses, with equal failure. Solutions assumed to contain viruses have been force-fed in comparatively huge amounts into the nostrils of lab animals, or injected into their or limbs, with no definitive outcome. But it gets quite absurd, with attempts to cause disease by injecting suspected viral soups into their stomachs, lungs or brains, as though that were anything resembling natural transmission. For instance, polio researchers Flexner and Lewis had to inject their assumed polioviral soup into the brains of monkeys in order for it to have any effect, after injection and ingestion yielded no results.6
Though there are numerous claims that viruses have been isolated, especially over the last four years, it simply isn’t true.** Or, it’s a play on words, much like the eternal “vaccines are safe.” The chemistry definition of isolate is “to obtain (a substance or microorganism) in an uncombined or pure state”, but that’s not at all what’s been done. In the experiments described above, for example, virologists in essence labeled the bodily fluid samples collected from sick patients as viral isolates simply because they were removed, or “isolated”, from the patient. There was no actual isolation, no viruses in a pure state. In fact, every one of the many government and health organizations from whom records of virus purification have been requested over the years, worldwide, has been unable to produce any. From Dr. Sayeed Qureshi, PhD in Organic Chemistry: “So, effectively, virologists work with cultures but make claims about them as ‘viruses.’ It is like working with debris from a forest but selling it as novel and rare wood dust particles.”7,8
**Virologists claim that because viruses are so small, ‘purification’ has a special meaning in virology - that they must work with cultures instead of purified viruses. Yet they still claim the viruses are isolated. Notably, however, they fail to mention the lack of controls that invalidates their experiments.
Another proof of viruses, we’re told, are the many electron micrographs purporting to show them, which brings me immediately to the facetious comment made by Dr. Sam (Samantha) Bailey, MD: “Welcome to the magical world of virology, where certain intracellular and extracellular vesicles become viruses when virologists point their arrows to them.” Her point: nowhere have those submicroscopic particles actually been shown to cause disease. Moreover, to my knowledge the process of viral replication science tells us takes place within host cells has never been seen. It’s theory, hypothesis. Everything we’re told about viruses must be taken on faith.9,10
The types of experiments described above, aimed at proving the pathogenicity of viruses, take place in test tubes and petri dishes, in submicroscopic exploration and in lab animals. But through the years there has also been research into real world contagion – that is, transmission of viral and bacterial diseases, human-to-human. In the following examples, “inoculation” refers not to injection, but to the practice of introducing material into the nose, mouth or eyes of the volunteer subjects, mimicking natural transmission. The emphases are mine…11
From Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing:
“Suffice it to say that there is no proof that there is any such thing as ‘contagion.’”12
From a 1919 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association):
"To the editor:
I have just read the abstract in the Journal of Sellards' article on ‘The Insusceptibility of Man to Inoculation with Blood from Measles Patients.’ 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. 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. 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. Alfred F. Hess, M.D., New York."13
Or perhaps it’s infection itself that is quite different from what it is commonly thought to be.
Rosenau's influenza experiments, conducted during the 1918-1919 pandemic, are the most profound example I've seen of transmission failure. With well over 100 volunteers in total, some injected but most inoculated with bodily fluids from influenza patients, not one developed symptoms. From the chronicle:14
“His first volunteers received first one strain and then several strains of Pfeiffer bacillus by spray and swab into their noses and throats and then into their eyes. When that procedure failed to produce disease, others were inoculated with mixtures of other organisms isolated from the throats and noses of influenza patients...[f]inally, 13 of the volunteers were taken into an influenza ward and exposed to 10 influenza patients each. Each volunteer was to shake hands with each patient, to talk with him at close range, and to permit him to cough directly into his face.”
His second, contemporaneous study “broadened this research by inoculating with the Mathers streptococcus and by including a search for filter-passing agents, but it produced similar negative results. It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.”
So Rosenau’s experiments apparently involved both bacteria (Pfeiffer bacillus / Mathers streptococcus) and viruses (if we’re to believe what we’re persistently told about the 1918 influenza pandemic).
Not a sniffle to be heard.
Finally, we come to the common cold, and while you can find examples of apparent human-to-human transmission, we also have reports like these:
Schmidt et al, in which a higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the “virus”;15
From The Common Cold: Etiology, Prevention and Treatment, a study by Volney S. Cheney, MD: “Colds and their sequelae, including rhinitis, pharyngitis, laryngitis, bronchitis, la grippe, influenza, and pneumonia, are not infectious, as we generally consider a disease to be infectious”;16
Williams, Nevens and Gurley reported that they had been unable to infect forty-five volunteers with Berkefeld N filtrates of the nasopharyngeal washings from seven early "cold" cases and three typical influenza cases;17
Robertson and Groves:
“One hundred human volunteers were inoculated with the various filtrates [of the material taken from people suffering from the common cold] and five of them developed upper respiratory infections following the inoculations. Because of the small number of positive results, these observers considered them to be the result of causes entirely independent of the inoculations.”18
How germane the point raised by Robertson and Groves! They understood that the ‘viruses cause disease’ paradigm, so foundational in modern medicine, demands more substantial proof than only five apparently successful transmissions out of one hundred. Considering the tremendous medical, thus societal impact of the paradigm it arguably demands at least a 51%, if not 100% successful transmission rate in human-to-human studies. After all, it’s used as a means to wrest compliance from the public, with everything from isolation (quarantine) to vaccination and, in this Covid era, separation of families, social distancing, mask wearing, the lockdown of entire cities and the imposition of gene therapy injections now claimed to be vaccines. Instead, we have Rosenau, the JAMA article previously quoted, the Williams et al experiment and other such studies, involving measles, influenza, the common cold, chickenpox and more, none of which experiments resulted in the transmission of any disease.
We have ‘unknown factors.’ We have a litany of studies ostensibly proving that viruses cause disease, but which lack controls, so their findings disintegrate under the light of logic. We have electron micrographs of viruses that in reality reflect only virology’s imperative to validate itself, with no actual proof that they cause disease. We have claims of virus isolation when nothing of the kind has actually been done - when no medical, health or governmental resource can provide any proof of purification of a virus.
There’s illness. There are nutritional deficiencies, lifestyle choices, stress, a bevy of environmental toxins – any number of factors that can result in cellular damage that the body in its rather remarkable fashion will attempt to eliminate, via the symptoms, the process, we call disease. And we can be our own stressors. From psychiatrist Dr. Kelly Brogan: “I personally don’t believe in germ-based contagion. I certainly know that what others believe influences their reality directly, so could contagion be a reality for others? Absolutely! But it’s not for me.”
But there’s no actual proof that viruses, as pathogens, exist.
So perhaps each of us can simply determine our own reality: whether to allow the persistent official narrative of invisible microbes that are out to destroy us and those with whom we come in contact to have sway over us, with no actual proof of the paradigm; or not.
You’ll find links below to Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s explanations of the in silico (virtual reality) creation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the determination of its genome and the inception of its ‘variants.’ I’ll include as well a link to the many video presentations of Dr. Sam Bailey and her husband Mark, also an MD. They consistently dissect studies purporting to prove the pathogenicity of viruses, going past the abstracts to the methodologies employed and the inconsistencies revealed.19,20
References:
1. Analysis of virology papers...
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/why-all-viruses-originate-in-laboratories/
2. Dr. Cowan / virology overview
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z7e1WLoOctZ2/
3. Isolation and Lanka’s control experiment / begin @27:00 /
You’ll have to join True Medicine Library to gain access
4. Enders/Peebles / begin @4:55
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/the-truth-about-viruses/
5. Enders/Peebles measles paper:
https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/27/enders-measles-paper-1954/
6. Scroll down to Ludicrous Transmission Studies
7. Christine Massey / 220 institutions unable to provide any virus purification documentation
8. Isolation
https://viroliegy.com/2021/09/19/what-do-virologists-mean-by-isolation/
9. Electron Microscopy
10. Electron Microscopy
https://viroliegy.com/?s=june+almeida
11. Contagion chronicle
12. Florence Nightingale / p.27
https://archive.org/details/notesonhospital01nighgoog/page/n7/mode/1up?view=theater
13. JAMA / 1919 Contagion article / p.1232
https://archive.org/details/pt02journalamericanm73ameruoft/page/1232/mode/1up?view=theater&q=path
14. Rosenau Experiments
https://www.ggarchives.com/Influenza/TheRosenauExperiment-1918-1919.html
15. Schmidt / p.449
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131979/pdf/447.pdf
16. Common Cold / Dr. Cheney / pp. 16 and 20
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.18.1.15
17. Williams et al / p.449
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2131979/pdf/447.pdf
18. Robertson and Groves
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/34/4/400/832936?redirectedFrom=fulltextA&login=false
19. SARS-CoV-2 sequencing / variants / starts at 111:30
20. Link to Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey’s collection of videos and articles, covering many aspects of the non-existence of viruses:
https://drsambailey.com/
When I was told in microbiology class that viruses were only pieces of DNA, dead particles which, though not alive, could infect living cells, hijack them and use them to replicate their dead selves, I found that hard to believe. After all, they are dead, aren't they?. The same explanation was given to me in PA school and didn't make any sense either. Then I discovered and studied the work of Dr. Raymond Royal Rife, who postulated and proved that "viruses" are really extremely small bacteria which could be filtered and seen using equipment he devised. Further, he established that when slides are made in the conventional way, the dye they use kills the "viruses'. However, filtered and used with his equipment and a nontoxic stain, these could be clearly seen and moreover, destroyed using sound waves attuned to a particular frequency. He successfully reversed cancer in multiple terminal patients to undetectable levels with no adverse reaction. When Dr. Rife presented his findings to the medical establishment, they not only persecuted and reviled him, they destroyed his equipment and his files. None are believed to exist to this day. Thus, I am pleasantly surprised to read your article. Research his work and note how mainstream medicine continues to discount his findings. There is way too much money to be made with pharmaceuticals.
I learned a lot reading about Antoine Bechamp’s work.
“What is the pleomorphic theory of disease?
Louis Pasteur's germ theory sees disease as being caused by external factors, whilst Antoine Béchamp's pleomorphic theory considers the internal environment as the most important contributing factor and states that microorganisms have various life cycles and stages of development that can range between viruses, ..”
Two good books on this:
The Blood and Its Third Element https://a.co/d/9Qcz1zn
Bechamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology https://a.co/d/2ewI9Dc
Good job Shawn.