What's terrible about this no virus nonsense is that contrary to what this article claims, many viruses have been isolated, essentially pure and in particular free from any cell genetic material. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the isolated virus has been administered to young healthy volunteers and a very low dose, just 10 TCID50, was enough to productively infect half of them, causing COVID symptoms and the same virus was recovered from these volunteers. Now, there is a lot of fraud in science, for instance around HIV/AIDS and I think that's where Rappaport comes from, but that does not mean virology as a field has been debunked whatsoever.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why people cling to this particular narrative. Feels like a psyop, to muddy/poison the well.
The SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020 isolate comes from a clinical sample collected in the UK in 2020, and it's maintained by certified public health or academic laboratories. For use in studies (like those using 10 TCID<sub>50</sub>), it's propagated under high biosafety standards and distributed only to qualified institutions.
How is it purified, quantified can you please break this down step by step
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. Purifying and quantifying a SARS-CoV-2 isolate like SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020 involves a series of highly controlled laboratory procedures conducted in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) lab. Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of how it’s done:
🧪 PART 1: Virus Culturing (Propagation)
1. Cell Line Preparation
A permissive cell line is chosen — commonly Vero E6 cells (derived from African green monkey kidney).
These cells are grown in flasks with nutrient-rich media (like DMEM + fetal bovine serum).
2. Inoculation with Clinical Sample
A sample containing the virus (e.g., nasopharyngeal swab) is added to the Vero E6 cells.
The virus infects the cells and begins to replicate.
3. Incubation
Flasks are incubated (usually 37°C, 5% CO₂) for several days.
Researchers monitor the cells for cytopathic effect (CPE) — structural changes indicating virus replication.
🧼 PART 2: Virus Purification
Once sufficient replication occurs, the virus is harvested and purified:
4. Harvesting the Virus
The supernatant (liquid above the cell layer) is collected because it contains free virus particles.
It is usually clarified by low-speed centrifugation (~3,000 x g) to remove cell debris.
5. Filtration
The clarified virus-containing supernatant is passed through a 0.45 μm or 0.22 μm filter to remove remaining debris and bacteria.
6. Purification (Optional but Common)
For higher purity (especially for challenge studies), the virus may be:
Ultracentrifuged through a sucrose or iodixanol gradient (e.g., 20–60%) to separate virus from proteins and contaminants.
This concentrates the virus and removes host proteins and other contaminants.
📏 PART 3: Virus Quantification
This is how scientists determine how much infectious virus they have.
The most common method for live SARS-CoV-2 is the TCID₅₀ assay.
Step-by-step TCID₅₀:
Virus is serially diluted (e.g., 10-fold dilutions).
Each dilution is added to multiple wells of Vero E6 cells in 96-well plates.
After several days, wells are observed for cytopathic effect (CPE).
The TCID₅₀ is calculated using the Reed-Muench or Spearman-Kärber method — it estimates the dilution that infects 50% of wells.
✅ This is how a dose like “10 TCID₅₀” is determined — a very low dose that still causes infection in 50% of cultures.
❄️ PART 4: Aliquoting and Storage
8. Aliquoting
The purified virus stock is divided into small aliquots (e.g., 0.5–1 mL tubes).
This prevents repeated freeze-thaw cycles that degrade virus particles.
9. Storage
Virus aliquots are stored at -80°C until use in experiments or challenge studies.
🧫 Optional: Additional Testing
Before using the virus in any preclinical or clinical study, additional quality control steps are often taken:
Sequencing – to confirm identity and ensure no mutations occurred during passaging.
Sterility testing – to confirm no bacterial or fungal contamination.
Endotoxin testing – particularly important if used in vivo.
Summary Table:
Step Action Purpose
1–3 Culture in Vero E6 cells To amplify virus
4–6 Harvest + Purify To get clean, concentrated virus
7 TCID₅₀ Assay To measure infectious dose
8–9 Aliquot + Freeze Long-term storage & use
Let me know if you want visual diagrams or a breakdown of the Reed-Muench TCID₅₀ calculation.
You said:
give detail description for nutrient-rich media?
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. In virology and cell culture, nutrient-rich media is essential for supporting the growth and maintenance of host cells, such as Vero E6 cells, which are used to propagate viruses like SARS-CoV-2. Here's a detailed breakdown of what this media is, what it's made of, and why each component is important.
🧫 What Is Nutrient-Rich Media?
It’s a sterile liquid solution designed to supply energy, essential nutrients, growth factors, and a stable environment (pH, osmolarity) to support the survival and division of mammalian cells.
For SARS-CoV-2 propagation in Vero E6 cells, the most commonly used media is:
✅ Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) and antibiotics.
Oh, you are so funny and witty, but the drawback of resorting to insults is that it weakens your position. You are a big boy, you can post your links without insulting. For what it's worth, I am all for a Nuremberg 2.0 trial, but the no virus claim is a red herring, there is so much that they can be charged with, that it is not wise to come up with bogus claims like that, and it is in fact counterproductive. Which is why I suspect it is a psyop. YMMV.
Right, another one that does not understand that you cannot prove a theory in science, only refute it. Propose an alternative theory to the current virus theory explaining the observable facts. Good luck.
Finally, you are catching up to what science can and cannot do. Science cannot prove any theory, otherwise the theory does not qualify as scientific. Chew on that.
You just keep telling yourself that. The Rockefeller Foundation (your bosses) have 500 new vaccines for you under Immunization Agenda 2030. I recommend you take all of them.
Yeah, I denounced the COVID vaccines before they came out. I will never take another vaccine in my life (after childhood vax), so you are just projecting your fantasies onto me. And I don't have any bosses, either, keep deluding yourself.
I reported in 2021 that they used their computer models to manufacture 5.6 Million virus'. Are those real? Since you believe in virus's, should we get ready for 5.6M vaccines?
> .... many viruses have been isolated, essentially pure and in particular free from any cell genetic material.
Have they? Can you provide proof of 1 or 2 and the methodology?
Can you also link to scientific proof that what was isolated was the cause of the disease, such as SARS-CoV-2?
> ... does not mean virology as a field has been debunked whatsoever.
If that is the case, why is no one allowed to challenge the narrative nor the science? If all that data that you claim is available really is available, then it would be easy for just single virologist to shut the doubters up with facts.
Interesting anecdote: A number of years ago Dr. Stefan Lanka made a €100,000 reward available for anyone who can prove the measle virus exists. Not a single virologist stepped forward to provide the irrefutable proof, only a biochemistry student stepped forward, eager to earn a few €uros to finance his study. His "proof" was binned in a court of law.
That's because Lanka and the no-virus crowd have a fundamentally mistaken view of how science operates, what it can do and what it cannot do. Science can be used to test hypotheses about how the world works, but it can never prove anything, only refute something. So if you ask for one paper proving virus X exists, such paper cannot possibly exist. What scientist do is observations, from which they formulate hypotheses that are tested in experiments, generating new observations that are analysed. So what does a scientist mean when he says viruses exist? The scientist means that with all the information available from all the observations that were made and all the experiments that were carried out, the hypothesis of a virus best account for the totality of the observations. I am a molecular biologist who studied innate immunity for his entire career, and thus studied viruses throughout, both as molecular tools, as vectors, or studied the viruses directly, like in the case of SARS-CoV, which I have prepped and isolated (in the sense described above) multiple times. I have purified a number of different viruses to a very high degree of purity using ultracentrifugation and various types of gradients. And each time I object to article such as this one, I get various types of insults and a general misunderstanding of the science. But I feel it is my duty as a scientist to speak my truth, people can ignore it it is fine by me.
As Ngungu stated, no independent scientist is allowed in a Rockefeller funded lab, not even to observe. That alone is a serious red flag for me or anyone who questions this. Why, what are they hiding? Yet you see no problem with that.
Rockefeller took over all Medical schools via bribery turn of the 20th century. All Natural, homeo, alternative, chiro, treatments and cures since the beginning of life on this planet were eradicated for petrol based drugs that get you sick from the get-go, guaranteeing profits over health forever. Surely you know this.
If you were schooled in a Rockefeller University, you were properly-all day long- hoodwinked into blind faith belief in this new "science". They are monsters. Murderers. The jig is up. We caught them in the act, pants down. They are so proud of their killings, they admit it. We can follow the money, and count the dead. Yet still, you will not see it. Viruses have always been a lie.
I am with you and against the devolving of medicine initiated by Rockefeller. But that's another topic, it does not mean viruses do not exist. Again, if we are talking science, what is your alternative hypothesis to account for the observations made by virologists?
I wish we were talking science, but we are not. Why was Pasteur, who never proved contagion, put on a pedestal while Bechamp was erased? This long held 150 year belief system, a house of cards, has been so ingrained in us as truth, we cannot believe that it was all a fraud. I get that.
When I personally see what the AMA is advocating for, making tons of money off our illnesses that the Rockefeller's created in the 1st place, I can come to no other conclusion than they are lying for profit.
Then I look at Eastern countries, deigned by the US as dictatorships, where the people have free health care. Free health care, what does that mean? It would be in their best interests of these societies to maintain a healthy productive citizenry, BECAUSE, the government pays for it.
Conversely, we have a profit only medical system. We pay a fortune for it. . Will it serve AMA's best interests to keep us healthy? Or, maintain sickness by suppressing symptoms while curing nothing?
> So what does a scientist mean when he says viruses exist? The scientist means that with all the information available from all the observations that were made and all the experiments that were carried out, the hypothesis of a virus best account for the totality of the observations.
That is what has been addressed in this article, among other things. In this case, the so-called scientists determine what they want to observe, then go looking for evidence, and any data that is not found to suit the model is then invented in order to build the case. That, dear Marc, is pseudo-science.
> So if you ask for one paper proving virus X exists, such paper cannot possibly exist.
If no paper proving virus X exists, that means virus X has not been proven to exist and therefore does not exist.
Bacteria have been proven to exist, therefore scientists were able to prove the initial hypothesis that they exist..
You are confusing the levels of proof, as I said, fundamentally nothing can be proven in science. Now if you want to compare to bacteria, the same lower level of proof that bacteria exist is also present for viruses. You just have not immersed yourself in the scientific literature enough to understand that nothing has come out that disprove the initial hypothesis, be it for bacteria and for viruses.
> ... fundamentally nothing can be proven in science.
That is nonsense: is electricity not proven? Or even that 1+1=2, to name something fundamental? Or how about continental drift? That can be proven by simple measurement, and continental drift is very much part of geological science. The mechanism can be disputed but the scientifically proven fact that it occurs remains – every year one has to fly 10 cm farther to fly from London to New York.
You may want to read on epistemology, in particular the work of Karl Popper. 1+1=2 is math, not science. You can observe continental drift, yes, but it is just an observation, the science here would be a theory accounting for the drift. There is one, but it cannot be proven. You can observe electricity in action, and there is a robust theory behind it because unlike for continental drift, we can do countless experiments to test the theory. But still there are unresolved issues, for instance current is not a flow of electrons as most imagine. New observations could lead to a modification of this theory. There is no difference between the existence of electricity or viruses, the evidence for the reality of both is overwhelming. I could do the same critic of the theory of electricity as the no-virus crowd do to the virus theory: has any current been isolated? how do we know protons and electron exists, they are invisible to the naked eye? most measurements are indirect, it is all circular...
The reasons we know the theories of electricity and of viruses are largely correct is that they have stood the test of time and have allowed the construction of electronic circuits that work or of viruses with new properties desirable as molecular biology tools. The proof is in the pudding, if I can create a virus that say will decorate mitochondria in the cells it infects with a green fluorescent protein (and I have done so) and then I observed green fluorescence in the mitochondria of infected cells, then I know the virus theory works in practice.
Canadian biostatistician, Christine Massey, and a number of others around the world, sent Freedom of Information requests to more than 200 governments and science institutions for any record held by the respective institution that describes the isolation/purification of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus from an unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient.
They have all stated they have no records of requested purification, thus admitting that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist.
They have all stated they have no records of requested purification, thus admitting that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. So, you are telling me that despite this, we just have to take governments' assurances that it exists because, I guess, governments never lie, right?
You have not addressed the 1 fundamental issue I raised: how come any discussion about Covid that does follow the official narrative is suppressed?
All those fine people with authority who claim to hold the truth and that the science is settled are obviously scared to have such discussions.
You can dismiss Rappoport's findings as those of a mere journalist, but there are plenty of scientists and doctors who have spoken out against the "virus", but they were ignored, canceled, lost their license and or jobs, or they were thrown in jail.
I note also that you have merely stated your own views here, trying to reinforce your point by stating you are an experienced molecular biologist who has purified a number of viruses, but you have not refuted a single point of the ChatGPT output.
That can mean only 1 of 2 things: either you cannot refute any of it, which means you agree with it, or you don't have the right arguments to refute it.
You know, I was one of the scientists censored for expressing my views on COVID... I have written 20 open letters to my government in 2020 and 2021 to denounce their unscientific response to the crisis. I was an early promoter of the critical role of early treatment, vitamine D, Zinc, HCQ, ivermectin, etc. and a fierce critic of the vaccination campaign.
To directly answer your question, the reason any discussion about Covid that does follow the official narrative is suppressed is because we don't live in a democratic state but in a totalitarian one.
No scientist worth his salt is going to say the science is settled on anything.
There are not that many scientists who dismiss the existence of viruses, it is a tiny minority, and yes, a single individual can be right and everyone else is mistaken, but I listen to the arguments of the no-virus crowd and they simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
Like it is an article of faith that no virus has ever been isolated, when it is contradicted by the direct, first hand experience of many thousands of scientists. All published. I have refuted all the no-virus claims in past threads and I have found it is a pointless exercise as people don't have the experience or education to understand what is or is not a valid argument.
But if you really want, I can refute any no-virus claim you make. Only one at a time, though, as I don't want to have to produce a textbook online. What is the strongest no-virus claim according to you?
> .... the reason any discussion about Covid that does follow the official narrative is suppressed is because we don't live in a democratic state but in a totalitarian one. No scientist worth his salt is going to say the science is settled on anything.
It is good to see we agree on something. However, why, in this case is debate not allowed? There can only be 1 answer and 1 answer only: the narrative has more holes than an Emmenthaler cheese.
> I have refuted all the no-virus claims in past threads and I have found it is a pointless exercise as people don't have the experience or education to understand what is or is not a valid argument.
I agree it is a futile exercise for the reasons you pointed out. In fact, it is not only meaningless but also pointless because talking to people who are not initiated in the matter cannot be expected to make a useful contribution the conversation.
So, if someone were to challenge me come down the rabbit hole with him/her to discuss (some of) the details, I would have to decline as I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination.
Having said that, I listen to both sides of the argument and am not convinced by the pro-virus school of thought. In fact, there is not much sensible info from that side, as it amounts to "this is the way it is and the science is settled".
Like former New Zealand PM, Jacinda Adern, once stated during the Covid charade: "the government is your sole source of the truth". That summed it up for me: we decide what the truth is and you people STFU.
> What is the strongest no-virus claim according to you?
As explained in the article: the non-isolation/purification (see Christine Massey) coupled with the risible construction of the genome.
RIght, the non-isolation/purification issue is refuted. I have myself isolated SARS-CoV and other viruses multiple times. Try to understand it from the perspective of a virologist, you are telling one that viruses do not exist. 99+% of them are just going to shrug their shoulders, for the same reason a mechanic would shrug their shoulders if told planes do not exist. Now we can see planes and we can't see viruses with the naked eye, which goes a long way to explain the scepticism. But imagine a lost culture deep in the jungle and you tell them, this is a plane build by men that can fly, and you might get the response, nah, it's a bird, only birds can fly, not something build by men that is heavier than air and would fly. Virologist who are asked to prove viruses exist just can't be bothered because from their knowledge and experience, the existence of viruses has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's cute people doubt it but they have better things to do with their time than trying to educate them. Being retired, I sometimes take the time to participate in debates but I have to admit these discussions are mostly pointless.
Regarding the construction of the genome, it is risible only if one is not familiar with how any sequencing is done. The whole human genome was sequenced (well, 99,99% of it) in very short segments that are then assembled in large contigs and eventually the whole genome. It is the same for any bacteria or virus. The technology does not exist yet to sequence a single genome at once, but that does not make the sequencing and assembly invalid. From a practical purpose, early on a genome assembly was urgently needed and maybe not complete at the very 5' end of it, but the fact is that since then this genome has been sequenced 6.5 million times around the world, and this sequencing actually validated the initial assembly. It also show the evolution of the sequence of the virus over time, progressively accumulating more mutations as it spread around the world, which btw is another clear cut evidence for the existence of viruses transmitting between humans as nothing else can explain that observation.
We live in a deeply corrupted society and there is not a single narrative pushed by the authorities that is not full of lies. So people naturally come to doubt everything, which as Hannah Arendt explained is one of the features of totalitarianism, and I have sympathy for people who fall for the no-virus psyop in that context. As a non corrupt scientist, I feel it is my duty to shed some light on this and other issues that I come across where the narrative, whether it comes from government authorities or from dissidents, is mistaken from a scientific point of view.
Hooray - Thank you your point of view above. My understanding of Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus, released by America in 2019, but built and Patented by Moderna in 2013, with DARPA's help, is covered by The Us Supreme Court Law with World Wide Applications 2013 and for a virus to exist, that Law was written and is the Law, on these matters, the factual acceptance that viruses do exist and this one, Covid-19 Neucloids virus was Patented, because its existence is fact, spread around the World from the Wuhan Military Games, as was the intent.
My limited understanding was that Covid-19 Neucloids virus was everywhere as a result of that murderous campaign, deliberately and with murderous intent - however, nature created an alternative virus in South Africa which had too many arms and which could not connect to our blood cells and that natural virus, which I think was JN1, took over and replaced Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus and variations of JN1 is what we have now and that is NOT dangerous, as Moderna's virus was - but JN1 is still being pushed as a dangerous virus, when it is not and especially if you use my free salt water cure to stop it from infecting you virally: There is no cure for the next "injected" illness which you get. Previous vaccines deliberately stripped your natural immunity and this time you might/will die. My salt water cure is for a viral illness, if you get one of those and not a vaccinated, injected, illness.
Mix one heaped teaspoon of salt in a mug of clean warm water. Go into your bathroom and swallow two mouthfuls to sort out anything which has got down there, then cup a hand, pour some of the mix into your cupped hand and sniff or snort the remaining mugful up your nose, in stages until all is gone. If you have a burning sensation you have a virus and the salt water is killing the virus infection in your head. It will burn for a few minutes (but won't hurt you otherwise) and then the pain will go away, so when it does, take some toilet paper off the toilet roll and blow your nose out in it, then flush that away, washing your hands afterwards. Do this simple cure 3 times a day, or more often for a quicker result, until when you flush, it feels like you are flushing with plain water and no pain is felt - job done. I have been doing this simple cure for over 35 years and in that time I have never been ill from any virus or more lately, being shedded on by the vaccinated. The salt water goes throughout your nasal passages, behind your eyes, ears, brain bulb brain stem - where for my money, Long Covid likes to stay and when you get an infection in your head, there is nothing to stop it becoming, for the sake of example, Covid, the disease, which flows down into your body in the one liter of snot or mucus our head produces daily, the engine oil of your body - if flows down the back of your neck unnoticed because it is and always has been a lifetime thing - the top of your throat is at a point half way up your ears and not at mouth level, as you will quickly discover with my free salt water cure. I've never had a vaccine because I've never needed one, in other words, why reinvent the wheel when you have an unbeatable wheel to run with, in the first place - so in simplistic terms, say no to all vaccines and never have another one - vaccines are a mug's game for the mugs who do as they are told - don't let that mug be you in future - is my advice: Injected vaccines (Gene Therapy Injections) will deliberately kill you. Salt= I use Supermarket bought Table Salt with Iodine in it, but any Salt is OK, depending on the best sort you can buy.
The latest next cure is Bill Gates Flu Pills, which go down into your stomach and then into your inner workings - what has that got to do with a nasal infection - beats me. Send them to me in the post, in the rubbish bin they go, quick as a flash. Why reinvent the wheel, when my wheel above is unbroken and continues to work well, for me. Trump is spending 500 Million to find a one vaccine cure for all viral infections and this Replicon one: CVXGA1 Sprayable COVID shots show viral shedding
They will now spray the mRNA into our air so we all get changed
peter grace
Jul 16
Unlike traditional injected vaccines, CVXGA1 is delivered through the nose and directly enters the respiratory system. The platform is based on parainfluenza virus type 5, a known communicable respiratory virus. According to the trial data, viral shedding was clearly detected in nasal swabs just one day after administration, with viral loads reaching thousands of particles per milliliter. Yet researchers failed to study whether this shedding could result in actual transmission to others.
Critics, including scientists and health freedom advocates, have sounded alarms over what they call a dangerous oversight. Dr. Karl Jablonowski of Children’s Health Defense noted the live-virus nature of the shot makes it “self-spreading” and bypasses informed consent protocols, potentially infecting others without their knowledge. Dr. Karina Acevedo Whitehouse, a microbiologist at the Autonomous University of Querétaro, agreed there is a high likelihood of persistent shedding, citing similar outcomes in earlier intranasal vaccine studies.
These warnings come amid broader criticism over the necessity and safety of another COVID vaccine. Existing mRNA shots, like those from Pfizer and Moderna, have faced widespread scrutiny over adverse events including myocarditis, blood clots, immune suppression, and neurological symptoms. With many studies showing that the efficacy of COVID vaccines wanes within months, experts question the rationale behind developing an intranasal version that could pose new and unstudied risks.
Oh and the methodology is in any virology textbook, basically you infect a susceptible cell population, wait for the moment the virus titter is the highest and harvest the whole infected culture. You spin away (in multiple steps) different types of debris until you are left with the virus and no contaminating genetic sequence of any kind. And then you can use ultracentrifugation if you want it even purer, from a biochemical standpoint.
Infect with what? A "virus" that hasn't been proven to exist except in the minds of virologists who all admit to not being able to purify and isolate a virus in the true sense hence the need for pseudoscientific cell cultures and the magical CPE effect that could be caused by anything in the brew.
Virologist don't admit being unable to purify and isolate a virus since they do it all the time. What you do all the time, is make this kind of assertions with absolutely nothing to support it, it is simply a blatant lie.
Now to elevate the debate, here is a fundamental truth in philosophy :
Single facts can never be “proved” except by their coherence in a system. But, as all facts come singly, anyone who dismisses them one by one is destroying the conditions under which the conviction of new truth could arise in the mind.
F. C. S. Schiller, Philosophy Professor, Oxford University
And this is particularly pertinent here, you refuse to connect the dots from which intelligent people are able to infer the existence of viruses. You are stuck with your single "not-proved" facts that you dismiss without thinking, and with your collection of dismissed facts, you can do absolutely nothing outside of your vituperations on the web.
In the mean time, people who are not afraid of using their God-given brain and who understand virus theory are able to make predictions about the virus in question, which when confirmed add further strength to the theory.
You cannot camouflage with flowery language the "fact" that so called pathogenic viruses have never been proven to exist scientifically, using the scientific method in the real world.
Telling me that the methodology is in any virology textbook is no proof. Considering that virology itself is in all likelihood a huge scam, textbooks written by them are there to sell the scam to students and anyone else ignorant enough to buy it.
If purification, as you describe it in 1 sentence, were that simple, how come no virologist has been able to take on prominent virus deniers in an open, public debate?
What is your view as a molecular expert on HIV? Gallo claims that the proteins he claims, specifically p24 and p41, are HIV proteins, which cross-react with many conditions. In fact, the proteins claimed to be HIV are present in a person's blood under certain conditions. I would like to ask from a molecular perspective, what do you believe about HIV? That's because Gallo hasn't been able to detect the HIV virus, and there's no specific infection that's identical to HIV. It's difficult to analyze as a cause and effect factor. However, when Gallo argues that one way to detect these proteins is through antibody detection, in fact, many people with HIV antibodies live beyond 30 or even 40 years. This means that Gallo's argument that these proteins are the HIV virus is refuted. What is your opinion from a molecular perspective?
HIV is a total mess, Gallo and Montagnier, that was in the eighties when I was a graduate student, so I don't remember such details from the top of my head and you'll forgive me for not being inclined to do a deep dive in the literature needed to try answering the specific questions about p24 ad p41. This being said, Montagnier is the one who discovered HIV and Gallo claimed to have discovered it as well but actually stole it from Montagnier. The virus is real, there is no question about it, the DNA or RNA of it can be readily detected, antibodies to detect viral proteins work but like with any antibody the issue of cross-reaction has to be taken into consideration. However, the link between HIV and AIDS for me is not established whatsoever, even if the "consensus" in scientific circles is that there is a clear link, but as you know consensus is meaningless in science. Montagnier himself thought there was no link. Now I can see how HIV could sometimes cause disease, but the field is so corrupted that it is very difficult to establish anything. It's indeed a disaster for virology with a big red FRAUD stamp all over it.
HIV exists, I said there is no reasonable doubt about that. I even grew it for a colleague who was not a virologist but wanted to look at infection of lung cells. I have used vectors based on its genome.
I believe that you experts can easily or with certain techniques detect particles that you have claimed to be viruses,,,,But the problem is there is no scientific evidence that something you consider a virus causes disease,, there is no control test that the particles you consider viruses cause disease because there is no way to separate the protein that you consider a virus directly...
But I'm not convinced that HIV exists and causes AIDS. First, Robert Gallo, especially biologists, has never been able to prove the existence of the HIV virus. How can you believe in something that has never been proven to exist? Then Robert Gallo claims that one way to prove the existence of the virus is by molecular or antibody detection. But that claim has been refuted, as many people live for more than 30 years, even 40 years. Just think, as an expert, what kind of disease can it be that doesn't cause symptoms for 40 years? If the claimed particle has never been purified, how can an expert like Robert Gallo reach a conclusion and explain it as the main cause of a disease? Indeed, we, as people who don't believe in viruses, can't prove it. Regarding the absence of the virus, Robert Gallo has also never proven the existence of the virus. Testing particles as the cause of a disease is because no one can directly purify it. The claim of detecting antibodies as a marker of the presence of proteins has been refuted, with many people living for 30 years without treatment. Many couples are incompatible and do not transmit the virus to their children. Many tests cross-react with many diseases. PCR tests are also not specific for detecting the virus. Current HIV tests are not specific and harm people due to false diagnoses.
So, please provide a scientific paper that demonstrates the separation of the "virus" from all other things in its method section (not just a claim in its title and abstract) and a paper that demonstrates in its method section (not just a claim in its title and abstracr) that the separated isolated "virus" caused disease in a person. Thank you.
I'll send you back to the same paper. You wish for more details in the method sections but you have to understand, especially in a journal like Nature, the space is at a premium in a publication and nobody is going to spend any time any space documenting such trivial details. Try stepping in virologists shoes for a second, they have isolated viruses throughout their career and found it works perfectly well, so just a few sentences allows a colleague in the field to understand what was done and how, so that they could replicate the study, which is the purpose of the Material and Methods section. The purpose of that section is not a full accounting for people who are not in the field; it is like that in all fields of science.
Go ahead, what troubles you in that section of the paper :
Challenge virus. The SARS-CoV-2 challenge virus (full formal name:
SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) was obtained with consent from a
nose/throat swab taken from a patient in the UK with COVID-19, facilitated by
the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium
(ISARIC) Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C)52 using
their study protocol (study registry ISRCTN66726260) approved by the South
Central–Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (reference 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SS/0028).
The virus was isolated by inoculation of a qualified cGMP Vero cell line
with the clinical sample. Sequence analysis showed this to be from the 20A clade of the B.1 lineage and possessed the D614G mutation. A seed virus stock was then generated by a further passage on the same cGMP Vero cell line. The seed virus stock was then used to manufacture the challenge virus in accordance with cGMP at the Zayed Centre for Research GMP manufacturing facility of Great Ormond Street Hospital, and a challenge virus master virus bank (MVB) was produced. Individual dose inoculum vials were then produced in accordance with cGMP by dilution of the cGMP MVB with sucrose diluent. The challenge virus underwent quality testing performed as part of the GMP manufacturing release processes according to pre-determined specifications (including identity, infectivity and contaminant/adventitious agent tests). This included whole-genome sequencing for confirmation that the GMP virus was unaltered compared to the original clinical isolate. The sequence of the challenge virus has been deposited in GenBank (accession number OM294022). In the UK, because they are not medicinal products, challenge viruses are not regulated by the MHRA. However, the challenge virus was manufactured according to GMP, and the supporting paperwork was reviewed by the MHRA, which confirmed that the manufacture was suitable for the challenge agent to be used in future efficacy studies of investigational medicinal products. Therefore, in future clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product, the challenge virus will be reviewed as part of the clinical trial application to the MHRA. The challenge virus was stored in a secure –80 °C freezer (normal temperature range, −60 °C to −90 °C) until use. The
SARS-CoV-2 inoculum dose (10^1 TCID50) was selected as the lowest infectiousdose that could be reliably quantified by viral culture.
The Expose, back in 2019 published that DARPA Scientists were bragging on Twitter that they had made the Covid-19 virus with Moderna - which Moderna went on to Patent in 2013: From that patent for Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus: #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG - They started in 2002 on C19
The US Supreme Court 2013 ruled that only cDNA (Synthetic DNA) is patentable. Isolated, natural DNA is not patentable, but in a nutshell, biotechnology companies can own living things if said things are genetically-modified and not naturally occurring - that means that The Department Of Defense (and others) can literally own a human being if this synthetic code is taken up into your Genome, which a Swedish Company observed to occur within 6 hours from Covid-19 Gene Therapy "vaccines" Injections.
Dr Madej wrote The synthetic mRNA of Pfizer and Moderna, along with the viral vector DNA delivery systems of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, change your "genetic code" making you genetically modified, but Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks tells you straight up that 1) The shots change your genetic code. 2) The shots do not stop the spread of Covid-19. 3) Tal Zaks says the Moderna shot is "hacking the software of life" and that Carbon Particles and Viral Vectors do the same thing. A vaccinated person is now legally, a "Trans Human".
A Trans Human is a new species which never existed before and by Law, they have Zero Human rights, because they are no longer Human and thus, because no Rights have ever been written into Law for them, they now have Zero rights - but much like the American Slaves up to 1865, when President Lincoln wrote into Law, Rights for them.
Gene Therapy is not reversable, but now described as a forced medical treatment, which Biontech/Pfizer said "should have been licensed as a Gene Therapy Injection (2015)" and which "Targets the Dentric Cells in the Lymph Nodes (2023)" - but why?
Thomas Renz, Lawyer, identified the vaccines as being ModRNA and not mRNA
Dr Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated Law Professor who drafted the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989, provided an Affidavit that Covid-19 mRNA injections are Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Dr Boyle stated that the Covid-19 injections violate Biological Weapons 18 USC 175 and Weapons and Firearms 790.166 Fla. Stat (2023).
May 17 2024 (Reuters) - Moderna (MRNA.O) said on Friday the European Patent Office had upheld the validity of one of the company's key patents #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG , a win in an ongoing COVID-19 vaccine dispute with Pfizer (PFE.N) and BioNTech (22UAy.DE) proving that Moderna owned the copyright for Covid-19 Neucloids from 2013.
The company has been locked in a legal battle with Pfizer-BioNTech over their COVID shot Comirnaty after suing them in 2022 for allegedly copying its mRNA technology, but presumably #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG.
Pfizer and BioNTech have countersued, alleging that Moderna's patent is invalid, after the companies' rival vaccines generated billions in revenues during the pandemic.
Pfizer said it was disappointed and would consider all legal options and may appeal the decision.
"Irrespective of the outcome of this legal matter, we will continue to manufacture and supply the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine," Pfizer said in a statement to Reuters.
BioNTech said the patent office's decision to maintain Moderna's European patent #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG "does not change our unwavering and unequivocal stance that this patent is invalid."
Could Moderna have created their vaccine, or Biontech for Pfizer their vaccines, without the Moderna Key Patent #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG Covid-19 virus, Moderna patented in 2013, the same year that The US Supreme Court 2013 ruled that only cDNA (Synthetic DNA) is patentable?
Ugur Sahin Co-founder and CEO of BioNTech (for Pfizer) refuses to take the mRNA Covid vaccine because he says, “we need to ensure functionality of our whole company”
Ugur Sahin refuses to take the jab because he says he must ensure he stays "functional," in other words, he knows that the clot shot renders humans functionless, incapacitated, and seriously injured where they cannot do their job, take care of themselves, or function for their children anymore - or kill them.
You wrote, "The term “no virus,” however, is a linguistic trap, implying denial of particles when the core issue is the absence of unmanipulated evidence linking these particles to disease causation..."
This so-called trap certainly seems like an evasive assertion by you. Do I know you intend to evade? No. But I do wonder.
"...the denial of particles..." is meaningless as an issue, since 'virus particles' irefer to 'disease-causing particles'. Obviously, it does not matter whether or not someone can see some particles under some microscope. The entire question hinges on what biological role IF ANY such viewed particles can be demonstrated OR NOT to fulfill.
James and Jack play with the Rooters, a local football team. Both young men are accused of house breaking, theft etc. Some defend James and Jack, cite lack of evidence, point to corroborating witnesses placing both away from the crime scene at the crime times, and so forth.
But Unbekoming jumps to clarify the issues at stake. There may be no known evidence incriminating James and Jack, that's true. But "No Rooters Player Crimes" is a Trap linguistically because that phrase implies denial of foot ball payers! Football players on the Rooters team and other teams do exist!
What a bunch of smoke.
You conclude that paragraph with a comment that Jon Rappaport's exposure of the nonsense of HIV causes AIDS (paraphrasing now) '...invites reexamination of what causes disease if not viruses...'
The idea that viruses lack any supporting evidence of existence is not a hypothesis competing with another hypothesis that viruses do exist and cause diseases. Virology does in fact lack any supporting evidence and is built around contradictions. The purpose of the scientific method is to refute bad hypotheses of causation. Refuting a hypothesis is Good, because it clears away a Bad False Idea, thereby clearing the way for testing other plausible causes. After discarding bad ideas, the truth resides somewhere in the remainder.
You seem relucatant to make a clear break from the virus stories, regardless of numerous interviews and book reviews. Maybe I am mistaken about this.
It's interesting, you have done a lot of homework but It is clear your understanding of the science remains superficial. Like a lot of it is a succession of paragraphs that are internally coherent but that don't mesh in a coherent whole, jumping from one thing to another, delving sometimes in unnecessary details, sometimes clear mistakes or glaring omissions. From my perspective, if your heart is in the right place, soldier on. You have to see, though, that clinging to something like no-virus hurts your credibility.
The paper you linked to does no such thing. Zero evidence for the presence of a pathogenic virus just the typical downstream nonsense. Wishful thinking doesn't prove existence.
There's plenty of history of quack snake oil salesmen to make it obviously a weakness to exploit in the populace who are suckers for a miracle cure for anything that ails one.
Hence in our advanced times we have advanced marketing.
I wonder when the white coat pantomime took off?
What do white coats have to do with all the blood and gore?
For your information, I am not interested in whatever other people have to say about vaccines or viruses. I am not motivated by financial greed and in fact my substack, wherever it is, is totally free and always will be. I receive many medical and other publications and from them, I take whatever interests me with Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus and I ADD TO WHAT I ALREADY ASSUME TO KNOW, without any influences from anyone else and what they think, which does not interest me at all, thus I see myself as a "free thinker" and I put out there what I have recorded, like it or lump it. You follow what I say and agree, or you don't, as is yours and mine, right - but frankly, I don't care what you think, or who you follow.
Thus I see myself as having my unfettered opinion and since I can't be bought or manipulated in any way, what I have to say is my belief in the truth of the matter, from articles written by those who have a full understanding of what they write about, which I save, move around to form an overall picture and then republish, as I see fit.
If anyone wants to bribe me my opinion, please send your contributions to Medecins Sans Frontieres - Doctors Without Borders, referencing your payment to me - Richard Noakes - which is where my material assets this life, will eventually end up, after my death.
I am undone. My original post was "modified" by AI without me being aware that had been done, until after I copied and read what I posted here, to The Chief Justice Of Nuremberg 2.0. I stand by the facts of what I posted earlier today, although I expect nothing will come of it, I had to try, for and on behalf of Humanity or what remains of it - thus my post reads more repetitious, than I originally expected it to be and significant parts are missing, but the truth of the matter remains unchanged and it is the facts of the matter and the truth that they represent, which matters here.
In future, to correspond fully, we must revert to snail mail.
Should anyone wish to communicate with me directly, please provide me with your full snail mail address here - and I will commence a snail mail correspondence with you directly and off this e.mail, which is now "modified" by AI.
For background on how the whole virus myth even came to be, we gotta look at the Nobel prize of Dr. John Franklin Enders.
It was his work that gave birth to “viruses” and was instrumental in the polio pandemic of the 1950s: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience
This is not a virus debunk.
The isolation argument is a red herring.
You say light exists? Bring me a pile of isolated photons.
What's terrible about this no virus nonsense is that contrary to what this article claims, many viruses have been isolated, essentially pure and in particular free from any cell genetic material. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the isolated virus has been administered to young healthy volunteers and a very low dose, just 10 TCID50, was enough to productively infect half of them, causing COVID symptoms and the same virus was recovered from these volunteers. Now, there is a lot of fraud in science, for instance around HIV/AIDS and I think that's where Rappaport comes from, but that does not mean virology as a field has been debunked whatsoever.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why people cling to this particular narrative. Feels like a psyop, to muddy/poison the well.
Sources please
Here's the article about SARS-CoV-2 infection of volunteers: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01780-9
The SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020 isolate comes from a clinical sample collected in the UK in 2020, and it's maintained by certified public health or academic laboratories. For use in studies (like those using 10 TCID<sub>50</sub>), it's propagated under high biosafety standards and distributed only to qualified institutions.
How is it purified, quantified can you please break this down step by step
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. Purifying and quantifying a SARS-CoV-2 isolate like SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020 involves a series of highly controlled laboratory procedures conducted in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) lab. Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of how it’s done:
🧪 PART 1: Virus Culturing (Propagation)
1. Cell Line Preparation
A permissive cell line is chosen — commonly Vero E6 cells (derived from African green monkey kidney).
These cells are grown in flasks with nutrient-rich media (like DMEM + fetal bovine serum).
2. Inoculation with Clinical Sample
A sample containing the virus (e.g., nasopharyngeal swab) is added to the Vero E6 cells.
The virus infects the cells and begins to replicate.
3. Incubation
Flasks are incubated (usually 37°C, 5% CO₂) for several days.
Researchers monitor the cells for cytopathic effect (CPE) — structural changes indicating virus replication.
🧼 PART 2: Virus Purification
Once sufficient replication occurs, the virus is harvested and purified:
4. Harvesting the Virus
The supernatant (liquid above the cell layer) is collected because it contains free virus particles.
It is usually clarified by low-speed centrifugation (~3,000 x g) to remove cell debris.
5. Filtration
The clarified virus-containing supernatant is passed through a 0.45 μm or 0.22 μm filter to remove remaining debris and bacteria.
6. Purification (Optional but Common)
For higher purity (especially for challenge studies), the virus may be:
Ultracentrifuged through a sucrose or iodixanol gradient (e.g., 20–60%) to separate virus from proteins and contaminants.
This concentrates the virus and removes host proteins and other contaminants.
📏 PART 3: Virus Quantification
This is how scientists determine how much infectious virus they have.
7. TCID₅₀ Assay (Median Tissue Culture Infectious Dose)
The most common method for live SARS-CoV-2 is the TCID₅₀ assay.
Step-by-step TCID₅₀:
Virus is serially diluted (e.g., 10-fold dilutions).
Each dilution is added to multiple wells of Vero E6 cells in 96-well plates.
After several days, wells are observed for cytopathic effect (CPE).
The TCID₅₀ is calculated using the Reed-Muench or Spearman-Kärber method — it estimates the dilution that infects 50% of wells.
✅ This is how a dose like “10 TCID₅₀” is determined — a very low dose that still causes infection in 50% of cultures.
❄️ PART 4: Aliquoting and Storage
8. Aliquoting
The purified virus stock is divided into small aliquots (e.g., 0.5–1 mL tubes).
This prevents repeated freeze-thaw cycles that degrade virus particles.
9. Storage
Virus aliquots are stored at -80°C until use in experiments or challenge studies.
🧫 Optional: Additional Testing
Before using the virus in any preclinical or clinical study, additional quality control steps are often taken:
Sequencing – to confirm identity and ensure no mutations occurred during passaging.
Sterility testing – to confirm no bacterial or fungal contamination.
Endotoxin testing – particularly important if used in vivo.
Summary Table:
Step Action Purpose
1–3 Culture in Vero E6 cells To amplify virus
4–6 Harvest + Purify To get clean, concentrated virus
7 TCID₅₀ Assay To measure infectious dose
8–9 Aliquot + Freeze Long-term storage & use
Let me know if you want visual diagrams or a breakdown of the Reed-Muench TCID₅₀ calculation.
You said:
give detail description for nutrient-rich media?
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. In virology and cell culture, nutrient-rich media is essential for supporting the growth and maintenance of host cells, such as Vero E6 cells, which are used to propagate viruses like SARS-CoV-2. Here's a detailed breakdown of what this media is, what it's made of, and why each component is important.
🧫 What Is Nutrient-Rich Media?
It’s a sterile liquid solution designed to supply energy, essential nutrients, growth factors, and a stable environment (pH, osmolarity) to support the survival and division of mammalian cells.
For SARS-CoV-2 propagation in Vero E6 cells, the most commonly used media is:
✅ Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) and antibiotics.
🧪 Detailed Composition of Nutrient-Rich Media
1. Basal Medium: DMEM (Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium)
DMEM is a widely used synthetic medium. Its components include:
Component Function
Glucose (usually high, 4.5 g/L) Provides energy for cell metabolism
Amino acids (e.g., L-glutamine, L-arginine) Protein synthesis and cell growth
Vitamins (e.g., B-complex, folic acid, riboflavin) Cofactors for enzymatic reactions
Inorganic salts (NaCl, KCl, CaCl₂, MgSO₄, NaHCO₃) Maintain osmotic balance and pH buffering
Phenol red pH indicator (pink = healthy pH, yellow = acidic)
Sodium pyruvate Additional carbon source for energy metabolism
🔬 L-glutamine is especially important but unstable, so often added fresh.
2. Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) – typically 5–10%
FBS is a complex supplement that provides:
Component Function
Growth factors (e.g., IGF, EGF, PDGF) Stimulate cell division and maintenance
Hormones Regulate cell metabolism
Proteins (e.g., albumin, transferrin) Nutrient carriers, stabilizers
Lipids Cell membrane synthesis
Attachment factors Help anchorage-dependent cells stick to the surface
🧪 Serum is heat-inactivated (56°C for 30 mins) to deactivate complement proteins that may harm cells.
3. Antibiotics and Antimycotics (Optional, but Common)
To prevent microbial contamination:
Additive Common Use Concentration
Penicillin-Streptomycin Inhibits gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria 100 U/mL Pen, 100 µg/mL Strep
Amphotericin B Antifungal agent ~0.25 µg/mL
Gentamicin Broad-spectrum antibiotic (optional) ~50 µg/mL
⚠️ These are helpful during virus propagation but avoided during certain sensitive assays.
4. pH and Osmolarity Control
pH is typically maintained between 7.2–7.4 using sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃).
Incubation in 5% CO₂ atmosphere helps maintain the proper carbonate buffer system.
Osmolarity (~280–320 mOsm/kg) is adjusted via salts.
🧬 Optional: Supplementation for Virus Yield
In some cases, media may be further supplemented with:
Trypsin – Helps cleave viral surface proteins (e.g., spike protein) to enhance infectivity.
HEPES buffer – Extra buffering for experiments outside of CO₂ incubators.
Serum-free media – Used in later stages or for purification to avoid protein contamination from FBS.
✅ Summary: Example of Full Virus Culture Media
Complete DMEM for SARS-CoV-2 Propagation:
DMEM (high glucose)
10% heat-inactivated FBS
1% Penicillin-Streptomycin
1 mM L-glutamine
Optional: 0.25 µg/mL Amphotericin B
All components are filtered through 0.22 µm filters for sterility.
So when you look at all the things that are in this, how is god's name can they say VIRUS. It's ludicrous. It really is a religion and not science.
Just because you cannot follow/understand the science does not mean the science is incorrect...
The first isolation of "Covid-19" was from a monkey's a-hole. But, they were really talking about you. https://nurembergtrials.net/nuremberg-2-0/f/666-ways-covid-19-is-a-full-blown-hoax-by-tesla-leaks-2921 January 20th 2022 Virus Isolate: Is It Real? Impossible to Show Infection or Cause! https://nurembergtrials.net/nuremberg-2-0/f/virus-isolation-is-it-real-or-impossible-to-isolate-causation January 1st 2024 https://nurembergtrials.net/f/its-impossible-virology-pseudoscience-of-isolation-transmission
Oh, you are so funny and witty, but the drawback of resorting to insults is that it weakens your position. You are a big boy, you can post your links without insulting. For what it's worth, I am all for a Nuremberg 2.0 trial, but the no virus claim is a red herring, there is so much that they can be charged with, that it is not wise to come up with bogus claims like that, and it is in fact counterproductive. Which is why I suspect it is a psyop. YMMV.
A weak position is claiming that no virus is nonsense and backing it up with more nonsense that doesn't scientifically prove the existance of a virus.
Right, another one that does not understand that you cannot prove a theory in science, only refute it. Propose an alternative theory to the current virus theory explaining the observable facts. Good luck.
The observable fact is that science cannot prove the existence of so called pathogenic viruses.
Finally, you are catching up to what science can and cannot do. Science cannot prove any theory, otherwise the theory does not qualify as scientific. Chew on that.
You just keep telling yourself that. The Rockefeller Foundation (your bosses) have 500 new vaccines for you under Immunization Agenda 2030. I recommend you take all of them.
Yeah, I denounced the COVID vaccines before they came out. I will never take another vaccine in my life (after childhood vax), so you are just projecting your fantasies onto me. And I don't have any bosses, either, keep deluding yourself.
I reported in 2021 that they used their computer models to manufacture 5.6 Million virus'. Are those real? Since you believe in virus's, should we get ready for 5.6M vaccines?
You reported? What was your report, what was it based on?
> .... many viruses have been isolated, essentially pure and in particular free from any cell genetic material.
Have they? Can you provide proof of 1 or 2 and the methodology?
Can you also link to scientific proof that what was isolated was the cause of the disease, such as SARS-CoV-2?
> ... does not mean virology as a field has been debunked whatsoever.
If that is the case, why is no one allowed to challenge the narrative nor the science? If all that data that you claim is available really is available, then it would be easy for just single virologist to shut the doubters up with facts.
Interesting anecdote: A number of years ago Dr. Stefan Lanka made a €100,000 reward available for anyone who can prove the measle virus exists. Not a single virologist stepped forward to provide the irrefutable proof, only a biochemistry student stepped forward, eager to earn a few €uros to finance his study. His "proof" was binned in a court of law.
That's because Lanka and the no-virus crowd have a fundamentally mistaken view of how science operates, what it can do and what it cannot do. Science can be used to test hypotheses about how the world works, but it can never prove anything, only refute something. So if you ask for one paper proving virus X exists, such paper cannot possibly exist. What scientist do is observations, from which they formulate hypotheses that are tested in experiments, generating new observations that are analysed. So what does a scientist mean when he says viruses exist? The scientist means that with all the information available from all the observations that were made and all the experiments that were carried out, the hypothesis of a virus best account for the totality of the observations. I am a molecular biologist who studied innate immunity for his entire career, and thus studied viruses throughout, both as molecular tools, as vectors, or studied the viruses directly, like in the case of SARS-CoV, which I have prepped and isolated (in the sense described above) multiple times. I have purified a number of different viruses to a very high degree of purity using ultracentrifugation and various types of gradients. And each time I object to article such as this one, I get various types of insults and a general misunderstanding of the science. But I feel it is my duty as a scientist to speak my truth, people can ignore it it is fine by me.
As Ngungu stated, no independent scientist is allowed in a Rockefeller funded lab, not even to observe. That alone is a serious red flag for me or anyone who questions this. Why, what are they hiding? Yet you see no problem with that.
Rockefeller took over all Medical schools via bribery turn of the 20th century. All Natural, homeo, alternative, chiro, treatments and cures since the beginning of life on this planet were eradicated for petrol based drugs that get you sick from the get-go, guaranteeing profits over health forever. Surely you know this.
If you were schooled in a Rockefeller University, you were properly-all day long- hoodwinked into blind faith belief in this new "science". They are monsters. Murderers. The jig is up. We caught them in the act, pants down. They are so proud of their killings, they admit it. We can follow the money, and count the dead. Yet still, you will not see it. Viruses have always been a lie.
I am with you and against the devolving of medicine initiated by Rockefeller. But that's another topic, it does not mean viruses do not exist. Again, if we are talking science, what is your alternative hypothesis to account for the observations made by virologists?
I wish we were talking science, but we are not. Why was Pasteur, who never proved contagion, put on a pedestal while Bechamp was erased? This long held 150 year belief system, a house of cards, has been so ingrained in us as truth, we cannot believe that it was all a fraud. I get that.
When I personally see what the AMA is advocating for, making tons of money off our illnesses that the Rockefeller's created in the 1st place, I can come to no other conclusion than they are lying for profit.
Then I look at Eastern countries, deigned by the US as dictatorships, where the people have free health care. Free health care, what does that mean? It would be in their best interests of these societies to maintain a healthy productive citizenry, BECAUSE, the government pays for it.
Conversely, we have a profit only medical system. We pay a fortune for it. . Will it serve AMA's best interests to keep us healthy? Or, maintain sickness by suppressing symptoms while curing nothing?
> So what does a scientist mean when he says viruses exist? The scientist means that with all the information available from all the observations that were made and all the experiments that were carried out, the hypothesis of a virus best account for the totality of the observations.
That is what has been addressed in this article, among other things. In this case, the so-called scientists determine what they want to observe, then go looking for evidence, and any data that is not found to suit the model is then invented in order to build the case. That, dear Marc, is pseudo-science.
> So if you ask for one paper proving virus X exists, such paper cannot possibly exist.
If no paper proving virus X exists, that means virus X has not been proven to exist and therefore does not exist.
Bacteria have been proven to exist, therefore scientists were able to prove the initial hypothesis that they exist..
You are confusing the levels of proof, as I said, fundamentally nothing can be proven in science. Now if you want to compare to bacteria, the same lower level of proof that bacteria exist is also present for viruses. You just have not immersed yourself in the scientific literature enough to understand that nothing has come out that disprove the initial hypothesis, be it for bacteria and for viruses.
> ... fundamentally nothing can be proven in science.
That is nonsense: is electricity not proven? Or even that 1+1=2, to name something fundamental? Or how about continental drift? That can be proven by simple measurement, and continental drift is very much part of geological science. The mechanism can be disputed but the scientifically proven fact that it occurs remains – every year one has to fly 10 cm farther to fly from London to New York.
You may want to read on epistemology, in particular the work of Karl Popper. 1+1=2 is math, not science. You can observe continental drift, yes, but it is just an observation, the science here would be a theory accounting for the drift. There is one, but it cannot be proven. You can observe electricity in action, and there is a robust theory behind it because unlike for continental drift, we can do countless experiments to test the theory. But still there are unresolved issues, for instance current is not a flow of electrons as most imagine. New observations could lead to a modification of this theory. There is no difference between the existence of electricity or viruses, the evidence for the reality of both is overwhelming. I could do the same critic of the theory of electricity as the no-virus crowd do to the virus theory: has any current been isolated? how do we know protons and electron exists, they are invisible to the naked eye? most measurements are indirect, it is all circular...
The reasons we know the theories of electricity and of viruses are largely correct is that they have stood the test of time and have allowed the construction of electronic circuits that work or of viruses with new properties desirable as molecular biology tools. The proof is in the pudding, if I can create a virus that say will decorate mitochondria in the cells it infects with a green fluorescent protein (and I have done so) and then I observed green fluorescence in the mitochondria of infected cells, then I know the virus theory works in practice.
Have you ever heard of Christine Massey? Through FOIA she has never found an isolated virus ... ever!
Canadian biostatistician, Christine Massey, and a number of others around the world, sent Freedom of Information requests to more than 200 governments and science institutions for any record held by the respective institution that describes the isolation/purification of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus from an unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient.
They have all stated they have no records of requested purification, thus admitting that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist.
They have all stated they have no records of requested purification, thus admitting that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. So, you are telling me that despite this, we just have to take governments' assurances that it exists because, I guess, governments never lie, right?
You have not addressed the 1 fundamental issue I raised: how come any discussion about Covid that does follow the official narrative is suppressed?
All those fine people with authority who claim to hold the truth and that the science is settled are obviously scared to have such discussions.
You can dismiss Rappoport's findings as those of a mere journalist, but there are plenty of scientists and doctors who have spoken out against the "virus", but they were ignored, canceled, lost their license and or jobs, or they were thrown in jail.
I note also that you have merely stated your own views here, trying to reinforce your point by stating you are an experienced molecular biologist who has purified a number of viruses, but you have not refuted a single point of the ChatGPT output.
That can mean only 1 of 2 things: either you cannot refute any of it, which means you agree with it, or you don't have the right arguments to refute it.
You know, I was one of the scientists censored for expressing my views on COVID... I have written 20 open letters to my government in 2020 and 2021 to denounce their unscientific response to the crisis. I was an early promoter of the critical role of early treatment, vitamine D, Zinc, HCQ, ivermectin, etc. and a fierce critic of the vaccination campaign.
To directly answer your question, the reason any discussion about Covid that does follow the official narrative is suppressed is because we don't live in a democratic state but in a totalitarian one.
No scientist worth his salt is going to say the science is settled on anything.
There are not that many scientists who dismiss the existence of viruses, it is a tiny minority, and yes, a single individual can be right and everyone else is mistaken, but I listen to the arguments of the no-virus crowd and they simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
Like it is an article of faith that no virus has ever been isolated, when it is contradicted by the direct, first hand experience of many thousands of scientists. All published. I have refuted all the no-virus claims in past threads and I have found it is a pointless exercise as people don't have the experience or education to understand what is or is not a valid argument.
But if you really want, I can refute any no-virus claim you make. Only one at a time, though, as I don't want to have to produce a textbook online. What is the strongest no-virus claim according to you?
> .... the reason any discussion about Covid that does follow the official narrative is suppressed is because we don't live in a democratic state but in a totalitarian one. No scientist worth his salt is going to say the science is settled on anything.
It is good to see we agree on something. However, why, in this case is debate not allowed? There can only be 1 answer and 1 answer only: the narrative has more holes than an Emmenthaler cheese.
> I have refuted all the no-virus claims in past threads and I have found it is a pointless exercise as people don't have the experience or education to understand what is or is not a valid argument.
I agree it is a futile exercise for the reasons you pointed out. In fact, it is not only meaningless but also pointless because talking to people who are not initiated in the matter cannot be expected to make a useful contribution the conversation.
So, if someone were to challenge me come down the rabbit hole with him/her to discuss (some of) the details, I would have to decline as I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination.
Having said that, I listen to both sides of the argument and am not convinced by the pro-virus school of thought. In fact, there is not much sensible info from that side, as it amounts to "this is the way it is and the science is settled".
Like former New Zealand PM, Jacinda Adern, once stated during the Covid charade: "the government is your sole source of the truth". That summed it up for me: we decide what the truth is and you people STFU.
> What is the strongest no-virus claim according to you?
As explained in the article: the non-isolation/purification (see Christine Massey) coupled with the risible construction of the genome.
RIght, the non-isolation/purification issue is refuted. I have myself isolated SARS-CoV and other viruses multiple times. Try to understand it from the perspective of a virologist, you are telling one that viruses do not exist. 99+% of them are just going to shrug their shoulders, for the same reason a mechanic would shrug their shoulders if told planes do not exist. Now we can see planes and we can't see viruses with the naked eye, which goes a long way to explain the scepticism. But imagine a lost culture deep in the jungle and you tell them, this is a plane build by men that can fly, and you might get the response, nah, it's a bird, only birds can fly, not something build by men that is heavier than air and would fly. Virologist who are asked to prove viruses exist just can't be bothered because from their knowledge and experience, the existence of viruses has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's cute people doubt it but they have better things to do with their time than trying to educate them. Being retired, I sometimes take the time to participate in debates but I have to admit these discussions are mostly pointless.
Regarding the construction of the genome, it is risible only if one is not familiar with how any sequencing is done. The whole human genome was sequenced (well, 99,99% of it) in very short segments that are then assembled in large contigs and eventually the whole genome. It is the same for any bacteria or virus. The technology does not exist yet to sequence a single genome at once, but that does not make the sequencing and assembly invalid. From a practical purpose, early on a genome assembly was urgently needed and maybe not complete at the very 5' end of it, but the fact is that since then this genome has been sequenced 6.5 million times around the world, and this sequencing actually validated the initial assembly. It also show the evolution of the sequence of the virus over time, progressively accumulating more mutations as it spread around the world, which btw is another clear cut evidence for the existence of viruses transmitting between humans as nothing else can explain that observation.
We live in a deeply corrupted society and there is not a single narrative pushed by the authorities that is not full of lies. So people naturally come to doubt everything, which as Hannah Arendt explained is one of the features of totalitarianism, and I have sympathy for people who fall for the no-virus psyop in that context. As a non corrupt scientist, I feel it is my duty to shed some light on this and other issues that I come across where the narrative, whether it comes from government authorities or from dissidents, is mistaken from a scientific point of view.
Hooray - Thank you your point of view above. My understanding of Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus, released by America in 2019, but built and Patented by Moderna in 2013, with DARPA's help, is covered by The Us Supreme Court Law with World Wide Applications 2013 and for a virus to exist, that Law was written and is the Law, on these matters, the factual acceptance that viruses do exist and this one, Covid-19 Neucloids virus was Patented, because its existence is fact, spread around the World from the Wuhan Military Games, as was the intent.
My limited understanding was that Covid-19 Neucloids virus was everywhere as a result of that murderous campaign, deliberately and with murderous intent - however, nature created an alternative virus in South Africa which had too many arms and which could not connect to our blood cells and that natural virus, which I think was JN1, took over and replaced Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus and variations of JN1 is what we have now and that is NOT dangerous, as Moderna's virus was - but JN1 is still being pushed as a dangerous virus, when it is not and especially if you use my free salt water cure to stop it from infecting you virally: There is no cure for the next "injected" illness which you get. Previous vaccines deliberately stripped your natural immunity and this time you might/will die. My salt water cure is for a viral illness, if you get one of those and not a vaccinated, injected, illness.
Mix one heaped teaspoon of salt in a mug of clean warm water. Go into your bathroom and swallow two mouthfuls to sort out anything which has got down there, then cup a hand, pour some of the mix into your cupped hand and sniff or snort the remaining mugful up your nose, in stages until all is gone. If you have a burning sensation you have a virus and the salt water is killing the virus infection in your head. It will burn for a few minutes (but won't hurt you otherwise) and then the pain will go away, so when it does, take some toilet paper off the toilet roll and blow your nose out in it, then flush that away, washing your hands afterwards. Do this simple cure 3 times a day, or more often for a quicker result, until when you flush, it feels like you are flushing with plain water and no pain is felt - job done. I have been doing this simple cure for over 35 years and in that time I have never been ill from any virus or more lately, being shedded on by the vaccinated. The salt water goes throughout your nasal passages, behind your eyes, ears, brain bulb brain stem - where for my money, Long Covid likes to stay and when you get an infection in your head, there is nothing to stop it becoming, for the sake of example, Covid, the disease, which flows down into your body in the one liter of snot or mucus our head produces daily, the engine oil of your body - if flows down the back of your neck unnoticed because it is and always has been a lifetime thing - the top of your throat is at a point half way up your ears and not at mouth level, as you will quickly discover with my free salt water cure. I've never had a vaccine because I've never needed one, in other words, why reinvent the wheel when you have an unbeatable wheel to run with, in the first place - so in simplistic terms, say no to all vaccines and never have another one - vaccines are a mug's game for the mugs who do as they are told - don't let that mug be you in future - is my advice: Injected vaccines (Gene Therapy Injections) will deliberately kill you. Salt= I use Supermarket bought Table Salt with Iodine in it, but any Salt is OK, depending on the best sort you can buy.
The latest next cure is Bill Gates Flu Pills, which go down into your stomach and then into your inner workings - what has that got to do with a nasal infection - beats me. Send them to me in the post, in the rubbish bin they go, quick as a flash. Why reinvent the wheel, when my wheel above is unbroken and continues to work well, for me. Trump is spending 500 Million to find a one vaccine cure for all viral infections and this Replicon one: CVXGA1 Sprayable COVID shots show viral shedding
They will now spray the mRNA into our air so we all get changed
peter grace
Jul 16
Unlike traditional injected vaccines, CVXGA1 is delivered through the nose and directly enters the respiratory system. The platform is based on parainfluenza virus type 5, a known communicable respiratory virus. According to the trial data, viral shedding was clearly detected in nasal swabs just one day after administration, with viral loads reaching thousands of particles per milliliter. Yet researchers failed to study whether this shedding could result in actual transmission to others.
Critics, including scientists and health freedom advocates, have sounded alarms over what they call a dangerous oversight. Dr. Karl Jablonowski of Children’s Health Defense noted the live-virus nature of the shot makes it “self-spreading” and bypasses informed consent protocols, potentially infecting others without their knowledge. Dr. Karina Acevedo Whitehouse, a microbiologist at the Autonomous University of Querétaro, agreed there is a high likelihood of persistent shedding, citing similar outcomes in earlier intranasal vaccine studies.
These warnings come amid broader criticism over the necessity and safety of another COVID vaccine. Existing mRNA shots, like those from Pfizer and Moderna, have faced widespread scrutiny over adverse events including myocarditis, blood clots, immune suppression, and neurological symptoms. With many studies showing that the efficacy of COVID vaccines wanes within months, experts question the rationale behind developing an intranasal version that could pose new and unstudied risks.
Oh and the methodology is in any virology textbook, basically you infect a susceptible cell population, wait for the moment the virus titter is the highest and harvest the whole infected culture. You spin away (in multiple steps) different types of debris until you are left with the virus and no contaminating genetic sequence of any kind. And then you can use ultracentrifugation if you want it even purer, from a biochemical standpoint.
Infect with what? A "virus" that hasn't been proven to exist except in the minds of virologists who all admit to not being able to purify and isolate a virus in the true sense hence the need for pseudoscientific cell cultures and the magical CPE effect that could be caused by anything in the brew.
Virologist don't admit being unable to purify and isolate a virus since they do it all the time. What you do all the time, is make this kind of assertions with absolutely nothing to support it, it is simply a blatant lie.
Now to elevate the debate, here is a fundamental truth in philosophy :
Single facts can never be “proved” except by their coherence in a system. But, as all facts come singly, anyone who dismisses them one by one is destroying the conditions under which the conviction of new truth could arise in the mind.
F. C. S. Schiller, Philosophy Professor, Oxford University
And this is particularly pertinent here, you refuse to connect the dots from which intelligent people are able to infer the existence of viruses. You are stuck with your single "not-proved" facts that you dismiss without thinking, and with your collection of dismissed facts, you can do absolutely nothing outside of your vituperations on the web.
In the mean time, people who are not afraid of using their God-given brain and who understand virus theory are able to make predictions about the virus in question, which when confirmed add further strength to the theory.
Keep on barking.
You cannot camouflage with flowery language the "fact" that so called pathogenic viruses have never been proven to exist scientifically, using the scientific method in the real world.
You keep pushing this lie... you have no argument, thank you for making me see one of the core mistakes of the no-virus crowd. Fare well.
Telling me that the methodology is in any virology textbook is no proof. Considering that virology itself is in all likelihood a huge scam, textbooks written by them are there to sell the scam to students and anyone else ignorant enough to buy it.
If purification, as you describe it in 1 sentence, were that simple, how come no virologist has been able to take on prominent virus deniers in an open, public debate?
What is your view as a molecular expert on HIV? Gallo claims that the proteins he claims, specifically p24 and p41, are HIV proteins, which cross-react with many conditions. In fact, the proteins claimed to be HIV are present in a person's blood under certain conditions. I would like to ask from a molecular perspective, what do you believe about HIV? That's because Gallo hasn't been able to detect the HIV virus, and there's no specific infection that's identical to HIV. It's difficult to analyze as a cause and effect factor. However, when Gallo argues that one way to detect these proteins is through antibody detection, in fact, many people with HIV antibodies live beyond 30 or even 40 years. This means that Gallo's argument that these proteins are the HIV virus is refuted. What is your opinion from a molecular perspective?
HIV is a total mess, Gallo and Montagnier, that was in the eighties when I was a graduate student, so I don't remember such details from the top of my head and you'll forgive me for not being inclined to do a deep dive in the literature needed to try answering the specific questions about p24 ad p41. This being said, Montagnier is the one who discovered HIV and Gallo claimed to have discovered it as well but actually stole it from Montagnier. The virus is real, there is no question about it, the DNA or RNA of it can be readily detected, antibodies to detect viral proteins work but like with any antibody the issue of cross-reaction has to be taken into consideration. However, the link between HIV and AIDS for me is not established whatsoever, even if the "consensus" in scientific circles is that there is a clear link, but as you know consensus is meaningless in science. Montagnier himself thought there was no link. Now I can see how HIV could sometimes cause disease, but the field is so corrupted that it is very difficult to establish anything. It's indeed a disaster for virology with a big red FRAUD stamp all over it.
More rubbish.
In your opinion, does HIV not exist?
HIV exists, I said there is no reasonable doubt about that. I even grew it for a colleague who was not a virologist but wanted to look at infection of lung cells. I have used vectors based on its genome.
I believe that you experts can easily or with certain techniques detect particles that you have claimed to be viruses,,,,But the problem is there is no scientific evidence that something you consider a virus causes disease,, there is no control test that the particles you consider viruses cause disease because there is no way to separate the protein that you consider a virus directly...
But I'm not convinced that HIV exists and causes AIDS. First, Robert Gallo, especially biologists, has never been able to prove the existence of the HIV virus. How can you believe in something that has never been proven to exist? Then Robert Gallo claims that one way to prove the existence of the virus is by molecular or antibody detection. But that claim has been refuted, as many people live for more than 30 years, even 40 years. Just think, as an expert, what kind of disease can it be that doesn't cause symptoms for 40 years? If the claimed particle has never been purified, how can an expert like Robert Gallo reach a conclusion and explain it as the main cause of a disease? Indeed, we, as people who don't believe in viruses, can't prove it. Regarding the absence of the virus, Robert Gallo has also never proven the existence of the virus. Testing particles as the cause of a disease is because no one can directly purify it. The claim of detecting antibodies as a marker of the presence of proteins has been refuted, with many people living for 30 years without treatment. Many couples are incompatible and do not transmit the virus to their children. Many tests cross-react with many diseases. PCR tests are also not specific for detecting the virus. Current HIV tests are not specific and harm people due to false diagnoses.
I am not sure you understood my position, which is that the virus exists but that there is no convincing evidence that this virus causes AIDS.
So, please provide a scientific paper that demonstrates the separation of the "virus" from all other things in its method section (not just a claim in its title and abstract) and a paper that demonstrates in its method section (not just a claim in its title and abstracr) that the separated isolated "virus" caused disease in a person. Thank you.
I'll send you back to the same paper. You wish for more details in the method sections but you have to understand, especially in a journal like Nature, the space is at a premium in a publication and nobody is going to spend any time any space documenting such trivial details. Try stepping in virologists shoes for a second, they have isolated viruses throughout their career and found it works perfectly well, so just a few sentences allows a colleague in the field to understand what was done and how, so that they could replicate the study, which is the purpose of the Material and Methods section. The purpose of that section is not a full accounting for people who are not in the field; it is like that in all fields of science.
Go ahead, what troubles you in that section of the paper :
Challenge virus. The SARS-CoV-2 challenge virus (full formal name:
SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) was obtained with consent from a
nose/throat swab taken from a patient in the UK with COVID-19, facilitated by
the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium
(ISARIC) Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C)52 using
their study protocol (study registry ISRCTN66726260) approved by the South
Central–Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (reference 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SS/0028).
The virus was isolated by inoculation of a qualified cGMP Vero cell line
with the clinical sample. Sequence analysis showed this to be from the 20A clade of the B.1 lineage and possessed the D614G mutation. A seed virus stock was then generated by a further passage on the same cGMP Vero cell line. The seed virus stock was then used to manufacture the challenge virus in accordance with cGMP at the Zayed Centre for Research GMP manufacturing facility of Great Ormond Street Hospital, and a challenge virus master virus bank (MVB) was produced. Individual dose inoculum vials were then produced in accordance with cGMP by dilution of the cGMP MVB with sucrose diluent. The challenge virus underwent quality testing performed as part of the GMP manufacturing release processes according to pre-determined specifications (including identity, infectivity and contaminant/adventitious agent tests). This included whole-genome sequencing for confirmation that the GMP virus was unaltered compared to the original clinical isolate. The sequence of the challenge virus has been deposited in GenBank (accession number OM294022). In the UK, because they are not medicinal products, challenge viruses are not regulated by the MHRA. However, the challenge virus was manufactured according to GMP, and the supporting paperwork was reviewed by the MHRA, which confirmed that the manufacture was suitable for the challenge agent to be used in future efficacy studies of investigational medicinal products. Therefore, in future clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product, the challenge virus will be reviewed as part of the clinical trial application to the MHRA. The challenge virus was stored in a secure –80 °C freezer (normal temperature range, −60 °C to −90 °C) until use. The
SARS-CoV-2 inoculum dose (10^1 TCID50) was selected as the lowest infectiousdose that could be reliably quantified by viral culture.
They used toxins prior to the jab rollout. After that, the injections got the rest.
The Expose, back in 2019 published that DARPA Scientists were bragging on Twitter that they had made the Covid-19 virus with Moderna - which Moderna went on to Patent in 2013: From that patent for Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus: #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG - They started in 2002 on C19
The US Supreme Court 2013 ruled that only cDNA (Synthetic DNA) is patentable. Isolated, natural DNA is not patentable, but in a nutshell, biotechnology companies can own living things if said things are genetically-modified and not naturally occurring - that means that The Department Of Defense (and others) can literally own a human being if this synthetic code is taken up into your Genome, which a Swedish Company observed to occur within 6 hours from Covid-19 Gene Therapy "vaccines" Injections.
Dr Madej wrote The synthetic mRNA of Pfizer and Moderna, along with the viral vector DNA delivery systems of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, change your "genetic code" making you genetically modified, but Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks tells you straight up that 1) The shots change your genetic code. 2) The shots do not stop the spread of Covid-19. 3) Tal Zaks says the Moderna shot is "hacking the software of life" and that Carbon Particles and Viral Vectors do the same thing. A vaccinated person is now legally, a "Trans Human".
A Trans Human is a new species which never existed before and by Law, they have Zero Human rights, because they are no longer Human and thus, because no Rights have ever been written into Law for them, they now have Zero rights - but much like the American Slaves up to 1865, when President Lincoln wrote into Law, Rights for them.
Gene Therapy is not reversable, but now described as a forced medical treatment, which Biontech/Pfizer said "should have been licensed as a Gene Therapy Injection (2015)" and which "Targets the Dentric Cells in the Lymph Nodes (2023)" - but why?
Thomas Renz, Lawyer, identified the vaccines as being ModRNA and not mRNA
Dr Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated Law Professor who drafted the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989, provided an Affidavit that Covid-19 mRNA injections are Biological Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Dr Boyle stated that the Covid-19 injections violate Biological Weapons 18 USC 175 and Weapons and Firearms 790.166 Fla. Stat (2023).
May 17 2024 (Reuters) - Moderna (MRNA.O) said on Friday the European Patent Office had upheld the validity of one of the company's key patents #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG , a win in an ongoing COVID-19 vaccine dispute with Pfizer (PFE.N) and BioNTech (22UAy.DE) proving that Moderna owned the copyright for Covid-19 Neucloids from 2013.
The company has been locked in a legal battle with Pfizer-BioNTech over their COVID shot Comirnaty after suing them in 2022 for allegedly copying its mRNA technology, but presumably #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG.
Pfizer and BioNTech have countersued, alleging that Moderna's patent is invalid, after the companies' rival vaccines generated billions in revenues during the pandemic.
Pfizer said it was disappointed and would consider all legal options and may appeal the decision.
"Irrespective of the outcome of this legal matter, we will continue to manufacture and supply the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine," Pfizer said in a statement to Reuters.
BioNTech said the patent office's decision to maintain Moderna's European patent #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG "does not change our unwavering and unequivocal stance that this patent is invalid."
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-wins-case-patent-dispute-with-pfizer-biontech-over-covid-shot-ft-reports-2024-05-17/
Could Moderna have created their vaccine, or Biontech for Pfizer their vaccines, without the Moderna Key Patent #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG Covid-19 virus, Moderna patented in 2013, the same year that The US Supreme Court 2013 ruled that only cDNA (Synthetic DNA) is patentable?
Ugur Sahin Co-founder and CEO of BioNTech (for Pfizer) refuses to take the mRNA Covid vaccine because he says, “we need to ensure functionality of our whole company”
Ugur Sahin refuses to take the jab because he says he must ensure he stays "functional," in other words, he knows that the clot shot renders humans functionless, incapacitated, and seriously injured where they cannot do their job, take care of themselves, or function for their children anymore - or kill them.
By S.D. Wells // Jan 08, 2025
Pandemic.news, GatewayPundit.com, NaturalNews.com, NewsTarget contributed.
January 20th 2022 Virus Isolate: Is It Real? Impossible to Show Infection or Cause! https://nurembergtrials.net/nuremberg-2-0/f/virus-isolation-is-it-real-or-impossible-to-isolate-causation January 1st 2024 https://nurembergtrials.net/f/its-impossible-virology-pseudoscience-of-isolation-transmission
And what about the FACT that when the culture is done without the ‘virus’ the same results occur???
A lot of the arguments that support the old paradigm still assume causation. “What else could it be?” , is an excuse for their lack of proof.
You wrote, "The term “no virus,” however, is a linguistic trap, implying denial of particles when the core issue is the absence of unmanipulated evidence linking these particles to disease causation..."
This so-called trap certainly seems like an evasive assertion by you. Do I know you intend to evade? No. But I do wonder.
"...the denial of particles..." is meaningless as an issue, since 'virus particles' irefer to 'disease-causing particles'. Obviously, it does not matter whether or not someone can see some particles under some microscope. The entire question hinges on what biological role IF ANY such viewed particles can be demonstrated OR NOT to fulfill.
James and Jack play with the Rooters, a local football team. Both young men are accused of house breaking, theft etc. Some defend James and Jack, cite lack of evidence, point to corroborating witnesses placing both away from the crime scene at the crime times, and so forth.
But Unbekoming jumps to clarify the issues at stake. There may be no known evidence incriminating James and Jack, that's true. But "No Rooters Player Crimes" is a Trap linguistically because that phrase implies denial of foot ball payers! Football players on the Rooters team and other teams do exist!
What a bunch of smoke.
You conclude that paragraph with a comment that Jon Rappaport's exposure of the nonsense of HIV causes AIDS (paraphrasing now) '...invites reexamination of what causes disease if not viruses...'
The idea that viruses lack any supporting evidence of existence is not a hypothesis competing with another hypothesis that viruses do exist and cause diseases. Virology does in fact lack any supporting evidence and is built around contradictions. The purpose of the scientific method is to refute bad hypotheses of causation. Refuting a hypothesis is Good, because it clears away a Bad False Idea, thereby clearing the way for testing other plausible causes. After discarding bad ideas, the truth resides somewhere in the remainder.
You seem relucatant to make a clear break from the virus stories, regardless of numerous interviews and book reviews. Maybe I am mistaken about this.
It's interesting, you have done a lot of homework but It is clear your understanding of the science remains superficial. Like a lot of it is a succession of paragraphs that are internally coherent but that don't mesh in a coherent whole, jumping from one thing to another, delving sometimes in unnecessary details, sometimes clear mistakes or glaring omissions. From my perspective, if your heart is in the right place, soldier on. You have to see, though, that clinging to something like no-virus hurts your credibility.
10 Clues There Was Never a Pandemic. COVID-19: A Mass Delusion Disguised as a Plague. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/10-clues-there-was-never-a-pandemic
The paper you linked to does no such thing. Zero evidence for the presence of a pathogenic virus just the typical downstream nonsense. Wishful thinking doesn't prove existence.
thank you
There's plenty of history of quack snake oil salesmen to make it obviously a weakness to exploit in the populace who are suckers for a miracle cure for anything that ails one.
Hence in our advanced times we have advanced marketing.
I wonder when the white coat pantomime took off?
What do white coats have to do with all the blood and gore?
Then the stethoscope necklace.
Wait, you mean Covid was a hoax??? 🤣
For your information, I am not interested in whatever other people have to say about vaccines or viruses. I am not motivated by financial greed and in fact my substack, wherever it is, is totally free and always will be. I receive many medical and other publications and from them, I take whatever interests me with Moderna's Covid-19 Neucloids virus and I ADD TO WHAT I ALREADY ASSUME TO KNOW, without any influences from anyone else and what they think, which does not interest me at all, thus I see myself as a "free thinker" and I put out there what I have recorded, like it or lump it. You follow what I say and agree, or you don't, as is yours and mine, right - but frankly, I don't care what you think, or who you follow.
Thus I see myself as having my unfettered opinion and since I can't be bought or manipulated in any way, what I have to say is my belief in the truth of the matter, from articles written by those who have a full understanding of what they write about, which I save, move around to form an overall picture and then republish, as I see fit.
If anyone wants to bribe me my opinion, please send your contributions to Medecins Sans Frontieres - Doctors Without Borders, referencing your payment to me - Richard Noakes - which is where my material assets this life, will eventually end up, after my death.
I am undone. My original post was "modified" by AI without me being aware that had been done, until after I copied and read what I posted here, to The Chief Justice Of Nuremberg 2.0. I stand by the facts of what I posted earlier today, although I expect nothing will come of it, I had to try, for and on behalf of Humanity or what remains of it - thus my post reads more repetitious, than I originally expected it to be and significant parts are missing, but the truth of the matter remains unchanged and it is the facts of the matter and the truth that they represent, which matters here.
In future, to correspond fully, we must revert to snail mail.
Should anyone wish to communicate with me directly, please provide me with your full snail mail address here - and I will commence a snail mail correspondence with you directly and off this e.mail, which is now "modified" by AI.
Richard