Nobody can prove the (non)existence of viruses

Op-Ed by Julie Beal

In many ways, the success of the ronascam depends on our ignorance. It was pretty obvious the normies would go along with it all, happy to swallow the narratives presented by the TV and their own personal internet bubble. But it’s a real hard slog for activists and critical thinkers, partly because there’s so much to deal with, and partly because there’s so much science involved!

In the beginning, perhaps, people were trying to find out about viruses and genetics, and trying to get to grips with technical terms and concepts, but after a while, the interest dissipated. Videos on BitChute made it clear that viruses don’t even exist which left more time for researching hydras, nanotech and graphene. However naturally this may have arisen, it has, in my opinion, had the same effect as a masterful diversion; the technocrats knew we’d struggle to explain genetic vaccines and would probably adopt the no-virus theory to explain the lack of disease. I say this because the theory comes from the brain of Stefan Lanka, and he’d already built up a following in the years running up to 2020; he’d had a big influence on people who believe in terrain theory[i], as well as researchers looking to explain previous spurious outbreaks, such as swine flu. The measles court case really helped.

Wadda ya say about that then? I’m not a shill, I’m not a doctor, and I want you to make up your own mind, so I’m showing you what I found, telling you my thoughts, and hoping to expand the field of enquiry. We have to consider all options, and in this article I’m asking you to consider how we can ever find out if viruses exist or not, and how we can tell what happens to cells and what the particles coming out of them are. (For example, how do we know if atoms and stars exist?)

In my opinion, if you can’t be bothered to even think about these things, you shouldn’t be telling other people the rona doesn’t exist because you probably have no evidence to back up your claim and it could i) give our movement a bad name, ii) provide reasons for censorship, and iii) strengthen the belief system of normies. Normally, I’d leave everyone to their own opinions, but things are very different now and time is of the essence. I feel able to make such bold claims because I have already compiled a vast amount of research and formulated several articles explaining things WITH LINKS to primary sources (I rarely quote from second-hand reports). I myself am convinced by the evidence and I’ve reached the conclusion the rona exists but I’m not sure about covid. The statistics about covid are basically useless, but other points of evidence suggest it’s not much worse than the flu, in terms of how it affects people; and from a molecular and statistical point of view, it would be said to mainly affect the old and the sick, but not children. But the quiet hospitals and death statistics are evidence enough that from genetic potions, dirty muzzles, slave-ID, house arrest, jail time, police brutality, tyrannical laws, or any other part of the evil Reset.

I have damaged my eyes and gone without sleep to try and stop this madness. I stopped trusting doctors over 30 years ago and I had no faith in them telling us about genetic vaccines or the truth about viruses so I decided to find out for myself. I have followed events since January 2020, analysing news reports about China, and I devoured Lanka’s ‘Misinterpretation of a Virus’ article when it came out. At the time, I thought it was good, and I kept up with what Kaufman and crew were saying and I kept on researching and found nothing at all to back them up EVEN THOUGH I TRIED TO. So now it’s my duty to be bold as brass and deliver my findings so that you can do your duty and check out what I’m saying, weigh it up for yourself. Unless, that is, you’re too busy researching all the evidence presented by the no-virus theorists ….

If so, maybe someone can convince me I’m wrong when I say, ‘Viruses exist because virologists make them with cell cultures, and they use them for vaccines’. I mean… if they haven’t got a virus, then what have they got?

And just to be clear on what I mean by ‘virus’ – I use the word to refer to a little protein chunk, some of which are biologically-active and therefore able to engage with our genetics and the genetics of the microbes in our bodies. Even if some viruses can be linked to a specific disease, researchers say there are thousands of different viruses floating around, loads of them are inside us, and most of them are entirely harmless – so DO NOT CONFUSE THE ALLEGED VIRUS WITH THE ALLEGED DISEASE. I’ve put that in capitals, in bold, to make sure you hear me!

Some viruses exist without causing disease.

Others may cause some disease in some people, sometimes.

When it comes to experiments with animals, they can be killed off with viruses that have been genetically engineered to make them more damaging to that particular animal. A good example is Ralph Baric’s MA15 coronavirus for mice.

I agree entirely and wholeheartedly with the idea that viruses are grown in weird and nasty cell cultures, but, having researched cell cultures and change-of-function research with coronaviruses, I think an isolate is a fairly close copy of some of the stuff that comes out of people’s cells. I can find no reason to refute the genetic sequencing of these and other isolates, partly because I am not a geneticist, but mainly because they use the same techniques to sequence the genomes of other organisms, including humans! RT-PCR is also used extensively by researchers and seems to have a good track record, but the same can’t be said for the tests being used for the public. Not at all. They’re part of the trick.

Gulp! I know I’m going against the grain here…. and I suppose it’s even more contentious if to suggest that Big Pharma is probably more interested in making money than killing us all. Such is the ronascam. Everything upside-down and back-to-front. We’ve been inundated with fresh-faced conspiracy theorists who’ve finally realised all is not as it once did seem and the influx means we’ve been diluted and misled. Time to get things back on track with more research! Whether you argue for or against the existence of viruses (or just SARS-CoV-2), hopefully you’ll be able to point people in the right direction for evidence to back up your claims, so they can do more research themselves.

THIS IS A VIRUS ARGUMENT! Dr Kaufman vs Dr Mikovitz

Problems with the no-virus theory

Most covidians believed everything they were told about the rona/covid combo but anti-covidians didn’t. They went looking for something to explain the fake pandemic and they found a marine biologist called Stefan Lanka. He sounds like a ‘proper conspiracy theorist’ because of the way he criticizes the medical model and the use of vaccines, and then links it to the ronascam. Lanka has a theory which seems to explain why there’s no sign of a pandemic, but he has no evidence to support it, and there’s a vast amount of evidence to suggest he is much mistaken about most of his claims.

Lanka’s theories have been popularized by several others who go by the name of ‘doctor’, e.g. Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Robert Young[ii], but the man with perhaps the biggest following seems to be Dr Andrew Kaufman, a forensic psychiatrist who initially claimed the coronavirus vaccines could genetically modify people.[iii] Kaufman then decided that viral particles were actually exosomes[iv], and therefore perfectly normal; and not long after, he joined forces with Cowan and Fallon-Morell, who echoed Lanka’s claims about isolation and Koch’s postulates in their book, The Contagion Myth: Why Viruses (including “Coronavirus”) Are Not the Cause of Disease.

These echoes have reverberated throughout the activist community and seem to have reached the level of consensus. The no-virus theory relies on the claim that viruses have never been isolated, and the stuff coming out of cells is just particles from dying cells. So far, however, the no-virus theorists have failed to:

    • provide evidence for any of their assertions
    • distinguish between ‘existence of a virus’ and ‘existence of disease’
    • provide examples of isolates they deem acceptable
  • justify their rejection of isolates from cell cultures
  • explain why particles must be the same size to be classed as a ‘virus’
  • say what tools they used to confirm that particles coming out of cells are “typical artifacts of dying tissues/cells”
  • explain things that don’t fit their theory, e.g. viruses that don’t cause CPE or disease
  • justify their refusal to examine the full range of evidence presented by virologists, such as the distinct appearances of different kinds of viral particles (the results of which can be replicated)
  • explain the role of microbiomes
  • identify what’s been in vaccines all these years, or how they’ve injured people
  • describe what a viral vector is, as used in the AstraZeneca and J&J DIY vax-kits
  • understand genetic sequencing

The Isolate Truth Fund challenge

The no-virus theorists make no attempt to prove their own assertions by providing evidence, and instead demand that virologists provide proof of an isolated virus. For instance, in the spirit of Lanka’s measles challenge, the Isolate Truth Fund says there’s a guaranteed 1.5 million Euros “for a virologist who presents scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control experiments of all steps taken in the proof.”

Why the challenge cannot be met

It is not possible to prove that something exists (or doesn’t exist). All anyone can ever do is provide evidence, but the challengers make it clear they will not accept any of the evidence available because they refute the validity of most of the tools and procedures used by virologists.

  1. It’s unlikely they’d accept anything from a cell culture because the general idea is that any isolate from a cell culture is not valid. According to Lanka, “If they want to prove what they say is true, let them isolate and photograph viruses in blood or saliva samples!”.
  2. Genetic sequencing is classed as fraud, so may also be ‘inadmissible’ as evidence.
  3. None of the tools or tests used by virologists to produce evidence are acceptable because they “do not offer any significance or meaning”.
  4. The challengers believe existence can be proven.

If it’s not possible to use genetic sequencing, electron microscopy or cultured isolates as evidence for the existence of viruses, how can we ever be more sure of what is coming out of cells? What convinced the challengers that particles seen coming out of cells are caused by the culture media (foetal bovine serum, DMEM, and antibiotics)? What tools did they use to find out? Lanka used a microscope to image cells in a video showing ‘control experiments’, in which he demonstrated a cytopathic effect in a cell culture which was treated with the usual 10% FBS at first, but the amount of FBS was then drastically reduced to 1% and at the same time, the amount of antibiotic was greatly increased. Lanka used ‘AbAm’ which stands for ‘Amphotericin B’, an antibiotic that kills fungus as well as bacteria, so when yeast RNA was added to the cells, a cytopathic effect could have been created when the yeast and the AbAm reacted.

Other reasons the 1.5 million euro challenge cannot be met: the wording is unclear (how do you perform ‘experiments of steps’?, what does “corona virus” mean?) which means it’s hard to know what they expect virologists to prove – the goal is undefined. Also, there’s a chance the challenge would hinge on the same requirement as Lanka’s ‘prove measles exists’ award offer, which insisted all proof must be provided in just “one publication”.

Defining terms

If we’re ever gonna get to the bottom of all this, we all need to agree on certain things, like what we mean by ‘existence’ and ‘virus’. So it would help if the challengers could define their terms, preferably by providing examples of what they consider to be ‘correct’. What should an isolate look like? How would we know if we’d found one?

The Isolate Truth Fund team acknowledge that something exists because they use Lanka’s theory to assert that virologists are misinterpreting the thing that exists. Virologists are “deceiving themselves” because what they’re actually seeing is just particles released from dying cells:

“Virologists inadvertently kill cells in test tubes, believing that this is proof of the presence and isolation of a virus. Only from fragments of dying cells do virologists mentally construct a gene sequence and pass it off as fact. Therefore, the test procedures do not offer any significance or meaning. Typical structures of dying cells in the electron microscope are passed off as viruses. Such structures could never be detected or recognized in a human being so far!”

Basically, there seems to be some agreement that microscopes can be used to image particles, which means they’re not denying their existence. Therefore, the Isolate Truth fund challenge is perhaps better understood as ‘Try and convince us that the particles we can see with microsopes have a different identity to the ones coming out of cells that have been poisoned’. Would you say that’s fair? And how are we ever going to find out?

Tools of the Trade

Just in case you’ve skipped through this article and ended up in this section, please be aware that I am not endorsing the study of viruses by virologists in the pay of Big Pharma. I am, however, suggesting that if we want to know more about viruses, exosomes, blebs and other necrotic cell structures, I have no alternative ideas other than to use the same stuff virologists use. Obviously, most of the industry is dedicated to the promotion and production of vaccines, so we have to analyse their results and interpretations with a keen eye. It’s not a level playing field, so they’re probably the only ones with the tools anyway! The peasants don’t have access to the same technology, which makes it difficult to provide evidence for natural health and alternative theories about how the body works. That’s one way the medical model remains dominant, but that doesn’t mean we can’t benefit from the studies that have been done – there’s a lot to learn from them, and if it’s the only way to find out more, let’s just use what’s there.

It’s not as if viruses are the only things that are hard to ‘prove’ – it’s basically the same when it comes to finding out about the universe[v], atoms and time. Scientists just do what they can to cobble evidence together about these things, and that’s what they do with viruses. Virologists and microbiologists have got various tools and techniques at their disposal:

Conventional methods of virus detection include the plaque-formation assay of infective viruses on cultured mammalian cells, the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of viral proteins, the amplification of viral genomes by the polymerase chain reaction and the optical imaging of single viral particles under an optical microscope.”

Nobody can prove existence

It’s good to know the limits of these tools – their advantages and disadvantages – so that we can understand the results they create. After that, all we can do is look at the evidence available, because,

“… when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility … All we have to guide us, from an empirical point of view, are the quantities we can measure and observe. Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements.”

Prove it’ is a phrase thrown around with glee. But rarely are you really challenging a friend to provide a rigorous proof of some statement you disagree with. In science, there is no proof. Instead, the scientific method encourages you to form a hypothesis, collect data, and test that hypothesis. Repeating this process advances you closer and closer to the truth, but nowhere in this process can you say you’ve proven a hypothesis. This would be impossible as you would have to exhaustively collect all data in the known universe to see if your hypothesis still holds. And even then, your measurements will always be imprecise. The scientific body of knowledge will always be subject to revision as more data is collected and better measuring instruments are built.”

“Is it possible to prove anything?” Advice from people on Quora:

[More in the endnote below][vi]

*“If anyone asks you “Prove something exists”… You should ask “Tell me the set of testable conditions that are required to prove existence”. This is much like asking for the set of axioms before proving any theory. You need axioms for any kind of proof. …..  A question like, How can I prove something exists? must be placed in a context. Who is asking, and what will they accept as proof?

In an ordinary everyday sort of way, it might be answered by saying that something is the object of our senses: I can prove this apple exists because I can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it. In less simple examples, one might use indirect evidence – I can’t prove that Australia exists by sensing it, since it is a long way away from me, but I could point to photographs, books about it, people who have been there, beer that has been brewed there, etc.

Now if the questioner responds, But that’s only evidence, not incontrovertible proof, he is upping the measure of what we ordinarily count as proof and playing a kind of game of radical skepticism. There have been several kinds of radical skepticism – one can be skeptical about the existence of other minds, which leads to solipsism; one can be skeptical about the past and believe that the entire universe came into existence a few seconds ago with all my memories preformed; one can follow Descartes and try to be skeptical about everything. Ultimately there is no way to prove such a skepticism to be mistaken, one can only say that it is pointless or unhelpful.”

It is indeed unhelpful to dismiss every aspect of what virologists do as lies and fraud, because it’s far too broad an accusation and it asserts there’s no point looking at the evidence.

Why these things matter

  • Because hard-assed conspiracy theorists investigate all the evidence and see where it leads.
  • Because anti-covidians are blamed for not trusting advice from ‘authoritative’ doctors. We insist on using science correctly so we should be able to provide evidence if we say ‘the particles are caused by toxic chemicals added to cell cultures’.
  • Because doctors can’t be trusted any more than other experts.

If we look back at all the many years that people have spent tackling the problem of mass vaccination, there’s plenty of evidence to show that viruses grown in cell cultures and added to vaccines can do more harm than good, as well as evidence of how they cause that harm. There is also a fantastic amount of evidence about HOW TO BE HEALTHY (a broader and more helpful approach compared to ‘what causes disease’). An excellent example of this is Dr Weston Price’s research documenting what happens to the teeth of people exposed to the ‘three white devils’. (I am a living example of this!)

And there’s something else that’s relevant here – researchers have been busy sequencing the genomes of some of the microbes that exist inside us, and many of them have been shown to affect humans a lot! Some bacteria, for instance, have been shown to have a huge benefit (certain probiotics have helped me!), and others can affect how the body responds to vaccines (the NIH has been researching this for years!), because the technocrats are already interested in microbes (think Bill Gates and sewage) and the plan seems to be to patent nature at every level of existence.

If that’s not reason enough to convince you that the technocrats would much rather you deny the existence or effect of all microbes, then how about the fact that the rona seems to have been man-made? If the technocrats designed the virus to fit their ready-made vaccines, the best way to deal with that would be to propagate the no-virus theory, and draw a veil over the very long history of genetic vaccines.

And there’s no doubt the vax were ready for the rona. No doubt at all.

Same for Remdesivir – so hey! Did you know Dr Yan thinks the RdRp part of the rona could have been designed for Remdesivir?

There’s sooooo much to say about the design of the virus and how it links to the vax and the Reset! For example, in my opinion (and based on tons of research), the furin cleavage site in the middle of the spike was just the right thing for the NIH’s S2P vax design. The very thing that’s being injected into people right now.

But before I get round to finishing my articles about those things, I’m going to plough on with articles about isolation, purification, genetic sequencing, etc…. there’s still a lot more to say.

Notes:



[i]I’ve written a separate article about the germ theory problem and just need to tidy it up!

[ii]Robert O. Young has a theory about ‘outfection’ but he is now parroting Lanka.

[iii]Kaufman’s interview with Spiro Skouras (who I admire immensely) is what got me started on my research. He told Spiro the vax would genetically modify us, citing a study about adeno-associated viruses, but when I looked into it, I found out he was mistaken. Although these viruses can, apparently, penetrate the nucleus, the viral vector used in some of the ronavax is an adenovirus (which does not normally enter the nucleus, apparently). Besides, nobody seems to know how to genetically modify a human by injecting them in the arm.

[iv]In May, 2020, Kaufman described his exosome theory in this video (at 17 mins). He chose a picture of an exosome that looks a bit like a coronavirus particle to validate his claim, but exosomes are extremely varied so one picture does not represent them all. Scientists agree there’s a bit of a thin line between viruses and exosomes, except that exosomes don’t replicate, but personally I think studying them more would reveal a lot about how viruses relate to exosomes and how cells work as part of a whole, dynamic system (i.e. the body, including all the microbes!).

[v]For example, in 2015, scientists were looking for exoplanets and thought they’d be able to find two planets (in anticipation, they’d already named them Gliese 581g and 581d) by analysing Doppler Shifts, but in the end the scientists, “determined that the suspected planets … did not exist”. It turned out the signals they were detecting were actually coming from a star instead.

[vi]  Can we logically prove that anything exists? Advice on Stack Exchange:

* “Every theory (including math and logical ones) can prove the existence of something only in the context of the axioms presupposed by the theory itself.”

* “To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.” — Poincaré, Henri. Science and hypothesis. Science Press, 1905.”

* “You may be confusing empirical proof with mathematical proof. In mathematical proofs, everyone agrees on the truth of an initial set of propositions. The aim is to then to manipulate those propositions in certain agreed-upon ways in order to show the truth (or falsity) of other propositions which you might not have known or thought were true. It can involve a great deal of creativity, but it’s essentially a mechanical exercise.

Empirical proofs involve gathering evidence from the real world. You can’t do that without looking, and nobody can possibly look at everything in the world, so a lot of empirical proofs are going to be based on your trusting that someone else has done their job and looked for evidence properly. But even if they have and you have, it’s always possible for an empirical claim to be wrong. It’s possible that the sky isn’t blue, though we think it is. It’s possible that Hitler wasn’t the leader of Nazi Germany. It’s possible that smoking is good for you.

Where these possibilities of error are supported by evidence of their own they need to be investigated, and we may revise what we think accordingly. But where they’re not, they’re merely vacuous possibilities, and we can reject them without the need for any consideration.

‘Is it possible that…’ questions are usually daft. Here’s why. So when we talk about empirical proof of X, we mean something like: ‘Sufficiently convincing evidence to persuade any rational person without prior bias that X is the case’. And we have shedloads of that. Accumulating that kind of evidence is what science is all about. When you present sufficient evidence to convince a rational person without bias, that’s as good as it gets. If anyone goes on denying the fact after that, that’s their problem.”

Image: Pixabay

Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Telegram, HIVE, Flote, Minds, MeWe, Twitter, Gab and What Really Happened.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

Be the first to comment on "Nobody can prove the (non)existence of viruses"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*