The Germ Paradigm Trap (Part I) What About Smallpox? The legend of the first vaccine goes something like this… It was rumored among milkmaids that infection with cowpox could protect one from smallpox. In 1796, believing these stories, Edward Jenner subjected an eight-year-old boy named James Phipps to an experiment. He took pus that he thought to be cowpox from lesions on the hands of dairymaid Sarah Nelmes and scratched it onto James.
"Your work with Dr Humpfries is especially precious now, in the context of useless bickering about the existence - or lack thereof - of viruses, when the issue has always been the one you put forth, a good health..." -----
A clean-ish, agreeable diet & lifestyle is the core to good health, but the world has grown up believing sick bodies make healthy bodies sick. It has grown up believing that "viruses" exist and are the cause of most illnesses, diseases, and nowadays, even so-called "cancer".
So at the core of this heinous reality, is the myth of contagion and transmissible infection -- and it has been supported by so-called "science" through the field of virology.
For most people, you can teach them about the necessity to remove crappy food from their diets, and to get good sleep and plenty of mobility each day, and to avoid prophylactics, but they will still FEAR "catching" an illness or symptom from someone else. And when they DO still get ill in spite of living cleanly & healthfully, their misery will be compounded by their belief that their body is under attack from a microbe/virus/bacterium.
Therefore, it is not "useless bickering" to question the existence/non-existence of "viruses". For you to say that it is suggests very strongly that you have not comprehended why & how virologists have NEVER scientifically proven that any microbe causes a contagious illness. They have never proven that ANY "virus" exists. Perhaps the idea of looking into it makes you feel instantly tired -- makes you feel like there's a gigantic, jungle-covered mountain to climb, and you just can't be bothered to tackle it.
But it's not gigantic, or messy. It's simple & easy to grasp. And once you grasp it, you will never again flinch or give a damn when someone near you sneezes or coughs or has a fever, and you will never again vaccinate yourself, your children, or your pets.
So how do you grasp & comprehend that the virologists failed in all of their published studies & experiments to prove a virus had been discovered?
1st -- You read Koch's Postulates. It's not a book. It's a paragraph-sized set of 4 sentences. They spell out the Gold Standard criteria for scientifically proving that an illness-causing microbe has been found. You read them and then ask yourself if they seem sound & rational & logical & reasonable & common sensical. You also ask yourself, WHAT DO I REQURIE AS EVIDENCE OR PROOF?
The gist of the Postulates is that you have to make healthy people sick with a microbe removed from a sick person. That microbe must be found in abundance in the sick person, and never found in a healthy person. After you have made healthy people sick with the microbe, you must find that microbe in abundance in the newly infected sick people.
Virus papers can look instantly complicated with words you've never seen before, but you can skip 95% of the paper and go straight to the Methodology section. That is where the scientists describe the method they used to convince themselves that they have found a contagious illness-causing microbe.
Looking at the method, did they fulfill the Gold Standard? Did they fulfill the Postulates? Did the experiment include adequate controls and/or placebo groups? Did the experiment attempt to mimic so-called natural transmission? Did any healthy people become sick from exposure to sick people?
When you look at the Methodology section for any virus/bacterium papers post-1954, you will find that they are all cell culture experiments -- petri dish experiments. No healthy people are shown to become sick from exposure to sick people. No one is shown to become infected with measles or mumps or cold or flu or smallpox or TB or any other malady.
The virologists claim that they have removed a microbe from a sick person and placed it into a cell culture of living cells (usually monkey kidney cells from a cell line) and those cells have died, thus proving they have found a pathogenic, contagious illness-causing microbe. That's what they say. But they usually do not describe using any control petri dishes. And the thing is, they usually put 2 antibiotics in the cell culture to supposedly protect the cells from bacterial contamination or harm, and yet the antibiotics they use are known to kill kidney cells. So what really killed the cells in the petri dish?
They are supposed to create multiple petri dishes, each minus an ingredient, and at the very least, a petri dish that contains no bodily fluid or microbe from a sick person so we can see if they get the same results or not. But, no, they usually do not include such controls -- and that's anti-scientific.
But does it actually matter what killed the cells in the petri dish? Killing cells in a petri dish in no way whatsoever demonstrates healthy people becoming sick with a contagious illness or disease.
The honest experiment does not begin with removing bodily fluids or microbes from sick people. If you claim an illness or disease is contagious, then you absolutely must attempt to mimic so-called natural transmission -- and that does NOT include injections or intubations or even swabbings. You must subject healthy volunteers to sick people by simple exposure or however you claim happens naturally. And they tried this in the first half of the 20th century.
The most well-known of such studies took place smack in the middle of the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918. It was conducted by the US Public Health Service in conjunction with the US Navy. It is known colloquially as The Rosenau Experiment.
In that study, they attempted to sicken 62 healthy men by exposing them closely to men supposedly sick with the flu. They had the sick men cough into the faces of the healthy men. They also resorted to unnatural attempts to make the men sick. They swabbed their noses with the snot from the sick men. They also injected 10 of the men with bodily fluids from the sick men. And not one man got sick with the flu. They failed spectacularly to make 62 healthy men sick by exposing them naturally & unnaturally to men sick with the flu.
Their minds were blown. They freely admit they were sure from the start that they were going to prove the flu is contagious by making healthy men sick. They also mention that a similar study was conducted that same year in San Francisco and also failed to make anyone sick.
And yet, even after seeing with their own eyes, their own robust attempts to prove the flu was contagious, even after seeing they had failed BIGTIME, they still concluded at the end of their paper that they believe the flu is caused by a virus.
So the virus/no-virus issue is the core of the contagion myth, and the justification for vaccines. Comprehend how contagion is a myth and how virology failed to prove the existence of any contagious, pathogenic microbes, and you are free forevermore from worry about catching anyone's symptoms or health condition, and logically justified for refraining from vaccinating anyone you love.
Thank you for this very well-researched and comprehensive two-part article. It really should get a LOT more attention in this day and age.
I've translated both parts into French and published them on my blog - I assumed you wouldn't mind.
http://skidmark.blog/2022/11/06/le-piege-du-paradigme-microbien-1ere-partie-par-roman-bystrianyk/
http://skidmark.blog/2022/11/06/le-piege-du-paradigme-microbien-2eme-partie-par-roman-bystrianyk/
I will soon also introduce Dr Humpfries and her great work to my readers.
Yes! https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing Hi Roman, your book is amazing!
Jo
@Skidmark
"Your work with Dr Humpfries is especially precious now, in the context of useless bickering about the existence - or lack thereof - of viruses, when the issue has always been the one you put forth, a good health..." -----
A clean-ish, agreeable diet & lifestyle is the core to good health, but the world has grown up believing sick bodies make healthy bodies sick. It has grown up believing that "viruses" exist and are the cause of most illnesses, diseases, and nowadays, even so-called "cancer".
So at the core of this heinous reality, is the myth of contagion and transmissible infection -- and it has been supported by so-called "science" through the field of virology.
For most people, you can teach them about the necessity to remove crappy food from their diets, and to get good sleep and plenty of mobility each day, and to avoid prophylactics, but they will still FEAR "catching" an illness or symptom from someone else. And when they DO still get ill in spite of living cleanly & healthfully, their misery will be compounded by their belief that their body is under attack from a microbe/virus/bacterium.
Therefore, it is not "useless bickering" to question the existence/non-existence of "viruses". For you to say that it is suggests very strongly that you have not comprehended why & how virologists have NEVER scientifically proven that any microbe causes a contagious illness. They have never proven that ANY "virus" exists. Perhaps the idea of looking into it makes you feel instantly tired -- makes you feel like there's a gigantic, jungle-covered mountain to climb, and you just can't be bothered to tackle it.
But it's not gigantic, or messy. It's simple & easy to grasp. And once you grasp it, you will never again flinch or give a damn when someone near you sneezes or coughs or has a fever, and you will never again vaccinate yourself, your children, or your pets.
So how do you grasp & comprehend that the virologists failed in all of their published studies & experiments to prove a virus had been discovered?
1st -- You read Koch's Postulates. It's not a book. It's a paragraph-sized set of 4 sentences. They spell out the Gold Standard criteria for scientifically proving that an illness-causing microbe has been found. You read them and then ask yourself if they seem sound & rational & logical & reasonable & common sensical. You also ask yourself, WHAT DO I REQURIE AS EVIDENCE OR PROOF?
The gist of the Postulates is that you have to make healthy people sick with a microbe removed from a sick person. That microbe must be found in abundance in the sick person, and never found in a healthy person. After you have made healthy people sick with the microbe, you must find that microbe in abundance in the newly infected sick people.
Virus papers can look instantly complicated with words you've never seen before, but you can skip 95% of the paper and go straight to the Methodology section. That is where the scientists describe the method they used to convince themselves that they have found a contagious illness-causing microbe.
Looking at the method, did they fulfill the Gold Standard? Did they fulfill the Postulates? Did the experiment include adequate controls and/or placebo groups? Did the experiment attempt to mimic so-called natural transmission? Did any healthy people become sick from exposure to sick people?
When you look at the Methodology section for any virus/bacterium papers post-1954, you will find that they are all cell culture experiments -- petri dish experiments. No healthy people are shown to become sick from exposure to sick people. No one is shown to become infected with measles or mumps or cold or flu or smallpox or TB or any other malady.
The virologists claim that they have removed a microbe from a sick person and placed it into a cell culture of living cells (usually monkey kidney cells from a cell line) and those cells have died, thus proving they have found a pathogenic, contagious illness-causing microbe. That's what they say. But they usually do not describe using any control petri dishes. And the thing is, they usually put 2 antibiotics in the cell culture to supposedly protect the cells from bacterial contamination or harm, and yet the antibiotics they use are known to kill kidney cells. So what really killed the cells in the petri dish?
They are supposed to create multiple petri dishes, each minus an ingredient, and at the very least, a petri dish that contains no bodily fluid or microbe from a sick person so we can see if they get the same results or not. But, no, they usually do not include such controls -- and that's anti-scientific.
But does it actually matter what killed the cells in the petri dish? Killing cells in a petri dish in no way whatsoever demonstrates healthy people becoming sick with a contagious illness or disease.
The honest experiment does not begin with removing bodily fluids or microbes from sick people. If you claim an illness or disease is contagious, then you absolutely must attempt to mimic so-called natural transmission -- and that does NOT include injections or intubations or even swabbings. You must subject healthy volunteers to sick people by simple exposure or however you claim happens naturally. And they tried this in the first half of the 20th century.
The most well-known of such studies took place smack in the middle of the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918. It was conducted by the US Public Health Service in conjunction with the US Navy. It is known colloquially as The Rosenau Experiment.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/flu/3750flu.0016.573/--experiments-upon-volunteers-to-determine-the-cause-and-mode?view=image&seq=11&size=125
In that study, they attempted to sicken 62 healthy men by exposing them closely to men supposedly sick with the flu. They had the sick men cough into the faces of the healthy men. They also resorted to unnatural attempts to make the men sick. They swabbed their noses with the snot from the sick men. They also injected 10 of the men with bodily fluids from the sick men. And not one man got sick with the flu. They failed spectacularly to make 62 healthy men sick by exposing them naturally & unnaturally to men sick with the flu.
Their minds were blown. They freely admit they were sure from the start that they were going to prove the flu is contagious by making healthy men sick. They also mention that a similar study was conducted that same year in San Francisco and also failed to make anyone sick.
And yet, even after seeing with their own eyes, their own robust attempts to prove the flu was contagious, even after seeing they had failed BIGTIME, they still concluded at the end of their paper that they believe the flu is caused by a virus.
So the virus/no-virus issue is the core of the contagion myth, and the justification for vaccines. Comprehend how contagion is a myth and how virology failed to prove the existence of any contagious, pathogenic microbes, and you are free forevermore from worry about catching anyone's symptoms or health condition, and logically justified for refraining from vaccinating anyone you love.
HOW DID THE NO-VIRUS PEOPLE FIND OUT THERE ARE NO VIRUSES? https://www.bitchute.com/video/spNlTrI7uIZf/